bdmurraybryceh: so what happened here? https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/mFYzYrdY4c/02:08
bdmurraybryceh: I'd expect the result urls to appear here https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-kinetic-brian-murray-autopkgtest/?format=plain but I'm not seeing anything02:13
brycehbdmurray, add the --show-urls option05:13
brycehwithout that, it assumes your console supports ansi hyperlinking but many consoles do not.  If you run it in gnome-terminal it'll be clickable05:15
brycehlatest terminator might, but not sure, and other terminals are hit and miss05:17
=== sem2peie- is now known as sem2peie
=== sem2peie- is now known as sem2peie
=== sem2peie- is now known as sem2peie
arraybolt3Is it safe to upload something that you know will get stuck in -proposed due to a transition, but that you also know won't entangle the transition any further and will simply move through once the transition gets unstuck? There's some LXQt work I'd like to be doing that is currently stalled on the (probably soon-to-be-finished) Qt transition, and if it's possible for me to do it before the09:17
arraybolt3transition finishes, that could possibly be good.09:17
rbasakSkuggen: please see bug 200383509:55
-ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2003835 in mysql-8.0 (Ubuntu Jammy) "pymysql.err.OperationalError: caching sha2: Unknown packet for public key: b'-'" [Critical, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/200383509:55
Skuggenrbasak: Ouch. I'll pass it on11:47
MacSlowGreetings everyone!13:14
dpwardI'm looking for a sponsor to review patches attached to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pivy/+bug/200084013:19
-ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2000840 in pivy (Ubuntu) "Exception in pivy cast functions with Python 3.10 (upstream patches)" [Undecided, Confirmed]13:19
jbichaarraybolt3: I think that's fine. If we were very worried about that, I think we would turn off autosyncs13:27
ricotzdoko, hi :), will a gcc-10 update to 10.4.0 still happen for focal? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-10 - https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages?field.name_filter=&field.status_filter=published&field.series_filter=focal13:51
ginggscoreycb: hi! ceph FTBFS in the last test rebuild, do you happen to know if this is on anyone's radar?14:36
Skuggenrbasak: mdeslaur: I have a patch for bug 2003835, which I'll upload there15:52
-ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2003835 in mysql-8.0 (Ubuntu Jammy) "pymysql.err.OperationalError: caching sha2: Unknown packet for public key: b'-'" [Critical, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/200383515:52
mdeslaurSkuggen: oh, awesome!15:52
mdeslaurSkuggen: that's great, I'm having trouble building 8.0.31 to revert, so a patch would be awesome15:53
SkuggenUploaded now. Still needs verification, though (I'm building it now)15:57
mdeslaurSkuggen: thanks, I'll do some builds too and see if we can test it also15:58
bdmurraybryceh: with `--show-urls` the urls appear the same i.e. all-proposed was not added16:58
bdmurraybryceh: Also is there anyway to get the PPA autopkgtest result urls? That's a huge pain16:59
coreycbginggs: I've let icey[m] know about ceph17:17
ginggscoreycb: thanks!17:21
icey[m]and got it tossed into the backlog to pick up soon!17:40
ginggsicey[m]: great!17:54
tsimonq2waveform: Where is your core developer application? ;)18:06
tewardddstreet: mapreri: poke on you both.  backport bug 2003903 ended up on my radar because "openssl" is one of those dangerous/tricky packages to backport so I asked Security Team what their 2 cents was20:09
-ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2003903 in openssl (Ubuntu) "[BPO] openssl/3.0.5-2ubuntu2 from kinetic" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/200390320:09
teward(with mdeslaur suggesting the 3 or 4 commits to 'fix' this problem being SRU'd instead)20:09
teward(rather than a version bump due to a lot of other chaos that can happen with a minor openssl bump)20:10
tewardddstreet: mapreri: is there any objection to me rejecting this request given the problem that this introduces a security related delta and also could cause *other* things to break hard with other api changes in 3.0.5 vs. 3.0.2 because of historic chaos in OpenSSL changes in microreleases?20:14
mdeslaurSkuggen: hi! unfortunately it doesn't look like the patch fixed the issue in our test, see the last post in the bug20:15
mapreriteward: looking at the user that opened the bug, I'm also led to believe that's some clueless person requesting this.  I agree with mdeslaur there; the OP is reporting a very specific bug, if that's fixed by 3-4 commits that should just be SRU'd (or the sec team pushed to include them in the next openssl sec update).20:18
tewardmapreri: can we add openssl to our list of blacklisted backports20:19
tewardi think it is but point still stands20:19
tewardjust like the toolchain stuff it needs to be Security handled for backports, etc. and they have a lot of rules around it20:19
maprerialthough… I don't really remember "API changes" in minor releases?  at least, not in such X.Y.Z with only Z changing…  but my point still stand for sure…20:19
mapreriteward: totally yes.  I'd accept openssl in bpo only if that was handled by either the sec team or, say, some actual openssl developer (maybe).20:20
tewardi'd reject it unless it has Security team support :P20:20
tewardthat's my 2 cents i'll go update the wiki and reply here20:20
maprerithank you20:21
mdeslaurmapreri: well, rather ABI changes20:21
maprerimdeslaur: mhh still?  ISTR only dropped private interfaces, but there are plenty of projects embedding copies of libssl headers, so I guess that can cause ABI breakages somewhere.20:22
mdeslauryes, that's one thing that happens, the other is changing build options breaks abi20:22
mdeslaurI've have to go through all the bugs we hit in the past20:23
tewardmdeslaur: is libressl in the repos too, or just openssl?  I forget if we have both20:23
mdeslaurI don't think we have libressl20:23
tewardso openssl is the only core ssl library we have then20:24
mdeslaurmapreri: a lot of software in the archive makes bad assumptions about stuff also20:24
mdeslaurteward: well, except for the zillion others, like nss, gnutls, etc. :)20:24
tewardthen i'll make a category for "core SSL libraries" (nss, gnutls, openssl, ...) in our blacklist for requesting new backports20:24
mdeslauryeah, I wouldn't try put ssl libraries, or glibc, or anything else like that in backports20:25
tewardyeah we have rules already about compilers and interpreters20:26
maprerimdeslaur: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports#Forbidden_packages20:26
tewardwhich glibc is included in20:26
tewardso i'm appending a new category here20:26
mapreribut of course our imagination in preventing them is nowhere close to those of our "users"20:26
tewardmdeslaur: yeah when we revived Backports we discussed and came up with an initial set of blacklisted packages and categories that will never be backported via -backports20:27
tewardand now that includes core SSL libraries as i indicated, though I added a note that if Ubuntu Security Team asked for the backport to -backports we'd probably allow it)20:27
teward"request backport for this, and it's rejected immediately due to FOrbidden"20:27
mapreriteward: "Any addition to the section must first be discussed in the ML and agreed by the current team members." - you might wish to follow this tiny line we decided upon and drop a line the ML :)20:27
* mapreri totally forgot20:28
tewardye i'll email it in20:28
tewardmapreri: yep, but you and I did have a majority on this.  right now it's just us three ;)20:28
mapreriit's easy yep heh20:28
tewardbut Security does have a big say here too ;)20:28
tewardmapreri: remind me which list that is, because i don't see it defined explicity in policies?20:29
mapreriteward: our?20:29
* mapreri goes to have dinner o/20:30
tewardmapreri: emailed.  with a note that you and I were in agreement, and that Security would like to agree as well.  needs a moderator to release it :\20:38
tewardi blame evil in the network20:38
mapreriteward: released20:38
mapreribut how come you are not in the ML?20:38
mapreriah, maybe wrong address?20:38
mapreriteward: should I place that address in the list whitelist? :)20:39
tewardmapreri: @ubuntu.com is probably in it, but my SMTP relay for it is down, so I'm having to use my main domain20:39
tewardmapreri: yes please.20:39
tewardbecause of the chaos of ^^ and @ubuntu.com SMTP crap20:39
teward(we had the same problem with Community Council, we just whitelist both for me now xD020:40
tewardmapreri: thank you kindly!20:40
mapreridid a @ubuntu.com "official" SMTP that would let me pass SPF/DKIM pop up yet?20:40
tewardmapreri: no, and i keep stabbing IS on it via Community Team20:41
tewardwith my CC hat on20:41
teward*I* run my own SMTP for some of my applications so I just route it via my SMTP server20:41
maprerithat would be quite nice in 2023…20:41
tewardGMail will still reject it.20:41
tewardmapreri: agreed.  if i can get roadmr or whomever involved to help get the SSO linkage for 'app passwords' integrated with SMTP on something from IS then that'd be great, but IS hasn't ben willing or able to let anyone else volunteer to assist there20:41
tewardand they have a ton of crap and not enough cycles20:42
tewardi'll poke it again next time I get off my lazy butt as a CC issue20:42
mapreri"at least" provide a way for us to add a dkim key like @d.o did, that improved things tremendously (though it's busywork and probably easier to just provide a submission service)20:42
tewardmapreri: i thought Debian had a full submission service too20:42
tewardnot just a DKIM key20:42
maprerithey do, yes20:42
maprerithough just the dkim thing worked so nicely that I have yet to route my @d.o mails through it lol20:43
teward(because for Ubuntu the vast array of @ubuntu.com users are NOT sysadmins with the ability to do DKIM configs)20:43
tewardmapreri: agreed that'd solve a lot20:43
tewardbut then we need to automate DNS too :P20:43
tewardsame thing, SSO integration20:43
mapreriI'm sure DNS is already well automated within IS20:43
maprerioh, actually my gmail configuration for @d.o is configured to use mail-submit.debian.org - my own mail server does not yet though.20:44
mapreriwell, now off to dinner for real!20:45
Skuggenmdeslaur: Damn. I'll take it up with the devs. Probably too late for any more work on it today, though20:47
mdeslaurSkuggen: ok, I'll continue trying to rebuild 8.0.31 to revert...I'm hitting 6-7 test failures now on 8.0.31 for some reason20:48
tsimonq2I just gave the sponsorship queue a slight facelift, if you run into any issues just let me know (should publish in about 30 minutes): http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/21:26
mruffellrbasak, bdmurray Robie, would you like me to do some additional testing to cover apt_btrfs_snapshot.py?21:37
bdmurraymruffell: no, its just a variable name change from what I can see21:38
rbasakbdmurray: it's not covered in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#ubuntu-release-upgrader_and_python-apt. Do we need to change it?21:38
rbasakIt also seems weird to end up with non-deliberate changes like that in SRUs?21:39
bdmurrayRunning pre-build.sh takes a deliberate step21:39
rbasakIf it was deliberate, you'd have noted it in the commit message and changelog entry.21:41
bdmurrayWhat do you want here Robie this is the second time I've uploaded this.21:42
rbasakSorry if I missed it in my previous review. I don't think it should be there.21:43
rbasakThat seems like a harsh comment to make given that I think we're all agreed that the first upload was objectively buggy/racy. I don't think it's reasonable to push back on legit review issues. I think this issue is also legit, because it's explicitly documented SRU policy that we don't make unrelated changes, and there is no exception documented.21:45
rbasakIt's perhaps also worth stating that the code can't be verified "obviously correct" from the diff alone. I could check in more detail, but why am I doing that if it shouldn't be there in the first place?21:48
mruffellFor /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/apt_btrfs_snapshot.py to change, apt-btrfs-snapshot must have been changed via SRU. Let me try locate its LP bug21:49
rbasakThanks mruffell, but can't we just take out this change?21:50
mruffellHmm, I am wrong, seems apt-btrfs-snapshot has not changed at all, its still the -release version: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt-btrfs-snapshot/3.5.321:51
bdmurrayThere's a new in the queue21:51
mruffellHow on earth did this file change then...21:51
mruffellbdmurray: did you run pre-build.sh from a Focal system?21:52
mruffellOr was this on something newer that has /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/apt_btrfs_snapshot.py different to Focal release pocket21:52
bdmurrayI did run pre-build.sh on a newer system IIRC the goal is to have fixes in apt_btrfs_snapshot from the release to which you are upgrading21:53
mruffellIt seems it was fixed in Hirsute onward: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt-btrfs-snapshot/+bug/169897721:54
-ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1698977 in apt-btrfs-snapshot (Ubuntu) "ftbfs in artful" [High, Fix Released]21:54
mruffellSo you ran it on a Jammy system. ubuntu-release-upgrader is run on a Bionic system to upgrade to Focal, maybe Robie has a point21:55
mruffell(but I do agree its a variable rename and shouldn't change any functionality)21:55
rbasakI think if the file changes, the behaviour that it might affect should be part of the test plan. Even if it changed as a result of an SRU, the release upgrade wouldn't have been tested. That doesn't seem right to me.21:56
rbasakI agree it's just a variable rename, but 1) humans are really bad at spotting typos; and 2) it's not just within the loop, since in Python the variable remains in scope afterwards. So while I agree I can't see a typo, I'd want to see the code exercised in place if it's going to be changed, or some other thought out plan to ensure that a typo doesn't lead to a regression.21:57
rbasakOr, IOW, when I review, I don't look for typos, I look for processes to ensure that typos can't slip past.21:58
mruffellrbasak: Brian just uploaded a new package to the unapproved queue with the hunk removed.22:03
rbasakack - I just accepted22:03
rbasakIf we want to accept those in the future then I'm open to that, but I would like to understand what we're doing to ensure such changes are tested.22:04
mruffellMaybe we need to add a note that ubuntu-release-upgrader needs to be prepared for build on the series it was intended to be used on, since it does blind copying of python scripts22:05
MacSlowGreetings everybody!22:14
vpa1977Hi, I am not sure but it looks like we have an issue with autopkgtests depenedencies for lunar. I see bbmap and munin regressions under openjdk-8, but those packages use default-jre and this is openjdk-1722:40
vpa1977Also would it be possible to retry https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=lunar&arch=armhf&package=munin&trigger=openjdk-8%2F8u362-ga-0buntu1 munin regression. It is caused by some signature fluke, that does not happen at the moment22:42
dbungertvpa1977: clicked22:46
vpa1977dbungert: Thank you!!!!!22:47
tewarduhhhhhhh mapreri ddstreet someone's spamming backports, mod hammer pls?  I'll forward this to IS to ban IPs but still22:49
bdmurrayrbasak: Your concerns regarding apt_btrfs_snapshot.py are reasonable it just hasn't ever come up before in all my time SRU'ing it.22:52

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!