=== Unit193 is now known as Montresor [08:39] We need bug 2029473 released to release update-manager with Ubuntu Pro. What is preventing Fix committed -> Fix released? [08:39] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2029473 in software-properties (Ubuntu Xenial) "Backport Ubuntu Pro to Xenial" [High, Fix Committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2029473 [08:47] nteodosio, I expect they probably don't do regular review of the queues for series out of standard support... [08:47] rbasak, ^ could you perhaps review that during your shift today? and is my assumption right/if so is that a better way for us to flag those uploads or should we just try to ping SRU vanguards? [09:43] nteodosio: I'll try and have a look on my shift today. [11:10] @pilot in === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Final Freeze | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Focal-Mantic | Patch Pilots: ginggs [12:03] seb128, nteodosio: the software-properties upload to Xenial links bug 2029089 instead of bug 2029473 I think? [12:03] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2029089 in distro-info (Ubuntu) "[SRU] Please backport UbuntuDistroInfo().get_all(result='object') to Xenial" [Undecided, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2029089 [12:03] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2029473 in software-properties (Ubuntu Xenial) "Backport Ubuntu Pro to Xenial" [High, Fix Committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2029473 [12:05] I also found bug 2003527 which I think is the same thing but in the newer series, as I was surprised that if we're additionally adding Xenial then the old bug isn't being used. [12:05] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2003527 in software-properties (Ubuntu) "Replace the Livepatch tab by an Ubuntu Pro one" [High, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2003527 [12:05] How do you want to organise the various bugs here? [12:08] rbasak, true it should be linking 2029473. [12:09] rbasak, nteodosio, let me fix that and reupload [12:10] Thanks. [12:11] Bug 2029089 is no longer a requirement since bug 1978940 was fixed. Sorry, the situation is definitely messy because of the various components involved. [12:11] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2029089 in distro-info (Ubuntu) "[SRU] Please backport UbuntuDistroInfo().get_all(result='object') to Xenial" [Undecided, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2029089 [12:11] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 1978940 in ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu Xenial) "u-a-t fails when distro-info is installed from backports on Xenial" [Medium, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1978940 [12:12] Ah [12:13] Well maybe it's easiest to pretend it still is? Because it's in proposed already and has been there for a while, and you have a versioned depends on it now. [12:14] But I don't understand how bug 1978940 stops it being an issue. What if a user doesn't have backports enabled? [12:15] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 1978940 in ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu Xenial) "u-a-t fails when distro-info is installed from backports on Xenial" [Medium, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1978940 [12:16] rbasak, backports are not enabled by default? [12:16] If not then yes we'd better depend on the former one. [12:17] backports are not enabled by default> users won't receive backports by default. They are opt-in. [12:17] OK, so we can leave everything as-is, release them together, and we should be OK I think. [12:18] As long as the Depends line won't force a downgrade if the user has the backports version installed. I'll check that. [12:18] A downgrade of distro-info? Could it do that even though the backports version is higher than the proposed? [12:19] If it's higher than the proposed version then that's fine - that's what I hadn't checked. [12:19] Ah alright. And thank you for having a look. [15:03] @pilot out === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Final Freeze | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Focal-Mantic | Patch Pilots: N/A [15:09] @pilot in === ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: Mantic Final Freeze | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Focal-Mantic | Patch Pilots: jbicha [15:28] mfo: could you take a look at bug 2038648 please - not necessarily you, but do you know who is looking after sosreport nowadays who might be able to take a look? [15:28] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2038648 in sosreport (Ubuntu Bionic) "package sosreport 4.4-1ubuntu0.18.04.1 failed to install/upgrade: installed sosreport package post-installation script subprocess returned error exit status 1" [Undecided, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2038648 [15:34] rbasak, sure! i'll ping nikhil about it; he's subscribed to all bugs in sosreport, so may already be aware, but just in case. [15:34] Thanks! [15:34] rbasak, You're welcome === fabiomirmar_ is now known as fabiomirmar [16:23] hi mfo rbasak o/ looking at 2038648 [20:12] using git-ubuntu's .experimental-emptydirfixup, I can't tell it it actually does something: I ran it once and it changed the commit hash but when I run it again, it mentions reinstating the same directory, yet gives the same hash, and dpkg-buildpackage is still unhappy [20:37] adrien: "git ls-tree -rt commitish|grep 4b825dc642cb6eb9a060e54bf8d69288fbee4904" should list all empty directories in a given commit. [20:37] Does that help? [20:38] If you're hitting the empty directory issue, then eg. pkg/ubuntu/devel should have some listed, commits you add won't initially, and correct use of emptydirfixup should restore them. [20:53] I can see the directory; dpkg-buildpackage -S says "dpkg-source: warning: ignoring deletion of directory wycheproof", is that actually normal? [21:01] and I have a bunch of modified files and I don't understand why (I know they're related to patches but the git tree is clean and I have no .pc directory), so I'll head to my bed now [21:15] That sounds unrelated to git-ubuntu/git's empty directory issue