RikMillsvorlon: is it possible to get a quick ack on LP: #203184402:43
-ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2031844 in plasma-framework (Ubuntu) "[FFe] KDE frameworks 5109.0 into Mantic archive" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/203184402:43
RikMillsshould have been released last saturday, but release manager was not available to do so02:44
RikMillsso it got released a few hrs ago02:44
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted samba [source] (lunar-proposed) [2:4.17.7+dfsg-1ubuntu2.1]06:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted multipath-tools [source] (lunar-proposed) [0.8.8-1ubuntu2.1]06:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted multipath-tools [source] (jammy-proposed) [0.8.8-1ubuntu1.22.04.2]06:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted multipath-tools [source] (focal-proposed) [0.8.3-1ubuntu2.2]06:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nfs-utils [source] (focal-proposed) [1:1.3.4-2.5ubuntu3.5]06:46
=== dgadomski is now known as dgadomski1
=== dgadomski1 is now known as dgadomski
_dokotsimonq2: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debmirror/1:2.38ubuntu1/+build/26476753  looks like a missing b-d08:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added xcb-util-cursor to i386-whitelist in mantic08:48
=== kanashiro2 is now known as kanashiro
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added scdoc to i386-whitelist in mantic11:48
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added seatd to i386-whitelist in mantic11:48
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added neatvnc to i386-whitelist in mantic12:03
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added aml to i386-whitelist in mantic12:18
cjwatsonubuntu-archive: Could I have a review of https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/ubuntu-archive-publishing/site-name/+merge/449444, please?13:39
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: codec2 [i386] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.2.0-2] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)15:51
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: codec2 [armhf] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.2.0-2] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)16:00
tewardubuntu-archive and tech board: for your attention https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fortune-mod/+bug/1998416 looks like a package that has some major CoC violations for your erasure consideration16:08
-ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 1998416 in fortune-mod (Ubuntu) "fortunes-off should be removed from the archive" [Undecided, Confirmed]16:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: codec2 [amd64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.2.0-2] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)16:17
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: codec2 [s390x] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.2.0-2] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)16:17
jbichateward: that was already handled for Ubuntu 23.04. I've updated that bug report16:17
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: codec2 [ppc64el] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.2.0-2] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)16:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: codec2 [riscv64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.2.0-2] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)16:19
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: codec2 [arm64] (mantic-proposed/universe) [1.2.0-2] (i386-whitelist, kubuntu)16:22
tewardjbicha: thanks.  i think they want it retro-removed for CoC violations though16:25
tewardi.e. from the other releases it is in16:28
jbichateward: I don't think you need the Tech Board or Archive Admins for that. I think usual practice would be to replace it with an empty binary package in -updates16:39
tewardwell THAT I can do xD  but the core argument is the source code is equally offensive so if we're doing a full cleanup then wouldnt that be effectively a dummy package with no content and just replacing binary output with dummy scripts?16:40
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted codec2 [amd64] (mantic-proposed) [1.2.0-2]16:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted codec2 [armhf] (mantic-proposed) [1.2.0-2]16:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted codec2 [ppc64el] (mantic-proposed) [1.2.0-2]16:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted codec2 [s390x] (mantic-proposed) [1.2.0-2]16:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted codec2 [arm64] (mantic-proposed) [1.2.0-2]16:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted codec2 [riscv64] (mantic-proposed) [1.2.0-2]16:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted codec2 [i386] (mantic-proposed) [1.2.0-2]16:42
jbichateward: that wasn't done for lunar, but you could create a new stripped .orig tarball to use for mantic & the SRUs if you want16:42
tewardye i think i'll take that into my list of things to do.16:43
jbichait could also be NMU'd into Debian that way16:44
tewardjbicha: i'd do that in Debian, but right now I don't have a DD who can sign my *new* PGP twice in order for me to change my keys.18:07
tewardthe yubikey that had my Debian key... kind of got destroyed.18:08
tewardso i don't have a PGP key for Debian right now, and since I can't *sign* my own key with my old key, I need two DDs to sign and validate my keys for that18:08
jbichayou can get a sponsor for a NMU :)18:08
tewardyes I can18:08
tewardbut i'm slow18:08
tewardlet me get this in Ubuntu first before I shove my face into Debian NMU18:09
teward(i don't see a removal bug in Debian though for this?)18:09
teward(unless i'm blind)18:09
jbichaUbuntu's package is in sync with Debian so it has the same bugs Ubuntu's has. It looks like the package is "maintained" via NMU now but yes, a Debian bug would be helpful for sponsoring & explanation18:10
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rsync (focal-proposed/main) [3.1.3-8ubuntu0.5 => 3.1.3-8ubuntu0.6] (core, i386-whitelist)18:13
tewardjbicha: any chance you have a copy of the Debian policies regarding packages and profanity around?  Or should I contact Debian Community people about it :P18:29
tewardstill have to load a dead version for the updates in Ubuntu so :p18:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (lunar-proposed/main) [252.5-2ubuntu3 => 252.5-2ubuntu3.1] (core, i386-whitelist)18:32
jbichateward: considering that the lunar change was also done in Debian (check the changelog), there's no practical difference in Debian's perspective here18:32
tewardlunar change i.e. removal?18:32
tewardor nulling of content?18:32
tewardbecause this might just be a straight removal candidate18:33
tewardwait ther'es a questionability bug already from last year18:34
jbichayou can't remove the source package & remaining binary packages as long as things still Depend on them18:36
tewardmmm true.  i'll dig into this further for the sru because an sru to the package as specified would likely break the dependencies too18:40
tewardi've emailed debian-devel and debian-project about this to bring it back to the forefront of things that need attention18:41
tewardi'll poke the SRU stuff here on our end after food and over the next couple days18:41
jbichathe binary package fortunes-off doesn't have any reverse dependencies18:45
bdmurrayvorlon: can you remove ubiquity from focal-proposed? It didn't make
vorlonis that the one that was the rebuild we didn't need?19:47
bdmurray"Automatic update of included source packages: shim-signed 1.40.9." so yes?19:49
vorlonbdmurray: done20:00
vorlonteward: that bug was filed after the bug it was a duplicate of was already fixed.  I don't think there's anything further we should be doing here.  If someone had a specific proposal for an SRU I would evaluate it20:04
vorlonhowever a normal SRU process is not archive surgery, and would not remove the existing binary packages that are distributed for releases <= jammy on our mirrors20:05
tewardvorlon: ack.  i see that jbicha commented on the bug but it came up in Flavors Support on the Telegram which is why it's once again on the list.20:26
tewardi mentioned that a retroactive removal doesn't normally happen.  jbicha's "strip those components out of the tarball" and replace with dummy binary packages for the one we're erasing would be the only option provided we're not having to recompile any other binaries but there are rdeps on the package so.20:30
tewardbut if there's none for -off then that's easier.20:30
tewardi'll just watch it for now20:30
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (jammy-proposed/main) [2.765.23 => 2.765.24] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)21:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openvpn (jammy-proposed/main) [2.5.8-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 => 2.5.9-0ubuntu0.22.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)22:03
vorlonteward: also, we already had the discussion about fortune-mod on debian-project. :|  https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2022/11/msg00023.html22:31
tewardvorlon: corresponding bug for it that was opened *since* then is unactioned so22:31
tewardat least according to BTS22:31
vorlonI don't know which bug that is.  The fortunes-off package was removed in 1:1.99.1-7.222:32
vorlonI guess Debian bug #1024501 that you reference?22:32
-ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Debian bug 1024501 in fortune-mod "fortune-mod: Remove fortune-off data files from fortune-mod as inappropriate for Bookworm release" [Important, Open] https://bugs.debian.org/102450122:32
tewardwas about to copy/paste that in :p22:32
vorlonwell, I don't think another round on debian-project/devel helps, someone could've just made those changes22:33
tewardvorlon: i didn't have the info that you just shared, changelog didn't seem to show it when i did a cursory look but i'm also up to my neck in "s*** be broke" for work because there's a ton of crap on 14.04 and older machines.22:35
* vorlon nods22:36
tewardso today's been a "unbreak the stuff and upgrade OS" so i apologize if my email was unexpected, but a simple reply would've addressed that *from anyone* on the Debian side.  Or from our side.22:36
tewardjust sayin :P22:36
tewardvorlon: thanks for updating me on the info though, feel free to mark that bug in BTS if you want.22:37
vorlonteward: well, that bug report is asking for removing the files from the source and is still valid (and that was what the submitter was reporting a bug about) so I guess I don't have anything to add22:38
tewardwell i am doing poking on the package for SRU work, so if those are the only files that need removed I might go for an nmu sponsored approach to fix the bug as marked.22:39
tewardvorlon: which i will note is what the latest dupes of the bug on Ubuntu about 'being fixed' is about22:39
tewardbecause the problem is -off is in LTS, etc. and people were whining about *that* which is one of the problems.22:40
tewardvorlon: i assume that retroactive SRU to remove the source code components in question would solve that concern?  since -off is already gone from binary and such applying that change retroactively in -updates and stripping those code components might address that front.22:43
tewardas jbicha suggested22:43
vorlonteward: as I said, an NMU is not archive surgery and will not remove the existing packages from the release pocket22:43
vorloner I meant SRU not NMU sorry22:44
vorlonso if you're trying to satisfy critics who say "Ubuntu distributes offensive garbage", an SRU doesn't achieve that22:44
tewardi'll make a note on that22:45

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!