[09:48] bdmurray: I noticed you were working on python-launchpad-toolkit recently, what are things looking like there? Lubuntu has a potential use for it now that we have a minimal install option, and if it's something that might exist in Noble (or Noble+1) that might be handy. [09:49] (Our minimal install option doesn't ship a browser, making it difficult to report bugs, this was first noticed by guiverc) [10:02] arraybolt3: seeing you are around :) what's the status of the satpy merge? [10:02] satpy/0.44.0-1ubuntu2 appears several times in update_excuses [10:03] ginggs: I'm actually not at a normal computer right now, so tricky to check. I got it to pass autopkgtests and it looked like it was OK after that I thought. Some *other* package was hung up on it, but AFAIK that wasn't satpy's fault. [10:03] I can reach update_excuses from here I guess though, lemme check [10:04] arraybolt3: i mean https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html has a new version for 16 days [10:04] Oh wow, it's in a bit of a mess now. [10:04] Wasn't like that last I checked... [10:04] can it be sync'd? [10:05] 718s E AssertionError: 496.542155 != 496.542145 [10:06] We didn't happen to just get a new compiler or something did we? [10:06] Looks like floating-point nonsense is at work [10:06] Ah, actually we did get a new compiler I believe. [10:07] Bug me about it in ~10 hours, I'm just about to go to bed. I'll run an autopkgtest against proposed but with the older compiler, if it passes we know what triggered it at least. [10:08] arraybolt3: ok, sleep well [10:09] satpy may very well be syncable, [10:09] but I doubt it [10:10] I had to fix several autopkgtest issues with it, and I don't think I remembered to forward them to Debian since it was done in a rush so as to avoid a different clog in migration. [10:10] forward the fixes I mean [10:11] (I was trying to backspace over typing that it may be syncable, then hit Enter instead :P) [10:17] hello jbicha, around for gst-plugins-good1.0 merge please? :) === jfsimon1981_c is now known as jfsimon [13:06] schopin, hello do you have a way to contact Zixing Liu? He is maintaining rustc and rustc-1.68 [13:06] they need rebuilds with newer libgit2, but they have a patch to make them compatible with older version that should be dropped now [13:07] I can relax the dependency on control file, remove the patch and upload, but since this package is backported/snapped or whatever it would be nice to get an ack first [13:20] LocutusOfBorg: there's an ongoing effort to move the toolchain to newer versions, I'll see that this is taken into account. For rustc-1.68 it should be alright though. [13:20] xnox: will we still need rustc-1.68 in noble for the kernel? [13:20] LocutusOfBorg: I'm expecting a new gstreamer release this week so I thought I'd just wait to do the merges [13:23] LocutusOfBorg: in the future it's probably best to open a bug on the package. [16:08] arraybolt3: I did? [17:34] ahasenack: Could you elaborate on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sg3-utils/+bug/2039279/comments/3 and `--force` with dpkg? I don't think u-r-u does that and comment #8 disagrees with your comment #3. [17:34] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2039279 in sg3-utils (Ubuntu Mantic) "file conflict when installing libsgutils-2-1.46-2 when upgrading from lunar to mantic" [Undecided, Fix Committed] [17:35] bdmurray: "dpkg: warning: overriding problem because --force enabled:" that line came from the u-r-u logs [17:36] can't comment on comment #8, as I did the u-r-u multiple times and only saw the warning in the logs [17:36] but the upgrade finished just right. In any case, the bug is real, what u-r-u is supposedly doing is just a workaround, and I don't know since when [17:37] there was a similar bug with samba a while back, I can give you a link. It was the same thing, dist-upgrade would crash, do-release-upgrade would not [17:38] bdmurray: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2024663 was the samba case [17:38] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2024663 in samba (Ubuntu Mantic) "/usr/share/man/man8/idmap_rfc2307.8.gz has moved package without an appropriate Breaks/Replaces" [Medium, Fix Released] [17:38] comment #5 is my finding about --force and do-release-upgrade [17:52] ahasenack: hunh, okay [17:52] ahasenack: I mean I've looked at the source code and was suprised but agree [17:52] you found the --force? [17:53] * ahasenack missed an oppt: luke, you found the --force? [17:59] yeah, it's there [18:00] # we run with --force-overwrite by default [18:00] if "RELEASE_UPGRADE_NO_FORCE_OVERWRITE" not in os.environ: [18:00] logging.debug("enable dpkg --force-overwrite") [18:00] apt_pkg.config.set("DPkg::Options::","--force-overwrite") [18:00] doko: do we have commit 7345d05aafde53a48d5a587a6d9c1778db78e0f3 in binutils in ubuntu? because we probably shouldn't? https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31151 [18:00] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- sourceware.org bug 31151 in glibc "[riscv64] elf/tst-audit{1,2,8} failures with --enable-bind-now and recent binutils" [Normal, New] [18:00] oh wait it's only audit stuff, probably limited fallout [18:18] bdmurray: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~arsenal-devel/lpltk/2.x/revision/202 [18:32] arraybolt3: I've no plans to repackage it [18:33] kk, thanks [18:43] Anyone know of a way to pin every single binary package built from a certain source package? Ideally I'd like to pin the entire gcc-13 package to an older version in /etc/apt/preferences.d. (Trying to see if a new compiler broke things.) I can probably pin just the GCC package itself, but better safe than sorry. [19:11] arraybolt3: "Package: src:gcc-13" according to apt_preferences(5) [19:11] Ah, nice. Thanks!