[00:03] <xnox> infinity, https://errors.ubuntu.com/ snap-install is high up there
[00:03] <xnox> i wonder if anybody is looking at those, who shall i ping? mvo?
[04:18] <infinity> xnox: I would think you should poke mvo about those two, yeah.
[05:38] <apw> xnox, are those not both specific snap hook failures
[06:49] <infinity> apw: Whatever they are, if they're registering as a "crash", something's not ideal.
[06:50] <infinity> apw: Well, especially a "crash" in snapd.  So, maybe apport needs some logic, if the blame lies elsewhere.
[06:50] <infinity> apw: (Much in the same way it doesn't blame dpkg for every aborted maintainer scripts)
[06:50] <infinity> s/scripts/script/
[07:58] <apw> infinity, indeed
[08:07] <xnox> apw, it even smells like particular snaps failing or some such.
[08:37] <ogra_> hmm, we had at least one user in the channel last week that had the same error ...
[08:37] <ogra_> "cannot create lock directory /run/snapd/lock → Permission denied"
[08:38] <ogra_> it might actually be a bug in snapd
[09:53] <xnox> apw, https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-xenial/xenial/amd64/s/systemd/20170520_150952_306ba@/log.gz is funny, src:systemd tests fail when running due to aws trigger as modules are missing. Is there aws-extra package that systemd test suite needs to opportunistically install?
[10:08] <apw> xnox, there is not
[10:08] <xnox> so i guess somehow, i need to detect "funny" kernels and skip the tests.
[10:09] <xnox> do you want clean adt from systemd upon aws updates?
[10:09] <xnox> (i wonder if other kernels are affected too, e.g. the other A kernel and the G kernel)
[10:09]  * xnox giggles the FAANG kernels
[10:10] <apw> xnox, we always want adt clean, so either we need to make that test check for and skip itself if there is no support for it, or reinstate that supprot in them
[10:10] <infinity> xnox: "if modinfo scsi_debug >/dev/null; then run_test; fi"?
[10:10] <xnox> infinity, i like that yes.
[10:11] <infinity> Or, indeed, ask for scsi_debug to be included in linux-aws.  But if there's no solid argument for it outside of testsuites, it doesn't really belong in cloud kernels.
[10:11] <xnox> i think scsi_debug is a liability in the cloud kernels.
[11:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (xenial-proposed/universe) [2.29 => 2.30] (no packageset)
[11:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (yakkety-proposed/universe) [2.29+16.10 => 2.30+16.10] (no packageset)
[11:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.29+17.04 => 2.30+17.04] (no packageset)
[11:53] <sergiusens> can I get those 3 reviewed? ^
[11:53] <apw> sergiusens, i guess i can have a look
[11:54] <apw> sergiusens, i assume artful is already uploaded
[12:00] <sergiusens> apw: uploaded and in the release pocket
[12:00] <sergiusens> thanks
[12:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [4.4.0-79.100~14.04.1] (kernel)
[12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [4.4.0-79.100~14.04.1]
[12:37] <xnox> apw, hm FANG kernels are only in xenial. But we do publish images for the non-lts releases too. Could the kernels be copied up?
[12:38] <ginggs> would someone please remove 64-bit binaries of pixbros and pixfrogger from artful? packages have changed from arch:all to 32-bit only
[12:39] <ginggs> also, please update p.itti's hints file and force-badtest r-cran-dplyr/0.5.0-1ubuntu2/armhf instead of r-cran-dplyr/0.5.0-1
[13:04] <vtapia> Hi, could someone review the sssd upload in the queue for trusty?
[13:29] <apw> xnox, i don't think that they were intended to be copies up
[13:30] <apw> vtapia, can you confirm that Z/A are both ok ?
[13:31] <vtapia> apw: yes, they are both ok :)
[14:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sssd [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.11.8-0ubuntu0.6]
[14:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nagios3 [sync] (zesty-proposed) [3.5.1.dfsg-2.1ubuntu5.1]
[14:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nagios3 [sync] (yakkety-proposed) [3.5.1.dfsg-2.1ubuntu3.2]
[14:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nagios3 [sync] (xenial-proposed) [3.5.1.dfsg-2.1ubuntu1.2]
[14:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nagios3 [sync] (trusty-proposed) [3.5.1-1ubuntu1.2]
[15:04] <jbicha> libgit2 is stuck in artful-proposed: "old binaries left", libgit2-25 is left over from an accidental transition that was reverted the next day in unstable
[15:06] <apw> jbicha, +really ugg
[15:08] <apw> jbicha, and gone
[15:27] <jbicha> yeah, there are too many affected packages for me to be confident about finishing the libgit2 transition very quickly in Ubuntu
[16:15] <slashd> sil2100, could you please have a look at LP:# 1689854 ? isc-dhcp was built on "2017-05-15", the verification-done has been done the same day and the package passed the minimum aging period of 7 days. It prevent me for starting a new SRU for isc-dhcp. Thanks.
[16:16] <rbasak> slashd: oh yes, I'm not sure if I forgot to mention - the SRU will have to be rebased on the latest, but I think that's just a minor changelog conflict to resolve as they're in entirely different areas.
[16:17] <rbasak> FWIW the pending-sru report says days=6, not 7.
[16:18] <slashd> rbasak, ack I count the days looking my laptop calendar
[16:20] <slashd> rbasak, thanks for your reply for LP: #1176046 (binary split), I'll start the upload as soon as the current isc-dhcp is completed.
[16:31] <xnox> infinity, when is 16.04.3 scheduled for? because i need to know if i have time to land all the systemd srus i want to land =/
[16:31] <xnox> and i have holidays and stuff
[16:41] <jamespage> any MIR team members around? need a review for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vine/+bug/1688091
[16:41] <jamespage> which is blocking up proposed for most of openstack at the moment
[16:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-fan (zesty-proposed/main) [0.12.2 => 0.12.2.1] (no packageset)
[16:56] <bdmurray> slangasek: Could you have a look at u-r-u in zesty?
[17:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (zesty-proposed) [1:17.04.8]
[17:01] <bdmurray> slangasek: thanks
[19:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapcraft [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.30+17.04]
[19:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapcraft [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.30+16.10]
[19:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapcraft [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.30]