[00:38] <Laney> can I just upload a new version of a package that is in unapproved?
[00:43]  * Laney tries it
[02:20] <slangasek> kirkland: "if ! pidof /usr/sbin/libvirtd >/dev/null; then" - you're in the pre-start script for the service that launches libvirtd; why is this not a no-op?
[02:24] <pac1> I have a daily lucid iso that will not boot properly on my hardware.  How can i collect information for submitting a bug on a live cd?
[02:45] <lamont> buildd   28521 98.2  0.7   9040  3472 ?        R    00:46 116:34      |                                           \_ dot /build/buildd/schroot-1.4.0/debian/build/doc/schroot/html/dir_17e0cfd21565d25c859a9e2623b17004_dep.dot -Tpng -o /build/buildd/schroot-1.4.0/debian/build/doc/schroot/html/dir_17e0cfd21565d25c859a9e2623b17004_dep.png -Tcmapx -o /build/buildd/schroot-1.4.0/debian/build/doc/schroot/html/dir_17e0cfd21565d25c859a9e2623b17004_dep.map
[02:45] <lamont>  <-- doko: schroot vs armel
[03:14] <ScottK> lamont: JFTR, the second sparc buildd wasn't my fault, the retry was either automatic or someone else did it.
[03:15] <lamont> yeah - if it times out it goes "oh, want me to see if it'll kill another one? ok.:
[03:16] <lamont> oh look.  glib2.90
[03:16] <lamont> 2.0 even
[03:20] <lamont> just like now - freshly restarted, and sejong is the lucky winner
[03:20]  * lamont waits for the unpack to finish so he can shoot it in the head
[03:20] <lamont> my way's not very sportsman like
[03:22] <doko__> lamont: schroot wins, uploading without --enable-doxygen for arm
[03:22] <doko__> s/schroot/armel/
[03:22] <lamont> doko__: let me know when it's published and I'll go kill the build'
[03:31] <doko__> lamont: now waiting for approval (ScottK?)
[03:31]  * lamont is +1, ScottK 
[03:31] <ScottK> What for?
[03:31] <lamont> schroot
[03:31]  * ScottK looks
[03:31] <lamont> FTBFS on armel, fixed
[03:33] <ScottK> lamont and doko__: accepted.
[03:34] <lamont> oh most cool.  the previous version actually "just died" rather than taking out buttercup
[03:34]  * lamont hugs bbg3
[03:34] <ScottK> Speaking of which, glib is waiting first in line to wipe out your sparc buildds if you restart them.
[03:35] <lamont> ScottK: not any more... it failed to build
[03:35] <ScottK> On, sure enough
[03:35] <ScottK> On/Oh
[03:35] <lamont> with strange configure errors that look like some buildd admin nuked the build tree
[03:35] <ScottK> I probably shouldn't retry it then.
[03:35] <lamont> just one of the many services we provide
[03:35] <ScottK> ;-)
[03:35] <lamont> ScottK: I'd have to hurt you if you did
[03:36] <ScottK> Yeah, no problem.  I got the word now.
[03:37] <lamont> that does tend to be a spectacularly obvious failure mode
[03:38] <wgrant> lamont: Well, if you haven't seen it before it looks like a 'wtf happened here, that looks spurious. *retry*.'
[03:38] <lamont> wgrant: true
[03:38] <lamont> should be part of our standard buildd-admin briefing
[03:38] <wgrant> lamont: Note that non-buildd-admins can retry.
[03:38] <wgrant> (anyone with upload rights)
[03:39] <lamont> oh, and a "no really, make this build never try again, regardless of what the ppa owner says" button for buildd-admins would be nice
[03:40] <wgrant> lamont: "UPDATE build SET buildstate=5 WHERE id=%s" isn't good enough for you? Picky. :P
[03:40] <lamont> wgrant: that is insufficent in some cases, depending on the build state
[03:40] <lamont> leaves dangling cruft to make bigjools cry later
[03:40] <wgrant> Yeah, you'd probably have to play with the Job state as well.
[03:40] <wgrant> But that will all be changing in a few weeks.
[03:40] <lamont> \o/
[03:40] <lamont> at least I hope
[03:41] <wgrant> There we be ONE BUILD STATE FIELD! And no extra records hanging around to delete.
[03:41] <wgrant> And it might even make it easier to implement the mythical 'Abort build' button.
[03:41] <lamont> oh major WIN
[03:41] <lamont> heh
[03:41]  * ScottK has had some very similar looking armel failures work on retry.
[03:42] <lamont> we have that, it just requires shell access to the buildd
[03:43] <wgrant> lamont: In what fraction of cancel-requiring failures do non-virt builders respond?
[03:43] <wgrant> If a virt builder doesn't respond to an abort request, I plan to just hit the reset trigger.
[03:43] <wgrant> But we can't quite do that for non-virt builders.
[03:45] <sistpoty> just out of interest, what kernel/distro is running on the sparc buildds? (if it's later than 7.10, then I'll have a strong reason to not upgrade revu to that version *g*)
[03:46] <lamont> hardy is the dominant platform
[03:46] <lamont> ppc is karmic
[03:47] <lamont> armel is split between *cough* jaunty and lucid
[03:47] <lamont> wgrant: not sure
[03:48] <lamont> sistpoty: across the variety of platforms, it's hardy unless specified above
[03:48]  * ScottK wonders what the heck doko__ is doing with all the Dapper toolchain builds.
[03:48] <lamont> dapper is love, no?
[03:49] <sistpoty> lamont: ah, thanks, I guess I'm lucky with revu running gutsy then :=
[03:49] <sistpoty> :)
[03:49] <wgrant> Isn't Gutsy out of support?
[03:49] <lamont> armel  	6  	 3 jobs (50 seconds) <-- lying
[03:49] <doko__> tired of openjdk security backports for every release ...
[03:49] <lamont> wgrant: way big time
[03:49] <ScottK> wgrant: Yes, but it the last one that works on sparc.
[03:50] <lamont> doko__: that's 2 ofus
[03:50] <wgrant> lamont: Estimation is completely screwed at the moment.
[03:50] <sistpoty> oh, wait, it's hardy on revu even
[03:50] <wgrant> It's about to become even more completely screwed.
[03:50] <lamont> sistpoty: much better
[03:50] <wgrant> lamont: Only by a year.
[03:50] <doko__> lamont: ofus?
[03:50] <lamont> I hear there's an LTS coming soon
[03:50] <lamont> doko__: of us
[03:50] <ScottK> Gutsy is the last Sparc installer that worked though.
[03:50] <lamont> space bar fail
[03:50] <doko__> no ufos ...
[03:50] <lamont> ScottK: ssssssssssssssssssssssshhh
[03:51] <lamont> doko__: clearly, you need to drink more... will find ufos then
[03:51] <doko__> but upstart did build again in lucid
[03:51] <ScottK> lamont: Just tell NCommander no cookies unless he fixes it for Lucid.
[03:51] <ScottK> doko__: So it may actually work, just no new installs.
[03:51] <lamont> dear sparc.  good luck on catching up
[03:52] <lamont> ScottK: heh
[03:52] <wgrant> How sick is PowerPC these days?
[03:52] <ScottK> Runs but not extremely stable.
[03:52] <ScottK> We even get Live CD images.
[03:52] <lamont> wgrant: other than the porter machine, it seems happy...  I'm inclined to point at the machine, rather than the architecture/distro
[03:53] <wgrant> Ah.
[03:53]  * ScottK got samba4 to build today.
[03:53] <wgrant> Which snapshot?
[03:54] <ScottK> Had to downgrade ldb and upgrade samba4
[03:54] <ScottK> The September on from Unstable
[03:54] <wgrant> Ah.
[03:54] <ScottK> Thus “ldb” 1:0.9.10~git20091212+really0.9.6~git20090912-0ubuntu1
[03:54]  * lamont decides that it's bedtime
[05:05] <NCommander> lamont: sparc is dead as far as I am concerned for this cycle :-/
[05:08] <doko_> losa ...
[10:43] <LLStarks> hi. what bug tag do i use for a beta 2 exemption?
[14:10] <zubin71> hello, i had an idea id like to propose on behalf of ubuntu for gsoc; as the idea is one of my own im looking around for someone who could mentor me. :) But before that id like to discuss the idea. Could someone spare a little time? It`d be great if you could.
[14:11] <jpds> zubin71: I'd try #ubuntu-gsoc.
[14:14] <zubin71> jpds: i did ; and i mailed to the list to, as they had just suggested. I was wondering if someone might be interested(and having some spare time) to listen to my idea.
[14:17] <zubin71> has anyone here worked on any project related to iptables?
[14:31] <chrisccoulson> slangasek - i uploaded firefox last night. would you mind approving it if you get the chance so it builds over the weekend?
[14:39] <lifeless> jpds: I'm about 50% through a smart HTTP server for lmirror
[14:39] <lifeless> jpds: I'll have it wrapped tomorrow - this gets rid of the per-file round trip overhead.
[14:39] <lifeless> gnight everyone
[14:52] <mpt> kwwii, hi, what happened to that Ubuntu logo icon fix?
[14:55] <mpt> vish, do you know if a new Ubuntu logo icon was uploaded?
[21:49] <jzacsh> hello, I'm trying to play around with android development on ubuntu with eclipse (never really used eclipse before)- tried following instructions, and some trouble shooting, no luck. I keep getting dependency errors: http://paste.ubuntu.com/408702/