[02:03] <zhsj> please add golang-github-azure-azure-sdk-for-go to big package list for autopkgtest. it's failed with ENOSPC. i think it needs 32G.
[02:05] <zhsj> and please clean up NBS for golang-github-mmcloughlin-avo. (is that needs manual clean?)
[12:38] <kanashiro[m]> hi ubuntu-archive, I have more removal requests related to the ruby transition here on bug #2007145 , could someone please take a look?
[12:38] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2007145 in test-kitchen (Ubuntu) "[RM] Do not support ruby3.1" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2007145
[13:02] <seb128> kanashiro[m], hey, done now
[13:22] <ricotz> hello, are there suggestions on how to deal with s390x builds which fail without a log? just retrying doesn't work
[13:23] <ricotz> libreoffice is currently not buildable, some testing with PPA builds worked out while skipping the test suite at package buildtime
[13:24] <ricotz> additionally the autopkgtests for all archs are not so happy either at this time :(
[13:27] <ricotz> so regarding s390x, is it basically just luck if it builds, and shortening the buildtime makes it more likely to succeed
[13:34] <coreycb> hello sru team, we have a small update to neutron in the focal unapproved queue that could use a review.
[14:28] <kanashiro[m]> seb128: ty!
[14:31] <LocutusOfBorg> hello ubuntu-archive, please if possible do some accept from new, e.g. ceph
[14:32] <LocutusOfBorg> and python-sparse (I restored it since now its fixed the reason for the removal)
[14:35] <xypron> ubuntu-archive admins, please, drop package python-omemo-backend-signal from lunar LP: #2007154 as it has been retired upstreams and blocks other packages.
[14:35] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2007154 in python-omemo-backend-signal (Ubuntu) "Drop package python-omemo-backend-signal from lunar" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2007154
[15:29] <LocutusOfBorg> can anybody please stop giving back deal.ii on riscv64?
[15:29] <LocutusOfBorg> the build fails, but somebody restarts before I can access it
[15:29] <LocutusOfBorg> and it takes like 3 days to build
[15:29] <LocutusOfBorg> its now 94%, please
[15:33] <cjwatson> The last one wasn't a deliberate retry - buildd-manager got no-route-to-host trying to talk to the builder, then gave up and retried it
[15:33] <cjwatson> Several builds on the same host system died at the same time so might have been a host crash
[15:43] <ginggs> LocutusOfBorg: what do you want to access?  the last builds failed with no log
[15:46] <RikMills> LocutusOfBorg: maybe you could copy to a bileto PPA? that way if the archive one gets retried by someone or someone's script, then the bileto riscv64 should not be
[15:47] <cjwatson> Won't make any difference if the build is crashing.
[15:48] <cjwatson> I've started a tail -f to capture the log even if LP loses it
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> tanks
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks
[16:54] <chrome0[m]> Hi folks, I have a somewhat irregular SRU question. Our Ceph packages currently are missing a tool that upstream is shipping and which we'd like to include. I'd thought to follow upstreams lead and create a new binary .deb for it. I realize it's a bit unusual to introduce a new pkg in an SRU but I believe the risk is minimal as it's just single tool and little interaction with the system otherwise. Wdyt?
[16:54] <chrome0[m]> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ceph/+bug/2003704
[16:54] <chrome0[m]> Any pointers appreciated
[16:54] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2003704 in ceph (Ubuntu) "RFE: missing cephfs-mirror" [Undecided, New]
[16:58] <LocutusOfBorg> chrome0[m], without any hat on my head, its something nice to have also in Debian
[16:58] <LocutusOfBorg> diverging w.r.t. binaries is painful
[17:01] <chrome0[m]> Agreed that would be good
[18:03] <bdmurray> chrome0[m]: I believe there is precedent for this type of SRU but the package would need to follow the SRU process after being introduced so make sure its squared away. Also emailing ubuntu-release regarding your proposition would be best.
[20:10] <vorlon> jamespage: why does ceph not use our default security flags to the compiler? I: ceph-mgr: hardening-no-fortify-functions [usr/bin/ceph-mgr]
[20:12] <vorlon> Trevinho, jbicha: interesting to see a gnome-shell-extension in NEW when we are having to blacklist a whole bunch
[20:13] <jbicha> vorlon: Ubuntu Desktop wants to enable that extension by default for 23.04
[20:13] <vorlon> Trevinho, jbicha: and has not been removed from the sync-blacklist
[20:14] <jbicha> the binary package has been renamed and currently the package isn't set up to be synced
[20:14] <vorlon> the sync blacklist also impacts merge reports
[20:15] <jbicha> you can drop it from the sync balcklist then
[20:22] <vorlon> done