[07:17] <LocutusOfBorg> hello, good morning. I'm thinking about syncingpackage -f webkit2gtk. It takes two days to build on riscv64, and causes uninstallabilities of some packages. Doing it during archive opening might be a good idea
[07:17] <LocutusOfBorg> please let me know
[07:17] <LocutusOfBorg> (its built successfully already in my ppa for riscv64)
[07:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: webkit2gtk (mantic-proposed/main) [2.40.0-3ubuntu1 => 2.40.1-1] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist) (sync)
[07:19] <LocutusOfBorg> (also pkgconf, now it has a *real* testsuite running on every architecture and passing!)
[07:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pkgconf (mantic-proposed/main) [1.8.1-1ubuntu2 => 1.8.1-2] (i386-whitelist) (sync)
[07:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected hibagent [source] (focal-proposed) [1.0.1-0ubuntu2.20.04.1]
[08:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lto-disabled-list (mantic-proposed/main) [39 => 40] (core, i386-whitelist) (sync)
[08:58] <slyon> Hey, I'm proposing to get lto-disabled-list 40 (from my +1 PPA) into "devel" early, to avoid any conflicts. ^ see my +1 report for context: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2023-April/042551.html
[09:21] <schopin> Since those are fixes for lunar FTBFS, should the lto-disabled-list also be SRUed?
[09:28] <slyon> eztrace needs additional fixes (in llvm-toolchain), clasp is a universe FTBFS in lunar-proposed.. not sure how we handle those? I suppose it could eventually be SRUed.
[09:30] <slyon> So far we didn't do any lto-disabled-list SRUs, though (since Jammy).
[09:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ceph (focal-proposed/main) [15.2.17-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 => 15.2.17-0ubuntu0.20.04.3] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[10:23] <vorlon> slyon, schopin: honestly I think the continued use of lto-disabled-list is dubious; the package doesn't exist in Debian, and now that Debian supports DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=optimization=+lto, per-package overrides belong upstreamed in Debian
[10:25] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, what about per-package-and-arch overrides (thinking w.r.t. cmake and s390x)
[10:26] <slyon> vorlon: I agree. But Debian doesn't enable LTO by default, so they might not be as interested in accepting an "optimization=-lto" patch. I tried anyway: https://bugs.debian.org/1034521 -- lto-disabled-list helps in such cases to avoid unnecessary delta
[10:26] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Debian bug 1034521 in clasp "clasp: FTBFS with LTO enabled" [Minor, Open]
[10:28] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: what do you mean? DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS can be arch-specific
[10:29] <vorlon> slyon: it's forward-looking - the expectation is that Debian will be moving to LTO by default in the next release
[10:29] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, I mean instead of patching cmake to disable lto on s390x, to add it to lto-disabled-list
[10:29] <vorlon> anyway, no reason to care about Debian delta in an SRU
[10:30] <LocutusOfBorg> I'm not huge fan of introducing lto delta :)
[10:30] <vorlon> then why have it as a delta instead of submitted to Debian
[10:30] <vorlon> I'm not a huge fan of having an obscure centralized list of overrides that is not obvious to onlookers
[10:30] <LocutusOfBorg> meh, ask uploader of  delta not me :D
[10:30] <LocutusOfBorg> I usually add lto delta after opening upstream bugs
[10:31] <LocutusOfBorg> because I also don't like that overrides list
[10:31] <LocutusOfBorg> slyon, maybe LP: #2015872 can be upstreamed?
[10:31] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2015872 in cmake (Ubuntu) "FTBFS due to LTO on s390x" [Undecided, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2015872
[10:31] <slyon> LocutusOfBorg: we have a MIR rules for packages in main: https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/blob/main/README.md?plain=1#L801 LTO delta should be in the package, not in lto-disabled-list
[10:32] <LocutusOfBorg> slyon, this makes sense
[10:32] <LocutusOfBorg> but maybe fixing upstream is preferrable?
[10:32] <slyon> for cmake it's a bit weird. I missed the lto-disabled-list when patching it for s390x. I should probably try to upstream the delta for all the architectures
[10:56] <slyon> LocutusOfBorg: https://bugs.debian.org/1034873
[10:56] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Debian bug 1034873 in cmake "cmake: FTBFS with LTO enabled on many architectures" [Minor, Open]
[10:56] <LocutusOfBorg> I was thinking to report here instead https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues
[10:57] <slyon> I wanted to do that next :)
[10:58] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks, hopefully for next minor release will be back in sync :D
[11:53] <zhsj> All the golang packages can be dropped if you're interested in reducing the list size
[11:55] <zhsj> (for lto-disabled-list)
[12:05] <slyon> wrt CMake: https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/24855
[12:05] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Issue 24855 in cmake/cmake "Build failure when LTO is enabled" [Opened]
[12:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-guest-agent (kinetic-proposed/main) [20220622.00-0ubuntu2 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~22.10.0] (core)
[12:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (kinetic-proposed/main) [2023c-0ubuntu0.22.10.1 => 2023c-0ubuntu0.22.10.2] (core)
[12:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (jammy-proposed/main) [2023c-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 2023c-0ubuntu0.22.04.2] (core)
[12:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-guest-agent (jammy-proposed/main) [20220622.00-0ubuntu2~22.04.0 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~22.04.0] (core)
[12:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (focal-proposed/main) [2023c-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 => 2023c-0ubuntu0.20.04.2] (core)
[13:00] <utkarsh2102> jbicha: hey, you added LP: #2015760 as "Known Issues" for Kinetic (and probably for Lunar, too) but it was meant for Lunar only, I guess. Dropped it from Kinetic. :)
[13:00] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2015760 in libadwaita-1 (Ubuntu) "Accessibility is much worse in GNOME apps that have switched to GTK4" [Critical, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2015760
[13:31] <jbicha> utkarsh2102: it affects Kinetic also because it's libadwaita that hasn't implemented what it needs to. Jammy isn't really affected because we have almost zero libadwaita apps there
[14:37] <bdrung> please drop the unapproved tzdata SRUs. I found another related inconsistency.
[16:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: msmtp (lunar-proposed/universe) [1.8.23-1 => 1.8.23-1ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)
[16:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (kinetic-proposed/main) [2023c-0ubuntu0.22.10.1 => 2023c-0ubuntu0.22.10.2] (core)
[16:22] <bdrung> here come the new ones ^
[17:27] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks, hopefully for next minor release will be back in sync :D
[17:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (jammy-proposed/main) [2023c-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 2023c-0ubuntu0.22.04.2] (core)
[18:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (focal-proposed/main) [2023c-0ubuntu0.20.04.1 => 2023c-0ubuntu0.20.04.2] (core)
[18:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected tzdata [source] (focal-proposed) [2023c-0ubuntu0.20.04.2]
[18:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected tzdata [source] (jammy-proposed) [2023c-0ubuntu0.22.04.2]
[18:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected tzdata [source] (kinetic-proposed) [2023c-0ubuntu0.22.10.2]
[18:11] <bdrung> Thanks. Can someone drop apport 2.20.9-0ubuntu7.29 from bionic unapproved (superseded by security update)
[18:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tzdata (bionic-proposed/main) [2023c-0ubuntu0.18.04 => 2023c-0ubuntu0.18.04.1] (core)
[18:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected mdadm [source] (kinetic-proposed) [4.2-3ubuntu2]
[18:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mdadm (kinetic-proposed/main) [4.2-3ubuntu1 => 4.2-3ubuntu2] (core, i386-whitelist)
[18:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected mdadm [source] (jammy-proposed) [4.2-0ubuntu2]
[18:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mdadm (jammy-proposed/main) [4.2-0ubuntu1 => 4.2-0ubuntu2] (core, i386-whitelist)
[19:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: curl (lunar-proposed/main) [7.88.1-8ubuntu1 => 7.88.1-8ubuntu2] (core, i386-whitelist)
[19:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubiquity (mantic-proposed/main) [23.04.8 => 23.04.9] (ubuntu-desktop)
[21:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debootstrap (mantic-proposed/main) [1.0.128+nmu2ubuntu1 => 1.0.128+nmu2ubuntu2] (desktop-core)
[21:05] <utkarsh2102> jbicha: yes, but putting it in the release notes isn't really the right place, I think?
[21:06] <utkarsh2102> this bug was opened on 2023-04-10.
[21:06] <utkarsh2102> way after the kinetic release :)
[21:06] <utkarsh2102> so putting it in the release notes had us a bit puzzled.
[21:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lintian (mantic-proposed/main) [2.116.3ubuntu1 => 2.116.3ubuntu2] (core)
[21:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: vim (mantic-proposed/main) [2:9.0.1000-4ubuntu3 => 2:9.0.1378-1ubuntu1] (core, i386-whitelist)
[22:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-guest-agent (focal-proposed/universe) [20220622.00-0ubuntu2~20.04.2 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~20.04.0] (no packageset)
[22:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-guest-agent (bionic-proposed/universe) [20220622.00-0ubuntu2~18.04.1 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~18.04.0] (no packageset)
[22:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-osconfig-agent (kinetic-proposed/main) [20220824.00-0ubuntu1~22.10.1 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~22.10.0] (core)
[22:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-osconfig-agent (jammy-proposed/main) [20220824.00-0ubuntu1~22.04.1 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~22.04.0] (core)
[23:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-osconfig-agent (focal-proposed/universe) [20220824.00-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~20.04.0] (no packageset)
[23:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-osconfig-agent (bionic-proposed/universe) [20220824.00-0ubuntu1~18.04.1 => 20230330.00-0ubuntu1~18.04.0] (no packageset)