| doko | slangasek, copied everything to 39, still building. will look at the ftbfs tomorrow. 16 should be obsolete | 01:47 |
|---|---|---|
| sil2100 | Hello release team! We need an archive admin to preNEW review a new package before publishing it through the train | 09:15 |
| doko | sil2100, what is this? sounds scary before we copy the gcc5 silo | 09:32 |
| michi | doko: It’s code that is in thumbnailer at the moment. We are unbundling it so it becomes reusable. | 09:33 |
| michi | Nothing depends on it right now. | 09:34 |
| sil2100 | https://code.launchpad.net/~unity-api-team/persistent-cache-cpp/devel <- here is the whole packaging + code | 09:34 |
| michi | sil2100: It’s been reviewed and passed already. | 09:35 |
| michi | Check the comments in the “Passed” column for silo 51 here: https://trello.com/b/AE3swczu/qa-testing-requests-for-questions-ping-ubuntu-qa-on-ubuntu-ci-eng | 09:35 |
| doko | michi: but you don't plan to update thumbnauler now? | 09:35 |
| michi | doko: Correct. | 09:35 |
| doko | looking | 09:35 |
| michi | We are leaving thumbnailer alone until the dust settles | 09:36 |
| michi | sil2100: You need to click on the silly speech bubble to see the comments. | 09:36 |
| doko | hmm, it's not in the NEW queue ... https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/wily/+queue?queue_state=0 | 09:36 |
| sil2100 | It's not NEWed yet, we're required to get a preNEW review before pushing it | 09:37 |
| sil2100 | I can publish that to the NEW queue tho if you prefer | 09:37 |
| doko | ahh, sorry, can't help with this | 09:37 |
| michi | sil2100: It’s not important for this to go in doko’s PPA. I just want to get the package accept so we (and others) can eventually start using it. | 09:43 |
| doko | jibel, did slangasek talk to you yesterday? | 12:47 |
| jibel | doko, he didn't | 12:52 |
| doko | jibel, he proposed that you could be able to do an image build using the landing39 ppa. not sure how fast you could do that | 12:54 |
| doko | does this make sense? | 12:55 |
| doko | otoh, it may fail, because we didn't yet rebuild anything for the renamed libraries | 12:56 |
| jibel | doko, what would be the difference between an image built from wily + ppa 39 and an image built from proposed on ppa 39 is copied? | 13:23 |
| jibel | once* | 13:24 |
| doko | jibel, wily + ppa39 definitely won't work at this point. I think he meant proposed + ppa39 | 13:27 |
| jibel | doko, if everything is installable building from the PPA can be an option | 13:35 |
| doko | jibel, sure, that would be good to know | 13:36 |
| doko | jibel, assuming you would work on this, when could such a test be finished? | 13:39 |
| jibel | doko, for today it's a bit late notice. Time to build an image I won't have any tester left | 13:42 |
| doko | ok, then let's do it without it | 13:44 |
| doko | the copy | 13:44 |
| === alex_abreu is now known as alex-abreu | ||
| === superm1_ is now known as superm1 | ||
| slangasek | doko, jibel: I did not propose doing an image build using the landing-039 ppa; I was only asking how long we expected it to take for all the packages to build. The plan for getting a test image is to build against -proposed once the phone stack is coherent there, which is a daunting prospect in itself | 16:53 |
| jibel | slangasek, makes sense. That was my understanding of your discussion with doko yesterday. | 16:56 |
| jderose | infinity: totem is launching fine and dandy in today's 14.04.3 daily... thanks! :D | 17:46 |
| infinity | jderose: Good deal. | 17:48 |
| infinity | jderose: I'm not happy with my "fix", but it was the same hack we used for .2, and no one complained there either. :P | 17:49 |
| infinity | (Well, similar, not identical, or I would have noticed the bug) | 17:49 |
| jderose | infinity: guess adding one line to debian/control for the appropriate mesa package is too hard :P | 17:50 |
| jderose | for someone, not you, of course :) | 17:50 |
| infinity | jderose: Well, one first needs to figure out where "appropriate" is, then the investigation of WTF that's needed at all (it probably should be a conditional load, and it's a bit broken), then a full SRU verification to get it in. And the guy responsible is on vacation. :P | 18:05 |
| infinity | jderose: So, a hack works for now. If a later SRU fixes it better, no one will notice. :P | 18:06 |
| jderose | infinity: gotcha... and i'm just being a little ornery anyway :P | 18:47 |
| slangasek | so, if ofono-qt and maliit-framework have made their way into wily, does that mean they didn't actually need g++ rebuilds, or is something broken... | 20:06 |
| infinity | Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), libqt5core5a (>= 5.2.0), libqt5dbus5 (>= 5.0.2), libstdc++6 (>= 4.1.1) | 20:11 |
| infinity | So, unless something has broken shlibs or a broken symbols file, I'd say no rebuild was needed. | 20:11 |
| infinity | Given that qt5core didn't have a package name change, that would imply its rdeps don't need a rebuild... | 20:14 |
| infinity | Ditto for qt5dbus. | 20:15 |
| infinity | No idea if my inference is actually correct, mind you, but people seemed to be taking the rename thing seriously, so... | 20:15 |
| infinity | Of course, given that libstdc++6 deps seem to be (correctly) generated from symbol availability, rather than a hardcoded shlib, that also means the tracker "good" string was a bogus lie. | 20:18 |
| infinity | Since anything that didn't actually need a transition will be listed as "bad" no matter how many times you rebuild it. | 20:18 |
| infinity | slangasek: Any objections about me fasttracking that apt/trusty SRU (and releasing on a Friday, oh noes!) once I've re-run all my testcases against the archive build and confirmed it's not broken? | 20:25 |
| infinity | slangasek: It's the only SRU blocking me turning off -proposed in the trusty dailies, which I'd like to do to (a) unblock the kernel team, and (b) have the images over the weekend be a better representation of the final 14.04.3 builds. | 20:25 |
| slangasek | infinity: I'm afraid my brain misses context for the apt SRU | 20:25 |
| infinity | https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/1.0.1ubuntu2.9 | 20:26 |
| slangasek | and 1429041 was the preivous SRU? | 20:27 |
| infinity | Yeah. | 20:27 |
| slangasek | (and is the test case from there part of the build-time testsuite?) | 20:27 |
| infinity | It's not. I need to learn the apt testsuite and submit two tests upstream, for both these regressions. | 20:27 |
| infinity | But, for now, I have manual tests to confirm both. | 20:28 |
| infinity | Manual tests all passed on my test binary built at home, just need to re-run them on the archive build. | 20:29 |
| infinity | THough, if the results differ, we have much bigger problems. :P | 20:29 |
| slangasek | infinity: ok, looked at the patch and it's clearly limited to things that are Never-MarkAuto-Sections (which seems like a good thing to say in the Regression Potential bit?) so if you've tested that it does what you need for the point release I'm ok with fast-tracking | 20:32 |
| infinity | slangasek: Right, re-running tests now. Well, reruning the 1429041 tests. The actual bug I was fixing is v-done based on the kylin livefs not being completely busted anymore. | 20:33 |
| infinity | (They remove ubuntu-desktop as part of their build, which is what exposed the regression) | 20:33 |
| infinity | slangasek: Alright. Bug spammed with much testing output. It all looks good to me. Want to double-check to see if I'm stupid before I release? | 21:00 |
| infinity | Next week, I'll have to fix this in wily, vivid, and I suspect also precise (haven't tested there yet). | 21:01 |
| infinity | Err, I am stupid. My test removed the wrong package on the second pass. | 21:02 |
| * infinity redoes that bit. | 21:02 | |
| infinity | slangasek: Okay. Now all good. :P | 21:05 |
| infinity | slangasek: Oh. You seem to be away, according to your IRC client. I'll trust my own testing on this one. :P | 21:07 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!