[00:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgnatcoll-bindings [ppc64el] (noble-proposed/universe) [24.0.0-2] (no packageset)
[00:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgnatcoll-bindings [s390x] (noble-proposed/universe) [24.0.0-2] (no packageset)
[00:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgnatcoll-bindings [arm64] (noble-proposed/universe) [24.0.0-2] (no packageset)
[00:55] <mwhudson> uploading no change rebuilds against libcups2t64
[01:14] <mwhudson> bdmurray, RAOF: what do you think about removing the osmo stack on armhf?
[02:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: adacgi [riscv64] (noble-proposed/universe) [1.6-34] (no packageset)
[02:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gcc-14-cross-ports [amd64] (noble-proposed/universe) [5ubuntu2] (i386-whitelist)
[02:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libxmlezout [riscv64] (noble-proposed/universe) [1.06.2-14] (no packageset)
[02:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libflorist [riscv64] (noble-proposed/universe) [2022.0.1~20220616-5] (no packageset)
[02:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libtemplates-parser [riscv64] (noble-proposed/universe) [24.0.0-2] (no packageset)
[02:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-14-cross-ports [amd64] (noble-proposed) [5ubuntu2]
[02:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-bindings [amd64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[02:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-bindings [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[02:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-bindings [arm64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[02:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-bindings [s390x] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[03:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gcc-14-cross [amd64] (noble-proposed/main) [4ubuntu1] (i386-whitelist)
[03:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgtkada [riscv64] (noble-proposed/universe) [24.0.0-2] (no packageset)
[03:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linbox [riscv64] (noble-proposed/universe) [1.7.0-3.1] (no packageset)
[08:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cinder (jammy-proposed/main) [2:20.3.1-0ubuntu1.1 => 2:20.3.1-0ubuntu1.1.22.04.1] (openstack)
[08:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cinder (mantic-proposed/main) [2:23.0.0-0ubuntu1.1 => 2:23.0.0-0ubuntu1.1.22.10.1] (openstack)
[10:21] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, llvm-toolchain-18 build finished!
[11:19] <mdeslaur> I have an openssl security change to upload to noble at some point, should I wait until everything has settled down?
[11:21] <jbicha> hi, it was noticed that armhf is missing at https://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/noble/current/ do we expect it to return?
[11:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-14-cross [amd64] (noble-proposed) [4ubuntu1]
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libxmlezout [amd64] (noble-proposed) [1.06.2-14]
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libxmlezout [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [1.06.2-14]
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libxmlezout [s390x] (noble-proposed) [1.06.2-14]
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libxmlezout [arm64] (noble-proposed) [1.06.2-14]
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libxmlezout [riscv64] (noble-proposed) [1.06.2-14]
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libtemplates-parser [amd64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libtemplates-parser [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libtemplates-parser [s390x] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libtemplates-parser [arm64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libtemplates-parser [riscv64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted adacgi [amd64] (noble-proposed) [1.6-34]
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted adacgi [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [1.6-34]
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted adacgi [s390x] (noble-proposed) [1.6-34]
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted adacgi [arm64] (noble-proposed) [1.6-34]
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted adacgi [riscv64] (noble-proposed) [1.6-34]
[12:16] <doko> gtk3 uninstallable again?
[12:16] <doko> ahh, cups again
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libflorist [amd64] (noble-proposed) [2022.0.1~20220616-5]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libflorist [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [2022.0.1~20220616-5]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libflorist [s390x] (noble-proposed) [2022.0.1~20220616-5]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgtkada [arm64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgtkada [riscv64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libflorist [arm64] (noble-proposed) [2022.0.1~20220616-5]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgtkada [amd64] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgtkada [s390x] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libflorist [riscv64] (noble-proposed) [2022.0.1~20220616-5]
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgtkada [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [24.0.0-2]
[12:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ahven [ppc64el] (noble-proposed/universe) [2.8-9] (no packageset)
[12:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgnatcoll-db [arm64] (noble-proposed/universe) [23.0.0-6] (no packageset)
[12:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ahven [s390x] (noble-proposed/universe) [2.8-9] (no packageset)
[12:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgnatcoll-db [amd64] (noble-proposed/universe) [23.0.0-6] (no packageset)
[12:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgnatcoll-db [s390x] (noble-proposed/universe) [23.0.0-6] (no packageset)
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libgnatcoll-db [ppc64el] (noble-proposed/universe) [23.0.0-6] (no packageset)
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ahven [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [2.8-9]
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-db [amd64] (noble-proposed) [23.0.0-6]
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-db [ppc64el] (noble-proposed) [23.0.0-6]
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linbox [riscv64] (noble-proposed) [1.7.0-3.1]
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ahven [s390x] (noble-proposed) [2.8-9]
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-db [s390x] (noble-proposed) [23.0.0-6]
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libgnatcoll-db [arm64] (noble-proposed) [23.0.0-6]
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linbox [s390x] (noble-proposed) [1.7.0-3.1]
[13:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [i386] (noble-proposed/main) [24.02.0-1ubuntu8] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[13:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [amd64] (noble-proposed/main) [24.02.0-1ubuntu8] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[13:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [s390x] (noble-proposed/main) [24.02.0-1ubuntu8] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[13:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [ppc64el] (noble-proposed/main) [24.02.0-1ubuntu8] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[13:15] <juliank> For investigating build dependency issues on armhf noble, feel free to use https://magenta.jak-linux.org/ubuntu-archive/distcheck/noble.armhf/proposed.yml
[13:15] <juliank> it will show you conflicting dependency chains and missing packages
[13:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: poppler [arm64] (noble-proposed/main) [24.02.0-1ubuntu8] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist, ubuntu-server)
[13:16] <juliank> Note that apt may be less clever and fail to resolve nonetheless
[13:17] <juliank> Also note the reports for the release pocket in https://magenta.jak-linux.org/ubuntu-archive/distcheck/noble.armhf/
[13:18] <juliank> note that the .txt ones do not show conflicting dependency chains, only missing build dependencies
[13:26] <rbasak> juliank: thanks. I'm on +1 this week and really struggling to find anything useful to do.
[13:27] <rbasak> Any time I chase something down, it takes a long time and eventually I find that someone else has already submitted a retry for it (if it seems like it should now work) or an upload fixing the issue.
[13:27] <juliank> conflicts are in the .txt now as well with their dependency chains
[13:28] <juliank> So you can easily go to https://magenta.jak-linux.org/ubuntu-archive/distcheck/noble.armhf/proposed.txt and read in there
[13:28] <juliank> in the browser
[13:28] <juliank> whereas the yaml I guess browsers don't accept the content type and download it :)
[13:34] <juliank> rbasak: So yes if you see something that is failing to build with dependency issues, you can consult the report to see if it has dependency issues and if not retry it
[13:35] <juliank> rbasak: Or you can go look at the analysis and do some other rebuild to migrate one of the conflicting chains from libfoo1 to libfoo1t64
[13:42] <juliank> Output is sorted by package failing to build now in the .txt; and the keys in the dependency chain have a proper order now
[13:53] <doko> jbicha: are you aware that poppler t64 cannot build? depending on old cups
[14:01] <jbicha> doko: hmm? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/poppler/24.02.0-1ubuntu8
[14:01] <jbicha> maybe what you're seeing is just that the cups t64 transition started late so rebuilds haven't happened yet for everything
[14:01] <rbasak> juliank: what does "status: broken" mean? Uninstallable? Is there anything else that leads to "broken"?
[14:01] <jbicha> & then I guess poppler didn't get the noble transition either
[14:03] <juliank> rbasak: yeah, look at reasons:
[14:05] <rbasak> juliank: ah - so really it's "missing:" that indicates uninstallability?
[14:06] <seb128> hum, connectivity issues, unsure if that msg went through
[14:06] <seb128> doko, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/poppler/24.02.0-1ubuntu8 uploaded 20 min ago built?
[14:09] <doko> very late merge ...
[14:09] <juliank> rbasak: missing is if the build-dep or transitive dependency is completely missing; and conflicts: if there's conflicting dependency chains
[14:09] <juliank> rbasak: The text report (with .txt) now includes both kinds and may be nicer to look at
[14:11] <rbasak> juliank: thanks. I'm still trying to understand this by looking at specific examples. I keep finding things that are supposedly broken but the builds are expected to fail on armhf. Eg. a transitive dependency on architecture-is-64-bit, or a binary package that excludes armhf from the build archs. I wonder if we could filter this somehow? For example, could we ignore anything that isn't in the
[14:11] <rbasak> release pocket already?
[14:14] <juliank> Possibly
[14:15] <juliank> It's a bit involved though
[14:15] <juliank> It's not really giving you a migration unblocking view in that sense, yeah
[14:16] <juliank> We also have https://magenta.jak-linux.org/ubuntu-archive/distcheck/noble.armhf/proposed-against-release.txt
[14:16] <juliank> which will show you packages in proposed that fail to have their build-depends satisfied in the release pocket
[21:28] <doko> jbicha: what is this uhttpmock0 package about?
[21:31] <jbicha> doko: it's briefly explained in the debian/changelog. uhttpmock is only used for libgdata's tests. libgdata sadly still uses libsoup2.4
[21:32] <jbicha> A new library msgraph has build tests that use uhttpmock but they need the newer libsoup3 version. Also we want to get msgraph into Ubuntu main so build tests are especially important
[21:33] <jbicha> new version keeps the uhttpmock source package name, old gets an old name, uhttpmock0. Not possible for things to link against both libsoup2.4 & libsoup3
[21:34] <doko> ok, accepted
[21:34] <doko> vorlon: the queue logger->irc isn't working
[21:48] <mitchdz> Hi ubuntu-release! I'm picking this bug back up https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postgresql-12/+bug/2024019 and am going to look at starting the SRU process  to add `-moutline-atomic` to the following packages: haproxy,nginx,postgresql-12 for arm64. This would be strictly a change to increase performance and doesn't fix any bugs, so I'm curious how that would be received during an SRU. Is there a certain % in
[21:48] <mitchdz> performance increase that we look for until we say the SRU is worth the risk, or for these packages would we just say no to this type of change on a stable release?
[21:48] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2024019 in nginx (Ubuntu) "Add GCC atomic support (-moutline-atomics) for arm64 on Focal" [Undecided, In Progress]
[22:01] <blackboxsw> hi SRU vanguards: please reject cloud-init unapproved uploads 24.1.1 to the proposed queues for Focal, Jammy and Mantic. We will be uploading cloud-init v.24.1.2 instead which includes a couple of high-profile fixes that we'd like in stable releases.
[22:54] <bdmurray> What happened to queuebot? that's its name right?
[22:57] <bdmurray> mitchdz: I think you want ubuntu-sru for an SRU question.
[22:58] <mitchdz> that's fair. well, ubuntu-sru do you have any thoughts on my question?
[23:00] <mitchdz> Also, is ubuntu-sru an official tag for the IRC server? Maybe that should be added in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[23:02] <rbasak> I'm not aware that we have any specific policy on this. I don't think we'd rule out SRUs for performance improvements, but 1) I'd expect a good regression risk analysis and 2) a higher bar for anything older than the current LTS.
[23:02] <rbasak> For this particular bug, I don't understand why -moutline-atomics wasn't the default?
[23:03] <rbasak> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Options.html says it is default, though perhaps it wasn't then? If it wasn't the default, why wasn't it the default? Eg. did upstream not have confidence in it?
[23:03] <rbasak> Because from the description it sounds perfectly safe.
[23:03] <rbasak> Or will it harm performance on < 8.1 ISAs?
[23:04] <rbasak> Anyway, please put answers to all of that in the bug.
[23:05] <mitchdz> Thanks Robie, and great questions. I expected to do the regular regression risk analysis. Figured I'd ask if it was dead in the water before I start digging into it :)
[23:07] <RAOF> We have, in the past, accepted SRUs for performance (I think openssl is a recent example), but as Robie said, we'd want more confidence in the correctness of the change than a standard SRU, more detailed justification (is it 1000% performance increase on common workload? Is it 100% on uncommon workload? Is it 5% on common workload? etc).
[23:16] <bdmurray> I seem to recall a glibc performance SRU that ended up having mixed results
[23:57] <mwhudson> jbicha: so er the new vala didn't fix telepathy-glib?