| [00:57] <Unit193> jbicha: It'd be rather nice if you didn't sync packages that are seeded in other flavors. xfce4-power-manager has a regression in .6, we were specifically avoiding sync'ing it since it's in our (Xubuntu) and Ubuntu Studio's packagsets.. | |
| [00:57] <Unit193> Specifically when past feature freeze* | |
| [00:59] <Eickmeyer> ^ Ditto. While I do welcome the MyPaint sync, the xfce4-power-manager sync is not good if it's going to mess us up. | |
| [01:00] <Unit193> Eickmeyer: There should be a new release soon, we'll fix it. In the meantime I think it was suspend that's a bit off. | |
| [01:02] <Eickmeyer> Unit193: I haven't looked at it, but that's good to know. | |
| [01:03] <Unit193> With regards to interaction with xfce4-screensaver, suspend/lock interaction. | |
| [01:03] <Eickmeyer> Oh, yeah. Not good if it's regressing that. | |
| [01:04] <Unit193> Like I said, there should be a new release soon™ | |
| [01:05] <Eickmeyer> Hehe | |
| [01:51] <valorie> Eickmeyer only had to wait two years for a new release! | |
| [01:52] <Eickmeyer> valorie: Seriously! :D | |
| === cpaelzer__ is now known as cpaelzer | |
| [10:17] <jbicha> Unit193: sorry about the headache :/ | |
| [10:44] <Unit193> jbicha: With the screensaver and -session just uploaded (or uploaded soon), it wasn't broken for too long at least. :) | |
| [11:20] <tjaalton> hum, sbuild is very slow here.. the actual compile part is quick but everything else is very slow.. what could cause that? | |
| [11:25] <tjaalton> apache build takes 10min instead of 3 | |
| [11:25] <tjaalton> as an example | |
| [11:30] <Unit193> To speed up unpack/configure of packages, I have pbuilder use eatmydata. | |
| [11:31] <tjaalton> I mean everything is slow, like setting the chroot up, listing contents of the built packages etc.. | |
| [11:32] <tjaalton> it's not I/O bound, there's no process eating time or anything.. | |
| [11:33] <tjaalton> installing build-deps is quick | |
| [12:31] <tkamppeter> doko, Somohow I am not understanding what is happening with Ghostscript on ppl64el. Is there some new bug, not the -O3 of gcc? | |
| [12:32] <tkamppeter> doko, is there any evidence that 9.52 would build? | |
| [12:33] <doko> tkamppeter: I told you that the GCC issues had to be reverted, and ghostscript needs to be built with -O2 for now | |
| [12:35] <tkamppeter> doko, sorry, this I had perhaps overlooked. So I will re-introduce it as quick as possible. | |
| [12:36] <tkamppeter> doko, what happened, did the upstream fix cause a regression and upstream has pulled it back? | |
| [12:48] <doko> tkamppeter: yes | |
| [12:50] <tkamppeter> doko, so we should re-open bug 1862053 as there is no solution in sight yet. | |
| [12:50] <ubottu> bug 1862053 in gcc "Compiler gets stuck (or extremely slow) on ppc64el" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1862053 | |
| [12:59] <tkamppeter> doko, I will put the exception back in and to avoid flip-flopping all the time around with it I will keep it until shortly before 20.10. | |
| === platonical_ is now known as platonical | |
| === tai271828__ is now known as tai271828_ | |
| === Zic is now known as Guest29138 | |
| [13:59] <ahasenack> tjaalton: hi, have you checked if we need this in ubuntu? https://salsa.debian.org/apache-team/apache2/-/merge_requests/11/diffs | |
| [13:59] <tjaalton> ahasenack: hehe :) | |
| [13:59] <tjaalton> ahasenack: that'd allow freeipa to support tls1.3, it's currently forced to use 1.2 | |
| [14:01] <ahasenack> presumably other clients could benefit? | |
| [14:01] <tjaalton> maybe | |
| [14:03] <tjaalton> poked yadd about it | |
| [14:16] <ddstreet> juliank hi, just checking if you had a chance to review https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/python-apt/-/merge_requests/43 | |
| [14:18] <tjaalton> ahasenack: note that I'll sync freeipa back in a bit.. so that MR would be nice though not essential | |
| [14:26] <juliank> ddstreet: not yet | |
| [14:27] <ddstreet> juliank ack, maybe after focal release? | |
| [14:27] <juliank> probably | |
| [14:27] <ddstreet> thanks | |
| [14:29] <tkamppeter> doko, ghostscript uploaded, please remove the ppc64el exception only if upstream fixes the problem in a way which actually stays. | |
| === mitya57_ is now known as mitya57 | |
| [15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> ahasenack: | |
| [15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> execd_commands.c: In function ‘stonith_recurring_op_helper’: | |
| [15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> execd_commands.c:257:5: error: ‘ftime’ is deprecated [-Werror=deprecated-declarations] | |
| [15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> I'll fix this in the merge I'm preparing to address public bugs | |
| [15:22] <rafaeldtinoco> (pacemaker FTBFS) | |
| [15:23] <ahasenack> rafaeldtinoco: that s the ftbfs? | |
| [15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> looks like we have new compiler warnings =) | |
| [15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> ahasenack: yep | |
| [15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> I'll add the Wno-error for it | |
| [15:23] <rafaeldtinoco> let me open a bug | |
| [15:23] <ahasenack> that's not a "fix" :) | |
| [15:23] <ahasenack> but if there is no alternative, nothing from upstream... | |
| [15:24] <rafaeldtinoco> ahasenack: oh well, for this release its a "fix" as ftime will continue being deprecated but not yet removed | |
| [15:24] <rafaeldtinoco> further releases will have to make sure to remove ftime, but likely upstream will take care of it | |
| [15:25] <rafaeldtinoco> NOTE: This function is deprecated, and will be removed in a future version of the GNU C library. Use clock_gettime(2) instead. | |
| [15:25] <rafaeldtinoco> man page already mentions that =o) | |
| [15:26] <rafaeldtinoco> i guess I can suggest upstream a fix as well | |
| [15:26] <rbasak> ghostscript (9.50~dfsg-5ubuntu4) focal; urgency=medium | |
| [15:26] <rbasak> ... | |
| [15:26] <rbasak> -- Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmail.com> Mon, 30 Feb 2020 15:50:58 +0200 | |
| [15:27] <rbasak> git-ubuntu is unable to parse that date :-/ | |
| [15:27] <ahasenack> feb had no 30th | |
| [15:27] <rbasak> Indeed :) | |
| [15:27] <ahasenack> was that added manually? | |
| [15:27] <rbasak> tkamppeter: ^ :) | |
| [15:28] <rbasak> I don't know, but I guess if Launchpad accepts it, git-ubuntu will have to accept it | |
| [15:28] <rbasak> I need to specify what that should map to, I suppose. | |
| [15:28] <rafaeldtinoco> ROFL | |
| [15:28] <rafaeldtinoco> 30 Feb | |
| [15:29] <rafaeldtinoco> thats the sextile year | |
| [15:29] <rafaeldtinoco> in flat earth | |
| [15:29] <rafaeldtinoco> ok ok i'll shut up | |
| [15:29] <ahasenack> even the changes file has it | |
| [15:29] <ahasenack> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/471742374/ghostscript_9.50~dfsg-5ubuntu4_source.changes | |
| [15:30] <ahasenack> I mean, ingested it | |
| [15:30] <ahasenack> that's also a bug in the tooling that builds the package | |
| [15:31] <ahasenack> unless the thought is that the tooling can be behind legislation, tz data, etc, and failing hard on what looks like an invalid date could be too harsh | |
| [15:32] <rbasak> Nothing much (if anything?) in the build machinery needs to parse that date really. | |
| [15:32] <rbasak> git-ubuntu is trying to convert it into a git commit authorship timestamp - that's why it's parsing it. | |
| [15:32] <rbasak> Perhaps I should just define it to use the epoch if it doesn't parse. | |
| [15:32] <rafaeldtinoco> rbasak: try {} except { pass } ? | |
| [15:33] <rafaeldtinoco> :o) | |
| [15:33] <rbasak> I have to set it to _something_ :) | |
| [15:37] <rbasak> There is some debate here as to whether 30 Feb was a Saturday or a Sunday. We agree though that it certainly wasn't a Monday! | |
| === M_hc is now known as _hc | |
| [15:44] <rbasak> ahasenack: git-ubuntu is trying to import linux-kvm and linux-gcp. Had you already investigated those? | |
| [15:44] <rbasak> Ah yes, you did, sorry. | |
| [15:44] <rbasak> My manual meddling bypassed the whitelist. | |
| [16:10] <yossarianuk> hi - if I were to download the daily image of 20.04 now | |
| [16:11] <yossarianuk> when 20.04 stable came out would I stick to the 20.04 branch or as i would be running the development branch would I then startr using 20.10 branch ? | |
| [16:12] <yossarianuk> I believe when the beta for 20.04 that would stick to the 20.04 branch - just not sure if the same thing happens using the daily image ?> | |
| [16:40] <ahasenack> rbasak: oops :) | |
| [16:40] <ahasenack> yossarianuk: you would be running 20.04 final | |
| [16:41] <ahasenack> yossarianuk: the sources.list entries are already pointing at the focal pockets | |
| [16:41] <ahasenack> yossarianuk: I believe there is one difference though, please check if focal-proposed is enabled in those images. You might want to disable that | |
| [16:54] <yossarianuk> ahasenack: thanks ! | |
| [17:09] <cjwatson> rbasak: I suspect LP simply doesn't parse that field at all | |
| [17:11] <cjwatson> Yeah, it looks like it extracts it but only as unparsed text | |
| [17:16] <rbasak> Thanks | |
| [19:22] <arunpyasi> Hello everyone, is PPA upload working for you ? | |
| [19:32] <RikMills> arunpyasi: seems fine | |
| [19:32] <arunpyasi> RikMills, thats weird. Let me try to upload another package then. | |
| [19:33] <arunpyasi> Though, it said Successfully uploaded packages. I didn't receive any email and there is no package upload stuff going on the Launchpad | |
| [19:48] <RikMills> arunpyasi: you did sign them properly? otherwise, ask in #launchpad | |
| [19:49] <cjwatson> Lack of notification is usually some problem with the signature | |
| [19:49] <arunpyasi> RikMills, yes, else an email should have come I think. | |
| [19:49] <cjwatson> No that is absolutely not true | |
| [19:49] <arunpyasi> cjwatson, oh ok. | |
| [19:49] <cjwatson> e.g. lack of signature is one of the main reasons that a notification is specifically and deliberately *not* sent | |
| [19:50] <cjwatson> (in order that people don't get non-consensually spammed with confusing error messages about things they didn't do) | |
| [19:50] <arunpyasi> cjwatson, Oh ok. Thanks for the information. Let me check. | |
| [19:50] <cjwatson> Come to #launchpad and give us details of the attempted upload | |
| [20:01] <RikMills> 'sudo hwclock -s' is broken in focal :/ | |
| [20:02] <RikMills> glibc 2.31 perhaps | |