=== Guest255 is now known as stgraber
=== Rubennn4 is now known as Rubennn
[09:53] <renanrodrigo111> Hello rbasak, all good with u-a-t in unapproved?
[09:53] <rbasak> o/
[09:54] <rbasak> So there's this "new" clarification about how bugs are tracked that we should figure out.
[09:54] <rbasak> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Bug_references_in_changelogs
[09:54] <renanrodrigo111> oh right, the changelog move
[09:55] <rbasak> But what I'm confused about is that eg. bug 2060769 _is_ referenced, and contains SRU information
[09:55] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Bug 2060769 in ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu) "pro-client execs `apt list --installed` instead of using python3-apt - leading to utf-8 errors" [High, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2060769
[09:55] <rbasak> To be clear, this isn't a blocker to accept the SRU
[09:55] <renanrodrigo111> correct
[09:55] <renanrodrigo111> I can explain (famous last words)
[09:55] <rbasak> But I think it's worth making it clear what is and isn't expected to be SRU-verified now to avoid delays later
[09:56] <renanrodrigo111> sure
[09:56] <rbasak> As written, the assumption is that these will be SRU-verified because the SRU information is present and there isn't anything documented to the contrary AFAICS.
[09:57] <rbasak> If this is correct then we're good and you've followed the new clarification precisely
[09:57] <rbasak> I just wasn't sure if that was the case since it's new.
[09:57] <rbasak> I need to run to a meeting shortly. I haven't quite finished my review, but this is looking good to accept regardless of above
[09:58] <renanrodrigo111> alright - I'll follow up on this detail with you
[09:59] <rbasak> You have a general exception so individual SRU verification of individual bugs that you're fixing aren't required. We have an approved QA plan instead (you're required to add reasoanble tests instead, etc.
[09:59] <rbasak> So in this case it's up to you, as long as we're clear to avoid any misunderstandings as we go through the process :)
[10:03] <renanrodrigo111> rbasak: ok wait wait I thought this was something different
[10:03] <renanrodrigo111> the bug you mentioned will be verified normally
[10:04] <renanrodrigo111> there is a test plan mentioning that the functionality is part of the general testing mentioned in the exception, but also carries the instructions to verify it specifically, and we will do it as we usually do
[10:05] <renanrodrigo111> I'm a bit confused - could you please elaborate what exactly is the problem?
[10:27] <rbasak> renanrodrigo111: no that's fine if that's your intention. I just thought it wasn't.
[10:28] <rbasak> Sorry. Just trying to head off any future hiccups
[11:08] <waveform> @pilot in
=== ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Focal-Noble | Patch Pilots: waveform, sergiodj
=== cpaelzer_ is now known as cpaelzer
[13:37] <Skia> jbicha: you've recently worked around rsass, would you agree with this MP? https://code.launchpad.net/~hyask/autopkgtest-cloud/+git/autopkgtest-package-configs/+merge/468921
[14:06] <jbicha> Skia: oh that looks helpful, thanks
=== jfsimon1981_c is now known as jfsimon
[14:46] <vorlon> @pilot in
=== ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Focal-Noble | Patch Pilots: waveform, sergiodj, vorlon
[17:16] <waveform> @pilot out
=== ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Focal-Noble | Patch Pilots: sergiodj, vorlon
=== NotEickmeyer is now known as Eickmeyer
[18:46] <teward> rbasak: is the DMB meeting today?
[18:50] <teward> ddstreet: mapreri: are you OK with me requesting a backports exception for XCA so I can keep it updated in backports without the process?  I'd call this a special case because the debian and ubuntu maintainer are identical and because I could just handwave it.  I'll email through but wanted to float the idea first (since I have an updated package that doesn't have explicit deps now and uses qtbase instead)
[18:57] <schopin> teward: yes, there's a DMB meeting today :)
[19:02] <rbasak> !dmb-ping
[19:02] <ubottu> bdmurray, bdrung, rbasak, schopin, teward, tsimonq2, utkarsh2102: DMB ping
[20:08] <bdrung> rbasak, the DMB meeting reminded me that we need the "Canonical employee" column in the sponsorship queue table
[20:13] <tsimonq2> bdrung: That might be a bit difficult, given membership of ~canonical is private.
[20:15] <sergiodj> ahasenack_: ISTR you mentioining something about dep8 tests failing due to the "environment variable 'DEB_HOST_ARCH' not defined" error.  is there any official resolution for it?
[20:15] <sergiodj> (other than hacking the dep8 test and setting DEB_HOST_ARCH by hand?)
[20:15] <ahasenack_> sergiodj: let me give you the bug, which has tasks where you can get a template for the fix people have been adding
[20:16] <sergiodj> ahasenack_: thanks
[20:16] <ahasenack_> sergiodj: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpkg/+bug/2071468
[20:16] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 2071468 in texinfo (Ubuntu) "ELF package metadata failure: environment variable ‘DEB_HOST_ARCH’ not defined" [High, Triaged]
[20:16] <sergiodj> thanks
[20:17] <ahasenack_> sergiodj: example fix: https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/squid/commit/?id=de8d59f784f8a7731987351ee8e8329a66f4a4a1
[20:17] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Commit de8d59f in ubuntu/+source/squid "Fix autopkgtests for dpkg ELF metadata enablement"
[20:17] <ahasenack_> or workaround
[20:17] <ahasenack_> the dpkg task is still open, maybe something will still change and this won't be needed
[20:17] <ahasenack_> but so far that's what I see people doing
[20:17] <sergiodj> ah, yeah, seems like a workaround indeed
[20:18] <sergiodj> yeah, I'll go ahead and upload the fix for the two packages affected by this error that are blocking openldap
[20:18] <bdrung> sergiodj, please reference this dpkg bug.
[20:18] <ahasenack_> add them to the dpkg bug, if not already
[20:19] <sergiodj> sure, I'm doing all of that
[20:19] <bdrung> I like to work on the --encoded-package-metadata. Then those workaround could be dropped.
[20:46] <vorlon> @pilot out
=== ChanServ changed the topic of #ubuntu-devel to: Archive: open | Devel of Ubuntu (not support) | Build failures: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ | #ubuntu for support and discussion of Focal-Noble | Patch Pilots: sergiodj