=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
[08:18] <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
=== blackboxsw_away is now known as blackboxsw
[13:59] <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?
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
[15:02] <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.
=== liushuyu1 is now known as liushuyu
[15:37] <rbasak> ^ done
[15:41] <bdrung> thanks rbasak
=== pushkarnk1 is now known as pushkarnk
[15:45] <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
[15:53] <vorlon> mitchdz: you mean the kpartx-boot binary?
[15:53] <mitchdz> yeah
[15:53] <vorlon> mitchdz: done
[15:54] <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?
[15:55] <mitchdz> negative, the failures all seem to be testbed failures
[15:55] <mitchdz> e.g. LP environment
[15:56] <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?
[15:57] <mitchdz> Yup!
[15:57] <vorlon> ok
[15:57] <mitchdz> I think the arm64/armhf autopkgtest runners might be a little sad today
[16:01] <mitchdz> also happy +1 week for me, happy to start with my own package :)
[16:38] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, dmraid can be removed now? https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/dmraid/+bug/2073677
[16:39] -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
[17:22] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon, missing build on ppc64el: bpfcc-introspection, libbpf-tools, libbpfcc, libbpfcc-dev (from 0.29.1+ds-1ubuntu7)
[17:22] <LocutusOfBorg> please?
[20:46] <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.
[20:48] <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
[20:49] <mitchdz> I'll just ignore them today and see if they magically look better tomorrow :)
[20:57] <mitchdz> While I have your attention, rust-sequoia-ipc looks like it may need some nudging
[20:58] <mitchdz> stuck at "Will attempt migration" for 35 days
[20:59] <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
[21:00] <mitchdz> ah thanks for the pointer
[21:01] <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
[21:02] <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
[21:06] <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
[21:07] <mitchdz> ^Actually more of a Q for ubuntu-devel so I'll ask there
[21:23] <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