[04:31] <Eickmeyer> Release team: I'm a little perplexed as to why we had Ubuntu Studio images build at 4.1GB but now they're 4.0 and suddently oversized? Last I checked only the squashfs had a cap of 4.0GB. Now I'm frantically working to remove *even more*. What changed?
[05:51] <tarzeau> Eickmeyer: remember my font post? basically this: https://github.com/alexmyczko/autoexec.bat/blob/master/Documents/ubuntu.md
[05:51] <tarzeau> i didn't check the actual images, but that frees quite some space without (imho) any loss
[05:52] <tarzeau> i also like some things at https://wiki.debian.org/ReduceDebian (one thing i didn't add there though is rebuilding packages optimized for size) - if you're interested ping me
[06:02] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: 'OVERSIZED' refers to the image exceeding the configured maximum size for the flavor's image and can always be bumped by agreement between the flavor team and the release team.  For this specific case, I will note that Ubuntu Studio is declared to produce DVD images and the latest image will not fit on a DVD
[06:02] <vorlon> that is different from the size limit on files within the ISO filesystem
[06:03] <vorlon> if you want to bump the limit, you can, but I think that means at some point soon we should evaluate not building Ubuntu Studio as a hybrid image since it would no longer be practical to use it on optical media
[08:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: alsa-ucm-conf (focal-proposed/main) [1.2.2-1ubuntu0.12 => 1.2.2-1ubuntu0.13] (no packageset)
[09:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (impish-proposed/main) [248.3-1ubuntu8.2 => 248.3-1ubuntu8.4] (core, i386-whitelist)
[09:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (focal-proposed/main) [245.4-4ubuntu3.15 => 245.4-4ubuntu3.16] (core, i386-whitelist)
[10:17] <RikMills> what is up with the ISO images? I have a .img and a .iso and the .iso is out of date
[10:17] <RikMills> http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/daily-live/current/
[10:49] <juliank> RikMills: image was switched from hybrid to usb image?
[10:51] <RikMills> juliank: this was intended? the ISO tracker has no idea it has changed
[10:51] <juliank> I don't know
[10:53] <fossfreedom> Ah. I thought it was UB that had new vs old dates. Reproducible at least.
[10:54] <juliank> god I hate bileto
[10:54] <fossfreedom> On a related track today's ubuntu jammy daily failed with a libboost dependency issue. Known issue?
[10:55] <juliank> I can't publish https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4810/+packages as it has a couple riscv64 build failures (duh)
[10:55] <juliank> and one package is still building there
[10:55] <juliank> those are not going to be worked on
[10:55] <juliank> like yikes, those are not regressions
[10:56] <juliank> I removed packages superseded in the archive, and bileto now complains they are "ready to build"
[10:58] <juliank> I'm as happy with where the ppa is at as I'm going to get, sighh
[11:00] <juliank> So I guess I can manually copy-package -b the packages in there to the archive
[11:01] <juliank> it worked for fbset
[11:01] <juliank> but yikes
[11:05] <juliank> doing manual copying now
[11:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Removed ruby-minitest from i386-whitelist in jammy
[11:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Removed ruby-power-assert from i386-whitelist in jammy
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Removed ruby-test-unit from i386-whitelist in jammy
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added nose to i386-whitelist in jammy
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added python-asgiref to i386-whitelist in jammy
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added python-unicodedata2 to i386-whitelist in jammy
[11:13] <Ukikie> fossfreedom: Yeah seems jammy has been failing...
[12:33] <juliank> First ~150 uploads for ppc64el landed
[12:33] <juliank> * ppc64el baseline bump
[12:34] <juliank> Another 150 are queued in bileto 4813 and building (or failing to) :D
[12:34] <juliank> about 300 more remain after that
[12:35] <juliank> autopkgtest queues to go boooom
[12:36] <juliank> What I'm going to do once those are built is filter out the build failures into bileto 4812 and copy the successes over to the main archive
[12:37] <juliank> Getting the "easy" stuff out of the way and the queues up
[12:38] <juliank> ah it seems arm64 autopkgtest cloud is dying again
[12:42] <ahasenack> boom
 failure: Timed out on waiting for ssh connection
[12:44] <juliank> it happens
[12:44] <juliank> arm64 doesn't always manage to boot
[12:44] <juliank> because the host qemu crashes
[12:45] <juliank> there's an RT ticket for it
[12:45] <ahasenack> I guess I should refrain from trying again for a while?
[12:45] <ahasenack> this was wireguard
[12:45] <ahasenack> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#linux-meta-raspi
[12:45] <ahasenack> yesterday arm64 was the only red (hence my retry), but today all are red with that ssh error
[12:45] <juliank> queues are full-ish anyhow
[12:46] <ahasenack> oh, all are arm64 indeed
[12:46] <ahasenack> I meant the other packages were green, just wireguard/arm64 was red
[12:46] <juliank> this really shouldn't be a failure
[13:11] <lucasmoura> Hi @bdmurray, @RAOF has approved our SRU for UA version 27.7. @paride has already upload those packages in the proposed queue, but we need an SRU reviewer to approve the upload. If you have some time, can you please take a look on that ?
[13:11] <lucasmoura> It will unblock our tests for the package
[14:27] <Eickmeyer[m]> vorlon: Good morning! I guess I was worried because the .iso images were merely copies of what was created on March 22nd and weren't being updated. I thought this was a result of the oversize.
[14:29] <Eickmeyer[m]> Either way, we have discussed no longer encouraging optical media since most computers produced don't even have an optical drive anymore.
[14:31] <schopin> Was there a conclusion to this discussion though?
[14:37] <lucasmoura> @apw (now) @bdmurray (later) @RAOF (even later): sorry for pinging again, but I just realized that if we don't upload the new UA package to proposed today, it will delay our release a lot
[14:38] <Eickmeyer[m]> schopin: This was an Ubuntu Studio discussion, didn't really occur anywhere else.
[14:38] <lucasmoura> We would like to finish our test early next week and finish the process by the end of the week, so we can deliver the package before the jammy freeze
[14:38] <apw> lucasmoura, which series is that for ?
[14:38] <Eickmeyer[m]> At least, not to my knowledge.
[14:39] <lucasmoura> @apw, xenial, bionic, focal and impish
[14:39] <lucasmoura> The package are already on the proposed queue and @RAOF has already approved the SRU
[14:39] <schopin> Eickmeyer[m]: I might be thinking of another discussion regarding optical media support in Ubuntu in general, but I can't find it in my email archive :/
[14:39] <lucasmoura> I think we just the need the approval for the upload
[14:54] <apw> lucasmoura, yes, but this is a monumental change; i assume you have an SRU exception for this package?
[14:57] <lucasmoura> apw, yes we do have an SRU exception for it: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuAdvantageToolsUpdates
[15:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python3.10 [amd64] (jammy-proposed/main) [3.10.4-1ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)
[15:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python3.10 [amd64] (jammy-proposed) [3.10.4-1ubuntu1]
[15:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python3.10 [i386] (jammy-proposed/main) [3.10.4-1ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)
[15:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python3.10 [i386] (jammy-proposed) [3.10.4-1ubuntu1]
[15:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (impish-proposed) [27.7~21.10.1]
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (focal-proposed) [27.7~20.04.1]
[15:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (bionic-proposed) [27.7~18.04.1]
[15:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (xenial-proposed) [27.7~16.04.1]
[15:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-390 (bionic-proposed/restricted) [390.144-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 => 390.147-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (kernel-dkms, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-390 (impish-proposed/restricted) [390.144-0ubuntu2 => 390.147-0ubuntu0.21.04.1] (core, i386-whitelist, kernel-dkms)
[15:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-390 (focal-proposed/restricted) [390.144-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 => 390.147-0ubuntu0.20.04.1] (core, i386-whitelist, kernel-dkms)
[16:04] <schopin> Could a member of the release team have a look at this FFE? LP: #1966200
[16:39] <vorlon> Eickmeyer[m]: ok, I hadn't noticed that the previous images were being copied forward.  If no one else has, I'll take a quick look today
[16:45] <Eickmeyer[m]> vorlon: RikMills suspects it's related to sil2100's work on risc, but we don't know for sure.
[16:45] <Eickmeyer[m]> And it's affecting everyone.
[17:18] <lucasmoura> apw, sorry to ping again, but please let me know if you need any more context on UA or this specific release. I can provide you with that. And the ping is just to justify our concern if the packages are not on proposed today regarding the jammy freeze
[17:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (bionic-proposed/main) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~18.04.2 => 22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~18.04.3] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[17:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (focal-proposed/main) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~20.04.2 => 22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~20.04.3] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)
[17:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (impish-proposed/main) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~21.10.2 => 22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~21.10.3] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[17:35] <bdmurray> lucasmoura: what do the SRUs have to do with jammy freezing?
[17:37] <bdmurray> 27.7 is already in Jammy
[17:38] <lucasmoura> bdmurray, the SRUs for older release don't have a direct influence, but we are delivering the same content on all releases here. Our concern is if we do identify a problem on one of the tests we perform for the packages, we would need to fix that on Jammy as well and that may happen after the freeze and turn it on a 0-day SRU
[17:38] <lucasmoura> We have already performed most of our test for the package we are delivering, so we should be fine, but it could still happen
[17:39] <lucasmoura> bdmurray, just saw that it is on Jammy proposed. I was assuming that it would not go there automatically, but fair enough if that happen, we could deliver a fix, which I am assuming doesn't need a FFE
[17:40] <lucasmoura> And just saw that the packages the other packages are on the proposed pocket already. Thanks for that apw and sorry for all the pings here today
[17:40] <bdmurray> lucasmoura: its actually in the release pocket for jammy
[17:41] <lucasmoura> bdmurray, Yes, my mistake, I meant to say it on release already
[17:42] <lucasmoura> Just to confirm, on the devel-release that process from proposed to release happens automatically then ?
[17:42] <bdmurray> Provided nothing breaks it will get automatically promoted - yes
[17:43] <lucasmoura> Okay, got it. Sorry for the confusion here
[18:12] <blackboxsw> hi SRU vanguards, I believe rbasak is out today,  we have a regression-updates hotfix that needs review for cloud-init that is a single cherry pick into bionic, focal and impish -proposed testing for cloud-init to unblock snappy and desktop canary installer work. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+bug/1966085
[18:13] <blackboxsw> We have already released to Jammy earlier today with the changeset and snappy has also applied this changeset to their test environments confirming the fix works for them as well. We'd like a vanguard to review these unapproved uploaded into B F and I so we can execute a specific test plan for this bug fix
[18:14] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: stand by
[18:14] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: thanks
[18:16] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: I'm rejecting it due to no Launchpad bugs being fixed in the changelog
[18:16] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: ahh thanks. discrepancy of our typical SRU expection vs this case
[18:16] <blackboxsw> thanks
[18:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected cloud-init [source] (impish-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~21.10.3]
[18:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected cloud-init [source] (bionic-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~18.04.3]
[18:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected cloud-init [source] (focal-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~20.04.3]
[18:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (bionic-proposed/main) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~18.04.2 => 22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~18.04.3] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[18:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (focal-proposed/main) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~20.04.2 => 22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~20.04.3] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)
[18:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (impish-proposed/main) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~21.10.2 => 22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~21.10.3] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[18:25] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: fixed thans
[18:25] <blackboxsw> thanks
[18:26] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: you already used your one review ;-)
[18:27] <mitya57> Hi all! I have Qt 5.15.3 transition almost ready to land: https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/4803/+packages. It's a bugfix release but I had to rebuild all reverse dependencies of private ABI (as usual with Qt). Any objections if I try to land it tomorrow or on the weekend?
[18:28] <bdmurray> The autopkgtest queue is a hot mess right now
[18:29] <bdmurray> I'd really prefer we not add more things to the queue until we get things settled down a bit
[18:31] <tjaalton> bdmurray: hi, lukasz is off, so do you think bolt backport for bug 1962349 is ok for focal?
[18:32] <mitya57> bdmurray: ok. How long do you expect it to be in this state?
[18:33] <bdmurray> mitya57: IDK we've been having an issue with one of the clouds but I think its stabilized.
[20:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (impish-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~21.10.3]
[20:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (focal-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~20.04.3]
[20:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (bionic-proposed) [22.1-14-g2e17a0d6-0ubuntu1~18.04.3]
[20:34] <blackboxsw> excellent bdmurray thanks for that. we'll kick off integration test verification runs as soon as this shows up in -proposed
[20:43] <dbungert> \o/
[21:19] <bdmurray> vorlon: Did you get a chance to look at the .img vs .iso issue?
[21:34] <bdmurray> vorlon: I think I found it
[22:23] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: we've stolen so much of your time today. But verification-done and test logs complete on the `regression-updates` bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-init/+bug/1966085  which fixes snap and subiquity-based Desktop installer concerns.
[22:23] <blackboxsw> brian: I know we don't release on Friday, so I was thinking of pinging RA-OF in this case for final review since you've done all the lifting for the initial review
[22:35] <bdmurray> For the record I've sorted the .img vs .iso image creation issue but have only rebuilt ubuntu-desktop so far.
[22:38] <bryceh> ubuntu-archive, would someone be able to assist with removal of php-doctrine-bundle? (LP: #1966106)  It is the last thing blocking symfony (composer just migrated)
[22:42] <bdmurray> RAOF: ^
[22:58] <RAOF> (On a call, will look once it's done)
[23:01] <vorlon> bdmurray: I had not yet - is it resolved now?
[23:03] <bdmurray> vorlon: Yes.
[23:04] <vorlon> ok
[23:04] <vorlon> I notice that the argument to these functions has changed from a string to a list
[23:32] <RAOF> bryceh: Enjoy! Hopefully that does indeed get symfony migrated!
[23:33] <Eickmeyer[m]> bdmurray and vorlon: Many thanks to you both. I'm sorry I'm not always the least-demanding individual.
[23:35] <bryceh> RAOF, excellent, thanks!
[23:45] <vorlon> doko: did you want python3.10-nopie seeded in main?