| fheimes714 | hi, could someone (coredev) with 'superpowers' please run these three autopkgtest re-triggers for me https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/8jX9MCXHpy/ ? | 07:34 |
|---|---|---|
| ginggs | fheimes714: looking... | 07:35 |
| ginggs | . | 07:37 |
| fheimes714 | thx ginggs! | 07:45 |
| lesshaste | sarnold, thanks | 10:42 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, ok... in this case it just literally needs v3.66 of beamer instead of v3.65 | 10:42 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, I entered a bug report as requested | 10:43 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, beamer is included in texlive-latex-extra | 10:45 |
| lesshaste | sorry...texlive-latex-recommended | 10:46 |
| lesshaste | https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/texlive-base/+bug/1989737 | 10:48 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1989737 in texlive-base (Ubuntu) "Bug in beamer with fix in v3.66" [Undecided, New] | 10:48 |
| rbasak | lesshaste: we can't just update texlive in Jammy because that would probably include a bunch of unrelated changes that affect users who expect stuff not to change | 10:51 |
| rbasak | lesshaste: can you identify the specific upstream that is required here please? | 10:51 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, is it possible to just update beamer? | 10:51 |
| rbasak | Specific upstream fix I mean. | 10:51 |
| rbasak | I don't know. I'm not familiar with the packaging in this package. It's more complicated than average. | 10:52 |
| rbasak | Even for beamer, we would generally only cherry-pick the specific fix required. | 10:52 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, ah ok... let me see | 10:52 |
| rbasak | That might be easily identifiable if beamer upstream have a git repository, but I don't know where that would be. | 10:52 |
| lesshaste | https://github.com/josephwright/beamer | 10:54 |
| lesshaste | I am looking there now | 10:54 |
| lesshaste | we want "fixed regression of class options not being passed to packages like xcolor (see #759)" | 10:54 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, it is https://github.com/josephwright/beamer/commit/f769f2ff60f3ade9b920f743ff65b46e5013758a | 10:59 |
| ubottu | Commit f769f2f in josephwright/beamer "pgfcore must not be loaded before processing the package options, otherwise it will break things like #759" | 10:59 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, are you sure it wouldn't be better just to update beamer to v3.66? | 11:00 |
| rbasak | lesshaste: we have quality requirements to do that. See here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#New_upstream_microreleases | 11:00 |
| rbasak | In this case, it looks like beamer doesn't have a test suite, so that suggests it doesn't meet our requirements. | 11:01 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, ok... the authors are currently available on the tex.stackexchange.com chat room in case you wanted to talk to them | 11:01 |
| lesshaste | they are very nice :) | 11:01 |
| lesshaste | otherwise, will the fix I pasted help? | 11:01 |
| rbasak | Yes that looks like it can be cherry-picked | 11:02 |
| rbasak | We need to find someone to volunteer to drive that. I'm busy at the moment :-/ | 11:02 |
| rbasak | Steps are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure | 11:03 |
| lesshaste | thanks.. one more thing... if we are not updating the version number the license requires they mark it as not the same beamer as everyone else has | 11:03 |
| rbasak | Please note that in the bug then please, and whoever volunteers the fix will need to comply with the license. | 11:04 |
| rbasak | I'm far less inclined to volunteer my help now though because of that. Sorry. | 11:05 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, ok | 11:05 |
| ratchanan | Hello. Did anyone notice that the latest vim update on Focal fails to build on armhf and s390x, causing ubuntu-minimal (via vim-tiny) to be uninstallable? | 11:06 |
| rbasak | It introduces qusetions like: what's sufficient to make it clear it's not the same as the upstream release? | 11:07 |
| lesshaste | I can see the problem with not updating version numbers when people ask on q&a sites and it turns out they are using a version that is not expected | 11:08 |
| lesshaste | despite what it says in the logs | 11:08 |
| lesshaste | I guess you could call it v.3.65-ubuntu | 11:08 |
| lesshaste | v3.65-ubuntu | 11:09 |
| lesshaste | in any case, I am just trying to help others :) It was a total pain when I found this bug | 11:09 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, apparently there is a test suite | 11:11 |
| lesshaste | (it might only have one test in it currently) | 11:11 |
| rbasak | The package version be bumped anyway, and distributions routinely patch packages like that. So it's likely legal regardless. But it's not worth going into that, even if legal, if your community thinks otherwise. | 11:21 |
| rbasak | That's not really a test suite then, is it? :) | 11:21 |
| rbasak | Notably this bugfix didn't come with a test. | 11:21 |
| rbasak | If that's not routinely done, then the upstream certainly doesn't meet that part of our requirements. | 11:21 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, understood. Thanks so much for chatting about this. It's what I love about open source software | 11:22 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, It's not really my community. I was literally relaying what the authors were saying in the tex.stackexchange chat room when I asked them | 11:23 |
| rbasak | OK :) | 11:23 |
| lesshaste | I hope it can be fixed to save the next person from the problem I had | 11:23 |
| lesshaste | in any case, hugely appreciated. Thank you | 11:23 |
| rbasak | Sorry I couldn't help. | 11:26 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, you helped a lot! Hopefully someone will pick up the improved bug report | 11:28 |
| lesshaste | do you have any feeling for the number of the size of the pool of people who might possibly do that? | 11:28 |
| lesshaste | sorry.... for the size of the pool | 11:28 |
| lesshaste | oh I just saw your update | 11:29 |
| rbasak | lesshaste: to be clear, I'd be happy if somebody did work on the fix. I'm just trying to set expectatiosn here. | 11:36 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, ok thanks. Won't Fix just looks like a permanent status | 11:37 |
| rbasak | lesshaste: roughly, this is the set of people who are approved to upload: https://launchpad.net/~motu/+members | 11:37 |
| rbasak | lesshaste: I tried to make it clear in my comment that it's not. | 11:38 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, thanks! That's a good long list | 11:38 |
| lesshaste | heavy on the names starting with M | 11:38 |
| rbasak | Please don't harass them individually though. You can reach them collectively here, in #ubuntu-motu, or on the ubuntu-motu@ mailing list. | 11:38 |
| rbasak | M for MOTU I guess :-P | 11:39 |
| lesshaste | :) | 11:42 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, I try not to harrass anyone ever! | 11:42 |
| rbasak | Indeed you've been very polite. Thanks :) | 11:44 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, you have been charming too :) | 12:03 |
| paride | hmm, I am a bit surprised by the debdiff of a SRU upload I did: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/623539153/autopkgtest_5.20_5.20ubuntu1.diff.gz | 12:44 |
| paride | my tarball doesn't include .gitignore, which is left out by dpkg-source as by default it excludes the .gitignore file (see -I.gitignore in `dpkg-source --help`) | 12:45 |
| paride | so I wonder why the Debian maintainer deviates from the dpkg-source default, and I wonder if the SRU team will prefer a new upload that doesn't touch .gitignore | 12:47 |
| ginggs | paride: i wonder if that was uploaded by dgit, i'll ask | 13:08 |
| paride | https://browse.dgit.debian.org/autopkgtest.git/log/ has rich git history, so maybe that's the reason | 13:12 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, what does "fix released" mean on my bug report? It seems positive | 13:39 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, does it just means that there is an upstream fix that has been released? | 13:40 |
| rbasak | lesshaste: just that the related upstream bug is fixed upstream | 13:41 |
| lesshaste | rbasak, ok thanks | 13:42 |
| lesshaste | it looked exciting :) | 13:42 |
| rbasak | Which is good, but you knew that status already, so no really news to us. The bug tracker is just catching up. | 13:42 |
| lesshaste | got you | 13:42 |
| ginggs | paride: the uploader confirmed it was a dgit upload | 16:33 |
| ginggs | sergiodj: what is up with the pagure build? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pagure/5.11.3+dfsg-1 | 16:35 |
| ginggs | a successful build gets to 'dpkg-buildpackage: info: binary-only upload (no source included)' then gets killed after 150 minutes of inactivity | 16:35 |
| dbungert | Eickmeyer: I don't think a Kinetic build of Audiacity is happing near-term. I'm not even clear how this builds on focal, they seem to be doing stuff the c++ headers ask them not to. I'm going to share what I have back to Salsa and you may want to investigate seriously the snap option. | 17:29 |
| Eickmeyer | dbungert: Yeah, that's where I'm landing too. Should be relatively easy. | 17:38 |
| Eickmeyer | The snap that is. | 17:38 |
| enr0n | Can a core dev please trigger this PPA autopkgtest for me? https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=kinetic&arch=ppc64el&package=systemd&ppa=enr0n/systemd-251&trigger=systemd/251.4-1ubuntu5~ppa1 | 18:53 |
| enr0n | TIA | 18:53 |
| dbungert | enr0n: done | 19:05 |
| enr0n | dbungert: thanks! | 19:05 |
| sergiodj | ginggs: the package is in a bad state, and upstream is unfortunately slowly dying. I will see if I can fix it this weekend on Debian, but I strongly believe it should be removed from Ubuntu meanwhile | 19:45 |
| ginggs | sergiodj: thanks! the weird thing is since 5.10.0+dfsg-1 it has always built like that | 20:23 |
| sergiodj | ginggs: yes, it's been broken for a while now. I was working on updating it to 5.13, but there are some unpackaged dependencies... | 20:24 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!