[01:19] <Unit193> 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] <Eickmeyer> Unit193: Can confirm, due to haruna specifically.
[01:20] <Eickmeyer> Unit193: I can do a sync.
[01:21] <Unit193> 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] <Eickmeyer> I see.
[01:22] <Eickmeyer> Well, I have no issue with it.
[01:22] <Unit193> Cool, sounds great to me then.
[01:24] <Unit193> https://dpaste.com/ELWS67DMA that's the STDERR that sometimes hits.
[01:31] <Eickmeyer> Yikes!
[04:40] <cpaelzer> teward: mapreri: thanks for all the content let me read the backlog ...
[04:41] <cpaelzer> 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] <cpaelzer> 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] <cpaelzer> 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] <cpaelzer> 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] <cpaelzer> 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] <cpaelzer> teward: it LGTM, and I'd ask you or mapreri / ddstreet to consider accepting it
[10:50] <schopin> @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] <rbasak> 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] <waveform> hi!
[13:11] <apw> 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] <apw> we have a proposed solution, which is going to be fleshed out and spec'd up soon
[13:12] <apw> 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] <apw> but, i personally have no objection to a short-term flash-kernel fix to paper over the lack of this.
[13:14] <waveform> 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] <apw> done.
[13:18] <rbasak> Thank you!
[13:18] <waveform>  brilliant, thanks!