[00:33] <guiverc> bdmurray, the bionic iso won't boot so -proposed test is a little hard to do; https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shim/+bug/1937115 as I understand it
[05:56] <mruffell> ubuntu-archive Hi archive admins. Could you please consider libvirt 6.0.0-0ubuntu8.14 in focal-proposed for early release? LP #1943481. Thanks.
[06:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: oem-sutton.newell-cade-meta (focal-proposed/main) [20.04~ubuntu1 => 20.04~ubuntu3] (canonical-oem-metapackages) (sync)
[06:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: oem-sutton.simon-baird-meta (focal-proposed/main) [20.04~ubuntu1 => 20.04~ubuntu3] (canonical-oem-metapackages) (sync)
[06:12] <RAOF> You're actually looking for ubuntu-sru, there :)
[06:48] <cpaelzer> RAOF: as FYi I've generally asked if there can be shorter aging periods ~12h back in this channel
[06:48] <cpaelzer> bdmurray: sayd generally yes but asked if there was more testing, the answer for that is "not yet" but I could set something up ...
[06:48] <cpaelzer> it didn't catch the current issue last time, but it would cover a zillion of other things
[06:49] <cpaelzer> RAOF: so the question is - after you had a chance to look at the case, should I do so or do you think the case is rather clear and can be released as-is ?
[07:06] <RAOF> cpaelzer: I think that its reasonable to early-release this.
[07:06] <RAOF> But I was also the one who accepted it into -proposed yesterday, so I'd prefer someone else to ack early release.
[07:06] <RAOF> Oh!
[07:06] <RAOF> I misread your messages.
[07:13] <paride> guiverc, hi! I saw your comment here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shim/+bug/1937115 where you mention that the bionic 20210913.1 images fail to install
[07:14] <guiverc> paride, fails to boot is the problem
[07:15] <paride> guiverc, what I don't get is that I don't see the 20210913.1 images being available yet
[07:15] <paride> e.g. https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/cd-build-logs/ubuntu-server/bionic/ <- no 20210913.1 build logs
[07:16] <guiverc> http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/426/builds/236704/testcases/1303/results
[07:16] <guiverc> i got the ISO from iso.qa.ubuntu.com; didn't look at file itself
[07:17] <guiverc> http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/bionic/daily-live/20210913.1/bionic-desktop-amd64.iso
[07:17] <paride> aah I get it, only the desktop images got .1
[07:31] <cpaelzer> RAOF: yes I'm ok to have a second pari of eyes release it just to be sure
[07:31] <cpaelzer> RAOF: I mostly wanted to know if you think extra tests are needed here
[07:51] <RAOF> Ah, found that in backscroll.
[07:51] <RAOF> cpaelzer: So, that change looked sensibly minimal. But the change which introduced the bug also wasn't obviously wrong. How much effort would it be for you to arrange some extra testing before releasing it?
[07:51] <RAOF> cpaelzer: If there's an easy way to do a bit of extra testing that would be appreciated. If not, I think it's sensible to release.
[07:51] <RAOF> cpaelzer: Extra tests are always welcome :).
[07:51] <RAOF> I don't think they'll be needed, but it makes releasing early an easier decision if the new thing is tested extensively.
[07:56] <cpaelzer> RAOF: I can set something up runnign that should be complete by the end of the day
[07:57] <apw> cpaelzer, and there i was going to come and ask you if you are happy with it :)  if it is going to release early i'd like to release it today rather than later in the week to get the issues in your hands while it is a work day.
[07:58] <apw> cpaelzer, if you get the testing done perhaps ping me to tell me its done and in the tracker, and i can get it out.
[07:58] <apw> RAOF, second eyeballs say it is simple enough that early-release is ok
[07:59] <cpaelzer> apw: ok, I'll let you know in a few hours then
[07:59] <apw> cpaelzer, perfect.
[08:06] <sil2100> xnox: hey! Can you do a quick verification of gnutls28 for bionic?
[08:12] <sil2100> xnox: also, do you know if the patches you provided got a lot of verification beforehand?
[08:12] <sil2100> s/verification/testing
[08:33] <xnox> sil2100:  a version of them have been shipped by debian, but a slightly newer base version.
[08:34] <xnox> sil2100:  all autopkgtests passed, and I did point people at the bileto ppa for them, but no idea if anybody tried it.
[08:34] <xnox> sil2100:  i will also poke an author of those original patches, since turns out, they work for canonical these days.
[09:03] <paride> sil2100, hi! Speaking of server images, I guess we're going to have 20210915 d-i images with the new debian-installer to test
[09:06] <xnox> sil2100:  verified
[09:36] <paride> sil2100, could it be that some other package got built against the old shim, like it happened for debian-installer, and this is affecting the live-server images?
[09:40] <sil2100> xnox: thanks!
[09:40] <sil2100> xnox: since I'm considering releasing this early for bionic (e.g. today)
[09:40] <sil2100> Since aging in -proposed not always gives enough merit, especially if the same package got enough exposure via other means
[09:40] <sil2100> paride: hey o/
[09:41] <sil2100> paride: yeah, we'll be respinning all flavors
[09:41] <sil2100> paride: I think it would potentially affect live server images as well, since I think currently all the images are using the boot bits from debian-installer (even if it's not used as the installer per-se) - at least that's how I understood Steve yesterday
[09:42] <sil2100> It's differently for focal+
[09:42] <sil2100> s/differently/working differently/
[09:43] <sil2100> Ok, releasing the bionic installer-related packages now (early) - as aging there makes no sense and we can catch any issues when we respin
[09:45] <sil2100> paride: let me comment on the bug
[10:22] <tjaalton> doko: something in impish breaks egl on ppc64el, while debian is fine. this has made mesa stuck in proposed, but rebuilding the old version breaks it as well. I tried disabling lto but that didn't help.. any ideas what to try next?
[10:27] <doko> tjaalton, no. where do I see this egl/ppc64 breakage? Try building using gcc-10?
[10:30] <tjaalton> doko: libepoxy build is one, mutter test was the first one that showed it and is what blocks mesa
[10:31] <tjaalton> doko: I'll try gcc-10
[10:40] <paride> sil2100, thanks for the info, I'll trigger a round of tests once the new images are out
[10:41] <paride> but I really hope we'll get results from tests done on affected hardware
[11:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (hirsute-proposed/main) [2.719.1 => 2.719.2] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)
[11:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (focal-proposed/main) [2.664.28 => 2.664.29] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)
[12:49] <cpaelzer> apw: I have completed the tests and updated https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libvirt/+bug/1943481 - could be released now I'd think
[14:18] <bdmurray> apw, cpaelzer: I'll look at libvirt
[14:19] <apw> ta
[14:33] <cpaelzer> thanks bdmurray
[14:33] <cpaelzer> and to be clear, if it would not be a regression-update I'd not make that much noise - so I beg all your pardon
[14:36] <bdmurray> I think the "noise" was appropriate!
[14:53] <ddstreet> slyon hi, for lp:1934221 i think the new error reported here might be related...looks like it's from the backported code for that bug, can you take a look? https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/c4e5be3f1c7af9483993c7e6007b9325ab5b78cd
[14:53] <ddstreet> lp:#1934221
[14:54] <ddstreet> lp #1934221
[14:54] <ddstreet> there we go :)
[14:55] <slyon> ddstreet: yes. I will take a look soon
[15:08] <sil2100> bdmurray, vorlon, xnox: I'll be releasing gnutls28 alongside the other SRUs
[15:08] <sil2100> Maybe what I'll do is release it for -updates for now and we can do -security next week
[15:09] <sil2100> (as a type of phasing due to it not aging long enough)
[15:09] <bdmurray> sounds good to me
[15:09] <sil2100> I'd feel better this way, as at least this way phasing in -updates might help if there are regressions
[15:16] <krytarik> ddstreet: I've decided to make the two formats you tried first also work btw (so it will be available sometime later once also deployed).
[15:20] <ddstreet> krytarik ah cool thanks, yeah it's hard for me to remember the right format to use :)
[16:15] <bdmurray> tseliot, laney: is there any update on bug 1925238?
[16:17] <laney> bdmurray: not from me, I'm sorry. I think seb128 is tracking that thread of work now (could be wrong on that)
[17:43] <bdmurray> The BetaProcess wiki page has instructions about updating kubuntu-patched-l10n which hasn't been done since oh, trusty. Which makes me wonder if we still need the package in the archive at all...
[18:18] <seb128> bdmurray, on nvidia I'm following things now for desktop but for that specific issue I'm going to wait for tseliot to reply
[19:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted livecd-rootfs [source] (hirsute-proposed) [2.719.2]
[19:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted livecd-rootfs [source] (focal-proposed) [2.664.29]
[20:10] <sil2100> Rebuilding 18.04.6 images o/
[20:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base amd64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base arm64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base armhf [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base i386 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base ppc64el [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base s390x [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server amd64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server arm64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server ppc64el [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server s390x [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop amd64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[20:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity amd64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915)
[22:58] <bdmurray> vorlon: RikMills is +1 on removing kubuntu-patched-l10n from the archive see #ubuntu-flavors for confirmation
[22:58] <vorlon> bdmurray: huzzah
[22:59] <RikMills> obsolete from kde4 times
[23:09] <vorlon> bdmurray: I can confirm LP: #1943766 wrt the ISO contents and am sorely puzzled, because the ftp mirror on ancientminister is up to date
[23:09] <vorlon> ... although the mirror updated /after/ the latest image was built
[23:09] <vorlon> I'm going to try a respin just to check
[23:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server amd64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915.1)
[23:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server arm64 [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915.1)
[23:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server ppc64el [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915.1)
[23:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server s390x [Bionic 18.04.6] has been updated (20210915.1)
[23:44] <vorlon> xnox: ^^ do you have any idea why debian-cd is picking up udebs for the version of linux-hwe-5.4 that was the PREVIOUS version pinned by debian-installer in bionic?
[23:45] <vorlon> ah
[23:45] <vorlon> seeds
[23:45]  * vorlon shakes fist