=== kees_ is now known as kees === guiverc2 is now known as guiverc [00:26] 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] === chris14_ is now known as chris14 [03:44] Removing items in the queue w/ python3.11/3.11.2-3 as trigger given its not in -proposed any more [03:49] python3.11/3.11.2-1 too [11:03] deal.ii failed with no log... [14:47] 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] let me know what you think about it. [14:48] hopefully I didn't miss anything :sob::sob: [14:49] s/:sob::sob:/😭😭/g :) [15:01] bettercap (2.32.0-1ubuntu1) lunar; urgency=medium [15:01] * No change rebuild to bump version number [15:02] ebarretto, ^^ why not build1? [15:02] mdeslaur, ^^ [15:34] LocutusOfBorg: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update_the_packaging doesn't mention the "build1" situation in its version number recommendations [15:35] its a no change rebuild... [15:35] how is that a security upload? [15:40] 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] yes but build1 would've served that purpose, no? [15:44] ubuntu1 stops the auto-sync (unless that was the intention) and adds to the tech-debt. [16:02] yes, someone could update the wiki for this [16:57] LocutusOfBorg: because the security updated for the releases before it use 1ubuntu0.20.04.1 etc. [16:57] *updates [16:57] yes, but its devel [16:57] oh, got it [16:57] :) [16:57] ok :) [16:58] and yes, ebarretto is going to have a lot of syncs to do eventually :) [17:01] (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] ghostscript looks seriously broken? [18:05] libgs9 : Depends: libgs9-common (= 9.56.1~dfsg1-0ubuntu3) but 10.0.0~dfsg1-0ubuntu1 is to be installed [19:00] LocutusOfBorg: what is trying to pull in libgs9? in -proposed this is all replaced with libgs10 [19:00] (why does ghostscript continue building a libgs9-common package from ghostscript 10.0.0~dfsg1-0ubuntu1 ? *that* is weird) [19:17] LocutusOfBorg: anyway this damage appears to be present upstream in Debian. [19:33] 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] utkarsh2102: any answer I would give is contingent on the tooling showing that the output is correct :) [20:25] vorlon: hehe, gotcha. I’ll run it tomorrow then. [22:25] vorlon, I did some rebuilds, and problem is "fixed"