[09:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smifb2 (noble-proposed/universe) [2.2.6.3.gbbd2e82-1 => 2.2.6.3.gbbd2e82-1ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)
[14:24] <jbicha> ubuntu-sru: could glib2.0/noble be reviewed? it is on the list of release day SRUs at https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/noble-numbat-24-04-release-status-tracking/44043
[14:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (noble-proposed/main) [1:24.04.16 => 1:24.04.17] (core)
[14:29] <juliank> ubuntu-sru Please reject the first two ubuntu-release-upgrader (the one from enr0n and the first of mine I accidentally ran the pre-build to early, anyway), so third time is the charm
[14:29] <juliank> Good date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:26:40 +0200
[14:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (noble-proposed/main) [1:24.04.16 => 1:24.04.17] (core)
[14:35] <juliank> mfo: ^ the ubuntu-release-upgrader noble SRU is sort of urgent to fix the systemd-resolved upgrade failure (we sadly can't verify it, but the fix is adding it to the list of packages to install, so that's the best we can do), and wrong markings of t64 packages as manually installed. It would be great to get that accepted today (the third upload, reject the earlier two :))
[14:36] <mfo> juliank, ack, thanks for the ping!
[17:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (noble-proposed/main) [24.1.3-0ubuntu3 => 24.1.3-0ubuntu3.1] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[18:15] <mfo> juliank, hey o/ re: ubuntu-release-upgrader noble SRU
[18:16] <juliank> mfo: o/
[18:16] <mfo> Right now "just ~ubuntu-sru" can't reject/accept to noble (task [1] not yet done), this would need ~ubuntu-archive or ~ubuntu-release, IIUIC.
[18:16] <mfo> [1] https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/RTMP-1657
[18:16] <mfo> Also, I had a question in bug 2061891 (the other 2 look good to me), if you or enr0n  have a chance.
[18:16] <mfo> Thanks!
[18:16] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2061891 in ubuntu-release-upgrader (Ubuntu Noble) "Noble upgrade breaks iptables-persistent and netfilter-persistent usage" [Undecided, Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2061891
[18:17] <mfo> Sorry, I can't do much more than that at the moment.
[18:19] <juliank> mfo: comment added
[18:21] <liushuyu> Hi Ubuntu release, I have a SRU request for rustc https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rustc/+bug/2052985
[18:21] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2052985 in rustc (Ubuntu) "[SRU] Upgrade Rust to 1.76.0" [Medium, Incomplete]
[18:22] <mfo> juliank, that looks good, thanks for clarifying
[18:24] <juliank> Now we just need an ubuntu-archive or ubuntu-release to workaround the queue not being handed over to ubuntu-sru yet
[18:24] <juliank> :D
[18:24] <mfo> liushuyu, o/ ack, i'll add it to the list to review.
[18:25] <jbicha> juliank: oh so we need to ping ubuntu-release about -upgrader & glib2.0?
[18:26] <vorlon> juliank, mfo: I can puppet SRU accepts right now if they're signed off by another member of ubuntu-sru
[18:26] <juliank> Hooray
[18:27] <vorlon> mfo: ^ please confirm you're happy for me to accept ubuntu-release-upgrader
[18:27] <liushuyu> mfo: Thanks!
[18:28] <juliank> jbicha: you want SRU vanguard/mfo today to sign off on the SRU and then ping vorlon I suppose
[18:28] <mfo> vorlon, I'll finish the review and get back to you; thanks!
[18:28] <mfo> juliank, jbicha: yup, i'll do it that way for today's shift.
[18:48] <mfo> vorlon, please feel free to accept ubuntu-release-upgrader for noble (the most recent one, with `Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:26:40 +0200`), and reject its older 2 uploads.  thanks!
[19:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (focal-proposed/main) [24.1.3-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 24.1.3-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)
[19:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (jammy-proposed/main) [24.1.3-0ubuntu1~22.04.1 => 24.1.3-0ubuntu1~22.04.2] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[19:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (mantic-proposed/main) [24.1.3-0ubuntu1~23.10.2 => 24.1.3-0ubuntu1~23.10.3] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[19:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (noble-proposed) [1:24.04.17]
[19:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (noble-proposed) [1:24.04.17]
[19:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: 7857 entries have been added or removed
[19:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (noble-proposed) [1:24.04.17]
[19:24] <blackboxsw> ubuntu-sru: SRU regression-update for cloud-init 24.1.3 released on Thursday for last week for images which don't have snapd deb package installed and user-data which requests `package_upgrade:true`. Uploads have been pushed for noble, focal, jammy and mantic to support Ubuntu images without snapd deb package per bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cloud-init/+bug/2064132
[19:24] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2064132 in cloud-init (Ubuntu) "images without snapd installed error on `update_packages: true` user-data" [Critical, Fix Committed]
[19:25] <blackboxsw> While admitedly, this is a corner-case, this is a straight-forward fix.
[19:26] <blackboxsw> for release-team, this does imply the there is an upload for cloud-init wafting in the the unapproved queue with this same fix ^
[19:30] <vorlon> blackboxsw: how is this an SRU regression? what images do we ship without snapd?
[19:30] <blackboxsw> vorlon: good question. We don't ship images in canonical without snapd, even ubuntu-minimal  has snapd right? It's a general ubuntu issue for anyone with derivative images.
[19:31] <vorlon> define "ubuntu-minimal"
[19:31] <vorlon> there are minimal cloud and server images; afaik these both include snapd
[19:31] <vorlon> philroche: ^^ maybe you can confirm faster than I can check
[19:31] <blackboxsw> I was thinking minimal cloud images.
[19:32] <vorlon> blackboxsw: what was the context in which this regression was identified?
[19:32] <vorlon> blackboxsw: ftr snapd is explicitly in the server-cloud-minimal seed for noble+ and in server-minimal for jammy
[19:32] <blackboxsw> vorlon: and maybe by this sentiment,  if  all Canonical server/cloud images contain snapd, then this isn't considered an SRU regression because our primary ubuntu images streams don't have this ssue.
[19:34] <blackboxsw> I just considered it an SRU regression because there are derivative images out there (incus for instanece) which don't package snapd in their images and this does affect them. But, they are off path in their image creation, so maybe that doesn't qualify for SRU regressions?
[19:34] <blackboxsw> "off path" == divergent from Canonical Ubuntu images
[19:36] <blackboxsw> I'm ok if that's our consideration with qualifying SRU regressions: "the behavior regression must be represented within Canonical cloud/server/desktop images to be considered an SRU-regression".  It just felt a little murky to me.
[19:36] <falcojr> as far as context, in our last cloud-init release, we added support for snap alongside apt in the module that will update or install packages. Part of that code does a "snap refresh" and we had a bug report that "snap refresh" was getting called even though they didn't have snap on their system, and this is causing cloud-init to exit with error
[19:37] <falcojr> so we added new behavior in an SRU that broke somebody's use case (though looks like maybe invalid use case?)
[19:38] <blackboxsw> I get that we can't support all derivative images and use-cases, because that's unsustainable for all of our projects. So we'll defer to best judgement here.
[19:41] <vorlon> blackboxsw, falcojr: I certainly don't object to you doing a follow-on SRU to re-enable this use case, but I don't think it qualifies as an SRU regression if someone has mangled their image to remove snapd
[19:41] <blackboxsw> Ok so maybe our treatment of this as regression-updates is "severe" for this case
[19:43] <blackboxsw> ok let's demote the priority  this from regression-updates and we'll just queue for SRU review
[19:43] <blackboxsw> thanks vorlon
[19:44] <blackboxsw> "regression-update" tag dropped
[20:29] <Eickmeyer> Rats, I was hoping my SRUs would be accepted before the oracular copy. 😞
[20:30] <cjwatson> I see on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+series that mantic is still in the "Current Stable Release" state - missed checklist step somewhere?
[20:51] <Eickmeyer> ubuntu-sru, or ubuntu-release, or ubuntu-archive (why not ping everyone?): please reject the last upload of ubuntustudio-installer, I've got something to fix two bugs and now that oracular is at least in-place, a correct SRU-worthy versioning.
[20:59] <mfo> jbicha, re: glib2.0 (bug 2063221) it looks mostly OK for SRU -- I just added a comment for a missing section in the SRU template. Thanks!
[20:59] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2063221 in glib2.0 (Ubuntu) "Drop libglib2.0-0 transitional package" [High, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2063221
[21:04] <jbicha> juliank: um, because the 2063221 upload wasn't accepted before noble's release and the archive freeze, how do you recommend we proceed?
[21:06] <mfo> jbicha, if I may -- if you're referring to getting it into the devel release, I think that is covered by the task in release opening for copying anything in -updates into devel
[21:06] <mfo> https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/RTMP-1655
[21:06] <juliank> jbicha: vorlon removed the binary for the previous version with archive admin magic, we do need the new one in proposed to make sure we don't accidentally reintroduce it though but we can set block-proposed-noble
[21:06] <jbicha> oh ok, magic is nice
[21:08] <juliank> So it's not possible to trigger the bug anymore as mfo found out because the transitional package that is being removed is already force removed by magic
[21:08] <juliank> Makes for a funny SRU test plan I suppose
[21:08] <mfo> ah, so that's why. cool :)
[21:08] <mfo> heh, definitely.
[21:16] <jbicha> mfo: I've updated the test case etc.
[21:17] <mfo> liushuyu, hey o/ re: rust 1.76/noble, I switched the bug back from 'Incomplete' as you addressed Steve's question (please do it in the future to avoid bugs expiring :), but considering the latter answer, it's certainly best for him to follow up on it.
[21:21] <mfo> jbicha, thanks!
[21:23] <mfo> vorlon, please accept glib2.0 for noble, if you have a chance; thanks! (BTW, this is the last request for the day; I'll EOD soon. Appreciate the help today.)
[21:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntustudio-installer (noble-proposed/universe) [1.18 => 1.18.1] (ubuntustudio)
[22:34] <liushuyu> mfo: Understood. Will ping Steve when they are available
[23:08] <vorlon> cjwatson: launchpad allows two series to be marked "current stable release" at the same time? TIL; I thought this was automatic
[23:08] <vorlon> cjwatson: ah no, I see it listed in https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/RTMP-1598. chasing up
[23:10] <vorlon> mfo, jbicha: accepted, thanks
[23:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted glib2.0 [source] (noble-proposed) [2.80.0-6ubuntu3]
[23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntustudio-installer [source] (noble-proposed) [1.18.1]
[23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntustudio-installer [source] (noble-proposed) [1.19]
[23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubuntustudio-installer [source] (noble-proposed) [1.19]
[23:12] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: hmm you said "last upload", I didn't realize there were others in the queue so I've wound up rejecting all 3; I'm not clear why the *latest* one had an SRU-ish version number (1.18.1) but the other older two did not?  anyway, sorry if I rejected something you didn't mean for me to, it's easiest if you re-upload anything you want processed as an SRU
[23:13] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: No, 1.18.1 is what I want. 1.19 would be for oracular.
[23:13] <vorlon> and I'm now also at the "move non-SRUs from noble-proposed unapproved to oracular-proposed" step, so there's some unpicking to do here
[23:14] <Eickmeyer> I see.
[23:14] <Eickmeyer> I mean, 1.18.1 works for both. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[23:14] <Eickmeyer> Was mostly precautionary in this "gray" area between now and oracular officially opening.
[23:14] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: right, so as I said, best if you reupload
[23:15] <Eickmeyer> Yep, will reupload 1.19 for oracular.
[23:15] <Eickmeyer> Oh, you meant *all* of them.
[23:16] <Eickmeyer> No worries.
[23:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntustudio-installer (noble-proposed/universe) [1.18 => 1.18.1] (ubuntustudio)
[23:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted apt [source] (noble-proposed) [2.8.0]
[23:19] <vorlon> cjwatson: mantic fixed
[23:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected lxd-installer [source] (noble-proposed) [5]
[23:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd-installer (oracular-proposed/main) [4 => 5] (core)
[23:24] <wxl> oh oracular is officially open now? i hadn't seen the email
[23:29] <Eickmeyer> wxl: I'm not sure it is...?
[23:39] <wxl> Eickmeyer: well i said that because i saw lxd-installer just pop into it ^
[23:40] <Eickmeyer> wxl: Notice it's also being held in "Unapproved".
[23:40] <wxl> true true but still i don't know that i'd expect that mcuh :)