[12:36] <Trevinho> Hi, how can I get the powers to change the unity* related packages asignee, importance or full-status?
[12:39] <Trevinho> bdmurray: hi, ^ :)
[13:13] <mattymo> can you guys fix eeebotu?
[13:31] <mattymo> mikenagle, do you know about eeebotu?


[02:20] <vorlon> cjwatson: ok the memory upgrade sorted it
[04:24] <vorlon> cjwatson: there is code in archive-reports to update all chdist configs but there is nothing in the archive opening or EOL checklists for initializing chdists, I find no helpers for doing the initialization, the last series that snakefruit had these for was impish, and the only explanation of what they're used for is proposed-migration for the devel series, which is no longer true.  Is there any
[04:24] <vorlon> reason for me to port this over?
[04:24] <vorlon> (should I perhaps prune the code altogether?  chdists are useful but unused on snakefruit so it seems unnecessary to have them there)
[04:26] <vorlon> oh
[04:30] <vorlon> mwhudson: ^^ ok so actually the find-rcbuggy-problem-packages script (which I'd forgotten about, showing how much I use its output) invokes chdist but um that's been failing for over a year so....?
[04:51] <vorlon> cjwatson, mwhudson: created a branch-chdist helper script (not really branching but whatever) and adding it to the release opening templates now
[07:41] <LocutusOfBorg> vorlon thanks!, so, libcurl-nss move to universe please?
[08:54] <tjaalton> sil2100: looks like I need to backport xorg-server from kinetic to jammy after all, as nvidia has hardcoded the version in their driver to know that a bug has been fixed and enables a feature based on that, so a backported commit won't help. bug 2009767
[08:55] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Bug 2009767 in xorg-server (Ubuntu Jammy) "external HDMI monitor is laggy on NV reverse PRIME system" [High, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2009767
[09:54] <LocutusOfBorg> without bileto fixing riscv64 is a bad thing...
[10:04] <RikMills> ^ +1
[10:15] <cjwatson> vorlon: From my perspective they were mainly for occasional manual investigation (as well as at one point for some kind of autopkgtest integration for proposed-migration, as you say).  If people aren't using or updating them then I have no issue with them being dropped
[10:16] <cjwatson> vorlon: I don't quite remember, but it's quite possible this was essentially a selfish setup on my part due to having terrible home internet at the time and quite often needing to use those chdists for investigation; neither of those factors is an issue any more
[10:20] <RikMills> again there are a lot of tests 'running' on excuses, but not queued, running, or with results on the webui
[10:22] <RikMills> all the recently finished test on autopkgtest.ubuntu.com front page seem to be manually triggered ones
[10:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu WSL [Focal 20.04.6]<PHONE_NUMBER>) has been added
[11:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: base-files (focal-proposed/main) [11ubuntu5.6 => 11ubuntu5.7] (core, i386-whitelist)
[11:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvidia-cuda-toolkit [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [11.8.0-2]
[11:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvidia-cuda-toolkit [ppc64el] (lunar-proposed) [11.8.0-2]
[11:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvidia-cuda-toolkit [arm64] (lunar-proposed) [11.8.0-2]
[11:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntustudio-default-settings [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [23.04.21]
[11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted tzdata [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [2022g-7ubuntu2]
[11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted base-files [source] (focal-proposed) [11ubuntu5.7]
[11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-numpy-groupies [sync] (lunar-proposed) [0.9.20-1]
[11:27] <tjaalton> what happened to linux-doc:i386? nvidia-390 tests are failing on i386 because of it missing
[11:28] <LocutusOfBorg> can we do please something related to meson/blacklisted armhf test?
[11:32] <LocutusOfBorg> tjaalton, linux-doc is installable?
[11:32] <LocutusOfBorg> unless you are in a multiarch environment, in that case the fault might be linux-libc-dev not being installable
[11:36] <tjaalton> they started failing on all releases roughly the same time as here https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/nvidia-graphics-drivers-390/lunar/i386
[11:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubiquity (focal-proposed/main) [<IP_ADDRESS> => <IP_ADDRESS>] (core)
[11:50] <LocutusOfBorg> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/2009355
[11:50] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2009355 in linux (Ubuntu Lunar) "linux-libc-dev is no longer multi-arch safe" [Critical, Confirmed]
[11:50] <LocutusOfBorg> so not this bug?
[11:52] <tjaalton> not sure, it affects at least jammy and kinetic too
[11:53] <LocutusOfBorg> why is somebody even trying to install linux-doc?
[11:53] <tjaalton> dunno
[11:54] <tjaalton> it comes via a recommends
[11:54] <tjaalton> the kernel
[11:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubiquity (focal-proposed/main) [<IP_ADDRESS> => <IP_ADDRESS>] (core)
[12:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ubiquity [source] (focal-proposed) [<IP_ADDRESS>]
[12:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubiquity [source] (focal-proposed) [<IP_ADDRESS>]
[12:11] <LocutusOfBorg> since britney seems too lazy to kick autopkgtests, I'll do again for them
[12:11] <LocutusOfBorg> lazy britney is lazy
[12:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python-apt (focal-proposed/main) [2.0.1 => 2.0.1ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>] (core, i386-whitelist)
[12:24] <kanashiro[m]> could someone from the release team take a look at this FFe bug? LP #2011481
[12:24] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011481 in pacemaker (Ubuntu) "[FFe] Depend on pcs and suggest crmsh" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2011481
[12:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted python-apt [source] (focal-proposed) [2.0.1ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>]
[12:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (focal-proposed/main) [1:20.04.40 => 1:20.04.41] (core)
[12:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-loompy [amd64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [3.0.7+dfsg-2] (no packageset)
[12:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-loompy [s390x] (lunar-proposed/universe) [3.0.7+dfsg-2] (no packageset)
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-loompy [ppc64el] (lunar-proposed/universe) [3.0.7+dfsg-2] (no packageset)
[12:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-loompy [arm64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [3.0.7+dfsg-2] (no packageset)
[12:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (focal-proposed) [1:20.04.41]
[13:08] <athos> Hi! I recently filed 2 FFe. The first is for rebuilding isc-kea with a more strict shlibs file since we do not ship a symbols file there: LP: #2011341
[13:08] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011341 in isc-kea (Ubuntu) "[FFe] Build kea with a more strict shlibs file" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2011341
[13:09] <athos> The second is for re-enabling LTO for squid in s390x: LP: #2011494
[13:09] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011494 in squid (Ubuntu) "[FFe] Re-enable LTO for s390x builds" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2011494
[13:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: esda [amd64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [2.4.3-2] (no packageset)
[13:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: flox [amd64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.6.7-1] (no packageset)
[14:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: webkit2gtk [i386] (lunar-proposed/main) [2.39.91-1ubuntu2] (desktop-core, i386-whitelist)
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected webkit2gtk [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [2.39.91-1ubuntu1]
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected webkit2gtk [armhf] (lunar-proposed) [2.39.91-1ubuntu1]
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected webkit2gtk [ppc64el] (lunar-proposed) [2.39.91-1ubuntu1]
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted webkit2gtk [i386] (lunar-proposed) [2.39.91-1ubuntu2]
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected webkit2gtk [arm64] (lunar-proposed) [2.39.91-1ubuntu1]
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted webkit2gtk [s390x] (lunar-proposed) [2.39.91-1ubuntu1]
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected webkit2gtk [i386] (lunar-proposed) [2.39.91-1ubuntu1]
[15:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted flox [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [0.6.7-1]
[15:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted esda [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [2.4.3-2]
[15:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-loompy [arm64] (lunar-proposed) [3.0.7+dfsg-2]
[15:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-loompy [s390x] (lunar-proposed) [3.0.7+dfsg-2]
[15:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-loompy [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [3.0.7+dfsg-2]
[15:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-loompy [ppc64el] (lunar-proposed) [3.0.7+dfsg-2]
[17:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sarsen [amd64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [0.9.3+ds-2] (no packageset)
[17:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: spaghetti [amd64] (lunar-proposed/universe) [1.7.2-1] (no packageset)
[17:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sarsen [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [0.9.3+ds-2]
[17:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted spaghetti [amd64] (lunar-proposed) [1.7.2-1]
[19:45] <ricotz> vorlon, hello, could you take another look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/2009354
[19:45] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2009354 in libreoffice (Ubuntu Kinetic) "[SRU] libreoffice 7.4.6 for kinetic" [High, Incomplete]
[19:51] <vorlon> ricotz: my SRU shift doesn't come up again until Friday, I don't have time today to look at it.  But unless the packaging has changed wrt the symbols, my feedback there remains the same.  Rene is a great developer but we don't blindly trust packaging changes from ANYONE in an SRU.
[19:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: debian-installer (focal-proposed/main) [20101020ubuntu614.5 => 20101020ubuntu614.6] (core)
[19:53] <ricotz> vorlon, ok, please reject the current libreoffice uploads from the kinetic queue
[19:54] <vorlon> sil2100, bdmurray: I'm self-accepting debian-installer ^^
[19:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted debian-installer [source] (focal-proposed) [20101020ubuntu614.6]
[19:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected libreoffice [source] (kinetic-proposed) [1:7.4.6-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>]
[19:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected libreoffice [source] (kinetic-proposed) [1:7.4.6-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>]
[20:14] <kanashiro[m]> could someone from the release team take a look at this FFe bug? LP #2011481 TIA!
[20:14] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2011481 in pacemaker (Ubuntu) "[FFe] Depend on pcs and suggest crmsh" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2011481
[20:20] <seb128> kanashiro[m], sounds like it's going to be another cycle of struggling because release team is understaffed, overworked and not onboarding new members to resolve the issue :-/
[20:21] <vorlon> dude
[20:21] <vorlon> I just acked the FFe
[20:22] <vorlon> and we are onboarding another new member this cycle as well
[20:22] <seb128> vorlon, it's like the 5th ping about that one I read on the channel
[20:22] <seb128> but thanks for reviewing it
[20:23] <seb128> just to give some context to my comment
[20:24] <seb128> and it's nice you onboard a new member but we should have onboarding at least one new member by cycle for last $n cycles in reality :/
[20:24] <seb128> it's still an improvement though so I'm not going to complain
[20:25] <vorlon> seb128: ftr I find 3 pings, one yesterday, one at 5am my time.  If a 1-day turnaround is insufficient, it's better to highlight people
[20:26] <seb128> vorlon, alright, sorry for jumping the gun, I'm still frustrated from the experience of getting FFes reviewed in the past cycle
[20:27] <kanashiro[m]> vorlon: thank you!
[20:27] <bdmurray> When we looked at the queue this morning there were only 2 new ones and ginggs and vorlon have been on top of them
[20:28] <kanashiro[m]> I understand people have other important stuff to do, that's why I try to avoid highlighting them directly
[20:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot amd64 [Focal 20.04.6] (20101020ubuntu614.6) has been added
[20:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot arm64 [Focal 20.04.6] (20101020ubuntu614.6) has been added
[20:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot armhf [Focal 20.04.6] (20101020ubuntu614.6) has been added
[20:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot ppc64el [Focal 20.04.6] (20101020ubuntu614.6) has been added
[20:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Netboot s390x [Focal 20.04.6] (20101020ubuntu614.6) has been added
[20:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libreoffice (kinetic-proposed/main) [1:7.4.4-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS> => 1:7.4.6-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>] (ubuntu-desktop)
[20:44] <ricotz> bdmurray, hello :), could you take over https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/2009354 ?
[20:44] -ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 2009354 in libreoffice (Ubuntu Kinetic) "[SRU] libreoffice 7.4.6 for kinetic" [High, Incomplete]
[21:28] <vorlon> bdmurray, ginggs: https://cdimage.ubuntu.com/focal/daily-live/20230314.3/focal-desktop-amd64.iso passes, releasing to focal-updates
[21:29] <vorlon> er wait
[21:29] <vorlon> ok no unwait
[22:41] <vorlon> flavor leads: I'm not sure there's been much communication about this, but there was an email from Łukasz to ubuntu-devel about the fact that we're doing a 20.04.6 point release.  This is a do-over of 20.04.5 for amd64-only because 20.04.5 had an already-revoked bootloader on it when it went out
[22:42] <vorlon> we are including flavors, so flavors also have not-revoked install media for 20.04
[22:42] <vorlon> candidate images should start appearing soon-like?
[22:43]  * bdmurray looks at the topic
[22:43] <vorlon> and if you can help test them, great; if not, we'll make sure it gets done.  The delta from .5 to .6 should be small... new kernel, new debian-installer for the boot bits, no installer changes
[22:46] <vorlon> oh; I didn't see notifications here of it, but candidate images are already appearing: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/443/builds
[22:46] <cjwatson> Linetic? :)
[22:46] <vorlon> :)
[22:46] <vorlon> Kinetic->Linetic->Lunetic->Lunatic->Lunar
[22:47] <bdmurray> I see a couple of portmanteaus there
[22:48]  * cjwatson donnes ses lunettes
[22:48] <cjwatson> *donne, bah
[22:49] <vorlon> bdmurray: well, of course the nvidia stuff means Ubuntu .6 is 500M bigger than .5
[22:49] <cjwatson> getting used to Mattermost message editing letting me make it look as if I can type things correctly first try
[22:49] <vorlon> haha
[22:49] <vorlon> http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/443/builds/274038/testcases where are my test cases
[22:50] <vorlon> mmmm this is because we renamed Ubuntu Desktop to Ubuntu Desktop (Legacy) since 20.04.5
[22:51] <vorlon> so daily-live registers itself as Ubuntu Desktop but that's wrong
[22:52] <arraybolt3> vorlon: I can't speak for the other flavors, but Lubuntu does not intend on having a 20.04.6 point release (as agreed by a quorum of Lubuntu Council members). There's less than a month of support left for 20.04 and the testing involved isn't really worth it.
[22:52] <vorlon> arraybolt3: ok
[22:53] <arraybolt3> (However I am excited to see RC images since I'm wanting to help test Ubuntu Desktop.)
[23:02] <vorlon> sigh I think I just have to cowboy etc/qa-products to get this to post
[23:09] <vorlon> alright, cowboyed
[23:26] <vorlon> mm. while the symlink is *now* correct on the cdimage-master local mirror, the Ubuntu Desktop 20230314.4 clearly has the wrong grub
[23:26] <vorlon> soooo respinning
[23:27] <vorlon> I'll check the non-daily-live builds; they were built separately/later and might be ok
[23:34] <vorlon> yah ubuntu server boots