[08:39] <nteodosio> 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] <seb128> nteodosio, I expect they probably don't do regular review of the queues for series out of standard support...
[08:47] <seb128> 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] <rbasak> nteodosio: I'll try and have a look on my shift today.
[11:10] <ginggs> @pilot in
[12:03] <rbasak> 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] <rbasak> 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] <rbasak> How do you want to organise the various bugs here?
[12:08] <nteodosio> rbasak, true it should be linking 2029473.
[12:09] <seb128> rbasak, nteodosio, let me fix that and reupload
[12:10] <rbasak> Thanks.
[12:11] <nteodosio> 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] <rbasak> Ah
[12:13] <rbasak> 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] <rbasak> 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] <nteodosio> rbasak, backports are not enabled by default?
[12:16] <nteodosio> If not then yes we'd better depend on the former one.
[12:17] <rbasak> backports are not enabled by default> users won't receive backports by default. They are opt-in.
[12:17] <rbasak> OK, so we can leave everything as-is, release them together, and we should be OK I think.
[12:18] <rbasak> 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] <nteodosio> A downgrade of distro-info? Could it do that even though the backports version is higher than the proposed?
[12:19] <rbasak> If it's higher than the proposed version then that's fine - that's what I hadn't checked.
[12:19] <nteodosio> Ah alright. And thank you for having a look.
[15:03] <ginggs> @pilot out
[15:09] <jbicha> @pilot in
[15:28] <rbasak> 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] <mfo> 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] <rbasak> Thanks!
[15:34] <mfo> rbasak, You're welcome
[16:23] <nkshirsa> hi mfo rbasak o/ looking at 2038648
[20:12] <adrien> 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] <rbasak> adrien: "git ls-tree -rt commitish|grep 4b825dc642cb6eb9a060e54bf8d69288fbee4904" should list all empty directories in a given commit.
[20:37] <rbasak> Does that help?
[20:38] <rbasak> 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] <adrien> I can see the directory; dpkg-buildpackage -S says "dpkg-source: warning: ignoring deletion of directory wycheproof", is that actually normal?
[21:01] <adrien> 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] <rbasak> That sounds unrelated to git-ubuntu/git's empty directory issue