laneybdmurray: oh yeah08:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [amd64] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]08:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [armhf] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]08:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [ppc64el] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]08:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [s390x] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]08:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [arm64] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]08:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [riscv64] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]08:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sanlock [i386] (groovy-backports) [3.8.2-2~ubuntu20.10.1]08:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfs-linux (focal-proposed/main) [0.8.3-1ubuntu12.11 => 0.8.3-1ubuntu12.12] (core, kernel-dkms)08:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)10:02
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd-signed (focal-proposed/main) [1.27.1ubuntu3 => 1.27.1ubuntu4] (core)10:04
juliank^ this is a follow-up for bug 1934209 to recompile against the new libjcat10:04
ubottuBug 1934209 in OEM Priority Project "Dell dock USB4 module need fwupd 1.5.11" [Critical, In Progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/193420910:04
julianksigning tarballs built from fwupd need to be accepted in publisher run before fwupd-signed builds to avoid it fetching the old one :)10:04
juliankI need to fix that in impish :)10:05
LocutusOfBorghello, question for infrastructure maintainers (sorry cjwatson juliank but I probably need your help <3 ): I set R^3:no in virtualbox, and the calls to chmod +x now became non-op in Ubuntu, while they still work in Debian10:05
LocutusOfBorgcan anybody please explain this difference? is it correct that they shouldn't work or not?10:05
LocutusOfBorgin Debian files have rws in Ubuntu rwx, and the build is totally broken in hirsute and impish10:06
cjwatsonI expect this to be packaging toolchain not infrastructure, so not something I can help with10:06
cjwatson(sbuild just calls dpkg-buildpackage regardless of R^3)10:06
LocutusOfBorgcan it be something related to sbuild not being called with fakeroot in Ubuntu, and with it in Debian?10:08
juliankstrange stuff10:08
cjwatsonI am pretty sure that we use fakeroot for builds in Ubuntu too, even if minor details of the output around that differ10:10
cjwatsonhow else would anything work given that we don't run dpkg-buildpackage as root10:11
juliankrules-require-root: no don't need fakeroot10:11
juliankwhether fakeroot or real10:12
juliankLocutusOfBorg: do you have build logs for both debian aund ubuntu?10:12
cjwatsonjuliank: Sure, I know that, but I mean in general10:12
cjwatsonAnyway, that's still up to dpkg-buildpackage, not sbuild10:12
juliankI think the idea is that we stop running with fakeroot if r-r-r is set to no10:12
LocutusOfBorgto me looks like Ubuntu is doing things correctly while Debian isn't...10:13
cjwatsonBut LocutusOfBorg said that it's being run with fakeroot in Debian, and I wonder if that's a misinterpretation of the logs10:14
cjwatsonSure, there's an -rfakeroot in there, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's actually using fakeroot, does it?10:14
LocutusOfBorgI wonder how many packages might fail in Ubuntu because of this difference in configuration10:14
cjwatsonWe don't know what the difference is yet, so I suggest working that out before speculating10:15
juliankLocutusOfBorg: so which fies are wrong in there?10:15
LocutusOfBorgjuliank, look at "chmod +s"10:15
LocutusOfBorgthey are 6 files that should have permission rws instead of rwx10:16
LocutusOfBorgVBoxSDL is one10:16
juliankI see10:17
cjwatsonHave you tried running the build under sbuild locally?10:17
cjwatsonIt could be some bit of debhelper or similar removing the permission bit later10:17
cjwatsonOr maybe pkgbinarymangler or pkg-create-dbgsym10:18
LocutusOfBorgno I didn't sorry10:18
LocutusOfBorgbut cjwatson setting R^3 to binary-target makes it work10:18
LocutusOfBorgI tried in a ppa and the bits were set10:18
cjwatsonWell, I suggest trying it locally to narrow this down10:19
cjwatson(leaving R^3 as no)10:19
cjwatsonAnd maybe setting DH_VERBOSE=110:20
juliankI don't think it's a difference in debhelper looking at the delta10:20
juliankanyhow this is odd10:23
xnoxvorlon:  debian-installer is now fully cleaned up and published correctly. Please remove debian-installer from impish once again, and can also drop it from i386 allowlist.10:55
LocutusOfBorghere the build with DH_VERBOSE=1 and R^3:no11:25
cjwatsondh_dwz seems to touch at least some of those files.  Is it possible that it mangles the permissions along the way?11:29
cjwatson(it runs after dh_fixperms, it seems)11:30
dokoare the calls hard-coded? the sequencer should use the correct order11:57
ubottuDebian bug 982457 in debhelper "dh_fixperms order in the debhelper sequencer" [Normal, Open]11:58
LocutusOfBorgnothing is hard-coded I would say12:11
vorlonxnox: d-i cleaned out13:07
vorloncjwatson: why does https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rust-simplelog/0.7.4-2 have no build records for impish and how can I create them?13:57
vorlon(copy it back to impish-proposed?)13:58
bdmurrayvorlon, laney: In terms of the Groovy EoL I'd like to be able to set the release to obsolete today and send out the notification. AIUI the "clean up things" is currently blocking that.14:02
bdmurrayThanks for doing the new queue laney14:03
vorlonbdmurray: ok, running cleanup-NBS-for-EOL now14:05
vorlonuh and it did nothing14:06
vorlondid someone already run it?14:07
bdmurraynot I and its not marked as done in the checklist14:07
vorlonthe binaries aren't there but the output on https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/groovy/update_output.txt has changed and is not listing NBS kernels... hmm14:08
vorlonoh, no, it's a bit higher up in the output and may have different text14:09
vorlonright so we used to key on 'Removing packages left in testing' and that text is absent14:09
bdmurraydifferent text than what the script is expecting?14:09
bdmurrayYes, looks like14:14
vorlonok script adjusted and running14:17
bdmurrayvorlon: what have we previously done with pending srus?14:19
vorlonbdmurray: not sure we've ever had a consistent policy. in the past, Adam had suggested we should just leave the unverified SRUs there rather than removing them14:21
vorlonbdmurray: should we be publishing the ones that are verified though?14:21
vorlonthere are 7 that seem ready to go14:22
bdmurrayvorlon: I say yes but we may want to fully phase them.14:22
vorlonmakes sense14:22
bdmurraythat again is something I can't do14:22
vorlonNBS removal is running and it will take forever14:22
bdmurrayI also tried removing update-manager and that didn't work out either14:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [s390x] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)14:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [amd64] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)14:44
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [ppc64el] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)14:44
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [arm64] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)14:44
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [armhf] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)14:45
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: wlroots [riscv64] (impish-proposed/universe) [0.13.0-1] (no packageset)15:06
vorlonbdmurray: "removing update-manager"?  from -proposed?15:15
bdmurrayvorlon: yeah, since it was fixing autopkgtests anyway I thought it was a reasonable test of what ubuntu-sru can and can't do15:17
bdmurrayvorlon: and I don't think there is any benefit to keeping autopkgtest fixes in -proposed15:18
vorlonbdmurray: ack15:19
cjwatsonvorlon: You seem to have done the copy.  Not sure why, sorry - I thought add-missing-builds would deal with that and I'm fairly sure we've run it for the last couple of new series, but I no longer have the logs15:24
vorloncjwatson: ok.  and the copy did create build records, and the builds failed differently than what I saw locally ;)15:26
bdmurrayvorlon: Could you fully phase nova, neutron and zfs-linux for groovy. I released them yesterday.16:08
bdmurraynvidia-prime for Groovy has been stuck at 30% phasing for 141 days so IDK about that16:09
* bdmurray looks at the errors16:10
bdmurrayThey are BrokenPipeError Tracebacks when printing a spinner while update-initramfs is running. I wonder if that ends up finishing or not.16:13
schopinHi :) Looking for sponsor(s) for LP #1931994 (openssl), with several SRUs. Note that there's already an openssl package in hirsute-proposed, I pinged the uploader, but I'm guessing they're on w-e.16:21
bdmurrayschopin: #ubuntu-devel should have a larger number of developers in it so I'd ask for sponsorship there.16:25
schopinwill do, thanks :)16:28
vorlonbdmurray: percent overrides done for groovy-updates16:34
bdmurrayvorlon: thanks16:35
vorlonand NBS removal has gotten to 'f'16:36
xnoxschopin:  note it is expected that openssl in hirsute-proposed will not be released.17:07
xnoxschopin:  because of tags "verificaiton-done-hirstue block-proposed-hirsute" it's a sourcepackage / testing change only, not needed in binary form on end user systems. You should incorporate that change, and build your upload -v to include those changes, but otherwise you are expected to supersede that upload.17:08
bdmurrayxnox: looking at the debdiff I believe he did that17:27
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [source] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]18:06
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd-signed [source] (focal-proposed) [1.27.1ubuntu4]18:08
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)18:12
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)18:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (focal-proposed/main) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core)18:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [amd64] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]18:20
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [armhf] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]18:20
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [arm64] (focal-proposed) [1.5.11-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]18:20
bdmurrayvorlon: Could release and fully phase the virtualbox packages for groovy?18:31
vorlonbdmurray: does that mean you're asking me to release them?18:35
vorlonah because I can do -z 100 as part of the sru-release. doing now18:36
bdmurrayRight, do you think I should be submitting bugs about things ubuntu-sru cannot do?18:46

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!