=== chris14_ is now known as chris14
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
[11:03] <ricotz> hello ubuntu-sru, please take a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/2073054
[11:03] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2073054 in libreoffice (Ubuntu Noble) "[SRU] libreoffice 24.2.5 for noble" [Medium, In Progress]
=== sleeperb1 is now known as _sleeperbarbie
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
[12:44] <georgiag> rbasak: regarding https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2072811 is there any way we can fix the apparmor regression instead of reverting the sru?
[12:44] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2072811 in apparmor (Ubuntu Noble) "Apparmor: New update broke flatpak with `apparmor='DENIED'`" [Critical, Triaged]
[13:29] <waveform> sil2100, was flash-kernel 3.107ubuntu9~24.04.1 rejected or not? I got a note about it (and yes, my fault that pipe snuck in there), but it's still showing up in the -proposed pocket? I can upload a fix with a .2 suffix but just wondered why the rejection appears not to have gone through?
[13:30] <sil2100> waveform: I reuploaded with the same version number
[13:30] <sil2100> Since until it's in -proposed, the version number doesn't matter
[13:30] <waveform> ahhh, I see -- just noticed the upload time
[13:30] <sil2100> :)
[14:04] <rbasak> georgiag: I think the time for that is past, sorry. I'd have expected a fix to have been proposed already. The revert we can land within hours, as opposed to the time it would take considering what we need to fix about around testing first. Please do keep working on a fix though as we'll need to land that anyway!
[14:05] <rbasak> s/past/passed/
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
[14:09] <georgiag> rbasak: thanks
=== cplfidgvnekaibts is now known as papmqjazclroccek
=== papmqjazclroccek is now known as georgiag
=== dbungert1 is now known as dbungert
[18:56] <georgiag> hey ubuntu-sru. with https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2064672 being reverted, we want to land that again fixing the issue that caused the revert. is it okay to use the same LP bug or do I open a new one?
[18:56] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2064672 in apparmor (Ubuntu) "[SRU] - fixes for apparmor on noble" [Undecided, In Progress]
[19:05] <Eickmeyer> ubuntu-release: since queuebot is MIA, uploaded ubuntustudio-meta with ubuntustudio-desktop-core as a binary NEW package, reintroducing the minimal install option. Getting the metapackage in there is the first step, will be reshuffling between -desktop and -desktop-core and then there will be MPs to livecd-rootfs for an option in the
[19:05] <Eickmeyer> installer.
[20:02] <rbasak> georgiag: use the same bug please. Also, please could you provide an analysis considering how the regression slipped through and what we need to amend in QA to avoid it again?
[21:07] <georgiag> rbasak: will do
[21:10] <rbasak> georgiag: thanks! Also I've just published the revert into proposed. If you're able to spot any issues with the reverting package I'd appreciate it!
[21:22] <Eickmeyer> Ope, pinged the wrong team earlier.
[21:22] <Eickmeyer> ubuntu-archive: since queuebot is MIA, uploaded ubuntustudio-meta with ubuntustudio-desktop-core as a binary NEW package, reintroducing the minimal install option. Getting the metapackage in there is the first step, will be reshuffling between -desktop and -desktop-core and then there will be MPs to livecd-rootfs for an option in the installer.
[21:51] <vorlon> bdmurray, sarnold sigghhhh moving queuebot to the plaintext port also requires change requests on the IS firewall
[22:18] <sarnold> vorlon: argh :/ at least the is folks seem to review those merge requests quickly, just as soon as you figure out what needs changing
[22:18] <vorlon> yeah but that means doing more things to further encode our failure to use TLS and I'm not strongly motivated to work on that right now
[22:20] <sarnold> good point
[22:54] <vorlon> RikMills: are the shlibs in libkirigamiprivate6 correct/meaningful?  libkirigamiprivate6 (>= 6.4.0a) seems a bit of an over-promise for a library with 'private' in the name. (noticing this because lintian complains about the lack of a symbols file)
[22:58] <RikMills> santa_: ^
[22:59] <RikMills> vorlon: if you would prefer a symbols file, that can be done
[23:02] <vorlon> RikMills: not specifically looking for a symbols file, I know those are awkward with C++ libraries
[23:03] <vorlon> RikMills: merely noting that the lintian warning led me to look at the shlibs and ask questions
[23:05] <RikMills> vorlon: santa_ did the main work on this update, so he
[23:06] <RikMills> was who I just pinged
[23:06] <RikMills> though it will be past 1am now his time