[06:18] <flocculant> xubuntu yak images failed to build this morning, not sure why other than it's Friday 13th ...
[09:05] <yofel> ^ Third time's the charm - nmqt now with a commit revert that breaks the ABI when built against nm ">= 1.2.0" (which is also in -proposed)
[09:05] <yofel> *reverted
[09:41] <xnox> mdeslaur, ^ synced over to unapproved queue for sru team review
[10:02] <cjwatson> flocculant: did you check the logs?
[10:04] <cjwatson> flocculant: looks like the same transient 503s from Launchpad that sil2100 was asking about in #ubuntu-devel re touch builds
[10:04] <cjwatson> flocculant: so I think my answer is the same, 503s can happen for various reasons and cdimage should probably be taught to backoff and retry
[10:55] <mdeslaur> xnox: great, thanks
[12:32] <flocculant> I did quickly look - then forgot and got on with morning stuff - thanks though :)
[12:32] <flocculant> cjwatson: ^^
[14:52] <rbasak> pitti: see bug 1581535 please.
[14:52] <rbasak> rharper: ^
[14:57] <pitti> rbasak: meh, wasn't that supposed to be fixed in bug 1539634?
[14:57] <seb128> could somebody review that accountsservice upload ^
[14:57] <rbasak> pitti: was a Breaks correctly added? If not I'm wondering if some users have only a partial update.
[14:57] <seb128> it's a regression fix for a SRU that went to xenial-updates yesterday :-/
[14:58] <seb128> wait
[14:58] <seb128> there might be an issue with the patch
[14:59] <seb128> grrr
[14:59] <rbasak> pitti: I don't see one.
[14:59] <seb128> shrug, yes
[14:59] <seb128> fixing
[15:01] <pitti> rbasak: I guess that calls for another update then
[15:01] <pitti> sorry, I need to run in about 15 mins..
[15:01] <pitti> I asked on the bug whether the reporters have the current NM
[15:02] <pitti> i. e. whether this is something different than 1539634 or just the missing breaks
[15:03] <rbasak> pitti: if it is the missing Breaks, then I'm not sure another update will necessarily help. It might, but why are users picking up one update but not the other?
[15:04] <pitti> rbasak: not for the ones who already partially upgraded, but for new upgrades of course
[15:04] <pitti> we could also pull 3.2.21-1ubuntu1 from trusty-updates in the meantime
[15:04] <pitti> and then upload -1ubuntu2 with the breaks:
[15:07] <seb128> bah
[15:07] <seb128> ^ right one this time
[15:07] <rbasak> pitti: that sounds reasonable. But I'm not confident I understand what's going on without a report that contains version numbers :-/
[15:07] <rbasak> Especially as it seems odd that some users would get a libnl3 update but not a network-manager update.
[15:10] <pitti> rbasak, rharper: I pulled the update from trusty-updates for now and followed up to both bugs
[15:11] <seb128> pitti, can you review accountsservice ^? sorry for the nag but it's a xenial-updates regression from a SRU copied yesterday :-/
[15:11] <rbasak> pitti: thank you for your help.
[15:13] <pitti> seb128: accepted, xenial task added; please upload to yakkety too, and nag some US archive admins (like bdmurray) to sru-release this in a few hours after build/test
[15:13]  * pitti needs to run, sorry
[15:14] <seb128> pitti, already uploaded to yakkety
[15:14] <seb128> pitti, thanks!
[15:14] <pitti> ah good, thanks
[15:14] <pitti> seb128: yakkety FTBFS
[15:15] <seb128> pitti, fixed already, that was my "ups/reject/reupload" dance
[15:15] <pitti> mismatched tag at line 15, column 27, byte 562 at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl5/5.22/XML/Parser.pm line 187.
[15:15] <seb128> pitti, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/accountsservice/0.6.40-2ubuntu13.1
[15:15] <pitti> Makefile:863: recipe for target 'org.freedesktop.accounts.policy' failed
[15:15] <pitti> seb128: ah, ok
[15:16]  * pitti waves
[15:25] <seb128> pitti, have a good w.e!
[16:11] <seb128> bdmurray, some other SRU team member, can you look at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/accountsservice/0.6.40-2ubuntu11.1 ? see backlog
[16:11] <seb128> it's a xenial-updates regression
[16:13] <bdmurray> seb128: looking
[16:13] <seb128> bdmurray, thanks
[16:16] <bdmurray> seb128: and you want it released to -updates today? Is it urgent for some reason?
[16:16] <seb128> bdmurray, it's a regression from a previous update
[16:17] <seb128> if not can be block/delete the previous upload?
[16:17] <seb128> but it impacts some side feature
[16:17] <seb128> so no, not critical to get fixed today
[16:17] <bdmurray> the current accountsservice SRU is at 50%, so we could manually set it to 0
[16:25] <seb128> bdmurray, your call, I don't know what are the standard rules for regressions, pitti seemed to suggest earlier than the regression fix should be moved over
[16:25] <seb128> but as said it's not a critical bug
[16:25] <seb128> so probably fine to wait next week
[16:26] <bdmurray> Given that 0.6.40-2ubuntu11 introduced a regression, I'd prefer to be cautious and release 11.1 on Monday when people are around to fix any other issues.
[16:26] <seb128> k
[17:37] <bdmurray> infinity: Could you halt the phasing of accountsservice due to a regression? 'change-override -z 0 -s xenial-updates -S accountsservice' should do the job
[17:38] <infinity> bdmurray: Iz done.
[17:39] <bdmurray> thanks
[19:23] <bdmurray> infinity: the change-override setting might have conflicted with the phased-updater.  Could you run it again?
[19:23] <infinity> bdmurray: Did we delete all the arch:all binaries? :)
[19:24] <infinity> Oh, or you just went from 50 to 60 instead of 50 to 0.
[19:26] <bdmurray> right the phased-updater may have been running at the same time
[19:26] <bdmurray> 2016-05-13 18:26:03,150 - INFO - Incremented p-u-p for xenial-updates accountsservice from 50% to 60%
[19:26] <infinity> bdmurray: Yeah, will fix.
[21:09] <bdmurray> infinity: Have you seen bug 1581535? I'm wondering if there is more we should / could do.
[21:13] <infinity> bdmurray: I reverted, and phased the revert to 100.
[21:13] <infinity> bdmurray: There's very little else we can do except cry.
[21:14] <bdmurray> infinity: Okay, I'll see if I can figure out how to do that.
[21:15] <infinity> bdmurray: Note that -1ubuntu1.1 in updates now is the same as -1 (ie: a full revert), -1ubuntu3 in proposed is the same as -1ubuntu1, but with the versioned Breaks that should have been there, and fixed symbols.
[21:15] <infinity> bdmurray: Figure out how to do.. What?  Cry?
[21:15] <bdmurray> infinity: Yes, cry.
[21:17] <infinity> bdmurray: I'm mildly annoyed that the people who were aware of this bug in -proposed didn't think about the partial upgrade case.
[21:17] <infinity> bdmurray: But what's done is done. :(
[21:18] <bdmurray> I guess I could comment on the bug regarding the new libnl uploads
[21:18] <infinity> bdmurray: I did, but feel free to be more verbose.
[21:20] <infinity> bdmurray: The other workaround here to be mildly helpful might be to phase n-m to 100%.
[21:20] <infinity> bdmurray: So people who did get half upgraded might have a hope of being fully upgraded before their network explodes.
[21:21] <infinity> bdmurray: Gah.  In fact, your scripts dropped it to 0%, which is exactly the opposite of helpful.
[21:22] <bdmurray> infinity: So fully phasing sounds like a good idea then.
[21:22] <infinity> bdmurray: Yeah, doing now.
[21:23] <infinity> bdmurray: AIUI, new n-m and old libnl are fine together, but the inverse explodes.
[21:23] <infinity> bdmurray: So we can fully phase n-m, hope that fixes some people by accident, then re-evaluate libnl on Monday.
[21:24] <bdmurray> infinity: I tested new n-m and old libnl in a VM and it seemed okay.  The applet displayed and I could get to web sites.
[21:24] <infinity> bdmurray: Right, that's what I'd expect.
[21:26] <infinity> Very unfortunate to break people's networks, though, when that's the only way they can get fixes. :/
[21:26] <infinity> I foresee a lot of people phoning their nerd friends this weekend.
[21:27] <infinity> bdmurray: Did you see the guy in one of the bug logs whose solution was "I bought a DVD player and reinstalled Ubuntu"?
[21:27] <infinity> A for effort, but ouch.
[21:27] <bdmurray> Surely, a DVD drive not player?
[21:28] <infinity> He said player, I assume drive. :P
[21:28] <infinity> Unless he just means he was so frustrated that he went on a manic electronics purchasing spree.
[21:29] <tgm4883> could have been a software dvd player
[21:30] <infinity> Anyhow, here's hoping the intersection of people who half upgraded and people who rebooted already before I pushed fixes and people who have no idea how to fix the result is reasonably small. :/
[21:30] <infinity> Cause we're out of ways to help them remotely.