| slangasek | sigh, why is all of suitesparse in main | 00:28 |
|---|---|---|
| * slangasek slowly unpicks the migration knot | 00:28 | |
| mwhudson | slangasek: thanks (or at least i assume that was you :-p) | 00:43 |
| slangasek | mwhudson: you're welcome ;) | 00:44 |
| elopio | slangasek: any idea why am I not getting snapcraft after adding proposed from the main archive to the sources? | 00:52 |
| elopio | http://paste.ubuntu.com/17106219/ | 00:53 |
| elopio | arges: are you around? | 01:38 |
| jbicha | elopio: snapcraft is in the new queue because snapcraft-parser is a new binary | 01:54 |
| jbicha | https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/xenial/+queue | 01:55 |
| elopio | jbicha: damn. How can we move it forward? | 02:14 |
| jbicha | any new package has to be manually approved by one of https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive | 02:15 |
| elopio | wgrant: hello :) | 02:19 |
| elopio | thanks for the info jbicha. I had no idea about that. | 02:20 |
| cjwatson | elopio: accepted | 02:22 |
| elopio | cjwatson: \o/ thank you! | 02:22 |
| mwhudson | where did queuebot go? | 02:24 |
| teward | it went to bed for the evening? :P | 02:26 |
| elopio | is there anything else needed to get snapcraft into proposed? or just wait for the servers to sync? | 02:47 |
| cjwatson | elopio: just wait a bit | 03:06 |
| cjwatson | but anyway, I really really must stop optimising postgresql queries and GO TO BED | 03:06 |
| elopio | cjwatson: good night! | 03:15 |
| ChrisTownsend | slangasek: No, https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/static/britney/xenial/landing-051/excuses.html still never completed. I saw in the log on http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/running.shtml while it was running that it looked like it set up some sort of lxd(?), then it rebooted, then saw a bunch of lines that said something like "ssh: Cannot make secure connection. Retry in 3 seconds..." and it seems to have timed out and failed. | 11:26 |
| sergiusens | infinity or bdmurray I was directed to you. I uploaded a package to SRU into xenial. Everything has been verified except for one small bug I'd rather have fixed before releasing. My question is about debian/changelog, -proposed has 2.10 with its changelog, should I upload 2.10.1 with a changelog entry of the fix only or should I replicate 2.10's changelog into 2.10.1. I am asking to know what to do that the infra would handle | 13:55 |
| ogra_ | if you do that you most likely want to use -v2.10 when building the sroucne package so both changelog entires show up in the upload | 13:57 |
| cjwatson | You shouldn't replicate the changelog entry. It used to be that you needed to do what ogra_ says (except he meant -v2.9 I think), but that should no longer be necessary. | 13:58 |
| cjwatson | I think you'll be fine with just a changelog entry describing the thing you're fixing in 2.10.1. | 13:58 |
| sergiusens | ogra_ yeah, 2.10.1 would go on top of 2.10 ... but last time I did that, the infra only marked the latest changelog for verification | 13:58 |
| ogra_ | yeah, sorrym living in the past here :) | 13:59 |
| cjwatson | But if you want to be extra-safe, build with -v2.9. | 13:59 |
| sergiusens | cjwatson great I'll go with extra safe. Thanks | 13:59 |
| cjwatson | sergiusens: FWIW I believe I fixed the infrastructure to traverse all -proposed versions since the most recent in release/-updates in January 2013 | 14:00 |
| cjwatson | Well I say infrastructure, it's not very infra, it's the web report generator, but anyway | 14:01 |
| sergiusens | cjwatson I will need to look into this issue I ran into then and report back :-) | 14:01 |
| cjwatson | It may depend on whether you think it's appropriate for all the bugs fixed in 2.10 to be marked for reverification even if they were already verified. | 14:03 |
| cjwatson | If the answer is yes, use -v2.9; if the answer is no, don't. | 14:03 |
| slashd | morning arges, LP: 1484740 affects "Trusty ", can you please nominate it for Trusty ? | 15:57 |
| ubot5 | Launchpad bug 1484740 in trousers (Ubuntu) "14.04 trousers version 0.3.11.2-1 fails to start with TPM device" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1484740 | 15:57 |
| arges | slashd: done | 15:59 |
| slashd | arges, tks | 15:59 |
| slangasek | ChrisTownsend: fwiw whatever problem landing-051 had with autopkgtesting, I see results on that excuses page now | 16:31 |
| ChrisTownsend | slangasek: Yeah, thanks, pitti helped me out. | 16:32 |
| slangasek | ChrisTownsend: ah - what was the problem? | 16:33 |
| ChrisTownsend | slangasek: I'm not really sure, but it was supposedly related to the PS outae yesterday. | 16:34 |
| === Guest47242 is now known as med_ | ||
| ginggs | slangasek: hi, the test case for LP: #1556685 is in the SRU bug LP: #1556680 | 17:16 |
| ubot5 | Launchpad bug 1556685 in oce (Ubuntu Xenial) "Wrong installation path (0.16 instead of 0.17)" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1556685 | 17:16 |
| ubot5 | Launchpad bug 1556680 in oce (Ubuntu Xenial) "[SRU] Wrong library path in CMake file for 64bit system" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1556680 | 17:16 |
| slangasek | ginggs: ok; did you see the previous message from pitti on bug #1556685? it had been marked incomplete 8 days ago and was awaiting feedback | 18:40 |
| ubot5 | bug 1556685 in oce (Ubuntu Xenial) "Wrong installation path (0.16 instead of 0.17)" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1556685 | 18:40 |
| slangasek | ginggs: if you could please put a relevant test case in each bug linked from the SRU changelog, that would let the process run more smoothly | 18:41 |
| ginggs | slangasek: no sorry, i only saw it now, i didn't get subscribed to that bug | 18:41 |
| ginggs | the bug where pitti commented | 18:41 |
| slangasek | ginggs: thus, rejecting the SRU has the right effect of triggering action ;) | 18:41 |
| ginggs | slangasek: :) | 18:42 |
| slangasek | meanwhile, let's deal with the octave g++5 abi transition, which was done in Debian last September but never merged into Ubuntu until yakkety opened, hnnngh | 18:43 |
| ginggs | slangasek: i saw you promoted metis, thanks, so now suitesparse (which is mixed up with octave) is good to go | 18:54 |
| ginggs | i'm still having trouble decyphering http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_output.txt | 18:54 |
| ginggs | to me it looks like fsl might be one of the problems | 18:55 |
| ginggs | and in its buid log it looks like two different versions of suitesparse were used | 18:55 |
| ginggs | i'm not sure why fsl doesn't appear in the transition tracker though | 18:56 |
| slangasek | hmm I haven't checked transition trackers for it frankly | 19:05 |
| sergiusens | arges mind looking at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/xenial/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=snapcraft really small one related to the conversation from earler | 21:14 |
| sergiusens | much appreciated | 21:24 |
| sergiusens | slangasek if you are still around, mind looking at ^ | 21:26 |
| slangasek | sergiusens: looking | 21:27 |
| slangasek | sergiusens: please note that listing all of these bug references in your changelog for an SRU is going to slow you down; you're not using the exception process when you list individual bugfixes like this | 21:29 |
| slangasek | SRUs don't move until all of the referenced bugs are marked verification-done | 21:30 |
| sergiusens | slangasek I really don't mind the creating a bug for each item and I am certain elopio prefers this mechanism as well to make sure we never regress. The slow part for me is getting out of the unapproved queue :-) | 21:42 |
| slangasek | sergiusens: interestingly, I see that all the bugs referenced in 2.10 just flipped to verification-done... even though there's a regression that you're fixing with 2.10.1 | 21:43 |
| sergiusens | slangasek yes, elopio decided to create a new bug which is the one mentioned in 2.10.1 I added the original bug that caused the bug to exist as a coment https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapcraft/+bug/1590256 | 21:46 |
| ubot5 | Launchpad bug 1590256 in snapcraft (Ubuntu Yakkety) "snapcraft clean -s strip doesn't show the deprecation message" [Undecided,New] | 21:46 |
| sergiusens | slangasek I could mark it as a dup if it satisfies SRU requirements | 21:46 |
| slangasek | sergiusens: well, to avoid accidental publication of SRUs that are verification-done, please make sure that one of the bugs for the SRU that you *don't* want published gets marked verification-failed instead :) | 21:47 |
| sergiusens | slangasek done | 21:49 |
| slangasek | ok | 21:49 |
| slangasek | once 2.10.1 shows up on http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html you can safely reset it | 21:50 |
| sergiusens | slangasek btw, should snapcraft be MIRed, I was under the impression it shouldn't but oversaw a question of the type "has it been done yet" | 22:10 |
| slangasek | sergiusens: things that we care about supporting ought to go into main, which means going through the MIR process | 22:33 |
| sergiusens | slangasek thanks I'll ask ogra_ for help on that as he's been doing a lot of those lately ;-) | 22:41 |
| elopio | slangasek: sergiusens: verification done for that bug. Should I mark as verification-done also the one that failed? | 22:48 |
| elopio | oh, Sergio already did that. | 22:49 |
| sergiusens | yup | 22:49 |
| sergiusens | now we wait I guess :-) | 22:50 |
| slangasek | elopio, sergiusens: if you're happy with snapcraft 2.10.1 (which is suggested by all the bugs being v-done), I can release it now | 23:37 |
| elopio | slangasek: yes, please. | 23:48 |
| slangasek | elopio: done | 23:52 |
| sergiusens | ty | 23:58 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!