| === liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu | ||
| === liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu | ||
| zhsj | ubuntu-archive: ping for bug 2069140 | 08:18 |
|---|---|---|
| -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2069140 in minetest (Ubuntu) "RM: minetest [ppc64el riscv64]: no longer builds on archs" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2069140 | 08:18 | |
| === blackboxsw_away is now known as blackboxsw | ||
| mitchdz | Hello ubuntu-archive I have a question on the excuses page. For oracular I'm removing the kpartx-boot binary package from src:multipath-tools, and I am seeing the excuses page complain there are binaries left over or kpartx-boot. I assume this means the kpartx-boot binary is not being made anymore. Is there any things I need to change about the package for this, or is this just a warning for the admins when pushing? | 13:59 |
| === liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu | ||
| === liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu | ||
| bdrung | ubuntu-sru, please drop the old apport 2.28.1-0ubuntu3.1 upload to noble. there is a new one from today that includes one more change for the upcoming 24.04.1 release. | 15:02 |
| === liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu | ||
| rbasak | ^ done | 15:37 |
| bdrung | thanks rbasak | 15:41 |
| === pushkarnk1 is now known as pushkarnk | ||
| mitchdz | ubuntu-archive could we actually remove multipath-tools 0.9.7-7ubuntu1 from oracular proposed? It seems to be creating noise for the new package | 15:45 |
| vorlon | mitchdz: you mean the kpartx-boot binary? | 15:53 |
| mitchdz | yeah | 15:53 |
| vorlon | mitchdz: done | 15:53 |
| mitchdz | Is there anything else I should do to the package for the merge? | 15:54 |
| mitchdz | This is my first time removing a binary from a source package so not sure if there's any gotchas :) | 15:54 |
| vorlon | mitchdz: is the dropped binary package the cause of the failed autopkgtests? | 15:54 |
| mitchdz | negative, the failures all seem to be testbed failures | 15:55 |
| mitchdz | e.g. LP environment | 15:55 |
| vorlon | ok well those tests need to get to a passing state, but otherwise nothing | 15:56 |
| vorlon | afaik | 15:56 |
| mitchdz | great, I'll just patiently wait for them to rerun | 15:56 |
| vorlon | "wait patiently"? have you queued them? | 15:56 |
| mitchdz | Yup! | 15:57 |
| vorlon | ok | 15:57 |
| mitchdz | I think the arm64/armhf autopkgtest runners might be a little sad today | 15:57 |
| mitchdz | also happy +1 week for me, happy to start with my own package :) | 16:01 |
| LocutusOfBorg | vorlon, dmraid can be removed now? https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/dmraid/+bug/2073677 | 16:38 |
| -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2073677 in dmraid (Ubuntu) "Remove from oracular?" [Undecided, New] | 16:39 | |
| LocutusOfBorg | I'm not sure why Ubuntu still have it | 16:39 |
| mitchdz | I had a lengthy discussion about removing kpartx-boot which was originally made to support dmraid lol | 16:39 |
| LocutusOfBorg | vorlon, missing build on ppc64el: bpfcc-introspection, libbpf-tools, libbpfcc, libbpfcc-dev (from 0.29.1+ds-1ubuntu7) | 17:22 |
| LocutusOfBorg | please? | 17:22 |
| mitchdz | hi ubuntu-archive, can I have some help understanding something on the excuses page? I'm seeing a few of these types of packages, but for example pygml is showing "pygml has no binaries on any arch". Is this something that needs help during +1, or is it just for the archive admins to know that it's a new package? I see that the buildlogs did produce a deb if that's what it's talking about for binaries. | 20:46 |
| dbungert | mitchdz: temporary maybe? looks like an arch all deb is pending publication | 20:48 |
| mitchdz | ah that makes sense | 20:48 |
| mitchdz | there's a handful of packages that are new to debian and new to us that look just like this | 20:48 |
| mitchdz | I'll just ignore them today and see if they magically look better tomorrow :) | 20:49 |
| mitchdz | While I have your attention, rust-sequoia-ipc looks like it may need some nudging | 20:57 |
| mitchdz | stuck at "Will attempt migration" for 35 days | 20:58 |
| dbungert | https://ubuntu-archive-team.ubuntu.com/proposed-migration/update_output.txt can help | 20:59 |
| dbungert | attempting to migrate rust-sequoia-ipc causes some other packages to be uninstallable, so I think that's what would need to be investigated | 20:59 |
| mitchdz | ah thanks for the pointer | 21:00 |
| mitchdz | am I reading that report correctly that these are the packages that become uninstallable? | 21:01 |
| mitchdz | * ppc64el: librust-ripasso-dev, librust-sequoia-gpg-agent-dev, librust-sequoia-keystore-dev | 21:01 |
| dbungert | right. Don't ponder the arch part of that too hard, it picks one and gives the answer based on that, it's unlikely a ppc64el specific problem | 21:02 |
| mitchdz | sweet | 21:06 |
| mitchdz | I'll spin up a VM and play around | 21:06 |
| mitchdz | also probably planning to pick up the pydantic update this week, is anyone else looing at that right now? | 21:06 |
| mitchdz | s/looing/looking/g | 21:06 |
| mitchdz | ^Actually more of a Q for ubuntu-devel so I'll ask there | 21:07 |
| mitchdz | And of course right after asking a question here I find the documentation explaining it - https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-maintainers-handbook/blob/main/ProposedMigration.md#has-no-binaries-on-any-arch---to-xyz | 21:23 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!