[01:49] <michi> slangasek: Can you pubish a silo for us? https://bileto.ubuntu.com/#/active?landers=michi
[01:53] <michi> Or, better question, how can I find an archive admin who can?
[04:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: network-manager-applet (yakkety-proposed/main) [1.2.4-0ubuntu2 => 1.2.6-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[04:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: network-manager-applet (xenial-proposed/main) [1.2.0-0ubuntu0.16.04.4 => 1.2.6-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[05:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: network-manager (xenial-proposed/main) [1.2.4-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 => 1.2.6-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[05:50] <jbicha> michi: if it's not a new binary, I believe you just need to find someone with upload permissions for that package to sponsor it for you
[05:50] <michi> jbicha: Thanks for that. How do I find someone? Is there a specific group of people I should ask?
[05:52] <jbicha> michi: for this, I'd try asking in #ubuntu-ci-eng since they handle bileto stuff
[05:52] <michi> Cool, thanks!
[06:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [3.13.0-108.155] (core, kernel)
[06:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [3.13.0-108.155]
[06:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: chrome-gnome-shell (yakkety-proposed/universe) [7.1-1ubuntu0.1 => 8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.1] (no packageset)
[07:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: chrome-gnome-shell (xenial-proposed/primary) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.04.0]
[07:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: chrome-gnome-shell (yakkety-proposed/universe) [7.1-1ubuntu0.1 => 8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.1] (no packageset)
[07:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: chrome-gnome-shell (trusty-proposed/primary) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu14.04.1]
[07:20] <apw> jbicha, you have duplicate uploads ^ for yakkety ... are they identicle ?
[07:22] <jbicha> apw: hi, could you reject the older yakkety one (it's the one that says no-change)?
[07:23] <apw> jbicha, gone
[07:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected chrome-gnome-shell [source] (yakkety-proposed) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.1]
[07:24] <jbicha> and please also reject flatpak from xenial and yakkety and bubblewrap from xenial (xenial is in the new queue)
[07:24] <jbicha> Debian changed the packaging so we might as well do the newer version for SRUs
[07:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected flatpak [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.8.0-1~ubuntu16.10.1]
[07:27] <apw> jbicha, *blam*
[07:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected bubblewrap [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.1.5-1~ubuntu16.04.1]
[07:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected flatpak [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.8.0-1~ubuntu16.04.1]
[07:27] <jbicha> thank you
[07:27] <apw> np
[08:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted accerciser [source] (yakkety-proposed) [3.22.0-1ubuntu1]
[08:27] <jbicha> apw: you can reject tracker from yakkety too, I'm waiting on a better fix from upstream for the regressions there
[08:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected tracker [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.10.3-0ubuntu0.1]
[08:37] <jbicha> tumbleweed: your maxima/yakkety SRU doesn't look right since the yakkety release version was only 5.37.2-8
[08:42] <apw> jbicha, in what sense, in the sense the diff is all screwy ?
[08:43] <jbicha> apw: oh so it's just Launchpad being unhelpful?
[08:44] <apw> jbicha, yeah there was an attempt to put 5.38.0 into yakkety which was later deleted
[08:45] <jbicha> never mind then :)
[09:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted maxima [source] (yakkety-proposed) [5.37.2-8ubuntu0.16.10.1]
[09:05] <apw> ^ accepting that as we have it already in xenial and zesty
[09:21] <tumbleweed> jbicha: phew
[09:38] <apw> tumbleweed, though you have some ftbfs issues ...
[09:39] <apw> tumbleweed, arm64 in both and ppc64el on xenial
[09:40] <tumbleweed> lovely
[09:40] <tumbleweed> this happens when you help people out on IRC
[09:41] <ginggs> can someone reject/remove winetricks from -proposed please? i want to sync from debian now
[09:55] <infinity> ginggs: You want to make the versions go backwards?  Please don't, even in proposed.
[09:56] <infinity> ginggs: Just upload a -1ubuntu2 that is identical, except for the changelog, to the Debian one, if that's the goal, and then sync on the next Debian upload.
[09:56] <ginggs> infinity: ok :(
[09:58] <infinity> ginggs: Why do we not want our delta anymore?
[09:59] <infinity> ginggs: I'm not sure the point of the dependency change, but the other thing sounds useful?
[10:02] <ginggs> infinity: in Debian they now have a proper .desktop file and icon, if you launch winetricks from the desktop it now disaplys the GUI, and if you launch it from the terminal, you get the command line options (and can start the GUI with --gui)
[10:09] <infinity> ginggs: So the delta is redundant, or?
[10:09]  * infinity shrugs.
[10:10] <infinity> ginggs: If you're sure the delta's pointless now, yeah, just upload ubuntu2 with a reset to "just like Debian", and note as such in the changelog, so the next overeager merge sniper realises it should just be synced.
[10:12] <ginggs> infinity: yup, it is redundant now
[10:12] <ginggs> infinity: ok will upload ubuntu2
[10:18] <juliank> infinity: Would you have time to accept the tiny apt 1.2.19 and 1.3.4 into {xenial,yakkety}-proposed?
[10:19] <juliank> (single line of code add hotfix release)
[11:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: walinuxagent (xenial-proposed/main) [2.1.5-0ubuntu4~16.04.0 => 2.2.2-0ubuntu0~16.04.1] (ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: walinuxagent (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.1.5-0ubuntu4 => 2.2.2-0ubuntu0~16.10.1] (ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: walinuxagent (trusty-proposed/main) [2.1.5-0ubuntu4~14.04.0 => 2.2.2-0ubuntu0~14.04.1] (ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[11:18] <rbasak> tjaalton: looking at bug 1643708, I'm concerned that there's nothing in the test plan to make sure that existing users of the SPNEGO are not broken, so I'm not comfortable releasing it even though it is verification-done now. As an aside the reporter possibly hasn't checked all three releases. Could you take care of it please?
[11:21] <rbasak> tjaalton: there's no Regression Potential consideration in that bug either.
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ceph (yakkety-proposed/main) [10.2.3-0ubuntu2.1 => 10.2.5-0ubuntu0.16.10.1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[11:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: netcfg (xenial-proposed/main) [1.135ubuntu4.1 => 1.135ubuntu4.2] (core)
[11:51] <tjaalton> rbasak: you mean run the tests on other releases?
[11:52] <xnox> infinity, netcfg ^ the debdiff sans */po/* is just this: http://paste.ubuntu.com/23821680/
[11:53] <rbasak> tjaalton: I mean did he test -proposed on just the release he's using, or all three releases that currently have that update in -proposed?
[11:54] <rbasak> tjaalton: but also we must consider use cases of the package other than just his. His patch may fix his use case, but what about all other use cases that use the code path he's touching? Do they still work?
[12:06] <tjaalton> well I don't know
[12:06] <tjaalton> questions for him
[12:09] <rbasak> tjaalton: right, but I think those questions needed to have been asked before accepting the SRU.
[12:12] <rbasak> tjaalton: so could you please communicate with him and sort it out as needed? I already was, but you took over.
[12:13] <tjaalton> uh
[12:13] <tjaalton> how to test without having packages to test?
[12:14] <tjaalton> I didn't know things had to be tested beforehand
[12:17] <tjaalton> reading it now it clearly says the only thing missing was a test case
[12:25] <rbasak> tjaalton: I'm not saying that things had to be tested beforehand.
[12:27] <rbasak> tjaalton: I'm saying that the Regression Potential section had to be considered beforehand, and on doing so other users' use cases should have been considered and mitigated, for example by asking for a test *plan* that checks other use cases to be done during verification.
[12:28] <rbasak> tjaalton: I don't think it's acceptable for the SRU process to be throwing patches through that don't consider use cases other than the sole one the reporter cares about. That's just asking for a regression.
[12:29] <tjaalton> well, I looked at the patch, and can't see how it could regress
[12:37] <rbasak> tjaalton: well that's down to your judgement. But without documenting this in the bug, I couldn't have possibly known that.
[12:38] <rbasak> tjaalton: and even then, do you not think it's appropriate to actually test for regressions, rather than assume there aren't any by looking at the patch?
[12:49] <tjaalton> rbasak: sure, and they still can
[12:52] <rbasak> tjaalton: are they going to? Because normally I would expect the test cases to be negotiated in the bug description *before* accepting the SRU.
[12:54] <tjaalton> that's up to them if they want to see it in -updates, no?
[13:00] <tjaalton> oh well, looks like I didn't refresh the bug before adding a comment
[13:00] <tjaalton> I'll let it rest for another month then
[13:02] <tjaalton> you could've just asked the submitter the same questions and not me
[13:09] <rbasak> tjaalton: I don't think this is fair to the submitter. IMHO, we should agree a test plan before accepting the SRU. Otherwise he carries out the test plan he thought was agreed, and now we're saying that that's insufficient and he needs to do more? That's another round trip and not OK from the submitter's perspective.
[13:09] <rbasak> tjaalton: this is why I longer wanted to deal with it.
[13:11] <rbasak> tjaalton: and you TIL.
[13:16] <rbasak> tjaalton: I would not have accepted that SRU as-is. Given that you did, I would like you to follow through, rather than making me deal with something that I already said in the bug I didn't think was OK and making me decide between giving the submitter further grief and releasing an SRU that IMHO is insufficiently tested.
[13:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted apt [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.2.19]
[13:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted apt [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.3.4]
[13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected virtualbox-ext-pack [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.30-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected virtualbox [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.30-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected virtualbox-guest-additions-iso [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.30-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[13:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted virtualbox [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.32-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[13:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted virtualbox-guest-additions-iso [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.32-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[13:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted virtualbox-ext-pack [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.32-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[13:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pollinate [source] (xenial-proposed) [4.23-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[13:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pollinate [source] (trusty-proposed) [4.23-0ubuntu1~14.04.1]
[13:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pollinate [source] (yakkety-proposed) [4.23-0ubuntu1.1]
[13:33] <tjaalton> rbasak: wouldn't the correct action have been to self-assign the bug then?
[13:36] <rbasak> tjaalton: does ~ubuntu-sru know that means an SRU-handler-exclusive-lock? I wasn't aware of this and not sure it would work. And that field will conflict with whoever is driving the bug. In any case, I would have been happy for any ~ubuntu-sru to accept the SRU after verifying that the SRU submission was complete. It was not, because the Regression Potential section was missing, as I had already
[13:36] <rbasak> pointed out.
[13:37] <rbasak> IMHO, in between the submitter writing Regression Potential and someone from ~ubuntu-sru reviewing it, the need for other-use-case testing would have become clear.
[13:40] <tjaalton> maybe setting incomplete is enough, and if it was then I didn't notice that
[13:43]  * apw doesn't believe there is any way to tell
[14:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ceph (xenial-proposed/main) [10.2.3-0ubuntu0.16.04.2 => 10.2.5-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[14:09] <sil2100> Hey! Could anyone take a look at walinuxagent in the UNAPPROVED queue for xenial, yakkety and trusty?
[14:09] <sil2100> We would like that in -proposed as soon as possible
[14:10] <sil2100> There should be an SRU exception for those somewhere, although no one knows where
[14:11] <slangasek> it's "cloud->hwe" as an SRU class, but I think gaughen took an action to write up something more formal (or I'm confusing this with a different package, which is possible)
[14:12] <gaughen> slangasek, that was for the gce compute image package
[14:13] <gaughen> and philroche has it on his list of things to do before we submit a package update
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected mesa [source] (xenial-proposed) [12.0.5-0ubuntu0.16.04.1]
[14:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected mesa [source] (yakkety-proposed) [12.0.5-0ubuntu0.16.10.1]
[14:35] <rbasak> arges: ^ are you still reviewing? Shall I look at walinuxagent, or are you already doing it?
[14:36] <jdstrand> rbasak: hey, fyi https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libseccomp/+bug/1450642/comments/20
[14:39] <rbasak> jdstrand: thanks. I'll look again today.
[14:40] <jdstrand> rbasak: thanks!
[14:44] <rbasak> arges: I'm taking walinuxagent.
[14:46] <sil2100> Thanks guys!
[14:51] <rbasak> sil2100: are you missing a bug reference to 1650522? This looks like a deliberate change in behaviour through the packaging, so does this need be part of this SRU?
[14:52] <sil2100> rbasak: this is not an included change, now is it?
[14:52] <sil2100> rbasak: it was released and then rejected, now we have autoupdate disabled again
[14:53] <sil2100> So == it's the same state as it was before
[14:53] <rbasak> sil2100: oh I see, sorry. I saw mention of it in a quilt patch, but I see now that you've just updated the patch to work with the new waagent.conf file.
[14:53]  * rbasak wonders if that's a conffile.
[14:54] <rbasak> sil2100: do you have a PPA build available anywhere please? If not I can build locally of course.
[14:54] <sil2100> rbasak: sure, we have it built and tested
[14:54] <sil2100> https://launchpad.net/~sil2100/+archive/ubuntu/prerelease
[14:54] <rbasak> Thanks!
[14:55] <sil2100> rbasak: the versioning scheme is a bit different for the SRU bits here, as I decided to go with something different in the end
[14:55] <rbasak> OK
[14:55] <sil2100> But other than that those are the exact same packages
[14:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mesa (xenial-proposed/main) [11.2.0-1ubuntu2.2 => 12.0.5-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (core, xorg)
[14:58] <rbasak> sil2100: so there are conffile changes. What's your opinion on them please? Are they necessary?
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mesa (yakkety-proposed/main) [12.0.3-1ubuntu2 => 12.0.5-0ubuntu0.16.10.2] (core, xorg)
[15:04] <sil2100> rbasak: hm, what do you mean exactly?
[15:19] <rbasak> sil2100: sorry, my IRC connection timed out.
[15:20] <rbasak> sil2100: if the conffile is modified locally, the user will get a prompt on upgrade, which might be missed if the user is updating automatically.
[15:20] <rbasak> sil2100: in that case, the conffile update won't happen.
[15:20] <rbasak> sil2100: so ideally we'd avoid that.
[15:21] <sil2100> rbasak: yeah, I don't think there was anything in place for that anytime for this package...
[15:21] <rbasak> sil2100: if the conffile updates are necessary, then it'll break users who follow the defaults.
[15:22] <rbasak> (if they have modified them)
[15:23] <sil2100> Yeah, this possibly needs to be addressed sometime, but as I said - I didn't see any countermeasures applied for that in the past as well
[15:24] <sil2100> rbasak: you think it would be ok for me to fill in a bug for that and handle it with a future upload?
[16:07] <LocutusOfBorg> can any archive admin help me in making imagemagick transition end?
[16:08] <LocutusOfBorg> stuck due to emacs24[ppc64el] and emacs25[arm64]
[16:08] <LocutusOfBorg> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/imagemagick6.html
[16:08] <rbasak> sil2100: looking
[16:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added sgt-launcher to xubuntu in zesty
[16:32] <ginggs> LocutusOfBorg: fix emacs?
[16:49] <ginggs> can i get a 'force-badtest sunpy/0.7.4-2/armhf' please? it was removed in LP: #1643151 but still shows 'Test in progress' for pytest migration
[17:06] <rbasak> sil2100: I filed bug 1657523 and bug 1657524.
[17:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-1] (no packageset)
[17:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcec [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.1+dfsg1-1] (no packageset)
[17:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-1] (no packageset)
[17:18] <rbasak> sil2100: I updated bug 1651128. +0. I accept a point, but I'd like a second opinion. I see no other problems.
[17:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcec [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.1+dfsg1-1] (no packageset)
[17:18] <rbasak> I accept *your* point that is.
[17:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-1] (no packageset)
[17:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcec [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.1+dfsg1-1] (no packageset)
[17:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcec [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.1+dfsg1-1] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-1] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcec [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.1+dfsg1-1] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: mydumper [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.9.1-5] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcec [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.1+dfsg1-1] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libcec [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.1+dfsg1-1] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: juju-core (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.0.0-0ubuntu0.16.10.3 => 2.0.2-0ubuntu0.16.10.1] (ubuntu-server)
[17:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-1] (no packageset)
[17:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-1] (no packageset)
[17:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-1] (no packageset)
[17:32] <sil2100> rbasak: thanks!
[17:32] <sil2100> :)
[17:32] <sil2100> rbasak: I'll poke someone else for a second opinion in this case
[17:35] <sil2100> bdmurray: hey! Could you take a look at the SRUs for walinuxagent in trusty, xenial and yakkety? rbasak did a review already but since the packages aren't completely without issues he would like a second opinion
[17:35] <sil2100> bdmurray: the SRU bug is LP: #1651128
[17:35] <sil2100> bdmurray: in case you +1 those into -propose, I promise to take care of the issues found by rbasak with next uploads
[17:36] <sil2100> My point for getting those in is: this was always an issue really, and I don't say it's not an issue but seemingly didn't cause any real problems for users *yet&
[17:36] <sil2100> *
[17:37] <rbasak> And to be clear, I agree with sil2100 on that point. I'm just not sure what that means I should do from an SRU perspective.
[17:45] <acheronuk> can someone please force-badtest? kdebugsettings/16.04.3-0ubuntu1 ktextwidgets/5.28.0-0ubuntu1
[17:46] <acheronuk> both these are soon to be replaced by new versions, and our person who can fix the tests is AWOL at the moment
[17:46] <acheronuk> and this is blocking a bugfix Qtbase from migrating
[17:46] <apw> rbasak, if both of those issues have been in previous SRUs just having them documented, and commitment from sil2100 to fix them seems enough to ignore those at least in the short term
[17:47] <apw> acheronuk, looking
[17:47] <acheronuk> oh, and so is test on unity8 http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#qtbase-opensource-src
[17:48] <acheronuk> which I think was also badtestest last time when the initial Qt migration was being helped through?
[17:48] <acheronuk> *badtest-ed
[17:51] <apw> acheronuk, i can't see unity8 being hinted since august last year ...
[17:52] <apw> acheronuk, i have hinted the first two
[17:55] <acheronuk> apw: thank you. I may be misremembering the unity8 one then. may have been something else
[17:57] <bdmurray> rbasak: I agree with apw re walinuxagent
[18:00] <acheronuk> apw: ah. it was ubuntu-system-settings that had the failing test on unity8, which I thought may have in turn blocked the last Qt. so that either did not, or was sorted some other way
[18:11] <acheronuk> ok. so perhaps someone would be kind enough to retry the timing out test please?
[18:11] <acheronuk> https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=zesty&arch=amd64&package=unity8&trigger=qtbase-opensource-src%2F5.7.1%2Bdfsg-2ubuntu2%7E1
[18:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: curtin (xenial-proposed/main) [0.1.0~bzr425-0ubuntu1~16.04.1 => 0.1.0~bzr437-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (ubuntu-server)
[18:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libvirt (xenial-proposed/main) [1.3.1-1ubuntu10.6 => 1.3.1-1ubuntu10.7] (ubuntu-server, virt)
[18:50] <cpaelzer> hi, for the xenial libvirt SRU that just hit the unapproved queue I was asked in the bug if there would be any chance to still slip into 16.04.2
[18:50] <sergiusens> rbasak, mind letting snapcraft 2.25 into xenial-updates and yakkety-updates ?
[18:51] <cpaelzer> Not mine personally (but I'm agreeing with the argument) I'm just forwarding that wish for now - If there is any chance at all please have a look at the queue and bug 1637601 for more
[19:39] <clivejo> acheronuk: I started it, but it seems to be timing out again - http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/running#pkg-unity8
[19:44] <acheronuk> clivejo: seems so :/
[19:48] <clivejo> anyone able to help out with this?
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted kombu [source] (trusty-proposed) [3.0.7-1ubuntu1.1]
[20:53] <sergiusens> slangasek, hey! (falling back to you) mind letting snapcraft 2.25 into xenial-updates and yakkety-updates ?
[20:58] <slangasek> sergiusens: there appears to be an autoure for snapcraft/amd64 in yakkety, do you know about this?
[20:59] <sergiusens> slangasek, a what?
[20:59] <sergiusens> probably yes
[20:59] <slangasek> heh
[20:59] <slangasek> sergiusens: there appears to be an autopkgtest failure for snapcraft/amd64 in yakkety, do you know about this?
[20:59] <slangasek> sorry, cpu too loaded to process usb keyboard interrupts :P
[20:59] <sergiusens> oh, regression in adt... darn
[21:00] <sergiusens> I clicked the retest twice I think, does that run twice? had network issues
[21:00] <sergiusens> we should combine your cpu overload with my network issues :-)
[21:01] <sergiusens> yeah, network, "Invalid http response for https://xmlrpc.launchpad.net/bazaar/: Unable to handle http code 502: Bad Gateway"
[21:01] <sergiusens> slangasek, I don't mind rerunning, it will pass ;-)
[21:01] <slangasek> it should only retrigger a single rerun
[21:02] <sergiusens> slangasek, btw, how do I resubmit the "always" failed cases, the armhf ones should pass now iirc but I cannot retrigger
[21:03] <slangasek> sergiusens: there's a tool that pitti sent email about a couple months ago to let you do arbitrary retriggers
[21:03] <slangasek> retry-autopkgtest-regressions, in ubuntu-archive-tools
[21:04] <slangasek> but basically, all it does anyway is construct urls and load them in a browser...  you could just edit the url in your browser, in this case :)
[21:08] <sergiusens> slangasek, thanks
[21:16] <infinity> slangasek: Wow, you lost "packagetest fail" to lost keyboard interrupts?  That's special.
[21:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (xenial-proposed/main) [229-4ubuntu15 => 229-4ubuntu16] (core)
[21:40] <sil2100> rbasak: hey! Could you press the Approval button for walinuxagent as per opinions above? ^
[21:40] <sil2100> rbasak: I assigned myself to the two bugs so those don't get lost anywhere
[21:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted systemd [source] (xenial-proposed) [229-4ubuntu16]
[21:45] <slangasek> sil2100: he's probably EOD, but why can't apw or bdmurray accept the SRU since it's their opinion? :-)
[21:47] <bdmurray> because I didn't actually review the upload for the SRU?
[21:48] <slangasek> that's a good reason
[21:59] <sil2100> ;)
[22:00] <sil2100> If anyone additional can review and approve then that's fine as well, didn't want to waste time unnecessarily
[22:00] <sil2100> And I don't want to self-approve things
[22:00] <sil2100> This can possibly wait till tomorrow of course
[22:00] <teward> how far away is feature freeze again?
[22:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nova (trusty-proposed/main) [1:2014.1.5-0ubuntu1.5 => 1:2014.1.5-0ubuntu1.6] (ubuntu-server)
[22:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted walinuxagent [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.2.2-0ubuntu0~14.04.1]
[22:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted walinuxagent [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.2.2-0ubuntu0~16.04.1]
[22:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted walinuxagent [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.2.2-0ubuntu0~16.10.1]
[22:24] <rbasak> sil2100: accepted.
[22:25] <rbasak> teward: just under a month I think? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZestyZapus/ReleaseSchedule
[22:27] <teward> mmkay, hopefully I can resolve this evil build failure for nginx so i can get the merge working
[22:27] <teward> if not, well... i'm out of options :/
[22:40] <sil2100> rbasak: wow! Thank you!
[22:43] <sergiusens> slangasek, the yakkety amd64 adt tests now passed (pending-sru has not caught up yet though), can you take care of it at your convenience?
[23:04] <slangasek> sergiusens: lgtm, releasing
[23:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted powerpc-utils [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.3.1-2ubuntu0.2]
[23:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-2] (no packageset)
[23:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-2] (no packageset)
[23:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-2] (no packageset)
[23:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-2] (no packageset)
[23:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-2] (no packageset)
[23:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-2] (no packageset)
[23:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ipe [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [7.2.7-2] (no packageset)