On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 08:30:33PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
On 2023-01-20 21:47, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:44:12PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
On 2021-01-21 11:20, Robie Basak wrote:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed will need a
rework though. W
On 2023-01-20 21:47, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:44:12PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
On 2021-01-21 11:20, Robie Basak wrote:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed will need a
rework though. We link to that from every SRU bug.
That page was last updated on 2
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 01:44:12PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> On 2021-01-21 11:20, Robie Basak wrote:
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed will need a rework
> > though. We link to that from every SRU bug.
> That page was last updated on 2020-06-19, and is obsolete. Would be
On 2021-01-21 11:20, Robie Basak wrote:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed will need a rework
though. We link to that from every SRU bug.
That page was last updated on 2020-06-19, and is obsolete. Would be
great i someone could follow up the change and edit the
Testing/EnablePropo
Sebastien Bacher wrote on 22/11/2022:
> Le 22/11/2022 à 20:24, Julian Andres Klode a écrit :
>> We have no idea why the test dependencies are failing to install in a
>> normal setup,
>
> Which case are you talking about? The dbus issue is clear, the base
> image used by the autopkgtest infra is
I'm saying the error message here is not entirely relevant as I've said
multiple times before, because it is the result of a broken autopkgtest
pinning setup.
There might be other reasons the test dependencies are not installable that
we do not see because our fallback is broken and we don't have
Le 22/11/2022 à 20:24, Julian Andres Klode a écrit :
We have no idea why the test dependencies are failing to install in a
normal setup,
Which case are you talking about? The dbus issue is clear, the base
image used by the autopkgtest infra is build from kinetic with
kinety-security versions
No bumping it doesn't help. The version in the release pocket is still not
installable, and what's broken here is the fallback in autopkgtest to retry
with all-proposed, because it removes the pin (thus restoring NotAutomatic,
aka no-proposed) rather than adding a pin for proposed at priority 500.
In such cases it is usually best to bump version number, and do a fresh
upload to lunar-proposed such that it is higher than any of (kinetic,
lunar).
Might make sense to still upload no change rebuild of dbus into
lunar-proposed.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022, 18:45 Sebastien Bacher, wrote:
> Hey there,
Hey there,
Le 22/11/2022 à 18:21, Paride Legovini a écrit :
The dbus package has now need force-migrated from lunar-proposed to
-release (currently pending publication). This should fix the issue.
I've stated that via chat but I still disagree that was the right thing
to do. Without tests res
Hi Jeremy,
Jeremy Bicha wrote on 22/11/2022:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 6:05 AM Paride Legovini wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote on 01/11/2022:
>>> I have set the flag now for lunar as it came up in discussion with
>>> Foundations. The question of whether to change this for stable series is
>>> stil
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 6:05 AM Paride Legovini wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote on 01/11/2022:
> > I have set the flag now for lunar as it came up in discussion with
> > Foundations. The question of whether to change this for stable series is
> > still open (now with some further series that are sta
Steve Langasek wrote on 01/11/2022:
> I have set the flag now for lunar as it came up in discussion with
> Foundations. The question of whether to change this for stable series is
> still open (now with some further series that are stable) but can be
> discussed separately.
I very much welcome th
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 12:22:00PM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Unfortunately this discussion foundered on lack of consensus about whether
> to make this change after the fact for stable series; which resulted in both
> jammy and kinetic going out without this being set.
>
> I have set the flag
Unfortunately this discussion foundered on lack of consensus about whether
to make this change after the fact for stable series; which resulted in both
jammy and kinetic going out without this being set.
I have set the flag now for lunar as it came up in discussion with
Foundations. The question
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:44:11AM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:10 AM Robie Basak wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:27:31PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > This is now ready to use from the Launchpad point of view. There's a
> > > "proposed_not_automatic" flag on
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:10 AM Robie Basak wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:27:31PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > This is now ready to use from the Launchpad point of view. There's a
> > "proposed_not_automatic" flag on distro series exported over the API; if
> > this is set to True, Launc
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:04 AM Colin Watson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 08:32:53AM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > Just to clarify, people won't need to manually specify all
> > dependencies, right? For example, if testing the 'systemd' package
> > from -proposed, simply doing 'apt install
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 08:32:53AM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> Just to clarify, people won't need to manually specify all
> dependencies, right? For example, if testing the 'systemd' package
> from -proposed, simply doing 'apt install systemd/jammy-proposed'
> would install the proposed version o
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 11:27 AM Colin Watson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:12:57AM +, Iain Lane wrote:
> > I think the Launchpad support is still missing, although we started on
> > this several years ago. That will need to be picked up and finished off:
> >
> > https://bugs.launchpa
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:27:31PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> This is now ready to use from the Launchpad point of view. There's a
> "proposed_not_automatic" flag on distro series exported over the API; if
> this is set to True, Launchpad writes "NotAutomatic: yes" and
> "ButAutomaticUpgrades: y
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 05:53:20PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> We only should do it for jammy though, and not risk breaking scripts
> for testing stable releases IMO.
The benefit of this change to people running stable releases is just as
great as for those running devel. Arguably moreso,
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 04:27:31PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:12:57AM +, Iain Lane wrote:
> > I think the Launchpad support is still missing, although we started on
> > this several years ago. That will need to be picked up and finished off:
> >
> > https://bugs
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:12:57AM +, Iain Lane wrote:
> I think the Launchpad support is still missing, although we started on
> this several years ago. That will need to be picked up and finished off:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1016776
>
> That bug report talks about d
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:12:57AM +, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:15:59AM -0800, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Hi people,
> >
> > I'd like to suggest that we start setting NotAutomatic: yes for the
> > proposed pocket with hirsute+1, such that things like SRU verification
>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:15:59AM -0800, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Hi people,
>
> I'd like to suggest that we start setting NotAutomatic: yes for the
> proposed pocket with hirsute+1, such that things like SRU verification
> will be easier, and all those people who enable proposed in sources.l
Hi Julian,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:15:59AM -0800, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I'd like to suggest that we start setting NotAutomatic: yes for the
> proposed pocket with hirsute+1, such that things like SRU verification
> will be easier, and all those people who enable proposed in sources.list
27 matches
Mail list logo
