-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nano (xenial-proposed/main) [2.5.3-2 => 2.5.3-2ubuntu1] (core)00:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libseccomp (trusty-proposed/main) [2.2.3-2ubuntu1~ubuntu14.04.1 => 2.1.1-1ubuntu1~trusty1] (core)00:31
=== jgrimm is now known as jgrimm-out
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted resolvconf [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.78ubuntu3]00:34
slangasekcoreycb: hi, so ddebs.  What kind of disk requirements do you have for these on the cloud archive, now / in the future?00:40
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (xenial-proposed/main) [229-4ubuntu13 => 229-4ubuntu14] (core)02:32
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted resolvconf [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.79ubuntu1.1]02:39
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: resolvconf (xenial-proposed/main) [1.78ubuntu3 => 1.78ubuntu4] (core)02:40
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted resolvconf [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.78ubuntu4]02:45
slangasekbdmurray: I could use ^^ a different set of eyes on the systemd/xenial piece of that02:47
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jdupes [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.2-3] (no packageset)05:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jdupes [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.2-3] (no packageset)05:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jdupes [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.2-3] (no packageset)05:25
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jdupes [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.2-3] (no packageset)05:25
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jdupes [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.2-3] (no packageset)05:25
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zorp [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [6.0.10-1] (no packageset)05:28
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcgns [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-2] (no packageset)05:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcgns [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-2] (no packageset)05:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chicken [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.11.0-1] (no packageset)05:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chicken [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.11.0-1] (no packageset)05:30
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jdupes [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.2-3] (no packageset)05:30
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: jdupes [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.2-3] (no packageset)05:30
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcgns [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-2] (no packageset)05:30
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcgns [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-2] (no packageset)05:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcgns [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-2] (no packageset)05:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chicken [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.11.0-1] (no packageset)05:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcgns [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-2] (no packageset)05:33
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcgns [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.3.0-2] (no packageset)05:33
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chicken [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.11.0-1] (no packageset)05:34
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zorp [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [6.0.10-1] (no packageset)05:35
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: netdata [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [1.3.0+dfsg-1] (no packageset)05:37
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chicken [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.11.0-1] (no packageset)05:38
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chicken [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.11.0-1] (no packageset)05:39
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zorp [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [6.0.10-1] (no packageset)05:39
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zorp [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [6.0.10-1] (no packageset)05:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chicken [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.11.0-1] (no packageset)05:48
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zorp [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [6.0.10-1] (no packageset)05:48
mardyseb128: hi! Would you have a little time to remove a couple of packages from xenial-proposed?07:10
seb128mardy, hey, are they in the queue or accepted SRUs? I'm not in the SRU team so while I technical can I'm not supposed to deal with SRUs07:10
mardyseb128: I'm not sure, they certainly were not accepted, the verification failed07:13
seb128oh, then they got accepted07:13
mardyseb128: it's online-accounts and gnome-control-center-signon, in case you are able to check07:13
seb128otherwise they would be in the unapproved queue and nobody would have tested them07:13
seb128but let me have a look07:13
seb128mardy, is that the upload you are talking about ^? the corresponding bug is verification-needed with a comment from you stating what to verify, not verification-failed?07:17
mardyseb128: yes, it's that one: dbarth verified it and noticed the failure, I'll ask him to add a comment there07:20
seb128mardy, thanks, once it's verification-failed the SRU team should handle it (maybe add a comment stating if you want it removed or if you want to do a follow up upload with extra fix to replace the current version in xenial-proposed)07:21
mardyseb128: ah ok, that makes sense07:22
mardyseb128: thanks!07:22
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: signing-party (yakkety-proposed/universe) [2.4-1 => 2.4-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)07:26
=== med_ is now known as Guest67717
jibelCould someone review snapd 2.20 in xenial and yakkety queues?09:37
jibelapw, ^ can you help with this ?09:38
jibeltjaalton, ^ can you help with the review of snapd 2.20?10:02
jibelrbasak, ^ or anyone from the sru team :)10:04
tjaaltonjibel: i can give it a try later10:05
seb128tjaalton, you joined the SRU team? ;-)10:05
jibeltjaalton, cool, how later is later?10:06
sil2100Could someone review dbus in the xenial and yakkety queues? ;)10:06
jibelsil2100, no way, snapd first ;)10:07
seb128in all fairness he's asking for several days10:07
seb128so dbus should be first :p10:07
seb128we already miss pitti :-/10:07
tjaaltonjibel: I see 14 older packages in the queue ;)10:07
jibeltjaalton, I know, do your best.10:08
seb128but would be good to get snapd in today, otherwise I can see some people who are going to be grumpy about things10:08
seb128on the good side, maybe that would convince some of the team managers to allocate resources in their team to do SRU reviews... ;-)10:09
sil2100I'm in mid-training to join the SRU team10:10
sil2100At least that's the idea, I guess10:10
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nano [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.5.3-2ubuntu1]10:13
tjaaltonjibel: looks like bdmurray reviewed it already? see the comment on 164852010:16
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted krb5 [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.13.2+dfsg-5ubuntu1]10:21
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted krb5 [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.12+dfsg-2ubuntu5.3]10:21
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted krb5 [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.14.3+dfsg-2ubuntu1]10:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: strongswan [s390x] (zesty-proposed/main) [5.5.1-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-server)10:39
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: strongswan [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/main) [5.5.1-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-server)10:40
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: strongswan [amd64] (zesty-proposed/main) [5.5.1-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-server)10:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: strongswan [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/main) [5.5.1-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-server)10:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: strongswan [i386] (zesty-proposed/main) [5.5.1-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-server)10:43
jibeltjaalton, thanks, I'll check with mvo10:55
tjaaltonsil2100: I don't know why, but sru-review can't see dbus for yakkety, while it's clearly on the queue11:01
sil2100tjaalton: hmm, maybe it's because I set yakkety-updates in the changelog instead of yakkety?11:03
sil2100I noticed that a bit uh later11:03
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted dbus [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.10.6-1ubuntu3.2]11:04
tjaaltonwell, I can ack it from lp instead, but it won't send a notification to the bug(s)11:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: strongswan [armhf] (zesty-proposed/main) [5.5.1-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-server)11:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: strongswan [arm64] (zesty-proposed/main) [5.5.1-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-server)11:06
tjaaltonI'll do it manually11:06
sil2100I can re-upload if this is the problem11:07
tjaaltonoh actually11:07
sil2100(I mean, yakkety-updates instead of yakkety)11:07
tjaaltonprobably best11:07
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected dbus [source] (yakkety-updates) [1.10.10-1ubuntu1.2]11:08
sil2100tjaalton: re-uploaded :)11:09
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dbus (yakkety-proposed/main) [1.10.10-1ubuntu1.1 => 1.10.10-1ubuntu1.2] (core)11:09
tjaaltonsil2100: now zeromq3, maybe upload with a changelog that does not refer to (LP: #1597439), because the MIR is fixed already11:12
ubot5`Launchpad bug 1597439 in zeromq3 (Ubuntu) "[MIR] zeromq3" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/159743911:12
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected zeromq3 [source] (yakkety-proposed) [4.2.0-2ubuntu0.16.10]11:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted dbus [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.10.10-1ubuntu1.2]11:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.17.1ubuntu1 => 2.20ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)11:26
sil2100tjaalton: ah, you mean with the same changelog but without the bug reference, yes?11:28
tjaaltonsil2100: right, or ref modified so that the tools don't catch it11:28
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.17.1+16.10ubuntu1 => 2.20+16.10ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)11:28
sil2100tjaalton: ok, re-uploaded :)11:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: snapd (trusty-proposed/primary) [2.20~14.04.0ubuntu1]11:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.17.1+16.10ubuntu1 => 2.20+16.10ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)11:32
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zeromq3 (yakkety-proposed/main) [4.1.5+git20160811+2fc86bc-0ubuntu2 => 4.2.0-2ubuntu0.16.10] (kubuntu)11:32
tjaaltonsil2100: thanks, looks like 4.2.0 is still in zesty-proposed so can't ack it yet11:43
sil2100tjaalton: oh? Oh my, how did I miss that11:44
* sil2100 feels ashamed now11:44
sil2100Ok, I'll re-poke you once I deal with this11:44
bluesabreGood morning! Would anybody be interested in releasing sgt-launcher from the NEW queue? lp 164130011:44
ubot5`Launchpad bug 1641300 in Ubuntu "[needs-packaging] sgt-launcher" [Wishlist,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/164130011:44
tjaaltonhow come ubuntu doesn't have cairo-c5, which blocks ricochet11:52
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-online-accounts (yakkety-proposed/main) [3.20.4-0ubuntu1 => 3.20.5-0ubuntu0.1] (ubuntu-desktop)11:53
tjaaltoncairo-5c actually, just doesn't build11:57
jibeltjaalton, mvo replied, snapd ready for review again12:00
jibelor bdmurray ^12:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted dpdk [source] (yakkety-proposed) [16.07.2-0ubuntu0.16.10.1]12:49
coreycbslangasek, it looks like the quota for our newton-updates PPA is 20GB.  so my guess of PPA disc space used currently would be 100GB (20 x 5 releases).  do you think we can translate that to space needed for ddebs?13:06
cjwatsonso, um13:13
cjwatsonddebs.ubuntu.com is basically a compatibility thing13:14
cjwatsonis it not possible for clients to fetch the ddebs directly from LP?13:14
cjwatsonyou're going to have to store the ddebs in LP regardless, so let's not duplicate that storage on ddebs.u.c13:18
tjaaltonjibel: you uploaded the same snapd package twice?13:38
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted unattended-upgrades [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.92ubuntu1.2]13:47
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted unattended-upgrades [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.90ubuntu0.3]13:47
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted tracker [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.10.2-0ubuntu0.1]13:50
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.20+16.10]14:01
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted signing-party [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.4-1ubuntu1]14:02
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.20]14:03
jibeltjaalton, mvo uploaded the same package and modified the changelog to remove the reference to lp bugs and address bdmurray's comment. I'm just relaying the message here because mvo's on holidays14:12
slangasekjibel, tjaalton: I see that the new snapd package has merged ubuntu-core-launcher / snap-confine into the source.  I am concerned about whether the existing SRU exception provides appropriate CI coverage of those components14:21
tjaaltonjibel: ok14:23
tjaaltonslangasek: good point, I probably wouldn't have noticed..14:27
jibelslangasek, okay, let me check with the team14:28
jibelslangasek, a successful run of the unit tests for snap-confine on one arch would be enough for this time?15:03
slangasekjibel: on one arch> I wouldn't think so.  Do the unit tests not run at package build time / autopkgtest time?15:30
lamontcan someone please accept cloud-init into yakkety-proposed?16:15
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.20ubuntu1]16:18
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.20+16.10ubuntu1]16:20
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.20+16.10ubuntu1]16:22
lamonttjaalton: can you accept cloud-init into yakkety-proposed?16:47
lamonttjaalton: actually, hold off on that for a bit16:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: initramfs-tools (trusty-proposed/main) [0.103ubuntu4.5 => 0.103ubuntu4.6] (core)17:05
tjaaltonlamont: okay17:21
lamonttjaalton: chatted with smoser - we're going to have that one land after the current SRU lands on Monday.  (trivial workaround in new functionality, ergo not critical to the current SRU)17:22
tjaaltonsounds perfect ;)17:22
lamontnot sure what your processes say about letting it sit in the queue until then17:22
tjaaltoncan sit17:23
ppisatibug 163683817:23
ubot5`bug 1636838 in linux-raspi2 (Ubuntu) "Failed to boot" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/163683817:23
ppisatiso, i've covered all the possible upgrade paths17:23
ppisatiif the four packages mentioned there could be release from -proposed to -updates17:24
ppisatithat would be nice17:24
ppisatiXenial and Yakkety, thanks17:24
smosertjaalton, lamont actually, just nix the yakkety cloud-init17:25
smoseri'll upload another in line with what is in zesty17:25
lamontsmoser: presumably that upload will be next week?17:27
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: mongo-tools [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.2.11-1] (no packageset)17:28
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: mongo-tools [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.2.11-1] (no packageset)17:28
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-tar-stream [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.5.2-1] (no packageset)17:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fsm-el [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.2.1-1] (no packageset)17:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-has-cors [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.1.0-1] (no packageset)17:32
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-lodash-packages [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.15.0-1] (no packageset)17:32
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: mongo-tools [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.2.11-1] (no packageset)17:34
smoserlamont, well, i'll put it into the queue right now17:35
smoserand then it can be let into -proposed later.17:35
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: mongo-tools [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.2.11-1] (no packageset)17:37
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: mongo-tools [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.2.11-1] (no packageset)17:37
dokoplease unblock the binutils/linux autopkg test, this test always failed with 4.8 ...18:01
lamontsmoser: I believe that all of the cases 1621507 cares about are verified, so I marked it verification-done... anything specific that we need to do wrt 1621615 before I also mark it?18:16
infinitydoko: I'll grab binutils in my big unblock the world right after I'm done cleaning up the kernel (so in a few hours, probably).18:17
smoserlamont, its fine with me18:24
clivejoinfinity: did you get a chance to look at krita?18:34
infinityclivejo: Nope, going flat out with several other things.  If it's urgent, you'll want another AA.  If not, it might have to wait for my holidays.18:35
clivejoit used to be in the source package calligra18:35
infinityAnd the goodwill of me as a community member, rather than a Canonical employee.18:35
clivejowhich has been split out18:35
infinitySince Canonical owns about 180% of my time until next week. :)18:35
clivejowow, were you naughty as the company Christmas party too?!?18:37
clivejoany other AA willing to have a look please?18:38
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (yakkety-proposed/universe) [2.23+16.10 => 2.24+16.10] (no packageset)18:51
davmor2infinity: only 180% what did you do so right? ;)18:52
infinitydavmor2: Time off for good behaviour.18:52
davmor2infinity: pfff18:52
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (xenial-proposed/universe) [2.23 => 2.24] (no packageset)18:59
sergiusensslangasek mind taking a look ^ ?18:59
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.17.1ubuntu1 => 2.20ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)19:19
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.17.1+16.10ubuntu1 => 2.20+16.10ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)19:22
slangaseksergiusens: looking19:25
slangaseksergiusens: what's this armv7 autopkgtest disabling about?19:27
slangaseksergiusens: a lot of autopkgtest disabling going on today in the SRU queue.  NACK on this; we want the tests to run, and if they fail they fail19:30
slangaseksergiusens: also, your check won't actually match the armhf autopkgtest runners, if that was your intent, since they're all arm64 kernels ;)19:31
sergiusensslangasek because we want them green and making them green progressively19:33
slangaseksergiusens: making them artificially green is not particularly beneficial here19:34
sergiusensslangasek these are in-flight right now https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/971 https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/99019:34
sergiusenselopio ^19:34
sergiusensslangasek the reason we care to make them green is to not break them again, but I can understand your concerns19:35
slangaseksergiusens: but you're making them green by no-op'ing all of the autopkgtests that are run19:35
slangasek"To not break them again" - but they seem to have never worked in the first place19:35
sergiusensslangasek in my defense, I took my QA guy's advice19:36
sergiusensslangasek I can enable them in a new push if you want19:37
slangaseksergiusens: yes please19:37
sergiusensslangasek if you reject I can use the same versions, right?19:37
slangaseksergiusens: (or I can just edit this out and reupload on my side)19:37
slangaseksergiusens: yes19:37
elopioslangasek: we are not disabling them. We are enabling them[19:38
sergiusensslangasek k, will do in a bit19:38
slangasekelopio: that's not what the diff looked like to me?19:38
elopioslangasek: previously, they just failed so didn't block the landings.19:38
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapcraft [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.24]19:38
elopioin this SRU, we are disabling integration tests so the unit tests for arm will pass and start blocking landings in case of regression.19:39
elopioin the next SRU. we are enabling the others.19:39
sergiusensslangasek fwiw, pitti had mocked the containers to return a uname for an expected armhf machine on those arm64 servers19:39
slangasekelopio: what unit tests are those?  debian/tests/control lists only two tests; both of which are failing on armhf; and both of which have been no-op'ed in this upload19:40
elopioslangasek: the unit tests run during package build.19:40
slangaseksergiusens: a) ugh b) it's still not the right way to check the target architecture19:40
sergiusensslangasek I know, we have a fix planned for that19:40
slangasekelopio: ok, which still means that you're getting a meaningless green on autopkgtests19:40
elopiobefore this sru, our package failed to build in armhf.19:40
slangasekelopio: the autopkgtests are being run at build time?19:41
elopioslangasek: yes, meaningless green for now. My PRs that are ready to land will make the autopkgtests blockers in case of regression too.19:41
slangasekelopio: still a nack from me.  Failing autopkgtests > skipped autopkgtests.19:42
elopiouh, I disagree totally with that. Failing autopkgtests means that if unit tests also fail, we still land.19:42
elopioright now, we are blocking on unit tests regression, that's better than never identifying regressions.19:43
slangasekwhere are you triggering the autopkgtests from that this blocks landing?19:43
elopiotravis on each pull request.19:43
elopiowe caught a failure in a test yesterday, that was assuming amd64.19:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (xenial-proposed/universe) [2.23 => 2.24] (no packageset)19:43
elopiothat wouldn't have been possible if we had just full autopkgtest failures.19:43
sergiusenselopio just fix it all in one stretch during holidays ;-)19:44
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (yakkety-proposed/universe) [2.23+16.10 => 2.24+16.10] (no packageset)19:44
sergiusensslangasek pushed both up again19:44
elopioI tried to land the three in the same SRU last week, but failed.19:44
slangasekif you wanted to conditionally skip these tests in the travis environment, that would be fine with me19:45
slangasekbut in proposed-migration, failing autopkgtests > skipped autopkgtests19:45
elopioI can't skip only in travis, because travis runs the same as proposed-migration.19:45
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapcraft [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.24+16.10]19:45
slangasekbut it runs under travis as a harness, which could be configured to ignore autopkgtest failures on armhf19:46
elopioand, I still disagree. It's better to notice that there are regressions in a few tests, than to run many more tests but never catch anything.19:46
elopiobut well, we can revert and just plainly fail in arm for one more release.19:46
sergiusenselopio if it is a requirement, it is a requirement, just take that and propose a change later ;-)19:46
sergiusensslangasek elopio to be fair as well, this is not travis, this is the adt webhook for upstreams thing19:46
slangasekyou're not running *a few* tests.  You are literally running *zero* autopkgtests, with this change19:46
slangasekif you had left one autopkgtest enabled, then I would agree with you ;)19:47
sergiusensslangasek unit tests run on package build and given our arch all nature the package is built only on amd64 whilst on adt it is natively built (in the case of adt for upstreams at least)19:48
sergiusensslangasek in any case I see you rejected rejected snapcraft [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.24+16.10] after I uploaded again any reason?19:48
infinity12:31 < slangasek> sergiusens: also, your check won't actually match the armhf autopkgtest runners, if that was your intent, since they're all arm64 kernels ;)19:51
infinityslangasek: ^-- If you mean "uname -m" won't be "armv7l", you'd be wrong.  Though, still fair to point out that assuming uname==userspace is wrong.19:51
sergiusensinfinity I promise to migrate to what we discussed 2 weeks ago as soon the holidays are over19:52
infinitysergiusens: Yeah, I know you're good for keeping your promise there.  Was more just pointing out to slangasek that his understanding of the infrastructure is wrong. :)19:53
infinityslangasek: Also, it's not about "mocked containers", per se, as sergiusens implies, it's just that 32-bit tests are run under linux32, just as 32-bit builds are.19:54
infinityslangasek: Though, the extra trick there is that linux32 on aarch64 would usually return armv8l, and we have a kernel hack in place that makes that armv7l because upstream is wrong and I'm sick of arguing the point with them. :P19:54
slangasekinfinity: haha ok19:58
elopioinfinity: hey, your point was taken. No argue there.19:59
slangaseksergiusens: that should have been the reject of the original yakkety upload, which I hadn't rejected yet. your second upload is still in the queue19:59
slangasekexcept now it's not - accepted19:59
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapcraft [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.24+16.10]20:00
elopiothanks slangasek. For the next release I will give you a full green armhf. And then, the rest archs.20:05
slangasekelopio: great :)20:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapcraft [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.24]20:06
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.20ubuntu1]20:16
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.17.1ubuntu1 => 2.20ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)20:16
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.20+16.10ubuntu1]20:17
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.17.1+16.10ubuntu1 => 2.20+16.10ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)20:17
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.20ubuntu1]20:32
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.20+16.10ubuntu1]20:33
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.17.1ubuntu1 => 2.20ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)20:33
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.17.1+16.10ubuntu1 => 2.20+16.10ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)20:34
sergiusensslangasek thanks!21:09
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.20ubuntu1]22:35
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tracker (yakkety-proposed/main) [1.10.2-0ubuntu0.1 => 1.10.3-0ubuntu0.1] (desktop-extra, ubuntugnome)22:46

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!