[01:54] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: ah, I missed that there was a metview binary; also done now
[05:20] <LocutusOfBorg>  ta
[07:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted bcmwl [sync] (focal-proposed) [6.30.223.271+bdcom-0ubuntu7~20.04.3]
[08:04] <laney> juliank: see recent discussions between xnox and me, it needs fixing in pkgstripfiles imho
[08:05] <laney> but the only idea I had was to skip the symlinking for MA: same packages
[08:17] <juliank> laney: doesn't help much though, if they also disagree about which package to run 'apt-get changelog for'
[08:17] <laney> wdym?
[08:18] <laney> if no symlink, then it's always the current package
[08:18] <juliank> hmm okay
[08:19] <laney> anyway x_nox pointed out that would be a bit of a loss in main, there's a lot of MA same stuff there, don't have an answer to that
[08:19] <juliank> Isn't it just missing a sort somewhere in pkgstripfiles?
[08:19] <juliank> such that it always picks the lowest name or sth rather than random
[08:19] <laney> it's a different dependency on i386 vs amd64
[08:20] <laney> (for some reason, didn't look into why)
[08:20] <juliank> oh ok
[08:20] <juliank> i386 built with roken support, amd64 w/o, odd
[08:21] <laney> maybe it would be ok to fix that and pretend we never thought about a more general problem
[08:22] <juliank> It links in rk_getprogname@HEIMDAL_ROKEN_1.0 on i386
[08:23] <juliank> uh but why
[08:28] <juliank> I see, it statically links in libvers which calls it in print_version()
[08:29] <juliank> nah
[08:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mesa [source] (hirsute-proposed) [21.0.3-0ubuntu0.2]
[08:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mesa [source] (focal-proposed) [21.0.3-0ubuntu0.2~20.04.1]
[09:32] <xnox> laney:  should we just try a no change rebuild? becuase previous build on amd64 had a dep on roken.
[09:32] <xnox> laney:  or like for example, disable lto.
[09:32] <xnox> as far as i can tell...... rk_getprogname => getprogname with lto
[09:35] <juliank> xnox: but where would a getprogname() come from?
[09:36] <juliank> I don't see where the call comes from, really
[09:36] <laney> I find it a bit weird to be just fixing the case which is exposing a flaw in the pkgstripfiles logic
[09:36] <laney> but maybe it's ok
[09:36] <xnox> ./lib/roken/roken.h.in:#define getprogname rk_getprogname
[09:36] <xnox> with a macro
[09:37] <xnox> i bet my wild speculation will turn out wrong, so uploading to bileto
[09:39] <juliank> we really ought to setup piuparts and have britney run it
[09:39] <juliank> Or just write a check that overlapping files in m-a: same are identical
[09:39] <juliank> such that they don't make it out of proposed
[09:49] <laney> yeah p-m could do that directly, that would be nice
[10:00] <xnox> Searching for duplicated docs in dependency libroken18-heimdal...
[10:01] <xnox>   symlinking changelog.Debian.gz in libwind0-heimdal to file in libroken18-heimdal
[10:01] <xnox> so looks ok.
[10:01] <xnox> it feels like heimdal is both under and over linked, and has transitive deps on things that are not use and not made public; and at the same time underlinked to things that are used.
[10:01] <xnox> unless it's like all plugins.
[10:01] <xnox> i wonder if i could have forced lto on in heimdal on i386 too.
[10:02] <juliank> xnox: that log is from amd64?
[10:03] <juliank> yes, yes, it is
[10:03] <juliank> so odd
[10:04] <xnox> https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4627/+packages
[10:51] <xnox> sil2100:  can you please remove https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/u-boot/2021.01+dfsg-3ubuntu9.1 as verification failed from hirsute-proposed?
[10:52] <xnox> it never made it into impish; and is redundant and impcomplete / broken.
[10:52] <xnox> we shouldn't forward port 9.1 to impish, cause it will be trumped by new upstream release. Nor back to focal, as it is imcomplete.
[11:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: crust-firmware (impish-proposed/primary) [0.4-1]
[11:53] <sil2100> xnox: ouch, so this will require a new upstream u-boot version for everything to work properly?
[11:53] <sil2100> I mean, which u-boot version should we essentially get into focal to get unleashed/unmatched boards working properly?
[11:57] <sil2100> Or is what we have in focal-proposed good enough and working?
[12:01] <xnox> sil2100:  everything is good in focal-proposed
[12:01] <xnox> sil2100:  it's just hirsute-proposed is borken and redundant.
[12:02] <xnox> re: AA tasks
[12:02] <xnox> i want that impish NEW crust-firmware sync from debian experimental; and grub2-unsigned in impish unapproved reviewed please =)
[12:04] <sil2100> o/
[12:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2-unsigned [amd64] (impish-proposed) [2.04-1ubuntu46]
[12:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2-unsigned [arm64] (impish-proposed) [2.04-1ubuntu46]
[12:11] <xnox> sil2100:  in other news, i am confused how we are backporting u-boot without backporting newer opensbi for it. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opensbi i thought we must build newer u-boot againt newer opensbi to get the fu740 CIP 1200 errata fix
[12:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: gcc-or1k-elf (impish-proposed/primary) [1]
[12:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: binutils-or1k-elf (impish-proposed/primary) [1]
[12:33] <juliank> sil2100: I pinged you about shim-signed (1.37~18.04.10) bionic yesterday, you said you were on it, but it's still unapproved? It fixes up 18.04.9 to build on arm64
[12:34] <juliank> (removing efitools build-dep)
[13:41] <lucasmoura> hi bdmurray, he have completed our tests for ubuntu-advantage-tools 27.2.1. We can proceed with the SRU process: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1934902
[14:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted shim-signed [source] (bionic-proposed) [1.37~18.04.10]
[14:37] <sil2100> xnox: I don't have much context re: u-boot, I think jawn-smith and waveform were driving it. Maybe they need to be made aware of that!
[14:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dahdi-linux (focal-security/universe) [1:2.11.1~dfsg-1ubuntu6.3 => 1:2.11.1~dfsg-1ubuntu6.3] (kernel-dkms) (sync)
[14:43] <blackboxsw> lucasmoura: bdmurray, vorlon actually it seems that the accepted SRU upload into -proposed didn't track the related SRU bugs https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1930741 and 1932028  they are not showing up as required on the pending-sru page
[14:44] <blackboxsw> I think we need verification logs and tags on those two bugs: 1930741 and 1932028  for ua-tools SRU
[14:45] <waveform> xnox, yup -- wasn't aware of that specific opensbi requirement; jawn-smith had indicated that simply updating u-boot to the version in -proposed enabled boot on the unmatched, though I recall adding a tweak to d/control to require opensbi >=0.8 as that was the first version to incorporate the necessary firmware bins (i.e. it would fail with opensbi 0.6 from focal's release); is there a plan to SRU opensbi 0.9 for focal?
[14:47] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: the source.changes file only included bug 1934902 https://launchpadlibrarian.net/548803280/ubuntu-advantage-tools_27.2.1~20.04.1_source.changes
[14:47] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: The uploader would have wanted to use -v with debbuild
[14:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lime-forensics (focal-security/universe) [1.9-1ubuntu0.3 => 1.9-1ubuntu0.3] (kernel-dkms) (sync)
[14:47] <jawn-smith> interesting, the images are booting reliably in qemu, but I'll look into this errata some more
[14:48] <xnox> jawn-smith:  erratra is specific to u-boot that is used on unmatched CPU.... qemu does not use u-boot from the image....
[14:48] <xnox> cause qemu uses u-boot-qemu obviously
[14:49] <jawn-smith> ah that makes sense. I can work on that SRU if it's deemed necessary then
[15:05] <jawn-smith> alright well, does seem important
[15:15] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: If you could mention the two bugs not showing up in bug 1934902 that'd be helpful to ensure u-a-t doesn't get released prematurely
[15:21] <xnox> waveform:  it was 0.9, with ubuntu revision, because of the erratra fix, not because of shipping .bin files. Those became available earlier indeed.
[15:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lime-forensics (focal-security/universe) [1.9-1ubuntu0.3 => 1.9-1ubuntu0.3] (kernel-dkms) (sync)
[15:34] <blackboxsw> +1 bdmurray thanks we will
[15:51] <jawn-smith> this actually might be a good one for xypron
[23:27] <vorlon> juliank: should the shim-signed/devel task be closed on LP: #1934506?