[10:52] <nteodosio> Can I please get this re-triggered? https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=focal&arch=armhf&package=ubuntu-release-upgrader&trigger=update-manager%2F1%3A20.04.10.20
[10:55] <adrien_> nteodosio: I submitted it but I would have expected you to be able to do so nowadays
[10:55] <nteodosio> adrien_, thx, I tried but I get "You submitted an invalid request: You are not allowed to upload ubuntu-release-upgrader or update-manager/1:20.04.10.20 to Ubuntu, thus you are not allowed to use this service."
[10:57] <adrien_> the ACLS were changed a few months ago and now all of Foundations can re-trigger regardless of the upload rights; maybe it would make sense to do the same for other teams or check memberships then
[11:17] <sudip> rbasak: yes, was looking at those differences last night, initial difference seems to be that the schroot will have proposed enabled unless I use "--skip-proposed" with mk-sbuild. ppa build also had the same problem, now enabling proposed in the ppa and check again.
[11:24] <rbasak> sudip: I think every environment should have proposed enabled by default though?
[11:25] <rbasak> So how is that a difference in build environments?
[11:26] <sudip> rbasak: but the builds for -proposed do not have proposed enabled. and so the package versions are now different in local sbuild and the build for -proposed. I am trying to find out which package is making the difference.
[12:01] <rbasak> @pilot in
[13:19] <sudip> rbasak: about LP: #2024325, do you want me to add an updated debdiff?
[13:19] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2024325 in trac (Ubuntu Jammy) "[SRU] trac crashes while importing a library in Ubuntu 20.04 (ImportError: cannot import name 'soft_unicode' from 'jinja2.utils')" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2024325
[13:53] <ghadi> hi all
[13:53] <fheimes> Hi, is there an @archive-admin / AA out that can have a look at the noble New queue, esp at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/noble/+queue?queue_state=0&queue_text=openssl-pkcs11-sign-provider - we would kindly ask to get this approved.
[13:54] <ghadi> I have written a fix for ppa-purge (https://launchpad.net/bugs/2036761) and was wondering if anyone knows how I should proceed with the versioning? The current version is 0.2.8+bzr63-0ubuntu1, I was thinking maybe 0.2.8+bzr63-0ubuntu1.1 would do the trick based on the Ubuntu maintainers handbook.
[13:54] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2036761 in ppa-purge (Ubuntu Mantic) "[mantic] ppa-purge no longer purges what add-apt-repository adds" [High, Triaged]
[13:56] <rbasak> sudip: ah sorry I just replied in the bug. No need and I've uploaded. Thanks!
[13:56] <sudip> thanks rbasak
[13:59] <sudip> ghadi: I might be wrong, but I think it should be 0.2.8+bzr63-0ubuntu1.23.10.1 for Mantic
[14:00] <sudip> Jammy also has the same version, and if it ever needs a SRU then the version will become a problem
[14:03] <rbasak> sudip: I'm reviewing bug 1981147 for which I'd like to make the same change please, if that's OK with you.
[14:03] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 1981147 in giara (Ubuntu Jammy) "[SRU] giara fails to start" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1981147
[14:05] <sudip> rbasak: yes, sure. I started adding descriptive changelogs after I was told in one of the SRU that the changelog was not detailed enough
[14:06] <rbasak> sudip: just to make sure I understand, does that mean that my requests appear to contradict that previous advice, or is in line with it?
[14:07] <ghadi> sudip: thank you I'll go with ubuntu1.23.10.1
[14:07] <rbasak> It's OK to say it contradicts; if that's the case then I will try and resolve things so you aren't given contradicting advice :)
[14:08] <sudip> rbasak: your requests are inline with the way I usually write changelogs :)
[14:08] <sudip> I am trying to open that SRU bug but seems launchapd is playing with me now
[14:12] <rbasak> It's down for me too
[14:14] <ogra_> https://status.canonical.com/ ... seems to not be LP but SSO ...
[14:15] <ahasenack> the list is increasing
[15:15] <sudip> rbasak: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fsvs/+bug/1875642/comments/17 is the one I was referring to. Though I might have misunderstood that comment.
[15:15] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1875642 in fsvs (Ubuntu Mantic) "[SRU] FSVS - not able to commit changes to remote HTTP SVN repo" [Medium, Fix Committed]
[15:26] <rbasak> Thanks. I'll look once Launchpad's back :)
[15:27] <sudip> it was back for few minutes when I grabbed that link, seems gone again
[15:28] <tsimonq2> As of a few seconds ago, the topic in #launchpad has changed, they'll notify there once it's fully back. :)
[16:08] <rbasak> @pilot out
[16:08] <rbasak> ^ not very effective today due to the outage. Sorry!
[17:09] <bdmurray> adrien_, nteodosio: I never heard from the desktop team with regards to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2023-July/042693.html
[17:23] <rbasak> https://code.launchpad.net/~kennybobs/ubuntu/+source/debootstrap/+git/debootstrap/+merge/459594 is a request to change debootstrap to support EOL releases. I think that's something we don't want to introduce Ubuntu delta for. I'm not sure it'd be valid for Debian either. Opinions?
[17:25] <dbungert> rbasak: to me that looks OK for upstreaming into Debian, given the similar content.  Sounds like you have a concern about the Debian part, would you elaborate?
[17:26] <adrien_> bdmurray: and reading your mail again, I looked back at the impact this change had; it has definitely been a life-changer :)
[17:27] <rbasak> dbungert: it seems to me that if we keep old code around forever so that debootstrap works with an arbitrarily old release, then that would be a maintenance nightmare. So it seems like it would be sensible to have a cut-off beyond which we don't carry around code for, and EOL seems appropriate for that?
[17:27] <rbasak> I don't see that Debian would want to apply any different reasoning to that.
[17:28] <rbasak> OTOH, if it were "EOL + 1 release" or "EOL + 4 releases" then that would work too, but I'm not aware of that being defined anywhere, or any commitment from anyone for the work required for that.
[17:29] <dbungert> I guess I'm willing to treat debootstrap differently, as if you really do need one of these beyond-EOL releases, debootstrap is going to be on the short list of paths forward.  Would it help if, instead of hardcoding the list of EOL releases, it was pulled from distro-info or similar?
[17:31] <rbasak> I think we already carry a delta for that now.
[17:31] <rbasak> I would expect someone to pull an old images and run debootstrap from there, using old-releases.ubuntu.com
[17:31] <rbasak> Rather than expecting the latest release to support debootstrapping infinity.
[17:32] <rbasak> But if you disagree, then maybe you could sponsor that MP, or drive it appropriately please? :)
[18:53] <rbasak> dbungert: ^
[18:55] <dbungert> rbasak: yes, I'll take it on.  I'm still thinking through my response.
[19:12] <rbasak> Thanks!