[04:58] <elopio> buffer 10
[06:45] <cpaelzer> good morning
[11:37] <pitti> mdeslaur, xnox: FTR: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020601 only affects systemd 228, thus no debian or ubuntu release/pocket/backports/etc.
[12:00] <mdeslaur> thanks pitti!
[12:15] <mdeslaur> @pilot in
[13:26] <sil2100> cpaelzer: hey! I see there's a libibverbs package on Bileto from you ready for release - you want me to release it for you?
[14:04] <cpaelzer> rbasak: I have a few rather minimal merges done and in progress
[14:05] <cpaelzer> rbasak: do you want to review them still, or do you think we can upload and just merge if it is really down to a trivial delta?
[14:06] <rbasak> cpaelzer: I'd like to move towards getting peer review for all uploads, but I don't think there's any need for trivial things right now.
[14:06] <rbasak> Might as well start with the large stuff.
[14:06] <rbasak> There may be a squid3 merge review coming your way soon :-)
[14:07] <cpaelzer> rbasak: makes sense - I'll go on with the trivials to get out of our way then
[14:07] <cpaelzer> rbasak: I'll trade squid for a multipath review :-P
[14:07] <cpaelzer> rbasak: in fact my personal timeline says I'll upload multipath on Friday as-is to get some practical testing if there is no review
[14:08] <cpaelzer> sil2100: thanks for the proactive check, yeah ticket 2395 should be safe (minor upstream release, minimal delta)
[14:08] <rbasak> cpaelzer: I think that's fine. If no reviewers appear after a while, just land it.
[14:08] <cpaelzer> sil2100: except I wanted to try hitting publish myself and see what permissions might break
[14:09] <sil2100> cpaelzer: do you have upload rights for this package?
[14:09] <sil2100> cpaelzer: anyway, nothing wrong will happen if you press publish, it'll tell you if you have the rights to do it or not
[14:10] <cpaelzer> sil2100: yeah I should have upload rights, let me check
[14:11] <cpaelzer> sil2100: ok, it didn't reject me right away - now copying it seems
[14:11] <cpaelzer> sil2100: "INFO Succeeded in 0m 6s"
[14:12] <cpaelzer> sil2100: you might keep an extra eye open since this might be the first time a non core-dev hit publish - just in case anything weird comes up
[14:12] <sil2100> cpaelzer: I guess all looks good!
[14:13] <sil2100> \o/
[14:13] <cpaelzer> \o/
[14:45] <juliank> python-apt 1.4 beta is coming, but there never was a 1.2 or 1.3 (not even a final 1.1) :)
[14:45] <juliank> So don't get confused, the version number is just matching the apt release series it requires!
[14:48] <cpaelzer> is that a known issue of sbuild dep8 tests atm "FAIL stderr: W: Ignoring Provides line with non-equal DepCompareOp for package wine"
[14:48] <cpaelzer> hitting that with an update to exim4 but I doubt to have caused that (https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty-ci-train-ppa-service-2394/zesty/amd64/s/sbuild/20170124_111649_92763@/log.gz)
[14:48] <juliank> cpaelzer: Sounds like a bug in wine
[14:49] <juliank> cpaelzer: It also happens if you run apt update on a recent zesty system
[14:50] <juliank> Hmm, not sure why that happens.
[14:51] <juliank> oh wait, wrong chroot
[14:51]  * juliank is trying to find the broken package
[14:52] <juliank> Package: wine-stable
[14:52] <juliank> Version: 1.8.6-3ubuntu1
[14:52] <juliank> Provides: wine (>= 1:1)
[14:52] <juliank> Oh, come on
[14:52] <juliank> jbicha: ^ you merged that?
[14:53] <juliank> jbicha: I assume that should be wine (= ${source:Version})
[14:54] <juliank> Or wine (= 1.8) or something
[15:00] <cpaelzer> oh, thanks juliank for looing
[15:10] <ginggs> juliank, jbicha: looking at the previous versions, it was just 'Provides: wine'
[15:11] <juliank> ginggs: Oh, good to know. I'm not sure what the >= 1:1 is trying to achieve - I also just noticed the epoch
[15:11] <juliank> maybe it should provide wine with an epoch?
[15:11] <juliank> because some other "wine" package had an epoch
[15:11] <ginggs> juliank: we are trying to get rid of the epoch
[15:12] <juliank> In that case, it could Provide: wine (= 1:${source:Version})
[15:12] <ginggs> juliank: hence the renaming of wine -> wine-stable until the next ubuntu LTS
[15:13] <juliank> ginggs: Right, but currently the provides is broken. It either needs to become unversioned or a useful version provide.
[15:13] <juliank> wine (= 1:${source:Version}) is a bit ugly, but has the advantage of simply just saying wine-stable X provides wine with the same version an epoch 1
[15:17] <ginggs> juliank: shall i just revert to 'Provides: wine'?  i can upload shortly
[15:18] <juliank> ginggs: Well, I think it's better than keeping it broken. I'm not sure what the intention was, or if it was intentional at all.
[15:19] <ginggs> juliank: ok, reverting now. i'd better check src:wine-development too
[15:30] <Laney> juliank: meow, got a second to check on my sanity?
[15:31] <Laney> juliank: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/303682921/buildlog_ubuntu_zesty_amd64_kubuntu_BUILDING.txt.gz
[15:31] <Laney> juliank: or schroot -c zesty-amd64 -u root --directory / -- sh -c 'apt -y install appstream; apt -o Acquire::IndexTargets::deb::DEP-11-icons-hidpi::DefaultEnabled=true -o Acquire::IndexTargets::deb::DEP-11-icons::DefaultEnabled=true update'
[15:31] <juliank> Laney: Ah
[15:31] <Laney> Don't undertand why the hash sum mismatch
[15:32] <juliank> Have you seen http://bugs.debian.org/838441
[15:32] <juliank> there's a bug somewhere in APT causing it to take the uncompressed hashes for the compressed file, but no constant reproducer yet
[15:33] <Laney> juliank: ah right, nope
[15:33] <ginggs> src:wine-development has 'Provides: wine'
[15:33] <Laney> that one up there works for me, let me see what you want
[15:33] <Laney> sec, got to go give a weekly report
[15:45] <juliank> Laney: I added zesty-sec to my Deb system, and can't reproduce it, so it's officially complicated.
[15:47] <Laney> juliank: Hmmmm
[15:47] <Laney> for me it happens with *only* zesty-security in there
[15:48] <Laney> which is good for reducing the size of the output ...
[15:51] <juliank> Laney: Hmm, not happening for me
[15:51] <juliank> Ah wait
[15:51] <juliank> it only downloaded the inrelease file
[15:52] <juliank> Laney: The problem happens while copying the file from partial to the main directory
[15:53] <Laney> juliank: you reproed it?
[15:53] <juliank> APT tells the copy method it should expect uncompressed hashes for the compressed file
[15:53] <juliank> Laney: No, but that's what the log say
[15:53] <juliank> s
[15:54] <juliank> E: Failed to fetch copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_zesty-security_main_dep11_icons-64x64.tar.gz  Hash Sum mismatch
[15:54] <Laney> Also it only happens if I enable both the IndexTargets
[15:57] <juliank> Ah
[15:59] <Laney> ximion added that in https://launchpadlibrarian.net/303563290/plasma-discover_5.8.5-0ubuntu1_5.8.5-3ubuntu1.diff.gz
[15:59] <Laney> bet that's why it's now happening for kubuntu
[16:01] <juliank> Laney: Oh well, it might not actually be coppying but just an implementation artefact.
[16:04] <juliank> Laney: Maybe talk to donkult in #debian-apt on OFTC, and add some logs with Debug::Acquire::Transaction set
[16:05] <juliank> and take a copy of the repo for further debugging :)
[16:07] <juliank> Debug::pkgAcquire::Auth
[16:07] <juliank> Debug::Acquire::HashSumMismatch"
[16:07] <juliank> Laney: ^ some more debugging options
[16:09] <juliank> I'll give repro a last try
[16:10] <juliank> And now I can repro :)
[16:11] <Laney> oh sweet
[16:16] <cpaelzer> infinity: I looked at liblockfile merge, but I wonder if dropping that old Delta would be fine - especially since this would make liblockfile a sync then.
[16:16] <cpaelzer> infinity: TL;DR is just dh/dh_auto_configure cross build safe enough these days? I'm not a cross build expert so I wanted to ask and the old delta is yours.
[16:16] <cpaelzer> infinity: Also it wasn't merged for a long time - if there is a hidden reason please let me know.
[16:17] <cpaelzer> this is the old delta and the currend d/rules http://paste.ubuntu.com/23858458/
[16:20] <cpaelzer> hmm just checked the dates on the upstream changelog - there seems to be a flurry of activity just recently
[16:21] <renn0xtk9> What do you do if you have TPM_Error code 7 (i.e. you can not boot anymore ) and you have no recovery mode in boot ( Note that I never choose to deactivate it so it is a choice of the distro maker, which I would like to understand as welll....)
[16:21] <cpaelzer> that explains why we had 1.09 for so long
[16:32] <mdeslaur> @pilot out
[16:43] <barry> davmor2: howdy.  just wanted to let you know that i haven't forgotten about aptdaemon.  been having some trouble with its autopkgtests so i'm trying to suss that out so it won't fail to promote in zesty once i've uploaded it
[16:44] <davmor2> barry: awesome thanks dude, seb128 flexiondotorg ^
[16:44] <seb128> davmor2, barry: thanks
[16:46] <barry> davmor2, flexiondotorg, seb128 you can test the change in lp:aptdaemon but the package isn't yet ready.  i added the fix as a quilt patch in the packaging because i don't think there's been an upstream release of aptdaemon in a long time (probably never will be; i think it's been more or less orphaned)
[16:47] <seb128> barry, you could probably take over it/update the vcs if you wanted
[16:47] <barry> seb128: it's the "if" that's the problem :)
[16:47] <seb128> :-)
[16:47] <seb128> barry, well in theory foundations is supposed to maintain it...
[16:48] <seb128> barry, or somebody should look at deprecating it for good and replace it by e.g packagekit on the default install
[16:48] <barry> seb128: true.  i certainly don't mind helping out in cases like this, i just don't want to assume ownership of the upstream and package :/
[16:48] <seb128> right
[16:48] <barry> seb128: yes +1 to that
[16:49] <barry> pretty sure it's been dropped in debian, so we're looking at gnome-software, language-selector-gnome, oem-config-gtk, and sessioninstaller as revdeps
[16:50] <barry> aaaannyway
[18:09] <coreycb> bdmurray, hi can you reject the barbican upload from 2017-01-09 from the xenial review queue?  had to add a missing bug # to the changelog.
[18:22] <coreycb> bdmurray, thanks
[19:19] <jbicha> ginggs: thanks for fixing the wine merge
[19:22] <ginggs> jbicha: np!