[14:55] <juliank> méôw
[14:59] <bdrung> wuff
[14:59] <ginggs> o/
[14:59] <alexghiti> o/
[14:59] <slyon> o/
[15:00] <ogayot> o/
[15:00] <sil2100> o/
[15:00] <jawn-smith> #startmeeting Weekly Ubuntu Foundations team
[15:00] <meetingology> Meeting started at 15:00:33 UTC.  The chair is jawn-smith.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[15:00] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[15:00] <jawn-smith> #topic Lightning Round
[15:00] <jawn-smith> The status is here: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/foundations-team-updates-thursday-07-july-2022/29330/2
[15:02] <mclemenceau> o/
[15:04] <bdmurray> bdrung: With apport's autopkgtests they aren't running / skipped for armhf on previous releases. Are the any chances of it being SRU'ed.
[15:05] <bdmurray> ?
[15:05] <bdrung> bdmurray, the current uploaded apport SRU fixes several autopkgtest (but not all for armhf). I can include all needed autopkgtest fixes in the next SRUs to let autopkgtest succeed on all archs.
[15:06] <bdrung> IIRC except for one or two cases, all needed changes were only for the tests itself.
[15:06] <bdmurray> If it is just test fixes then using block-proposed-$release sounds appropriate. I was asking because if they are fixed then they shouldn't be denylisted any more.
[15:08] <bdrung> bdmurray, i will take care of removing it from the denylist
[15:08] <bdmurray> https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/autopkgtest-cloud/+git/autopkgtest-package-configs/tree/never_run here is the never_run list
[15:09] <jawn-smith> #topic Release incoming bugs
[15:09] <jawn-smith> rls-kk is empty today
[15:09] <jawn-smith> #link https://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-jj-incoming-bug-tasks.html#foundations-bugs
[15:09] <jawn-smith> bug 1979874
[15:09] <slyon> I tried to quickly reproduce this one. Results were inconsistent...
[15:10] <slyon> Not sure if it needs to be carded
[15:10] <jawn-smith> It's worth investigating. Does that investigation require a card mclemenceau ?
[15:11] <mclemenceau> maybe we can leave it in LP for a little bit and revisit a little later in the cycle or if there's more impacted user?
[15:12] <jawn-smith> Sounds good, let's remove the rls-jj tag
[15:12] <jawn-smith> bug 1980589
[15:13] <jawn-smith> Is this really update-notifier?
[15:13] <bdmurray> I think it does some motd stuff
[15:13] <jawn-smith> Okay, who tends to work on update-notifier
[15:13] <jawn-smith> ?
[15:13] <juliank> sometimes
[15:14] <jawn-smith> Does anyone have an opinion on the importance of this bug?
[15:15] <juliank> let's card it that's very confusing
[15:16] <bdmurray> Medium or Low I'd say
[15:16] <juliank> especially it says there are security updates so it's scary and confusing if that happens
[15:16] <jawn-smith> Okay we've agreed to card it
[15:16] <jawn-smith> mclemenceau: would you do the honors?
[15:16] <mclemenceau> sure thing
[15:16] <jawn-smith> Thanks!
[15:17] <jawn-smith> rls-ii and rls-ff are actually empty
[15:17] <sil2100> \o/
[15:17] <jawn-smith> #topic Team proposed-migration report
[15:17] <jawn-smith> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses_by_team.html#foundations-bugs
[15:17] <jawn-smith> vorlon:
[15:18] <vorlon> let's see!
[15:18] <vorlon> ubuntu-meta: still in Desktop's court
[15:18] <vorlon> python3-stdlib-extensions: doko, is this still yours?
[15:19] <doko> yes
[15:19] <vorlon> ok
[15:20] <vorlon> usb-creator: as noted in the weekly status, the MIR is moving forward
[15:20] <vorlon> mutt: gsasl MIR
[15:20] <jawn-smith> waiting on security team
[15:21] <vorlon> systemd: was skipped last time, should that just be retried?  (but it's blocking a kernel package and they have their own test matrix that's invisible to us)
[15:21] <slyon> should be re-tried. systemd 251 already migrated in the meantime
[15:21] <vorlon> last week we said llvm-toolchain-14 was ftbfs for the same reason as gcc; gcc has been fixed but llvm-toolchain-14 not?
[15:21] <vorlon> so does someone want to follow through on llvm?
[15:22] <vorlon> ah it's built now on every arch but riscv64 and that one is building
[15:22] <vorlon> so probably nothing to do here
[15:22] <doko> hmm, that was for arm64. I didn't check risc64 yet. it's currently building
[15:22] <ginggs> it's only waiting on a riscv64 build, that keeps failing without logs
[15:24] <vorlon> lintian: I saw there was a mention of this in the weekly status; MIR is open, is anyone filling those out?
[15:24] <slyon> vorlon: no we need somebody to fill those
[15:24] <slyon> I did some initial investigation and marked some false-positves
[15:25] <vorlon> ginggs: thanks for volunteering on lintian
[15:26] <vorlon> with ogayot helping (slyon can help point out which part of the MIR could be split off)
[15:26] <slyon> ack
[15:26] <vorlon> curl ftbfs on several archs. dbungert can you take this?
[15:26] <dbungert> vorlon: ack
[15:26] <vorlon> it also ftbfs in Debian fwiw
[15:26] <dbungert> good datapoint
[15:27] <jawn-smith> oh I had curl last week
[15:27] <vorlon> oh
[15:27] <jawn-smith> Didn't get to it with the long weekend and +1 maintenance
[15:27] <vorlon> sorry I thought we were into the stuff that was too new to have been assigned
[15:27] <vorlon> ok curl: jawn-smith
[15:28] <vorlon> pygments: there's an update-excuse bug that points at pytest which needs a merge; dbungert can you take this instead?
[15:28] <dbungert> vorlon: ack for pygments
[15:28] <vorlon> gcc-11: also just waiting for a build on riscv64
[15:29] <vorlon> libxcrypt vs perl: doko does your latest merge fix this?
[15:29] <doko> I hope so
[15:30] <vorlon> bdrung: can you follow through to make sure it actually does?
[15:30] <bdrung> okay
[15:30] <vorlon> (and also db5.3)
[15:30] <vorlon> and, apparently, also dpkg :P
[15:30] <vorlon> a whole lot of perl autopkgtest failures!
[15:31] <vorlon> casper vs localechooser: I uploaded this, I'll take it
[15:31] <vorlon> and that's the bottom of the list
[15:31] <vorlon> jawn-smith:
[15:31] <jawn-smith> #topic AOB
[15:32] <dbungert> the pygments update-excuse, LP: #1980296, raises the concern that a merge of pytest-7 would potentially affect 2000 packages, I assume we proceed?  treat it as a transition?
[15:33] <ginggs> pytest migration is progressing nicely in debian
[15:33] <ginggs> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pytest
[15:33] <ginggs> only 9 failures left, and they are being worked on
[15:35] <ginggs> you could start now by checking whether we need a merge or a sync
[15:35] <dbungert> OK
[15:36] <jawn-smith> #endmeeting
[15:36] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 15:36:54 UTC.  Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-07-07-15.00.moin.txt
[15:37] <sil2100> Thanks!
[15:38] <slyon> o/