[00:03] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: why are we syncing package-name-changing versions of cmark-gfm from Debian? (and doko, why are we accepting them?)
[00:05] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: ditto libosmorocer
[00:05] <vorlon> libosmocore
[01:52] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, cmark and libosmocore were useful to make stunnel4 migrate
[01:53] <LocutusOfBorg> as well as pygments
[01:58]  * LocutusOfBorg stops issuing rebuilds
[04:23] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: heh I think your process for issuing rebuilds could use some enhancement to detect ones already done :)
[04:25] <vorlon> I recommend https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/RKCF6H3KM which I will some day get published somewhere proper
[07:06] <cpaelzer> Hi, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/needrestart/+bug/1965090 is looking for a ubuntu-release team FFE ack as well as a  Foundation-team POV review if this matches what you'd want
[07:07] <LocutusOfBorg> sadly the paste doesn't work vorlon :)
[08:49] <ricotz> sil2100, good morning, libreoffice/impish is good to go :) - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/impish/+source/libreoffice/+bug/1963279
[08:55] <fheimes> Dear ubuntu-release team, could you please drop/remove zlib 2.11.dfsg-2ubuntu8 from jammy-proposed (LP#1961427)?
[08:55] <fheimes> An incompatibility with HTSlib was detected, I'm in contact with the initial reporter and author of the patch to get that solved, but this might take a while (hence I restart from scratch on this is probably best).
[09:17] <sil2100> ricotz: o/
[09:17] <sil2100> fheimes: hm, let me take a look
[09:21] <cpaelzer> (re-ping) Hi, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/needrestart/+bug/1965090 is looking for a ubuntu-release team FFE ack as well as a  Foundation-team POV review if this matches what you'd want
[09:35] <sil2100> cpaelzer: hey! Please set the bug to 'New' or 'Confirmed' before the FFe gets approved, we only look at those - since 'In Progress' means that someone already reviewed and gave a +1 on working on it
[09:44] <sil2100> fheimes: done o/
[10:13] <cpaelzer> thanks sil2100, set to confirmed
[10:14] <cpaelzer> it was "new" up to 3h ago, so we only had a 3h time this was in a bad state to be looked at :-)
[10:20] <cpaelzer> just read your comment on the bug sil2100, thanks for carrying the needrestart case to the team
[10:20] <cpaelzer> FYI I have myself pinged internally last week but got no response
[10:25] <waveform> sil2100, I've attached the seed PRs I mentioned in stand-up to LP: #1947311 -- much appreciated if you can take a look at some point (they should be trivial, but it's seeds so ... you know!)
[10:27] <fheimes> thx sil2100
[11:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pam-ssh-agent-auth (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.10.3-1 => 0.10.3-1ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)
[12:48] <toabctl> sil2100, could you move livecd-rootfs from the focal queue to -proposed please?
[13:02] <lucasmoura_> Hi sil2100, thanks for reviewing our FFE for UA on Jammy, Since this is now approved, can also take a look on the release for the other series as well ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1964028
[13:03] <lucasmoura_> We will only send the Jammy version into proposed after we are sure the release for the other series are fine, to avoid back and forth on the Jammy version of the package
[15:19] <Eickmeyer> Hi release team! If I could get a trivial "ack" on LP: #1965645 that would be wonderful. It probably doesn't even need a UIFe since it's merely graphical changes, but I'm just covering my bases. :)
[15:23] <sil2100> Eickmeyer: ...aaand a fast ACK back to you!
[15:23] <Eickmeyer> sil2100: Thanks!! :)
[16:03] <kanashiro> could anyone from the release team take a look at this FFe bug? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fence-agents/+bug/1965312
[16:07] <bdmurray> paride: is bug 1961979 still important for our infrastructure?
[16:09] <paride> bdmurray, yes it is, the Jammy ISO testing is only working because utah is using a paramiko version installed with pip
[16:09] <bdmurray> paride: Is that something you might work on or should Foundations take it?
[16:11] <paride> bdmurray, my suggestion is to FFe paramiko >= 2.9.2 to Jammy, going ahead of Debian
[16:12] <paride> bdmurray, I'm not very familiar with the package, I think ideally it should be done by somebody that recently touched it
[16:13] <paride> bdmurray, which means Foundations :) The SRU tasks of that bug won't be easy to fix, but at least we have a way forward for our infra: upgrade our systems to Jammy once it's out
[16:13] <paride> I mean won't be easy to fix in a SRUable way
[16:13] <paride> and we backport stuff to -backports if needed
[16:14] <paride> but I think the Jammy task should be fixed in a proper way
[16:22] <schopin> Hello Release team! Would such changes count as "simple bugfix"? The dh compat bump annoys me a bit :/ https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1006587#10
[17:09] <jawn-smith> Is any release team member available for what should be a pretty simple FFE?
[17:10] <jawn-smith> bug 1965585
[17:52] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: The tasks for that bug don't include an Ubuntu package. Is something missing?
[17:54] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: I filed the bug against the ubuntu-image project rather than the package. Is that not the correct way to do it? Does the package need to be added as well?
[17:55] <bdmurray> jawn-smith: Will the deb be upated?
[17:55] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: yes
[17:56] <bdmurray> Okay, then it should have a package task
[17:56] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: I switched it to the package rather than the project
[18:06] <bdmurray> kanashiro: Where are the automated tests mentioned in bug 1965312?
[18:23] <teward> ubuntu-archive: Seems like cjwatson suggested we (backporters) poke you about this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debhelper/+bug/1965800    so we can figure out how/where this should be fixed.  This is related to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debhelper/+bug/1965758 which is a debhelper backport request, as it depends on debugedit which is disabled / not available for i386 because it's partial-arch and not full
[18:23] <teward> arch
[18:24] <teward> i believe debhelper was supposed to allow debhelper to install in all archs, so this might just be an oversight, but still
[18:42] <kanashiro> bdmurray, the tests are defined here: https://github.com/canonical/server-test-scripts/tree/main/ha/virsh
[18:42] <kanashiro> and they are running in our internal jenkins instance
[18:44] <bdmurray> kanashiro: ack, thanks
[18:47] <jawn-smith> bdmurray: thanks for reviewing that bug!
[19:19] <kanashiro> bdmurray, thanks for the approval
[19:41] <seb128> teward, newer series have a split debugedit source, I don't have the free slots to investigate if building rpm on i386 on focal is what we want, maybe try to check with vorlon
[19:58] <teward> *throws this on vorlon's plate*
[20:02] <seb128> well, he's the one who designed the partial architecture solution and maintained the list of exceptions afaik
[20:02] <seb128> I'm fine adding obvious candidates there but rpm doesn't feel like one
[20:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (impish-proposed/main) [2021e-0ubuntu0.21.10 => 2022a-0ubuntu0.21.10] (core)
[20:11] <teward> seb128: if there's an alternate split-series for debugedit that we can (backport?) then that may be the solution, but this only came up because of the debhelper backport, and they wanted to have it inquired with AAs about potential solutions
[20:12] <seb128> right, I understand the issue, I just don't feel like I'm in a position to decide if rpm is something we should start building on i386, I didn't even check the (build-)depends to see what else would be needed for it to build there
[20:13] <seb128> how difficult would be to remove that depends of the debhelper update if maybe that's another option?
[20:25] <coreycb> it looks like sshuttle is broken in jammy and fixed in unstable: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003154
[20:29] <coreycb> the only reverse dependency is sshoot which is in sync between jammy and unstable
[20:37] <coreycb> ubuntu-archive: I can upload a merge for sshuttle to jammy if there are no objections
[20:38] <vorlon> teward: my recollection is that rpm on i386 was going to be a very bad idea; I would rather see debugedit pick up the changes from later series, if that's what you need
[20:39] <teward> seb128: removing the dep would be question for waveform (on LP) because I don't know enough about the dependencies.  paride might know more.
[20:42] <bdmurray> coreycb: that's a question for ubuntu-release and seeing a debdiff would help us make an informed decision
[20:44] <coreycb> bdmurray: thanks. it's a new release so there are a decent number of changes. maybe I should just look for a patch to pick.
[20:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (focal-proposed/main) [2021e-0ubuntu0.20.04 => 2022a-0ubuntu0.20.04] (core)
[20:45] <bdmurray> coreycb: That's probably best given where we are in the release process
[20:46] <coreycb> bdmurray: ok I'll look into it
[20:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (bionic-proposed/main) [2021e-0ubuntu0.18.04 => 2022a-0ubuntu0.18.04] (core)