[08:04] <seb128> cpaelzer_, hey, sounds like that libaio delta could be forwarded to Debian, it shouldn't make a difference for them unless they decide to start using lto in which case it makes sense to have there
[08:09] <cpaelzer_> seb128: I was already working on that :-)
[08:10] <seb128> cpaelzer_, 👍
[08:10] <cpaelzer_> seb128: but their update speed on this is slow, so I didn't expect much nor block on it
[08:10] <seb128> right, it's just annoying when we carry delta for things like that :-)
[08:10] <seb128> not your fault, you are not the one who added it, those should be forwarded to Debian from the start
[08:11] <cpaelzer> TBH I'd need to check if optimize=-lto is a noop for them or if we need dpkg-vendor based switch for this
[08:11] <cpaelzer> I feel I might have checked this before but forgotten the outcome over the sprint
[08:14] <seb128> cpaelzer, right, I still think we should have used the blacklist for those packages to avoid adding delta  and extra work but that's another topic
[08:14] <cpaelzer> I can see why doko_ felt that if we do that even for main packages no one will care to resolve them
[08:14] <cpaelzer> and I think that is right
[08:15] <cpaelzer> althought it indeed triggers some busy work here and there
[08:19] <seb128> I don't see any sign of forcing us to have delta pushing people to do extra work
[08:19] <cpaelzer> the pain to merge it?
[08:19] <seb128> we just merge rules changes to optimize=-lto
[08:19] <cpaelzer> as I said i was working on upstreaming it already to get rid of seeing it next cycle
[08:19] <seb128> well, for desktop we got the -lto changes in Debian and are back in sync
[08:20] <cpaelzer> since I wasn't initially adding it this moment is when I'd pick it up
[08:20] <cpaelzer> seb128: you are right after submitting it there it is kind of off-the-table for us
[08:20] <seb128> my point is that I didn't see any of those lto delta turned into working with upstream to fix the lto builds
[08:20] <cpaelzer> agreed, only some bug filing/tracking but not adding LTO support there
[08:51] <didrocks> slyon: hey, I’m unsure if you had time to look at my answers on bug #1948392 and if so, you have time to ack/nack it :)
[08:51] <slyon> didrocks: I was out a few days. Will look into it soon, thanks for the heads up!
[09:01] <didrocks> thank you :)
[10:56] <paride> juliank, hi! In comment 3 here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1935659 did you mean "source-copyable"?
[10:57] <juliank> paride: i meant what I wrote
[10:57] <juliank> paride: the world changed though
[10:57] <paride> juliank, ok :-) then I have to think again.
[10:58] <juliank> paride: the goal of grub2-unsigned was to be able to just binary-copy it back like shim, but then things changed because bionic needed special work
[10:58] <juliank> paride: binary copy is easy for grub2-unsigned, it does not use libfuse at all
[10:59] <juliank> because grub2-unsigned only builds the EFI binaries, not userspace
[10:59] <paride> yeah that's the bit I was missing. I think I understand now, thanks.