[06:33] <maxzor_> When is the Jammy release hard hard freeze again please? The moment when a debian ftp upload doesn't land anymore in Jammy
[06:51] <cpaelzer> maxzor_: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/jammy-jellyfish-release-schedule/23906
[06:51] <cpaelzer> 24th Feb
[06:52] <maxzor_> shit shit shit
[06:52] <maxzor_> debian NEW <3
[07:07] <gombara>  hello. I have been trying to automate install of Ubuntu 21.10 desktop. All the information I could found online points to modifying grub.cfg to provide command line options to kernel. but for some reason I could not get it working. after the boot it lands in live session desktop instead of starting the install. any ideas?
[08:44] <RikMills> cpaelzer: sorry to be random, but I think your libvirt bileto build just got clobbered by LP: #1959325
[08:44] <RikMills> for once the bileto build fail spam was useful ;)
[09:59] <slingamn> i got a pull request merged into the upstream system-config-printer: https://github.com/OpenPrinting/system-config-printer/pull/247
[09:59] <slingamn> i'm trying to determine the best way to get it to land in ubuntu 22.04
[10:00] <slingamn> should i ask upstream about whether they plan to include it in a tagged release?
[10:02] <schopin> slingamn: your best bet would be to ask the Desktop team directly (#ubuntu-desktop) since this package seems to be under their umbrella
[10:03] <slingamn> legit, thanks
[10:35] <cpaelzer> thanks for the hint RikMills
[10:37] <RikMills> cpaelzer: np. at least I assume those 'mis-matched ISA version' error are the reason for the fail
[10:38] <RikMills> not the sort of log I am used to
[10:39] <cpaelzer> I can at least say that this build find the last few days
[10:40] <cpaelzer> so whatever it is, it came into jammy rather recently
[10:40] <cpaelzer> and my latest changes had nothing that would break builds this way
[10:42] <RikMills> cpaelzer: the binutils with the breaking change is recent, yes
[10:43] <RikMills> not sure atm why some thing seemd to be immune, and others not
[11:33] <seb128> hum, is there some known issue with the new binutils update on riscv64? accountsservice build failed with new symbols error but those were not there with a build earlier in the week and not an issue on other archs
[11:37] <RikMills> seb128: LP: #1959325
[11:37] <schopin> seb128: apparently there's been a change in the toolchain bumping the -march definition or... something.
[11:37] <seb128> RikMills, would that lead to new symbols? that report doesn't have any details nor build log reference
[11:38] <seb128> doko, ^ is that a regression you are working on addressing today or maybe we should remove the buggy binutils from proposed?
[11:38] <RikMills> buggy binutils is in -release :(
[11:39] <RikMills> seb128: not sure about the new symbols
[11:42] <RikMills> seb128: I see the 'mis-matched ISA version' error from that bug in the account-service build log, but not sure if that itself is related to the new symbols or just coincidental
[11:42] <RikMills> hopefully doko can shed some light
[11:46] <doko> this is a mess, introduced by the RISC-V engineers, currently trying to figure out what to do. No, binutils is not "buggy" at this point
[11:47] <RikMills> doko: appreciated, thanks :)
[15:10] <schopin> bluca: FYI I've just filed LP: #1959414 and I figured this might impact your request LP: #1951314
[15:11] <bluca> thanks
[15:11] <bluca> will try to get the openssl3 one sorted soon
[15:12] <Laibsch> found a potential regression in moc package when going from focal to jammy and reported as bug 1959412
[15:12] <Laibsch> confirmations welcome
[16:28] <utkarsh2102> hey
[16:29] <utkarsh2102> I can't seem to upgrade libc6-lse to what's in Focal-proposed
[16:29] <utkarsh2102> I have libc6 version 2.31-0ubuntu9.4.
[16:30] <utkarsh2102> but when I install libc6-lse, I get:
[16:30] <utkarsh2102> libc6-lse : Depends: libc6 (= 2.31-0ubuntu9.2) but it is not going to be installed
[16:30] <utkarsh2102> any idea around this, doko, mwhudson?
[16:39] <ahasenack> is the source for libc6-lse the same?
[16:39] <ahasenack> it's indeed not in focal-proposed
[16:40] <ahasenack> at 0ubuntu9.4
[16:47] <bdmurray> Is this bug 1912652?
[16:54] <bdmurray> rbasak: Is the SRU of bug 1789454 something you'd have concerns about given the verification involving MATE (comment #13)?
[17:14] <RikMills> doko: sorry to bother you. do you have any sort of update on the riscv64 issue? if not, then no worries. it is after all end-of-week
[17:26] <rbasak> bdmurray: yes, and also for the Ubuntu MATE case if third party repositories are needed to reproduce. If it's not reproduced on Ubuntu using the Ubuntu archive, then is an SRU justified?
[17:26] <rbasak> Eg. if it only happens with that PPA, then the PPA should just as easily be able to patch it there without disrupting non-PPA users.
[17:30] <rbasak> Or else, I think we need to decide policy-wise what to do when someone wants a fix for something that only reproduces in a scenario with third party software whose use Ubuntu doesn't really support.
[17:30] <rbasak> (in an SRU specifically - obviously the development release is different)
[18:03] <xnox> utkarsh2102:  i'm not entirely sure if we do or don't support inplace upgrades to libc6-lse; in later releases libc6-lse is just built into normal libc6