[00:26] <vorlon> bdmurray: deleted the dupes
[02:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-13-cross [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [3ubuntu1]
[02:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-13-cross [ppc64el] (lunar-proposed) [3ubuntu1]
[02:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-13-cross [i386] (lunar-proposed) [3ubuntu1]
[03:44] <bdmurray> Removing items in the queue w/ python3.11/3.11.2-3 as trigger given its not in -proposed any more
[03:49] <bdmurray> python3.11/3.11.2-1 too
[11:03] <LocutusOfBorg> deal.ii failed with no log...
[14:47] <utkarsh2102> vorlon: hi! based on our past discussion, I did the splitting of the seeds; cf: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/ubuntu/+merge/437542
[14:48] <utkarsh2102> let me know what you think about it.
[14:48] <utkarsh2102> hopefully I didn't miss anything :sob::sob:
[14:49] <utkarsh2102> s/:sob::sob:/😭😭/g :)
[15:01] <LocutusOfBorg> bettercap (2.32.0-1ubuntu1) lunar; urgency=medium
[15:01] <LocutusOfBorg>   * No change rebuild to bump version number
[15:02] <LocutusOfBorg> ebarretto, ^^ why not build1?
[15:02] <LocutusOfBorg> mdeslaur, ^^
[15:34] <jbicha> LocutusOfBorg: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update_the_packaging doesn't mention the "build1" situation in its version number recommendations
[15:35] <LocutusOfBorg> its a no change rebuild...
[15:35] <LocutusOfBorg> how is that a security upload?
[15:40] <jbicha> I don't know enough about Go packages to answer, but they released bettercap to jammy-security and needed higher version numbers in every later series
[15:43] <utkarsh2102> yes but build1 would've served that purpose, no?
[15:44] <utkarsh2102> ubuntu1 stops the auto-sync (unless that was the intention) and adds to the tech-debt.
[16:02] <jbicha> yes, someone could update the wiki for this
[16:57] <mdeslaur> LocutusOfBorg: because the security updated for the releases before it use 1ubuntu0.20.04.1 etc.
[16:57] <mdeslaur> *updates
[16:57] <LocutusOfBorg> yes, but its devel
[16:57] <LocutusOfBorg> oh, got it
[16:57] <LocutusOfBorg> :)
[16:57] <mdeslaur> ok :)
[16:58] <mdeslaur> and yes, ebarretto is going to have a lot of syncs to do eventually :)
[17:01] <mdeslaur> (for those following along, 1- using "build1" would have broken the upgrade because of sort order, 2- the security team tooling uses "ubuntu", and 3- all the packages for the security updates were already built before we wondered what to do for the dev release)
[18:05] <LocutusOfBorg> ghostscript looks seriously broken?
[18:05] <LocutusOfBorg>  libgs9 : Depends: libgs9-common (= 9.56.1~dfsg1-0ubuntu3) but 10.0.0~dfsg1-0ubuntu1 is to be installed
[19:00] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: what is trying to pull in libgs9?  in -proposed this is all replaced with libgs10
[19:00] <vorlon> (why does ghostscript continue building a libgs9-common package from ghostscript 10.0.0~dfsg1-0ubuntu1 ? *that* is weird)
[19:17] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: anyway this damage appears to be present upstream in Debian.
[19:33] <utkarsh2102> vorlon: thanks for the comment, I haven’t checked with germinate and I’m afk now. I’ll do tomorrow morning but does the split look fine to you?
[19:47] <vorlon> utkarsh2102: any answer I would give is contingent on the tooling showing that the output is correct :)
[20:25] <utkarsh2102> vorlon: hehe, gotcha. I’ll run it tomorrow then.
[22:25] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, I did some rebuilds, and problem is "fixed"