Re: First Jammy Jellyfish test rebuild
On Friday, January 14 2022, Graham Inggs wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 23:11, Sergio Durigan Junior > wrote: >> While at it, there's this annoying bug that happens when the packageset >> and the team names are the same; in this case, the internal links will >> point to the same place as well (packageset currently, because that's >> what comes first in the list). >> >> I filed an MP to fix it: >> https://code.launchpad.net/~sergiodj/lp-ftbfs-report/+git/lp-ftbfs-report/+merge/414130 > > Thanks for that! The latest version of the reports were generated > with your fix in place and now clicking on ubuntu-server in packageset > and teams takes you to the correct place. Thank you, Graham! -- Sergio GPG key ID: E92F D0B3 6B14 F1F4 D8E0 EB2F 106D A1C8 C3CB BF14 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: First Jammy Jellyfish test rebuild
Hi Sergio On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 23:11, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > While at it, there's this annoying bug that happens when the packageset > and the team names are the same; in this case, the internal links will > point to the same place as well (packageset currently, because that's > what comes first in the list). > > I filed an MP to fix it: > https://code.launchpad.net/~sergiodj/lp-ftbfs-report/+git/lp-ftbfs-report/+merge/414130 Thanks for that! The latest version of the reports were generated with your fix in place and now clicking on ubuntu-server in packageset and teams takes you to the correct place. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: First Jammy Jellyfish test rebuild
Hi Christian On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 15:23, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > The links to the builds are ok, and it seems they generated no log at > all, example > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20211217-jammy-gcc12/+build/22817139 > > Maybe a fix to the script regenerating that might help to avoid confusion? They should disappear over time as the failed builds get retried, but since these builds without logs occur quite often, it would be nice if they were handled better in the report. Thanks for the feedback! -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Change unattended-upgrades from Depends to Recommends on ubuntu-server-minimal
Since I don't have a clear point to reply to, I'll just delete the message history rather than top-post. I would simply like to interject that, all other things equal, a new LTS is a fantastic time to change behavior, because it also offers a bright, shining opportunity to document a change in behavior. This opportunity remains whether we're looking at a substantive change at 22.04 LTS or 22.10, but it's a lot easier to remember to document for the upcoming LTS when it is imminent. So, when deciding the best practice for 22.04 LTS, be bold. And now I leave the matter where it already was: in the hands of those best suited to decide. Regards, -- Nathan Haines Ubuntu - https://www.ubuntu.com/ -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: First Jammy Jellyfish test rebuild
On 1/13/22 14:22, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:58 PM Graham Inggs wrote: >> >> The first test rebuild of Jammy Jellyfish was started on December 17 >> 2021 for all architectures, all components. The rebuild is finished >> for all architectures for the main component and still running for >> universe and multiverse on arm64, armhf and riscv64. >> >> Thanks to everybody keeping the buildds going during the end-of-year break. >> >> Results (please also look at the superseded builds) can be found at >> https://people.canonical.com/~ginggs/ftbfs-report/test-rebuild-20211217-jammy-jammy.html >> >> Additional build failures for packages in jammy-proposed (not yet in >> jammy) can be found at http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ >> >> Please help with fixing the build failures. >> >> Another test rebuild using a glibc snapshot from December 2021 can be found >> at >> https://people.canonical.com/~ginggs/ftbfs-report/test-rebuild-20211217-jammy-glibc-jammy.html >> Still running for universe and multiverse on arm64, armhf and riscv64. >> The glibc snapshot can be found in >> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/glibc >> >> Yet another test rebuild using GCC 12 can be found at >> https://people.canonical.com/~ginggs/ftbfs-report/test-rebuild-20211217-jammy-gcc12-jammy.html >> Still running for universe and multiverse on arm64, armhf and riscv64. >> This is in preparation for GCC 12 for the 22.10 release. GCC test >> packages can be found in >> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/test > > Hi Graham, > thanks for that work! > I've found two details I wanted to ask about ... > > 1. cross toolchains seem to have failed due to the dependencies in > that test environment > Example: > https://launchpadlibrarian.net/579467210/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-amd64.qemu_1%3A6.0+dfsg-2expubuntu4_BUILDING.txt.gz > That is nothing we need to be concerend right, only if we see actual > e.g. compiler issues right? No, these are some artifacts from the gcc-12 packaging, will fix these. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
