[00:41] <tsimonq2> Could someome please approve my message in the ubuntu-devel-announce mailing list queue?
[00:41] <tsimonq2> *someone
[01:46] <cjwatson> tsimonq2: done
[01:48] <tsimonq2> cjwatson: kthx
[04:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: chrome-gnome-shell (yakkety-proposed/universe) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.1 => 8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.2] (no packageset)
[04:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: chrome-gnome-shell (xenial-proposed/primary) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.04.0]
[04:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: chrome-gnome-shell (trusty-proposed/primary) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu14.04.1]
[05:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: chrome-gnome-shell (yakkety-proposed/universe) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.1 => 8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.10.1] (no packageset)
[06:39] <Mirv> I don't know quite how to explain the i386 only camitk autopkgtest failure at http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#qtbase-opensource-src but also it seems unlikely the tray icon patches would cause the error of detecting unknown CamiTK version..
[06:39] <Mirv> anyway, that one would be the only one blocking the migration of that patch update
[06:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected chrome-gnome-shell [source] (yakkety-proposed) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.2]
[06:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected chrome-gnome-shell [source] (xenial-proposed) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu16.04.0]
[07:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected chrome-gnome-shell [source] (trusty-proposed) [8-2ubuntu3~ubuntu14.04.1]
[07:05] <apw> jbicha, chrome-gnome-shell ... i think these backports look reasonable, but can you explain the odd numbering on xenial please
[07:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted chrome-gnome-shell [source] (yakkety-proposed) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.10.1]
[08:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-trusty [amd64] (precise-proposed) [3.13.0-111.158~precise1]
[09:09] <Laney> oops, probably didn't mean to uncomment edubuntu :-)
[09:34] <fossfreedom_> jbicha: thanks - was aware of that issue for the yakkety gnome-control-center.  Little surprised the GTK+3.24 gnome-control-center/libinput still having the same issues :/
[11:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-65.86] (core, kernel)
[11:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-65.86]
[12:19] <ogra_> can someone let snapd out of the unapproved queue on xenial ?
[12:22] <apw> ogra_, right now it is holding for a potential regression between it and apparmor
[12:22] <ogra_> apw, thanks for the info
[12:22] <ogra_> apw, any info what that regression is ?
[12:23] <apw> ogra_, hopefully the comment from me on the SRU bug says which bug we are waiting on
[12:23] <ogra_> ah
[12:25] <apw> ogra_, oh yeah i even included the bug #
[12:25] <ogra_> apw, yeah, i see it ... zyga has concerns though
[12:25] <zyga> apw: hey, I'm interested in the kernel regression and snapd
[12:26] <zyga> apw: jjohansen has informed me (also in the bug report) that this is not a regression but a feature
[12:26] <apw> ogra_, it looks from the last two comments he was happy
[12:26] <zyga> apw: and that snapd should be updated to cope
[12:26] <apw> zyga, are you happy :)
[12:26] <zyga> apw: not sure
[12:26] <zyga> apw: it's raining, my mother in law is coming today and we have medium fire in snapd all over ;-)
[12:26] <zyga> apw: seriously, not sure what to do yet
[12:26] <zyga> apw: if the bug just affects classic + jailmode snaps the this is irrelevant
[12:26] <apw> with my "SRU member dealing with these snapd updates" hat on i think i am waiting for updates to snapd for all series z down
[12:26] <zyga> apw: if it affects more then we need to fix it in snapd and push this out ASAP
[12:27] <apw> zyga, well it is affecting your tests :)
[12:27] <zyga> apw: one specific test that checks a very niche usecase
[12:27] <zyga> apw: we also have a wide-spread problem that .6 is addressing
[12:27] <jjohansen> zyga: it potentially affects more, I can't say where it will surface
[12:27] <zyga> apw: I'd trade the wide spread problem for the niche one any day
[12:27] <zyga> jjohansen: I see
[12:27] <zyga> jjohansen: so the rule you mentioned should land to the base template
[12:28] <zyga> jjohansen: is it sufficient for libc or should we open up 'm' to all the thnigs in core?
[12:28] <apw> jjohansen, that is the one jamie suggests in comment #1 right ?
[12:28] <jjohansen> zyga: I am not sure, I would just go libc but I tend to be conservative
[12:29] <zyga> jjohansen: I see
[12:29] <zyga> jjohansen: I'll prepare a patch but we will also need to refresh all the profiles in snapd on startup
[12:29] <zyga> (like we do with seccomp now)
[12:32] <apw> jjohansen, have those changes been submitted for Y/X/T yet ?
[12:33] <jjohansen> apw: yes
[12:33] <jjohansen> apw: well not trusty, I need to  look at its kernel more
[12:44] <apw> so i am reading that to say the current pending snapd in y/x/y are all only "as bad" as the one in -updates
[12:45] <jjohansen> sounds right
[13:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: chrome-gnome-shell (xenial-proposed/primary) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.04.1]
[13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected chrome-gnome-shell [source] (xenial-proposed) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.04.0]
[13:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted chrome-gnome-shell [source] (xenial-proposed) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.04.1]
[13:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chrome-gnome-shell [amd64] (xenial-proposed/universe) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted chrome-gnome-shell [source] (trusty-proposed) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu14.04.1]
[13:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted chrome-gnome-shell [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu16.04.1]
[13:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: chrome-gnome-shell [i386] (trusty-proposed/none) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu14.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted chrome-gnome-shell [i386] (trusty-proposed) [8-2ubuntu4~ubuntu14.04.1]
[13:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.22.6]
[13:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.22.6~14.04]
[13:23] <apw> ogra_, ok the old and new snapd will be equally affected by the incoming apparmor changes so i have accepted those snapd updates
[13:24] <ogra_> zyga, ^^^
[13:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pepperflashplugin-nonfree (yakkety-proposed/multiverse) [1.8.2+nmu1ubuntu1 => 1.8.2+nmu1ubuntu1.1] (no packageset)
[13:57] <zyga> apw: thank you
[13:57] <zyga> apw: I'm sure we'll work on 2.22.7 with a reaction to kernel changes
[14:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pepperflashplugin-nonfree (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [1.8.2ubuntu1 => 1.8.2ubuntu1.1] (no packageset)
[16:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [source] (trusty-proposed) [20160930-0ubuntu3~14.04.1]
[19:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (yakkety-proposed/main) [4.8.0-40.43] (core, kernel)
[19:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected thermald [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.5.3-5]
[19:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (yakkety-proposed) [4.8.0-40.43]
[19:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: thermald (yakkety-proposed/main) [1.5.3-4 => 1.5.3-4ubuntu1] (core)
[20:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: wget (xenial-proposed/main) [1.17.1-1ubuntu1.1 => 1.17.1-1ubuntu1.2] (core)
[21:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: kexec-tools (yakkety-proposed/main) [1:2.0.10-2ubuntu1 => 1:2.0.10-2ubuntu1.1] (core)
[21:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: kexec-tools (xenial-proposed/main) [1:2.0.10-1ubuntu2 => 1:2.0.10-1ubuntu2.1] (core)