[03:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-control-center (jammy-proposed/main) [1:41.7-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 1:41.7-0ubuntu0.22.04.2] (ubuntu-desktop)
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fenicsx-performance-tests [amd64] (kinetic-proposed/none) [0.4.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fenicsx-performance-tests [ppc64el] (kinetic-proposed/none) [0.4.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fenicsx-performance-tests [s390x] (kinetic-proposed/none) [0.4.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fenicsx-performance-tests [armhf] (kinetic-proposed/none) [0.4.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fenicsx-performance-tests [arm64] (kinetic-proposed/none) [0.4.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fenicsx-performance-tests [arm64] (kinetic-proposed) [0.4.0-1]
[05:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fenicsx-performance-tests [ppc64el] (kinetic-proposed) [0.4.0-1]
[05:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fenicsx-performance-tests [armhf] (kinetic-proposed) [0.4.0-1]
[05:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fenicsx-performance-tests [s390x] (kinetic-proposed) [0.4.0-1]
[05:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fenicsx-performance-tests [amd64] (kinetic-proposed) [0.4.0-1]
[08:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (jammy-proposed/main) [249.11-0ubuntu3.3 => 249.11-0ubuntu3.4] (core, i386-whitelist)
[09:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted systemd [source] (jammy-proposed) [249.11-0ubuntu3.4]
[09:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: xlnx-default-bitstreams (jammy-proposed/primary) [2022.1-0ubuntu1~22.04.1]
[09:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xlnx-default-bitstreams [source] (jammy-proposed) [2022.1-0ubuntu1~22.04.1]
[09:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xlnx-default-bitstreams [arm64] (jammy-proposed/multiverse) [2022.1-0ubuntu1~22.04.1] (no packageset)
[09:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xlnx-default-bitstreams [arm64] (jammy-proposed) [2022.1-0ubuntu1~22.04.1]
=== Mirv__ is now known as Mirv
[10:07] <ricotz> hello, please re-try the failed archs of https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-toolchain-14/1:14.0.6-1
[10:14] <seb128> ricotz, retried
[10:20] <ricotz> seb128, thanks
[10:38] <LocutusOfBorg> ricotz, why should i386 succeed now?
[10:39] <LocutusOfBorg> I ask because in Debian i386 is failing the same way
[10:39] <LocutusOfBorg> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=llvm-toolchain-14
[10:39] <LocutusOfBorg> so if something got fixed in toolchain, please let me know and I can retry
[10:44] <ricotz> LocutusOfBorg, hi, I see, I assumed it got stuck by some race caused by the stressed builders farm
[10:46] <ricotz> LocutusOfBorg, looks like the builders are still quite grumpy today :(
[11:09] <ricotz> LocutusOfBorg, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-toolchain-14/1:14.0.6-1/+build/24112253
[11:09] <LocutusOfBorg> mdh
[13:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell-extension-desktop-icons-ng (jammy-proposed/main) [43-2 => 43-2ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[14:04] <paride> bdmurray, hey, https://code.launchpad.net/~paride/auto-upgrade-testing-specifications/set-debian-frontend/+merge/425732 should fix the remaining flavor upgrade tests
[14:07] <jbicha> bdmurray: good morning, please review gnome-shell-extension-desktop-icons-ng/jammy since it's urgent for OEM
[15:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: brltty (jammy-proposed/main) [6.4-4ubuntu2 => 6.4-4ubuntu3] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[15:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-shell-extension-desktop-icons-ng [source] (jammy-proposed) [43-2ubuntu1]
[15:54] <bdmurray> jbicha: approved / accepted
[16:41] <ricotz> LocutusOfBorg, :( https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-toolchain-14/1:14.0.6-1/+build/24112253
[17:05] <ricotz> bdmurray, hi :), could you restart llvm ? ^
[17:06] <bdmurray> ricotz: yes, given that there is no build log
[17:06] <ricotz> thx
[18:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (impish-proposed/main) [1:21.10.9 => 1:21.10.10] (core)
[21:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libdigidoc [amd64] (kinetic-proposed/universe) [3.10.5-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[21:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libdigidoc [ppc64el] (kinetic-proposed/universe) [3.10.5-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[21:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libdigidoc [armhf] (kinetic-proposed/universe) [3.10.5-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[21:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libdigidoc [s390x] (kinetic-proposed/universe) [3.10.5-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[21:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libdigidoc [arm64] (kinetic-proposed/universe) [3.10.5-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[21:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libdigidoc [riscv64] (kinetic-proposed/universe) [3.10.5-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[21:39] <Eickmeyer> Could I get a rebuild of the ubuntustudio kinetic image? The test tracker won't let me due to a previous failure.
[21:41] <Eickmeyer> Unless there's another method I don't know about.
[22:14] <tsimonq2> <Eickmeyer> "Could I get a rebuild of the..." <- That's something to get fixed...
[22:15] <tsimonq2> Wdym by "previous failure"?
[22:15] <Eickmeyer> tsimonq2: I had earlier used the same tool to request a rebuild. That rebuild failed, resulting in the same button being "stuck" and unable to request anotehr rebuild.
[22:17] <tsimonq2> Eickmeyer: How sure are you that it isn't just iso.q.u.c showing it as stuck while it's still building? Do you know how to check your livefs builds?
[22:18] <Eickmeyer> tsimonq2: I'm very familiar: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/kinetic/ubuntustudio/
[22:18] <Eickmeyer> It's been stuck like that for days now.
[22:18] <tsimonq2> Eickmeyer: So the QA tracker won't let you rebuild? What errors are you getting?
[22:19] <Eickmeyer> tsimonq2: It doesn't give me an error, it just doesn't do anything at this point. It noops.
[22:21] <tsimonq2> Eickmeyer: It's a cronjob on the backend unless something has changed in the last 5 years or so... it simply won't work even after a few hours?
[22:21] <Eickmeyer> tsimonq2: Not if 1) my rebuild request fails to build, and 2) each subsequent build fails to build.
[22:22]  * tsimonq2 wonders if someone with SSH access can pull some logs
[22:23] <Eickmeyer> Usually someone with ssh access can easily just activate a rebuild and if everything goes right it's all OK. But, honestly, being unable to request a rebuild myself is rather inconvenient for everyone if a rebuild request fails.
[22:24] <tsimonq2> I agree. I'm willing to throw a patch at some code if the log catching is thorough :)
=== mfo_ is now known as mfo