[00:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted freeipmi [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.4.11-1.1ubuntu2~0.16.10]
[00:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted freeipmi [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.4.11-1.1ubuntu2~0.16.04]
[00:05] <RAOF> lamont: Today's fish is trout ala creme. Enjoy your meal.
[00:05] <lamont> yum
[00:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1:16.10.9]
[06:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pbuilder (yakkety-proposed/main) [0.226.1 => 0.226.1ubuntu0.1] (core)
[09:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted python-django [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.6.11-0ubuntu1]
[10:10] <rbasak> pitti: you accepted ido to xenial bug 1506427 and it looks ready to release. But that would put xenial's version higher than the latest in yakkety.
[10:10] <ubot5`> bug 1506427 in ido (Ubuntu Xenial) "Using calendar with keys might cause Indicator-datetime to crash unity-panel-service" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1506427
[10:11] <pitti> rbasak: right, that's a blocker for releasing
[10:13] <rbasak> pitti: do you normally check the version before accept or before release?
[10:13] <rbasak> IOW, is it part of the normal process for it to get this far?
[10:14] <rbasak> And should it be just not be released, or marked v-f?
[10:14] <pitti> rbasak: usually, but seems I forgot/misread it in this cae
[10:14] <pitti> no, it's not v-failed
[10:14] <rbasak> OK
[10:14] <pitti> as x an y have the same version, we could just forward-copy it to y as well
[10:14] <pitti> or ask Trevinho to prepare an y SRU too
[10:15] <pitti> i. e. forward-copy to y-proposed and ask for testing
[10:15] <rbasak> If forward-copying, we'd need to verify on Yakkety too presumably?
[10:15] <pitti> right
[10:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ido (yakkety-proposed/main) [13.10.0+15.10.20151002-0ubuntu1 => 13.10.0+16.04.20161028-0ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop) (sync)
[10:19] <rbasak> Ah, I was just preparing that command
[10:19] <rbasak> For future reference, would copy-package -n -b --from-suite=xen
[10:19] <rbasak> ial-proposed --to-suite=yakkety-proposed ido
[10:19] <pitti> rbasak: copied and bug updated
[10:19] <rbasak>  have been right?
[10:19] <rbasak> pitti: thanks!
[10:20] <pitti> rbasak: that's what I did (sans -b)
[10:20] <pitti> err, sans -n of course
[10:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ido [sync] (yakkety-proposed) [13.10.0+16.04.20161028-0ubuntu1]
[10:20] <rbasak> OK, thank you!
[10:20] <pitti> thanks for pointing out!
[11:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dbus (xenial-proposed/main) [1.10.6-1ubuntu3.1 => 1.10.6-1ubuntu3.2] (core)
[11:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: unity-gtk-module (xenial-proposed/main) [0.0.0+15.04.20150118-0ubuntu2 => 0.0.0+15.04.20150118-0ubuntu3] (ubuntu-desktop)
[13:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted init-system-helpers [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.29ubuntu4]
[13:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted apport [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.20.1-0ubuntu2.2]
[13:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted u-boot [source] (xenial-proposed) [2016.01+dfsg1-2ubuntu2]
[13:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted flash-kernel [source] (xenial-proposed) [3.0~rc.4ubuntu62.1.1]
[13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted linux-firmware-raspi2 [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.20161020-0ubuntu1~0.1]
[13:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted python-virtualenv [source] (xenial-proposed) [15.0.1+ds-3ubuntu1]
[13:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted squirrelmail [source] (xenial-proposed) [2:1.4.23~svn20120406-2ubuntu1.16.04.1]
[13:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted squirrelmail [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2:1.4.23~svn20120406-2ubuntu1.16.10.1]
[13:57] <Odd_Bloke> cloud-init on https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/trusty/update_excuses.html says "Not touching package due to block request by freeze"; what's causing that?
[13:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: simplestreams (xenial-proposed/main) [0.1.0~bzr426-0ubuntu1.1 => 0.1.0~bzr426-0ubuntu1.2] (ubuntu-server)
[14:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: neutron (trusty-proposed/main) [1:2014.1.5-0ubuntu7 => 1:2014.1.5-0ubuntu8] (ubuntu-server)
[14:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-libusb1 [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6-1] (no packageset)
[15:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytango [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [9.2.0-2] (no packageset)
[15:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytango [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [9.2.0-2] (no packageset)
[15:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted lxde-common [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [0.99.2-2]
[15:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-libusb1 [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [1.6-1]
[15:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytango [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [9.2.0-2] (no packageset)
[15:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytango [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [9.2.0-2] (no packageset)
[15:36] <lamont> rbasak: you around?
[15:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytango [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [9.2.0-2] (no packageset)
[15:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-initramfs-tools (xenial-proposed/main) [0.27ubuntu1.3 => 0.27ubuntu1.4] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[15:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: initramfs-tools (xenial-proposed/main) [0.122ubuntu8.6 => 0.122ubuntu8.7] (core)
[15:37] <rbasak> lamont: o/
[15:37] <lamont> rbasak: can you let c-i-t and i-t into xenial-proposed pls?
[15:38] <lamont> I will have at least one for yakkety, once I finish testing it
[15:40] <rbasak> lamont: has smoser reviewed these diffs?
[15:40] <lamont> rbasak: he reviewed their predecessors, causing the need for the diff you see in c-i-t with his review, and finally letting me test his upload from monday, which has issuese on xenial and was not complete
[15:41] <rbasak> This is a mess :-(
[15:41] <lamont> iow, no he hasn't, but they're fixing things that would have been caught earlier if we had the packages, or were caused by said review
[15:41] <lamont> you don't want me to get going...
[15:41]  * lamont is on holiday today
[15:42] <rbasak> It feels like uploaders are throwing things at the SRU team in the hope that something will stick.
[15:44] <jamespage> rbasak, hey could the yakkety bit for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ceph/+bug/1587261 be released as well please
[15:45] <rbasak> Right now I have zero confidence that anything involving this bug won't cause regressions, because I can't keep track of who has uploaded what, reviewed what, accepted what into proposed and released what into updates, multiplied by three releases.
[15:45] <rbasak> jamespage: I skipped Yakkety this morning because bug 1631328 hasn't yet been verified.
[15:46] <jamespage> rbasak, hmm verification-done-yakkety should indicate that its done
[15:46] <lamont> rbasak: the short history is that there were issues with the original uploads, so they were reverted.  After that it has been a long series of TRYING TO ACTUALLY GET STUFF TO TEST, where some people insist on only uploading them to -proposed, or making additional/different changes from what was tested in the PPA to do the upload to -proposed
[15:47] <lamont> rbasak: see also /query
[15:47] <rbasak> jamespage: I don't see that tag.
[15:47] <jamespage> rbasak, its there :-)
[15:48] <rbasak> jamespage: are we looking at the same bug?
[15:48] <rbasak> https://bugs.launchpad.net/charms/+source/ceph-osd/+bug/1631328
[15:48] <jamespage> rbasak, no
[15:48] <jamespage> bug 1587261
[15:49] <smoser> lamont, i suspect your issue is really https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1629972
[15:50] <lamont> smoser: and the way that bug is correctly fixed in xenial is to say 'manual' in the interface line
[15:50] <jamespage> rbasak, I'd not spotted that one - marked verification done as well (I re-tested this all earlier in the week)
[15:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: double-conversion [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:50] <lamont> smoser: and please, let's not rehash the last month on this my first day of vacation, OK?
[15:51] <smoser> lamont, well, your change is not needed if the fix to not take down 'lo' is applied in ifupdown
[15:51] <rbasak> jamespage: OK. I'd like to wait for http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html to go green - avoids human error.
[15:51] <smoser> which is why you dont see the issue in yakkety+
[15:51] <lamont> smoser: I'm a big fan of not landing YET MORE CHANGES as part of this (now fully) tested mess
[15:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: double-conversion [arm64] (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: double-conversion [armhf] (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: double-conversion [amd64] (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: double-conversion [i386] (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: double-conversion [s390x] (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:55] <rbasak> I am unwilling to accept a mess.
[15:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: double-conversion [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[15:55] <rbasak> If multiple iterations are needed until everyone involved is happy with an SRU, then so be it.
[15:56] <rbasak> Those iterations should ideally happen before upload.
[15:57] <lamont> rbasak: you think? ;2~^*%&^*)&(
[15:58] <lamont> they started life in a ppa, and were working just fine in late october.  Getting those through to actual "approved" uploads is how we got to the uploads to -proposed friday/monday/tuesday.  In that time, changes were introduced that caused them to not work, whcih are what my uploads are fixing now.
[16:00] <lamont> and yes, those review changes should have gone into a ppa first.
[16:00] <smoser> lamont, your latest set of changes there really are not correct.
[16:01] <lamont> I'm certain that this will be a favorite conversation topic at a sprint next week.
[16:01] <lamont> smoser: of course you say that
[16:01] <smoser> they may solve your issue, but they change the ENI written by cloud-initramfs-dyn-netconf
[16:01] <smoser> making it differ from those that are written by cloud-init
[16:02] <lamont> and?
[16:02] <smoser> so instead of the iscsi root boot getting the same ENI in xenial and in yakkety or zesty, you'll get a different one.
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted double-conversion [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1]
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted double-conversion [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1]
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted double-conversion [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1]
[16:02] <smoser> only so that you can "fix" this issue that has a proper fix in the bug i pointed at
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted double-conversion [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1]
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted double-conversion [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1]
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted double-conversion [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1]
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted double-conversion [i386] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.1-4ubuntu1]
[16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytango [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [9.2.0-2] (no packageset)
[16:03] <lamont> smoser: this would have been a good discussion to have when you merged the chagnes november 2nd, and gave me packages for testing and we discovered this.
[16:03] <lamont> only no packages were created
[16:04] <smoser> ? where did i merge those changes ?
[16:04] <smoser> maybe i've forgotten something
[16:04] <lamont> https://code.launchpad.net/~lamont/cloud-initramfs-tools/bug-1621615-device6 was what you merged into trunk
[16:04] <smoser> trunk still writes what xenial-proposed writes.
[16:05] <smoser> xenial-proposed is a backport of trunk from tip-1
[16:05] <lamont> no comparison to the ppa where we had those changes in the xenial version of c-i-t were looked at, nor was a xenial "official" upload prepared until the 28th, which is how we are having this discusion now, instead of then
[16:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytango [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [9.2.0-2] (no packageset)
[16:08] <lamont> smoser: but it doesn't write what the xenial version in my ppa wrote, that was verified to be working in late october.  The backport of the MP was not available to test until Monday.  And actually testable after cyphermox got his stuff through your review yesterday.  And so I found the issue last night.
 they may solve your issue, but they change the ENI written by cloud-initramfs-dyn-netconf
[16:11] <rbasak> smoser: does this mean that you are -1 to accept this upload?
[16:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytango [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [9.2.0-2]
[16:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytango [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [9.2.0-2]
[16:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytango [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [9.2.0-2]
[16:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytango [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [9.2.0-2]
[16:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytango [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [9.2.0-2]
[16:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytango [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [9.2.0-2]
[16:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytango [i386] (zesty-proposed) [9.2.0-2]
[16:12] <smoser> fixing bug 1629972 is the right fix. :-(
[16:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: initramfs-tools (yakkety-proposed/main) [0.125ubuntu6.2 => 0.125ubuntu6.3] (core)
[16:14] <lamont> can we at least agree on the initramfs-tools uploads? (x and y)
[16:20] <lamont> smoser: if you want to fix it the other way, go for it.  /me EOW
[16:20] <smoser> lamont, i'll SRU the change to xenial
[16:20] <smoser> the fix for ifupdown localhost
[16:23] <rbasak> Am I being asked to reject the latest uploads for this bug?
[16:23]  * rbasak still doesn't know what's going on.
[16:23] <rbasak> If I don't, then some other SRU team member may come and accept them tomorrow.
[16:27] <smoser> lamont, rbasak I can +1 the initramfs-tools upload for xenial.
[16:30] <roaksoax> /w/win 8
[16:30] <smoser> lamont, :-(. so if you do not rely on the debug variables form dhclient, how do you know that dhclient succeeded ? i think that is what you were using that for.
[16:31] <smoser> as opposed to failed, and left that file around (because to my knowledge nothing is removing the file)
[16:35] <roaksoax> smoser: lamont is on holiday now, we should syncup next week and revsolve this critically. Deliverable is December 31st and we dont have more time left
[16:36] <cyphermox> smoser: the file is written to /run, it will be blasted away on reboot.
[16:37] <rbasak> roaksoax: +1. Most of the SRU team will be there too I think.
[16:37] <roaksoax> smoser: but cyphermox does make sense it being written in /run , that's what /run is for anyway
[16:37] <cyphermox> lamont was doing this upload (Unapproved: initramfs-tools (yakkety-proposed/main) [0.125ubuntu6.2 => 0.125ubuntu6.3] (core)) to make sure all was good, removing the one case we'd missed where the "debug" variables (not debug at all) were used
[16:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (xenial-proposed/main) [1:16.04.18 => 1:16.04.19] (core)
[16:38] <cyphermox> rbasak: if you can accept that initramfs-tools, all is well.
[16:40] <rbasak> I'm reluctant, because I still don't understand what's going on. And I'm supposed to review, even if you have consensus.
[16:41] <cyphermox> what's missing?
[16:41] <rbasak> Context around any review.
[16:41] <cyphermox> yes, what is it that you don't understand?
[16:42] <rbasak> We're fixing a single issue, right? For which a fix requires updates to multiple packages?
[16:42] <cyphermox> yes
[16:42] <smoser> cyphermox, of course its in /run. its in the initramfs
[16:42] <smoser> but if dhclient failed
[16:42] <smoser> then you wont recognize that
[16:42] <rbasak> So while you're still debating the other pieces, there is nothing to lose by waiting until you have consensus on all of it.
[16:42] <smoser> because dhclient writes the file the first time
[16:42] <cyphermox> the single issue is rather big, being that there is no ipv6 support
[16:42] <smoser> the first event "starting" or something
[16:42] <smoser> so that file will always exist, will it not ?
[16:42] <cyphermox> smoser: what are you talking about?
[16:42] <rbasak> And if you can't test until something is in proposed, then please fix that.
[16:43] <rbasak> IMHO, anyway. If someone else in the SRU team wants to review/accept, then fine.
[16:43] <cyphermox> we've tested everything we could test before things are in proposed. as far as we know, it works
[16:43] <roaksoax> yes, eveyrthing was tested even before it was in -proposed
[16:43] <roaksoax> but getting things in -proposed is the ultimate validation
[16:43] <cyphermox> yes
[16:43] <rbasak> But you haven't agreed on everything that will land in -proposed.
[16:44] <rbasak> To fix this one issue.
[16:44] <cyphermox> haven't we?
[16:44] <rbasak> Not from my reading of what's immediately above.
[16:44] <smoser> cyphermox, your isc-dhcp debian/initramfs-tools/lib/etc/dhcp/dhclient-enter-hooks.d/config willi create that file always
[16:44] <rbasak> I thought you just agreed to resolve that next week?
[16:44] <smoser> even on dhclient failure
[16:45] <cyphermox> smoser: what?
[16:45] <rbasak> If you have agreement, then what are you going to be resolving next week?
[16:45] <smoser> http://paste.ubuntu.com/23558750/
[16:45] <smoser> thats the file that will write /run/net-DEVICE.conf for you
[16:45] <smoser> right ?
[16:45] <cyphermox> smoser: you're using an outdated diff, I already addressed that
[16:45] <smoser> where ?
[16:47] <cyphermox> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/295439359/isc-dhcp_4.3.3-5ubuntu12.4_4.3.3-5ubuntu12.5.diff.gz
[16:47] <cyphermox> isc-dhcp is already in proposed
[16:47] <smoser> oh. good. ok.
[16:47] <roaksoax> rbasak: ^^ there's no blocker
[16:47] <smoser> yeah, then this looks fine.
[16:47] <cyphermox> ^ that dropped 'reason', so lamont's further upload fixed that bit
[16:48] <smoser> ok. fyi, your 'IPVER' is no longer used at all
[16:49] <rbasak> roaksoax: the blocker is that this is a mess. I have no confidence in anything anyone says because there is so much confusion. There doesn't seem to be a single place of reference for developers to review things and agree. Instead I feel like I'm getting uploads thrown at me. I don't know what has been reviewed by whom.
[16:49] <cyphermox> heh
[16:50] <rbasak> So I'm out. If you want me to review something, I'll only do it all at once, when everyone has agreed to what it is, from one place.
[16:50] <rbasak> Otherwise, find another SRU team member please.
[16:50] <rbasak> Use bzr MPs, git MPs, sha256sums of signed dscs in the bug, I don't care.
[16:51] <rbasak> But there needs to be a single point of reference.
[16:53] <cyphermox> there is, that's what's in proposed. the archive is always what's authoritative, so the only thing we need to all be agreeing upon is what's in the unapproved queue right now
[16:54] <cyphermox> I know lamont and I agree, we just need an ack from smoser, which I thought we just got here a few minutes ago?
[16:54] <rbasak> infinity1, slangasek, apw, bdmurray, RAOF, arges, pitti, stgraber, tjaalton: FYI, this is my opinion about bug 1621507 ^. But if you want to take this on, please do.
[16:56] <roaksoax> cyphermox: so we only have : http://launchpadlibrarian.net/295554410/cloud-initramfs-tools_0.27ubuntu1.3_0.27ubuntu1.4.diff.gz and http://launchpadlibrarian.net/295554420/initramfs-tools_0.122ubuntu8.6_0.122ubuntu8.7.diff.gz
[16:57] <cyphermox> roaksoax: correct.
[16:57] <roaksoax> cyphermox: which is what we had agreed to initially, and which lamont had to upload to match what we had agree to ?
[16:57] <cyphermox> yes.
[16:57] <roaksoax> rbasak: ^^ so right there
[16:59] <roaksoax> alright, so that's very clear then. We have 2 things in unapproved queue which addresses the last remaining issues that were missed in the previous upload
[17:05] <cyphermox> roaksoax: I think rbasak said he'd rather someone else look into it, I respect his decision. fixing this bug *is* complicated, more eyes on it isn't bad.
[17:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: itango [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.1.6-1] (no packageset)
[17:09] <roaksoax> cyphermox: I'm totally fine with that, but I think he got the ipression that we weren't in sync on what the solution was and it was kind of a mess, which I disagree with :)
[17:10] <smoser> cyphermox, roaksoax i just verified yakkety's bug 1629972 .
[17:10] <smoser> i will upload an sru for that change to xenial
[17:11] <cyphermox> smoser: what are you changing?
[17:11] <cyphermox> (I'm just curious, yay for fixing it)
[17:14] <smoser> cyphermox, https://git.launchpad.net/~usd-import-team/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/commit/?h=ubuntu/yakkety-devel&id=8939b1cca88520666e3c72ea85f946c22695e806
[17:15] <cyphermox> smoser: oh, cool.
[17:18] <smoser> its really wierd, the networkign stop does not actually take down the ipv6 interface that was configured in initramfs on shutdown.
[17:18] <smoser> but it took down lo.
[17:18] <smoser> and that immediately breaks ipv6 networking
[17:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ifupdown (xenial-proposed/main) [0.8.10ubuntu1.1 => 0.8.10ubuntu1.2] (core)
[18:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (trusty-proposed/main) [1:0.220.8 => 1:0.220.9] (core)
[18:18] <bdmurray> infinity: Do we really need an upload of the precise release upgrader?
[18:20] <infinity> bdmurray: Yep.
[18:27] <bdmurray> infinity: Where would I find the source to update from?
[18:28] <infinity> bdmurray: pull-lp-source?
[18:28] <infinity> pull-lp-source && dch -i && dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -nc -S
[18:30] <bdmurray> pull-lp-source: Error: Unable to retrieve package information from DDE: http://dde.debian.net/dde/q/udd/dist/d:ubuntu/r:precise/p:ubuntu-release-upgrader/?t=json (<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>)
[18:30] <bdmurray> pull-lp-source: Error: The source package 'ubuntu-release-upgrader' does not exist in the Ubuntu primary archive in precise, precise-security, precise-updates or precise-proposed
[18:37] <xnox> wasn't it renamed in trusty, and split into two source packages?
[18:37] <xnox> hence in precise it was under a different name
[18:37] <xnox> bdmurray, it's just "update-manager" source package in precise, no?
[18:38] <bdmurray> xnox: oh right, I hate that
[18:38] <xnox> however i don't see the right bits in precise update-manager.... or is it there? can you remember where it actually is in precise now?
[18:39] <xnox> really before my time, i joined canonical with quantal =)
[18:40] <bdmurray> xnox: its in update-manager
[19:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-manager (precise-proposed/main) [1:0.156.14.20 => 1:0.156.14.21] (core)
[19:11] <doko> infinity: do you have list of ingnored autopkg tests for your last upload?
[19:17] <infinity> doko: I'm looking into the current failures, and redoing the merge with some test fixes.
[19:18] <doko> infinity: just test fixes? that will throw back the autopkg tests again ...
[19:19] <infinity> doko: No, as in I'm testing changes to glibc to fix the test regressions.
[21:01] <bdmurray> Could somebody have a look at my ubuntu-release-upgrader uploads in the X and T queues.
[21:01] <bdmurray> ?
[21:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: owncloud-client (yakkety-proposed/universe) [2.2.2+dfsg-1 => 2.2.2+dfsg-1ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)
[21:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: linux-firmware (xenial-proposed/main) [1.157.5 => 1.157.6] (core, kernel)
[21:44] <bdmurray> I'll just review my own since there aren't really any changes
[21:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:16.04.19]
[21:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (trusty-proposed) [1:0.220.9]
[22:00] <ginggs> would someone please decruft texlive-extra? texlive-science now provides texlive-math-extra
[22:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: aodh (yakkety-proposed/main) [3.0.0-0ubuntu1 => 3.0.1-0ubuntu1] (openstack)
[22:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cinder (yakkety-proposed/main) [2:9.0.0-0ubuntu1 => 2:9.1.0-0ubuntu1] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[22:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: heat (yakkety-proposed/main) [1:7.0.0-0ubuntu1 => 1:7.0.1-0ubuntu1] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[22:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: horizon (yakkety-proposed/main) [3:10.0.0-0ubuntu1 => 3:10.0.1-0ubuntu1] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[22:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ironic (yakkety-proposed/universe) [1:6.2.1-0ubuntu1 => 1:6.2.2-0ubuntu1] (openstack)
[23:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hollywood [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.11-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[23:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted update-manager [source] (precise-proposed) [1:0.156.14.21]