[00:26] <shadeslayer> out of curiousity, is there a smarter way to deal with problems like apt-get update failing on jenkins because of a hash mismatch error? or do I just keep retrying the command
[00:26] <shadeslayer> *jenkins job
[01:22] <peacememories> hm, i'm not really sure how frameworks are supposed to work on snappy
[04:26] <hallyn> pitti: i wasn't planning o nmerging samba - i hate to take zul's fun away from him :)  but i'm finally back tomorrow so can take a look soon if needed
[04:27] <hallyn> bdmurray: smb has fixed the kvm-spice bug in qemu
[04:28] <hallyn> seb128: cgmanager is disabled by default in systemd bc systemd prefers to own all the cgroup management
[06:50] <pitti> brainwash: I'll most certainly package 218
[06:50] <pitti> Good morning
[06:51] <pitti> hallyn: welcome back! did you enjoy your holidays?
[07:52] <dholbach> good morning
[08:21] <ari-tczew> hello
[09:18] <doko_> Riddell, ScottK: please could you build opengtl with the default llvm/clang? This one prevents removal of llvm-3.3
[09:53] <cjwatson> shadeslayer: launchpad-buildd has a thing where if apt-get update fails then it waits a short period of time and immediately tries again (only once); this seems enough to dispose of the vast majority of problems
[13:23] <shadeslayer> cjwatson: I see
[13:35] <cjwatson> infinity: You synced libpoe-component-client-dns-perl from unstable, but apparently it still fails with the same test failure that caused there previously to be a delta (see 1:1.051-1ubuntu1).  Fancy reintroducing that delta?
[13:53] <mitya57> sil2100, nevermind the previous question, I have (re-)written that myself.
[15:03] <hallyn> pitti: had its upsides, had huge downsides sadly.
[15:04] <hallyn> but now back to work :)
[15:05] <cjwatson> doko_: missing build-dep on expect for gcc-*-cross, maybe?
[15:06] <doko_> cjwatson, no, dpkg introducing DEB_TARGET architectures
[15:07] <cjwatson> ah ...
[15:08] <doko_> these should build after the current gcc-4.9 upload
[15:09] <doko_> dpkg-archoitecture introducing DEB_TARGET_* variables even
[15:15] <smb> hallyn, while I see you... I wanted to do a small update to qemu in U and T for allow it to be used by Xen dom0 (bug 1394327). For U there still seems an upload in proposed, which I am not sure about getting verified as the reporter verified Trusty.
[15:16] <smb> Is there anything else we can do?
[15:30] <hallyn> smb: i'm confused
[15:31] <hallyn> smb: noone has verified that near as i can tell
[15:31] <hallyn> oh i see.
[15:31] <smb> comment #17
[15:31] <hallyn> there are 2 comments
[15:32] <hallyn> smb: which bug needs verification
[15:32] <smb> bug 1368815
[15:40] <hallyn> smb: sorry for hte delay, for some reason launcpad isn't loading for me.  (weird internet issues)
[15:40] <smb> hallyn, Heh yeah, some days are just painful
[15:41] <hallyn> but seriously, i've tried two different connections and two browsers, and the bug just won't load all the way
[15:43] <hallyn> smb	ok, so issmb	did you try reproducing on utopic?
[15:43] <hallyn> yikes
[15:44] <hallyn> smb: unless you get to it in the next few hours, i'll complete the verification this afternoon for that bug
[15:44] <smb> hallyn, No, well that bug was nothing I was observing. Its something that someone else had, you uploaded the fixes and it only got verified for T
[15:45] <smb> hallyn, Ok, wfm. Then I can base on that version for what I prepare for upload
[15:45] <hallyn> understood, but someone needs to reproduce wit hthe testcase, or else at least run the qa-regression-testing qemu testcase on it :)
[15:45] <hallyn> ok - i'll do it this afternoon then - ttyl
[15:45] <smb> hallyn, ack. thanks
[16:02] <FunnyLookinHat> Anyone know what IRC channel would be appropriate for snappy related stuff?
[16:02] <popey> #snappy
[16:02]  * FunnyLookinHat should have figured....
[16:02] <FunnyLookinHat> :D
[16:02] <popey> ☻
[16:03] <FunnyLookinHat> thx!
[16:14] <infinity> cjwatson: I did?  Pretty sure that was bhavi, according to LP.
[16:17] <cjwatson> infinity: Oh, right, you moved it to vivid-proposed from utopic-proposed, that explains my confusion
[16:17] <cjwatson> (and indeed from trusty-proposed)
[16:17] <cjwatson> OK, I'll reintroduce that delta
[16:18] <infinity> cjwatson: I could do it anyway, was just correcting your blame. :P
[16:23] <cjwatson> infinity: Might be more sensible for you to end up with the future merge than me, if you don't mind
[16:24] <infinity> cjwatson: Fine by me, it's 2 lines.  Will do.
[16:25] <cjwatson> ta
[16:50] <bdmurray> pitti: py3cairo ddebs are missing for the latest version only arm64 has appeared
[17:32] <bdmurray> tseliot: are you working on bug 1376966?
[17:39] <tseliot> bdmurray: the fix is in utopic (in 1:0.2.98.4) but apparently I forgot to backport it
[17:44] <bdmurray> tseliot: I'd be happy to review it when you get it in the proposed queue - just let me know.
[17:53] <tseliot> bdmurray: I've just uploaded ubuntu-drivers-common 0.2.91.8 in trusty-proposed. Thanks for your help, and for reminding me
[18:33] <hallyn> arges: would you mind looking at the last comment in bug 1368815 and ack/nacking?
[18:33] <arges> hallyn: looking
[18:34] <hallyn> arges: thanks.  (smb needs that cleared one way or the other, so if nacked that's fine - i'll just request thta we drop the package so smb cna proceed)
[18:36] <arges> hallyn: seems like an important fix; and interestingly enough they have to reproduce on ext3 or ext4 without extent filesystems
[18:36] <arges> hallyn: which is what i'm seeing on the other corruption bug...
[18:38] <arges> hallyn: i think we should ACK it if someone is reporting it as fixing issues in trusty at least
[18:38] <arges> for utopoic
[18:39] <smb> It also would feel a little silly to reject something when it did verify on Trusty. But ok. I probably should have had a deeper look and tried to reproduce/verify it
[18:39] <smb> But somehow there is many loose ends and seemingly so few days in this year left
[18:40] <arges> smb: hmm... maybe i'm hitting the same corruption bug because i createdd my qcow2 image _before_ applying this patch. I'll try it out
[18:41] <arges> then maybe I can verify this bug too. I tested with latest mainline, but created the qcow2 image with the unpatched version
[18:41] <smb> ah ok. at least something worth trying
[18:42] <arges> smb: so i'll try verifying it for now if that's alright
[18:42] <smb> yeah sure... I am rather close to "go away" for today anyway
[18:42] <arges> smb: yea, i still need to review your other package
[18:43] <smb> arges, you can take your time with that. if we can get qemu released thats probably worth a bit more to me right now
[18:43] <arges> smb: ok
[18:44] <arges> smb: where is the new qemu fix? in unapproved?
[18:44] <smb> arges, right now as in get me proceeding tomorrow
[18:44] <smb> arges, no not uploaded yet
[18:45] <smb> I am preparing them but wanted the path clear before I upload and be sure I base on the right thing
[20:06] <arges> hallyn: do you have a decent reproduce for bug 1368815 ? I tried using the other reproduce i had for bug 1292234 and I still get issues with non-extents filesystems. I'm not sure what SRC_PATH is supposed to point at
[20:23] <hallyn> arges: i don't,
[20:24] <arges> hallyn: also there is this patch http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=c4875e5b2216cf5427459e619b10f75083565792 where they remove FIEMAP
[20:26] <arges> and d1f06fe665acdd7aa7a46a5ef88172c3d7d3028e, but not sure if that side steps the original issues (in case we hit this again)
[20:26] <hallyn> arges: so yes i did consider that those two bugs might be related :)  but i'm kina lost in it
[20:27] <hallyn> my position would be the fix was verified o ntrusty, it still passes qrt, so ship it an dmov eon
[20:27] <arges> hallyn: i'll keep digging, i'm inclined to still ack that fix for the time being while ic ontinue to dig at the other one
[20:27] <arges> hallyn: agree
[20:28] <hallyn> arges: agreed, and if someone runs into it again, we could try the other two commits.  do you mind noting those in that bug just for posterity?
[20:29] <arges> hallyn: sure
[20:49] <mdeslaur> arges, hallyn: so, I want to release security updates for qemu
[20:49] <mdeslaur> arges, hallyn: do I supersede the one in utopic, or will one of you mark it as verification-done, so I can use it
[20:49] <arges> mdeslaur: i'll mark it verification done
[20:49] <mdeslaur> arges: ok, I'll base my update on -proposed then, thanks
[20:50] <arges> mdeslaur: ok done : ) thanks for letting us know
[20:50] <hallyn> smb: ^ you may as well wait a few days :)
[21:13] <bdmurray> stgraber: should bug 924511 still be assigned to you?
[21:14] <stgraber> bdmurray: probably not, installer bugs are very very far down my list at the moment
[22:55] <sil2100> pitti: hey! Are you around by any chance?
[23:10] <Unit193> sil2100: You could poke him about the new cryptsetup in Debian too, has much better support for systemd. :P