[01:34] <doko> vorlon: first getting real issues fixed. Still need to validate the claims about -5ubuntu1
[03:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: glibc (focal-proposed/main) [2.31-0ubuntu9.7 => 2.31-0ubuntu9.8] (core, i386-whitelist)
[08:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ignition-gui (jammy-proposed/primary) [6.3.0+ds-0ubuntu1]
[08:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ignition-sensors (jammy-proposed/primary) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1]
[08:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ignition-rendering (jammy-proposed/primary) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1]
[08:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ignition-gui [source] (jammy-proposed) [6.3.0+ds-0ubuntu1]
[08:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ignition-sensors [source] (jammy-proposed) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1]
[08:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ignition-rendering [source] (jammy-proposed) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1]
[08:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ignition-rendering [amd64] (jammy-proposed/universe) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[09:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ignition-rendering [ppc64el] (jammy-proposed/universe) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[09:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ignition-rendering [armhf] (jammy-proposed/universe) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[09:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ignition-rendering [arm64] (jammy-proposed/universe) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[11:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ignition-rendering [riscv64] (jammy-proposed/universe) [6.1.0+ds-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: 0ad (jammy-proposed/primary) [0.0.25b-1.1ubuntu1]
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: halide [amd64] (jammy-proposed/universe) [13.0.4-1ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: netplan.io (focal-proposed/main) [0.103-0ubuntu5~20.04.6 => 0.104-0ubuntu2~20.04.1] (core)
[11:45] <LocutusOfBorg> finally fixed halide
[11:45] <ricotz> hello ubuntu-archive, please accept 0ad in NEW to reinstate it in jammy
[11:47] <slyon> sil2100: hey! The pending netplan SRU for Focal in LP: #1962297 now made it above the 7 day aging cutline, it should be released into -updates first, before accepting the 0.104 SRUs from the Impish and Focal queues.
[11:48] <sil2100> \o/
[11:48] <slyon> The 0.104 SRU (LP: #1964481) is kind of special, due to removing/hiding some internal symbols, so please read the changelog carefully. We discussed that approach with Steve and made sure not to break anybody, tho.
[11:53] <sil2100> ricotz: looking o/
[11:54] <ricotz> sil2100, thank you, see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/0ad/+bug/1962154
[12:39] <kanashiro> vorlon, I'll be taking a look at the uninstallability issue involving ruby2.7 you mentioned
[12:50] <ddstreet> fnordahl re: PPU application, would it be better to request to add those pkgs to the 'openstack' pkgset, and then you could apply for membership to the ~ubuntu-openstack-dev team?
[13:27] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon,
[13:27] <LocutusOfBorg> -rw-r--r--  root/root   /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/igraph-0.9.8.egg-info/PKG-INFO
[13:27] <LocutusOfBorg> -rw-r--r--  root/root   /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/python_igraph-0.9.6.egg-info/PKG-INFO
[13:27] <LocutusOfBorg> this is what changed
[13:28] <xnox> urgh
[13:29] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't know what to do, patch dh-python to add a new quirk?
[13:30] <LocutusOfBorg> ./pydist/cpython3_fallback:igraph python3-igraph
[13:30] <LocutusOfBorg> I see this
[13:35] <tumbleweed> LocutusOfBorg: where is this?
[13:35] <tumbleweed> the amd64 build of https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-igraph/0.9.9-1/+build/23101115 LGTM
[13:35] <LocutusOfBorg>  /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/igraph-0.9.9.egg-info
[13:36] <LocutusOfBorg> the first line is the new version, the second line is the old version
[13:36] <LocutusOfBorg> the "new" version doesn't work, while python_igraph works
[13:37] <tumbleweed> doesn't work in what sense?
[13:37] <LocutusOfBorg> I: dh_python3 pydist:292: Cannot find package that provides python_igraph. Please add package that provides it to Build-Depends or add "python_igraph python3-igraph" line to debian/py3dist-overrides or add proper dependency to Depends by hand and ignore this info.
[13:37] <LocutusOfBorg> in the sense that python-leidenalg is sooooooooooooo sad :D
[13:37] <tumbleweed> is it in Build-Deps?
[13:37] <LocutusOfBorg> bulding python-leidenalg with the old version works
[13:37] <LocutusOfBorg> no change rebuild with new version broke
[13:37] <LocutusOfBorg>                python3-igraph <!nocheck>,
[13:38] <LocutusOfBorg> and yes it is there
[13:38] <LocutusOfBorg> its something in the upstream igraph renaming
[13:38] <tumbleweed> so, requirements.txt in python-leidenalg probably needs to be changed
[13:39] <tumbleweed> err the requirements, in setup.py/setup.cfg/wherever (probably not requirements.txt)
[13:40] <tumbleweed> or add an explicit dependency to the binary package, until upstream changes their requirements
[13:40] <Trevinho> Can someone please check on FFe https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/1964732 ?
[13:40] <Trevinho> As I would like to avoid the extra steps involved in UIFe's, and so it would be nice to have in before Thu :-P
[13:47]  * tumbleweed is retrying autopkgtests to unblock python3-stdlib-extensions & python3.10
[14:23] <LocutusOfBorg> tumbleweed, isn't cpython3_fallback born for this reason?
[14:23] <LocutusOfBorg> adding
[14:23] <LocutusOfBorg> python-igraph python3-igraph to that file works
[14:24] <tumbleweed> LocutusOfBorg: no
[14:24] <tumbleweed> cpython3_fallback is there for people who don't build-depend on packages that they expect to depend on
[14:26] <stgraber> can't remember whether deletions need an FFe or not, so filed one anyway: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/adapt/+bug/1964786
[14:27] <stgraber> if this makes sense to someone else in ~ubuntu-release, please approve and I'll switch hat to ~ubuntu-archive and handle the cleaup
[14:27] <stgraber> *cleanup
[14:28] <LocutusOfBorg> tumbleweed, https://github.com/vtraag/leidenalg/commit/7e415c3ad0965f96d2351b0cefab9f4d5b577531
[14:28] <LocutusOfBorg> NICE
[14:42] <holmanb> @sil2100: cloud-init cherry picked a patch into 22.1 to revert a change that introduced a regression on Oracle. The latest upload is queued in unapproved state. Could you please review and accept into -proposed?
[14:59] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, fixed
[15:09] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: thanks!
[15:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: evdi (focal-proposed/universe) [1.9.1-1ubuntu4~20.04.1 => 1.9.1-1ubuntu4~20.04.2] (kernel-dkms)
[15:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted 0ad [source] (jammy-proposed) [0.0.25b-1.1ubuntu1]
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted halide [amd64] (jammy-proposed) [13.0.4-1ubuntu2]
[15:34] <vorlon> ah, nvidia-cuda-toolkit, lovely, hard-coded libssl because of a bundled libqt5network5 that dlopens it
[15:36] <bdmurray> holmanb: I'll take a look at cloud-init as sil2100 may be out
[15:38] <holmanb> bdmurray: Thanks!
[15:43] <xnox> vorlon:  i wonder if we should quickly upgrade nvidia-cuda-toolkit to something much newer.
[15:43] <vorlon> xnox: that sounds fun
[15:45] <vorlon> xnox: it also sounds rather orthogonal; the libssl1.1 dep is hard-coded in debian/control, and even qtbase-opensource-src is cherry-picking upstream fixes for openssl3 compat so there's no guarantee a newer nvidia-cuda-toolkit upstream is any better
[15:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: 0ad [amd64] (jammy-proposed/universe) [0.0.25b-1.1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[15:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted 0ad [amd64] (jammy-proposed) [0.0.25b-1.1ubuntu1]
[16:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (impish-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~21.10.2]
[16:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (focal-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]
[16:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (bionic-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~18.04.2]
[16:45] <ricotz> LocutusOfBorg, hi, please sync wine 6.0.3~repack-1
[16:51] <LocutusOfBorg> ,
[16:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: yt-dlp (focal-backports/universe) [2022.02.04-1~bpo20.04.1 => 2022.03.08.1-1~bpo20.04.1] (no packageset)
[17:51] <ricotz> ty
[18:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: yapet (jammy-proposed/primary) [2.6-1]
[18:48] <vorlon> mwhudson: is the new yapet fixed for openssl 3?
[18:51] <stgraber> vorlon: sorry should have been clearer about how broken "adapt" is :) AFAICT the last time it would have worked for anyone is July 2016, effectively against Ubuntu 16.04 GA and up until that old protocol was dropped from the upstream image servers (a few years ago). That package never worked at all in 16.10 or higher.
[18:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> cjwatson: Still failing. :(
[18:52] <stgraber> This seems like it was a one-off lightning-talk type script from kirkland which found its way into the archive and was never updated by its author :)
[19:38] <LocutusOfBorg> nice linux-firmware broke autopkgtests...
[19:40] <LocutusOfBorg> dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-firmware_20220314.gitcd01f857-0ubuntu1_all.deb (--unpack):
[19:40] <LocutusOfBorg>  unable to install new version of '/lib/firmware/ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/amss.bin': No such file or directory
[19:40] <LocutusOfBorg> e.g. https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-jammy/jammy/amd64/liba/libassuan/20220314_182726_3f3d9@/log.gz
[19:41] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, what about restore when previous version?
[19:42] <vorlon> stgraber: ack thanks
[19:42] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: you want to roll back linux-firmware?
[19:42] <LocutusOfBorg> I guess so :)
[19:43] <LocutusOfBorg> otherwise installations and autopkgtests will be broken...
[19:43] <LocutusOfBorg> not sure how to fix, I think better ask uploader to fixup
[19:43] <vorlon> it's already in the release pocket so a rollback is best done with a new upload that reverts
[19:43] <vorlon> so yeah let's talk to the uploader
[19:43] <LocutusOfBorg> (not even sure why such issue was not triggered)
[19:43] <LocutusOfBorg> is he on irc?
[19:43] <vorlon> not sure
[19:43] <vorlon> juergh:
[19:44] <vorlon> juergh: hi, LocutusOfBorg has some concerns about linux-firmware causing regressions, see above
[19:44] <LocutusOfBorg> juergh, look on e.g. https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#xorg-server for "/unknown"
[19:44] <LocutusOfBorg> all the tests are failing since 1h, the time where linux-firmware migrated
[19:45] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: it is past EOD for him so he may well not reply today
[19:45] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: so is the package completely uninstallable?
[19:45] <LocutusOfBorg> I would say so
[19:45] <LocutusOfBorg> I'm testing locally
[19:45] <vorlon> if so that's a pretty strong argument for rolling it back regardless
[19:45] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, if I get a fix I'll upload the new one
[19:45] <LocutusOfBorg> I'm pulling the source
[19:46] <LocutusOfBorg> broke all autopkgtests, they will need some manual kick
[19:46] <kanashiro> vorlon, FYI I just uploaded ruby3.0 fixing the generation of Provides from libruby3.0 which should fix the uninstallability issues you mentioned
[19:46] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't think anybody could have installed it on their machines :D
[19:48] <mwhudson> vorlon: yes
[19:49] <mwhudson> vorlon: i forwarded the debian bug upstream and he fixed it and the debian maintainer picked it up just after it got removed
[19:52] <LocutusOfBorg> dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-firmware_20220314.gitcd01f857-0ubuntu1_all.deb (--unpack):
[19:52] <LocutusOfBorg>  unable to open '/lib/firmware/ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.0/regdb.bin.dpkg-new': No such file or directory
[19:52] <LocutusOfBorg> nice I got a different issue
[19:52] <LocutusOfBorg> but still uninstallable in empty chroot
[20:01] <tjaalton> I don't see how it could be caused by linux-firmware.. it's just a package with bunch of files
[20:05] <tjaalton> the package installs just fine on a focal chroot
[20:06] <LocutusOfBorg> mmm interesting
[20:06] <LocutusOfBorg> so debhelper is to blame?
[20:06] <LocutusOfBorg> or dpkg?
[20:08] <LocutusOfBorg> tjaalton, did you try to install the previous and then upgrade?
[20:08] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe its the upgrade path broken
[20:10] <tjaalton> no
[20:12] <tjaalton> hmm that fails yes
[20:13] <LocutusOfBorg> interesting
[20:13] <LocutusOfBorg> because also for me a clean installation in jammy worked
[20:14] <LocutusOfBorg> oh... today is 314, maybe a package that has PI in the changelog fails...
[20:14] <LocutusOfBorg> never upload on PI day!
[20:24] <tjaalton> I guess it's caused by the symlinks
[20:24] <tjaalton> +Link: ath11k/WCN6855/hw2.1/regdb.bin -> ../hw2.0/regdb.bin
[20:24] <tjaalton> etc
[20:25] <tjaalton> well, it's hw2.1/ -> hw2.0/
[20:28] <LocutusOfBorg> but the symlink looks good?
[20:28] <LocutusOfBorg> I thought it was the symlink but still looks correct
[20:29] <vorlon> kanashiro: ruby3.0> hurray! thanks
[20:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted yapet [sync] (jammy-proposed) [2.6-1]
[20:33] <tjaalton> right, the symlinks look fine
[20:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: yapet [amd64] (jammy-proposed/universe) [2.6-1] (no packageset)
[20:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: yapet [s390x] (jammy-proposed/universe) [2.6-1] (no packageset)
[20:36] <LocutusOfBorg> I'm out of ideas
[20:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: yapet [ppc64el] (jammy-proposed/universe) [2.6-1] (no packageset)
[20:36] <sarnold> strace a dpkg -i run?
[20:37]  * LocutusOfBorg tries
[20:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: yapet [armhf] (jammy-proposed/universe) [2.6-1] (no packageset)
[20:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted yapet [armhf] (jammy-proposed) [2.6-1]
[20:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted yapet [s390x] (jammy-proposed) [2.6-1]
[20:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted yapet [ppc64el] (jammy-proposed) [2.6-1]
[20:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted yapet [amd64] (jammy-proposed) [2.6-1]
[20:43] <LocutusOfBorg> sarnold, https://easyupload.io/c9qdij
[20:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: yapet [arm64] (jammy-proposed/universe) [2.6-1] (no packageset)
[20:55] <sarnold> LocutusOfBorg: sigh nothing stands out as an obvious source of the error :(
[20:56] <LocutusOfBorg> sarnold, indeed :/
[20:56] <LocutusOfBorg> and its not even the first link being processed
[20:57] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe juliank has some idea
[21:00] <juliank> LocutusOfBorg: write a summary, put it in a LP bug and I might take a look tomorrow. Too late to read backlog and think now, sorry
[21:02] <sarnold> heh, good plan :)
[21:06] <LocutusOfBorg> juliank, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware/+bug/1964825
[21:06] <LocutusOfBorg> :) g'night
[21:26] <mwhudson> can we blame usrmerge for this
[21:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd (focal-proposed/universe) [1:0.9 => 1:0.10] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[21:59] <stgraber> ^ tiny change but unfortunately quite time sensitive
[22:28] <cjwatson> Eickmeyer[m]: Yeah, I don't need further updates at the moment since IS haven't got back to me
[22:39] <RAOF> stgraber: Do you want to ping SRU for that lxd? Do you have someone on it already?
[23:06] <stgraber> RAOF: I don't have anyone looking at it yet, diff is tiny, just changing a debconf template to remove the option we don't want to expose anymore
[23:11] <RAOF> stgraber: `_Description` is a translatable (and translated?) string, right? How is that going to be handled?
[23:12] <stgraber> RAOF: oh right, forgot about that. Based on that, I guess it'd be better not to change the description, better to have a description that's slightly out of sync than not translated
[23:13] <RAOF> 👍️
[23:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected lxd [source] (focal-proposed) [1:0.10]
[23:15] <RAOF> And the moral of the story is:  Launchpad should have invested in turing-passing AI so that we could accurately machine-translate everything we upload :)
[23:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd (focal-proposed/universe) [1:0.9 => 1:0.10] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[23:16] <stgraber> RAOF: updated ^
[23:17] <stgraber> and yeah, translations have always been problematic for that, even worse when the translation is in the langpack
[23:17] <stgraber> because even in the magical world where we get it all translated quickly, we still need another update to actually roll it out :)
[23:17] <RAOF> Ooof, and sorry! Why are we unmounting `/var/lib/lxd/*` on package removal? There's no bug associated.
[23:18] <stgraber> that was a fix we had in the packaging branch for a while, let me look for it, we may have a bug somewhere for it
[23:18] <stgraber> yeah, looks like https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxd/+bug/1876979 was where we noticed it, only saw one report but felt safe to include since we || true :)
[23:19] <stgraber> RAOF: want a re-upload with the bug # added?
[23:19] <RAOF> Yes, please. Might as well while I've got you here :)
[23:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected lxd [source] (focal-proposed) [1:0.10]
[23:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd (focal-proposed/universe) [1:0.9 => 1:0.10] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[23:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lxd [source] (focal-proposed) [1:0.10]
[23:58] <jbicha> autopkgtest infrastructure looks broken
[23:59] <sarnold> jbicha: is it linux-firmware in the logs?
[23:59] <jbicha> ok yes
[23:59] <sarnold> jbicha: .. if that sounds familiar, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware/+bug/1964825