[14:06] <jcastro> Can someone lend us a hand with https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/charm-tools/+bug/1546776
[14:06] <jcastro> and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1547115
[17:10] <cyphermox> slangasek: ^ was that you?
[17:10] <cyphermox> (libcxl)
[17:10] <slangasek> cyphermox: yes
[17:10] <cyphermox> mkay
[17:10] <slangasek> why? are you going to tell me there was something wrong with it? ;)
[17:11] <cyphermox> it made infinity cry last time
[17:11] <slangasek> oh?  the packaging looked straightforward to me
[17:11] <cyphermox> it's not terribly bad, just not great either. I gave frediz feedback
[17:11] <cyphermox> no, it's more about the upstream build system
[17:12] <cyphermox> it is pretty straightforward, yes
[17:20] <jdstrand> fyi, ubuntu-core-launcher adds a feature (devpts newinstance handling), but I thought Ubuntu Core had a freeze exception? let me know if I need to do all the paperwork
[20:36] <slangasek> infinity: oh neat, this dep-wait will be clearable soon. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wings3d/1.4.1-5ubuntu1
[20:37] <slangasek> infinity: so, gcc-5 is blocked in -proposed because of the linux autopkgtest failures (-proposed vs. xenial mismatch).  What's the policy on those?  Just force it through?
[20:44] <infinity> slangasek: If you're positive the test failure isn't GCC's fault, just skiptest gcc-5.
[20:58] <slangasek> infinity: oh, actually I was assuming that this was the usual problem of linux autopkgtests failing when there's a new version in -proposed; looks like this might actually be some sort of kernel regression.  Even more clearly not gcc-5's fault!
[21:12] <infinity> slangasek: Either a kernel regression or a test regression (the tests aren't in the package, but pulled from git at test time).
[21:12]  * slangasek nods
[21:31] <jdstrand> slangasek: hey, I just uploaded ubuntu-core-launcher 1.0.22. it has a critical bug fix (1.0.22) but also a feature (newinstance of devpts in 1.0.21 that hadn't been approved yet)
[21:32] <jdstrand> slangasek: I didn't do FFe stuff since I thought snappy stuff had a standing exception. I can do so if needed, or we can talk about it
[21:32] <slangasek> jdstrand: do you have a bug # for the standing exception?  that seems like something we /should/ do but I'm not sure we went through the process
[21:33] <jdstrand> slangasek: I don't know of one. I just remember I asked about and people agreed and I thought they went off to do it
[21:33] <slangasek> heh
[21:33] <jdstrand> this was some time ago
[21:34] <infinity> jdstrand: Your changelog is syntactically broken.
[21:34] <jdstrand> infinity: in what way? lintian is happy enough...
[21:35] <slangasek> aaaaaand why is my chroot missing /dev/shm
[21:35] <infinity> +ubuntu-core-launcher (1.0.21) xenial; urgency=medium
[21:35] <infinity> +  * src/main.c: setup private /dev/pts
[21:35] <infinity> jdstrand: ^-- Missing a newline.
[21:35] <jdstrand> oh, weird, so it is..
[21:36]  * jdstrand fixes
[21:38] <jdstrand> ok, as you can see I rejected my own upload, and now I just uploaded a new one
[21:44] <jdstrand> slangasek (and infinity, not sure who is looking at this): to ease your review, this is the pts change: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~snappy-dev/ubuntu-core-launcher/trunk/revision/100. it was reviewed by the security team. tested in varous snappy configurations including docker and lxc running under it
[21:44] <slangasek> jdstrand: I don't see any FFe bugs for ubuntu-core.  Can you (pester someone to) open one and provide a list of packages that should be covered?
[21:45] <jdstrand> slangasek: yes. I'll be in a meeting tomorrow and in a position to do that
[21:45] <slangasek> jdstrand: ta
[21:46] <jdstrand> I'll also note that the pts changes got signoff from sarnold and the profile changes in 1.0.22 were reviewed by tyhicks
[22:10] <jdstrand> I'm going to stop away but I'll keep an eye on backscroll