/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2023/10/19/#ubuntu-release.txt

=== chris14_ is now known as chris14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added oem-somerville-wartortle-amd-meta to canonical-oem-metapackages in focal03:53
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added oem-somerville-wartortle-amd-meta to canonical-oem-metapackages in jammy03:53
=== Eickmeyer is now known as Erich
=== Erich is now known as Eickmeyer
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: oem-somerville-wartortle-amd-meta (jammy-proposed/primary) [22.04~ubuntu1]06:56
RikMillsubuntu-release: is do-release-upgrade on jammy meant to offer to upgrade to lunar, now that kinetic is EOL?09:55
ricotzhello, can I get the priority bumped of this libreoffice/riscv64 build, weirdly the archive rebuild has a higher priority than backport builds -- https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/4:7.5.7-0ubuntu0.23.04.1~bpo22.04.1/+build/2682116813:14
ricotzteward, hi :), please see ^13:59
tewardricotz: i have no control of that.  backports pocket has lower priority than standard pockets.  always had.  so patience is required14:09
ricotzteward, yeah, I know that, I am referring to the ongoing archive rebuilds which have a Build score of 1410 while backports even have 101014:12
ricotze.g. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20231017-jammy-updates14:12
ricotzriscv64 59 4586 jobs (3 days)14:13
tewardprevious message stands, cant do anything about the build queues14:13
tewardbuild queue priority is something I cant touch and more or less is autodetermined14:14
ricotzthanks, I was asking to bump the score for this specific libreoffice build14:14
tewardbeyond my purview.  not even sure it can be done14:14
ricotzok, archive admins should be able to, so hopefully someone reads this14:14
tewardas i said before, patience is required.14:15
ricotzthis can be done14:15
ricotzthanks14:15
tewardi dont know if ubuntu-archive has that capability or not14:15
tewardthey might not14:15
tewardbut i'm not an archive admin so14:15
teward*goes back to eating breakfast*14:16
ricotzmight be reasonable to rethink the scores in this case, e.g. assigning 1050 to backports by default, or lower score of the archive rebuilds14:17
tewardhttps://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/BuildScores14:17
ricotzeven PPA build get 251014:17
ricotzI see14:18
tewardsounds like a Launchpad design issue that should be raised there14:18
tewardricotz: also be aware that for alternative archs the build farm may not have many builders available for the arch too14:19
tewardhence the backlogs14:19
tewardsee https://launchpad.net/builders14:19
ricotzI am aware of this site ;)14:20
bdmurrayRikMills: yes14:29
bdmurrayRikMills: Does it not?14:29
cjwatsonricotz: bumped14:53
RikMillsbdmurray: that is fine. I just had thought that it would not try to jump eol releases. plus had not noticed that behaviour before. such are things15:02
bdmurrayRikMills: its been like that for years. ;-) Its a way of getting more test coverage of the LTS to LTS upgrade path.15:04
RikMillsbdmurray: that must have inexplicably passed me by then. thx :)15:04
ricotzcjwatson, thank you15:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (focal-proposed/main) [23.3.1-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 23.3.2-0ubuntu0~20.04.1] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)18:07
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (jammy-proposed/main) [23.3.1-0ubuntu1~22.04.1 => 23.3.2-0ubuntu0~22.04.1] (core, ubuntu-cloud)18:07
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (mantic-proposed/main) [23.3.1-0ubuntu2 => 23.3.2-0ubuntu0~23.10.1] (core, ubuntu-cloud)18:07
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (lunar-proposed/main) [23.3.1-0ubuntu1~23.04.1 => 23.3.2-0ubuntu0~23.04.1] (core, ubuntu-cloud)18:07
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ceph [source] (focal-proposed) [15.2.17-0ubuntu0.20.04.5]19:10
=== sergiodj_ is now known as sergiodj
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted octavia-dashboard [source] (focal-proposed) [5.0.0-0ubuntu0.20.04.3]20:10
guiverchttps://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/mantic-minotaur-23-10-release-status-tracking/37887 still lists 23.10 as in progress; not released?   is that correct?21:04
tsimonq2guiverc: Probably not, I remember hearing rumblings a day or two ago that 23.10.1 was released - ubuntu-release can you comment?21:07
Eickmeyerguiverc, tsimonq2: I think it remains that way until the upgrade blocker gets fixed, which won't happen until nn opens.21:07
guivercthanks Eickmeyer & tsimonq2 (yeah i posted '23.10 released' to fridge after ML was pasted as ~normal)21:15
Eickmeyerguiverc: For all intents and purposes, 23.10 is released, but upgrades aren't enabled.21:15
guivercthat i know; even noted fix released (lunar-mantic) on blocker bug; didn't expect that page to say 'in progress' though21:16

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!