[01:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (lunar-proposed/main) [2022e-0ubuntu2 => 2022f-0ubuntu1] (core) [01:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (lunar-proposed/main) [2022e-0ubuntu2 => 2022f-0ubuntu0.22.10.0] (core) [01:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (jammy-proposed/main) [2022e-0ubuntu0.22.04.0 => 2022f-0ubuntu0.22.04.0] (core) [01:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (focal-proposed/main) [2022e-0ubuntu0.20.04.0 => 2022f-0ubuntu0.20.04.0] (core) [01:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (bionic-proposed/main) [2022e-0ubuntu0.18.04.0 => 2022f-0ubuntu0.18.04.0] (core) [04:15] Would it be appropriate for me to modify the description of the DKMS bugfix in Ubuntu 22.10 into a proper SRU description so that it can be migrated to the -updates pocket? Or would that be possibly problematic? [07:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (kinetic-proposed) [27.11.3~22.10.1] [09:29] arraybolt3: I'm not aware of the specific case, but in general you're welcome to add SRU information to the relevant bug(s) if they're useful SRUs. [09:31] Assuming they would be acceptable SRUs, of course :) [10:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected tzdata [source] (lunar-proposed) [2022f-0ubuntu0.22.10.0] [10:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (kinetic-proposed/main) [2022e-0ubuntu2 => 2022f-0ubuntu0.22.10.0] (core) [10:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tzdata [source] (kinetic-proposed) [2022f-0ubuntu0.22.10.0] [10:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tzdata [source] (jammy-proposed) [2022f-0ubuntu0.22.04.0] [10:41] https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html [10:41] Forbidden [10:41] You don't have permission to access this resource. [10:42] checking [10:43] hmm. not there any more [10:43] what do you mean by "not there"? [10:44] I see the error locally [10:44] doesn't exist any more in https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/ [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tzdata [source] (focal-proposed) [2022f-0ubuntu0.20.04.0] [10:45] or at least not listed [10:45] possibly a detail of how apache handles symlinks to unreadable files [10:45] the symlink exists on the server, the target does not [10:45] right [10:45] because the lunar/ output directory doesn't exist [10:45] I guess that will fix itself then [10:45] so this looks like a natural outcome of the archive opening still being in-flight, and us having adjusted the symlinks (to not incorrectly point at kinetic) but not having started running p-m yet for lunar [10:46] Hey there. What's the status of the Lunar archive opening? [10:46] looks so [10:46] seb128: for uploads? [10:46] anyway, thanks. was just checking all my dev booksmarks [10:46] vorlon, yes, but more general just interested by that status, things which maybe I can help with [10:47] would be nice if we had a public discourse like for the release [10:47] I know there was a googledoc about the archive opening in previous cycles, maybe that still exist but I don't remember the url [10:48] seb128: https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/RTMP-547 is our jira checklist for opening. This is the first full work day since we have the name; some of the checklist items were blocked by having the autopkgtest swift copies done [10:48] and we'll sort out the question of toolchain-copies-before-opening today [10:48] vorlon, thanks [10:48] a public discourse> except discourse's workflow for this is terrible :P [10:48] right :/ [10:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tzdata [source] (bionic-proposed) [2022f-0ubuntu0.18.04.0] [10:51] bdmurray: do you know the history of why nvidia-driver-520 is missing from the kinetic repo or can you point me to the right person? [10:51] this came from the kinetic testing discourse post: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/ubuntu-22-10-testing-week/30894/11 [10:52] hellsworth: I don't off the top of my head but sil2100 might remember [10:53] thanks [10:54] hellsworth: hey! It wasn't ready for release, sadly. I think Alberto mentioned he had it ready, but it wasn't tested and ready to go. I think it's planned to go in as an SRU [10:54] It popped up when we had issues with -515, but I've been told -520 wasn't 'ready', not for releasing in on release week [10:55] hellsworth: tseliot will know best about the details, since he's the person working on it [10:55] ah ok thanks so much! [10:56] so we released a 520 SRU to jammy before there was an upgrade path for it to kinetic? [10:59] it's currently in kinetic-proposed; let's see if we can move this forward today [11:04] There's one comment about it not working well in Focal https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers-515/+bug/1992669 [11:04] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 1992669 in nvidia-graphics-drivers-515 (Ubuntu) "Introduce the NVIDIA 520 UDA driver series" [High, In Progress] [11:56] garfi$$75p [11:56] guiverc: please to be picking a better password next time kthxbye [11:57] & checking which window is current! [11:58] woah woah lets not go crazy [11:58] LOL [12:50] * arraybolt3 is glad that I use SASL [12:50] RAOF: Thanks for your help! Yes, it is an acceptable SRU, I'm sure. Just about got respun into Kinetic, then got delayed as a day-0 SRU and then got just left in -proposed... [12:50] Bug is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/+bug/1991725 [12:50] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 1991725 in dkms (Ubuntu) "fails to sign kernel modules" [High, Fix Committed] [12:50] Anyway I'll turn this into a good SRU and then re-ping whomever needs it soon. [12:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected distro-info-data [source] (kinetic-proposed) [0.54ubuntu0.1] [13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected distro-info-data [source] (jammy-proposed) [0.52ubuntu0.2] [13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected distro-info-data [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.37ubuntu0.15] [13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected distro-info-data [source] (focal-proposed) [0.43ubuntu1.11] [13:28] sil2100: Hey, remember that DKMS bug fix in Kinetic? It is *still* sitting in -proposed. I've turned it into a real SRU, if it can be shoved through at the earliest possible convenience that would be awesome. Thank you! [13:28] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/+bug/1991725 [13:28] eeek [13:28] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 1991725 in dkms (Ubuntu) "fails to sign kernel modules" [High, Fix Committed] [13:29] hm, I suppose it would be good to get a no-change rebuild of the bcmwl driver along with it I suppose? [13:30] It wasn't necessary in my testing, but if you think so, sure. [13:30] (For me just installing the updated DKMS make everything work right.) [13:30] Oh, it did? I thought we had to trigger a rebuild of the actual dkms driver? [13:30] That's good news [13:30] Well... [13:31] We do have to trigger a rebuild of the actual DKMS driver, but the user *should* install DKMS first. [13:31] I mean, that's at least what we have in the Lubuntu release notes. Do a full-upgrade first, then install your drivers. Then again with Ubiquity-based flavors, having a no-change rebuild would be handy. [13:32] Though if we're going to do that, should we trigger NCRs on all packages that contain DKMS modules (VirtualBox and v4l2loopback for instance)? [13:32] bdmurray, (cc bdrung ) what's the exact eol date for lunar? cpc needs distro-info-data updated to start doing lunar builds. [13:32] I would suggest the latter should be limited to those packages that might be installed by the install media [13:33] vorlon: Makes sense. [13:33] toabctl: exactly 9 months later unless otherwise indicated and such an indication should come from the Security Team who actually provides that support [13:37] * arraybolt3 has to go afk, will read backlog and pings when I get back in about an hour [13:43] vorlon, thx. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/distro-info-data/-/merge_requests/5 does fix the dates (cc bdrung ) [13:43] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Merge 5 in debian/distro-info-data "Fix Ubuntu Lunar Lobster dates" [Opened] [13:47] already solved by bdmurray.thx [13:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gcc-12 (lunar-proposed/main) [12.2.0-3ubuntu1 => 12.2.0-8ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist) [13:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted base-files [source] (lunar-proposed) [12.2ubuntu4] [13:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted base-files [source] (lunar-proposed) [12.3ubuntu1] [14:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python3.10 (lunar-proposed/main) [3.10.7-1 => 3.10.8-1] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu) (sync) [14:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python3.11 (lunar-proposed/universe) [3.11.0~rc2-1 => 3.11.0-1] (i386-whitelist) (sync) [14:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (kinetic-proposed/main) [0.54 => 0.54ubuntu0.1] (core, i386-whitelist) [14:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (jammy-proposed/main) [0.52ubuntu0.1 => 0.52ubuntu0.2] (core, i386-whitelist) [14:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (focal-proposed/main) [0.43ubuntu1.10 => 0.43ubuntu1.11] (core, i386-whitelist) [14:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (bionic-proposed/main) [0.37ubuntu0.14 => 0.37ubuntu0.15] (core) [15:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apt (kinetic-proposed/main) [2.5.3 => 2.5.3ubuntu0.1] (core, i386-whitelist) [15:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apt (jammy-proposed/main) [2.4.8 => 2.4.9] (core, i386-whitelist) [15:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gcc-12 [source] (lunar-proposed) [12.2.0-8ubuntu1] [15:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: binutils (lunar-proposed/main) [2.39-3ubuntu1 => 2.39-8ubuntu1] (core, i386-whitelist) [15:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted binutils [source] (lunar-proposed) [2.39-8ubuntu1] [15:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openvswitch (jammy-proposed/main) [2.17.2-0ubuntu0.22.04.2 => 2.17.3-0ubuntu1] (core) [15:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openvswitch (kinetic-proposed/main) [3.0.0-0ubuntu1 => 3.0.1-0ubuntu0.22.10.1] (core) [17:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: binutils (lunar-proposed/main) [2.39-8ubuntu1 => 2.39-8ubuntu2] (core, i386-whitelist) [17:17] Ooh, I see progress on the Lunar queue :D [17:19] don't look too close, you know lobsters are shy animals ... [17:20] 😆 come on little lobster, I believe in you! [17:21] o_O [17:23] (all in good spirits, take your time :) ) === ghvail|wtf is now known as ghavil [17:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted binutils [source] (lunar-proposed) [2.39-8ubuntu2] [20:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: binutils [amd64] (lunar-proposed/main) [2.39-8ubuntu2] (core, i386-whitelist) [20:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: binutils [i386] (lunar-proposed/main) [2.39-8ubuntu2] (core, i386-whitelist) [22:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debhelper (lunar-proposed/main) [13.9.1ubuntu1 => 13.10.1ubuntu1] (core, i386-whitelist) [22:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: binutils [arm64] (lunar-proposed/main) [2.39-8ubuntu2] (core, i386-whitelist) [22:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted binutils [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [2.39-8ubuntu2] [22:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted binutils [i386] (lunar-proposed) [2.39-8ubuntu2] [22:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted binutils [arm64] (lunar-proposed) [2.39-8ubuntu2]