[00:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted domdf-python-tools [amd64] (mantic-proposed) [3.4.0-1]
[00:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-clipanion [amd64] (mantic-proposed) [3.1.0+dfsg-1]
[04:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-dev-tools [source] (focal-proposed) [0.193ubuntu4~20.04.1]
[04:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-dev-tools [source] (jammy-proposed) [0.193ubuntu4~22.04.1]
[04:45] <vorlon> RAOF: thanks for the ubuntu-dev-tools accepts; also, hmph apparently I need to do some work to make it build on focal
[04:46] <RAOF> Heh. It didn't look like it would FTBFS ?
[04:51] <vorlon> yeah it's a python compat issue apparently
[05:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-dev-tools (focal-proposed/universe) [0.187~bpo20.04.1 => 0.193ubuntu4~20.04.2] (no packageset)
[05:08] <vorlon> RAOF: ^^ ftbfs fixed
[05:20] <RAOF> vorlon: You forgot `-v`?
[05:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sch-rnd [amd64] (mantic-proposed/none) [1.0.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sch-rnd [s390x] (mantic-proposed/none) [1.0.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sch-rnd [ppc64el] (mantic-proposed/none) [1.0.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-dev-tools [source] (focal-proposed) [0.193ubuntu4~20.04.2]
[05:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sch-rnd [arm64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.0.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-dev-tools [source] (kinetic-proposed) [0.193ubuntu4~22.10.1]
[05:29] <vorlon> RAOF: is that actually required? I'm unclear on this
[05:30] <RAOF> Yeah, without the full changelog there won't be any SRU bugs to track.
[05:30] <vorlon> mmk
[05:30] <vorlon> RAOF: reuploaded
[05:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-dev-tools (focal-proposed/universe) [0.193ubuntu4~20.04.1 => 0.193ubuntu4~20.04.2] (no packageset)
[05:33] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, hello I tracked down https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-toolchain-16/1:16.0.5-1~exp1 failure on ppc64el (regression)
[05:33] <LocutusOfBorg> I started on qemu/ppc64el/lunar, and it was fine.
[05:33] <LocutusOfBorg> then I updated binutils to mantic, and it is throwing:
[05:34] <LocutusOfBorg> root@Unimatrix08-Jammy:/llvm-toolchain-16-16.0.5# ./build-llvm/bin/clang
[05:34] <LocutusOfBorg> qemu: uncaught target signal 11 (Segmentation fault) - core dumped
[05:34] <LocutusOfBorg> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
[05:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-dev-tools [source] (focal-proposed) [0.193ubuntu4~20.04.2]
[05:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-dev-tools [source] (lunar-proposed) [0.193ubuntu4~23.04.1]
[05:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sch-rnd [riscv64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.0.0-1] (no packageset)
[06:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sch-rnd [amd64] (mantic-proposed) [1.0.0-1]
[06:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sch-rnd [ppc64el] (mantic-proposed) [1.0.0-1]
[06:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sch-rnd [s390x] (mantic-proposed) [1.0.0-1]
[06:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sch-rnd [arm64] (mantic-proposed) [1.0.0-1]
[06:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sch-rnd [riscv64] (mantic-proposed) [1.0.0-1]
[06:01] <LocutusOfBorg> its gold, with bfd it works
[06:23] <juliank> Please reject  oem-stella.cmit-cooexy-meta/focal from NEW, there was some process issues and this should not have been uploaded
[06:33] <RAOF> vorlon: If you're still here - why did you upload debootstrap to lunar adding a Breaks on a version of ubuntu-dev-tools that doesn't apply to any version that's ever been in lunar?
[06:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected debootstrap [source] (lunar-proposed) [1.0.128+nmu2ubuntu1.2]
[08:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-apfs-rw to kernel-dkms in jammy
[08:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-apfs-rw to kernel-dkms in kinetic
[08:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-apfs-rw to kernel-dkms in lunar
[08:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-apfs-rw to kernel-dkms in mantic
[10:27] <RikMills> ubuntu-archive: if anyone has a chance to review ktextaddons in NEW that would be appreciated. needed to be able to update the KDE PIM stack in mantic to the latest current release
[10:28] <RikMills> LP: #2021510
[10:28] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2021510 in Ubuntu "[needs packaging] ktextaddons" [Wishlist, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2021510
[10:57] <rbasak> vorlon: I mean that git-ubuntu is good for handling packaging derived from eg. Debian syncs with which we maintain a delta, but the workflows aren't good when the packaging isn't derived from elsewhere. If an Ubuntu team maintains packaging that isn't derived, then gbp without git-ubuntu is probably easier.
[10:57] <rbasak> Which means that Vcs-Git would point elsewhere than git-ubuntu.
[10:57] <rbasak> I'd still like the team to accept MPs against the git-ubuntu branches eg. by rebasing as needed.
[10:58] <rbasak> But I think that best practice packaging for such packages would still use gbp or dpm or whatever, just the same as best practice in Debian.
[11:01] <schopin> rbasak: while I understand the reasoning, that sounds convoluted. If the package exists in Debian then use this Ubuntu-specific workflow, but if it's not in Debian then use the Debian workflow?
[11:09] <rbasak> schopin: sorry about that. git-ubuntu is intended to fill a gap - Debian's workflows (understandably) don't accomodate workflows for distributions that derive from them. The biggest issue being that Debian's workflow is determined per-package whereas Ubuntu does things per-team, so it's a pain to onboard Ubuntu developers who would need to understand a dozen different workflows and git-ubuntu
[11:09] <rbasak> unifies those derived packages' workflows nicely.
[11:10] <rbasak> So git-ubuntu focused on what was poor, and what wasn't poor was when you _aren't_ a derivative package, because Debian workflows already work well for thsoe.
[11:11] <rbasak> I'm sorry I can't solve all problems at once :-)
[11:13] <zhsj> ubuntu developers need to know the dozens of workflows in debian to submit a merge request (yeah we could just send debdiff, but hmm...)
[11:15] <schopin> I personally would be fine with using git-ubuntu for everything, even if it would be for some cases a regression vs a gbp/dpm/etc approach (and yes I'm aware of the contradiction of that statement vs my complaining about the lack of staging in the past ;) )
[11:18] <rbasak> schopin: staging is coming FWIW.
[11:19] <schopin> I know. BTW feel free to ping me if you need a tester for it.
[11:19] <rbasak> schopin: the first git-ubuntu commit can't be rich - that's an edge case bug that isn't a priority to fix. But after that, you can use git-ubuntu only if you really want. But there's no equivalent to uupdate or gbp import-orig for example.
[11:19] <schopin> Oh right, I actually encountered the issue of new upstream versions before.
[11:21] <rbasak> It's "just work" to implement all these missing things. But developers use so many different workflows it's difficult to reimplement equivalents of everything. I have to prioritise :-/
[11:21] <rbasak> Given that gbp and dpm exist, it seems appropriate to reimplement those workflows last.
[11:21] <schopin> ACK
[11:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: linux-apfs-rw (jammy-proposed/universe) [0+git20220214+ds-2ubuntu2~22.04.1 => 0+git20220214+ds-2ubuntu2~22.04.2] (kernel-dkms)
[13:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ocsinventory-agent (jammy-proposed/universe) [2:2.8-2 => 2:2.8-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted carla [source] (jammy-backports) [2.5.5-0ubuntu1~bpo22.04.1]
[14:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gallery-dl [source] (jammy-backports) [1.25.5-1~bpo22.04.1]
[14:36] <vorlon> RAOF: the breaks: would be relevant during upgrade from jammy if the user doesn't have -updates enabled
[14:37] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: are you filing a bug on binutils for the llvm-toolchain-16 regression?
[14:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected oem-stella.cmit-cooexy-meta [source] (focal-proposed) [20.04~ubuntu1]
[14:58] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, switching to bfd worked :D
[14:58] <LocutusOfBorg> so mayyyyyyyybe
[14:59] <LocutusOfBorg> WDYT?
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mutter (lunar-proposed/main) [44.1-0ubuntu1 => 44.2-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core, desktop-extra)
[15:00] <vorlon> LocutusOfBorg: it's always good to have toolchain bugs documented :)
[15:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell (lunar-proposed/main) [44.1-0ubuntu1 => 44.2-0ubuntu1] (desktop-extra, mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected glibc [source] (focal-proposed) [2.31-0ubuntu9.10]
[15:25] <tjaalton> why is ubuntu-drivers-common available on ppc64el.. test failing due to no pci devices around and blocking mesa migration on mantic
[15:26] <vorlon> xnox: your mk-sbuild test case in LP: #2020530 fails for me, I get mk-sbuild usage outut
[15:26] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2020530 in ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu Bionic) "The debootstrap SRU to end all debootstrap SRUs" [Undecided, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2020530
[15:26] <vorlon> xnox: ah, missing quotes around sbuild -c argument
[15:27] <vorlon> xnox: oh sorry that's not your test case that's the original bug description! lala
[16:52] <bdmurray> tkamppeter: the autopkgtest regression for libppd looks legitimate to me https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-lunar/lunar/amd64/libp/libppd/20230606_195339_11d37@/log.gz
[17:23] <vorlon> RAOF: also the SRU bug was LP: #2020530
[17:23] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2020530 in ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu Bionic) "The debootstrap SRU to end all debootstrap SRUs" [Undecided, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2020530
[19:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (bionic-proposed/main) [23.1.2-0ubuntu0~18.04.1 => 23.2-0ubuntu0~18.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[19:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (focal-proposed/main) [23.1.2-0ubuntu0~20.04.2 => 23.2-0ubuntu0~20.04.1] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)
[19:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (jammy-proposed/main) [23.1.2-0ubuntu0~22.04.1 => 23.2-0ubuntu0~22.04.1] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[19:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (lunar-proposed/main) [23.1.2-0ubuntu0~23.04.1 => 23.2-0ubuntu0~23.04.1] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[19:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (kinetic-proposed/main) [23.1.2-0ubuntu0~22.10.1 => 23.2-0ubuntu0~22.10.1] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[19:42] <blackboxsw> rbasak: it's probably a bit late on your SRU day but I wanted to queue a review of unapproved queue for -proposed for cloud-init's ~quarterly SRU of cloud-init for 23.2 to B, F, J,K and L. This should be our last 5-series SRU review as we will drop SRUs direct to bionic in 23.3. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cloud-init/+bug/2023110
[19:42] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2023110 in cloud-init (Ubuntu) "sru cloudinit (23.1.2 to 23.2)" [Undecided, In Progress]
[19:43] <blackboxsw> if too late, I'll probably fall-forward to mr a-hasenack tomorrow on his SRU review day.
[20:20] <rbasak> blackboxsw: sorry, it is indeed way past my EOD
[20:20] <blackboxsw> no worries at all rbasak. take care have a good evenin'
[20:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mokutil (bionic-proposed/main) [0.3.0+1538710437.fb6250f-0ubuntu2~18.04.1 => 0.6.0-2~18.04.1] (core)
[20:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: crowdsec [amd64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.4.6-4] (no packageset)
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: crowdsec [ppc64el] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.4.6-4] (no packageset)
[20:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: crowdsec [s390x] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.4.6-4] (no packageset)
[20:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: crowdsec [armhf] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.4.6-4] (no packageset)
[20:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: crowdsec [arm64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.4.6-4] (no packageset)
[21:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted crowdsec [amd64] (mantic-proposed) [1.4.6-4]
[21:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted crowdsec [armhf] (mantic-proposed) [1.4.6-4]
[21:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted crowdsec [s390x] (mantic-proposed) [1.4.6-4]
[21:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted crowdsec [arm64] (mantic-proposed) [1.4.6-4]
[21:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted crowdsec [ppc64el] (mantic-proposed) [1.4.6-4]
[21:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: glibc (jammy-proposed/main) [2.35-0ubuntu3.2 => 2.35-0ubuntu3.2] (core, i386-whitelist) (sync)
[22:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted glibc [sync] (jammy-proposed) [2.35-0ubuntu3.2]
[23:27] <RAOF> vorlon: Ah, yeah, sorry I missed the bug in the .changes. But I'm still conufsed.
[23:28] <RAOF> I thought that we supported LTS->LTS upgrades, but intermediate releases needed to upgrade through the full chain (so you couldn't go jammy->lunar without going through kinetic, so the debootstrap update wouldn't be necessary)
[23:28] <RAOF> And also, if someone is upgrading from jammy -updates disabled, won't the upgrade also have -updates disabled, and so publishing debootstrap into lunar-updates doesn't help??
[23:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-crowdsecurity-go-cs-bouncer [amd64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [0.0.2-2] (no packageset)