[04:23] <tsimonq2> ubuntu-release: Xubuntu is having issues with the installer not working without a network connection and Ubuntu Unity is failing to login. Lubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu Unity need some Calamares cleanup for edge cases we found. Many uploads incoming in the next 8 hours.
[04:25] <tsimonq2> whoops, wrong channel, I guess many of the same people are in here too?
[04:54] <sbeattie> RAOF: hey, are you on SRU rotation today? Can you review the apparmor binary copies in the unapproved queues for jammy and focal? They are to address LP: #1597017, and originate from https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security-proposed/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages
[04:54] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1597017 in apparmor (Ubuntu Jammy) "mount rules grant excessive permissions" [Undecided, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1597017
[04:57] <sbeattie> The apparmor update is intended to be a security update, but we'd like to make it available in {jammy,focal}-proposed before releasing to the security pockets.
[08:06] <adrien> I'm working on an MIR and one of the tests that would be added fails maybe up to 3% of the time and it seems pretty random; if I retry the tests automatically up to three times in total, that would be up to 1 out of 27000 times
[08:06] <adrien> tests are not very long overall
[08:07] <adrien> should I skip the flaky test or retry it automatically?
[08:18] <jclsn> Hi, I would like to build my own custom Ubuntu image. I have found this Cubic Image generator, but I would like to do it in a pipeline and not use a GUI tool. Is there an official way to do this?
[08:21] <jclsn> Only thing I can think of, would be unpacking an iso, chrooting into it and packing it again
[08:30] <jclsn> Compiling from source woudl be the preferred method. Is there some repo and pipeline I can fork or are those closed-source for Ubuntu?
[08:40] <nteodosio> Apt Lib seems to consider all contiguous commented lines at the top of a .source file a SourceEntry.comment but this pollutes Software-properties: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-properties/+bug/2059797/+attachment/5761695/+files/Screenshot%20from%202024-03-22%2010-38-59.png.
[08:40] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2059797 in software-properties (Ubuntu) "Other Software shows extra comment for Ubuntu distribution repository" [Undecided, Triaged]
[08:41] <nteodosio> juliank, do you know how that works for classic .list files, if at all? I couldn't get comments to show for those.
[08:43] <nteodosio> This cannot be a new deb822 thing because software-properties is using that comment property since at least 2013.
[08:44] <nteodosio> I'm have a patch for displaying only the first line of the comment but happy to hear alternatives
[10:27] <sudip> can anyone please sponsor LP: #2060658
[10:27] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2060658 in dublin-traceroute (Ubuntu) "dublin-traceroute fails to install in Noble" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2060658
[10:29] <sudip> also, what is the process for these types of Noble related bugs? adding to the sponsors queue as usual or can I ping here or in #ubuntu-release for these ?
[10:32] <schopin> sudip: ubuntu-sponsors. If it's beta-critical then additionally making noise on #ubuntu-release is good, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.
[10:34] <sudip> thanks schopin, another newbie question, what is beta-critical?
[10:35] <ogra_> critical to have for the release of the beta images
[10:35] <schopin> An upload would be beta-critical if it's for a package that's in one of the images and we *need* that upload for beta.
[10:36] <ogra_> (vs. can be added after beta (before release))
[10:36] <sudip> ahh.. ok.. I understand. thanks schopin ogra_
[11:57] <paride> @pilot in
[12:17] <mkukri> fix for dcraw ftbfs https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dcraw/+bug/2060672
[12:17] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2060672 in dcraw (Ubuntu) "dcraw ftbfs" [Undecided, New]
[14:02] <sudip> schopin: about your comment in LP: #2060658, just wondering how will it get older versions of libtins-dev? Noble only has libtins-dev_4.5-1build2
[14:02] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2060658 in dublin-traceroute (Ubuntu) "dublin-traceroute fails to install in Noble" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2060658
[14:04] <schopin> sudip: my problem wasn't the versioned dependency on the -dev, but rather the explicit dependency on libtinsX.Y
[14:07] <sudip> schopin: yes, I understand that. But you commented "you are just allowing older versions of the package to satisfy the dependency, and we are not interested in that.", and I am wondering how will it get an older version if Noble does not ship it..
[14:07] <sudip> or am I missing something?
[14:08] <schopin> sudip: that'd be paride ;)
[14:10] <paride> sudip, in practice it may happen in backporting. more in general: given that we have that in the Debian packaging, let's keep it
[14:10] <schopin> But his point is fair: there is no reason to drop the versioned dependency, we don't care about backward compatibility :)
[14:24]  * sudip agrees with "we have that in the Debian packaging, let's keep it" and updated the debdiff accordingly
[14:24] <sudip> thanks paride schopin
[14:28] <tarzeau> where and how can i still request sync requests?
[14:31] <schopin> tarzeau: I'm not sure about the scope of the question, but usually sync requests are filed via `requestsync`. Since we are frozen you'll want to then follow the normal freeze exception procedure on that bug.
[14:32] <tarzeau> schopin: i forgot my notes about it, i guess i'll just pass
[19:01] <seb128> !dbm-ping
[19:01] <seb128> !dmb-ping
[19:01] <rbasak> Uh. Wrong board?
[19:01] <seb128> doh, unping
[19:01] <seb128> indeed :p
[19:01] <rbasak> :)
[19:02] <teward> *burps* seb128 failure?
[19:03] <seb128> teward, yes, confused TB and DMB weeks, sorry!
[19:04] <seb128> (and days also)
[19:04] <LocutusOfBorg> ahasenack, when people say "time", my brain goes into the time_t thinking, even if "time" is unrelated in the context
[19:05] <ahasenack> scars
[21:46] <S3X> HIiii
[21:46] <S3X> Anyone talk here