[01:19] Eickmeyer: `seeded-in-ubuntu yt-dlp` shows several flavors, but I'm presuming only due to mpv. As Studio is in that list, can you confirm? Having yt-dlp the latest at release time would seem ideal to me. [01:20] Unit193: Can confirm, due to haruna specifically. [01:20] Unit193: I can do a sync. [01:21] I was going to, but I didn't want to upset any flavors. Seems the autopkgtest sometimes throws STDERR, but otherwise passes just fine. [01:22] I see. [01:22] Well, I have no issue with it. [01:22] Cool, sounds great to me then. [01:24] https://dpaste.com/ELWS67DMA that's the STDERR that sometimes hits. [01:31] Yikes! [04:40] teward: mapreri: thanks for all the content let me read the backlog ... [04:41] teward: mapreri: btw line wrapping made misread and send the mail to backports@ instead of ubuntu-backports@, but given the amount of answers I see that mail might not have been required [04:49] teward: mapreri: read the backlog, thanks already - I'll have a look at https://launchpadlibrarian.net/689166277/distro-info_0.18ubuntu0.18.04.1~bpo18.04.1_source.changes as well to give you this ack [04:51] teward: mapreri: you already ruled it out, but to fill in the gaps why serving this via pro would make even less sense ... broken distro-info from backports affects the pro client, which depends on it, in negative ways. I don't know how bad, but it would make consuming the fix via that even less practical [05:49] teward: I've left traces of this discussion and my testing in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/distro-info/+bug/1862305 [05:49] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1862305 in Xenial Backports "distro-info in xenial backports needs a newer distro-info-data and versioned dependency" [Undecided, Won't Fix] [05:55] teward: mapreri: for process sake I've also added a backport template to bug 1862305 [05:55] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 1862305 in Xenial Backports "distro-info in xenial backports needs a newer distro-info-data and versioned dependency" [Undecided, Won't Fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1862305 [05:56] teward: it LGTM, and I'd ask you or mapreri / ddstreet to consider accepting it [10:50] @pilot in === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic post-Beta Freeze | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Bionic-Lunar | Patch Pilots: schopin [13:10] waveform, apw: bug 2007827 - go :-) [13:10] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2007827 in flash-kernel (Ubuntu Jammy) "[SRU] flash-kernel failure when upgrading f-k and kernel in the same cycle" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2007827 [13:10] hi! [13:11] hi, the unerlying resistance to a flash-kernel specific fix is that this drives all consumers to implement the same kind of fixes. [13:12] we have a proposed solution, which is going to be fleshed out and spec'd up soon [13:12] that envisions not having kernel binaries in /boot unless they are complete and consumable; so that the existing gates on including /boot/vmlinuz* or whatever we are using returns to safety. [13:13] but, i personally have no objection to a short-term flash-kernel fix to paper over the lack of this. [13:14] okay, I agree entirely that the f-k fix is ... horrid, and that it should be short-term but we were blocked on the SRU team wanting the kernel team to weigh in (even if that was "not going to happen yet, go with the horrid f-k fix until we can sort stuff out") -- could you add something to that effect to the bug? [13:16] done. [13:18] Thank you! [13:18] brilliant, thanks!