/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2016/05/24/#ubuntu-release.txt

=== slangase` is now known as slangasek
RAOFHm. Queubot *may* have gone slightly mad.06:02
cjwatsonstgraber: ^- please fix06:04
=== benonsoftware is now known as Guest30663
=== \b is now known as benonsoftware
=== ogra_` is now known as ogra_
=== kip_ is now known as kip_busy
=== knome_ is now known as knome
=== s8321414_ is now known as s8321414
TrevinhoSRU team, please can you move bamf (xenial) and unity (trusty) sync to proposed?12:17
Trevinhobdmurray, pitti ^12:18
TrevinhoIt would be nice if you guys could provide a "single name" to ping the team alltogether, as it's not so easy to figure out who is in charge. And for xenial we'd need to do quite a lot of SRUs, and I'd like the process to be agile.12:19
TrevinhoAh, it seems I missed https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Publishing...12:32
TrevinhoThen... RAOF ^^ :)12:32
=== alex-abreu|off is now known as alex-abreu
seb128Trevinho, he's in .au so likely called it a day by now12:38
Trevinhoseb128: yeah... well, leaving that for tomorrow then12:43
seb128well maybe bdmurray or arges can help you and have a look, would be nice to get those in since LTS users missing menus is not nice and we should already have landed that earlier12:44
seb128but yeah, let's see12:44
LocutusOfBorgplease accept hexchat merge from new :)13:21
flexiondotorgLaney, I've just uploaded a bug fixed mate-panel 1.12.2-2 to xenial.14:19
flexiondotorgDo I need to file an SRU for that?14:19
flexiondotorgOne patch has been added.14:19
Laneyflexiondotorg: You need to make all linked bugs contain the required SRU information14:21
flexiondotorgSo create an SRU.14:22
flexiondotorgAnd a comment in the original bug with a link to the SRU?14:22
flexiondotorgAnd, an SRU is required.14:22
LaneyNo need to file a new bug if the changelog already contains one14:22
LaneyJust edit it14:22
flexiondotorgChange has the link to the bug.14:23
flexiondotorg*Changelog14:23
LaneyThen use that one14:23
flexiondotorgOK, so convert the existing bug into an SRU?14:23
Laneynod14:24
flexiondotorgThanks,.14:24
rbasakTechnically it's the act of uploading to Xenial (or another stable release) that makes it an SRU. One might consider a bug to have SRU information if it has SRU template style description and one or more bug tasks for stable releases.14:25
rbasak(if that helps make anything clearer)14:25
flexiondotorgrbasak, I've editted the original bug opening post to include the SRU template.14:33
stgraberrestarting queuebot, lets see if it's happier15:23
cjwatsonstgraber: thanks15:38
=== kip_busy is now known as kip_
=== Patrick is now known as SorryPat
=== SorryPat is now known as Patrick
slangasekcjwatson, infinity: the spikes on http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg where c-m wanted to demote a number of source packages approximately equal to the number of source packages in main are artifacts in the data, right? any objections to me cleaning those out?17:03
slangasekcjwatson, infinity: sorry, not http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg, I mean http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.csv17:05
cjwatsonslangasek: fine by me17:06
slangasekdone17:08
slangasek(backup taken, so revertible)17:08
robru^^ please reject these qtmir-gles uploads for xenial/vivid, those are mistakes.18:00
apwrobru, done18:12
slangasekrobru: done18:12
slangasek:)18:13
apwoh i wonder what that will do :)18:13
slangasekapw: you got them first, that explains why the commands silently succeeded for me ;)18:13
apwahh :)18:13
Saviqhi can someone please cancel/restart https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/1.13.2-0ubuntu23/+build/9668581 - it's building for 10h already where it should take ~25mins18:26
Saviqnot sure why the error in the first place, but it shouldn't be stuck for 10h anyway18:26
slangasekSaviq: retrying the build just increases the chances of us getting stuck with upstart binaries again on s390x, which were deliberately removed18:28
slangasekSaviq: I guess you care about this for ubuntu-app-launch + ubuntu-ui-toolkit?18:28
Saviqslangasek, yeah http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/yakkety/update_excuses.html#ubuntu-app-launch18:28
slangasekis this a new dependency introduced in the new ubuntu-app-launch in -proposed?18:29
Saviqtedg, ↑↑?18:29
Saviqslangasek, I doubt it, u-a-l was based on upstart since the beginning18:30
Saviqwe'll need to remove u-a-l and ubuntu-ui-toolkit s390x IIUC?18:30
slangasekSaviq: yes, that's probably what we want to do; but we don't want to just remove binaries and have them build again (and get stuck again) on the next upload. Can we have these packages declare a build-dep on upstart?18:31
slangasek(I can remove the binaries now so as not to require a new landing, but I don't want to do this without a committment to fix the underlying issue)18:31
Saviqslangasek, u-a-l already does18:33
slangasekhaha18:33
slangasekso it got built during the window when the upstart/s390x binary was in the archive before we removed it, fail18:33
slangasekSaviq: ok, ual binaries removed from yakkety-proposed for s390x; that should unblock, assuming there aren't other revdeps on ual that have also built on s390x and will also now need removal18:35
Saviqslangasek, but indeed ubuntu-ui-toolkit does not B-D on upstart - not sure if it should D on it in the first place18:36
slangasekalso, it's awfully unfriendly of proposed-migration to refuse to consider this package a candidate given that the same package is uninstallable already in yakkety on s390x18:36
* tedg back18:47
tedgThanks slangasek18:47
* pitti sighs at the xenial-proposed queue, ok, let's go19:59
pittimuch of it is just xnox doing half an archive rebuild :)20:04
slangasekpitti: hmm, did you see my notes on all of those SRU bugs? :)20:04
slangasekthose were !accepted because they're lacking autopkgtests and therefore an SRU regression test plan20:05
slangasekso, test plan still missing, but now they're in -proposed so at increased risk of publication without ever being tested <shrug>20:05
pittiright, so they need to be smoketested maunally20:06
pittislangasek: ah, ok (and no, didn't see your comment in the middle of the bug trail, sorry)20:07
pittiit seemed to me that without proposed binaries there's little chance of actually testing them20:07
pittileaving the others in -proposed then, resuming at cacti-spine20:08
bdmurrayslangasek: Could you fully phase this systemd SRU for xenial? the problems are all package install failures20:11
Saviqslangasek, do you need to delete the u-a-l packages too http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/yakkety/update_excuses.html#ubuntu-app-launch ?20:11
pittibdmurray: indeed, I saw another instance of bug 1560797, one instance of bug 1584751, and two failures of pam-auth-update; none of that was touched in the SRU, these were old bugs20:14
ubot5bug 1560797 in apt (Ubuntu Wily) "apt does not configure Pre-Depends: before depending package" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/156079720:14
ubot5bug 1584751 in systemd (Ubuntu) "package systemd 229-4ubuntu5 failed to install/upgrade: le sous-processus script pre-removal installé a retourné une erreur de sortie d'état 2" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/158475120:14
slangasekSaviq: dohh, I removed them from yakkety instead of yakkety-proposed? fixed now20:16
slangasekbdmurray: done20:17
Saviqslangasek, is this a new thing that we don't want upstart for s390x? it seems it was happily there for xenial?20:20
Saviqexcept for the -proposed versions that died on power and s390x...20:20
slangasekSaviq: it's only used for client sessions in xenial and beyond, which do not apply on s390x.  It built by chance on s390x before, then regressed due to problems apparently outside control of upstart itself20:21
Saviqslangasek, ack, filing a bug for uitk20:22
pittiarges: SRU handover for xenial: upower is from myself (review appreciated), everything else up to unity-control-center (my current top) is blocked on something and has bug followups20:43
pittiah, forgot some20:43
pittijamespage: crmsh in wily-proposed queue> this is essentially a backport, and wily seems mostly uninteresting for servers (even more now that xenial is released); does bug 1445616 still actually make sense to SRU?20:53
ubot5bug 1445616 in crmsh (Ubuntu Wily) "[SRU] crmsh in vivid/wily/xenial is not compatible with pacemaker" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/144561620:53
* pitti sees a bunch of similar major new upstream releases in https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/wily/+queue?queue_state=120:54
Saviqhrm should this not have gone away by now http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/yakkety/update_excuses.html#ubuntu-app-launch ¿?21:02
pitti ubuntu-app-launch          | 0.9+16.04.20160510.2-0ubuntu1 | yakkety-proposed/universe | source, amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x21:03
pittiSaviq: no ^21:03
pittis390x was removed from yakkety, but not yakkety-proposed21:03
Saviqslangasek, ↑?21:03
pittior it was and this is publisher/mirror lag21:03
Saviqack21:03
pittiarges: wily SRU handover> IMHO all the remaining packages in the queue (manila is my top one) should be rejected and not be an SRU21:08
pittibugs commented on21:08
pitticaribou: ping @ bug 153278921:17
ubot5bug 1532789 in multipath-tools (Ubuntu Trusty) "Trusty multipath-tools suffering seg faults" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/153278921:17
slangasekpitti, Saviq: yes, publisher + proposed-migration delay; should look better on the next run21:34
Saviqack21:34
Saviqindeed it's already gone21:35
pitti*phew, SRU queues all processed21:41
argespitti: ack21:47

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!