[09:37] <icey> fyi: I'm checking out the sphinx autopkgtest regressions
[10:02] <icey> any advice on liborcus (regression for sphinx)? when running with nothing in proposed it passes, when running with some subset from it's pass on 17 August (https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/libo/liborcus/impish/amd64) + sphinx, it passes
[11:19] <ginggs> icey: i think you want the test triggered on sphinx/3.5.4-2 and liborcus/0.16.1-3ubuntu1, as was done for zlib
[11:20] <ginggs> I have just done so
[11:20] <icey> ginggs: I'm going to run that test locally first to confirm; it generally does look like the sphinx regressions aren't though; either it's a "add more from proposed" or an intermittent failure
[11:20] <icey> ginggs: ah, thanks!
[11:40] <icey> ginggs: would you mind poking highlight.js on amd64 as well please? I've run it locally and it passes fine
[11:49] <ginggs> icey: highlight.js .
[11:49] <icey> thanks again!
[12:09] <icey> ginggs: any chance you could do the liborcus other architectures (with failures) in the same way? the failures on those look identical to the amd64 one
[12:10] <ginggs> icey: i triggered liborcus for all architectures except i386
[12:11] <icey> ah thanks!
[12:11] <ginggs> there you have a pass already https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/libo/liborcus/impish/ppc64el :)
[12:11] <icey> ginggs: yeah, I just was the recent tests list turn green :-D
[15:59] <GunnarHj> Good morning bdmurray! Now I have collected som '+1's at bug #1940925.
[17:20] <bdmurray> GunnarHj: have at fixing that bug
[17:20] <bdmurray> mdeslaur: now that you've looked at the last comment in bug 1865900 what do you think?
[17:21] <mdeslaur> bdmurray: I'm not sure I like the commit mentioned...it looks like it just happens to fix the issue because it's using a different engine, and the comments on the commit say it changes behaviour and introduces regressions
[17:23] <mdeslaur> doesn't really sound like something we'd want to add to stable releases
[17:25] <mdeslaur> ie: the commit introduced https://github.com/psf/requests/issues/5561
[17:29] <bdmurray> mdeslaur: ack, thanks for looking!
[17:34] <GunnarHj> thanks bdmurray
[18:25] <dbungert> may I get a core-dev to retest click?  https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=impish&arch=ppc64el&package=alertmanager-irc-relay&trigger=curl/7.74.0-1.2ubuntu4
[18:31] <bdmurray> I can do that
[18:32] <dbungert> bdmurray: thanks!
[20:32] <jawn-smith> mwhudson: can fully confirm that aspectc++ is not glibc related, and that the fixes for llvm are already in llvm-toolchain-13. The aspectc++ package itself needs some work to resolve a FTBFS with the newer llvm-toolchain but it shouldn't block glibc migration
[20:43] <mwhudson> jawn-smith: ok, so i think deleting it and syncing / uploading any new versino that appears makes sense
[20:43] <jawn-smith> mwhudson: agreed, thanks!
[20:44] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: so you'll need to ask an AA to delete it
[20:45] <mwhudson> jawn-smith: does it seem active at all upstream
[20:52] <jawn-smith> Yes, it is somewhat active upstream
[20:52] <jawn-smith> Though I did confirm that the current upstream source does not have the llvm-toolchain-13 compatibility fixes
[20:52] <mwhudson> ok
[21:01] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: what is the process for asking an AA to delete a package? is it simply posting here: "Hey can any archive admin please delete aspectc++ from impish?"
[21:01] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: yes, here or ubuntu-release
[21:34] <jawn-smith> Is any core dev available to try what I hope is a valid autopkgtest URL? https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=impish&arch=arm64&package=boost1.74&trigger=icu/67.1-7ubuntu1
[21:37] <tumbleweed> jawn-smith: sure
[21:37] <jawn-smith> Thanks!
[23:28] <mwhudson> jawn-smith, bdmurray: the process i usually follow is to file a bug asking for removal and subscribe ~ubuntu-archive and then ping in #ubuntu-reelase
[23:29] <RAOF> It is nice to have a bug to document the request, yes.
[23:32] <RAOF> Sadly, if you just subscribe ~ubuntu-archive I will never see it, because the LP query to list those bugs has never once failed to OOPS for me :|
[23:36] <sarnold> ahhh. I know I've filed a handful of those over the years :)
[23:42] <vorlon> this is the url that more often succeeds for me: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.subscriber=ubuntu-archive&field.status=NEW&field.status=Confirmed&field.status=Triaged&field.status=INPROGRESS&field.status=FIXCOMMITTED&field.status=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&orderby=-id&start=0
[23:56]  * RAOF adds to ArchiveAdministration wiki page.
[23:56] <RAOF> Oh, wow! That worked!