[04:09] arges: FYI, Juju upstream are reporting regression-update for bug 1361946 in bug 1527020. [04:09] bug 1361946 in gccgo-5 (Ubuntu Utopic) "patches for cgo on arm64" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1361946 [04:09] bug 1527020 in juju-core "cannot build trusty ppc64el juju" [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1527020 [04:09] mwhudson: ^^ could you take a look please? [04:09] It's frustrating that this was caught by CI but not in trusty-proposed, which would save some pain. I've asked if they could do that. [08:26] rbasak: commented [08:26] Thank you! [08:28] oh hi, not expecting you to be awake [08:31] I am a bit earlier than usual today, but it is 0830 UK time! [08:31] Most normal people here are awake :) [08:49] rbasak: pff longitude-normativity, or something [11:22] Good morning release =) [11:22] please remove NBS ubuntu-desktop/s390x=1.344 in xenial-proposed [11:24] xnox: done [11:24] thanks. [12:06] strongly recommend nobody accept perl until all arches are built [13:57] here we go === rtg is now known as Guest19398 === xnox is now known as xnox_2016 [17:38] is something weird happening with the buildds? I just uploaded ubuntu-core-security and all archs failed cause apparmor couldn't be installed and I requested a retry and it has said 'Start in 4 minutes' for several minutes [18:00] I just tried in a schroot and apparmor installs fine with archive.ubuntu.com with and without proposed [18:01] The buildd error is: [18:01] The following packages have unmet dependencies: [18:01] sbuild-build-depends-ubuntu-core-security-dummy : Depends: apparmor but it is not going to be installed [18:01] E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. [18:01] infinity: you around? ^ [18:02] the start in 4 minutes was on amd64 which has a bunch of disabled builders and many in the Cleaning state [18:02] jdstrand, got a build log (if it isn't secret) [18:02] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/230360627/buildlog_ubuntu-xenial-s390x.ubuntu-core-security_16.04.9_BUILDING.txt.gz [18:03] I retried on s390x cause it had some free builders [18:03] (but same thing) [18:08] ah, I think I am getting somewhere locally [18:08] apparmor : Depends: libapparmor-perl but it is not going to be installed [18:13] libapparmor-perl : Depends: perlapi-5.20. [18:13] ah, seems apparmor needs a rebuild for the perl in proposed [18:37] jdstrand: It's the perl transition, cjwatson is working on it. [18:38] infinity: yeah, it took me a while to get there [18:38] jdstrand: We'll do a mass give-back once the world is happily transitioned. [18:38] cjwatson: fyi, I uploaded a no change rebuild of apparmor [18:41] Is there any reason to be cautious about releasing the Trusty fix for LP: #1273462? [18:41] Launchpad bug 1273462 in upstart (Debian) "Users can mistakenly run init.d scripts and cause problems if an equivalent upstart job already exists" [Unknown,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1273462 [18:57] bdmurray: People seem to be more or less happy with it. [19:07] infinity: okay [19:07] Am I missing something? I don't see location-service in landing ppa 2. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/vivid/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text= yet there is a sync request for it... [19:07] bdmurray: Tons of us were concerned about the change being made at all, but I'm not sure it's worth rehashing THAT debate again after it was finally accepted into -proposed. [19:08] infinity: I was just wondering about the wisdom of releasing it before the holidays. [19:08] bdmurray: https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/landing-002/+packages?field.name_filter=location-service&field.status_filter=&field.series_filter= [19:09] bdmurray: Someone was naughty and emptied the silo before it was accepted/rejected in the queue, but if it's still downloadable, it's still copyable. [19:09] ah, thnks [19:09] bdmurray: OTOH, that may have been a mistake. [19:10] bdmurray: Given vivid silos build against the overlay, and that sure looks like an overlay-destined upload. [19:10] bdmurray: Releasing to the archive was probably an oops. [19:10] bdmurray: And definitely not acceptable if it's a copy with binaries, since it has overlay deps. [19:11] bdmurray: And, indeed, the copy contains binaries, so just reject it.