ix it.
Also, Seth makes a very important point on the bug that unaligned access
impacts *performance* on a lot more CPUs than those which generate SIGBUS:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/scikit-learn/+bug/1991621/comments/1
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enou
since Wednesday. Poked at the infrastructure (the lxd autopkgtest
dispatcher missed a juju config change?) and got the queues moving again.
- calling it quits there for the week!
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
t this for next cycle. (Doing the
update in advance of Debian would be inviting a lot of extra work for
ourselves.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the wo
the build
dependency results in an unrelated failure:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:289 (add_subdirectory):
The source directory
/tmp/digikam-8.0.0~git20220917/po
does not contain a CMakeLists.txt file.
Removing the build-dependency from the version in the release pocket resul
take care of all the necessary steps to write a bug report on this,
> > but this seemed like a unique situation that I needed some advice on first,
> > and seemed like it needed more explanation than I can provide on IRC.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Erich
>
warning if you
may be affected by this issue. I am looking for feedback between now and
release as to whether this behavior is acceptable, or if we should avoid
migrating users to socket activation if we determine it's possible
ssh.socket will fail on reboot.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
new systemd-repart
> > package would be residing in the universe pocket and only become active
> > once installed explicitly by a user (or mkosi). There's still the risk
> > of follow-up SRUs to the systemd-repart binary, as lined out by Robie,
> > but IMO this is acceptable du
to Debian.
> I did some testing in a kinetic VM and it looks good to go.
Thanks, this is uploaded now.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
n the merges. Is this not the current practice of the Ubuntu
Server team?
There's a commandline tool, 'grep-merges', which lets you grep for packages
you touched last by email. 'grep-merges hasenack' currently returns empty
so you're currently good :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
is patch.
Commented on the bug. If the file is being built in Debian but not in
Ubuntu, we should aim to fix the root issue.
(BTW, being dep-wait on an architecture where the package has never built is
not a concern for +1 maintenance.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lev
iscourse thread for tracking
> > progress which we try to keep up to date as much as possible:
> >
> > https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/jammy-jellyfish-22-04-1-lts-point-release-status-tracking/29102
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 05:48:25PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 4:02 PM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 03:36:32PM +1200, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> > > There is some stuff on NBS due to a ldc transition: r-to-d,
> > > a
package that depends on libavformat and libavutil but not
libavcodec, which is why I hadn't already picked it up in my mass-rebuild.
Sponsored, and also have rerun my script to pick up other revdeps of
libavformat.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Fre
follow along.
Unfortunately, Ubuntu Budgie has tilix seeded so a removal is not
straightforward. Do you want to check with the Budgie developers about
unseeding this?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 01:27:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> At this point there's a haskell transition in progress, I don't think
> removing pandoc from -proposed would be a net win. I could be wrong though.
> We could also temporarily remove it to let select packages (like x
Hi Christian,
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 10:54:55AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 5:19 AM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > +1 maintenance shift, July 4-8. July 4 is a national holiday in the US, so
> > this was a short cycle.
> ...
> > osmco
Athos mentioned
> (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2022-July/042200.html),
> we're starting to work on bootstrapping sbcl on ppc64el.
> - Unfortunately we've hit some bumps... The build is mysteriously
> segfaulting on ppc64el in a PPA. So we're invest
e can't just remove it. Skipping this
for now.
python-rocksdb: blocks librocksdb6.11 removal; FTBFS in Debian and Ubuntu,
reported at https://bugs.debian.org/1012074 and no reverse-dependencies, so
removed from kinetic.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free
from Debian's update_excuses. This would significantly speed up
identification of packages that are buggy in both Debian and Ubuntu and
should be considered candidates for removal from the Ubuntu devel series.
Thanks for considering,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
t we can in good conscience remove these packages from kinetic pending
Debian resolution of the build failures.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
, I think we're good since it is
> rather broad.
In addition, please see
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2021-October/002587.html
where I lay out a different case for why GPLv2 code linking to OpenSSL 3
(and Apache 2.0-licensed code in general) in Ubuntu is acceptable.
We
s; but maybe this isn't a significant concern?
Maybe this is already what you had in mind for a long-term solution!
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
1.10.0-3ubuntu1 to the archive
at your pleasure, as it's > the 1.10.0-3 that's currently in -proposed.
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:32 PM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 11:28:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > So, I think the
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 11:28:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So, I think the bootstrap solution might be:
> > 1. Verify that g-g-j-pgtype (1.10.0-3) actually does build
> > successfully against g-g-j-pgx-dev (3.6.2-2). (This is probably
> > best to
ep 3) should be "use syncpackage
with the -V option" to keep the launchpad package history clean. And I'm
not sure if syncpackage works to re-copy from Debian the same source
packages that had previously been published? I use "copy-package -e
$version --force-same-destinat
If
we add LOGO to /etc/os-release, do we have to worry about other upstreams
picking this up and using it in other contexts where it's less appropriate,
because we want flavors to be able to customize appearance independently of
base-files?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever
but I agree that the increase in user complaints on 22.04
indicate we haven't found the right balance yet.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
what we should do for systemd-oomd overall,
are there configuration changes we could make to lower the priority of the
browser as a candidate for oom killing, and would those be reasonable
configuration changes to make?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free O
y to automatically change the allocation
for existing installs. Fortunately, our use of swap files mean it's
possible for the end user to non-destructively increase their swap space,
but I wouldn't be comfortable with us doing this automatically as part of a
release upgrade or in an SRU!
Hello,
A release cycle and change later, this continues to come up in discussions,
so the Server Team has asked me to comment.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:25:51PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 10:25:23AM +, Robie Basak wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 0
it for all apps including libsmbclient.h?
I think that if there's a solution that doesn't require patching upstream
samba, while guarding against miscompilation of either libraries or their
consumers and avoiding accidentally introducing any ABI changes, we should
prefer that.
--
Steve Langasek
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 03:21:38PM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:06 PM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > As I mentioned at
> > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/05/msg00047.html>, isc-dhcp is
> > no longer used out of the box as the DH
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 05:46:49PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 4:26 PM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > > The test has never passed; it has had neutral results and failing results,
> > > but by policy, proposed-migration does not treat neutral-&g
ndency on isc-dhcp-client is vestigial. You
will not find any instances of isc-dhcp-client running on an Ubuntu 22.04
desktop system.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the worl
On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 12:57:34PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This is because the test failure is not a regression.
> * autopkgtest for devhelp/41.2-2: amd64: Not a regression, arm64: Not a
> regression, armhf: Test in progress, ppc64el: Not a regression, s390x: Not a
>
ecause it
provides greater flexibility than a strictly pass/fail system, and also we
shouldn't deviate from Debian's behavior here and categorically have a
stricter gate than Debian which we don't have the capacity to maintain.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a l
ckaging more correct in
terms of describing the library's ABI, and more portable with respect to a
variety of compiler options that may change the exposure of internal
symbols.
Thus it's a low-priority bug for Debian, but the change is intrinsically
correct - not something Ubuntu-specific.
Hope tha
nsubscribe at:
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
> >
>
>
> --
> http://about.me/valoriez - pronouns: she/her
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe a
ut I want to ask, why is it a
problem to have part of this code with LTO enabled? Generally we disable
LTO only when it is causing build failures. Was that the case here?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can m
verse without replacement in main. If you think latrace is appropriate
to support in main, then it's fine to put it through an MIR; but I don't
think it's feasible, or necessary, for this to be done before the 22.04 LTS
release.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/337870
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-107-generic #121-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 24
16:04:27 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/337589
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-107-generic #121-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 24
16:04:27 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/337405
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
implementations is of higher
quality or has a better API?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slanga
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/337178
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/337177
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/337176
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/336982
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
; * node-node-forge/1.2.1~dfsg-2
> * node-normalize-range/0.1.2-3
> * node-regenerate-unicode-properties/10.0.1+ds-2
> * node-regjsgen/0.7.0+ds-1
> * node-require-relative/0.8.7+~0.8.0-1
> * node-urlgrey/1.0.0+~1.1.3-1
> * node-which-module/2.0.0-3
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 11:36:20AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 10:35:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I unfortunately do not have a good place to publish it at the moment so that
> > it's more visible to developers. Suggestions welcome.
>
lt).
I unfortunately do not have a good place to publish it at the moment so that
it's more visible to developers. Suggestions welcome.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/336721
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/336542
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/336543
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/335632
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
the LLVM 14 build. There's time still for
any regressions to be found and fixed.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https
roblem; the new images
were building successfully and being published, but incorrectly being
published as .img instead of .iso with the .iso being copied forward from
the previous directory.
I have removed the wrongly-named '.img' files. The next daily build will
produce .iso files again.
--
Steve
roblem; the new images
were building successfully and being published, but incorrectly being
published as .img instead of .iso with the .iso being copied forward from
the previous directory.
I have removed the wrongly-named '.img' files. The next daily build will
produce .iso files again.
--
Steve
limits that have been declared in the code...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.c
limits that have been declared in the code...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.c
removals.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com
my perspective, it is the responsibility of teams to factor time
post-FF for the fixing of build failures into their capacity planning, and
furthermore, the impact of this *particular* change on archive buildability
should be rather small. I see no reason to revert the change in question.
--
Steve La
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/334453
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-105-generic #119-Ubuntu SMP Mon Mar 7
18:49:24 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/332925
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/332697
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/332506
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/332329
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/332328
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
ommunity. The functions of these
particular boards, however, are not something that we can dispense with
since they're about fundamental technical governance of the project and how
we onboard new members.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/332153
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/332152
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/331932
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/331931
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-104-generic #118-Ubuntu SMP Wed Mar 2
19:02:41 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/331571
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/331436
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/331435
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/331291
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/331154
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/331153
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/331009
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:58:03AM +1300, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 05:42, Julian Andres Klode
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 05:29:19PM +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > > Hey again,
> > > Le 08/12/2021 à 00:14, Steve Langa
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/jammy/ubuntustudio/+build/330794
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/330793
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/330127
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/329977
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/329845
RUN: /usr/share/launchpad-buildd/bin/builder-prep
Kernel version: Linux ubuntu 5.4.0-100-generic #113-Ubuntu SMP Thu Feb 3
18:43:29 UTC 2022 x86_64
Buildd toolchain package versions:
= Building live filesystems =
Wed Feb 16 18:17:01 UTC 2022
ubuntustudio-amd64 on Launchpad starting at 2022-02-16 18:17:01
ubuntustudio-amd64:
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/focal/ubuntustudio/+build/328111
ubuntustudio-amd64 on Launchpad finished at 2022-02-16
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 01:43:31PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:33 PM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:35:07AM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > > Hi, I have a question for the MIR (Main Inclusion Request) team member
ecurity-sensitive. (If it's a
library that will be used by one of the NFS daemons, that's a good reason to
think it's security-sensitive.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the
there when running against a build of openssl from trunk. This will take
some more time and effort to get to the bottom of.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer
heard of no blockers. While it is unlikely that anyone in the community is
going to have a problem with this deprecation if Canonical is not planning
on publishing anything to it :), we want to be transparent to at least let
know this change is coming.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
hat we directly
recommend this everywhere rather that let it be an accidental side effect.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Develo
term plan to (re-)merge the
installers, we shouldn't assume that someone doing an install of Ubuntu
Server is doing a production deployment where dual-boot doesn't matter.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on,
Matthew, Jay, thanks for pressing on this.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:36:15PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Hi Matthew,
> >On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:28:32PM +1300, Matthew Ruffell wrote:
> >It's not necessary to remove the unattended-upgr
the archive.
The dependencies from ubuntu-meta are generated from the seeds:
git+ssh://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/ubuntu
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
that I am strongly opposed to deferring this change for after the LTS and
delaying another 2 years before it starts to benefit the vast majority of
affected users.
There may be knock-on consequences in terms of SRU workflows and
documentation that needs updated; but we should eat that cost now, not dela
st because I had been looking at it and
didn't notice any problems wrt wrong build-deps. It appears libidn11-dev
despite its name depends on libidn-dev (i.e. it's a transitional package)
and biboumi in -proposed is built against the correct version of libidn,
it's just blocked by botan not being
/O.
I think we should also be concerned about reductions in boot speed by
multiples of a second on hardware WITHOUT fast I/O :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Hi Seb,
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:56:09PM +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey Steve,
> Thanks for the email explaining the change, I've some questions
> Le 07/12/2021 à 07:56, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > The flipside is that this now means more packages will make it to the
>
d to make sure we're following through on cleaning up old
binaries afterwards.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://ww
101 - 200 of 598 matches
Mail list logo
