[02:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[02:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[02:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[02:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[02:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[02:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[02:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[04:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cgroup-lite (precise-proposed/main) [1.1.5 => 1.1.6] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[04:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cgroup-lite (trusty-backports/main) [1.11~ubuntu14.04.2 => 1.11~ubuntu14.04.3] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[04:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cgroup-lite (trusty-backports/main) [1.11~ubuntu14.04.2 => 1.11~ubuntu14.04.3] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[04:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cgroup-lite (xenial-proposed/universe) [1.11 => 1.11ubuntu0.16.04.1] (no packageset)
[04:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cgroup-lite (yakkety-updates/universe) [1.11 => 1.11ubuntu0.16.10.1] (no packageset)
[10:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: pagein (zesty-proposed/primary) [0.00.03-1]
[10:52] <ginggs> would someone take care of a couple of removals please? LP: #1653238 please let me know if i need to add more info to the bug
[10:52] <ginggs> and LP: #1636259
[13:08] <tjaalton> I don't understand this entry in update_output.txt:
[13:08] <tjaalton> trying: mesa
[13:08] <tjaalton> skipped: mesa (8, 35, 1)
[13:08] <tjaalton>     got: 51+0: a-19:a-4:a-4:i-7:p-3:s-14
[13:08] <tjaalton>     * amd64: libopentk-cil-dev, libopentk1.1-cil
[13:09] <tjaalton> hm actually, looks like libopentk1.1-cil depends on $world
[13:10] <tjaalton> and needs fixing
[13:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[13:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[13:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[13:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[13:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: graphene [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[13:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: retro-gtk (zesty-proposed/primary) [0.9.91-0ubuntu1]
[13:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: gnome-games-app (zesty-proposed/primary) [3.23.91-0ubuntu1]
[14:04] <jbicha> you can reject the older retro-gtk, gnome-games-app; I had to rename retro-gtk's -dev package
[14:10] <zul> can someone please reject horizon 10.0.2 sitting in yakkety-proposed
[15:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected horizon [source] (yakkety-proposed) [3:10.0.2-0ubuntu1]
[15:10] <rbasak> zul: ^
[15:13] <zul> rbasak: yes
[15:14] <rbasak> zul: just letting you know it's done (and others so they don't duplicate effort looking at the queue)
[15:15] <zul> thalkns
[16:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fglrx-installer (trusty-proposed/restricted) [2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 => 2:15.201.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[16:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fglrx-installer-updates (trusty-proposed/restricted) [2:15.201-0ubuntu0.14.04.3 => 2:15.201.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2]
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [i386] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2]
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2]
[16:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted pagein [sync] (zesty-proposed) [0.00.03-1]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [i386] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu1]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted graphene [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [1.6.0-0ubuntu2]
[16:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected retro-gtk [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.9.91-0ubuntu1]
[16:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pagein [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/none) [0.00.03-1] (no packageset)
[16:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pagein [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.00.03-1] (no packageset)
[16:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pagein [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.00.03-1] (no packageset)
[16:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pagein [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.00.03-1] (no packageset)
[16:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pagein [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.00.03-1] (no packageset)
[16:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pagein [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.00.03-1] (no packageset)
[16:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: pagein [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.00.03-1] (no packageset)
[17:21] <jamespage> mdeslaur, rbasak: re bug 1668934
[17:21] <jamespage> zesty uploads acked by release team and completed; xenial and yakkety updates staged in PPA referenced in bug report
[17:22] <jamespage> a slight horrifying number of CVE's closed out
[17:22] <mdeslaur> jamespage: ack, thanks, whoever is on community will look at it
[17:22] <jamespage> I've upgrade tested all three sets of updates
[17:22] <jamespage> mdeslaur: awesome - thanks!
[17:22] <rtg> xnox, infinity - I just removed the block-proposed tag from linux 4.10.0-11.13. Please update d-i accordingly.
[17:22] <rbasak> jamespage: thanks!
[17:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sssd (xenial-proposed/main) [1.13.4-1ubuntu1.2 => 1.13.4-1ubuntu1.3] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[17:50] <infinity> rtg: And I added it back.  Can you please not remove it until the testing matrix is actually clear?
[17:50] <rtg> the ADT matrix ?
[17:51] <infinity> Yes.
[17:51] <infinity> The one with a bunch of new red and some yellow.
[17:51] <infinity> (I just retried all of those for you)
[17:53] <rtg> infinity, the only test failure that ought to have held up promotion is lxd. Seth couldn't repro it, so we decided it must be environmental.
[17:53] <infinity> rtg: And tests that hadn't run, you decided didn't matter?
[17:54] <rtg> I thought everything _had_ run at least once
[17:55] <infinity> That's not what yellow "MISS" blocks mean.
[17:55] <infinity> But the lxd thing does look like it needs deeper investigation than "oh, it must be the test setup's fault".
[17:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sssd (yakkety-proposed/main) [1.13.4-3ubuntu0.1 => 1.13.4-3ubuntu0.2] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[17:56] <infinity> Because that conclusion (if correct) means the test/infra needs fixing.  If incorrect, you have a kernel regression.  Neither one of those means we need to rush to ignore the test.
[17:57] <rtg> If I waited until the test matrix was perfect I'd never get a kernel promoted.
[17:59] <infinity> If you know the tests are broken, discuss it with the people responsible for the tests.  If you know the kernel is broken, it shouldn't promote.  If you ignore both of those, the testins is useless, and the kernel is in an unknown state.
[18:01] <rtg> infinity, Seth did talk to stgraber about the lxd failures, and they are being addressed.
[18:01] <infinity> stgraber: ^
[18:02] <infinity> rtg: That's exactly not what you said the first time.
[18:02] <rtg> infinity, you are correct, that was a bit misleading.
[18:02] <rtg> environmental in the sense that there was a missing dependency
[18:03] <infinity> rtg: Anyhow, while the lxd one is the most obviously concerning, the point still stands that the tests were not all complete/passed.  I've retried the lot to see how it settles.
[18:03] <infinity> sforshee: Hey Freshest.
[18:03] <stgraber> infinity: somehow lvm2 is now being pulled into the autopkgtest images, this is triggering some extra tests on LXD's side which are failing due to missing thin-provisioning-tools. The next LXD upload (2.11 tonight) will have some more test dependencies to account for that new behavior.
[18:03] <sforshee> infinity: :-P
[18:05] <infinity> sforshee: That's cool.  Tim's first mention of this was slightly more "we decided it wasn't our fault, so meh" with a bit less actual investigation and proposed solution.   Sorry you had to come translate from Cowboy.
[18:05] <sforshee> infinity: no problem, looks like I showed up just in time for stgraber to explain
[18:06] <infinity> Err.  Yes, I should have directed that to stgraber. ;)
[18:06] <infinity> Same length nick, same first letter, and his message was right after you joined.
[18:06] <infinity> CONFUSING.
[18:06] <apw> and completion order changes with who talked last (at least for me)
[18:07] <infinity> stgraber: lvm2 being pulled in seems weird.  OTOH, if you have tests that weren't being run because of missing deps, depending on all of them so all the tests run sounds A+ to me.
[18:07] <infinity> apw: For me, it's who I talked to last.
[18:07] <stgraber> infinity: yeah, no idea why lvm2 is now part of the autopkgtest image, but indeed makes sense for us to test everything so the next upload will be depending on btrfs, lvm2+thin-provisioning-tools and zfs
[18:07] <apw> which sounds a lot more useful
[18:09] <apw> infinity, rtg, we are red across the board on zfs on that kernel, though that is likely the dracult *cough* issue.  cking is hand verifying it now.
[18:09] <Laney> Hmm
[18:09] <infinity> stgraber: Anyhow, thanks for the investigation and pending fix, please come back to Foundations, etc.
[18:09] <Laney> why do those MISS results have links to logs that apparently have the right trigger?
[18:09] <infinity> apw: dracut doesn't have an L in it, though I kinda like yours better. ;)
[18:10] <apw> it sounds more transylvanian ...
[18:11] <infinity> Laney: Because I retried everything 20m ago and the page needs to refresh?  Or do you mean old logs?
[18:12] <Laney> infinity: No, the page right now has MISS results which link to logs
[18:12] <Laney> Like dpdk
[18:13] <infinity> Laney: Which log (other than the top, which is the just now retry) looks like it's the right triggers?
[18:13] <infinity> Well, right according to what Andy's page thinks is right, which might be wrong.
[18:14] <infinity> (it seems to want the version in proposed, if there is one)
[18:14] <Laney> https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty/zesty/amd64/d/dpdk/20170303_070758_a6b0f@/log.gz
[18:14] <Laney> There's a new dpdk in zesty since then though
[18:14] <Laney> So it could be that
[18:15] <infinity> Yeah, his page insists on results against latest versions.
[18:15] <Laney> There's a tooltip that could be that
[18:15] <infinity> So, something goes from GOOD to MISS if a new version is uploaded before migration.
[18:16] <Laney> Number of failed tests: 39
[18:16] <Laney> OK
[18:16] <Laney> A+ would test again
[18:19] <infinity> Early eBay has forever ruined a generation.
[18:19] <infinity> I use eBay feedback comments with kids half my age and they look at me like I'm on crack.
[18:22] <cking> apw, zfs testing on s390x, x86-64, aarch64 passed smoke tests and posix fs tests, just waiting for the looong running tests to complete,but it looks sane to me (as much as it ever has)
[18:22] <infinity> \o/
[18:22] <cking> (against the -proposed kernel btw)
[18:23] <apw> cking, ack thank you!
[18:24] <cking> i'll see how the full xfs test suite works out on it - that takes a good 30-40 mins, then I run the insane stress tests to see if anything explodes
[18:26] <infinity> cking: Heh, insane stress tests should probbaly be done regularly on all kernels, but not sure that would fit in adt.
[18:27] <cking> infinity, i believe the kt tests do run stress-ng on all our kernels
[18:32] <jbicha> hi, graphene has no rdepends, I renamed the -dev package and it looks like the missing libgraphene-dev is keeping graphene from migrating out of zesty-proposed
[18:33] <infinity> jbicha: Looks like NBS in proposed.  Will fix.
[18:34] <infinity> jbicha: Done.
[18:37] <jbicha> thank you
[18:37] <jbicha> I don't like having the version number in the -dev package name for packages like this but that's what the Debian package will do so might as well fix it now
[18:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (yakkety-proposed/main) [4.8.0-41.44] (core, kernel)
[18:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [3.13.0-112.159] (core, kernel)
[18:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (vivid-proposed/main) [3.19.0-83.91] (core, kernel)
[18:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (yakkety-proposed) [4.8.0-41.44]
[18:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [3.13.0-112.159]
[18:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-lts-trusty [amd64] (precise-proposed/main) [3.13.0-112.159~precise1] (kernel)
[18:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-66.87] (core, kernel)
[18:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (vivid-proposed) [3.19.0-83.91]
[18:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [4.4.0-66.87~14.04.1] (kernel)
[19:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-trusty [amd64] (precise-proposed) [3.13.0-112.159~precise1]
[19:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-66.87]
[19:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [4.4.0-66.87~14.04.1]
[19:05] <cking> apw, all the zfs tests run fine on s390x, just waiting for the slower arches to eventually catch up. no explosions with the stress-ng on zfs tests
[19:21] <cpaelzer> Laney: the dpdk autotests are enabled not as blocker for a reason
[19:21] <cpaelzer> Laney: they are more often failing than not, we fix up every upload a bit
[19:21] <cpaelzer> Laney: but they keep breaking
[19:21] <cpaelzer> Laney: we added them to be executed mainly to get the logs
[19:21] <cpaelzer> Laney: the other tests are better and active to block on fail
[19:22] <cpaelzer> Laney: and then we execute the autotests outside of dep8 tests as well (together with many others)
[19:22] <cpaelzer> Laney: atm for example in the log you posted I get all but one working just fine
[19:22] <cpaelzer> dpdk (and that is a common pattern) just need to stabilize/mature a bit ore on that
[19:23] <cpaelzer> Laney: thanks for linking that here - I didn't know what the reason to post was (didn't read all backlog) but I'll add to my tasks to look at them again
[19:23] <cpaelzer> Laney: most likely lack of sufficient hugepages allocation in LP test infra
[19:23] <cpaelzer> (that it was in the past)
[20:27] <smoser> slangasek, i'm well aware that you're busy. but if you could sru review the cloud-init in the queue....
[20:39] <slangasek> smoser: did you already check with the SRU team member on duty today? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Publishing  If RAOF can't get to it I can take a look yes
[20:40] <smoser> i did not, sorry to mis-ping.
[20:40] <smoser> RAOF, ?
[20:42] <slangasek> (might still be a little early for him)
[20:44] <smoser> slangasek, thanks
[21:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apparmor [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.10.95-0ubuntu2.5~14.04.2]
[23:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.7.9-48-g1c795b9-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[23:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.7.9-48-g1c795b9-0ubuntu1~16.10.1]