[00:14] <mwhudson> You submitted an invalid request: python-flake8/5.0.4-4 is not published in PPA danilogondolfo/icdiff lunar
[00:14] <mwhudson> annoyingly
[00:18] <danilogondolfo> what... wait, I have proposed enabled in the PPA dependencies... how do you trigger a PPA test with something from proposed?
[00:36] <mwhudson> danilogondolfo: i think you need to copy the thing from propsoed (and then wait for it to publish :/)
[02:58] <arraybolt3> Can I get someone to sponsor an upload to Openbox for me real quick? It's a critical bugfix for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openbox/+bug/2011751 that I would really like to get in before Beta Freeze if at all possible. The debdiff is attached to the bug report.
[02:58] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2011751 in openbox (Ubuntu) "openbox crashed with SIGABRT" [Critical, Confirmed]
[02:59] <arraybolt3> tsimonq2, teward: ^
[02:59] <arraybolt3> (in case anyone's wondering, yes, I am about to write to devel-permissions to ask for that to be added to the Lubuntu packageset.)
[03:00] <dbungert> arraybolt3: looking
[03:02] <arraybolt3> Thanks!
[03:05] <arraybolt3> (btw the code added in that patch has been tested by one of Lubuntu's testers for a couple of days and it resolves the bug for him.)
[04:13] <arraybolt3> dbungert: Saw your comment, and followed up with some extra rationale and some testing.
[12:35] <rbasak> cpaelzer: sergiodj's (excellent) dep8 test for mosh goes out of its way to run the upstream test suite against the installed system binaries. But is that overkill? I thought the request was to hack the autopkgtest rdep trigger to rebuild and rerun mosh's upstream test suite but against its own built binaries instead?
[12:35] <rbasak> The only catch doing it this way is that it's a bit fragile to upstream testsuite changes.
[12:36] <rbasak> So I'm wondering if it's worth it, in case it wasn't actually the MIR team's request.
[12:59] <cpaelzer> we usually want to test what is in the package
[13:00] <cpaelzer> I mean you know the argument best from the SRU POV
[13:00] <cpaelzer> you do not want the thing in the PPA to be tested, the actual build that lands
[13:00] <cpaelzer> rbasak: ^^
[13:01] <bluca> could you submit those changes as a MR on salsa too please? I'd like to reduce the delta between debian and ubuntu
[13:01] <bluca> sorry that was for hallyn ^
[13:02] <bluca> reg. the libsystemd static stuff
[13:06] <rbasak> Well, OK. For mosh, it seems required to rebuild the source tree to get the test suite (or else we'd need a separate mosh test suite binary package or something).
[13:06] <rbasak> And at that point, it feels like a hack to use autopkgtest for this, rather than just requiring rdep build testing before proposed migration for some packages.
[13:06] <rbasak> But fine :)
[13:39] <enr0n> bluca: hallyn: I was planning to do so
[13:40] <hallyn> bluca: enr0n: oh, great, thanks
[13:42] <bluca> great, thanks
[16:08] <ahasenack> in ubuntu-hints, what's the difference between force-badtest and force-skiptest again?
[16:12] <tumbleweed> force-badtest means assume the previous test for a given package had failed (so failing again isn't a regression)
[16:12] <tumbleweed> force-skiptest says don't wait for the reverse-deps of a package to pass autopkgtests
[18:58] <teward> ddstreet: NACK on memtest86+ backport of 6.10-2 - see my note on the bug and why i'd like it to be updated to -4 instead of -2 for backporting
[18:59] <teward> (updates in -3 and -4 to match EFI spec)
[19:01] <teward> mapreri: ^^ (see #1998834 for reference)
[19:22] <danilogondolfo> anybody available to review and sponsor (or not) a workaround for icdiff autopkgtest? https://code.launchpad.net/~danilogondolfo/ubuntu/+source/icdiff/+git/icdiff/+merge/439410
[19:23] <danilogondolfo> ahasenack_, ^ I commented out that test for now, will try to submit a fix upstream
[19:23] <ahasenack_> danilogondolfo: ah, cool. Any idea what the fix will be yet? :)
[19:24] <danilogondolfo> not rely on the file descriptor number I guess hehe
[19:25] <danilogondolfo> ahasenack_, that was the first workaround https://code.launchpad.net/~danilogondolfo/ubuntu/+source/icdiff/+git/icdiff/+merge/439360
[19:25] <ahasenack_> did you run that in an autopkgtest env?
[19:26] <ahasenack_> I'm wondering if you are closing fds that are needed by the infra
[19:27] <danilogondolfo> no, I didn't. It requires python-flake8 from proposed and apparently I'd need to create a PPA of it to run the test, and I ended up not doing that.
[19:29] <danilogondolfo> I think it's safer to just disable that particular test
[19:29] <sergiodj> danilogondolfo: sorry for jumping into the conversation, but can you reproduce the problem locally?  I forgot
[19:29] <danilogondolfo> sergiodj, yes, the test never works on autopkgtest
[19:29] <sergiodj> danilogondolfo: gotcha.  so since we're talking about workarounds, another one is to adjust the expected fds if running inside autopkgtest
[19:30] <sergiodj> of course, this is ugly and all, but I think it's safer than closing unknown fds
[19:31] <danilogondolfo> so, it will try to match the fd it gets from <(cat somefile.txt) with the content of another file that has the /dev/fd/63 hardcoded
[19:33] <sergiodj> ugh, what an ugly way to test things :-/
[19:33] <danilogondolfo> yeah...
[19:33] <danilogondolfo> my idea was to just disable it for now and work with upstream to find a better solution and also incorporate another patch present in the package
[19:34] <sergiodj> I think it's better to skip the test for now, indeed
[20:14] <mwhudson> hooray for a less broken linux-libc-dev
[20:31] <ddstreet> ricotz lp: #2009944 LGTM, feel free to ping me once the backport-from version moves from kinetic-proposed to kinetic-updates and i'll approve the backports
[20:31] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2009944 in libreoffice (Ubuntu Jammy) "[BPO] libreoffice 7.4.6 for bionic, focal and jammy" [High, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2009944
[20:46] <ricotz> ddstreet, thx, ack (jfyi https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/libr/libreoffice/libreoffice_7.4.5-2_changelog)
[20:48] <ddstreet> hmm so, ubuntu is ahead of debian for libreoffce?
[20:48] <ddstreet> well, i guess we are ahead of unstable
[20:49] <ddstreet> i mean, hey if you get it into kinetic-updates, that's good enough for me ;-)
[20:58] <teward> ddstreet: i wasn't sure if you saw my NACK note here, but we have a way forward for memtest86+ for backports - when -4 is available Just Do It for the upload + approve for -backports pocket
[20:59] <teward> *goes back to poking things in -proposed*
[20:59] <ddstreet> teward yep! thanks :)