[01:19] <xnox> RAOF, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Snapcraft & https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SnapcraftUpdates
[01:19] <xnox> at the moment snapcraft turn-around time is about 2 days.
[01:22] <RAOF> xnox: Doesn't actually mention a lower xenial-proposed baking time (I'd read that as just ‘yes, you can SRU this’), but sure. :)
[06:48] <flexiondotorg> stgraber, balloons There are very few test cases shown for the 16.10 Alpha 1 - http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/362/builds
[07:19] <tsimonq2> yes, we need more to be able to properly test
[07:19] <tsimonq2> nice catch flexiondotorg
[07:44] <infinity> tjaalton: FYI: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-toolchain-3.8/1:3.8-2ubuntu3~trusty2
[07:46] <tjaalton> infinity: ah, cool
[08:28] <flexiondotorg> infinity, any chance you can add the test cases to the Alpha 1 iso tracker please?
[09:45] <tjaalton> infinity: found a bug in xenial xserver, the dev package would pull newer coreproto which doesn't exist so relaxed that dep and will now test builds on the ppa.. but you can drop xserver from the queue
[10:30] <flexiondotorg> Laney, cjwatson Can you recommend someone to sort the QA tracker for alpha 1 please?
[10:30] <flexiondotorg> http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/362/builds
[10:30] <flexiondotorg> No test cases and no way to mark isos ready.
[10:31] <Odd_Bloke> flexiondotorg: stgraber is involved there, I believe.
[10:38] <Laney> I can copy the latest builds there
[10:38] <Laney> is http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/series/58/manifest right?
[10:46] <flexiondotorg> Laney, yes, that looks correct to me.
[10:46] <flexiondotorg> Thanks
[10:55] <LocutusOfBorg> can anybody please demote mrpt to let opencv migrate when ready?
[10:55] <LocutusOfBorg> it is FTBFS in debian too
[11:22] <Laney> flexiondotorg: eet eez done
[11:22] <flexiondotorg> Thanks.
[11:22] <tsimonq2> \o/ thanks
[13:09] <sergiusens> arges hey, good morning, I want to ask if you can open the floodgate for snapcraft 2.12 on xenial
[13:10] <arges> sergiusens: i'll takea look
[13:11] <sergiusens> arges thank you very much!
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> when will the freeze block be removed?
[14:32] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, normally things are aiming for thrusday releases ...
[14:34] <LocutusOfBorg> ok tomorrow then
[14:34] <LocutusOfBorg> I saw some building of alpha images
[14:34] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks
[15:12] <doko> LocutusOfBorg, you just touch virtualbox, how did you fix https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20160614/+build/10010135 ?
[15:13] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, the usual fix, let me grab it
[15:14] <LocutusOfBorg> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-virtualbox/virtualbox.git/tree/configure#n437
[15:14] <LocutusOfBorg> patching here is fine
[15:14] <doko> ta
[15:14] <LocutusOfBorg> oh, the current configure should be fine for every gcc 5 and 6.1 :)
[15:14] <LocutusOfBorg> yw
[15:14] <LocutusOfBorg> the one in git I mean
[15:15] <doko> hmm, this is strange ...
[15:15] <LocutusOfBorg> e.g. http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-virtualbox/virtualbox.git/commit/debian/patches?id=260abfbcbf34a376eacbee2a21b8bb2a1f896260
[15:15] <LocutusOfBorg> this patch should be fine
[15:15] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, why do you have this issue?
[15:16] <LocutusOfBorg> you want gcc-5.4 in xenial?
[15:16] <LocutusOfBorg> I propose to SRU virtualbox then
[15:17] <doko> LocutusOfBorg, can you prepare a SRU, and do a test build using the ubuntu-toolchain-r/ppa PPA?
[15:17] <flexiondotorg> stgraber, Please can you unblock ubuntu-mate-welcome/16.10.5.1
[15:18] <flexiondotorg> Currently sitting in proposed.
[15:18] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, ok
[15:18] <LocutusOfBorg> I will
[15:18] <LocutusOfBorg> 5.0.24 is not syncd yet
[15:21] <stgraber> flexiondotorg: done
[15:21] <flexiondotorg> stgraber, ty
[15:23] <stgraber> looking at fixing the testsuites but looks like a few flavors went and fixed it themselves, breaking the script
[15:24] <stgraber> ok, removed all testsuites for yakkety and then copied xenial to yakkety again, that should do the trick
[15:34] <doko> tjaalton, infinity: I set https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libdrm/+bug/1577734 to failed. wondering why this is not renamed. told you about it before ...
[16:14] <infinity> tjaalton: Looks like I can't accept/build mesa until you've addressed doko's libllvm concerns.
[16:14] <infinity> tjaalton: Since mesa ends up depending on it.
[16:24] <tjaalton> doko: ok, that must've been ages ago..
[16:25] <tjaalton> infinity: i'll fix it in a bit
[16:26] <doko> tjaalton, and remove the Breaks: libllvm3.8v4 ...
[16:26] <tjaalton> doko: so just rename the one binary?
[16:27] <doko> tjaalton, yes
[16:28] <doko> tjaalton, you have to do that for every backport of a new c++ lib version which had a library transition
[16:28] <tjaalton> there shouldn't be others?
[16:29] <doko> I don't know what else you backport ;p
[16:29] <tjaalton> nothing in c++
[16:30] <tjaalton> that bug should have the unrenamed bits, though libevdev might be added to the list
[16:31] <tjaalton> silly autofolder thinks Reporter >> Assignee
[16:31] <tjaalton> I didn't see the emails
[16:31] <doko> done for today, afk now
[16:40] <tjaalton> infinity: btw you can build the randr stuff now, proto first
[16:41] <tjaalton> llvm uploaded
[16:41] <infinity> Ta.
[16:44] <tjaalton> afk ->
[18:26] <flexiondotorg> infinity, Weird things are happening for the rebuild request for Ubuntu MATE isos.
[18:26] <flexiondotorg> I kicked off a rebuild earlier.
[18:26] <flexiondotorg> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/cd-build-logs/ubuntu-mate/yakkety/daily-live-20160629.log
[18:27] <flexiondotorg> livefs has built but not new isos have appeared.
[18:27] <flexiondotorg> Can you shed any light on this?
[18:28] <flexiondotorg> infinity, Hmmm. amd64 is taking its time - https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/+livefs/ubuntu/yakkety/ubuntu-mate/+build/66978
[18:28] <flexiondotorg> Normal?
[18:29] <flexiondotorg> 2.5 hours so far creating the sqaushfs.
[18:33] <slangasek> flexiondotorg: where do you get the 2.5 hours? that page says "started 1 hour ago"
[18:34] <slangasek> oh, I guess you're looking at the timestamp, but the timestamp is UTC; so that's 1h27m ago
[18:34] <slangasek> which is definitely long
[18:35] <slangasek> flexiondotorg: I think we want to kill it and kick a new one
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> [2016-06-29 17:07:42] lb_binary_rootfs
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> P: Begin building root filesystem image...
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> P: Preparing squashfs image...
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> P: This may take a while.
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> 17:07:42 ~= 2.5 hours ago.
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> Just saw your backlog.
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> OK.
[18:36] <flexiondotorg> Shall I request a stop and rebuild request?
[18:37] <wxl> 18-17 = 1 not 2? XD
[18:37] <flexiondotorg> wxl, I was looking at local time 19:37
[18:38] <wxl> flexiondotorg: silly bear. don't you know that utc is the only time? XD
[18:38] <stgraber> canceled the build
[18:38] <flexiondotorg> I do know UTC, I used to make avionic parts.
[18:38] <stgraber> waiting for nusakan to notice then we can re-trigger
[18:38] <flexiondotorg> stgraber, Thank you.
[18:40] <stgraber> flexiondotorg: you should be able to trigger a new build
[18:49] <flexiondotorg> stgraber, Thanks. Will do.
[21:02] <mterry> I see gucharmap has a -proposed migration block?  "due to block request by freeze"
[21:08] <apw> mterry, we are in alpha1 freeze
[21:08] <mterry> apw, ah!  I hadn't looked at the yakkety calendar, didn't realize it was upon us already   :)
[21:09] <apw> should lift tommorrow all things being equal
[21:12] <slangasek> and why is this causing packages to be frozen?
[21:13] <apw> it is a seeded packages block we are taliking about
[21:14] <slangasek> stgraber: what generate-freeze-block command did you use to generate the current hint?  (could we please make it a habit of including the full command in the hint comment, for transparency?)
[21:18] <stgraber>   109  ./generate-freeze-block ubuntukylin lubuntu ubuntu-mate >> ../hints-ubuntu//freeze
[21:18] <stgraber> slangasek: ^
[21:18] <slangasek> thx
[21:46] <flexiondotorg> stgraber, slangasek Thanks for the help earlier. I've got new Ubuntu MATE images and been able to complete the testing :-)
[21:46] <slangasek> flexiondotorg: spiff :)
[22:58] <nacc> so the freeze also affects SRUs to xenial?
[23:03] <slangasek> nacc: no
[23:04] <nacc> slangasek: hrm, http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/xenial/update_excuses.html "Not touching package due to block request by freeze (contact #ubuntu-release if update is needed)"
[23:04] <nacc> that's for the php7.0 SRU
[23:06] <nacc> slangasek: ah, and in that case, as well, does the SRU team need to manually approve the "new" binaries so they actually show up in -proposed?
[23:14] <nacc> slangasek: or am i misreading the excuses output?
[23:21] <cyphermox> slangasek: could you please unblock shim-signed? we should move forward on the shim-signed SRUs
[23:26] <slangasek> nacc: stable releases are always frozen, and we don't use proposed-migration currently to propagate packages to -updates, so that output is true but irrelevant :)
[23:27] <nacc> slangasek: oh ok :)
[23:32] <mwhudson> slangasek: oh yeah, i was looking at that
[23:33] <mwhudson> slangasek: it looks as if you _could_ use a hint to propagate a package to -updates
[23:33] <mwhudson> but i don't know enough about how things are deployed to be sure
[23:37] <cjwatson> mwhudson: We've long wanted to get there, but right now nothing will react to that hint and do the right copy.
[23:37] <mwhudson> fair enough
[23:40] <nacc> slangasek: sorry, was just a complete thinko on my part; but was i correct in that 'new' binary packages won't show up automatically (in the SRU process)? i'm specifically trying to test the php7.0 sru which brought in a new upstream version
[23:43] <nacc> ah maybe it's just waiting to be copied still. /me will check in the AM