[19:43] <teward> tsimonq2: ping
[19:43] <tsimonq2> teward: pong, what do you need? :)
[19:44] <teward> tsimonq2: i see a test result for you on the ISO tracker from today, can you test something fairly major and then update your result accordingly?  It's a post-installation observable bug, but it's a big one...
[19:44] <tsimonq2> teward: which bug did I miss?
[19:44]  * tsimonq2 thought he looked at all of them...hmm...
[19:44] <teward> well, it's on the Server test and I know it exists as of two days ago unfixed - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/1529297
[19:44] <teward> ^ that's still the case according to Lubuntu which spins their alternate from Server
[19:45] <teward> basically, after installation, if you boot up, does this remain an issue
[19:45] <teward> i'm zsyncing the ISOs to test now :p
[19:45] <teward> but if you already did the test... :0
[19:45] <tsimonq2> teward: I inspected the sources.list and did an apt update, and it worked fine...
[19:45] <tsimonq2> teward: I didn't see any issue with the sources.list
[19:45] <teward> tsimonq2: so there is no uncommented cdrom line now?
[19:46] <teward> (please pastebin the installed sources.list please)
[19:48] <tsimonq2> teward: I don't have it anymore, but I do remember explicitly checking and on the top it had two cdrom entries, one had a speace between the # and the other didn't
[19:48] <tsimonq2> teward: if you would like to confirm this, please do
[19:48] <teward> tsimonq2: i'm doing that now, check #lubuntu-devel please
[19:48] <tsimonq2> teward: and I am doing other Server installs right now, so I can pastebin the sources.list for one of those when they are one
[19:49] <tsimonq2> ok
[19:49] <balloons> Afternoon
[19:50] <teward> balloons: howdy!
[19:50] <balloons> hello! Did everyone have some nice Holidays?
[19:51] <tsimonq2> balloons: heyyy it's balloons!
[19:55] <balloons> hey hey indeed
[19:55]  * teward tsks at tsimonq2 
[19:55]  * tsimonq2 throws his hands in the air
[19:55] <tsimonq2> stuff happens!
[19:56] <balloons> tsimonq2, yes I was dc'd from IRC for a bit. A little disconnection time is needed every once in a while eh?
[19:57] <balloons> it was mostly happenstance though. My bouncer dc'd and I wasn't around.
[19:57] <tsimonq2> balloons: yeah, especially on the holidays :)
[19:58] <tsimonq2> balloons: well yeah, teward is tsking at me because my script that I run before QA testing zsyncs the ISOs from the current folder, not pending, and the current folder had the server ISO that was 15 days old! So I completed a test case not knowing this, a bug didn't get reported, and I didn't see it...now I have to redo the test cases now that I adjusted :)
[19:59] <tsimonq2> stuff happens :)\
[20:00] <balloons> tsimonq2, so your zsync failed or ?
[20:01] <tsimonq2> balloons: well current showed the date of the iso:
[20:01] <tsimonq2> [   ] xenial-server-amd64.iso.zsync   15-Nov-2015 06:46  1.4M  Server install image for 64-bit PC (AMD64) computers (zsync metafile)
[20:01] <tsimonq2> and pending shows:
[20:01] <tsimonq2> [   ] xenial-server-amd64.iso.zsync   30-Dec-2015 06:59  1.4M  Server install image for 64-bit PC (AMD64) computers (zsync metafile)
[20:01] <tsimonq2> balloons: I had an old ISO
[20:02] <balloons> tsimonq2, well technically we test of current, but current not updating for that long is definitely an issue
[20:02] <tsimonq2> balloons: that can be addressed? :D :P
[20:02] <balloons> I get why you would want the pending iso (though it should simple fail, assuming things are working correctly)
[20:04] <tsimonq2> balloons: and it has worked fine for me in the past...except for when the daily ISO build fails...
[20:04] <tsimonq2> and that hasn't happened for this long before
[20:04] <balloons> right, which I'm saying a failing build for that long really is it's own issue
[20:05] <tsimonq2> well yeah :)
[20:06] <teward> balloons: in other news: i'm back in the ISO testing world xD
[20:06] <tsimonq2> :D
[20:07] <teward> tsimonq2: i bet you'll run into the same issue, with Server or Lubuntu Alt, but yeah... sorry to ping you and question your test case
[20:07] <tsimonq2> teward: it's completely fine, *I* screwed up :)
[20:07] <teward> no worries :)
[20:07] <wxl> rather your code did, tsimonq2
[20:07] <teward> :P
[20:08] <wxl> you could check for whether or not the version number is the current date
[20:08] <wxl> but even still that may not give you the most current one
[20:08] <wxl> e.g. if we get a 20151230 but then rebuild we'll have 20151230.1 and so on
[20:08] <tsimonq2> wxl: it was literally a bash script that cd'ed into the directory, then zsynced
[20:09] <wxl> OH
[20:09] <wxl> cd into current
[20:09] <wxl> so current should always be current
[20:09] <wxl> perhaps you could check build logs
[20:09] <tsimonq2> let me get you a pastebin link
[20:10] <wxl> i wonder if you can use the lp api to query the status of builds
[20:10] <teward> tsimonq2: any chance you could revise or remove your testresult then for Server?  I know I'm not the Server QA person, but until you have the valid ISO...
[20:10] <teward> i'm sorry, i'm nitpicky
[20:10] <tsimonq2> wxl: current version :) http://paste.ubuntu.com/14291493/
[20:10] <tsimonq2> teward: getting to that :P :)
[20:13] <tsimonq2> balloons: where can I find build logs for the ISOs? I didn't see them on Jenkins, but maybe I am not just looking correctly. :)
[20:13] <wxl> yeah don't look on jenkins, tsimonq2
[20:13] <wxl> look at Lubuntu/Testing#Timing
[20:13]  * tsimonq2 is new to this
[20:14] <balloons> tsimonq2, ubuntu-server/daily: Uninstallable packages:  linux-meta-lts-trusty 3.13.0.45.39 produces uninstallable binaries:   * linux-signed-generic-lts-trusty (amd64)   * linux-signed-image-generic-lts-trusty (amd64) ubuntu-server/daily: xenial-server-powerpc.iso oversized by 81137664 bytes (817803264)
[20:14] <teward> hmm, I wonder if the other Server ISOs are affected...
[20:15]  * teward tests i386
[20:15] <tsimonq2> oh THAT'S bad, the Kernel can't be installed
[20:16] <teward> ouchies
[20:17] <teward> erm
[20:17] <teward> balloons: y no testcases for i386 server?
[20:17] <teward> did none get created?
[20:17] <teward> in the off chance you know
[20:17] <teward> if not i'll throw stuff in -server :)
[20:17] <tsimonq2> ohh wot?
[20:17] <tsimonq2> yeah what's up with that?
[20:18] <teward> amd64, testcases: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/351/builds/109542/testcases    |    i386, no testcases: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/351/builds/109543/testcases
[20:18] <tsimonq2> ^
[20:41] <balloons> teward, ohh.. i386 server isn't supposed to be a thing anymore, afaik
[20:42] <balloons> well, at least for ubuntu directly
[20:42] <teward> balloons: ok
[20:42] <balloons> we don't release it
[20:42] <teward> confused, then, why we have testcases and builds for it
[20:42]  * teward shrugs
[20:42] <balloons> teward, historically we did.
[20:42] <teward> ah, OK
[20:43] <balloons> so that product shouldn't be there imho
[20:43] <balloons> I think it went away a couple LTS's ago even
[20:55] <patdk-wk> after 12.04  think
[20:56] <patdk-wk> quality got odd, and I got lost, used to be big into testing
[20:56] <patdk-wk> or maybe just before 14.04
[21:06] <teward> balloons: who handles spins/respins of ISOs?  And are ISOs ever rebuilt same-day to try and resolve a crit-level post-installer failure in apt sources?
[21:06] <teward> (i know the Lubuntu people might respin their alts now that cjwatson uploaded a supposedly-fixed apt-setup, but...)
[21:06] <teward> (not sure who handles Server team, nor what the issues/requirements/reasons-not-to are)