[04:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (zesty-proposed/main) [4.10.0-11.13] (core, kernel)
[04:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [4.10.0-11.13]
[06:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: retro-gtk (zesty-proposed/primary) [0.9.91-0ubuntu1]
[06:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: gnome-games-app (zesty-proposed/primary) [3.23.91-0ubuntu1]
[07:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: gnome-games-app (zesty-proposed/primary) [3.23.91-0ubuntu1]
[08:30] <jibel> apw, 2.22.6 verified on trusty. It was a problem with services started as systemd services on trusty but without service files.
[08:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ariba [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.7.1+ds-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[08:50] <apw> jbicha, two gnome-games-app uploads?
[08:51] <apw> jibel, ack
[09:30] <jamespage> please could a member of the release team review bug 1668934 for me; I think its a bit of a no brainer but would like an official +1
[09:31] <jamespage> rbasak: could you give me a pre-SRU review for that as well please ^^ its a little outside the norm in terms of version bumps required.
[09:34] <rbasak> ack
[10:07] <Mirv> dear whoever could look at autopkgtests, me and Saviq have lots of xenial PPA tests that are claimed to be running but actually are nowhere in running page, either running or in queue for some hours: https://bileto.ubuntu.com/excuses/2523/xenial.html / https://bileto.ubuntu.com/excuses/2519/xenial.html
[10:07] <Mirv> is there a known hickup in the infrastructure and/or could some mass-retry them?
[10:09] <Laney> yes
[10:09] <Laney> the kernel rollback yesterday borked the cloud images
[10:10] <Laney> but I don't have an overview of the missing requests
[10:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fglrx-installer [source] (trusty-proposed) [2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.3]
[10:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fglrx-installer-updates [source] (trusty-proposed) [2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.3]
[10:16] <Laney> Mirv: If you give me a few minutes I am rolling new images which should work, then you can retry things
[10:22] <rbasak> jamespage: I'm not keen on this. Is backporting the security fixes not feasible?
[10:23] <rbasak> Things like "Variable wsrep_dirty_reads now has Global scope as well" sound like they could change behaviour.
[10:23] <jamespage> rbasak: 5.6.21->5.6.34 + oracle policy on not detailing the actual commits...
[10:24] <Laney> Mirv: ok, https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-xenial-ci-train-ppa-service-2523/xenial/amd64/u/ubuntu-system-settings-online-accounts/20170303_101553_783a5@/log.gz worked
[10:24] <rbasak> The Oracle originating changes I'm less bothered about.
[10:24] <Laney> go ahead and retry all RUNNING xenial tests
[10:24] <rbasak> It's the Percona layering on top.
[10:24] <Laney> and RUNNING-ALWAYSFAIL
[10:24] <rbasak> Does Percona provide any stability/no-behavioural-change statement?
[10:25] <jamespage> rbasak: I'd have to dig into that to find out
[10:25] <jamespage> rbasak: but I suspect so
[10:25] <rbasak> eg. 5.6.34-26.19 deprecates some encryption modes.
[10:25] <rbasak> As long as it's just deprecation I guess that could be OK.
[10:29] <jamespage> rbasak: I agree about being uncomfortable about some of the percona overlay, but I don't think there is a practicable way forward of updating for security issues, without taking any changes in the percona overlay as well
[10:29] <jamespage> rbasak: lemme ping georgelorch and see
[10:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.23~14.04]
[11:50] <Mirv> Laney: great, thanks!
[12:13] <Saviq> Laney, could you do the reruns? we don't have access to snakefruit (CC Mirv)
[12:14] <Saviq> as you were :)
[13:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected thunar [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.6.11-0ubuntu1.16.10.1]
[13:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: thunar (yakkety-proposed/universe) [1.6.10-2ubuntu2 => 1.6.11-0ubuntu0.16.10.1] (mythbuntu, xubuntu)
[13:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected thunar [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.6.11-0ubuntu1.16.04.1]
[13:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: thunar (xenial-proposed/universe) [1.6.10-2ubuntu1 => 1.6.11-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (mythbuntu, xubuntu)
[13:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted thunar [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.6.11-0ubuntu0.16.10.1]
[13:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted thunar [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.6.11-0ubuntu0.16.04.1]
[15:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nova-lxd (yakkety-proposed/main) [14.1.0-0ubuntu0.16.10.1 => 14.2.0-0ubuntu0.16.10.1] (ubuntu-server)
[15:06] <jbicha> apw: please reject the older gnome-games-app
[15:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected gnome-games-app [source] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.91-0ubuntu1]
[15:12] <apw> jbicha, ^ done
[15:43] <rbasak> jamespage: I wonder if this should actually be a security upload through the security pocket though.
[15:44] <jamespage> rbasak: quite possibly
[15:45] <rbasak> mdeslaur: ^ opinion on bug 1668934 please? We're discussing updating to the latest point release, which includes feature changes. It is based on MySQL, so similar policies apply. Wondering if it should actually go through the security pocket.
[15:50] <mdeslaur> rbasak: were there substantial package changes, or pretty much just a version bump?
[15:51] <mdeslaur> rbasak: ideally, it should end up in the security pocket, but whether or not it goes though the sru process first is up to you
[15:52] <mdeslaur> depending on how confident you are with the changes
[16:13] <jamespage> mdeslaur: I've been testing the updates for the last few days - its testing OK
[16:14] <mdeslaur> jamespage: ok, if you feel they're ready, stick them in a ppa somewhere and subscribe ubuntu-security-sponsors to the bug, and someone will sponsor them next week
[16:14] <jamespage> mdeslaur: great thankyou
[16:15] <jamespage> mdeslaur: I'm assuming you'd like me to push the updates to zesty myself first
[16:15] <mdeslaur> sure, please
[16:15] <jamespage> mdeslaur: I'll get those done today
[16:15] <mdeslaur> thanks
[16:55] <rbasak> mdeslaur: thanks.
[17:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (yakkety-proposed/main) [0.7.9-0ubuntu1~16.10.1 => 0.7.9-47-gc81ea53-0ubuntu1~16.10.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[17:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zlib (xenial-proposed/main) [1:1.2.8.dfsg-2ubuntu4 => 1:1.2.8.dfsg-2ubuntu4.1] (core)
[17:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zlib (yakkety-proposed/main) [1:1.2.8.dfsg-2ubuntu5 => 1:1.2.8.dfsg-2ubuntu5.1] (core)
[17:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (xenial-proposed/main) [0.7.9-0ubuntu1~16.04.2 => 0.7.9-47-gc81ea53-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[17:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted zlib [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1:1.2.8.dfsg-2ubuntu5.1]
[17:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted zlib [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:1.2.8.dfsg-2ubuntu4.1]
[19:21] <Xz_> hi there, do you use jenkins for building ubuntu?
[19:21] <cjwatson> Some individual projects that feed into Ubuntu do, but not in general
[19:23] <Xz_> cjwatson: is that jenkins public? can I go there and check it out?
[19:31] <infinity> Xz_: I think you misread.  Ubuntu does not use jenkins to build Ubuntu.  Some of our upstream projects do, but those are many jenkins all over the place.
[19:36] <wxl> Xz_: kubuntu uses jenkins, but like cjwatson said, it's for upstream stuff http://kci.pangea.pub/
[19:44] <Xz_> wxl: thanks!
[19:45] <Xz_> cjwatson: I understood, I wanted to see other ubuntu-related projects that use jenkins
[19:45] <Xz_> cjwatson: by the way, what does ubuntu use for build & release?
[20:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted network-manager-openvpn [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.1.93-1ubuntu1.1]
[20:47] <bdmurray> rbasak: At one point in time you commented in a bug about being curious about a Gnome microrelease exception.  That's a historical thing https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2015-September/001152.html - you can find gnome in r59 of the MRE page.
[21:01] <robru> Laney: you around? do you have a minute to help me identify specific package which match all the different email cases? So far I have a bileto upload and (I think) a direct core dev upload, still need to find examples of debian manual&auto syncs, sponsored archive copies, etc
[22:03] <apw> robru kerne
[22:03] <apw> robru: kernel packages are copies
[22:04] <infinity> robru: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vala/0.34.5-1 <-- Manual sync.
[22:04] <robru> apw: got that one, thanks. I need an example of a package that was uploaded directly to archive (not copied from PPA or debian), but sponsored. I was cruising excuses and all the ones I saw were direct unsponsored uploads
[22:04] <infinity> apw: Except when they're not. ;)
[22:04] <apw> infinity: true ;)
[22:06] <apw> robru: grep-merges apw has packages I have uploaded and sponsored
[22:06] <robru> infinity: sponsor any uploads recently?
[22:06] <apw> and you can tell them apart
[22:07] <robru> apw: http://paste.ubuntu.com/24104660/ uh
[22:07] <infinity> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kerneloops/0.12+git20140509-2ubuntu1
[22:07] <infinity> Yes, grep-merges appears to have developed a bug. :P
[22:07] <infinity> Anyhow, the bove is a sponsored direct upload.
[22:07] <infinity> s/bove/above/
[22:09] <infinity> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gem2deb/0.33.1 <-- Autosync.
[22:10] <infinity> robru: A manual sync and autosync should look the same, except that the copy was performed by ~katie for autosyncs, and emailing her will get you nowhere. :P
[22:11] <apw> robru yeah but that is two direct uploads and a sponsored upload
[22:11] <robru> infinity: apw: thanks
[22:12] <apw> infinity: I think I have a fixed version of that here somewhere
[22:12] <infinity> apw: If only you could commit to lp:ubuntu-dev-tools (hint: you can).
[22:13] <apw> yeah I know, I am a tool
[22:13] <infinity> Oh, and it's already fixed in bzr.
[22:13] <infinity> Maybe I should do a Debian upload and sync. :P
[22:13] <apw> heh good, who fixed it
[22:14] <infinity> mitya57.
[22:14] <infinity> Should probably do a pass on the bug list, see if there are any easy ones to bump off, then cut a release.
[22:15] <infinity> No one's upload since last May, and that was me. :/
[22:15] <nacc> we've gotten a few pings in the past few days about the linux-image-generic update for 4.4.0-65 that was deleted from updates and security
[22:15] <infinity> Not sure how I became the maintainer of u-d-t...
[22:15] <nacc> do we have a documented "here's how you fix your systems"?
[22:15] <infinity> nacc: What's to fix?
[22:15] <infinity> nacc: People who upgraded in that window are just on newer kernels, but there aren't actually any known issues with it.
[22:15] <nacc> https://askubuntu.com/questions/889126/package-linux-image-4-4-0-65-generic-needs-to-be-reinstalled
[22:16] <nacc> except it didn't succesfully install for more than one person
[22:16] <nacc> and they can't reinstall that package as it's no longer there (afaict)
[22:16] <infinity> nacc: Uhh.  The failure to install is weird and entirely unrelated to us removing it from the archive.
[22:17] <nacc> infinity: just want to make sure we give a good answer in #ubuntu
[22:17] <nacc> infinity: agreed, but ... it's happening :)
[22:17] <infinity> Like, often?
[22:17] <nacc> not sure yet
[22:17] <infinity> I've literally never seen the message "package linux-image-4.4.0-65-generic needs to be reinstalled, but I can't find an archive for it"
[22:17] <nacc> there were a lot of pings about it overnight, it seems (which makes sense)
[22:17] <infinity> I can't even think of what would print such a message.
[22:17] <nacc> yeah, me neither, so i'm not sure
[22:18] <infinity> Anyhow, for people who upgraded in the window but don't otherwise have a problem, the answer is "you don't have a problem".
[22:18] <nacc> right
[22:18] <infinity> For the few people who have unrelated problems and are grumpy that they can't --reinstall or similar, the answer would be to purge the kernel.  Though if I knew WHAT was printing that message, I couldbe more clear.
[22:19] <infinity> Maybe a "dpkg --configure -a" is all that's needed (ie: maybe that's a message from update-manager when it detects an interrupted install?)
[22:19] <nacc> infinity: yep, i'm asking for details, thanks
[22:23] <nacc> infinity: yeah, it's a GUI that printed that message in this particular case, but they are remotely helping someone in a different country, so not sure which one. update-manager seems likely. I'm fine with the stated purge if needed
[22:27] <nacc> infinity: hrm, apparently that string is in libapt-pkg.so somewhere
[22:28] <infinity> nacc: Oh.  But it means some higher level tool (or human) *asked* for "apt-get install --reinstall <package>" and then apt couldn't find <package>
[22:29] <nacc> infinity: yeah, that's my understanding, and i don't know which tool did that yet :)
[22:29] <nacc> infinity: in any case, you've answered my questions, and it's what i expected, thanks!
[22:30] <infinity> nacc: Do I get a gold star?
[22:30] <nacc> !goldstar | infinity
[22:30] <nacc> infinity: sadly, ubot5 doesn't know about them
[22:30] <Ukikie> !cookie
[22:31] <infinity> Great, now I'll get fat(ter).
[22:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected cloud-init [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.7.9-47-gc81ea53-0ubuntu1~16.10.1]
[22:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected cloud-init [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.7.9-47-gc81ea53-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[22:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted maas [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.1.4+bzr5591-0ubuntu1~16.10.1]
[22:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted maas [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.1.4+bzr5591-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]