[03:25] <mwhudson> ok this flake8 situation in lunar is really annoying
[03:27] <sarnold> I heard it hit debian now, too
[03:33] <mwhudson> ah getting python3-flake8 from proposed fixes it
[03:35] <sarnold> oh? I wonder if I might be able to shorten someone else's misery by passing that along
[03:35] <sarnold> Uploaded by:
[03:35] <sarnold>     Debian Python Team on 2022-12-30
[03:36] <sarnold> o_O  if debianunstable had that back in december, I don't think I'll bother reporting this as a solutioun to anyone, heh
[08:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dotnet7 (kinetic-proposed/universe) [7.0.103-0ubuntu1~22.10.1 => 7.0.104-0ubuntu2~22.10] (no packageset)
[08:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dotnet6 (kinetic-proposed/universe) [6.0.114-0ubuntu1~22.10.1 => 6.0.115-0ubuntu2~22.10] (no packageset)
[09:09] <seb128> bluesabre, hey, I've fixed the xubuntu-minimal download references on the ISO tracker now
[09:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected dotnet6 [source] (kinetic-proposed) [6.0.115-0ubuntu2~22.10]
[09:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected dotnet7 [source] (kinetic-proposed) [7.0.104-0ubuntu2~22.10]
[09:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dotnet7 (kinetic-proposed/universe) [7.0.103-0ubuntu1~22.10.1 => 7.0.104-0ubuntu2~22.10.1] (no packageset)
[10:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dotnet6 (kinetic-proposed/universe) [6.0.114-0ubuntu1~22.10.1 => 6.0.115-0ubuntu2~22.10.1] (no packageset)
[10:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dotnet6 (jammy-proposed/universe) [6.0.114-0ubuntu1~22.04.1 => 6.0.115-0ubuntu2~22.04.1] (no packageset)
[10:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-aipom-adl-meta [sync] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: oem-somerville-aipom-adl-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [20.04~ubuntu1] (canonical-oem-metapackages)
[10:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-mewtwo-meta [sync] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: oem-somerville-mewtwo-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [20.04~ubuntu1] (canonical-oem-metapackages)
[10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-psyduck-meta [sync] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: oem-somerville-psyduck-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [20.04~ubuntu1] (canonical-oem-metapackages)
[10:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-paras-35-meta [sync] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:49] <juergh> ahasenack: Can linux-firmware be promoted to jammy-updates? LPs 2007875 2009642 have just been verified.
[10:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: oem-somerville-paras-35-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [20.04~ubuntu1] (canonical-oem-metapackages)
[10:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-omastar-meta [sync] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: oem-somerville-omastar-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [20.04~ubuntu1] (canonical-oem-metapackages)
[10:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-aipom-adl-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-omastar-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-psyduck-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-mewtwo-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-paras-35-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-arbok-meta [sync] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[10:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: oem-somerville-arbok-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed/none) [20.04~ubuntu1] (canonical-oem-metapackages)
[10:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-somerville-arbok-meta [amd64] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[11:03] <tjaalton> juergh: I've released it
[12:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openldap (jammy-proposed/main) [2.5.14+dfsg-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 2.5.14+dfsg-0ubuntu0.22.04.2] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[15:25] <seb128> around when do we usually get a beta entry on http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker ?
[15:32] <sil2100> seb128: hm, usually it's done when we start building the Beta candidates, but let me check
[15:33] <sil2100> seb128: ok, so the template mentions -6, so tomorrow-ish, but I think we realistically did that usually on Monday
[15:34] <seb128> sil2100, alright, thanks, that's good enough for me. We want to issue testing instruction on Tuesday and were wondering if that would exist by then, answer is yes it should :)
[15:46] <sil2100> +1! ;)
[16:11] <didrocks> sil2100: hey, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic doesn’t have a 18.04.6 milestone whilst we released it, correct? Do you mind creating the milestone on LP?
[16:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (kinetic-proposed/main) [2022g-0ubuntu0.22.10.1 => 2023a-0ubuntu0.22.10.0] (core)
[16:31] <adrien> the gnutls28 which is currently packaged for lunar has a security issue; 3.7.9 fixes it but is not announced but picked by debian (I will spend time trying to make auto-merges working because it's a lot of work to track gnutls28 every two weeks); 3.8.0 also fixes it, is announced and doesn't seem too risky
[16:31] <adrien> any guidance on which version to pick or try to pick?
[16:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tzdata [source] (kinetic-proposed) [2023a-0ubuntu0.22.10.0]
[16:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (jammy-proposed/main) [2022g-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 2023a-0ubuntu0.22.04.0] (core)
[17:49] <LocutusOfBorg> can anybody please do a tail -f of this process? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-toolchain-16/1:16.0.0-1~exp1ubuntu2/+build/25686311
[17:50] <LocutusOfBorg> and this one https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openvdb/10.0.1-1/+build/25583523
[17:50] <LocutusOfBorg> and this one https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/deal.ii/9.4.1-1/+build/25589522
[17:50] <LocutusOfBorg> something weird is happening on riscv64
[18:00] <cjwatson> The last one failed six days ago, I'm not sure what you think to get out of a tail -f now
[18:00] <cjwatson> And the second one as well
[18:01] <cjwatson> tail -f running on the first one
[18:03] <cjwatson> The builder in question for the second one has been reflashed since that build happened, so any information that may have been there is lost
[18:10] <cjwatson> And the third one was actually run on -064, was very briefly requeued on -061 and then almost immediately failed with some kind of unrelated network error; when I tried to log into -064 just now it produces a lot of extreme nonsense on the console that suggests filesystem corruption, so I'll reflash it
[18:14] <cjwatson> Oh, also that second build was superseded by https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openvdb/10.0.1-1ubuntu1 anyway which succeeded
[18:14] <ginggs> third one was superseded by https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/deal.ii/9.4.1-1ubuntu1
[18:15] <ginggs> which built in my PPA, so I expect it to build eventually
[18:15] <cjwatson> Yeah, and I have a tail -f running for it now just in case
[18:16] <ginggs> --max-parallel=3 to strike a balance between running out of memory and taking forever
[18:16] <cjwatson> Anyway I suspect these are down to general filesystem unreliability on these builders, exacerbated by large/long builds, rather than anything very specific about them
[18:16] <cjwatson> I don't propose to spend very much time investigating since we'll be replacing them anyway once PS6 is ready
[18:20] <cjwatson> "error: Disconnected from qemu:///system due to keepalive timeout"  hmph, I wonder if the host for 061-090 is in trouble
[18:23] <cjwatson> Yeah I'm afraid the host is having trouble there so that's why https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/deal.ii/9.4.1-1ubuntu1/+build/25680245 just got requeued
[18:27] <cjwatson> We've just rebooted that host
[18:32] <cjwatson> I'll reflash its builders and get them back up
[18:49] <ginggs> cjwatson: thanks!
[19:00] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks cjwatson indeed they were not running, because I didn't know if they needed to be running before or after the tail
[19:01] <LocutusOfBorg> and meh, I didn't refresh the page with deal.ii and openvdb, but I'm interested mainly in llvm, that failed something like 5 times already with no log
[19:03] <utkarsh2102> mwhudson: thanks, how frequently does britney run? every 3h?
[19:03] <utkarsh2102> or was it lesser?
[19:03] <LocutusOfBorg> after 5 minutes since the last run IIRC
[19:04] <LocutusOfBorg> https://ubuntu-archive-team.ubuntu.com/proposed-migration/log/lunar/2023-03-23/
[19:04] <LocutusOfBorg> 18:16 18:47 last two runs
[19:07] <utkarsh2102> LocutusOfBorg: whoa, it runs every 5 minutes?
[19:07] <utkarsh2102> that last runs show a difference of 30 thoug
[19:07] <LocutusOfBorg> no. it starts 5 minutes after the previous run finished
[19:08] <utkarsh2102> aaaah
[19:08] <LocutusOfBorg> now it takes around 25 minutes to do a single run, expect it to run twice every hour or so
[19:08] <LocutusOfBorg> nowadays its faster britney than publisher :D
[19:09] <utkarsh2102> gotcha, thanks! :D
[19:09] <utkarsh2102> oh also, is there any service/job/anything else using the germinate-output reference at https://ubuntu-archive-team.ubuntu.com/germinate-output/?
[19:10] <utkarsh2102> vorlon:^
[19:10] <utkarsh2102> s/reference/referenced/g :)
[19:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (focal-proposed/main) [2022g-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 => 2023a-0ubuntu0.20.04.0] (core)
[19:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added gtk4 to ubuntu-desktop in jammy
[19:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added gtk4 to ubuntu-desktop in kinetic
[19:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added gtk4 to ubuntu-desktop in lunar
[20:09] <arraybolt3> Is it appropriate to bring up a possibly Beta Release threatening bug for Lubuntu in here? Openbox is highly unstable when using fullscreen apps, and we have a working patch that just needs reviewed and sponsored. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openbox/+bug/2011751 I'm happy to discuss any changes needed to the patch in order to get it in.
[20:09] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011751 in openbox (Ubuntu) "openbox crashed with SIGABRT" [Critical, Confirmed]
[20:09] <arraybolt3> (An earlier patch was stable in testing, I now have a newer patch in that does some extra safety checking.)
[20:10] <arraybolt3> The bug won't make it so that a Beta Release can't happen, but it's bad enough that it would be very preferable to get it fixed before Beta Release, and hopefully before Beta Freeze.
[20:22] <dbungert> When we're preparing a change for Ubuntu, it's helpful to think about what will happen later as upstream changes.  In this case there is a patch in the queue - https://github.com/Mikachu/openbox/commit/d41128e5a1002af41c976c8860f8299cfcd3cd72 - and I think we would need a very very good reason to deviate from that.
[20:22] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Commit d41128e in Mikachu/openbox "Fix list traversal issue in client_calc_layer"
[20:23] <arraybolt3> dbungert: I attempted to show a very good reason to deviate from that.
[20:23] <arraybolt3> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=2090570#p2090570 "But creating a copy of the list is inefficient and only glosses over the actual problem (and probably will cause X11 errors and/or behavioral differences - maybe maintain them b/c of the status quo ante)"
[20:24] <dbungert> I take issue with the word "probably", I think that's unproven.  And if this is the case, then upstrem is also going to need that fix, since that appears to be in queue for the next release.
[20:25] <arraybolt3> I can test the upstream patch and find out. I'm also not convinced that the patch is truly "upstream" though. It's not from the original maintainer, and it's not in an official branch.
[20:25] <arraybolt3> AFAIK.
[20:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted qemu [source] (jammy-proposed) [1:6.2+dfsg-2ubuntu6.7]
[20:26] <arraybolt3> The "true" upstream branch (as far as I can tell) is http://git.openbox.org/?p=dana/openbox.git;a=summary
[20:26] <arraybolt3> The branch with the new patch is http://git.openbox.org/?p=mikachu/openbox.git;a=summary
[20:26] <arraybolt3> Still, I'll test the upstream patch and see.
[20:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted qemu [source] (focal-proposed) [1:4.2-3ubuntu6.25]
[20:27] <arraybolt3> er, those were repos, not branches, sorry
[20:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted qemu [source] (bionic-proposed) [1:2.11+dfsg-1ubuntu7.42]
[20:28] <dbungert> It's a fair point about the officialness about upstream, I'm unclear what's happening there. But if we do have a patch like your and there is an official release with the patch I linked, things get weird.  I'd suggest avoiding that weird if possible.
[20:28] <dbungert> Testing that patch will help.
[20:30] <arraybolt3> Sounds good. Also, I can try and forward the latest iteration of my patch (with a null check) to upstream in the event upstream's patch does indeed cause errors.
[20:30] <arraybolt3> If it doesn't, then I'll just go with it. While the person who accepted the patch may not be truly upstream, he does have numerous commits into true upstream, so he knows probably more than me and seth combined :P
[20:37] <arraybolt3> dbungert: Well, it looks like the possibly upstream patch does *not* cause errors (at least not that are printed to the terminal when running Openbox in a terminal). And it works in the one-item and two-item test cases as well.
[20:40] <dbungert> arraybolt3: I know the extra copies are unpleasent, but it's a common solution for this sort of problem
[20:40] <arraybolt3> I still feel like it would be possibly better to use the existing patch, since it's already been tested and confirmed to work, and we can just drop it if upstream goes a different direction. And since it isn't clear if this branch is the upstream branch at all, I'm not sure we're going to avoid the weirdness you're mentioning by using it.
[20:40] <arraybolt3> Still, if you would prefer, I will replace my existing patch with the new one and we can upload that instead.
[20:49] <arraybolt3> Building and testing with the new patch.
[20:54] <arraybolt3> Alright, patch works, debdiff incoming.
[20:57] <arraybolt3> dbungert: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openbox/+bug/2011751/+attachment/5657030/+files/glib_crash_bugfix.patch Done.
[20:57] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011751 in openbox (Ubuntu) "openbox crashed with SIGABRT" [Critical, Confirmed]
[20:58] <dbungert> arraybolt3: thanks.  I promise to take a look later today.
[20:58] <dbungert> or if someone else gets to it first, feel free
[20:58] <arraybolt3> Thank you for your help!
[20:59] <arraybolt3> I did just realize that while I did give proper credit in the patch, I did not remember to update debian/copyright. So I'll do that real quick and put one more debdiff out there.
[21:01] <arraybolt3> Though come to think of it, I don't think we usually have explicit copyright info mentioned for patch files?
[21:02] <arraybolt3> Meh. Just because we don't currently doesn't mean we shouldn't :P Adding it anyway.
[21:07] <arraybolt3> OK, proper version with updated copyright file. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openbox/+bug/2011751/+attachment/5657032/+files/glib_crash_bugfix.patch Thanks for your patience.
[21:07] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011751 in openbox (Ubuntu) "openbox crashed with SIGABRT" [Critical, Confirmed]
[21:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tzdata [source] (jammy-proposed) [2023a-0ubuntu0.22.04.0]
[21:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tzdata [source] (focal-proposed) [2023a-0ubuntu0.20.04.0]
[22:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-advantage-tools (bionic-proposed/main) [27.13.6~18.04.1 => 27.14.1~18.04.1] (core)
[22:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-advantage-tools (xenial-proposed/main) [27.13.6~16.04.1 => 27.14.1~16.04.1] (no packageset)
[22:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-advantage-tools (focal-proposed/main) [27.13.6~20.04.1 => 27.14.1~20.04.1] (core)
[22:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-advantage-tools (jammy-proposed/main) [27.13.6~22.04.1 => 27.14.1~22.04.1] (core)
[22:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-advantage-tools (kinetic-proposed/main) [27.13.6~22.10.1 => 27.14.1~22.10.1] (core)
[22:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (xenial-proposed) [27.14~16.04.1]
[22:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (bionic-proposed) [27.14~18.04.1]
[22:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (jammy-proposed) [27.14~22.04.1]
[22:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (focal-proposed) [27.14~20.04.1]
[22:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-advantage-tools [source] (kinetic-proposed) [27.14~22.10.1]