[01:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python-tz (lunar-proposed/main) [2022.7.1-2 => 2022.7.1-3] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist) (sync)
[02:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[02:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Edubuntu Desktop amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[02:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Minimal amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[03:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu MATE Desktop amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[03:10] <vorlon> bdmurray, ginggs: so as I mentioned above, I'd like to un-NBS libevent-2.1-7a and libevent-core-2.1-7a; but I missed the freeze cutoff.  Should I upload it tonight?
[05:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libevent (lunar-proposed/main) [2.1.12-stable-8ubuntu2 => 2.1.12-stable-8ubuntu3] (core, i386-whitelist)
[05:32] <vorlon> bdmurray, ginggs: uploaded for consideration, it can always sit there until after beta
[05:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[06:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[06:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base arm64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[06:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base armhf [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[06:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base ppc64el [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[06:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base riscv64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[06:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base s390x [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[06:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openvswitch (jammy-proposed/main) [2.17.3-0ubuntu0.22.04.2 => 2.17.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.2] (core)
[06:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debian-archive-keyring (lunar-proposed/universe) [2023.1ubuntu1 => 2023.2ubuntu1] (core)
[06:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnupg2 (lunar-proposed/main) [2.2.40-1ubuntu2 => 2.2.40-1.1ubuntu1] (core, i386-whitelist)
[06:52] <LocutusOfBorg> ^^ fix for the autopkgtest sadness
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server arm64+raspi [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server arm64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server armhf+raspi [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server riscv64+icicle [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server riscv64+licheerv [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server riscv64+nezha [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server riscv64+unmatched [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server riscv64+visionfive [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[07:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: strace (lunar-proposed/main) [5.19-0ubuntu1 => 6.2-0.1ubuntu1] (core)
[08:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Core amd64 edge [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[08:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ipmitool (lunar-proposed/universe) [1.8.19-1ubuntu1 => 1.8.19-5] (no packageset) (sync)
[08:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ipmitool [sync] (lunar-proposed) [1.8.19-5]
[08:55] <seb128> hum, bug #2012735, the recent ubuntu-advantage-tools landing broke ubuntu-manager
[08:55] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2012735 in ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu) "update-manager crashed with uaclient.exceptions.UserFacingError in get_lscpu_arch()" [Critical, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2012735
[08:56] <seb128> orndorffgrant, ^
[09:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop (Legacy) amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[09:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libevent [source] (lunar-proposed) [2.1.12-stable-8ubuntu3]
[09:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted strace [source] (lunar-proposed) [6.2-0.1ubuntu1]
[09:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted python-tz [sync] (lunar-proposed) [2022.7.1-3]
[10:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python-markdown (lunar-proposed/main) [3.4.1-2 => 3.4.3-1] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server) (sync)
[10:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rhythmbox (lunar-proposed/main) [3.4.6-2ubuntu2 => 3.4.6-2ubuntu3] (ubuntu-desktop)
[11:12] <fossfreedom> release-team - please can I ask when will Ubuntu Budgie pop out of the build factory?  TIA
[12:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[12:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity arm64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[12:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity ppc64el [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[12:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity riscv64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[12:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity s390x [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[12:11] <ricotz> hello ubuntu-archive, I am still hoping for some progress at https://code.launchpad.net/~ricotz/ubuntu-archive-tools/+git/ubuntu-archive-tools/+merge/432979
[12:18] <seb128> ricotz, hey, I tried to ping Alberto about it
[12:19] <ricotz> seb128, hey :), thanks
[12:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected net-snmp [source] (bionic-proposed) [5.7.3+dfsg-1.8ubuntu3.9]
[12:22] <ricotz> regarding autopkgtests for libreoffice/i386, seems the numerous "results" are not picked up on update_excuses - https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/libr/libreoffice/lunar/i386
[12:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libcamera (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.0.4-2ubuntu2 => 0.0.4-3ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[12:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libcamera [source] (lunar-proposed) [0.0.4-3ubuntu1]
[12:32] <jamespage> o/
[12:33] <jamespage> please can the openvswitch upload from january in the jammy UNAPPROVED queue be rejected - fnordahl has prepared a new version which incorporates the security update that was released after it was uploaded
[12:37] <seb128> jamespage, the new upload description doesn't really convey that, it states 'd/p/CVE-2022-433x.patch: Drop, included in 2.17.5 point release.'
[12:37] <seb128> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/658159822/openvswitch_2.17.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.2_source.changes
[12:40] <seb128> jamespage, also
[12:41] <seb128> $ debdiff openvswitch_2.17.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.1.dsc openvswitch_2.17.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.2.dsc | diffstat
[12:41] <seb128>  changelog |   16 ++++++++++++++++
[12:41] <seb128>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
[12:41] <jamespage> hmm - letme check with Frode
[12:41] <seb128> thanks
[12:41] <jamespage> TBH we can fold the changelog entries together as the .1 never got accepted
[12:42] <seb128> well it's rather that the new upload only touch the changelog so what's the point?
[12:42] <seb128> something seems wrong
[12:42] <jamespage> it's acknowledging the security update that happened in the meantime
[12:42] <jamespage> the diff from the sec update to the .2 should be smalled
[12:43] <seb128> I would just have reuploaded .1 with the extra changelog entry
[12:43] <seb128> you can reuse versions which haven't been approved
[12:43] <seb128> the top entry is confusing as it is atm imho
[12:43] <jamespage> yes that's exactly the conversation I just had with fnordahl
[12:44] <jamespage> can you reject that one as well then and I'll upload a less verbose version
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected openvswitch [source] (jammy-proposed) [2.17.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.1]
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected openvswitch [source] (jammy-proposed) [2.17.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.2]
[12:45] <seb128> jamespage, ^
[12:45] <jamespage> seb128: lovely thanks :)
[12:45] <seb128> np!
[12:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openvswitch (jammy-proposed/main) [2.17.3-0ubuntu0.22.04.2 => 2.17.5-0ubuntu0.22.04.1] (core)
[13:31] <jbicha> ubuntu-release: please unblock mutter & gnome-shell. gnome-shell fixes critical issue preventing starting Firefox LP: #2011806  mutter re-enables triple buffering where Desktop wants more testing
[13:31] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011806 in snapd (Ubuntu) "[lunar] Snaps don't launch due to cgroup issue" [Critical, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2011806
[13:31] <jbicha> those 2 packages are also waiting for s390x autopkgtests but we don't support gnome-shell on s390x so I request those tests be ignored this time
[13:36] <ginggs> jbicha: ack, looking
[13:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: network-manager (lunar-proposed/main) [1.42.4-1ubuntu1 => 1.42.4-1ubuntu2] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)
[13:46] <seb128> could you also unblock software-properties, we need to rollback the Ubuntu Pro tab addition since the service isn't going to be ready for release
[13:46] <seb128> also we would like reverted in the beta build to avoid people picking that UI up in screenshots or talking about it when it's not going to be available in fact
[13:47] <seb128> also accountsservice fixes a crasher that could impact gnome-shell in some cases
[13:48] <seb128> and network-manager ^ fixes tests, it's not a must have for beta just a would be nice
[13:59] <ginggs> seb128: ack, looking
[14:06] <ginggs> seb128: software-properties and accountsservice unblocked
[14:07] <ginggs> is there a fix coming for LP: #2009543 soon, or would you like network-manager 1.42.4-1ubuntu1 as it is?
[14:07] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2009543 in network-manager (Ubuntu) "network-manager nm.py autopkgtest needs to be updated for 1.42" [High, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2009543
[14:09] <seb128> ginggs, thanks
[14:09] <seb128> ginggs, the fix is the one in the unapproved queue
[14:10] <seb128> for n-m
[14:10] <seb128> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/658221787/network-manager_1.42.4-1ubuntu1_1.42.4-1ubuntu2.diff.gz
[14:11] <ginggs> seb128: ok, i see it
[14:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted network-manager [source] (lunar-proposed) [1.42.4-1ubuntu2]
[14:17] <seb128> thanks!
[14:42] <fossfreedom> ginggs: any idea when the Ubuntu Budgie lunar beta build will be available?  TIA
[14:52] <vorlon> fossfreedom: no evidence that a beta candidate build has been triggered for ubuntu-budgie; let me see about taking inventory
[14:55] <fossfreedom> Cheers - guessing the same for Ubuntu Unity ... and for the "new ubuntu" rather than the legacy.
[15:13] <ginggs> fossfreedom: still waiting on some autopkgtests and availability of someone who can spins the images
[15:14] <ginggs> so maybe today still, or early tomorrow
[15:15] <vorlon> ginggs: is spinning the images not something you can do via the ISO tracker?
[15:15] <vorlon> anyway I'm around today so give me the signal when you want me to spin things
[15:16] <ginggs> vorlon: ack, thanks
[15:48] <ItzSwirlz> Hi release team. I see that sc-im is failing in lunar-proposed, but apparently (and I wasn't subscribed to the debian BTS for sc-im) there is a potential copyright problem in sc-im.
[15:49] <ItzSwirlz> So, i can fix it, but where should I go from here, does this necessitate a removal? Because this copyright file has been in there for over a year.
[15:55] <vorlon> ItzSwirlz: specific bug links helpful.  I see we're talking about Debian bug #1029570.  As this is a pre-existing issue in the package we currently ship in lunar, it has no bearing on whether the failures in lunar-proposed should be fixed; but also if you fix it then why would there need to be a removal anywhere?
[15:55] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Debian bug 1029570 in sc-im "sc-im: debian/copyright file seems to be inaccurate" [Serious, Open] https://bugs.debian.org/1029570
[15:55] <ItzSwirlz> vorlon: Just asking if one is warranted, at least until it gets fixed.
[15:55] <vorlon> nah
[15:56] <vorlon> it's in stable releases already, and this doesn't rise to the level of a bug that we would remove it from a release pocket over
[15:56] <ItzSwirlz> okay, so 0.8.3 has more features but, post-feature freeze so i'll put aside the build failure
[15:56] <ItzSwirlz> so, should i fix the copyright in a .debdiff and ask for it to be uploaded
[15:57] <vorlon> also fwiw this is a matter for the Archive Admin Team rather than the Release Team, but still happy to field such questions here
[15:58] <ItzSwirlz> well, the main issue is probably that third clause
[15:59] <ItzSwirlz> should i add it in or wait until the maintainer responds whether expat is fine
[15:59] <ItzSwirlz> but the LICENSE file would stay the same, so..
[15:59] <vorlon> um the license in debian/copyright should be fixed to match the license we know we have been given by upstream; there's no reason to wait
[15:59] <vorlon> if upstream later clarifies that a different license is ok, that's separate
[16:00] <ItzSwirlz> vorlon: expect debdiff in ~10 mins
[16:00] <vorlon> what do you mean wrt putting aside the build failure? this package was synced before feature freeze, the freeze is not applicable
[16:01] <ItzSwirlz> yeah i was just about to get to that, pull-lp-source is trying to pull 0.8.3. so should i fix the -proposed build + the copyright and send it in a debdiff?
[16:01] <vorlon> yes
[16:01] <ItzSwirlz> I was thinking i would just fix the copyright in 0.8.2 but since it was synced pre-feature freeze i'll fix that
[16:01] <vorlon> you don't get to back the package out of -proposed to land a debian/copyright fix :)
[16:01] <ItzSwirlz> im creating an sbuild right now
[16:02] <ItzSwirlz> so fix 0.8.2 or 0.8.3 (proposed)?
[16:02] <vorlon> 0.8.3!
[16:02] <ItzSwirlz> on it
[16:05] <ItzSwirlz> right, so looking at https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/blob/b4cfc3fef326f78b8c683707f0819886ddcd82bd/LICENSE, and i just read the OAC page, is this still BSD-4?
[16:06] <vorlon> it is technically BSD-4-*like* because the actual BSD license references the University of California, but close enough for government work :P
[16:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: anacron (kinetic-proposed/main) [2.3-33ubuntu1 => 2.3-33ubuntu2] (desktop-core)
[16:07] <vorlon> but yes it's BSD-4 (note the 4 bullet points), not BSD-3
[16:10] <ItzSwirlz> as suggested can i also change the debian/* license to match
[16:11] <ItzSwirlz> actually nvm, what i have works
[16:11] <ItzSwirlz> gpl-2+ is fine
[16:13] <vorlon> you cannot change the maintainer's declarations of license for the contents of debian/* without the maintainer saying so, nor should you have any reason to
[16:14] <ItzSwirlz> i am the maintainer of debian/*
[16:15] <vorlon> ah, I missed the Uploaders field
[16:15] <ItzSwirlz> no problem
[16:15] <vorlon> I should say "copyright holder" rather than "maintainer"
[16:15] <vorlon> (in this case, the same person)
[16:15] <ItzSwirlz> yeah, with my username I'm probably the last person you'd expect
[16:16] <vorlon> I just didn't see any connection between this package description and your other work ;)
[16:16] <Eickmeyer> Can confirm, he's on the Debian math team, part of his schooling.
[16:17] <ItzSwirlz> Linker still failing with ncursesw. yay.
[16:21] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Just for a matter of opinion, I'm having trouble finding the incompatibility asserted in that bug report between BSD-4 and GPL-2. Thoughts?
[16:26] <cjwatson> GPLv2 section 6 "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", and the advertising clause of BSD-4 is a further restriction over and above the terms of GPLv2
[16:28] <Eickmeyer> cjwatson: I see, so that is an incompatibility. The upstream of sc-im is being very staunch and unwavering on removing the fourth clause, so that means debian/* does need to change to something else, which is problematic for ItzSwirlz.
[16:28] <Eickmeyer> https://github.com/andmarti1424/sc-im/issues/50
[16:28] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Issue 50 in andmarti1424/sc-im "About the license" [Closed]
[16:28] <cjwatson> It's a very well-established incompatibility, e.g. mentioned on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html
[16:29] <Eickmeyer> I read that, but sometimes Stallman's opinion is overopinionated and not reviewed by a third party.
[16:30] <cjwatson> I realize RMS is ... RMS, but in this case I don't think it's a seriously contested opinion
[16:30] <ItzSwirlz> we don't talk about rms, no no no no
[16:30] <ItzSwirlz> But seriously, I don't think the OAC is that big of a deal
[16:30] <ItzSwirlz> But again I have a limited view of how licenses work
[16:30] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: no, there is no prohibition on the packaging having a different copyright than the upstream source
[16:31] <ItzSwirlz> Okay I FINALLY got the build to work. It was missing an LDLIB flag
[16:31] <vorlon> the copyright of debian/* almost never contaminates the package
[16:31] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Ok, so then the opinion in the bug report is wrong and the bug should be closed.
[16:31] <ItzSwirlz> it can have a copyright of a different license but recently from what i've learned newer packages use the same
[16:31] <vorlon> the bug should not be closed if debian/copyright incorrectly documents the upstream copyrighT!
[16:31] <Eickmeyer> ...as soon as it's fixed with the BSD-4 being in there.
[16:31] <vorlon> right
[16:31] <cjwatson> I usually consider it risky for them to be outright incompatible, because (a) the resulting binaries are clearly derived works of both the upstream licence and the packaging licence, and (b) debian/patches/
[16:32] <vorlon> ItzSwirlz: "newer packages" meh it's entirely up to the individual maintainer
[16:32] <vorlon> yes, what Colin says wrt debian/patches
[16:32] <Eickmeyer> So, debian/patches/* can be a different license then.
[16:32] <cjwatson> This is definitely all possible but usually seems like gratuitously making trouble for oneself to me
[16:33] <vorlon> I mean, you can license your files however you want, and debian/copyright is just a container for expressing what that license is
[16:33] <vorlon> but if you write patches, put them in debian/patches, and declare them to have a license incompatible with that of the upstream code, we have a problem
[16:34] <Eickmeyer> That's pretty much what I'm getting at.
[16:34] <Eickmeyer> Declare the patches with a compatible license to the upstream code.
[16:34] <Eickmeyer> Of course, like cjwatson was saying, that does get rather atomic.
[16:37] <vorlon> I think my view on this differs slightly from cjwatson's because the UK unlike the US doesn't have a notion in law of "minimum creative input" in establishing copyright, and I'm stubbornly persistent in believing that on this one thing, US law is better and everyone else should just conform
[16:37]  * ItzSwirlz looks at what he has started
[16:38] <ItzSwirlz> With all respect your view in the UK is probably better than mine, with our 'liberty copyright'
[16:38] <vorlon> (and also that if you get it wrong the chances of actually being sued are negligible)
[16:38] <cjwatson> Also perhaps I've seen some pretty damn creative debian/rules files
[16:38] <vorlon> ItzSwirlz: you could've saved yourself time and just read 20 years of debian-legal mailing list archives
[16:38] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: XD
[16:39] <sarnold> lol
[16:39] <ItzSwirlz> vorlon: okay that's older than how I am so no way in heck im reading that
[16:39]  * cjwatson exchanges Zimmer frames with vorlon
[16:39] <ItzSwirlz> I'm running a final sbuild test, create a debdiff, put it on a paste and sent it to vorlon
[16:41] <vorlon> cjwatson: :D
[16:41] <ItzSwirlz> "E: sc-im changes: bad-distribution-in-changes-file lunar-arm64" my apologies lintian, you're just jealous that i'm running a better cpu
[16:42] <tobhe> ItzSwirlz: m1?
[16:43] <ItzSwirlz> tobhe: ?
[16:44] <ItzSwirlz> vorlon: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/32XKVxJcW9/
[16:44] <tobhe> the cpu
[16:44] <ItzSwirlz> oh, i thought you said "M L" as in mailing list. Yep, M1.
[16:45] <ItzSwirlz> Faster than my gaming pc at home
[16:45] <ItzSwirlz> I'll stay on until vorlon can confirm everything is good
[16:45] <tobhe> nice :)
[16:45] <ItzSwirlz> wait
[16:45] <ItzSwirlz> wait
[16:46] <ItzSwirlz> why did the .patch file in the debdiff not have a description-
[16:47] <ItzSwirlz> vorlon, my ~20 rebuilds i did may have confused the debdiff so that's why it looks like there was already an empty patch file there
[16:50] <arraybolt3> ItzSwirlz: Actually I think that particular lintian warning is Lintian unhappy with the fact that you're using sbuild at all. I get those constantly and ignore them without a second thought.
[16:50] <arraybolt3> (re: bad-distribution-in-changes-file)
[16:50] <ItzSwirlz> (yeah that's the actual reason why, it also does with experimental and unstable)
[16:58] <jbicha> speaking of minimum creative input, Debian ftpmasters forced me to add a copyright reference for https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/text-engine/-/blob/debian/master/debian/patches/meson-set-soversion.patch
[17:02] <sarnold> ha
[17:03] <ItzSwirlz> okay, i don't want to fall behind in class. Email me if something goes wrong ith the patch
[17:03] <arraybolt3> Hey, I uploaded a fix in lubuntu-update-notifier that resolves https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lubuntu-update-notifier/+bug/2012823 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lubuntu-update-notifier/+bug/2012702, can someone wave my Lunar upload through the Beta Freeze?
[17:03] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2012823 in lubuntu-update-notifier (Ubuntu Lunar) "lubuntu-notifier.py crashes with a type mismatch error when packages are to be removed" [Undecided, New]
[17:03] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2012702 in lubuntu-update-notifier (Ubuntu) "Download progress indicators no longer appear in Lunar" [Undecided, New]
[17:03] <arraybolt3> I'd really like those two fixes in the Lubuntu beta.
[17:03] <arraybolt3> (There's also two SRU uploads that fix the first of the two bugs, but those can wait. I just need the Lunar ones to go through.)
[17:05] <arraybolt3> Also it looks like something's gotten Lubuntu builds hung up, /me looks closer
[17:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[17:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop arm64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[17:12] <arraybolt3> Found it, I need a MOTU to fix the dependencies on libqt5webenginecore5. It's depending on libevent-2.1-7, it should depend on libevent-2.1-7a, which replaces the earlier version.
[17:13] <arraybolt3> Lubuntu is unable to build since something in it pulls in qml-module-qtwebengine, which pulls in libqt5webenginecore5, which is pulls in libevent-2.1-7, which then conflicts with libevent-2.1-7a which is pulled in probably by transmission-qt.
[17:14] <arraybolt3> This may already be fixed I'm realizing, maybe qtwebengine is still buidling...
[17:15] <arraybolt3> Nope, it looks like it's not there yet.
[17:23] <arraybolt3> Either that needs changed *or* I need to find whatever's puling in qtwebengine in Lubuntu. Which, if I were to guess, is probably Discover... and that is probably not something we can just remove this close to release.
[17:41] <jbicha> arraybolt3: maybe that's already fixed by https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libevent/2.1.12-stable-8ubuntu3 (still in lunar-proposed)
[17:42] <arraybolt3> Oh thank goodness. Looks like you're right.
[17:42] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: if you see him before me, can you tell ItzSwirlz that pastebin is an absolutely terrible way to communicate patches? :P
[17:42] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Will do. I'll tell him to file a bug report in the future.
[17:43] <arraybolt3> (Also it was indeed Discover pulling in qtwebengine.)
[17:44] <arraybolt3> OK, so in that instance all we need are is lubuntu-update-notifier to migrate and then I *think* we're set for the beta.
[17:44] <arraybolt3> s/are//
[17:49] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: also the debdiff he posted there contains no substantive changes
[18:02] <vorlon> seb128: the grub source package is grub2 not grub, please :)  (How I wish launchpad disabled reporting of bugs against source packages that are no longer published anywhere)
[18:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop arm64+raspi [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[18:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Budgie Desktop amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[18:24] <arraybolt3> jbicha: Actually that libevent change is ready to migrate and just needs let through.
[18:24] <arraybolt3> Oh, wait, it also has a ton of autopkgtests in progress.
[18:25] <arraybolt3> Sigh, why does Britney not list the most obstructive problem when it says something is blocked...
[18:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Kylin Desktop amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[18:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Studio DVD amd64 [Lunar Beta] (20230328) has been added
[19:01] <seb128> vorlon, ack
[19:27] <bdmurray> FYI bos01 is unusable so port queues are processing more slowly than normal :-(
[19:38] <seb128> the infra went really unreliable this cycle, I think that's something we should escalade
[19:38] <seb128> we can't work correctly on something that unreliable
[20:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sc-im (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.8.3+ds-1 => 0.8.3+ds-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[20:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sc-im [source] (lunar-proposed) [0.8.3+ds-1ubuntu1]
[20:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: spamassassin (kinetic-proposed/main) [3.4.6-1build3 => 3.4.6-1ubuntu0.22.10.1] (ubuntu-server)
[20:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: spamassassin (jammy-proposed/main) [3.4.6-1build3 => 3.4.6-1ubuntu0.22.04.1] (ubuntu-server)
[20:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: spamassassin (focal-proposed/main) [3.4.4-1ubuntu1.1 => 3.4.4-1ubuntu1.2] (ubuntu-server)
[20:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ledger (lunar-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-1 => 3.3.0-3] (no packageset) (sync)
[20:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ledger [sync] (lunar-proposed) [3.3.0-3]
[21:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: testng7 (lunar-proposed/primary) [7.5~us1-0ubuntu1]
[21:49] <arraybolt3> ubuntu-archive: Sorry to be somewhat insistent here, but I'd really like to see a couple of bug fixes in lubuntu-update-notifier get into the Beta, and currently the update I pushed is stuck in the queue waiting to be unblocked. Bug reports are bug #2012702 and bug #2012823. Thanks!
[21:49] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2012702 in lubuntu-update-notifier (Ubuntu) "Download progress indicators no longer appear in Lunar" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2012702
[21:49] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2012823 in lubuntu-update-notifier (Ubuntu Lunar) "lubuntu-notifier.py crashes with a type mismatch error when packages are to be removed" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2012823
[21:57] <vorlon> arraybolt3: the queue being frozen is release team, not archive team. I have a meeting in a minute but will take a look after
[21:59] <arraybolt3[m]> Ah, OK.
[22:01] <vorlon> arraybolt3: ah this is easy, it's already accepted into -proposed an just needs unblocked; done
[22:15] <arraybolt3> Thanks!
[22:58] <bdmurray> bos01 is back
[23:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (kinetic-proposed) [0.54ubuntu0.2]
[23:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (jammy-proposed) [0.52ubuntu0.3]
[23:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (focal-proposed) [0.43ubuntu1.12]
[23:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.37ubuntu0.16]
[23:54] <arraybolt3> I think we had better give the live system and installed system tests on the Beta images an extra-good workout since the GLib slice allocator removal has caused a lot of problems. First it was Openbox, then the timezone map in Ubiquity. Now it looks like it might be affecting Xubuntu with xfce4-power-manager, and I'm now reporting a bug in Caja in Ubuntu MATE that may be related.
[23:54] <arraybolt3> If there are too many problems, what are the chances we can switch back to the pre-slice-allocator-removal version of GLib?
[23:59] <sarnold> imho it'd be better to just go with it and collect bug reports from users -- that way we stand a better chance of getting all those programs fixed up before 24.04