[07:00] <stgraber> Repeating my message from yesterday, langpacks are broken on focal ppc64el. Not sure if related to the point release.
[07:00] <stgraber> https://jenkins.linuxcontainers.org/job/image-ubuntu/architecture=ppc64el,release=focal,variant=default/lastFailedBuild/console
[07:01] <stgraber> (this is only focal and only ppc64el, has been going on since the 28th apparently
[07:01] <stgraber> )
[07:29] <seb128> the desktop livefs builds have all been failing on dns issues since tuesday (desktop, canary, kubuntu, xubuntu, lubuntu), it doesn't seem random flakyness on the infra and the server job don't have the issue, does anyone has an idea?
[08:09] <rs2009> seb128: I was actually working on this morning. Looks like there are issues with systemd-resolved in the chroot. We could temporarily use a nameserver like 1.1.1.1 in /etc/resolv.conf for the builds (I'll submit an MR for that, if that's okay)
[08:10] <seb128> rs2009, I raised it with the foundations team on their private channel, I think it's a systemd regression in kinetic, resolved got split and isn't installed
[08:11] <rs2009> seb128: ah. I also noticed that after running `apt install` for the first time, the contents of /etc/resolv.conf are empty
[08:11] <seb128> rs2009, in which env?
[08:13] <rs2009> seb128: this was when building locally. both the contents of the host's and chroot's resolv.conf were empty after running apt the first time in the build
[08:13] <seb128> rs2009, locally as in a kinetic desktop installation? chroot env?
[08:14] <seb128> daily kinetic install?
[08:14] <rs2009> seb128, in a jammy desktop installation
[08:14] <seb128> k, weird
[08:14] <seb128> if jammy had broken DNS that would have been reported by now
[08:15] <seb128> I'm unsure what issue you have but it's probably different from the kinetic builders
[08:36] <ogra> seb128, https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/snap-refresh-changes-dns/31531 ... (pretty sure it is a coincidence and not snap induced but there seems to be *something* with DNS in some setups)
[08:38] <ogra> rs2009, the builders are behind a firewall in the datacenter, i doubt switching to a google nameserver would actually resolve ...
[08:39] <rs2009> ogra: oh yep, we did figure out the root cause (I'm currently testing livecd-rootfs with the new 'systemd-resolved' package installed). also, that's actually a cloudflare nameserver ;)
[08:40] <toabctl> the latest ubuntu:18.04 docker image contains libsystemd0:amd64 version 237-3ubuntu10.54 . now there is a bug report (https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-images/+bug/1988498) that this version is not available in the archive. I looked at the build logs (see https://launchpadlibrarian.net/620797470/buildlog_ubuntu_bionic_amd64_amd64-minimized-all_ubuntu-oci_BUILDING.txt.gz) and that version was pulled from the bionic-security
[08:40] <toabctl> pocket. but the version is no longer there (instead the version is now in -proposed). any hints what happened there?
[08:41] <seb128> toabctl, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1988119
[08:42] <seb128> toabctl, it was removed to avoid more people hitting ^ while the issue was being investigated
[08:42] <toabctl> seb128, oh. ok. so instead of reverting the change and increase the version number, we just remove versions? interesting ...
[08:42] <toabctl> thx for helping
[08:43] <seb128> toabctl, it's faster to press the delete button than to push an upgrade through
[08:43] <seb128> so it's sometime a first step to prevent more users to get the buggy version faster
[08:44] <seb128> also read the bug for the details but in that case it's the fact of updating systemd which triggers the issue so pushing another version on top wouldn't have helped
[08:44] <amurray> toabctl: also note if we had pushed an update which just reverted the security patch this would have got triggered a second time - the bug wasn't the security patch - it was an interaction between open-vm-tools and systemd
[08:44] <amurray> heh like seb said
[08:45] <amurray> fyi the security team is working with the sustaining engineering team on a proper fix for this issue - this will get published early next week I expect so this will supercede 237-3ubuntu10.54
[08:46] <toabctl> ok. thanks for helping. let's push a new docker image then to fix the problem there, too
[08:51] <sil2100> waveform: hey! Did you update the raspi installer config for .5?
[09:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ubuntu-unity-backgrounds (kinetic-proposed/primary) [22.10-1]
[10:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: yt-dlp (jammy-backports/universe) [2022.08.19-1~bpo22.04.1 => 2022.09.01-1~bpo22.04.1] (no packageset)
[11:04] <waveform> sil2100, yup -- and bdmurray merged it -- looks like it's live now
[11:50] <seb128> sil2100, hey, is there anything to do to get autopkgtests tried on bileto or is that automatic?
[11:54] <amurray> seb128: you have to poke it in the right way - these are the usual steps I follow https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2022-June/019271.html
[11:54] <seb128> amurray, ah, thanks
[11:56] <seb128> I think I mostly did the same, so let's wait :)
[13:24] <LocutusOfBorg> coreycb, FYI your src:intervals is superseeded by debian python-intervals source
[13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: python-intervals (kinetic-proposed/primary) [0.9.2-2]
[13:25] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, ^^ please accept this, contains some bugfixes coming from new upstream release, no new features
[13:27] <LocutusOfBorg> LP: #1988573
[13:49] <coreycb> LocutusOfBorg: thanks. I think we can sync from debian and remove the one in ubuntu. the only delta I think we should submit to debian is the autopkgtests that @icey[m] added.
[13:50] <LocutusOfBorg> https://sources.debian.org/src/python-intervals/0.9.2-2/debian/tests/
[13:50] <LocutusOfBorg> coreycb, ^^ arent them enough?
[13:51] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't see any autopkgtest changes in git https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-server-dev/ubuntu/+source/intervals/log/ neither in src:intervals
[13:52] <coreycb> LocutusOfBorg: ah perfect, thanks
[13:52] <coreycb> LocutusOfBorg: I was reading the diff backwards :/
[13:53] <coreycb> LocutusOfBorg: all good, want me to sync?
[14:14] <LocutusOfBorg> its already in sync queue :D
[16:12] <rs2009> would be great if someone could take a look at the new package upload queue (these are the only packages remaining which need to be uploaded to the repos for a complete Ubuntu Unity daily ISO build) https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/kinetic/+queue?queue_state=0
[16:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-intervals [sync] (kinetic-proposed) [0.9.2-2]
[16:14] <rs2009> sil2100 and vorlon: is it alright if I temporarily enabled the proposed pocket for the Ubuntu Unity daily ISO build? (once these packages are approved, they'll be uploaded to proposed)
[16:15] <vorlon> rs2009: this is driven by the livefs build and the cdimage-master invocation, you don't really have access to do this; anyway it's not worth doing as this will be resolved shortly
[16:15] <rs2009> vorlon: ah okay
[16:16] <vorlon> rs2009: did you run lintian before these were uploaded? E: ubuntu-unity-settings source: malformed-debian-changelog-version 22.10-1 (for native)
[16:18] <rs2009> vorlon: ah, I'll change the version number for both
[16:27] <vorlon> rs2009: please look over the other output of 'lintian -I ubuntu-unity-setting_22.10-1.dsc'
[16:29] <tsimonq2> "Always run Lintian with -EviL +pedantic - just like your sponsors" :P
[16:31] <vorlon> rs2009: why does ubuntu-unity-settings have a hard-coded dependency on a shared library? (libglib2.0-0)
[16:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-515 (jammy-proposed/restricted) [515.65.01-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 515.65.01-0ubuntu0.22.04.2] (i386-whitelist)
[16:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-510 (jammy-proposed/restricted) [510.85.02-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 510.85.02-0ubuntu0.22.04.2] (i386-whitelist)
[16:33] <rs2009> vorlon: ah, I'll remove that dep
[16:43] <vorlon> mwhudson: wat https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/insighttoolkit4/4.13.3withdata-dfsg2-3build1/+build/24314483
[17:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-515 [source] (jammy-proposed) [515.65.01-0ubuntu0.22.04.2]
[17:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-510 [source] (jammy-proposed) [510.85.02-0ubuntu0.22.04.2]
[17:17] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, question: did you try a no change rebuild of pandoc 2.9.2.1-3ubuntu2 before doing the merge?
[17:17] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe it works and we can finish this transition
[17:20] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: not that I recall; the last attempt of  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pandoc/2.9.2.1-3ubuntu3/+build/23804001 was end of July.  Just checked now, and there's a << build-dep on libghc-aeson-dev.
[17:20] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, bumped epoch and uploaded in my ppa
[17:21] <LocutusOfBorg> I remember issues on armhf and whatever
[17:21] <LocutusOfBorg> but maybe they were fixed with newer ghc
[17:21] <LocutusOfBorg> https://launchpad.net/%7Ecostamagnagianfranco/+archive/ubuntu/locutusofborg-ppa/+sourcepub/13901350/+listing-archive-extra
[17:21] <LocutusOfBorg> fingers crossed
[17:21] <vorlon> ginggs_: fyi Debian bug #1018961 filed about pypandoc autopkgtests
[17:22] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: per the above, it won't work, unsatisfiable build-deps
[17:23] <LocutusOfBorg> mmm indeed
[17:23] <LocutusOfBorg> :/
[17:28] <vorlon> xnox: aren't these zfs-linux autopkgtests pointless on armhf because ZFS is not supported on 32-bit archs? https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/z/zfs-linux/kinetic/armhf
[17:44] <vorlon> heh I see someone has already retriggered the pandoc/armhf build ( LocutusOfBorg ?)
[17:54] <vorlon> will try to figure out why haddock is not giving any output
[17:58] <ginggs> vorlon: thanks for filing that bug about pypandoc's autopkgtests. I don't think autopkgtests are considered when attempting to migrate after auto-removal.
[18:01] <vorlon> ginggs: makes sense that they wouldn't be. I didn't try removing pypandoc because it has non-trivial revdeps
[18:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ubuntu-unity-backgrounds (kinetic-proposed/primary) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[18:58] <mitya57> Please reject ubuntu-unity-backgrounds and ubuntu-unity-settings 22.10-1 from kinetic New queue. I have re-uploaded them with correct version, 22.10-0ubuntu1.
[18:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: ubuntu-unity-settings (kinetic-proposed/primary) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[18:59] <rs2009> vorlon: hey, could you take a look at the packages now)? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/kinetic/+queue?queue_state=0
[18:59] <rs2009> (no lintian errors now)
[19:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected ubuntu-unity-backgrounds [source] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-1]
[19:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected ubuntu-unity-settings [source] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-1]
[19:17] <vorlon> rs2009: well, ubuntu-unity-settings would've been perfectly fine as a native package with a 22.10 version number; but this is also ok
[19:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-unity-settings [source] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[19:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-unity-settings [amd64] (kinetic-proposed/none) [22.10-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[19:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-unity-settings [ppc64el] (kinetic-proposed/none) [22.10-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[19:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-unity-settings [armhf] (kinetic-proposed/none) [22.10-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[19:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-unity-settings [s390x] (kinetic-proposed/none) [22.10-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[19:20] <rs2009> vorlon: ah, thanks :) what about ubuntu-unity-backgrounds?
[19:21] <vorlon> rs2009: will look in a minute
[19:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-unity-settings [arm64] (kinetic-proposed/none) [22.10-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[19:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: fonts-vazirmatn (focal-proposed/primary) [33.003-0ubuntu1]
[19:27] <bdmurray> vorlon: We should probably fully phase tzdata given the last comment in bug 1986984
[19:28] <rs2009> vorlon, was also wondering how much time it would take for the packages to be promoted to universe from proposed? (asking since I wanted to understand whether the daily ISO build today would include all the Ubuntu Unity changes or not)
[19:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-unity-settings [riscv64] (kinetic-proposed/none) [22.10-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[19:57] <vorlon> bdmurray: done
[19:58] <vorlon> rs2009: it varies. https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html is the output of the code that drives promotion; if things are working well a run takes an hour, so promotion would happen <2h after the binaries are published
[19:59] <vorlon> rs2009: fwiw ubuntu-unity-settings probably should have been an Arch: all package since the binary contents are identical across architectures
[20:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-unity-settings [amd64] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[20:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-unity-settings [armhf] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[20:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-unity-settings [riscv64] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[20:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-unity-settings [arm64] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[20:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-unity-settings [s390x] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[20:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-unity-settings [ppc64el] (kinetic-proposed) [22.10-0ubuntu1]
[20:01] <vorlon> rs2009: the same for ubuntu-unity-backgrounds; if you don't mind, I'm going to reupload with this changed, so that we don't have to deal with difficulties changing it later
[20:02] <vorlon> rs2009: ubuntu-unity-backgrounds also needs reuploading because debian/copyright is wrong.  Ubuntu Unity is not a copyright holder, it's not a legal entity
[20:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: fonts-vazirmatn (focal-proposed/primary) [33.003-0ubuntu1]
[20:08] <vorlon> https://ci.debian.net/packages/b/blasr/ blergh another example of ci.debian.net not understanding binNMUs causing wrong migrations
[20:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected fonts-vazirmatn [source] (focal-proposed) [33.003-0ubuntu1]
[20:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected fonts-vazirmatn [source] (focal-proposed) [33.003-0ubuntu1]
[20:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: fonts-vazirmatn (kinetic-proposed/primary) [33.003-0ubuntu1]
[20:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fonts-vazirmatn [source] (kinetic-proposed) [33.003-0ubuntu1]
[20:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fonts-vazirmatn [amd64] (kinetic-proposed/none) [33.003-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[20:17] <mwhudson> vorlon: c++ is strong drugs?
[20:17] <vorlon> possession is a <drumroll> class C felony
[20:34] <sarnold> boooooo booooooo
[20:38] <vorlon> sarnold: thank you ;)
[20:39] <sarnold> :D
[21:11] <Eickmeyer[m]> vorlon: That was puntastic.
[21:44] <vorlon> per discussion on #debian-haskell, haskell-devscripts uploaded with a patch to not build the docs during a binary-arch build
[21:44] <vorlon> since the bit of the pandoc/armhf build that was hanging is the doc build, this may get us over the hump
[23:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apport [source] (jammy-proposed) [2.20.11-0ubuntu82.2]
[23:18] <sergiodj> hi.  I've just filed this FFe: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/elfutils/+bug/1988608.  not expecting anyone to take a look at it so soon, but thought I'd mention just in case
[23:24] <vorlon> sergiodj: too bad, it's approved now
[23:25] <sergiodj> vorlon: thank you
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted qtbase-opensource-src [source] (jammy-proposed) [5.15.3+dfsg-2ubuntu0.2]
[23:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (jammy-proposed) [1:22.04.14]