[02:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219) [02:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219) [05:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219) [05:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219) [06:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset) [11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1] [11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1] [11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1] [11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1] [11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1] [11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [i386] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1] [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2] [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2] [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2] [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2] [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2] [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2] [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [i386] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2] [11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1] [11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [i386] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1] [11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1] [11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1] [13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu) [13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu) [13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu) [13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu) [13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu) [13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu) [13:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu) [14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1] [14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1] [14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1] [14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1] [14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1] [14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1] [14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [i386] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1] [14:51] good afternoon release wizards [14:52] we have a problem right now with gpgme blocking the migration of most kubuntu's packaging out of -proposed [14:53] gpgme is making another package FTBFS with -proposed enabled [14:53] therefore that is making many autopkgtests fail [14:54] we proposed a fix for this here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gpgme1.0/+bug/1647204/comments/44 [14:54] Ubuntu bug 1647204 in gpgme1.0 (Ubuntu) "1.8.0-2 FTBFS in zesty 17.04" [Undecided,Confirmed] [14:54] but we would need an upload of this fix (we don't have any active motu on the team unfortunately) [14:55] so if you could help us with this particular issue, that would be terrific. thanks in advance [14:57] apw: would you be able to help on the above? ^ [14:59] santa_: gpgme1.0 is in main, so you'd need a core-dev, not a motu (so I can't help) [15:01] mapreri: oh, thanks for the clarification. I still need to get more familiar with ubuntu's "bureaucracy" :) [15:02] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gpgme1.0/+bug/1647204 [15:02] Ubuntu bug 1647204 in gpgme1.0 (Ubuntu) "1.8.0-2 FTBFS in zesty 17.04" [Undecided,Confirmed] [15:02] should we sub the sponsor team again? [15:02] it's already subscribed [15:03] let me ask dkg if he'd upload that to debian [15:05] is the whole change the reduction in the thread count from 100 to 10 in those two tests ? that feels like a rather arbitrary fix without context. [15:05] what is the symptoms when it is at 100 ? [15:06] launchpad-buildd hangs. [15:06] apw: it doesn't build, let me dig a bit, to see if I can find the specific failure... [15:07] apw: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/02/18/%23kubuntu-devel.html#t20:02 [15:07] santa_, the patch implies but does not elucidate that you have confirmed that the failure it finds is not the intended failure mode tested but some other factor [15:08] santa_, ok that does tell me more what i wanted to know [15:08] it would be good if the patch said that we run out of memory in a fork-storm [15:08] yes, I subscribed ~ubuntu-sponsors to that bug several hours ago [15:08] thanks jbicha [15:11] have the Ubuntu Qt maintainers seen this bug? that QtCore error seemed odd [15:50] santa_: from dkg (gpg* maintainer in Debian): https://paste.debian.net/plain/915558 [15:51] (guess it's a FYI) [16:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219) [16:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219) [16:31] mapreri, santa_, that osunds liek the symlink makes no sense ... [16:33] we could try to patch the kde package which is failing to build instead [16:33] apw: how should it be done? [16:33] in any case that is meant to be a temporary thing to be droped later [16:33] santa_, it sounds like that is essentially a transition for the consumers of that library, if that change is dev library is expected [16:35] its a bit of a vicious circle [16:37] kf5-kdepim-apps-libs is the package that needs it [16:37] clivejo, well that is only a build-time depedency and we are uploading this to free built-binaries [16:37] clivejo, so why does it need that. and if we are having to rebuild _that_ anyhow, it would be just as easy to fix it, in theory [16:38] KDE PIM [16:38] * libkf5gpgmepp-dev (for libgpgme11-dev) [16:38] that is the only reverse-depends right? [16:38] huge beast of a thing and not having a working gpgme has lead to us having to hold it back for now [16:39] clivejo, will someone get round to fixing the reverse-depends if i let you bodge this, and remember to remove the bodge [16:40] If I recall kf5-kdepim-apps-libs is split out into new packages [16:41] oh gawd [16:41] someone on your side like to make your life hard [16:41] oh yes [16:41] remember that list of new packages I told you about? [16:42] approx 20 new packages for PIM [16:42] i guess now you have lots of FFEs to file too [16:43] but its either an all or nothing [16:45] so far we have held back the PIM packages to 16.04 and its deps [16:46] ok i'll look at this patch and perhaps mark that patch for not carrying forward in the next merge [16:46] so you have to do something about it then :) [16:46] can you hold back on it a sec [16:47] * apw stops [16:47] would you be willing to force kf5-kdepim-apps-libs tests? [16:49] would the release team work with us to ensure the new packages are accepted and get in? [16:49] i assume if they ahve been accepted for the release (as in FFE or whatever equivalent it needed) [16:49] then i assume we would work with you to get them in [16:50] who would make that decision? [16:50] well at this stage i assume a big pile of updates would need an FFE, so that would be the place [16:51] to ahve the discussion. i am assuming that if KDE wants KDE to be specific thing, and are committing [16:51] the effort to get it done, then it would get approved. but i don't think i should make that decision on my own [16:51] well these are all the latest KDE Apps 16.12 [16:52] so right now we have half of KDE as 16.12 and half as 16.04, which sounds like a bad idea from a support [16:52] but as we had problems with gpgme and 20+ new packages to get in, we have been holding off [16:52] point of view... and i assume it is that you would be asking to correct [16:53] our aim is to get everything to 16.12 [16:53] and that sounds like a laudible and sensible plan to me, so would likely get my vote [16:54] but with PIM deps, one part of it not working, can bring the entire stack down [16:54] presumably that is an argument for it being in sync version wise [16:55] I think we could do it [16:55] but we need to get the NEW packages accepted [16:55] right now we have good resources to update all of this [16:56] right the point of the FFE would be commiting both sides to it [16:56] we have no MOTU's on our team at the moment, and found it very difficult to get previous NEW packages accpted [16:57] clivejo, yep, someone would likely be voluntold to help with New reviews [16:58] so for the FFE, we would open it against something high up in that stack, like Kontact? [17:00] apw: ok, I think the thing is doable in our side; what we can offer is 1. packages not ftbfsing, 2. most autopkgtests passing in amd64/i386 [17:00] about the autopkgtests I would expect a little bit of mercy on some things [17:00] esp on weird arch's! [17:00] clivejo, nominally on all packages you want to update (obviously not on the ones which do not exist) so perhaps the one you are splitting or something [17:03] most exist already, just split from source package [17:03] http://paste.ubuntu.com/24027977/ [17:05] apw: that would take forever, PIM has a lot of packages [17:05] in the past we have selected one top tier package and opened an FFE for that to cover all the packages below [17:06] clivejo, do what you did before indeed; get all that information in the FFE and do send me the bug number where you get that [17:06] this is an example of Frameworks FFE - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/plasma-desktop/+bug/1625392 [17:06] Ubuntu bug 1625392 in plasma-desktop (Ubuntu) "[FFe] KDE Frameworks 5.26.0 into the Yakkety Archive" [Undecided,Fix released] [17:06] clivejo, whatever worked last time, do that [17:08] apw: is it possible to hold the entire packageset in proposed until we are happy everything is working as it should? [17:08] clivejo, we can cirtainly block things in -proposed [17:08] but like 50 odd packages? [17:13] apw: could you force-bad-tests kf5-kdepim-apps-libs for the time being? [17:16] its holding back 5 key frameworks from migrating [17:17] clivejo, if you make me a list of what you want held, it can be held [17:17] if there are some key libraries tha the remainder dep on we can hold those, and the rest get help as a result [17:17] ok, its more a thought at the moment [17:18] we know that KDE PIM 16.04 is working and is tested very well [17:19] 16.12 I know amd64 is working great, but we would need feedback for other arch [17:22] I would like to note that we still have some problems with some archs [17:22] http://gpul.grupos.udc.es/ka-iron-hand_reports/applications_staging/16.12.1_zesty_retry_builds.pdf [17:23] we will work on it [17:23] we also have a private wannabuild/buildd infrastructure to check the autopkgtests [17:24] clivejo, ok that ADT failure is triggered by the fact the tests mandate a rebuild, which we know will fail [17:25] clivejo, so i think we can badtest that reasonable. [17:26] thanks [17:35] apw: thank you very much, we are going to work on kde applications issues on our side [23:48] Hi folks, I was just setting up torrents for seeding 16.04.2 and I see that Lubuntu i386 seems to be missing here: http://torrent.ubuntu.com:6969/ [23:48] I checked and it is marked ready, and was reported as such here in the chan [23:48] infinity: ^^^