[01:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: rust-bindgen-0.56 (jammy-proposed/primary) [0.56.0-0ubuntu1~22.04.1]
[01:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubelt [sync] (lunar-proposed) [1.2.3-2]
[01:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubelt [amd64] (lunar-proposed/none) [1.2.3-2] (no packageset)
[05:14] <ginggs> arighi is not here, but silx is another package affected by IncompleteRead(300565 bytes read, 2070 more expected) with kernel in proposed
[05:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: python-line-profiler (lunar-proposed/primary) [4.0.2-1]
[06:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: qtmir [amd64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.8.0~git20230223.bd21224-3ubuntu1] (ubuntu-qt-packages)
[06:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: qtmir [armhf] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.8.0~git20230223.bd21224-3ubuntu1] (ubuntu-qt-packages)
[06:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: qtmir [s390x] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.8.0~git20230223.bd21224-3ubuntu1] (ubuntu-qt-packages)
[06:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: qtmir [ppc64el] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.8.0~git20230223.bd21224-3ubuntu1] (ubuntu-qt-packages)
[06:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: qtmir [arm64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.8.0~git20230223.bd21224-3ubuntu1] (ubuntu-qt-packages)
[07:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: llvm-toolchain-15 (jammy-proposed/main) [1:15.0.6-3~ubuntu0.22.04.2 => 1:15.0.7-0ubuntu0.22.04.1] (i386-whitelist)
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: llvm-toolchain-15 (kinetic-proposed/main) [1:15.0.6-3~ubuntu0.22.10.2 => 1:15.0.7-0ubuntu0.22.10.1] (i386-whitelist)
[07:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: qtmir [riscv64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.8.0~git20230223.bd21224-3ubuntu1] (ubuntu-qt-packages)
[07:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xorg-server (focal-proposed/main) [2:1.20.13-1ubuntu1~20.04.6 => 2:1.20.13-1ubuntu1~20.04.7] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, xorg)
[08:11] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, thanks btw do you think we can now remove mariadb-10.6=
[08:11] <LocutusOfBorg> ^
[11:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-drivers-common [source] (kinetic-proposed) [1:0.9.6.3.1]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-drivers-common [source] (jammy-proposed) [1:0.9.6.2~0.22.04.2]
[11:37] <ginggs> arighi:  silx is another autopkgtest affected by IncompleteRead(300565 bytes read, 2070 more expected) with kernel in proposed
[11:54] <arighi> ginggs, ok I'll do some tests also with silx, I haven't been able to reproduce the problem locally yet :(
[11:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xlnx-firmware [arm64] (lunar-proposed/multiverse) [2022.1-4-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[12:01] <arighi> ginggs, can you post the link of a log where this failure is happening? I'd like to see if we can find relevant kernel info in there
[12:04] <ginggs> any of the recent failures https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/python-fabio/lunar/amd64
[12:04] <ginggs> or https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/silx/lunar/amd64
[12:04] <ginggs> or do you want a link to a specific log?
[12:05] <arighi> ginggs, that is perfect, thanks
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: wireguard (jammy-proposed/main) [1.0.20210914-1ubuntu2 => 1.0.20210914-1ubuntu2.22.04.0] (no packageset)
[13:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: wireguard (kinetic-proposed/main) [1.0.20210914-1ubuntu2 => 1.0.20210914-1ubuntu2.22.10.0] (no packageset)
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: net-snmp (jammy-proposed/main) [5.9.1+dfsg-1ubuntu2.5 => 5.9.1+dfsg-1ubuntu2.6] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: net-snmp (kinetic-proposed/main) [5.9.3+dfsg-1ubuntu1.3 => 5.9.3+dfsg-1ubuntu1.4] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[14:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: net-snmp (bionic-proposed/main) [5.7.3+dfsg-1.8ubuntu3.8 => 5.7.3+dfsg-1.8ubuntu3.9] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[14:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: net-snmp (focal-proposed/main) [5.8+dfsg-2ubuntu2.6 => 5.8+dfsg-2ubuntu2.7] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[14:31] <LocutusOfBorg> xnox, I syncd fakeroot, the only delta was the explicit enable of testsuite on riscv64
[14:32] <LocutusOfBorg> can we just "meh" that delta and forget?
[14:32] <LocutusOfBorg> you already said that it was ok to drop it like one year ago, but I continued keeping it :D
[14:33] <LocutusOfBorg> and since 19 jan 2022, the first merge I did with just that part of the delta (we had the chat on that day), the testsuite on riscv64 has never failed
[14:33] <LocutusOfBorg> so, I think its ok to drop
[14:33] <LocutusOfBorg> (and in case of riscv64 specific issues, we can have a look at debian builds anyway)
[14:44] <jbicha> LocutusOfBorg: Ubuntu builders don't run dh_auto_test for riscv64 currently
[14:51] <LocutusOfBorg> jbicha, I know
[14:52] <LocutusOfBorg> the delta of fakeroot is "enable it regardless of the fact that Ubuntu builders disabled it"
[14:54] <jbicha> cool, I didn't know we could do that
[16:17] <LocutusOfBorg> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS := $(filter-out nocheck,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))
[16:18] <LocutusOfBorg> meh :D
[16:18] <LocutusOfBorg> jbicha, ^^
[16:18] <utkarsh2102> sil2100, vorlon: hi! when we see the definition of server-minimal seed (cf: https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/seeds/ubuntu.jammy/server-minimal), we see that it has some Recommends (needrestart, unattended-upgrades) but at the same time we have " * feature: no-follow-recommends", too. Does it mean that anything that's explicitly added as a Recommends (via () in the seed definition), it's taken in? even if we have "feature:
[16:18] <utkarsh2102> no-follow-recommends", too?
[16:19] <philroche> ^ specifically in the context of the use of `add_package` in livecd-rootfs
[16:31] <bdmurray> arighi: Did you get anywhere with that http issue ginggs was talking about the other day? Would it help if it were to setup a system in scaling stack for you?
[16:54] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: mariadb-10.6: it's still in Debian and there are still binaries built from it (it's not an "obsolete source package" in Debian's terms).  I'm not keen to futz with it
[16:55] <vorlon> utkarsh2102: I don't know, there are probably bugs, I have seen misbehavior with no-follow-recommends but I don't remember the details.  Perhaps mwhudson can weigh in
[17:47] <LocutusOfBorg> ack
[17:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted rabbitmq-server [source] (kinetic-proposed) [3.9.13-1ubuntu0.22.10.1]
[17:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted rabbitmq-server [source] (jammy-proposed) [3.9.13-1ubuntu0.22.04.1]
[17:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted rabbitmq-server [source] (focal-proposed) [3.8.2-0ubuntu1.4]
[18:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (jammy-proposed/main) [2.765.18 => 2.765.19] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)
[18:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted docker.io [source] (kinetic-proposed) [20.10.21-0ubuntu1~22.10.2]
[18:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted docker.io [source] (jammy-proposed) [20.10.21-0ubuntu1~22.04.2]
[18:27] <xnox> vorlon:  livecd-rootfs sru needed ^
[18:33] <vorlon> so much for arm64 queue clearing in ~24h :/
[18:35] <vorlon> xnox: 'arm64+*' looks wrong
[18:36] <vorlon> xnox: but consistent with amd64, sooo
[18:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted livecd-rootfs [source] (jammy-proposed) [2.765.19]
[18:38] <xnox> vorlon:  tah.
[18:39] <vorlon> xnox: please land your MP
[18:39] <xnox> vorlon:  i think it is $(ARCH)+$(SUBARCH) with subarch being empty, meaning we are doing a build for `arm64+` so go figure, hopefully.
[18:39] <vorlon> heh
[18:39] <xnox> vorlon:  also was going to trigger a build out of my ppa to see if i get things that far.
[18:41] <vorlon> adrien: fyi the only thing blocking boost1.74 now that I can see is a ledger-autosync autopkgtest failure on arm64 against current ledger, and ginggs has already triggered a retry so it's in the queue and possibly nothing to be done for the next day or so
[18:48] <utkarsh2102> vorlon: I mean, if the server-minimal seed is right, that’d mean no-follow-recommends + actually depending on some recommends should still recommend something, isn’t it?
[18:51] <vorlon> utkarsh2102: yes? maybe? I don't know the intended semantics, or if there are any intended semantics or just emergent behavior
[18:52] <vorlon> utkarsh2102: in practice I see that both tasks and metapackages are honoring the recommends from this file so I guess we should move forward with that
[18:58] <adrien> vorlon: ok, I'll keep an eye on it
[18:58] <adrien> btw, it seems llvm-toolchain-13 is problematic; I don't know if it has been spotted by someone else
[18:59] <vorlon> adrien: problematic how? it was discussed yesterday and a badtest hint added for it on arm64
[19:00] <adrien> problematic in the sense that it keeps on failing
[19:00] <adrien> (I didn't look at that today so I didn't spot changes until now)
[19:01] <adrien> but I now see that ocaml has been able to migrate
[19:06] <vorlon> yeah, that's why the hint was added
[19:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted bind9 [source] (focal-proposed) [1:9.16.1-0ubuntu2.13]
[19:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-notifier (jammy-proposed/main) [3.192.54.5 => 3.192.54.6] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[20:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-notifier (focal-proposed/main) [3.192.30.16 => 3.192.30.17] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[20:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-notifier (bionic-proposed/main) [3.192.1.18 => 3.192.1.19] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[20:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sddm (kinetic-proposed/universe) [0.19.0-3ubuntu1.1 => 0.19.0-3ubuntu1.2] (kubuntu)
[20:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sddm (jammy-proposed/universe) [0.19.0-2ubuntu2.2 => 0.19.0-2ubuntu2.3] (kubuntu)
[20:37] <Eickmeyer> ubuntu-sru: I have an SRU regression, opened bug 2009074, fixes have been uploaded.
[20:37] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2009074 in sddm (Ubuntu Kinetic) "[SRU Regression] SDDM display inset patch crashes" [Critical, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2009074
[20:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-notifier (xenial-proposed/main) [3.168.19 => 3.168.20] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[20:55] <arraybolt3> Eickmeyer: In case it's helpful, I added myself as affected after testing.
[20:56] <Eickmeyer> arraybolt3: Well, it is really only affecting people with mismatched monitor resolutions.
[20:56] <Eickmeyer> arraybolt3: But yes, thenks.
[20:56] <Eickmeyer> *thanks
[21:05] <ahasenack> Eickmeyer: doesn't this completely invalidade the previous sru? That script was obviously never run back then
[21:05] <ahasenack> Xsetup
[21:07] <Eickmeyer> ahasenack: Clearly, the people doing the testing were still using a bash injection (the sh script was still calling a bash script in their testing), which means the test was faulty.
[21:07] <Eickmeyer> I'm not too pleased either.
[21:07] <Eickmeyer> I got dropped this this morning and was quite put-off.
[21:08] <Eickmeyer> (I don't even have a setup to duplicate the original bug)
[21:08] <ahasenack> how would that injection happen? I'm not familiar with how Xsetup works
[21:09] <ahasenack> the package is shipping the script with /bin/sh, so where would bash be invoked instead?
[21:09] <Eickmeyer> Xsetup is called by sddm as a setup script when sddm launches Xorg. It calls whatever the shebang invokes.
[21:09] <Eickmeyer> By default, that would be #!/bin/sh
[21:10] <Eickmeyer> However, the Kubuntu Focus people had a downstream fix by injecting that script calling another script which had a shebang of #!/bin/bash which did everything in the original SRU's patch.
[21:11] <Eickmeyer> I brought that patch in (as Kubuntu Focus was my employer at the time), however missed that the original shebang was #!/bin/sh and could not handle arrays.
[21:12] <Eickmeyer> So, that's how the regression happened. Long-story short, it doesn't really matter how, it's there now, it just has to be fixed. This fixes it.
[21:12] <Eickmeyer> ahasenack: ^
[21:12] <ahasenack> I may be able to test that, I'm on kinetic, and have 3 displays
[21:12] <Eickmeyer> Cool, but they have to be varying resolutions.
[21:12] <ahasenack> that's easy to do full hd to 4k in all of them
[21:13] <Eickmeyer> Right, is that default resolution variance? Because sddm doesn't care, it'll go to full default res.
[21:13] <ahasenack> not sure what you mean with default resolution variance. I can select the resolution of each display separatedly
[21:14] <ahasenack> I was expecting to do that, then install sddm, select it as the login manager, reboot, and expect it to go nuts when it finds the setup
[21:14] <Eickmeyer> Oh. What I mean is mixed resolutions. Meaning one display has 1080p, one has 4k, etc.
[21:14] <ahasenack> yeah, normally they are the same, but I can mix
[21:14] <Eickmeyer> sddm will automatically go full res on all unless you have a way to override that on the hardware.
[21:14] <ahasenack> their native resolution is 4k (well, of the two monitors, the 3rd display is the laptop itself, I think that's something 2k+, hidpi, not 4k proper)
[21:15] <Eickmeyer> Ok, the laptop res might be the factor then.
[21:15] <ahasenack> right, the laptop at full res will be different from the monitors at full res
[21:15] <Eickmeyer> Perfect, that's a good test case.
[21:15] <ahasenack> ok
[21:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sddm [source] (kinetic-proposed) [0.19.0-3ubuntu1.2]
[21:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sddm [source] (jammy-proposed) [0.19.0-2ubuntu2.3]
[21:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debian-installer (focal-proposed/main) [20101020ubuntu614.4 => 20101020ubuntu614.5] (core)
[21:29] <vorlon> bdmurray: d-i in focal-proposed is critical path for 20.04.6 ^
[21:37] <vorlon> ahasenack: ^^ since I see you around and processing SRUs... if you have time :)
[22:23] <bdmurray> Since I'm still here and ahasenack ran away - I'll do look.
[22:25] <bdmurray> yeah! "do look"
[22:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted debian-installer [source] (focal-proposed) [20101020ubuntu614.5]
[22:35] <vorlon> bdmurray: ta
[23:35] <vorlon> killing current britney run, the archive just published removal of the nvidia/i386 binaries needed in order to let linux migrate
[23:44] <sergiodj> can I have a review of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dh-elpa/+bug/2008919 when it's most convenient, please?
[23:44] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2008919 in dh-elpa (Ubuntu) "[FFe] Implement support for 'buttercup_eval'" [Undecided, New]
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected jtreg7 [source] (lunar-proposed) [7.1.1+1-0ubuntu1]
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubelt [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [1.2.3-2]
[23:45] <sergiodj> unfortunately the state of some Emacs packages is not ideal, so I'm in this uphill battle to fix them and make dh-elpa migrate
[23:46] <sergiodj> this FFe is one of the things I need to achieve that
[23:46] <sergiodj> TIA
[23:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-line-profiler [sync] (lunar-proposed) [4.0.2-1]