[00:01]  * tsimonq2 tries that patch locally and reports back after rebuilds are done
[00:03] <tsimonq2> Oh, that's actually a *much* easier test-case. Thanks.
[00:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libfprint [riscv64] (mantic-proposed/main) [1:1.94.6+tod1-0ubuntu2] (ubuntu-desktop)
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libfprint [amd64] (mantic-proposed) [1:1.94.6+tod1-0ubuntu2]
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libfprint [armhf] (mantic-proposed) [1:1.94.6+tod1-0ubuntu2]
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libfprint [riscv64] (mantic-proposed) [1:1.94.6+tod1-0ubuntu2]
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libfprint [arm64] (mantic-proposed) [1:1.94.6+tod1-0ubuntu2]
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libfprint [s390x] (mantic-proposed) [1:1.94.6+tod1-0ubuntu2]
[00:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libfprint [ppc64el] (mantic-proposed) [1:1.94.6+tod1-0ubuntu2]
[03:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted phpmyadmin [source] (jammy-proposed) [4:5.1.1+dfsg1-5ubuntu1.1]
[03:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted rsync [source] (focal-proposed) [3.1.3-8ubuntu0.6]
[03:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted dpdk [source] (lunar-proposed) [22.11.2-0ubuntu0.23.04.1]
[04:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted dpdk [source] (jammy-proposed) [21.11.4-0ubuntu0.22.04.1]
[04:24] <sergiodj> athos: tsimonq2: schopin: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/h5py/+bug/2031912/comments/7 (I think that's the fix, but am waiting for the glibc build to finish)
[04:24] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2031912 in h5py (Ubuntu) "glibc 2.38 causes hangs on some openMPI-using packages" [Critical, New]
[10:57] <athos> Nice! thanks for the investigation, sergiodj :)
[10:59] <athos> and for the patch
[13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted software-properties [source] (jammy-proposed) [0.99.22.8]
[13:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: merkuro (mantic-proposed/primary) [23.08.0-0ubuntu1]
[13:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gcc-snapshot (jammy-proposed/universe) [1:20220117-1ubuntu1 => 1:20220506-0ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist) (sync)
[13:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected samba [source] (lunar-proposed) [2:4.17.7+dfsg-1ubuntu2.2]
[13:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: samba (lunar-proposed/main) [2:4.17.7+dfsg-1ubuntu2.1 => 2:4.17.7+dfsg-1ubuntu2.2] (core, i386-whitelist)
[13:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted samba [source] (lunar-proposed) [2:4.17.7+dfsg-1ubuntu2.2]
[13:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted samba [source] (jammy-proposed) [2:4.15.13+dfsg-0ubuntu1.4]
[13:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted samba [source] (focal-proposed) [2:4.15.13+dfsg-0ubuntu0.20.04.5]
[14:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: landscape-client (jammy-proposed/main) [19.12-0ubuntu13 => 23.02-0ubuntu1~22.04.1] (ubuntu-server)
[14:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: landscape-client (focal-proposed/main) [19.12-0ubuntu4.3 => 23.02-0ubuntu1~20.04.1] (ubuntu-server)
[14:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-stella-aron-meta [amd64] (jammy-proposed) [22.04~ubuntu1]
[14:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-stella-cascoon-rpl-meta [amd64] (jammy-proposed) [22.04~ubuntu1]
[14:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted oem-stella-asobo-meta [amd64] (jammy-proposed) [22.04~ubuntu1]
[16:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted debootstrap [source] (jammy-proposed) [1.0.126+nmu1ubuntu0.6]
[16:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted debootstrap [source] (focal-proposed) [1.0.118ubuntu1.12]
[17:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected docker.io-app [source] (focal-proposed) [24.0.5-0ubuntu1~20.04.1]
[17:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected docker.io-app [source] (jammy-proposed) [24.0.5-0ubuntu1~22.04.1]
[17:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected docker.io-app [source] (lunar-proposed) [24.0.5-0ubuntu1~23.04.1]
[17:34] <athos> LocutusOfBorg: hey! I suppose we forgot to pull in the php8.1 delta when merging php8.2 back during the transition for the cycle (LP: #1989196)
[17:34] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 1989196 in php8.2 (Ubuntu) "Fix PHP_EXTRA_VERSION setting" [Undecided, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1989196
[18:09] <LocutusOfBorg> athos, hello! why isn't this in Debian as well?
[18:10] <LocutusOfBorg> do you need a sponsor?
[18:43] <athos> I was led to believe ondrej would always check the salsa MRs, but I guess I should file a bug instead: https://salsa.debian.org/php-team/php/-/merge_requests/14
[18:43] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Merge 14 in php-team/php "d/rules: fix PHP_EXTRA_VERSION setting" [Opened]
[19:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected docker.io-app [source] (focal-proposed) [24.0.5-0ubuntu1~20.04.1]
[19:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: docker.io-app (focal-proposed/universe) [20.10.25-0ubuntu1~20.04.2 => 24.0.5-0ubuntu1~20.04.1] (no packageset)
[20:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted neutron [source] (lunar-proposed) [2:22.0.2-0ubuntu1]
[20:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted docker.io-app [source] (lunar-proposed) [24.0.5-0ubuntu1~23.04.1]
[20:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted docker.io-app [source] (jammy-proposed) [24.0.5-0ubuntu1~22.04.1]
[20:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted docker.io-app [source] (focal-proposed) [24.0.5-0ubuntu1~20.04.1]
[20:42] <LocutusOfBorg> ahasenack, rebase it? :)
[20:42] <LocutusOfBorg> athos, ^^
[20:42] <LocutusOfBorg> sorry
[20:43] <ahasenack> hi
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected neutron [source] (focal-proposed) [2:16.4.2-0ubuntu6.3]
[21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted neutron [source] (focal-proposed) [2:16.4.2-0ubuntu6.3]
[21:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added gtk3-nocsd to i386-whitelist in mantic
[21:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: gimp-plugin-registry (mantic-release/primary) [9.20200928build1]
[21:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gimp-plugin-registry [sync] (mantic-release) [9.20200928build1]
[21:44] <vorlon> jbicha: ah, perhaps our emails crossed on the way
[21:47] <liushuyu> Hi release team, I would like to submit a removal request for `rust-kv-log-macro` and `rust-femme`. Debian had RC bugs for those, and there is no reverse dependency on those packages.
[21:47] <liushuyu> Please see https://bugs.debian.org/1042141 https://bugs.debian.org/1042210 https://bugs.debian.org/1042210 https://bugs.debian.org/1042141
[21:47] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Debian bug 1042141 in src:rust-kv-log-macro "rust-kv-log-macro: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependencies" [Serious, Open]
[21:47] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Debian bug 1042210 in src:rust-femme "rust-femme: FTBFS: unsatisfiable build-dependencies: Depends: librust-log-0.4+kv-unstable-dev (>= 0.4.14) but it is not installable" [Serious, Open]
[22:09] <vorlon> liushuyu: since `reverse-depends` is unreliable for rust packages due to not handling Provides:, how did you determine there are no reverse-dependencies?
[22:10] <liushuyu> vorlon: They do have Provides, but they have a mangled name. I have searched using a pattern and determined they only depends on each other. Also according to Debian's system, those packages don't have reverse dependency
[22:11] <liushuyu> (The auto-removal package from Debian does not mention other packages)
[22:11] <vorlon> ok
[22:11] <liushuyu> * message
[22:11] <vorlon> liushuyu: (do the Debian auto-removal messages mention /each other/?)
[22:12] <vorlon> answer: they do
[22:12] <vorlon> so, all good
[22:12] <liushuyu> "Version 2.2.1~dfsg-4 of rust-femme is marked for autoremoval from testing on Fri 08 Sep 2023. It is affected by #1042210. The removal of rust-femme will also cause the removal of (transitive) reverse dependency: rust-kv-log-macro."
[22:13] <vorlon> and removing them means a rebootstrap will be required in Ubuntu, but that's a trivial rebootstrap (skip tests and temporarily drop a build-dependency).
[22:13] <liushuyu> And most Rust packages are marked LowNMU
[22:13] <liushuyu> (which is accurate for the situation, most maintainers don't usually come back to their package after the creation)
[22:14] <vorlon> removed, thanks
[22:14] <liushuyu> vorlon: Thank you! And those two pcakages are unmaintained in the upstream, they are unlikely to come back in the future
[22:14] <vorlon> LowNMU just means the maintainer encourages other uploaders to make changes without worrying about maintainer friction
[22:14] <vorlon> it should not be interpreted as a ding against a package :)
[22:15] <liushuyu> vorlon: Yes, because reverse is true for those Rust packages
[22:15] <liushuyu> They _should_ be listed as LowNMU
[22:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: rustc-1.68 (mantic-proposed/primary) [1.68.2+dfsg0ubuntu1-0ubuntu4]
[22:44] <sergiodj> hi, if someone from the release team could take a look at https://code.launchpad.net/~sergiodj/britney/+git/hints-ubuntu/+merge/449779 I'd appreciate.  thanks
[22:49] <xnox> vorlon: ubuntu-archive: the abover rustc-1.68 bootstrap is a sync with binaries from ppa as good as currently gets and needs to unblock building v6.5 kernels. however this bootstrap does have 2 issues as identified and filed at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rustc/+bug/2032855 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rustc/+bug/2032856
[22:50] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2032855 in rustc (Ubuntu) "rustc-1.68 missing riscv64 bootstrap" [Undecided, New]
[22:50] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2032856 in rustc (Ubuntu) "rustc-1.68 missing debug symbols" [Undecided, New]
[22:50] <xnox> the riscv64 bootstrap missing is unfortunate, but mostly a futile excercise as kernel doesn't yet have rust riscv support so spendings weeks bootstrapping that..... is somewhat pointless.
[22:51] <xnox> the debug symbols can be created by doing in-archive clean no-change rebuild of said package upload in the mantic archive which will gain us ddebs
[22:51] <xnox> i have spoken with liushuyu about the above issues, please accept above binary sync as is and i will follow up on this.
[23:38] <vorlon> liushuyu: oh, I see, I didn't realize you meant these particular packages were *not* LowNMU
[23:40] <liushuyu> vorlon: and I also mean Rust and Node.js micro-packages should all be LowNMU so that people can fix the problem asap
[23:46] <vorlon> liushuyu, xnox: please involve the archive admins /before/ you do out-of-archive bootstraps of packages
[23:49] <liushuyu> vorlon: Okay, I am not very familar with the process. Is there a written policy that I can look up for this situation?
[23:49] <vorlon> no
[23:50] <liushuyu> Hmm. Okay.
[23:51] <vorlon> package bootstraps are infrequent and usually people come asking first and then they get told the requirements :)
[23:52] <vorlon> so now, what I have to do is work back through the build logs, confirm what other packages came from where and were used for the bootstrap, and be sure as an archive admin that I'm happy with those contents and what was done
[23:53] <vorlon> in the end that likely ends up being more work than if we'd just used the bootstrap archive as archive admins
[23:57] <vorlon> in fact, https://launchpad.net/~liushuyu-011/+archive/ubuntu/rust-updates-vvv-1/+build/26487100 shows it pulling a previous rustc-1.68 1.68.2+dfsg0ubuntu1-0ubuntu4~ppa4.5 build from the same ppa, which I cannot find a build log for; so I can't assert the provenance of the bootstrap and I'm going to reject this
[23:58] <liushuyu> vorlon: that's going to be a problem for the bootstrap builds since they will have superseded versions
[23:58] <vorlon> liushuyu: I'm assuming somewhere along the line, the bootstrap has as its root an unversioned rustc package from Ubuntu, is that correct?
[23:59] <liushuyu> vorlon: from the PPA
[23:59] <liushuyu> Because the in-archive builds for rustc were superseded
[23:59] <vorlon> yes