[01:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: shim-signed (zesty-proposed/main) [1.23 => 1.27] (core) (sync)
[01:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: shim (zesty-proposed/main) [0.9+1474479173.6c180c6-0ubuntu1 => 0.9+1474479173.6c180c6-1ubuntu1] (core) (sync)
[01:11] <cyphermox> slangasek: ^
[01:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lshw (zesty-proposed/main) [02.18-0.1ubuntu1 => 02.18-0.1ubuntu2] (core)
[02:09] <slangasek> cyphermox: oh, right ;)
[02:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted shim-signed [sync] (zesty-proposed) [1.27]
[02:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted shim [sync] (zesty-proposed) [0.9+1474479173.6c180c6-1ubuntu1]
[03:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: meta-gnome3 (zesty-proposed/universe) [1:3.20+1ubuntu1 => 1:3.22+1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[03:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted meta-gnome3 [source] (zesty-proposed) [1:3.22+1ubuntu1]
[03:17] <ypwong> rbasak, hi, bug 1511301 has been verified, can it be released to -updates soon?
[03:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: criu (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.12-1ubuntu1 => 2.12-1ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[03:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted criu [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.12-1ubuntu2]
[03:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lightdm (zesty-proposed/main) [1.21.5-0ubuntu1 => 1.22.0-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop)
[04:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: meta-gnome3 (zesty-proposed/universe) [1:3.22+1ubuntu1 => 1:3.22+1ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[04:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted meta-gnome3 [source] (zesty-proposed) [1:3.22+1ubuntu2]
[05:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lft (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.2-4ubuntu1 => 2.2-5] (no packageset) (sync)
[05:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lft [sync] (zesty-proposed) [2.2-5]
[06:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gfs2-utils (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1.9-2 => 3.1.9-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[06:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gfs2-utils [source] (zesty-proposed) [3.1.9-2ubuntu1]
[06:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ladish (zesty-proposed/universe) [1+dfsg0-5ubuntu3 => 1+dfsg0-5.1] (ubuntustudio) (sync)
[06:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: deluge (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.3.13+git20161130.48cedf63-1ubuntu1 => 1.3.13+git20161130.48cedf63-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[06:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted deluge [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.3.13+git20161130.48cedf63-2ubuntu1]
[06:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: orthanc-dicomweb (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.3+dfsg-1ubuntu1 => 0.3+dfsg-2] (no packageset) (sync)
[06:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted orthanc-dicomweb [sync] (zesty-proposed) [0.3+dfsg-2]
[06:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd-glib (zesty-proposed/main) [1.7-0ubuntu1 => 1.8-0ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[07:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python3.6 (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.6.1~rc1-1 => 3.6.1-1] (no packageset)
[07:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted python3.6 [source] (zesty-proposed) [3.6.1-1]
[07:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libdrm (zesty-proposed/main) [2.4.75-1ubuntu1 => 2.4.75-2] (core, xorg) (sync)
[08:23] <jamespage> please could the horizon package in the xenial unapproved queue be rejected - it need re-uploading with both orig.tar.gz's
[08:35] <apw> jamespage, looking
[08:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected horizon [source] (xenial-proposed) [2:9.1.1-0ubuntu2]
[08:37] <jamespage> apw: ta
[09:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nova (yakkety-proposed/main) [2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1 => 2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1.1] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[09:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sssd (trusty-proposed/main) [1.11.8-0ubuntu0.5 => 1.11.8-0ubuntu0.6] (ubuntu-desktop)
[10:43] <jamespage> if there is a SRU team member around nova 2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1.1 in the queue for yakkety proposed corrects a regression in nova for 2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1
[10:43] <jamespage> nice to get that in so we can complete verification testing pls :-)
[11:07] <apw> jamespage, looking
[11:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nginx [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.10.3-0ubuntu0.16.04.1]
[11:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nginx [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.10.3-0ubuntu0.16.10.1]
[11:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nova [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1.1]
[11:12] <jamespage> apw: ta
[11:14] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, do you want to help me making perl migrate pleeeeease? :)
[11:16] <LocutusOfBorg> autopkgtest for pinto/0.97+dfsg-4: amd64: Regression ♻ , armhf: Regression ♻ , i386: Regression ♻ , ppc64el: Regression ♻ , s390x: Regression ♻
[11:16] <LocutusOfBorg> this should be probably ignored, it is a warning thrown when importing a deprecated library
[11:17] <Laney> http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/p/pinto/zesty/amd64
[11:17] <Laney> This looks bad for the new perl, doesn't it?
[11:17] <LocutusOfBorg> it looks just a warning
[11:17] <Laney> I think that could be fixed in the test
[11:17] <Laney> Either whitelist the warning, or make it stop happening
[11:17] <Laney> Also, beta freeze so you'll have to wait until after that anyway
[11:17] <LocutusOfBorg> but there isn't a "new perl" not sure why it came out only now
[11:19] <Laney> Maybe something else changed between the last run and now
[11:19] <Laney> Either way, it seems fixable rather than ignoring all the tests
[11:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [4.4.0-69.90~14.04.1]
[11:20] <LocutusOfBorg> you mean pinto, right?
[11:23] <Laney> I suppose that you could either say "yes, we know that it's deprecated, don't make that fail the test" (i.e. whitelist that message), or port whatever is using the deprecated library to the replacement that it talks about
[11:23] <LocutusOfBorg> got the reason for the regression
[11:23] <LocutusOfBorg> perl	5.24.1~rc4-1
[11:23] <Laney> https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=104918
[11:23] <LocutusOfBorg> perl	5.24.1-2ubuntu1
[11:24] <LocutusOfBorg> so, the last good run was with an older rc perl version
[11:28] <LocutusOfBorg> actualluy I'm not able to find where that test is run
[11:28] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't understand that perl testsuite implementation
[11:34] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: They're autodep8 tests for which the runner is in the pkg-perl-autopkgtest package
[11:34] <rbasak> apw, bdmurray, arges: I think we might all be doing SRUs today? Let's coordinate in here if we are.
[11:34] <apw> rbasak, ack
[11:35] <rbasak> I'm looking at some server team bug squashing today, so I'm off SRUs right now though I might do some ad-hoc.
[11:35] <rbasak> I'll report in here if I do.
[11:38] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, so... something like "debian/tests/pkg-perl/SKIP?" https://sources.debian.net/src/pkg-perl-tools/0.36/autopkgtest/README.autopkgtest/
[11:39] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: I think you should be able to put the deprecation message in use-whitelist?
[11:40] <LocutusOfBorg> so, echo "warning" > debian/test/pkg-perl/use-whitelist
[11:40] <Laney> you probably have to put the actual message in there, but dunno
[11:40] <LocutusOfBorg> yes sure
[11:40] <Laney> should reproduce locally
[11:46] <LocutusOfBorg> giving you credits for the fix, thanks
[11:46] <LocutusOfBorg> All tests successful.
[11:46] <LocutusOfBorg> Files=1, Tests=4,  2 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr  0.00 sys +  1.87 cusr  0.08 csys =  1.96 CPU)
[11:47] <LocutusOfBorg> so, ignoring systemd tests and we should be good to go
[11:47] <LocutusOfBorg> (except for freeze)
[11:48] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, presumably you can upload that to -proposed it just won't make it out
[11:49] <LocutusOfBorg> already uploaded :)
[11:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pinto (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.97+dfsg-4 => 0.97+dfsg-4ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[11:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pinto [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.97+dfsg-4ubuntu1]
[11:56] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: thanks! that could probably be fwded too (maybe clone https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=845807)
[11:56] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, already forwarded
[11:57] <Laney> ♥
[11:57] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks to you!
[11:57] <LocutusOfBorg> #858439
[12:02] <arges> looking at yakkety upload queue from the top
[12:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-chess [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1:3.22.0-1ubuntu1]
[12:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libvirt [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.1.0-1ubuntu9.3]
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cgroup-lite [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.11ubuntu0.16.10.1]
[12:24] <LocutusOfBorg> sigh slangasek apw linux-hwe-edge needs virtualbox changes before upload LP: 1674819
[12:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted apt [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.3.5]
[12:25] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, the hwe-edge package has virtualbox kernel bits from zesty so we we care if that fails ?
[12:25] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, if we do that would imply we are lacking a Provides: or something ?
[12:26] <LocutusOfBorg> maybe the person is trying to install it without having to?
[12:27] <apw> possible, worth checking there is a provides on the linux-hwe-edge linux-image-* packages, if not that would be the cause and a fail
[12:29] <LocutusOfBorg> cat linux-hwe-edge_4.10.0-13.15~16.04.2.diff |grep virtualbox-modules
[12:29] <LocutusOfBorg> none
[12:30] <LocutusOfBorg> well, the kernel is providing guest modules, not host modules
[12:32] <arges> looking are percona release
[12:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted iscsitarget [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.4.20.3+svn499-0ubuntu2.2]
[12:41] <arges> apw: rbasak: ok calling it a morning. have fun with the rest of the SRUs : )
[12:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: virtualbox-ext-pack (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [5.0.32-0ubuntu1.16.04.2 => 5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2] (no packageset)
[12:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: virtualbox (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [5.0.32-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2 => 5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: virtualbox-guest-additions-iso (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [5.0.32-0ubuntu1.16.04.2 => 5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2] (no packageset)
[12:43] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, ^^ you might be the best candidate :D
[12:44] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, i'll try and get to that in a little bit indeed
[12:58] <rbasak> arges: thank you for your help!
[13:11] <Sweet5hark> Hi, Im Bjoern and Im here to confess to the release team about libreoffice 1:5.3.1-0ubuntu2 in zesty-proposed.
[13:11] <Sweet5hark> 1:5.3.0~rc3-0ubuntu1 as in zesty fails autopkgtests. 5.3.1 is a bugfix only release that was uploaded before the freeze as -0ubuntu1 with just a fix for failing autopkgtests in addition to upstream changes. It fixed them on amd64. Unfortunately, on i386 _another_ fix was needed on top of that to unbreak it there too. This was previously covered in 1:5.3.0~rc3-0ubuntu1. Thus -0ubuntu2 was uploaded and
[13:11] <Sweet5hark> ran into the freeze. More details are in bug 1673790 (and the Debian bug linked therein).
[13:11] <Sweet5hark> Please advise on how to proceed.
[13:22] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, I might need a little tweak
[13:22] <jbicha> Sweet5hark: LO 5.3.1 will automatically migrate into zesty after Beta 2
[13:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-software (zesty-proposed/main) [3.22.7-0ubuntu1 => 3.22.7-0ubuntu2] (ubuntu-desktop)
[13:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nova (zesty-proposed/main) [2:15.0.1-0ubuntu1 => 2:15.0.2-0ubuntu1] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[13:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: virtualbox (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [5.0.32-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2 => 5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.3] (ubuntu-cloud)
[13:30] <Sweet5hark> jbicha: oh, good. Just wondered if there is anything left to clarify.
[13:30] <Sweet5hark> jbicha: thanks for enduring that sponsoring btw ;)
[13:36] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, providing virtualbox-modules building vboxdrv/ vboxnetflt/ vboxnetadp/ vboxpci/ woult fix this issue properly
[13:39] <philroche> Hi, would someone on the Ubuntu Sponsors team be able to help SRUing a critical GCE bugfix please? LP:1668327 needs to be marked as critical and target Trusty, Xenial, Yakkety and Zesty. I have uploaded patches for all suites and was hoping I could land them all in -proposed today. Thanks https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gce-compute-image-packages/+bug/1668327
[13:41] <LocutusOfBorg> philroche, .
[13:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (xenial-proposed/universe) [20160930-0ubuntu5~16.04.0 => 20160930-0ubuntu6~16.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[13:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (zesty-proposed/universe) [20160930-0ubuntu5 => 20160930-0ubuntu6] (ubuntu-cloud)
[13:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (yakkety-proposed/universe) [20160930-0ubuntu5~16.10.0 => 20160930-0ubuntu6~16.10.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[13:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: manila-ui (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.7.0-0ubuntu1 => 2.7.1-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[13:46] <LocutusOfBorg> philroche, ^^
[13:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted manila-ui [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.1-0ubuntu1]
[13:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: sdpb (zesty-proposed/primary) [1.0-3]
[13:49] <LocutusOfBorg> not sure philroche why you no MOTU/PPU
[13:59] <philroche> LocutusOfBorg: Thank you. Still quite new so no PPU rights yet. Do I need to do anything further to get them in to -proposed?
[13:59] <LocutusOfBorg> philroche, somebody in -release team reviewing them, they are in the queue
[14:00] <philroche> Cool. Thanks
[14:00] <LocutusOfBorg> being seeded and being zesty on beta freeze is not helping getting the fixes go
[14:00] <LocutusOfBorg> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/zesty/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=
[14:01] <philroche> Understood, it wasn't good timing.
[14:06] <philroche> LocutusOfBorg: Any chance you would have time to upload trusty too and target that bug to Trusty too?
[14:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (trusty-proposed/universe) [20160930-0ubuntu3~14.04.1 => 20160930-0ubuntu3~14.04.2] (ubuntu-cloud)
[14:10] <LocutusOfBorg> like this? ^^ sorry for missing it
[14:11] <philroche> LocutusOfBorg: Awesome. Thanks again
[14:11] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks to youù
[14:32] <tsimonq2> infinity: So the person responsible for updating the Lubuntu slideshow (to my surprise) for this new release hasn't done so yet. He's on it and he'll get it done ASAP, but how flexible are you with letting a slideshow package in?
[14:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pcre2 (zesty-proposed/universe) [10.22-2 => 10.22-3] (no packageset) (sync)
[14:32] <tsimonq2> infinity: (the person on the Lubuntu team that usually does these things, he's the artwork team guy)
[14:33] <jibel> infinity, are you freezing the queue from now on to the release or from final freeze in 2 weeks?
[14:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pcre2 [sync] (zesty-proposed) [10.22-3]
[14:34] <tsimonq2> jibel: For what it's worth, I think that's what he said in the announcement email (but I could be wrong).
[14:35] <jibel> yeah, that's what I read too, but confirming it's really what it means
[14:35] <jibel> :)
[14:35] <jibel> there are tons of updates for unity8
[14:35] <apw> there should be no major updates left, that is the point of freezes :-p
[14:35] <apw> but they will get stuck in the queue and get reviewed more before they get out
[14:36] <jibel> agreed but still :)
[14:38] <tsimonq2> jibel: Wakeup call, WOAH, less than a month away!!!
[14:38] <jibel> ...
[14:38] <apw> jibel, it is meant to hurt from here on out :)
[14:39] <tsimonq2> Not like I need to do anything for Lubuntu, all of our ducks are pretty much in a row, but still.
[14:46] <jamespage> apw: well this is a little embarrasing - apparently I can't read names of patches when checking things in our git package build systems
[14:46] <apw> jamespage, ?
[14:46] <jamespage> apw: the SRU you acked for me earlier ftbfs - fixing and testing that now....
[14:46]  * jamespage faceplants...
[14:46] <apw> jamespage, ping me when it hits the queue
[14:46] <jamespage> apw: ta
[14:46] <jamespage> will do
[14:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tftp-hpa (trusty-proposed/main) [5.2-7ubuntu3 => 5.2-7ubuntu3.1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[15:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tftp-hpa (yakkety-proposed/main) [5.2+20150808-1ubuntu1 => 5.2+20150808-1ubuntu1.16.10.1] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[15:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: tftp-hpa (xenial-proposed/main) [5.2+20150808-1ubuntu1 => 5.2+20150808-1ubuntu1.16.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[15:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted maas [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.9.5+bzr4599-0ubuntu1~14.04.1]
[15:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lsvpd (zesty-proposed/main) [1.7.7-1ubuntu1 => 1.7.7-1ubuntu2] (core)
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: iscsitarget (xenial-proposed/universe) [1.4.20.3+svn502-2ubuntu4 => 1.4.20.3+svn502-2ubuntu4.1] (no packageset)
[15:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lsvpd [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.7.7-1ubuntu2]
[15:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nova (yakkety-proposed/main) [2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1.1 => 2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1.2] (openstack, ubuntu-server)
[15:52] <jamespage> apw: ^^ that one - fully build tested this time - apologies for that
[15:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lshw [source] (zesty-proposed) [02.18-0.1ubuntu2]
[15:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nova [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2:14.0.4-0ubuntu1.2]
[15:59] <apw> jamespage, ^
[16:04] <jamespage> apw: ta
[16:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [source] (zesty-proposed) [20160930-0ubuntu6]
[16:22] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, sometimes testsuites don't start
[16:22] <Laney> what does sometimes mean
[16:22] <LocutusOfBorg> autopkgtestsuites are "test in progress" forever, I discovered for perl in armhf specially
[16:22] <Laney> give me an example please
[16:22] <LocutusOfBorg> I would wild guess it happened to ~10 packages in the total
[16:23] <LocutusOfBorg> you mean, the package having that issue?
[16:23] <LocutusOfBorg> let me check again, I didn't save them
[16:23] <Laney> kind of hard to look without knowing where to look :)
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> it was just to know if you were aware of such issue
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> not to report it :)
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> anyway, the browser should mark such armhf with a different colour, since I clicked them
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> let me check the whole list
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/liba/libanyevent-memcached-perl/zesty/armhf
[16:24] <LocutusOfBorg> this one
[16:25] <tsimonq2> chrisccoulson: I'm going to file a bug in a sec, but when you released that Firefox update into Xenial, it broke audio functionality in Lubuntu 16.04 LTS because it's alsa0only
[16:25] <tsimonq2> *alsa-only
[16:26] <LocutusOfBorg> I waited 4 days, the queue was empty, and it didn't run
[16:26] <Laney> do this
[16:26] <Laney> click the last log
[16:26] <Laney> get to https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty/zesty/armhf/liba/libanyevent-memcached-perl/20170322_080446_7bbce@/log.gz
[16:26] <Laney> hack the URL to see the raw index
[16:26] <Laney> https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty/?format=plain&prefix=zesty/armhf/liba/libanyevent-memcached-perl/
[16:26] <Laney> pick the second most recent one (in this case) https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty/zesty/armhf/liba/libanyevent-memcached-perl/20170318_205505_4c98c@/log.gz
[16:27] <Laney> -> there was a transient failure, which killed the run and was not reported as such
[16:27] <LocutusOfBorg> yes, I retried a lot of that "connection failure" tests
[16:27] <LocutusOfBorg> they were reported as bad and I just retried them
[16:27] <LocutusOfBorg> so, it tried, it didn't report them correctly, so I didn't notice them
[16:27] <LocutusOfBorg> interesting
[16:28] <Laney> that is worth a bug on src:autopkgtest at debian
[16:28] <Laney> and if you want to hack on it, probably making the apt install retry a few times in such cases
[16:29] <LocutusOfBorg> I would like to avoid reporting such issue... I have not enough knowledge rather than copy-pasting the above chat :)
[16:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: hyantesite (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.3.0-1ubuntu1 => 1.3.0-1.1] (no packageset) (sync)
[16:30] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't see any open bug wrt this issue
[16:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted hyantesite [sync] (zesty-proposed) [1.3.0-1.1]
[16:31] <tsimonq2> chrisccoulson: Actually, there's one already here: bug 1671273
[16:32] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: Nothing wrong with a bug saying "Tests fail with 'Temporary failure resolving ...' sometimes", and pasting the log
[16:33] <chrisccoulson> tsimonq2, yeah, the fix for that is basically "install pulseaudio". We keep our builds very similar to upstream, and we're not going to be re-enabling an audio backend that nobody is maintaining
[16:34] <LocutusOfBorg> let me try
[16:34] <LocutusOfBorg> http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/libc/libcpan-meta-requirements-perl/zesty/amd64
[16:34] <LocutusOfBorg> https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty/zesty/amd64/libc/libcpan-meta-requirements-perl/20170319_021121_70ef6@/log.gz
[16:34] <tsimonq2> chrisccoulson: Then could you please add pulseaudio as a hard dep? And maybe possibly reupload to all the stable releases? :)
[16:36] <chrisccoulson> tsimonq2, AFAIK, no other application depends on the pulseaudio daemon. Applications only depend on the client library
[16:36] <tsimonq2> chrisccoulson: Ah, ok.
[16:36] <LocutusOfBorg> https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty/?format=plain&prefix=zesty/amd64/libc/libcpan-meta-requirements-perl
[16:37] <LocutusOfBorg> ok no such log
[16:38] <tsimonq2> chrisccoulson: Then I'll bring it up on the Lubuntu mailing list.
[16:43] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: I think you would protect basically all of the apt-get calls in https://anonscm.debian.org/git/autopkgtest/autopkgtest.git/tree/setup-commands/setup-testbed with a retry
[16:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: landscape-client (zesty-proposed/main) [16.03-0ubuntu2 => 16.03-0ubuntu3] (ubuntu-server)
[16:54] <robru> Laney: ok I've decreased the frequency, please merge: https://code.launchpad.net/~robru/britney/+git/britney2-ubuntu/+merge/320270
[16:56] <infinity> jibel: Same as it's been for releases for years now.
[16:57] <jibel> infinity, yeah ignore me ... :)
[17:00] <acheronUK> infinity: I have a KDE plasma bugfix/translation update to upload once it's had a few days testing via our ppas. do you want any warning of that being uploaded, or juts do it when ready? I ask as it's 39 packages
[17:01] <infinity> acheronUK: Will warning make it not be 39 packages? :)
[17:01] <infinity> acheronUK: (No, we don't need warning)
[17:02] <acheronUK> infinity: no. I was just trying to be considerate
[17:02] <acheronUK> infinity: ok. thanks
[17:02] <infinity> Condideration noted.  Gold star will be applied to uploader chart.
[17:03] <Laney> robru: now you've removed the "max_age = 5 if excuse.is_valid else 1" bit, which wasn't part of the problem
[17:04] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: I see there are two virtualbox uploads in the xenial queue with different versions; any reason we shouldn't reject these and collapse into a single upload to not skipping version numbers?
[17:06] <tsimonq2> infinity: Stable release regression that could really use your feedback to help fix: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/lubuntu-devel/2017-March/000994.html
[17:07] <tsimonq2> infinity: Either way we go about fixing it breaks some rules, so I don't want to be on anyone's bad side, either. :P
[17:10] <infinity> tsimonq2: Those proposed options need to be fleshed out a LOT before you can make an informed decision.
[17:10] <tsimonq2> infinity: I know.
[17:10] <tsimonq2> infinity: But it's broken and it needs a fix.
[17:11] <tsimonq2> infinity: Sooooo... I CCed you on the email. What would you prefer we do? What do you suggest?
[17:11] <infinity> tsimonq2: The first option is basically something undoable, IMO.  The code was almost certainly removed entirely (if it wasn't, you could just ask chrisccoulson to turn it back on), and maintaining a fork of firefox is a huge amount of work.
[17:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected virtualbox [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[17:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected virtualbox [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.3]
[17:11] <tsimonq2> infinity: That's what I'm saying, and that's why I was against it. :P
[17:12] <infinity> tsimonq2: The third option is also a bit ridiculous.  Forcing users to switch applications doesn't really work.  Sure, you can add chromium-browser to lubuntu-desktop, but then they'll just have two browsers instead of one, and they won't know why.
[17:12] <infinity> tsimonq2: As for the "just use pulse" thing, well, there's no indication of what that entails.  If it was that simple, I'd expect you'd already be using it?
[17:13] <infinity> tsimonq2: If it is a simple question of changing some build flags to enable some pulse support in lxde, then derp, do that.
[17:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: virtualbox (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [5.0.32-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2 => 5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2] (ubuntu-cloud)
[17:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: bind9 (yakkety-proposed/main) [1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-10.1ubuntu1.3 => 1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-10.1ubuntu1.4] (core)
[17:14] <tsimonq2> wxl: So, you were the release manager at the time, why was this decision made? ^
[17:14] <robru> Laney: well if having mails go out on the first and second days is too soon and too often, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a different threshold for whether or not the excuse is valid, does it?
[17:15] <infinity> tsimonq2: Oh.  If it's just a question of "--enable-alsa", as the bug report suggests, why the long, rambling proposal?  This is just a firefox bug, and chrisccoulson should be asked nicely to DTRT.
[17:15] <tsimonq2> infinity: If there are no technical limitations to just switching to Pulseaudio and calling it a day, what do you need from us to justify getting it in Xenial?
[17:15] <robru> Laney: like, that was there to decide if we want to send mails either on the first day or the fifth day, but you say the first day is too soon, so why would we keep that? send mails maybe on the third day, maybe on the fifth day? what good does that serve? I just unified it to start sending mails on the third day for everything now
[17:15] <infinity> tsimonq2: Your proposal made it sound like upstream removed the code, when it sounds like all they did was change the default configure flags, and Chris didn't notice?
[17:16] <chrisccoulson> because we generally don't enable features that aren't enabled upstream. If they're not enabled upstream, they're untested, not part of their CI and generally break frequently. And it's been disabled for a reason (it's unmaintained, and making it impossible to improve the other audio backends)
[17:16] <tsimonq2> That makes sense.
[17:16] <tsimonq2> infinity: Hey, I could have rambled more than I did... :P
[17:16] <chrisccoulson> re-enabling it might get you another release or 2 at best before someone needs to step up and do some serious maintenance of it
[17:16] <tsimonq2> But that's besides the point...
[17:17] <tsimonq2> infinity: And that is my option number 1 ^
[17:17] <tsimonq2> infinity: (in my email)
[17:17] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek, it would be awesome
[17:17] <Laney> robru: I didn't say (or I didn't mean to say) that sending on the first day is bad. I mean to say that sending emails very close together is bad.
[17:17] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: ok, done ;)
[17:18] <robru> Laney: anyway I like the new thing, it streamlines a corner case and by not sending on the first day it drops the need for the pluralization logic. please just merge as is? thx ;-)
[17:18] <LocutusOfBorg> and reuploaded!
[17:18] <infinity> chrisccoulson: Or, you could disable it when it breaks, instead of predicting the breakage?  Given the general uproar, perhaps someone will step up to maintain it upstream.
[17:19] <tsimonq2> infinity: I'm a little uncomfortable with that approach. "disable it when it breaks" sounds evil... :P
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: virtualbox (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [5.0.32-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2 => 5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2] (ubuntu-cloud)
[17:19] <tsimonq2> infinity: But I guess it could work
[17:20] <Laney> robru: Ok I'll ponder it overnight. We had decided before that 5 days was a nice amount of time to give people to crack on with transitions, but maybe we can compromise on 3 for everything.
[17:20] <infinity> chrisccoulson: Firefox's unique SRU/security exception doesn't make it immune to rules about regressions, just somewhat more resilient.  This is clearly a regression with a fix.
[17:20] <tsimonq2> infinity, chrisccoulson: Either way, if we take that approach, it needs another upload.
[17:20] <tsimonq2> What infinity said... ;)
[17:21] <chrisccoulson> the "fix" needs a commitment from somebody to take ownership of the code
[17:21] <robru> Laney: thanks
[17:21] <infinity> tsimonq2: Evil how?  "When it breaks" would be "when the configure switch stops working" or "when enabling it causes it to FTBFS".
[17:21] <Laney> robru: Asked for your review on an email branch too, in case you didn't/don't see it. No rush though.
[17:22] <tsimonq2> infinity: Evil when things don't get tested and people notice.
[17:22] <tsimonq2> infinity: If we can be very careful to test this aspect until it does break, I'm fine.
[17:22] <tsimonq2> infinity: But we need to pay careful attention to make sure ALSA support doesn't regress if we do re-enable it.
[17:23] <robru> Laney: this one? https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/britney/+git/britney2-ubuntu/+merge/319448 my review is on there already
[17:23] <tsimonq2> infinity: Which, as chrisccoulson is sort of saying (correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't be safe either way, as it's unmaintained upstream. We're shipping unmaintained functionality...
[17:24] <robru> Laney: if there's some other one, I don't see it
[17:24] <tsimonq2> infinity: But yes, things breaking in that way is *way* worse.
[17:25] <Laney> robru: oh I had a timeout
[17:26] <infinity> Large portions of Firefox go "unmaintained" for years until someone decides to care again.  We build a lot of that.  I don't buy the argument.
[17:26] <infinity> But meh.
[17:26] <tsimonq2> Oh, really?
[17:27] <tsimonq2> Huh.
[17:28] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, https://bugs.debian.org/85846 :)
[17:28] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: this new upstream of virtualbox includes changes besides the kernel compatibility changes; there is no changelog in the upstream tarball.  How do we confirm that the other changes are "safe" bugfixes?
[17:28] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, https://bugs.debian.org/858465 :)
[17:28] <tsimonq2> infinity, chrisccoulson: So is it just going to be re-enabled?
[17:28] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: thx
[17:28] <tsimonq2> infinity, chrisccoulson: I mean, what now?
[17:28]  * Laney thought that was a hint about him borking emails
[17:28] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek, this is the third upload I do, they are just fixing regressions and stable stuff
[17:29] <LocutusOfBorg> I'm almost completely confident about their testing and testsuite
[17:29] <LocutusOfBorg> I can give you a changelog, hold on
[17:29] <LocutusOfBorg> http://paste.ubuntu.com/24229715/
[17:29] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: yes, but you also need to give the SRU team confidence of this - changelog or pointers to upstream testing or description of branch policy, please :)
[17:29] <slangasek> thanks
[17:31] <LocutusOfBorg> yes, well, I did such "big" updates a lot of times for xenial (.18 to .24 and then to .32)
[17:31] <LocutusOfBorg> they were ways bigger then now, if you see, and exclude windows fixes, you will notice just a char encoding regression fixed on some usb devices with special chars
[17:31] <LocutusOfBorg> and kernel fixes
[17:31] <LocutusOfBorg> and crash fixes
[17:32] <LocutusOfBorg> but I'll update the bug number
[17:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected virtualbox [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[17:34] <infinity> chrisccoulson: So, I see no indication in the upstream bugs about intent to drop ALSA support or let it rot.  In fact, people go out of their way to mention over and over again that it's not removed, it's just not a part of the default build.
[17:35] <infinity> chrisccoulson: If all we want is the default build, we may as well just bundle upstream's binary in a deb and call it done (note: sarcasm, that's very much not what I want, and we can do better)
[17:36] <wxl> here here
[17:36] <tsimonq2> wxl: Explain yourself. :P
[17:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted virtualbox [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[17:37] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek, please ext-pack and guest additions too :)
[17:38] <LocutusOfBorg> they share the same codebase
[17:38] <wxl> tsimonq2: pulse does have a larger footprint than just alsa. i mean, it's not like you REMOVE alsa and exchange it with pulse. that's inconsistent with the lubuntu design criteria.
[17:38]  * LocutusOfBorg leaves cheers
[17:38] <wxl> tsimonq2: the last comment was in support of infinity's indication that alsa support *IS* still available and is maintained in firefox, so there's no reason not to have it in our packages.
[17:39] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, please consider shipping virtualbox-modules in kernel too
[17:40] <tsimonq2> wxl: Ok.
[17:41] <tsimonq2> infinity, chrisccoulson: So any chance we can re-enable it and call it a day? ;)
[17:41] <tsimonq2> :P
[17:42] <wxl> tsimonq2: and actually also in support of infinity, when we made the switch from chromium to firefox, people upgrading did end up with two browsers. kind of sucked.
[17:42] <tsimonq2> wxl: I see
[17:42] <tsimonq2> Yeah, I think it's the best option to just re-enable it.
[17:42] <wxl> still, not insurmountable
[17:43] <wxl> i don't care if we go that route
[17:43] <wxl> and even though pulse can tend to make things a little bit easier at times, i'm against forcing it on the user
[17:44] <tsimonq2> wxl: So then why is it in the latest release of Lubuntu?
[17:44] <tsimonq2> By default
[17:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: landscape-client (xenial-proposed/main) [16.03-0ubuntu2 => 16.03-0ubuntu2.16.04.1] (ubuntu-server)
[17:45] <chrisccoulson> Sigh, there is a significant difference between "available" and "maintained", and I can assure you that it isn't maintained (firefox developers aren't maintaining code that's not part of their builds)
[17:45] <wxl> tsimonq2: might want to check with gilir. maybe he did it to skirt around the "firefox bug"
[17:45] <wxl> maybe we should call it firegate
[17:45] <chrisccoulson> It's available to be maintained, so if you want to step up to do that, then great
[17:46] <tsimonq2> I can't make that commitment.
[17:46] <wxl> yeah me either
[17:46] <wxl> i also don't remember anyone complaining about it
[17:46] <wxl> so
[17:46] <infinity> chrisccoulson: If it's your assertion that we don't build or link any code that doesn't have active upstream maintenance, there's a lot of the firefox tree you need to stop building.  The upstream configure default changed.  This is a regression in a stable release.  Please change it back.  If it breaks horribly at a later date, despite several other distros also enabling the feature, let's talk.
[17:47] <wxl> maybe not actually an issue?
[17:48] <tyhicks> infinity, wxl, tsimonq2: if chrisccoulson were to re-enable it in firefox builds, there's no way that he can be expected to fix future bugs in that portion of the code
[17:49] <tyhicks> he simply doesn't have the time to sort out alsa issues and release security updates in a timely manner along with the oxide work that he does
[17:51] <mapreri> May I have a suggestion on what to do with diffoscope's autopkgtest that timeouts on armhf?  I believe that even 10 minutes longer would be enough to have it pass, do you keep a manual list of timeouts that could be used to rise this one?
[17:53] <tsimonq2> infinity, wxl, chrisccoulson: So what can we do about bugs that could arise in the future from re-enabling this?
[17:54] <tsimonq2> Will one of us have to take a look and attempt to fix it, or is it really really complex code?
[17:56] <infinity> tsimonq2: Realistically, any problem that arises won't be bit-rot in the scary parts, it'll be build failures due to the build system changing and someone forgetting to test the alsa build.  Other distros will almost certainly fix that quickly, the only problem is timing, ie: they might fix it three days after the upstream release, rather than before.
[17:57] <tsimonq2> infinity: Ok, so given what tyhicks said, we're still ok to Ship It?
[17:57] <chrisccoulson> other distros ship the ESR, so they're generally a few months behind us
[17:59] <mdeslaur> infinity: well, the reason they disabled it is because they're adding 5.1 support and they can't add it to the alsa backend
[17:59] <mdeslaur> not sure how trivial it will be to turn it back on once backends need to support 5.1
[18:00] <infinity> tsimonq2: It's not my decision, per se (well, I could get into an upload war with Chris, but that never ends well).  I can, however, give a strong recommendation that we re-enable alsa, and if the build breaks, Chris can disclaim responsibility until someone else finds a patch to fix it.
[18:00] <chrisccoulson> we'll re-enable it for now, but as tyhicks pointed out - that's not a committment from us to maintain this code
[18:00] <infinity> mdeslaur: Again, that's just a question of defaults.  They want the out of the box experience to have simple 5.1 pass through.  Playback through alsa just won't do that.
[18:01] <tsimonq2> infinity, chrisccoulson: Alright fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to talk about it!
[18:01] <infinity> mdeslaur: I get the decision for the default build.  They don't want people to accidentally have a degraded experience that makes their product look crap.
[18:01] <chrisccoulson> And code that isn't part of mozilla's build does bit-rot, and generally fairly quickly. I'm acutely aware of this from working on it for many years ;)
[18:02] <tyhicks> from what chrisccoulson is saying, I can't imagine it continuing to work throughout the life of 16.04
[18:04] <infinity> He's discounting the part where several other distros (including two whose users regularly build edge channels from source every day) are re-enabling it.
[18:05] <infinity> Yes, fixes might lag a day or two behind upstream releases, but they'll be out there up until the code is entirely removed instead.
[18:05] <wxl> this is certainly something we should document on the wiki and announce to lubuntu-users/devel, @tseliot
[18:05] <wxl> ugh
[18:05] <wxl> i mean tsimonq2
[18:06] <infinity> Anyhow.  I need ice cream.  Which is totally an appropriate thing for a responsible adult to eat for lunch, and don't tell me otherwise.
[18:06] <tsimonq2> infinity: What type?
[18:06] <tsimonq2> infinity: I like cookie dough but I think regular vanilla is good.
[18:06] <tsimonq2> :P
[18:07] <tsimonq2> wxl: Later.
[18:07] <tsimonq2> infinity made me want ice cream now. :P
[18:07] <wxl> tsimonq2: and i still think we should consider switching back to chromium
[18:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: variety (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.6.0-1 => 0.6.0-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[18:08] <wxl> or at least discuss it
[18:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: variety (yakkety-proposed/universe) [0.6.2-1 => 0.6.2-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[18:09] <tsimonq2> wxl: I'm against that, but that discussion is for a different day and a different channel. ;)
[18:09] <wxl> and we NEED to get pulse out
[18:09] <tsimonq2> wxl: If sound breaks enough on Firefox, then yeah
[18:14] <apw> philroche, hey... the yakkety gce-c-i-p was not built with an apporpriate -v so it has no bugs associated with it
[18:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-documents (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.23.91-0ubuntu1 => 3.24.0-0ubuntu1] (desktop-extra, ubuntugnome)
[18:15] <apw> philroche, xenial look to be the same, though trusty is seemingly ok
[18:18] <philroche> apw. Strange. how can I fix this?
[18:19] <mapreri> apw: you have been the -release person for a while for me, do you think you can help me with:
[18:19] <mapreri> [06:51:36 PM] <mapreri> May I have a suggestion on what to do with diffoscope's autopkgtest that timeouts on armhf?  I believe that even 10 minutes longer would be enough to have it pass, do you keep a manual list of timeouts that could be used to rise this one?
[18:19] <apw> philroche, when you make the source pacakge you add -v<version in -updates> and the appropriate bits get added to the .changes file
[18:19] <apw> mapreri, diffoscope testing takes too long ?
[18:20] <mapreri> apw: only in armhf, apktool is very slow there for some reason
[18:21] <apw> mapreri, lovely
[18:21] <mapreri> we could run without apktool, but I would like to run it on the other archs, and also I would not like to do it within the test code (which would affect also non-autpkgtest and other distributions not having this timeout)
[18:22] <mapreri> in fact, just not installing it is enough for the test to be skipped, but I don't know of a way to say "don't install apktool if armhf" within autopkgtest metadata.
[18:22] <apw> mapreri, i think i can tell things that one is slow, looking now
[18:23] <mapreri> apw: thank you, I appreciate whatever you can do :)
[18:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: virtualbox (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2 => 5.0.36-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2] (ubuntu-cloud)
[18:30] <apw> mapreri, trying to work out how to roll the change out, so it might take till tomorrow to work that out
[18:30] <apw> mapreri, then we can retry it
[18:30] <mapreri> oh, nice nice!
[18:30] <mapreri> apw: so there is a list of timeout overrides somewhere? :)
[18:31] <mapreri> apw: and I'm in no hurry at all, any time/day will be fine
[18:32] <apw> mapreri, yeah there is a list, which i know how to update for the primary scaling stack bits, not for the arm* runners
[18:33] <apw> mapreri, anyhow i have asked my guru and will let you know when i've got there
[18:33] <mapreri> apw: greaat, thank you! ♥
[18:33] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek, ^^ please accept virtualbox, I renamed the tarball to version-dfsg
[18:33] <LocutusOfBorg> (damn uupdate)
[18:34] <LocutusOfBorg> virtualbox-* I mean
[18:35] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: ok, checking
[18:37] <LocutusOfBorg> ta
[18:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted virtualbox [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.36-dfsg-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[18:39] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks!
[18:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted virtualbox-ext-pack [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[18:39] <LocutusOfBorg> <2
[18:39] <slangasek> that's a bit of a half-hearted response ;)
[18:39] <nacc> heh
[18:39] <LocutusOfBorg> virtualbox-guest-additions-iso? :)
[18:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted virtualbox-guest-additions-iso [source] (xenial-proposed) [5.0.36-0ubuntu1.16.04.2]
[18:40] <apw> slangasek, ohhhhh man
[18:40] <LocutusOfBorg> <3
[18:40] <LocutusOfBorg> now we are good
[18:40] <LocutusOfBorg> :)
[18:42] <slangasek> apw: are you bothered by the pun or by the inexact math? :)
[18:42] <apw> slangasek, both in equal measure ...
[18:42] <slangasek> :D
[18:43] <apw> :-p
[18:43]  * LocutusOfBorg leaves, for real :D thanks you all!
[18:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (yakkety-proposed/universe) [20160930-0ubuntu5~16.10.0 => 20160930-0ubuntu6~16.10.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[19:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (xenial-proposed/universe) [20160930-0ubuntu5~16.04.0 => 20160930-0ubuntu6~16.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[19:31] <philroche> apw: gce-c-i-p for yakkety and xenial has been reuploaded
[19:37] <philroche> .. with the appropriate bits added to the .changes file as requested.
[19:50] <apw> philroche, thanks
[19:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gce-compute-image-packages [source] (yakkety-proposed) [20160930-0ubuntu6~16.10.0]
[19:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gce-compute-image-packages [source] (xenial-proposed) [20160930-0ubuntu6~16.04.0]
[19:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [source] (yakkety-proposed) [20160930-0ubuntu6~16.10.0]
[19:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [source] (xenial-proposed) [20160930-0ubuntu6~16.04.0]
[20:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [source] (trusty-proposed) [20160930-0ubuntu3~14.04.2]
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-aws to kernel in xenial
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-gke to kernel in xenial
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-meta-aws to kernel in xenial
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-meta-gke to kernel in xenial
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-aws to kernel in yakkety
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-gke to kernel in yakkety
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-meta-aws to kernel in yakkety
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-meta-gke to kernel in yakkety
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-aws to kernel in zesty
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-gke to kernel in zesty
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-meta-aws to kernel in zesty
[20:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added linux-meta-gke to kernel in zesty
[20:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: makedev (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3.1-93ubuntu1 => 2.3.1-93ubuntu2] (lubuntu)
[21:17] <infinity> cyphermox: Can you make sense of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/1675127 ?
[21:45] <lynorian> original reporter here and it is quite wierd conditions to trigger but I did get it to happen like three times
[21:46] <lynorian> infinity, ^
[21:47] <lynorian> plugging in to ethernet does not cause a problem and I did not get the crash on another laptop on the wifi setup page
[21:50] <lynorian> the laptop I got the crash with did not have the problem of if I just plugged in ethernet
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Budgie Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[21:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Budgie Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[21:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: unity-settings-daemon (zesty-proposed/main) [15.04.1+16.10.20161003-0ubuntu1 => 15.04.1+17.04.20170322-0ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop) (sync)
[21:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-themes-standard (zesty-proposed/main) [3.22.2-1ubuntu1 => 3.22.3-1ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[22:02] <jbicha> glib2.0/zesty autopkgtests finally passed; if you want to unblock gdk-pixbuf and glib2.0, I can respin Ubuntu GNOME and drop LP: #1665602 from the UG release notes
[22:03] <jbicha> otherwise, not a big deal, they'll get the fix after beta freeze is lifted
[22:13] <infinity> jbicha: That would trigger a world respin, if I wanted things in sync.  If you're okay with just noting that bug, that's less icky.
[22:16] <jbicha> that's fine, the bugfix took a long time to finally get into Ubuntu, one more day won't hurt :)
[22:20] <infinity> sakrecoer: There don't seem to be any test results for Studio for Beta2.  Is someone on that?
[22:20] <wxl> infinity: you aren't anxious to publish already are you?
[22:20] <infinity> jbicha: I assume that means I'll see results for gnome soonish? :)
[22:21] <infinity> wxl: Not publishing until tomorrow, but I'll sleep better if I know things are ready. :P
[22:21] <jbicha> yes, I'm working on it now
[22:21] <wxl> lubuntu's almost done and i think i need to kick my kubuntu tester's some but as long as you're not doing it NOW, that' sok :)
[22:22] <infinity> wxl: Yeah.  The testing board is looking promising.  Some minor bugs to address for Final, but nothing looks beta-critical, which is nice.  Maybe we'll actually ship our first RC spin for once.  That would be novel.
[23:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Alternate amd64 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[23:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[23:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[23:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Alternate i386 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[23:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[23:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 2] has been marked as ready
[23:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: at-spi2-core (zesty-proposed/main) [2.22.0-5ubuntu3 => 2.22.0-5ubuntu4] (core)
[23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xfce4-notifyd (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.3.5-1 => 0.3.6-0ubuntu1] (xubuntu)
[23:50] <Ukikie> ↑ Butfix release, entire changelog is in the upload.  Memleak fix, etc.  Biggest non-bugfix is translation updates.
[23:56] <piem> howdy. i'm trying to find out why aubio is not being updated to the latest version from debian. it's been there in 'proposed' for quite a few weeks now
[23:57] <piem> i've been pointed at http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#aubio, so i'm poking here
[23:59] <slangasek> piem: if you look at the reverse-depends, you'll see that ardour has an unsatisfiable dependency on xjadeo (>= 0.6.4).  Since this is an soname transition, the packages can't go in unless they're all consistently installable
[23:59] <slangasek> xjadeo exists but is in multiverse
[23:59] <slangasek> in Debian, xjadeo is in universe
[23:59] <slangasek> s/universe/main/ :P