=== decoder_ is now known as decoder [13:09] hello [13:10] is there anyone compiled ubuntu xenial kernel on ubuntu trusty ? [13:12] It seems it requires linux-libc-dev_4.4.0-36.55_amd64.deb installed on ubuntu trusty [13:14] I am talking about https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1626838, can any one can help ? [13:14] Ubuntu bug 1626838 in linux (Ubuntu) "yakkety compiling failed on ubuntu trusty" [Undecided,Confirmed] [13:46] shalq: the missing modules all seem related to ZFS ? [13:51] also, there are xenial kernels in the trusty-updates repositories, but they don't include ZFS support [13:58] JanC, ZFS was not supported until Wily (which is EOL) [14:02] yeah, I know, but in theory ZFS modules/utilities/libraries/etc. could have been added together with the xenial kernels in trusty [14:07] JanC, until there is user space support, it doesn't make much sense to turn on ZFS modules in the kernel. [14:08] oh sure (I don't know exactly what would need support even) [14:09] I guess it would all have to go in -backports [14:10] actually, I have a bug with ZFS in nautilus that I should file :) [14:10] I think there is a plan to backport user space [14:13] probably a bug in gvfs [14:25] JanC: so if the ZFS is backport, then the issue should be gone , right ? [14:25] I don't know [14:26] I run the compile inside a xenial docker, the compile has no any issue. [14:26] I'm not even sure what causes your problem, just saw that the "missing modules" are all ZFS-related [14:27] and if it works otherwise, then the missing modules is probably harmless [14:29] maybe you could build the yakkety kernel without ZFS & its related modules [14:29] you mean remove those missing modules from generic flavor ? [14:34] I am not farmilar with ZFS, not sure what impact if remove them, so I don't want to remove modules if I really know it well and don't want it . [14:36] ZFS is a file system; if you don't use it then you don't need any of those modules... [14:37] and like I said before: the xenial kerel in trusty has ZFS-support removed too [14:41] just wonder different build result between trusty and xenial. If I want to build a xenial kernel, which build server version should I use , trusty or xenial ? I suppose both have the same result, not sure [14:42] it is interesting topic, I don't find any doc for suggestion . === JanC is now known as Guest73904 === JanC_ is now known as JanC [15:00] I think it is better to build xenial kernel on xenial server, it then has no dependency, so if I only have trusty, I can start a docker container with xenial, and run compile in the xenial container, and then get the kernel pkg [15:01] is there any concern if I build ubuntu kernel inside a docker container ? from my testing, it works very well, no any depencency issue. [16:37] apw, Hi! My system comes to a crawl while compiling code. This was definitely not happening with the 4.4 kernel. Is that something of a known issue ? [16:38] Its a thinkpad X1Carbon. [16:39] om26er, not known i don't think no, which kernel, there is a new -16 (yep, yet another kernel) as of today [16:39] apw, yes, updated that as well. Same results. [16:39] om26er, ok cna you file a bug please [16:40] apw, will do that. Also now there is a lag in screen brightness key press and the brightness actually changing. [16:40] like 2seconds [16:41] om26er, yes _that_ one we know, that is related to a ubuntu-settings-daemon change whihc is triggering a whole login to set the brightness [16:41] _that_ one is not kernel, most every other problem is, but not that one [16:42] apw, ok, thanks. Reporting the system slowness now. [16:42] om26er, drop the bug number in here please [16:44] bug 1627108 [16:44] bug 1627108 in linux (Ubuntu) "X1Carbon comes to a crawl during high CPU usage tasks" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1627108 [16:45] om26er, hey htat is reporting that you have -15 running [16:46] apw, it came in today in updates [16:46] and there is a -16 since then, its moving like a train [16:46] apw, ah, -16 is in -proposed [16:46] will update to that first. [16:47] ahh yes, i thought it had made it further [21:51] jdstrand: offtopic, this branch was there to test if the unexpected unmount of the core snap is caused by the test that was fiddling with cgroups: https://github.com/snapcore/snap-confine/pull/152