[08:10] <msim_> heya i'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but i'm going along the lines of how debian organises their irc channels :P. i'm creating a source package for a piece of software that i'm going to submit through debian, and fingers crossed will be in ubuntu soon ish. once it's in ubuntu, do the ubuntu repos maintain the same versions of packages as the debian repos?
[08:10] <msim_> like if i release an update for it, through debian, will that then also go through into ubuntu? or would i have to file a request for it to be synced?
[08:14] <ginggs> msim_: it should sync automatically from debian, unless we are in a freeze (i.e. close to release)
[08:24] <msim_> ginggs: awesome, thanks
[13:43] <paride> didrocks, hi! I'm hitting autopkgtest failures with adsys on impish/arm64: https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/adsys/impish/arm64
[13:43] <paride> it failed (3 times) with a timeout: FAIL	github.com/ubuntu/adsys/internal/policies/ad	660.008s
[13:44] <paride> this when building with samba in impish-proposed (which has a change that is extremely unlikely to cause this kind of regression)
[13:44] <paride> then I tried triggering the version in impish-release, but it failed in a different way:
[13:44] <paride> 2021/11/19 13:22:50 error reading config file: open /tmp/TestInitCallback_in_error_on_refresh_only_prints_warning2218139106/001/adsys_config_test.yaml: no such file or directory
[13:45] <paride> does any of this ring any bell for you?
[13:45] <didrocks> paride: let me have a look. The tests are generally not racy on github CI, I can tell you if they can be impacted by samba
[13:46] <didrocks>     --- FAIL: TestInit/Configuration_changed (0.01s)
[13:46] <didrocks> -> this is the only known one which can be racy (I increased the timeout in master), especially due to the fact that inotify doesn’t work well in autopkgtest, but this one doesn’t test out samba
[13:47] <didrocks> the other one in impish-release is really weird, I have never seen it, and like setup() didn’t work
[13:48] <paride> can we try a retrigger of the -release test? ( https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=impish&arch=arm64&package=adsys&trigger=adsys/0.7.1 )
[13:51] <paride> I was hoping to see the same timeout failure that is hit with the test runs triggered by samba
[13:53] <didrocks> paride: this timeout happened rarely in master. It’s quite stable I guess thanks to github CI which has better support for inotify, but I still increased the timeout for next release. Still have a try to -release, but I doubt you will have the same issue (or if lucky, you may due to the infra being under heavy pressure)
[13:53] <didrocks> but yeah, detecting/testing inotify picking up the new config is annoying as you can’t do it without timeouts :/
[13:54] <didrocks> anyway, I think you can ask to ignore the autopktests result for having samba migrating
[13:55] <didrocks> (the rest, which exercises samba pass)
[13:55] <paride> didrocks, that's probably the most reasonable option. thanks.
[15:57] <bdmurray> I'm going to spend some time looking at the sponsoring queue today
[16:01] <bdmurray> I've looked at and commented on bug 1937873
[16:06] <bdmurray> I'm looking at bug 1882998 now
[16:16] <dbungert> looking at LP: #1918305
[16:36] <bdmurray> unsubbed sponsors from bug 1921474
[16:41] <bdmurray> unsubbed sponsors from bug 1934518
[16:48] <bdmurray> \o/ uploaded the fix for openvdb
[16:49] <bdmurray> looking at bug 1935849
[17:00] <bdmurray> \o/ sponsored nemo too!
[17:01] <bdmurray> looking at bug 1927065
[17:06] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: the above bug doesn't have debdiffs but is just a backport / inclusion of a patch. Is that something you'd want to do?
[17:06] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: sounds great, thanks!
[17:08] <bdmurray> bug 1939567 was resolved so Fix Releaseing and unsubscribing
[17:15] <bdmurray> I'm looking at bug 1943769
[17:16] <juliank> bdmurray: I think we can Won't fix that one
[17:16] <juliank> At the very least it would need to be reworked to an SRU
[17:17] <juliank> Sounds Incomplete :D
[17:17] <bdmurray> That's what my comment is saying! ;-)
[17:17] <juliank> :)
[17:18] <bdmurray> That and I'm sorry we didn't look at this in September
[17:19] <mfo> juliank, hey :) if you have a minute. it seems grub2 migration in jammy-proposed is blocked bcz grub2-signed isn't up-to-date w/ grub2, and this causes an uninstallable / missing versioned-dep from grub-efi (src:grub2)to grub-efi-amd64 (src:grub2-unsigned).   is it something i can help with?
[17:19] <mfo> s/grub2-signed/grub2-UNsigned/
[17:21] <juliank> Oh, I can make the grub2-unsigned
[17:21] <juliank> It's generated from grub2
[17:21] <schopin> hey the gnupg2 was mine?! Thanks bdmurray :-D
[17:21] <juliank> But this is a bit odd
[17:22] <juliank> mfo: ^
[17:22] <mfo> juliank, ack; maybe something was missing in my MR for grub2 that should've triggered that?
[17:23] <mfo> and thanks :)
[17:23] <bdmurray> looking at / closing bug 1915480
[17:23] <juliank> mfo: no I skipped it as it should not have been necessary, and it's updating two more packages (unsigned and signed), so I was thinking I can avoid that
[17:25] <mfo> juliank, heh :) understand.
[17:29] <juliank> mfo: uploaded
[17:30] <mfo> juliank, thank you o/
[17:30] <juliank> mfo: For srus, we luckily only need to do grub2 itself :)
[17:31] <juliank> dependencies are different there
[17:31] <juliank> :D
[17:31] <juliank> well
[17:31] <juliank> it works by accident :D
[17:31] <mfo> juliank, good to know.  btw, this fix is for sch a minor impact that it probably should be staged / block-proposed-<series> thing?
[17:32] <mfo> 'works by accident' x)
[17:32] <mfo> (i mean, to avoid grub2 updates as that can trigger, say, 'unexpected events'  from time to time :)
[17:33] <juliank> makes sense
[17:33] <mfo> ok, cool.
[17:33] <mfo> thx for all your help w/ this.
[17:36] <bdmurray> xypron: is bug 1941622 fixed in Jammy?
[17:37] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: patch uploaded to LP: #1927065
[17:37] <jawn-smith> and by patch I mean debdiff
[17:37] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: do you know anything about this u-boot change?
[17:37] <jawn-smith> I'm about 99% sure it's fixed in Jammy
[17:38] <xypron> bsmurray: I never got a response to '~ubuntu-sru: please, review the SRU'
[17:38] <xypron> bdmurray ^
[17:38] <bdmurray> xypron: My response is "Is this fixed in jammy"?
[17:39] <xypron> bdmurray: this was only a problem with old U-Boot in Focal.
[17:39] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: update-maintainer wasn't run
[17:39] <jawn-smith> bah. Haven't forgotten that one in a while
[17:40] <bdmurray> xypron: adding that to "Other Info" would be helpful
[17:40] <jawn-smith> Thanks for catching that bdmurray
[17:41] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: I'm sorting it and uploading
[17:41] <jawn-smith> oh, thanks!
[17:42] <xypron> bdmurray: I have added a comment to the bug.
[17:43] <bdmurray> xypron: Thanks, I can sponsor this but then won't be able to review it for the SRU team.
[17:44] <vorlon> arguable ;)
[17:45]  * bdmurray holds up a change my mind sign
[17:45] <bdmurray> I'm kidding though
[17:49] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: I think LP: #1581594 could have ubuntu-sponsors unsubscribed. It's marked as "Won't Fix" for every listed release.
[17:51] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: not for the default release task which would be jammy
[17:52] <bdmurray> this bug is such a mess of sadness
[17:54] <bdmurray> From what I recall there is something wrong but upstream seems inactive and the same sensor is used for two different things so a solution isn't clear
[17:55] <jawn-smith> I'm rereading to see if I need one of those kingston disks to replicate
[17:56] <bdmurray> I'm looking at bug 1945807 too
[17:57] <bdmurray> xypron: Is there a hurry on that or should we wait and see if debian fixes it?
[17:57] <bdmurray> Its been 5 or 6 weeks already though
[17:59] <jawn-smith> smartctl is working for me on a Samsung drive at least...
[18:00] <xypron> bdmurray: it seems nobody cares at Debian. But who uses the "blackbox window manager" anyway?
[18:02] <vorlon> I see the package is maintained by the QA team
[18:04] <vorlon> I was going to make a joke about NextSTEP but then I realized that was windowmaker, not blackbox; so blackbox is no longer even good for jokes
[18:07] <jawn-smith> Okay after a quick dive into libatasmart source code, I simply don't have the hardware to test in jammy. On to the next item in the queue
[18:09] <bdmurray> xypron: so if nobody uses blackbox window manager then it doesn't seem worth introducing a diff for
[18:10] <bdmurray> I'm looking at bug 1943450
[18:15] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: LP: #1945807 seems to just need an upload
[18:15] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: right I'm questioning the need for introducing a diff from debian
[18:16] <jawn-smith> I see. Oh yes I missed those messages from a few minutes ago
[18:17]  * jawn-smith goes for more caffeine
[18:33] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: LP: #1948713 appears to also just need an upload
[18:34] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: thanks, I'll handle it
[18:44] <bdmurray> Odd_Bloke: does that bug ^ need fixing in hirsute?
[18:49] <bdmurray> evolution-ews uploaded
[18:53] <bdmurray> Odd_Bloke: it does and I'll do it
[18:57] <bdmurray> I'm glad I'm not on SRU duty next week ;-)
[18:59] <bdmurray> unsubbed ubuntu-sru from bug 1946578
[18:59] <jawn-smith> LP: #1650688 is... interesting. It has an MP associated that is assigned to xnox, so does ubuntu-sponsors still need to be subscribed?
[18:59] <bdmurray> Oh, they weren't on there
[19:00] <bdmurray> I think somebody probably added xnox not realizing they aren't on Foundations any more
[19:01] <jawn-smith> I'm confused, I see "Ubuntu Sponsors Team" in "Notified of all changes"
[19:01] <jawn-smith> yeah maybe this is a slyon thing instead?
[19:01] <bdmurray> I meant the flatpak CVE bug
[19:02] <bdmurray> let's rls- tag the systemd one and unsubscribe sponsors since that package is special
[19:03] <bdmurray> looking at bug 1733301
[19:04] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: I added rls-jj-incoming but cannot unsubscribe sponsors
[19:13] <bdmurray> I sorted that
[19:13] <jawn-smith> looking at bug 1947424
[19:13] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: thanks
[19:17] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: I think bug 1947424 should have sponsors unsubscribed. There has been a bit of back and forth about if the patch is the correct approach with seemingly no resolution at the moment
[19:20] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: the other commenters seem to be upstream so I agree
[19:23] <jawn-smith> ah bug 1938442 is one of mine. We're waiting on Debian to accept the patch so we can sync, then SRU
[19:23] <jawn-smith> so it could have -sponsors removed
[19:23] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: ^
[19:24] <bdmurray> done
[19:24] <jawn-smith> by "one of mine" I don't mean that I submitted the bug, only that I worked on the debdiffs.
[19:24] <jawn-smith> thanks!
[19:25] <bdmurray> I'm unsubbing sponsors from 1947359 while we wait for SRU details
[19:34] <jawn-smith> looking at bug 1948808
[19:37] <jawn-smith> Hmm yes this needs packaging alright
[19:42] <bdmurray> cleaning up bug 1948764
[19:44] <bdmurray> unsubbed sponsors from bug 1945296
[19:46] <bdmurray> fix releasing bug 1950278
[19:46] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: for bug 1948808 the reporter is asking for a package that exists only in hirsute onward to be added to focal and bionic. Is there a well documented process I can point them to? Haven't come up with much in the wiki so far
[19:47] <jawn-smith> They have already prepared debian/ directories for focal and hirsute
[19:47] <jawn-smith> err, focal and bionic
[19:49] <bdmurray> That seems to me like something for the backports team
[19:52] <jawn-smith> that makes sense to me
[19:52] <bdmurray> that being said somebody could still sponsor it
[19:53] <bdmurray> looking at bug 1950698
[19:55] <jawn-smith> looking at bug 1948764
[19:55] <bdmurray> I already did that one
[19:55] <bdmurray> somebody forgot to unsub sponsors
[19:56] <jawn-smith> oh cool thanks
[19:57] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: I should ignore MIR bugs for the purpose of this exercise, correct?
[19:57] <bdmurray> Yeah, skip the MIR oem bugs
[19:57] <Odd_Bloke> bdmurray: Thanks!
[20:01] <bdmurray> Odd_Bloke: you're welcome
[20:01] <bdmurray> woo hoo into the white rows
[20:02] <bdmurray> looking at bug 1942649
[20:03] <jawn-smith> looking at 1950989
[20:03] <jawn-smith> agh, bug 1950989
[20:04] <jawn-smith> yeah that seems like something that just needs an upload
[20:07] <jawn-smith> lots of syncs/merges
[20:07] <bdmurray> I'm looking at pikepdf
[20:08] <dbungert> I pinged last time about LP: #1890491, maybe we remove sponsors from the bug at this point?  It's asking for a SRU that could now only apply to bionic as fixes are already in newer series.
[20:09] <bdmurray> Given its from a Canonical employee that works for me
[20:12] <jawn-smith> xypron: bug 1924915 seems to be a merge. Am I understanding that correctly? If so it should follow https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Merging
[20:31] <bdmurray> Looking at bug 1950985
[20:36] <jawn-smith> looking at bug 1883174
[20:39] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: the debdiff here looks reasonable and safe to me. The SRU template could maybe use some work, but other than that I think it just needs an upload
[20:56] <bdmurray> looking at bug 1927100 which I'd missed further up the list
[21:07] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: is bug 1883174 fixed in Jammy?
[21:09] <bdmurray> oh, its a different package in jammy
[21:10] <jawn-smith> yeah sorry for the delayed response. The bug does exist in hirsute though
[21:12] <jawn-smith> responded to the bug asking for a hirsute debdiff as well
[21:14] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: oh, I was just going to do it
[22:22] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: ah thanks!
[22:23] <bdmurray> the queue is down to 38 now
[22:23] <jawn-smith> I think it was 62 when we started
[22:23] <bdmurray> it was in the high 60s yesterday
[22:25] <bdmurray> I guess I should look at Dave's meta-release thing
[22:27] <bdmurray> http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring-stats/
[22:27] <bdmurray> well that's not helpful
[22:27] <jawn-smith> because "Forbidden"?
[22:29] <bdmurray> yeah
[22:30] <bdmurray> Oh, and its been like this for nearly 5 years
[22:30] <bdmurray> I'm just gonna walk away
[22:33] <dbungert> bdmurray: by chance were you looking for https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi ?
[22:34] <bdmurray> dbungert: No I was looking for graphs of the size of the sponsoring queue