[06:59] <RAOF> Hm. Is it easy to scrape an errors.ubuntu.com crash for the version of a dependency in the crash report?
[06:59] <RAOF> Specifically: I'd like to verify https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/+bug/1972977 fixes https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/d8aa1211f7e8b219a4ee6dcae294ac16decd7fe3
[06:59] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1972977 in mesa (Ubuntu Jammy) "gnome-shell crashed (out of memory) with SIGSEGV in crocus_begin_query() from crocus_begin_query() from crocus_end_query() from crocus_end_query() from tc_call_end_query()" [Undecided, Fix Committed]
[07:00] <RAOF> By means of “we haven't seen a crash with the newer Mesa”.
[17:31] <bdmurray> RAOF: I think I still have code to do that which works. So check the crashes which are a part of d8aa1211f738b... for the version of mesa found in Dependencies ?
[17:32] <bdmurray> RAOF: actually what binary package name should I query for?
[18:19] <ahasenack> hi sru team, anyone looking at #1977860? If not, I can
[18:19] <ahasenack> golang-1.18 sru for bionic and focal
[18:19] <ahasenack> it's not may day today, hence my ask
[18:20] <tjaalton> bdmurray: likely libgl1-mesa-dri
[18:21] <bdmurray> ahasenack: I'm dealing with some autopkgtest stuff at the moment but hope to at least release SRUs today
[18:22] <ahasenack> bdmurray: I'm midway through that golang one, found a nit in the test plan execution
[18:22] <ahasenack> that is in the release phase, not acceptance
[18:40] <arraybolt3> Could I ask for a sponsor for a Manuskript SRU? It's a full version update, but it appears to consist entirely of bugfixes, one of which has entirely broken Manuskript on Jammy and Kinetic. https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/manuskript/+bug/1989203
[18:40] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1989203 in manuskript (Ubuntu Kinetic) "Manuskript crashes on start" [High, Confirmed]
[18:41] <arraybolt3> The actual patch is a bit of a mess, but there's a PPA where I uploaded the updated package, so you should be able to just pull from that and drop the ~ppa1 changelog entry.
[18:42] <arraybolt3> (Er, one of the bugs entirely broke Manuskript on Jammy and Kinetic, the updated version has a fix.)
[19:55] <rbasak> arraybolt3: "it is reasonable to upgrade the package wholesale rather than attempting to backport individual fixes ourselves" -> requirements are at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#New_upstream_microreleases, and the SRU documentation should explain how those requirements are met, as explained in those docs.
[21:23] <arraybolt3> rbasak: I believed I did explain how those requirements are met? I'll review again.
[21:25] <arraybolt3> rbasak: I did notice the bit about there not being a well-documented test suite, but last time I brought up this SRU, it was suggested to me (I believe by RikMills and tsimonq2?) that it might not be strictly necessary.
[21:25] <arraybolt3> (It might have been only Simon who mentioned that, come to think of it - Rik was the one who directed me to make a PPA with the package.)
[21:54] <rbasak> arraybolt3: it isn't obvious to me that you consider those requirements and/or consider any of them met. Where in the bug do you think this is covered?
[21:54] <rbasak> *considered
[21:56] <rbasak> arraybolt3: I find it much more tedious to review a "let's bump everything" type SRU. Hence my reluctance to sponsor. It's so much easier to review a simple fix for the actual problem that needs fixing.
[21:56] <arraybolt3> rbasak: I see your point. I also noticed after looking at it that I didn't mention the particular section you mentioned, instead relying off memory from a prior IRC conversation.
[21:57] <arraybolt3> Really it's not that big a deal to just redo the SRU, my frustration is mainly with the fact that I'm getting conflicting info.
[21:57] <rbasak> Sorry you're getting conflicting info. It tends to happen in exceptional cases. My best suggestion is to keep those discussions in this channel (or eg. ubuntu-devel@) so everyone involved can participate and try to avoid that happening.
[21:58] <rbasak> To be clear, I'm not saying you can't do this SRU the way it's presented.
[21:58] <arraybolt3> +1, it did happen in this channel, but that's fine. We're a big team, things are going to get scrambled every once in a while.
[21:58] <arraybolt3> Anyway, thanks for your help, and I'll redo the SRU with only a single bug fix once I reach a convenient time.
[21:58] <rbasak> Just that taking an exceptional path makes it more painful all round.
[21:58] <rbasak> Thanks!
[21:59] <arraybolt3> :)
[23:32] <RAOF> bdmurray: Yeah, as Timo said libgl1-mesa-dri would be a good candidate.
[23:33] <bdmurray> RAOF: Okay, I'll try and check in the next couple of days.
[23:34] <RAOF> And maybe the code could end up in ubuntu-archive-tools? :)
[23:34] <RAOF> Cheers.
[23:55] <bdmurray> RAOF: I'm querying the cassandra database directly so probably not
[23:55] <RAOF> bdmurray: Fair chop.