[00:35] <rbasak> enr0n: the autopkgtests are cleared, but there are some comments on the bug that give me pause. Do you think the regression might only be partially fixed, or were those issues present before?
[07:21] <nteodosio> I submitted a autpkgtest for a PPA yesterday and the page said "test request submitted": https://termbin.com/nxbj.
[07:21] <nteodosio> However the test doesn't seem to have ran yet. I still don't see a test either running or waiting after trying again today. Any idea?
[09:56] <guruprasad> Hi Ubuntu dev team, I have submitted the fix for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lptools/+bug/2037286 to Debian and it is now available. Since that package is unmodified in Ubuntu, what is the process to request copying of the fixed version of the affected package?
[09:56] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2037286 in lptools (Ubuntu) "lp-shell ipython instance throws error when typing open parenthesis" [Undecided, Confirmed]
[11:28] <andersson123> Hi all, just letting you know a change has gone live in production autopkgtest-cloud today. It amends the check for duplicate github requests (it was a broken implementation before, we disabled it). If anyone runs into anything funky with their github test requests today, let me know! Thanks
[12:19] <ginggs> guruprasad: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess especially the requestsync tool
[12:20] <ginggs> but I'll just sponsor a sync for you now
[12:25] <cjwatson> ginggs: Oh, I already did
[12:26] <cjwatson> (though I might have forgotten to use the --sponsor option, oops)
[12:26] <ginggs> cjwatson: too slow :)
[12:27] <cjwatson> fair enough :)
[12:28] <tumbleweed> 47
[12:28] <tumbleweed> oops :)
[12:41] <seb128> ahasenack, hey, could you review the update-manager SRUs in B/F/J queues? It's a follow up fix for the candidate accepted earlier this week which had an autopkgtest linter test regression
[12:41] <ahasenack> yep
[12:44] <ahasenack> seb128: haven't looked at it yet, but a question
[12:44] <ahasenack> seb128: is this in mantic yet? I heard about a mantic update-manager update, and the release team wasn't very happy about that, considering the risk of releasing mantic with a bug in update-manager
[12:45] <ahasenack> which would prefent mantic users from updating (depending on this hypothetical bug, of course)
[12:45] <seb128> ahasenack, the agreement was that we would SRU to mantic once it's out and not block the landing on the SRU on that to not delay the Pro feature (which only matters for LTS series anyway)
[12:45] <seb128> ahasenack, the current set of updates in proposed got accepted on that basis
[12:46] <seb128> ahasenack, the rev in the queue to review are just fixing formatting issues to resolve a linter regression from the previous upload
[12:46] <ahasenack> ok
[12:48] <guruprasad> Thanks ginggs, cjwatson :)
[12:48] <seb128> ahasenack, we are also looking at doing the linter checks during the package build to catch such issues earlier than autopkgtest in the futur but that's not part of the upload
[14:16] <ahasenack> seb128: it's https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1990450, right?
[14:16] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1990450 in update-manager (Ubuntu Xenial) "Show potential Ubuntu Pro updates and apt news messages" [Medium, In Progress]
[14:19] <ahasenack> hm, that's from 2022
[14:19]  * ahasenack reads up on it
[14:24] <ahasenack> seb128: the changes file should include the upload in proposed currently
[14:24] <ahasenack> i.e., https://launchpadlibrarian.net/690355411/update-manager_22.04.15_source.changes should include the changes for 22.04.14 which is in proposed
[14:26] <seb128> ahasenack, technically it includes the same bug reference so it isn't needed, but yes that was the intend, I got it right for bionic and focal but not jammy it seems, I can reupload if you wish
[14:26] <ahasenack> oh, so I checked first the only one that didn't had it :)
[14:26] <ahasenack> yes please, reupload with the version from proposed
[14:26] <ahasenack> and yes, it mentions the same bug, but it's best to have the full list of changes
[14:26] <seb128> ahasenack, and yes the bug is old, it's not our first attempt to improve the ubuntu pro integration but we had to dismiss the previous version of the work for $reasons and wait on new cli apis
[14:27] <ahasenack> ack, I see it in focal, correct .changes file there, and also bionic
[14:27] <ahasenack> seb128: ack
[14:27] <seb128> ahasenack, reuploaded
[14:27] <seb128> for jammy
[14:27] <ahasenack> thx
[14:28] <seb128> np, sorry for getting it wrong, there was a small vcs .bzrignore leftover issue in my first build and when I repacked I forgot the -v
[14:37] <ricotz> ahasenack, hi :), would you have time to take a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/2037274
[14:37] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2037274 in libreoffice (Ubuntu Lunar) "[SRU] libreoffice 7.5.7 for lunar" [Medium, In Progress]
[14:37] <ahasenack> ricotz: noted
[14:38] <ricotz> thank you
[14:40] <ahasenack> seb128: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/bxZrcYn9Zr/
[14:40] <ahasenack> seb128: that string is missing a space after it was changed to two lines
[14:41] <ahasenack> it will become "You need to enable Ubuntu Pro to installthese updates."
[14:41] <seb128> nteodosio, ^
[14:41] <seb128> ahasenack, thanks for catching that!
[14:42] <ahasenack> I think it's the only one, this was jammy
[14:42] <ahasenack> checking the others
[14:42] <seb128> I need to drop from IRC to move location but I will read irclog, feel free to reject the upload and we will redo those
[14:42] <ahasenack> ok
[14:50] <nteodosio> Ouch, thanks ahasenack, it is in all. I submitted the corrections now for seb128's review.
[14:50] <ahasenack> cool
[14:51] <ahasenack> I'm on shift for 6-7h more
[14:52] <nteodosio> Submitted to https://code.launchpad.net/~nteodosio/update-manager/+git/update-manager/+merge/452953 and 452954 and 452955.
[16:41] <ahasenack> ricotz: (to continue the #ubuntu-release conversation here please)
[16:48] <ricotz> ahasenack, the commit itself points to the troublesome bug report and the mailing list discussion of this aarch64 regression, as seen at https://git.launchpad.net/~libreoffice/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/log/?h=wip/lunar-7.5
[16:49] <ricotz> of course launchpads git is grumpy at the moment :(
[16:50] <ahasenack> same here
[16:50] <ahasenack> git.launchpad.net took too long to respond.
[16:51] <ricotz> ommit dfc032e8b3ebacca269cd6f20003f6562c4723c7
[16:51] <ricotz> Author: Rico Tzschichholz <ricotz@ubuntu.com>
[16:51] <ricotz> Date:   Thu Sep 7 09:11:25 2023 +0200
[16:51] <ricotz>     Fix StatisticalFunctionsTest::testStatisticalFormulasFODS on arm64
[16:51] <ricotz>     
[16:51] <ricotz>     https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156985
[16:51] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- bugs.documentfoundation.org bug 156985 in LibreOffice "SUM() with mixed formula and value cells may give slightly inaccurate result" [Normal, Resolved: Fixed]
[16:51] <ricotz> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2023-September/090877.html
[16:54] <ahasenack> https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/e2397a57ca66a06950a669a3971fbc55b8f5f979%5E%21
[16:54] <ahasenack> that is adding the #ifdef check for win32
[16:56] <ahasenack> lemme check the mailing list
[16:57] <ricotz> ahasenack, please don't block on this formality, jfyi this is what is happening without the patch https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libreoffice&arch=arm64&ver=4%3A7.5.7-1&stamp=1696398001&raw=0
[16:58] <ricotz> the current debian upload of 7.5.7
[16:59] <ahasenack> it would have helped to have this info in the dep3 header of the patch. The way it is now, it's listed under the SRU bug, which has no mention of this problem, and no upstream reference
[16:59] <ahasenack> this all makes the review take longer
[17:00] <ricotz> sorry, I understand
[18:05] <ricotz> ahasenack, thank you
[18:10] <sergiodj> @pilot in
[18:11] <bluca> bdmurray: getting HTTP 400 out of job submissions on autopkgtest for systemd PRs, is there a known issue?
[18:14] <tsimonq2> bluca: Check (UTC) 11:28 - they made some related changes today
[18:15] <bluca> ah thanks, missed that
[18:15] <bluca> andersson123: ping, see above
[18:39] <bluca> ah he's offline
[18:39] <bluca> anybody knows where I can find a changelog or so?
[18:44] <rbasak> bluca: I think it's probably https://git.launchpad.net/autopkgtest-cloud/commit/?id=56b41614bdc37b279ecae5e7841f7c8814102e29 but unfortunately that seems to be down at the moment. I got it from https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/autopkgtest-cloud/+git/autopkgtest-cloud/+ref/master
[18:50] <bluca> yeah that's unreachable for me too
[18:50] <bluca> everything's borken
[19:49] <rbasak> bluca: FYI it seems back now
[19:51] <bluca> yep, and the job sumissions are working again too
[19:51] <bluca> so maybe it was related
[19:53] <bluca> mmh only amd64 and arm64 are working, ppc64el and s390x are still error 400, weird
[20:43] <sergiodj> @pilot out
[20:58] <bluca> You submitted an invalid request: Missing field in JSON data: &#x27;ppa&#x27;
[20:58] <bluca> these appears when PRs are opened
[21:01] <bluca> ppa is set in the http get to: ppa=upstream-systemd-ci/systemd-ci
[21:03] <bluca> which is a valid ppa: https://launchpad.net/~upstream-systemd-ci/+archive/ubuntu/systemd-ci
[21:06] <bluca> I think it might be this check: https://git.launchpad.net/autopkgtest-cloud/tree/charms/focal/autopkgtest-web/webcontrol/request/submit.py#n144
[21:06] <bluca> but not sure why it doesn't like that ppa...