[02:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apparmor (trusty-proposed/main) [2.10.95-0ubuntu2.5~14.04.1 => 2.10.95-0ubuntu2.5~14.04.2] (core)
[06:18] <ginggs> how can a new package have an autopkgtest regression? http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/a/ariba/zesty/amd64
[06:19] <ginggs> weird, it's a build failure, but builds fine locally :(
[07:41] <apw> ginggs, well it is a self-test failure apparently because it is core-dumping
[07:41] <apw> ginggs, differnt compiler in zesty-proposed or something
[07:57] <ginggs> apw: it's been failing since October though - scratches head
[08:01] <apw> ginggs, it is possible a retry thinks they should be run when they should not
[08:01] <apw> Laney, any idea why we are running (and failing) ADT testing on ariba when it has no binaries
[08:04] <ginggs> http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/a/ariba/zesty/amd64 shows a pass ??? 1.0.1-1 	cd-hit/4.6.6-1 	2016-08-04 21:29:51 UTC
[08:18] <ginggs> i received this email from launchpad https://paste.ubuntu.com/24094899/ - is there anything that can or should be done about it?  it is unrelated to the memory leak that this upload fixed
[09:04] <Laney> apw: dunno, probably wouldn't have expected britney to request that test
[09:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted php7.0 [source] (yakkety-proposed) [7.0.15-0ubuntu0.16.10.3]
[09:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted php7.0 [source] (xenial-proposed) [7.0.15-0ubuntu0.16.04.3]
[09:08] <apw> Laney: could it be one of the rerun missing jobs perhaps
[09:15] <Laney> apw: nah, 2017-01-27/23:21:55.log.gz:I: [Fri Jan 27 23:37:22 2017] - Requesting ariba autopkgtest on amd64 to verify ariba/2.7.1+ds-1
[09:16] <apw> that is bananas
[09:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: pytest-qt (zesty-proposed/primary) [2.1.0-2]
[09:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: pytest-xvfb (zesty-proposed/primary) [1.0.0-2]
[09:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: python-h5netcdf (zesty-proposed/primary) [0.3.1-1]
[09:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: python-xarray (zesty-proposed/primary) [0.9.1+ds1-1]
[09:43] <ginggs> apw: re ariba: disabled tests, built in a PPA, downloaded and installed .deb, runs test suite locally just fine
[09:55] <ginggs> apw, Laney: i want to upload ariba ignoring the build-dtime test failures, are you still looking at the autopkgtest weirdness?  do you want me to wait?
[09:58] <Laney> you want to ignore a binary which appears to be crashing?
[09:59] <ginggs> Laney, I built it in a PPA, downloaded the deb and it passes the autopkgtests
[09:59] <Laney> so why does it crash on the builder?
[09:59] <ginggs> Laney: nafc
[10:01] <Laney> hmmmm
[10:07] <Laney> ginggs: well I don't think it's a good idea personally, but it's your call at the end of the day
[10:07] <Laney> I might have a britney fix too
[10:23] <ginggs> Laney: a britney fix for?
[10:23] <Laney> requesting the tests when there are no binaries
[10:28] <Laney> pushed that
[10:28] <Laney> I think the test request should go away soon now
[10:39] <ginggs> Laney: we can test that - i can upload ariba 2.7.1+ds-1build1 with no changes
[10:40] <Laney> no need
[10:40] <Laney> it should just forget that one
[10:41] <ginggs> Laney: oh ok
[10:41] <fossfreedom_> jbicha: is there a plan to uplift the version of GTK from 3.22.7 to 3.22.9 in zesty?  Reason for the Q - 3.22.9 breaks Arc-Theme so I'm wondering if I should plan on submitting a patch to Arc Theme to fix the 3.22.9 breakage.
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fglrx-installer (trusty-proposed/restricted) [2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.2 => 2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.3] (ubuntu-desktop)
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fglrx-installer-updates (trusty-proposed/restricted) [2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.2 => 2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.3] (ubuntu-desktop)
[12:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.22.6 => 2.23] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[12:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.22.6+16.10 => 2.23+16.10] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[12:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (trusty-proposed/universe) [2.22.6~14.04 => 2.23~14.04] (no packageset)
[12:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: nvptx-tools (zesty-proposed/primary) [0.20170301-2]
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytest-xvfb [sync] (zesty-proposed) [1.0.0-2]
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-xarray [sync] (zesty-proposed) [0.9.1+ds1-1]
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytest-qt [sync] (zesty-proposed) [2.1.0-2]
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-h5netcdf [sync] (zesty-proposed) [0.3.1-1]
[12:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvptx-tools [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.20170301-2] (no packageset)
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gnome-recipes [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.16.0-0ubuntu1]
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvptx-tools [arm64] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.20170301-2] (no packageset)
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvptx-tools [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.20170301-2] (no packageset)
[12:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvptx-tools [armhf] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.20170301-2] (no packageset)
[12:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[12:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[12:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvptx-tools [i386] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.20170301-2] (no packageset)
[12:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[12:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytest-qt [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [2.1.0-2] (no packageset)
[12:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[12:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvptx-tools [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.20170301-2] (no packageset)
[12:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pytest-xvfb [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [1.0.0-2] (no packageset)
[12:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-xarray [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.9.1+ds1-1] (no packageset)
[12:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: nvptx-tools [s390x] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.20170301-2] (no packageset)
[12:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: python-h5netcdf [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.3.1-1] (no packageset)
[12:57] <jbicha> fossfreedom_: yes, gtk3 is temporarily stuck in proposed because ubuntu-app-launch needs to not use upstart so it can build on s390x
[12:58] <fossfreedom_> jbicha: thanks for the heads up.  I'll prepare a patch for arc-theme
[12:58] <xnox> jbicha, which is proving to be a lot more work thatn originally forseen.
[12:58] <xnox> jbicha, can you build gtk3 without mir on s390x?
[12:59] <xnox> and hence without content-hub, ubuntu-app-launch, mir.
[13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [i386] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytest-xvfb [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [1.0.0-2]
[13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-xarray [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [0.9.1+ds1-1]
[13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nvptx-tools [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [0.20170301-2]
[13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-h5netcdf [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [0.3.1-1]
[13:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pytest-qt [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.1.0-2]
[13:10] <jbicha> xnox: yes, but I'd like the Desktop team to approve that
[13:11] <xnox> jbicha, i'm sure they don't support mir on s390x =)
[13:11] <jbicha> xnox: could you reask in #ubuntu-desktop?
[13:13] <xnox> done
[13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted binutils [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.27-8ubuntu2.1]
[13:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: giflib (trusty-proposed/main) [4.1.6-11 => 4.1.6-11ubuntu0.14.04.1] (core)
[13:55] <fossfreedom_> jbicha: another heads up - something from last nights 3.23.91 updates is crashing Ubuntu Budgie from launching any apps - the whole session dies.  Currently suspect the mutter update.  Investigating.
[13:59] <jbicha> fossfreedom_: nvidia drivers?
[14:00] <fossfreedom_> no - crashing for me in virtualbox.  just talking with a tester who is running on a physical thinkpad - I think that is intel
[14:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: neutron-lbaas (xenial-proposed/main) [2:8.3.0-0ubuntu1 => 2:8.3.0-0ubuntu2] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[15:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: neutron (yakkety-proposed/main) [2:9.1.1-0ubuntu1 => 2:9.2.0-0ubuntu1] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[15:37] <fossfreedom_> jbicha: any thoughts on this? yesterday uploaded was a new version of budgie-desktop - two patches.  I've rebuilt the package without those two extra patches but it still crashes.  If I install the budgie-desktop packages BEFORE yesterday all is well.  Seems like its the recompilation against the new stuff that is causing issues.
[15:39] <fossfreedom_> I've recompiled against all the packages in zesty-proposed.  no joy
[16:19] <jgrimm> bdmurray, are you on SRU duty today?  resolvconf in xenial-proposed needs released (the Yellow status bug in pending-sru is false positive, as no longer affects resolvconf).
[16:20] <jgrimm> or slangasek as having history with that one ^
[16:20] <bdmurray> jgrimm: I am but we are in a meeting at the moment
[16:20] <jgrimm> np at all
[16:21] <jgrimm> and nice change to pending-sru page, i like it!
[17:14] <cyphermox> can someone please review/accept the network-manager-openvpn SRU for xenial?
[17:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: maas (xenial-proposed/main) [2.1.3+bzr5573-0ubuntu1~16.04.1 => 2.1.4+bzr5591-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (ubuntu-server)
[17:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: maas (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.1.3+bzr5573-0ubuntu1~16.10.1 => 2.1.4+bzr5591-0ubuntu1~16.10.1] (ubuntu-server)
[17:24] <bdmurray> sil2100: I'm inclined to accept thermald without the DEP3 headers as I think the bug reference in debian changelog is good enough for an SRU.
[17:28] <bdmurray> jgrimm: Is somebody going to verify the Yakkety version of resolvconf?
[17:29] <bdmurray> sil2100: s/inclined/going/
[17:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted thermald [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.5.3-4ubuntu1]
[17:31] <jgrimm> bdmurray, yes I believe that should happen yet (rharper?)
[17:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted kexec-tools [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1:2.0.10-2ubuntu1.1]
[17:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted kexec-tools [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:2.0.10-1ubuntu2.1]
[18:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted coreutils [source] (yakkety-proposed) [8.25-2ubuntu3~16.10]
[18:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted coreutils [source] (xenial-proposed) [8.25-2ubuntu3~16.04]
[18:10] <santa_> dear release wizards,
[18:11] <santa_> we have been inspecting the status of okular and calligra migration from -proposed
[18:12] <santa_> calligra right now provides okular-backend-odp and okular-backend-odt
[18:12] <santa_> both have
[18:12] <santa_> Recommends: okular
[18:13] <santa_> and
[18:13] <santa_> Enhances: okular
[18:13] <santa_> from the proposed migration raw output:
[18:14] <santa_> trying: okular
[18:14] <santa_> skipped: okular (0, 10, 6)
[18:14] <santa_>     got: 66+0: a-23:a-7:a-7:i-10:p-5:s-14
[18:14] <santa_>     * amd64: okular-backend-odp, okular-backend-odt, okular-mobile
[18:14] <santa_> ↑ is the recommends or the enhances what is triggering the blocking?
[18:14] <santa_> or is something else that I'm missing?
[18:15] <nacc> santa_: i believe that is saying if okular were to migrate, okular-backend-odb and okular-backend-odt and okular-mobile become uninstallable on amd64?
[18:16] <acheronuk> santa_: a KF5 okular would break the okular plugins of KDE4 calligra.
[18:16] <apw> sounds like those use libraries from okular, so need rebuilding on top, something like that
[18:16] <santa_> ok
[18:17] <apw> santa_, normally i would then download the source for one of those and see if it does that
[18:19] <santa_> yeah I think nacc got the answer, those okular backends are built using okular-dev
[18:19] <acheronuk> the calligra in proposed is now KF5 and has had it plugins rebuilt against the new KF5 okular
[18:19] <santa_> yes
[18:20] <acheronuk> they need to migrate together. this time anyway.
[18:21] <santa_> so we got a problem with calligra, and it's that is not migrating because of gcc-6 I presume at some point this would be fixed? because okular was @ -proposed as valid candidate for a while now
[18:23] <santa_> and to be more specific the problem is this https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/zesty/s390x/calligrasheets/1:3.0.0.1-0ubuntu2
[18:26] <santa_> libgcc1 (>= 1:6.3.0-5ubuntu1)
[18:26] <apw> yeah it is tied to gcc-6 which may or may not migrate
[18:27] <santa_> that's higher than the version out of -proprosed
[18:27] <santa_> so do you have any suggestion to deal with this?
[18:27] <apw> well we need to get gcc-6 to migrate, someone need to look at why it is not
[18:28] <acheronuk> I note that there have been a fir few gcc-6 and binutils uploads, which just fail each time on the same tests
[18:28] <santa_> failing autopkgtest on linux apparently
[18:29] <santa_> also note that there are other archs which doesn't have a depend so strict https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/zesty/amd64/calligrasheets/1:3.0.0.1-0ubuntu2
[18:29] <nacc> i believe this is a known issue with the linux test and mismatches
[18:29] <apw> if it is just those, if that is the armhf thing with 'error: not found'
[18:29] <nacc> i saw some discussion of it before, at least
[18:29] <nacc> "ERROR: running version does not match source package"
[18:30] <santa_> so I presume the only option is to wait for gcc migration to be fixed, or is there any possible workaround?
[18:30] <apw> nacc, oh that might just need rerunning with -proposed
[18:30] <apw> enabled or with the kernel as trigger too
[18:30] <nacc> apw: yeah, i think that's true -- not sure why it passed onthe other archs
[18:30] <apw> which arch failed ?
[18:31] <nacc> amd64
[18:31] <nacc> ah i think i see why
[18:31] <nacc> whenever the amd64 test ran, 4.10.0.11 was in proposed
[18:31] <nacc> but for the other arches, it wasn't (afaict)
[18:32] <acheronuk> binutils was also filing against linux for a long time. I see there is a new upload of that today, but not sure that will pass. and that holds back gcc-6 if it fails
[18:33] <nacc> err, 4.10.0-11 that is
[18:33] <acheronuk> *failing
[18:33] <nacc> apw: are you retrying those?
[18:33] <apw> nacc, that has -signed so it might take a bit longer to get to the pocket safely
[18:33] <nacc> apw: ack
[18:34] <apw> nacc, i am trying to sort out a snapd fire, so if you could restart them i'd appreciate not thinking about it
[18:34] <nacc> apw: yep, doing it now
[18:36] <santa_> thank you very much for digging into it
[18:36] <santa_> while I'm here I would to ask other question
[18:37] <santa_> recently I made some stuff to track the status of kde's packaging migrations
[18:37] <santa_> is there a better way to get the information from the update excuses page other than parsing the html page?
[18:38] <santa_> (that's what I'm doing right now, because, apparenly that's what grep-excuses from debian does)
[18:38] <santa_> but suggestions are welcomed
[18:39] <apw> santa_, there is .yaml version of that same page, which most sensible things parse against
[18:39] <apw> well load and sift through
[18:40] <nacc> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.yaml
[18:40] <nacc> santa_: --^
[18:49] <santa_> apw, nacc: parsing the yaml should be better, thanks, fyi what I'm working is on python code to provide things like this: http://gpul.grupos.udc.es/ka-iron-hand_reports/plasma_archive/5.9.3_zesty_proposed_migration.pdf
[18:49] <santa_> or this http://gpul.grupos.udc.es/ka-iron-hand_reports/applications_archive/16.12.1_zesty_proposed_migration.pdf
[18:49] <santa_> an edge a -> b means b build depends on any of the binary packages provided by a
[18:50] <santa_> if we finally file an FFE for kdepim we hope this kind of information is useful for us and for you
[18:51] <santa_> the apps one could give you a hint about new reviewing order
[18:58] <nacc> santa_: the picture is nice, although i think of the arrows in the opposite direction (without changing their meaning :)
[19:00] <santa_> nacc: haha, yeah that's in the eye of the beholder I guess, I think more about the meaning of the arrows as "building will go in this order"
[19:00] <nacc> santa_: makes sense
[19:04] <sil2100> bdmurray: ok, sure
[19:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.23+16.10]
[19:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.23]
[19:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-gnome-meta (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.58.2 => 0.58.3] (ubuntugnome)
[19:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-gnome-meta (yakkety-proposed/universe) [0.71 => 0.71.1] (ubuntugnome)
[19:27] <jbicha> bdmurray: could you accept the ubuntu-gnome-meta SRUs ^ since I'd like to have them in -updates by next week?
[19:29] <bdmurray> jbicha: I don't know without reviewing them. ;-)
[19:30] <jbicha> :)
[19:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted curtin [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.1.0~bzr470-0ubuntu1~16.10.1]
[19:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted curtin [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.1.0~bzr470-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[20:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-gnome-meta [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.71.1]
[20:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-gnome-meta [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.58.3]
[20:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mimedefang [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.78-1ubuntu1.1]
[20:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted exiv2 [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.25-2.1ubuntu16.04.1]
[20:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-weather [source] (xenial-proposed) [3.18.1-1ubuntu1.16.04.1]
[20:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted imagej [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.50d+dfsg-1ubuntu1.16.04.1]
[22:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnome-recipes [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.18.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[22:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnome-recipes [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.18.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[22:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnome-recipes [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.18.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[22:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnome-recipes [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.18.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[22:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnome-recipes [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.18.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[22:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnome-recipes [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.18.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[22:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gnome-recipes [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.18.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[22:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: maas (trusty-proposed/main) [1.9.4+bzr4592-0ubuntu1~14.04.1 => 1.9.5+bzr4599-0ubuntu1~14.04.1] (ubuntu-server)
[23:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sssd [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.11.8-0ubuntu0.5]
[23:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted giflib [source] (trusty-proposed) [4.1.6-11ubuntu0.14.04.1]