[03:21] <rsalveti> infinity: slangasek: question for you guys, android gets built on x86, producing 3 'all' and 2 'i386' packages
[03:21] <infinity> rsalveti: Not anymore.
[03:21] <rsalveti> this was working fine when uploading new android packages to utopic: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/android/20140922-1903-0ubuntu4/+build/6468836
[03:21] <rsalveti> yay, that's probably the answer then
[03:22] <rsalveti> noticed my current android package, for vivid, is only producing binaries for 'i386', not all anymore
[03:22] <rsalveti> infinity: is amd64 the primary arch now?
[03:22] <infinity> rsalveti: amd64 is the arch-indep build arch now.
[03:22] <rsalveti> great, that explains then
[03:23] <rsalveti> infinity: now the question is, how can I force the i386 build to produce my arch-indep packages now?
[03:23] <infinity> You can't.
[03:23] <infinity> You need an amd64 build.
[03:23] <rsalveti> crap, that might not be that trivial with the android package
[03:23] <rsalveti> but well
[03:24] <infinity> More trivial than finishin all the arch-affinity work to let you specify where you want to build, I'm afraid.
[03:24] <rsalveti> yeah
[03:24] <rsalveti> thanks anyway
[03:24] <rsalveti> was this announced anywhere?
[03:25] <rsalveti> yeah, it was, just saw the email
[03:25]  * rsalveti just got back from vacations 
[12:16] <rbasak> cjwatson: if you put on your SRU team hat today, please can I poke you about reviewing juju-core in the Trusty queue? I'd like to get it pushed through soon if we can, so that upstream can QA on Ubuntu's proposed binary before they release upstream.
[12:30] <doko> rbasak, he's not available this week
[12:33] <rbasak> OK, thanks
[14:28] <mlankhorst> can the xorg-server upload be removed? I forgot to build with -v so the old bug won't get linked correctly
[14:47] <rsalveti> infinity: ogra_: hey, so we can't yet build the android package on amd64, it'd need a lot of work to get that done, so we need to build it on i386, but I believe we also need the final android package to be all instead of i386
[14:47] <rsalveti> as that's what is currently used when extracting the binaries on cdimage
[14:47] <ogra_> right, the binary needs to be arch:all
[14:48] <ogra_> however we achieve that
[14:48] <ogra_> and the build can only happen on i386 unless we fix a lot of android
[14:49] <ogra_> infinity, would there be a way to make the android package i386 but to cheat with the publisher to copy the binary around to become "all" ?
[14:49] <rsalveti> one way would be to have at least one package building for 'amd64', and then building android inside a i386 chroot, but that will be ugly
[14:49] <xnox> ogra_: no.
[14:49] <rsalveti> as currently I only got packages for 'all' and 'i386', and it never gets built on amd64
[14:50] <ogra_> right, thats the other option beyond having the publisher do something (which probably is equally ugly or requires re-packing>)
[14:50] <xnox> rsalveti: actually, it should be not that hard to convert it to build on arch:all on amd64, you need to flip a few dependencies, but otherwise it should work with a multilib toolchain.
[14:50] <xnox> unless, well.... we'll need multiarch enabled on the builders.
[14:50] <rsalveti> xnox: right, I'd need to install a bunch of i386 packages at build-time
[14:50] <xnox> ogra_: rsalveti: actually, src:android should be changed to build i386 arch binary.
[14:51] <xnox> ogra_: rsalveti: and then change cdimage et.al. that with vivid it needs to pull an explicit i386 binary.....
[14:51] <xnox> =(
[14:51] <rsalveti> right
[14:51] <ogra_> ouch
[14:51] <xnox> ogra_: rsalveti: or quickly upgrade to lolipop with comes with amd64 SDK =)
[14:51] <ogra_> that will be as ugly
[14:51] <xnox> s/with/which/
[14:51] <rsalveti> can't for a few months
[14:51] <rsalveti> at least
[14:51] <xnox> and full x86_64 support in the emulator et.al.
[14:51] <ogra_> right "quickly"
[14:52] <rsalveti> I need something for this week still :-)
[14:52] <xnox> rsalveti: well, i believe utopic are still using correct builder - that is i386
[14:52] <xnox> rsalveti: and so does ubuntu-rtm.
[14:52] <rsalveti> xnox: right
[14:52] <xnox> rsalveti: it's only vivid that builds arch:all on amd64
[14:52] <rsalveti> xnox: yes, but I need this package on vivid as well
[14:53] <xnox> rsalveti: you should be able to branch ubuntu-rtm-vivid with arch:all set to i386, but talk to wgrant about that.
[14:53] <rsalveti> maybe building on a utopic ppa and doing binary copies?
[14:53] <xnox> rsalveti: actually, yeah talk to wgrant about getting this fixed.
[14:53] <xnox> rsalveti: yes, building in a utopic ppa will also work and doing a binary copy into the archive. but do it in a non-virt PPA.
[14:53] <rsalveti> xnox: yeah, need one utopic silo for that
[14:54] <rsalveti> ogra_: do we still have utopic silos?
[14:54] <ogra_> could be, ask sil2100
[14:54] <xnox> or ev.
[14:54] <xnox> =)
[14:54] <ogra_> rsalveti, but why does it need to be a silo ;)
[14:54] <ogra_> any native PPA should do
[14:54] <sil2100> We still have utopic silos, yes, but those need to be SRUed anyway
[14:55] <rsalveti> ogra_: well, we need a non-virt PPA
[14:55] <ogra_> like canonical-arm-dev ;)
[14:55] <rsalveti> hm, last time I tried copying stuff from that PPA I had issues, just don't remember which ones
[14:55] <rsalveti> I had to rebuild them on a proper silo
[14:56] <ogra_> hmm
[14:56] <rsalveti> sil2100: what happens if I build/push a src package for utopic on a ppa currently used for vivid?
[14:56] <rsalveti> sil2100: I guess we only need to clean it up once done
[14:56] <rsalveti> ppa/silo
[14:56] <sil2100> rsalveti: you only want to use that silo for building, right? Not for releasing through the train?
[14:57] <rsalveti> sil2100: nops, just building
[14:57] <rsalveti> will need to manually release it
[14:57] <ogra_> well, for copying later too
[14:57] <sil2100> rsalveti: then if it's one of your silos, you can upload without any problems - just make sure to clean up afterwards
[14:57] <sil2100> i.e. delete the package once done
[14:57] <rsalveti> guess I'll upload to utopic in there, then binary copy to vivid on the same silo and will try using the train
[14:58] <sil2100> A silo in the train can be configured only per one series, but that only counts when you want the train to track the upload and release it
[15:00] <rsalveti> yeah, guess that will have to do it
[16:54] <teward> can a release manager approve the trusty nomination on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux/+bug/1389321?  (requested by psusi on #ubuntu-bugs to be trusty-targeted).
[16:54] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1389321 in util-linux (Ubuntu) "partx wraps partition offset and length mod 2^32 (2^23 sectors)" [High,In progress]
[21:10] <infinity> rsalveti: Building in utopic and copying is a workable (very) short-term hack, but the package really needs to be buildable on vivid.
[23:37] <wgrant> rsalveti, infinity: I'm in a position now where it's trivial to make 'all i386' resolve to 'build arch-indep on i386 regardless of nai', if we agree that that makes sense.
[23:38] <rsalveti> infinity: that will happen when we rebase android with latest release (5.0)
[23:40] <infinity> wgrant: That might make sense until we get arch affinity in debian/control.
[23:47] <wgrant> It's actually easier to do that than not.
[23:47] <wgrant> So I shall do so.
[23:48] <wgrant> (ie. when I'm looking for the build to do arch-indep on, I'll prefer nai but pick an arbitrary arch from the set if nai isn't usable)