[13:09] <shalq> hello
[13:10] <shalq> is there anyone compiled ubuntu xenial kernel on ubuntu trusty ?
[13:12] <shalq> It seems it requires linux-libc-dev_4.4.0-36.55_amd64.deb installed on ubuntu trusty
[13:14] <shalq> I am talking about https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1626838, can any one can help ?
[13:14] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 1626838 in linux (Ubuntu) "yakkety compiling failed on ubuntu trusty" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[13:46] <JanC> shalq: the missing modules all seem related to ZFS ?
[13:51] <JanC> also, there are xenial kernels in the trusty-updates repositories, but they don't include ZFS support
[13:58] <rtg> JanC, ZFS was not supported until Wily (which is EOL)
[14:02] <JanC> yeah, I know, but in theory ZFS modules/utilities/libraries/etc. could have been added together with the xenial kernels in trusty
[14:07] <rtg> JanC, until there is user space support, it doesn't make much sense to turn on ZFS modules in the kernel.
[14:08] <JanC> oh sure (I don't know exactly what would need support even)
[14:09] <JanC> I guess it would all have to go in -backports
[14:10] <JanC> actually, I have a bug with ZFS in nautilus that I should file  :)
[14:10] <rtg> I think there is a plan to backport user space
[14:13] <JanC> probably a bug in gvfs
[14:25] <shalq> JanC: so if the ZFS is backport, then the issue should be gone , right ?
[14:25] <JanC> I don't know
[14:26] <shalq> I run the compile inside a xenial docker, the compile has no any issue.
[14:26] <JanC> I'm not even sure what causes your problem, just saw that the "missing modules" are all ZFS-related
[14:27] <JanC> and if it works otherwise, then the missing modules is probably harmless
[14:29] <JanC> maybe you could build the yakkety kernel without ZFS & its related modules
[14:29] <shalq> you mean remove those missing modules from generic flavor ?
[14:34] <shalq> 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] <JanC> ZFS is a file system; if you don't use it then you don't need any of those modules...
[14:37] <JanC> and like I said before: the xenial kerel in trusty has ZFS-support removed too
[14:41] <shalq> 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] <shalq> it is interesting topic, I don't find any doc for suggestion .
[15:00] <shalq> 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] <shalq> 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] <om26er> 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] <om26er> Its a thinkpad X1Carbon.
[16:39] <apw> om26er, not known i don't think no, which kernel, there is a new -16 (yep, yet another kernel) as of today
[16:39] <om26er> apw, yes, updated that as well. Same results.
[16:39] <apw> om26er, ok cna you file a bug please
[16:40] <om26er> apw, will do that. Also now there is a lag in screen brightness key press and the brightness actually changing.
[16:40] <om26er> like 2seconds
[16:41] <apw> 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] <apw> _that_ one is not kernel, most every other problem is, but not that one
[16:42] <om26er> apw, ok, thanks. Reporting the system slowness now.
[16:42] <apw> om26er, drop the bug number in here please
[16:44] <om26er> bug 1627108
[16:44] <ubot5`> bug 1627108 in linux (Ubuntu) "X1Carbon comes to a crawl during high CPU usage tasks" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1627108
[16:45] <apw> om26er, hey htat is reporting that you have -15 running
[16:46] <om26er> apw, it came in today in updates
[16:46] <apw> and there is a -16 since then, its moving like a train
[16:46] <om26er> apw, ah, -16 is in -proposed
[16:46] <om26er> will update to that first.
[16:47] <apw> ahh yes, i thought it had made it further
[21:51] <zyga> 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