[09:34] sergiodj: have you seen bug 2020913? I just hit it. [09:34] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2020913 in elfutils (Ubuntu) "/etc/profile.d/debuginfd.{sh,csh} are created with 600 permissions" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2020913 [09:35] It isn't obvious to me why looking at the postinst, but that's the case on a default 22.04.1 desktop install. [14:47] rbasak: I haven't; thanks for the heads up [15:06] @pilot in === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Bionic-Lunar | Patch Pilots: athos [16:27] Could someone retrigger a build of golang-sourcehut-rockorager-tcell-term and golang-github-go-kit-kit in Mantic? Seems like they were synced and attempted built before the new version of golang-golang-x-mod-dev [16:29] Also, is there a way to see why some builds are flagged as dep-wait and some build failures, is it in the launchpad code or somewhere separate? I assume if this had been marked as waiting for dependencies, it would have been retried automatically. [16:37] hjd: builds re-triggered. Do you have any examples of those dep-waiting vs failure instances? [16:46] athos: thanks :) [16:48] One example is some of the ocaml packages in Mantic. [16:48] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ocaml-pp/1.1.2-2/+build/26395929 is marked as waiting for dependencies because these packages cannot be installed, however [16:48] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ocaml-ipaddr/5.5.0-1/+build/26390650 is marked as a build failure even though that also seems to be due to dependencies which cannot be installed [17:22] oh, so the first one is waiting o a build dependency which is not available in the archive yet [17:22] its build failed (see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ppx-expect) [17:23] the second has all its build deps in the archive, however, when trying to install some b-deps, it ended up that some of these b-deps runtime deps were not available, hence the failure [17:34] enr0n: hey! I added some comments in https://code.launchpad.net/~enr0n/ubuntu/+source/rdflib-sqlalchemy/+git/rdflib-sqlalchemy/+merge/445579. I suspect that more packages will FTBFS due to this issue. It would be nice to chat with the folks in #debian-python to check if this is the expected fix for all the affected packages or if they have something else in mind - given I am right about the dh-python [17:34] changes in experimental [17:36] Hm, but it is not clear to my why the first one is marked as waiting while the other gets marked as just a general failure. Is it "these packages/versions cannot be resolved at all" vs "everything exists and should be installable, but it just does't work at the moment"? [17:48] hjd: It's because in the second case the missing dependencies are indirect. That case can't be turned into a straightforward dependency-wait, because there are multiple ways the failure could be resolved - the intermediate package could change, or the quoted dependency could become available directly - and that can't be expressed in a simple "wait until a package with this name matching this [17:48] version constraint exists" [17:49] The full logic is in https://git.launchpad.net/launchpad-buildd/tree/lpbuildd/binarypackage.py#n378 (the analyseDepWait method) [17:50] (And a bunch of things around that) [17:50] https://git.launchpad.net/launchpad-buildd/tree/lpbuildd/binarypackage.py#n422 is more like the top of the logic, I guess [17:54] cjwatson: aha, that makes sense :) [17:56] I remember that taking quite a bit of hard thinking to work out [18:12] cjwatson: is it possible for depwait to retry once missing virtual packages appear? I end up having to manually retry rust-* packages because of this [19:00] jbicha: I believe that's only blocked on someone implementing it [19:34] @pilot out === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Bionic-Lunar | Patch Pilots: N/A [20:25] did lxc on focal bork yesterday or so? our CI running on focal and starting lxc containers has been failing since yesterday with: [20:25] ERROR: meta tarball is missing the configuration file [20:25] lxc-create: bookworm-amd64: lxccontainer.c: create_run_template: 1627 Failed to create container from template [20:25] https://the-real-systemd.semaphoreci.com/jobs/cae6348b-301a-41d9-a42a-1a78e9501d7c [20:25] anybody seen that? [20:30] bluca: try asking in #lxc, there's more folks there more familiar with the different templates [20:32] will do [20:33] looks like it's https://github.com/lxc/lxc/issues/4325 [20:33] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Issue 4325 in lxc/lxc "Container configurations missing for most distributions" [Open] [20:36] that looks likely yeah [23:05] jbicha: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/335913 - retry-depwait is pretty horrible at the moment though, I think it'd need some re-engineering for performance first [23:05] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 335913 in Launchpad itself "depwait builds do not retry even though the dep can be met via a virtual package" [High, Triaged]