[08:09] <sil2100> xypron, waveform: hey! With opensbi now in focal-proposed, we need this u-boot rebuild accepted still, right?
[08:09] <sil2100> And I guess I remember xypron wanting to put one small fix on top still?
[08:09] <sil2100> How's that going? I guess I'd like to get it accepted ASAP
[08:11] <xypron> sil2100: without rebuilding U-Boot the users won't get the benefit of the new OpenSBI.
[08:16] <xypron> Thanks
[10:08] <xnox> am i connected?!
[10:08] <xnox> looks like i am.
[10:08] <xnox> where is sil?! =)
[10:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added oem-sutton.newell-aekerley-meta to canonical-oem-metapackages in bionic
[10:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added oem-sutton.newell-aekerley-meta to canonical-oem-metapackages in focal
[10:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: oem-sutton.newell-aekerley-meta (focal-proposed/primary) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[13:03] <waveform> xypron, just to confirm: the only thing that needs doing to the current u-boot in focal-proposed is for the opensbi dependency to be bumped to >=0.9-1~ ?
[13:06] <xypron> waveform: When we move U-Boot to v2021.10 it would make send to activate CONFIG_EFIDEBUG, CONFIG_NVEDIT_EFI, CONFIG_HEXDUMP. But I guess that is more a question for Impish.
[13:07] <waveform> xypron, yes -- I don't think we need to worry about that for the focal SRU. I just want to make sure that's the only change required for the opensbi fix before I upload it
[13:15] <xypron> waveform: I have created 1938446 concerning the configuration.
[13:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: u-boot (focal-proposed/main) [2021.01+dfsg-3ubuntu0~20.04.1 => 2021.01+dfsg-3ubuntu0~20.04.2] (core)
[13:37] <xnox> waveform:  postinst + rebuild. we need u-boot-sifive postinst. i.e. http://launchpadlibrarian.net/548604038/u-boot_2021.01+dfsg-4ubuntu2_2021.01+dfsg-4ubuntu3.diff.gz  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/u-boot/+bug/1936370
[13:37] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1936370 in u-boot (Ubuntu Focal) "u-boot-sifive does not upgrade u-boot on disk" [Critical, New]
[13:41] <waveform> xnox ah, sorry -- missed the postinst. I'll add that and re-upload; sil2100 could you reject the 2021.01+dfsg-3ubuntu0~20.04.2 version I just pushed to focal-proposed?
[13:44] <sil2100> Sure
[13:44] <waveform> xnox, not important for right now, but should that dd stuff not be in flash-kernel rather than a u-boot postinst?
[13:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected u-boot [source] (focal-proposed) [2021.01+dfsg-3ubuntu0~20.04.2]
[13:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (focal-proposed/main) [2.664.24 => 2.664.25] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)
[14:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: u-boot (focal-proposed/main) [2021.01+dfsg-3ubuntu0~20.04.1 => 2021.01+dfsg-3ubuntu0~20.04.2] (core)
[14:02] <xnox> sil2100:  bdmurray: may i please ask to have these focal SRUs to be released https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=FIXCOMMITTED&field.milestone%3Alist=92574&field.tag=verification-done-focal ? no adt regressions, verified, but not aged, but will block migrating kernel switch to v5.11
[14:02] <xnox> it's just 4 packages =)
[14:34] <sil2100> \o/
[14:35] <sil2100> I'll look at it now, are those the dkms package fixes?
[14:35] <sil2100> Looks like it
[14:41] <xnox> yes they are.
[14:50] <bdmurray> sil2100: we should document speedy releases for dkms
[14:53] <sil2100> I don't want this to become part of the regular process, but I'll mention in the bug whenever I will do an early release
[14:56] <xnox> bdmurray:  we hoped to upload and have all dkms fixed before the sru cycle starts for the point release. but failed.
[14:57] <xnox> also somehow a couple of dkms modules have been broken in hirsute release with the hirsute's kernel
[14:57] <xnox> that didn't help when we started to do hwe kernel based on hirsute
[14:57] <xnox> i don't know how or why that has happened =/
[14:58] <bdmurray> xnox: but it'll never happen again right?
[14:59] <sil2100> xnox, klebers: do you know if for evdi Brian's additional test request has been fulfilled? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evdi/+bug/1932163/comments/21
[14:59] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1932163 in evdi (Ubuntu Focal) "evdi/1.7.0+dfsg-1ubuntu1~20.04.3 ADT test failure with linux-hwe-5.11/5.11.0-20.21~20.04.1" [Critical, Fix Committed]
[15:03] <sil2100> bdmurray, rbasak, vorlon: btw. while I remember - the current Bileto support in SRU review has one big flaw, so always double check reviews of Bileto-based SRUs
[15:04] <bdmurray> sil2100: what's that flaw?
[15:04] <sil2100> So the problem is that right now Bileto doesn't really auto-regenerate diffs
[15:04] <sil2100> Potentially someone can build a package, run the diffing job, then rebuild the package again and you will not get an updated diff automatically
[15:05] <sil2100> So you can potentially review a diff of an older version
[15:06] <sil2100> To be that's actually quite problematic, so I'm even thinking if maybe we shouldn't revert this feature? This is yet another reason to get proper sync reviews instead
[15:06] <sil2100> Also, another annoying thing can be that Bileto only offers debdiffs for one series, so if a silo has packages for more than one silo, you won't get diffs there
[15:06] <sil2100> (only for one series, per which the silo is configured for)
[15:09] <sil2100> I could make Bileto periodically refresh the diffs
[15:09] <klebers> sil2100, xnox: I found it hard to test evdi modules without a DisplayLink device. Some folks from my team mentioned that being in universe building the modules would be enough.
[15:10] <klebers> maybe the hwe team would have hardware to test it, but that'd probably take a while
[15:10] <sil2100> bdmurray: ^ are you fine with skipping that extra validation then?
[15:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lttng-modules [sync] (hirsute-proposed) [2.12.5-1ubuntu2~21.04.1]
[15:39] <xnox> sil2100:  i'll make sure to use bileto per-series next time.
[15:54] <bdmurray> xnox: also one package per silo would help too as I noticed it only generated a diff for one of the packages
[15:56] <bdmurray> sil2100: you mean revert the sru-review feature which uses bileto? If so I guess that makes sense to me.
[16:45] <xnox> bdmurray:  you can click "diff" and it will regen for extra packages in the same series
[17:10] <rbasak> apw: could you fix the broken link at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#oem-.2A-meta please?
[17:19] <bdmurray> xnox: rbasak might have a handy way for reviewing bileto syncs
[17:48] <bdmurray> rbasak, apw: the link is actually https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/OEMMeta and I'll fix it
[19:03] <coreycb> hello SRU team, by any chance can this be released? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-glance-store/+bug/1934849
[19:03] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1934849 in python-glance-store (Ubuntu Hirsute) "s3 backend takes time exponentially" [High, Fix Committed]
[19:08] <bdmurray> coreycb: looking
[19:26] <coreycb> bdmurray: thank you
=== apw_ is now known as apw