[03:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added oem-somerville-wartortle-amd-meta to canonical-oem-metapackages in focal
[03:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added oem-somerville-wartortle-amd-meta to canonical-oem-metapackages in jammy
[06:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: oem-somerville-wartortle-amd-meta (jammy-proposed/primary) [22.04~ubuntu1]
[09:55] <RikMills> ubuntu-release: is do-release-upgrade on jammy meant to offer to upgrade to lunar, now that kinetic is EOL?
[13:14] <ricotz> hello, 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/26821168
[13:59] <ricotz> teward, hi :), please see ^
[14:09] <teward> ricotz: i have no control of that.  backports pocket has lower priority than standard pockets.  always had.  so patience is required
[14:12] <ricotz> teward, yeah, I know that, I am referring to the ongoing archive rebuilds which have a Build score of 1410 while backports even have 1010
[14:12] <ricotz> e.g. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20231017-jammy-updates
[14:13] <ricotz> riscv64 	59 	4586 jobs (3 days)
[14:13] <teward> previous message stands, cant do anything about the build queues
[14:14] <teward> build queue priority is something I cant touch and more or less is autodetermined
[14:14] <ricotz> thanks, I was asking to bump the score for this specific libreoffice build
[14:14] <teward> beyond my purview.  not even sure it can be done
[14:14] <ricotz> ok, archive admins should be able to, so hopefully someone reads this
[14:15] <teward> as i said before, patience is required.
[14:15] <ricotz> this can be done
[14:15] <ricotz> thanks
[14:15] <teward> i dont know if ubuntu-archive has that capability or not
[14:15] <teward> they might not
[14:15] <teward> but i'm not an archive admin so
[14:16] <teward> *goes back to eating breakfast*
[14:17] <ricotz> might be reasonable to rethink the scores in this case, e.g. assigning 1050 to backports by default, or lower score of the archive rebuilds
[14:17] <teward> https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/BuildScores
[14:17] <ricotz> even PPA build get 2510
[14:18] <ricotz> I see
[14:18] <teward> sounds like a Launchpad design issue that should be raised there
[14:19] <teward> ricotz: also be aware that for alternative archs the build farm may not have many builders available for the arch too
[14:19] <teward> hence the backlogs
[14:19] <teward> see https://launchpad.net/builders
[14:20] <ricotz> I am aware of this site ;)
[14:29] <bdmurray> RikMills: yes
[14:29] <bdmurray> RikMills: Does it not?
[14:53] <cjwatson> ricotz: bumped
[15:02] <RikMills> bdmurray: 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 things
[15:04] <bdmurray> RikMills: its been like that for years. ;-) Its a way of getting more test coverage of the LTS to LTS upgrade path.
[15:04] <RikMills> bdmurray: that must have inexplicably passed me by then. thx :)
[15:08] <ricotz> cjwatson, thank you
[18:07] -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)
[19:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ceph [source] (focal-proposed) [15.2.17-0ubuntu0.20.04.5]
[20:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted octavia-dashboard [source] (focal-proposed) [5.0.0-0ubuntu0.20.04.3]
[21:04] <guiverc> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/mantic-minotaur-23-10-release-status-tracking/37887 still lists 23.10 as in progress; not released?   is that correct?
[21:07] <tsimonq2> guiverc: Probably not, I remember hearing rumblings a day or two ago that 23.10.1 was released - ubuntu-release can you comment?
[21:07] <Eickmeyer> guiverc, tsimonq2: I think it remains that way until the upgrade blocker gets fixed, which won't happen until nn opens.
[21:15] <guiverc> thanks Eickmeyer & tsimonq2 (yeah i posted '23.10 released' to fridge after ML was pasted as ~normal)
[21:15] <Eickmeyer> guiverc: For all intents and purposes, 23.10 is released, but upgrades aren't enabled.
[21:16] <guiverc> that i know; even noted fix released (lunar-mantic) on blocker bug; didn't expect that page to say 'in progress' though