[09:42] It seems that if you write any inexisting URL for autopkgtests results, it gets an unauthorized message, e.g. https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-mantic. [09:42] This is a quite confusing when the page doesn't yet exist (simply because the tests haven't finished running). [09:43] What is the right department to file a bug -- or is there already one? [09:51] nteodosio, https://bugs.launchpad.net/auto-package-testing/+filebug [11:00] @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: ginggs [13:12] Eickmeyer: o/ bug 2033992 is showing in pending-sru as ready for Jammy. Is that status the status you expect, or should it be verification-failed now? [13:12] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2033992 in ubuntustudio-menu (Ubuntu Lunar) "[SRU] Change Ubuntu Studio Chat from Matrix to IRC" [High, Fix Committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2033992 [13:14] enr0n: regarding https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/2036358/comments/28, would it be appropriate to retry these with migration-reference/0 then? I'm not supposed to release without the failures being clean, one way or another. [13:14] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2036358 in systemd (Ubuntu Lunar) "systemd wait-online now times out after jammy and lunar upgrade" [Critical, Fix Committed] === flag is now known as ppisati [13:18] rbasak: yes, I think that would be okay then [13:25] OK, all submitted, thanks. Let's see if that works. [13:26] rbasak: thanks! [14:17] rbasak: That one is good for Jammy. It's bad for lunar and needs to be re-done for lunar due to another SRU that was attempted. I've been eyeballs-deep in fixing mantic bugs before final freeze. [14:38] Thanks. Released then, with a comment in the bug. [15:00] @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: ginggs, jbicha [15:01] @pilot out === 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: jbicha [18:39] juliank (cc rbasak): I have a local patch building now for apt to suggest git-ubuntu on Ubuntu machines, when using apt source. Is this an agreeable approach? [18:42] If I don't hear anything otherwise, I'll submit it to Salsa for a review. Any feedback, including how to get the vendor information in the cleanest way possible, would be appreciated. [18:48] tsimonq2: This is going to need a new field in the Release file to specify a default URL for git repositories; similar to Changelogs and Snapshots [18:48] You could set a default based on Origin though as both of these features do [18:49] See apt-pkg/init.cc for the funny options to configure those [18:49] Cool. What about usage of the `git ubuntu clone` command instead of a bare Git clone, does that seem like a [18:49] And you can look at the 2.4.y branch for a clean backport of the snapshots feature for inspiration [18:49] ..."hackier" approach? [18:49] Hmm [18:50] How about Vcs-Clone command [18:50] Vcs-Clone: git ubuntu clone @SOURCEPACKAGE@ [18:50] And apt includes "Run command to get the source code for this package" [18:51] I think this probably is the nicest approach [18:51] That could certainly work :) if there is an existing Vcs-Git, would Vcs-Clone auto-populate with the appropriate `git clone` command? [18:51] I have not formed an opinion on that matter [18:52] Also what happens with missing git-ubuntu repos [18:52] Some packages are not imported [18:52] Maybe we can have launchpad figure out which packages have repos and add Vcs-Clone fields to the package entries [18:52] :D [18:53] That's a really good point; I'd almost like to ping Robie and Colin to ask for their input, but part of me thinks this belongs on ubuntu-devel@? [18:54] Go for the email! [18:54] Sounds good! I'll CC you :) [18:58] It's...complicated [18:59] git-ubuntu is convenient in that it'll give you _actual_ source used to build a package, but there are still some rough edge cases. [19:00] But if you are submitting a fix, then the team that maintains the package may prefer that you base your changes from a commit from Vcs-Git (or even somewhere else that no metadata points to) with which the git-ubuntu branch has no common ancestor at all. [19:00] OTOH, I'd like for those teams to accept git-ubuntu MPs since rebasing is trivial and that way it's the same workflow for every package, which is much easier for first time contributors. [19:01] @pilot out === 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: N/A [19:08] juliank, rbasak: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2023-October/042813.html [23:02] what's the easiest way to answer "is this binary package in main" in a script i wonder [23:07] rmadison -cmain -aamd64 -sfocal mosh [23:07] No answer = not in main [23:07] rmadison -cmain -aamd64 -smantic mosh [23:07] Answer = in main [23:07] You could use -cuniverse to confirm for certain [23:07] (rather than just a nonexistent package) [23:08] I don't know how well that'll handle all errors though [23:08] Another way might be chdist + grep-dctrl [23:08] and looking at the Section field [23:08] Or APT-Sources [23:09] That's probably more reliable but requires setup [23:11] yeah i cooked up something with chdist and indextargets