[08:05] <laney> bdmurray: oh yeah
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [amd64] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [armhf] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [ppc64el] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [s390x] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [arm64] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [riscv64] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [i386] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]
[08:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfs-linux (focal-proposed/main) [0.8.3-1ubuntu12.11 => 0.8.3-1ubuntu12.12] (core, kernel-dkms)
[10:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)
[10:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd-signed (focal-proposed/main) [1.27.1ubuntu3 => 1.27.1ubuntu4] (core)
[10:04] <juliank> ^ this is a follow-up for bug 1934209 to recompile against the new libjcat
[10:04] <juliank> signing tarballs built from fwupd need to be accepted in publisher run before fwupd-signed builds to avoid it fetching the old one :)
[10:05] <juliank> I need to fix that in impish :)
[10:05] <LocutusOfBorg> hello, question for infrastructure maintainers (sorry cjwatson juliank but I probably need your help <3 ): I set R^3:no in virtualbox, and the calls to chmod +x now became non-op in Ubuntu, while they still work in Debian
[10:05] <LocutusOfBorg> can anybody please explain this difference? is it correct that they shouldn't work or not?
[10:06] <LocutusOfBorg> in Debian files have rws in Ubuntu rwx, and the build is totally broken in hirsute and impish
[10:06] <cjwatson> I expect this to be packaging toolchain not infrastructure, so not something I can help with
[10:06] <cjwatson> (sbuild just calls dpkg-buildpackage regardless of R^3)
[10:08] <LocutusOfBorg> can it be something related to sbuild not being called with fakeroot in Ubuntu, and with it in Debian?
[10:08] <juliank> strange stuff
[10:10] <cjwatson> I am pretty sure that we use fakeroot for builds in Ubuntu too, even if minor details of the output around that differ
[10:11] <cjwatson> how else would anything work given that we don't run dpkg-buildpackage as root
[10:11] <juliank> rules-require-root: no don't need fakeroot
[10:12] <juliank> whether fakeroot or real
[10:12] <juliank> LocutusOfBorg: do you have build logs for both debian aund ubuntu?
[10:12] <cjwatson> juliank: Sure, I know that, but I mean in general
[10:12] <LocutusOfBorg> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/549186090/buildlog_ubuntu-impish-amd64.virtualbox_6.1.22-dfsg-3_BUILDING.txt.gz
[10:12] <cjwatson> Anyway, that's still up to dpkg-buildpackage, not sbuild
[10:12] <juliank> I think the idea is that we stop running with fakeroot if r-r-r is set to no
[10:13] <cjwatson> Correct
[10:13] <LocutusOfBorg> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=virtualbox&arch=amd64&ver=6.1.22-dfsg-3&stamp=1626683364&raw=0
[10:13] <LocutusOfBorg> to me looks like Ubuntu is doing things correctly while Debian isn't...
[10:14] <cjwatson> But LocutusOfBorg said that it's being run with fakeroot in Debian, and I wonder if that's a misinterpretation of the logs
[10:14] <cjwatson> Sure, there's an -rfakeroot in there, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's actually using fakeroot, does it?
[10:14] <LocutusOfBorg> I wonder how many packages might fail in Ubuntu because of this difference in configuration
[10:15] <cjwatson> We don't know what the difference is yet, so I suggest working that out before speculating
[10:15] <juliank> LocutusOfBorg: so which fies are wrong in there?
[10:15] <LocutusOfBorg> juliank, look at "chmod +s"
[10:16] <LocutusOfBorg> they are 6 files that should have permission rws instead of rwx
[10:16] <LocutusOfBorg> VBoxSDL is one
[10:17] <juliank> I see
[10:17] <cjwatson> Have you tried running the build under sbuild locally?
[10:17] <cjwatson> It could be some bit of debhelper or similar removing the permission bit later
[10:18] <cjwatson> Or maybe pkgbinarymangler or pkg-create-dbgsym
[10:18] <LocutusOfBorg> no I didn't sorry
[10:18] <LocutusOfBorg> but cjwatson setting R^3 to binary-target makes it work
[10:18] <LocutusOfBorg> I tried in a ppa and the bits were set
[10:19] <cjwatson> Well, I suggest trying it locally to narrow this down
[10:19] <cjwatson> (leaving R^3 as no)
[10:20] <cjwatson> And maybe setting DH_VERBOSE=1
[10:20] <juliank> I don't think it's a difference in debhelper looking at the delta
[10:23] <juliank> anyhow this is odd
[10:55] <xnox> vorlon:  debian-installer is now fully cleaned up and published correctly. Please remove debian-installer from impish once again, and can also drop it from i386 allowlist.
[11:25] <LocutusOfBorg> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/549801125/buildlog_ubuntu-impish-amd64.virtualbox_6.1.22-dfsg-4ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz
[11:25] <LocutusOfBorg> here the build with DH_VERBOSE=1 and R^3:no
[11:29] <cjwatson> dh_dwz seems to touch at least some of those files.  Is it possible that it mangles the permissions along the way?
[11:30] <cjwatson> (it runs after dh_fixperms, it seems)
[11:57] <doko> are the calls hard-coded? the sequencer should use the correct order
[11:58] <doko> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=982457
[12:11] <LocutusOfBorg> nothing is hard-coded I would say
[13:07] <vorlon> xnox: d-i cleaned out
[13:57] <vorlon> cjwatson: why does https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rust-simplelog/0.7.4-2 have no build records for impish and how can I create them?
[13:58] <vorlon> (copy it back to impish-proposed?)
[14:02] <bdmurray> vorlon, laney: In terms of the Groovy EoL I'd like to be able to set the release to obsolete today and send out the notification. AIUI the "clean up things" is currently blocking that.
[14:03] <bdmurray> Thanks for doing the new queue laney
[14:05] <vorlon> bdmurray: ok, running cleanup-NBS-for-EOL now
[14:06] <vorlon> uh and it did nothing
[14:07] <vorlon> did someone already run it?
[14:07] <bdmurray> not I and its not marked as done in the checklist
[14:08] <vorlon> the binaries aren't there but the output on https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/groovy/update_output.txt has changed and is not listing NBS kernels... hmm
[14:09] <vorlon> oh, no, it's a bit higher up in the output and may have different text
[14:09] <vorlon> right so we used to key on 'Removing packages left in testing' and that text is absent
[14:09] <bdmurray> different text than what the script is expecting?
[14:14] <bdmurray> Yes, looks like
[14:17] <vorlon> ok script adjusted and running
[14:19] <bdmurray> vorlon: what have we previously done with pending srus?
[14:21] <vorlon> bdmurray: not sure we've ever had a consistent policy. in the past, Adam had suggested we should just leave the unverified SRUs there rather than removing them
[14:21] <vorlon> bdmurray: should we be publishing the ones that are verified though?
[14:22] <vorlon> there are 7 that seem ready to go
[14:22] <bdmurray> vorlon: I say yes but we may want to fully phase them.
[14:22] <vorlon> makes sense
[14:22] <bdmurray> that again is something I can't do
[14:22] <vorlon> NBS removal is running and it will take forever
[14:23] <vorlon> sure
[14:23] <bdmurray> I also tried removing update-manager and that didn't work out either
[14:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [s390x] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [amd64] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [ppc64el] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [arm64] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)
[14:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [armhf] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)
[15:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [riscv64] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)
[15:15] <vorlon> bdmurray: "removing update-manager"?  from -proposed?
[15:17] <bdmurray> vorlon: yeah, since it was fixing autopkgtests anyway I thought it was a reasonable test of what ubuntu-sru can and can't do
[15:18] <bdmurray> vorlon: and I don't think there is any benefit to keeping autopkgtest fixes in -proposed
[15:19] <vorlon> bdmurray: ack
[15:24] <cjwatson> vorlon: You seem to have done the copy.  Not sure why, sorry - I thought add-missing-builds would deal with that and I'm fairly sure we've run it for the last couple of new series, but I no longer have the logs
[15:26] <vorlon> cjwatson: ok.  and the copy did create build records, and the builds failed differently than what I saw locally ;)
[15:26] <vorlon> thanks
[16:08] <bdmurray> vorlon: Could you fully phase nova, neutron and zfs-linux for groovy. I released them yesterday.
[16:09] <bdmurray> nvidia-prime for Groovy has been stuck at 30% phasing for 141 days so IDK about that
[16:10]  * bdmurray looks at the errors
[16:13] <bdmurray> They are BrokenPipeError Tracebacks when printing a spinner while update-initramfs is running. I wonder if that ends up finishing or not.
[16:21] <schopin> Hi :) Looking for sponsor(s) for LP #1931994 (openssl), with several SRUs. Note that there's already an openssl package in hirsute-proposed, I pinged the uploader, but I'm guessing they're on w-e.
[16:25] <bdmurray> schopin: #ubuntu-devel should have a larger number of developers in it so I'd ask for sponsorship there.
[16:28] <schopin> will do, thanks :)
[16:34] <vorlon> bdmurray: percent overrides done for groovy-updates
[16:35] <bdmurray> vorlon: thanks
[16:36] <vorlon> and NBS removal has gotten to 'f'
[16:43] <bdmurray> fantastic
[17:07] <xnox> schopin:  note it is expected that openssl in hirsute-proposed will not be released.
[17:08] <xnox> schopin:  because of tags "verificaiton-done-hirstue block-proposed-hirsute" it's a sourcepackage / testing change only, not needed in binary form on end user systems. You should incorporate that change, and build your upload -v to include those changes, but otherwise you are expected to supersede that upload.
[17:27] <bdmurray> xnox: looking at the debdiff I believe he did that
[18:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [source] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]
[18:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd-signed [source] (focal-proposed) [1.27.1ubuntu4]
[18:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)
[18:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)
[18:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)
[18:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]
[18:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [armhf] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]
[18:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [arm64] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]
[18:31] <bdmurray> vorlon: Could release and fully phase the virtualbox packages for groovy?
[18:35] <vorlon> bdmurray: does that mean you're asking me to release them?
[18:36] <vorlon> ah because I can do -z 100 as part of the sru-release. doing now
[18:38] <vorlon> (done)
[18:46] <bdmurray> Right, do you think I should be submitting bugs about things ubuntu-sru cannot do?
[19:02] <vorlon> bdmurray: hmm probably; though TTBOMK the current acl schema treats overrides as an archive-admin-only op across the board
[21:12] <bdmurray> vorlon: How is the NBS removal going?
[22:26] <vorlon> bdmurray: we're now at linux-b* :)
[22:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openssh (focal-proposed/main) [1:8.2p1-4ubuntu0.2 => 1:8.2p1-4ubuntu0.3] (core, i386-whitelist)
[22:45] <vorlon> bdmurray: now it's linux-c*