[03:16] <tsimonq2> infinity, slangasek, Laney: Any volunteers for Nusakan tracking for Artful Alpha 1? :) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArtfulAardvark/ReleaseTaskSignup (not urgent because the release is in a little less than a month, but I'd still like to get that squared away...)
[06:02] <infinity> tsimonq2: Ask stgraber first.  He usually does A1 if he's not travelling.
[06:35] <tash> any chance to get collectd version 5.5 on Trusty? Looks like Xenial has it, but Trusty doesn't.
[06:35] <tash> https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=collectd
[09:40] <cjwatson> bdmurray: That query itself is fast enough (i.e. it returns the first batch in a reasonable time), but by iterating over the whole collection you're asking Launchpad to iterate over everything published to certain series since 2013-06-21, which is just a lot of data.  Why do you have to iterate over all of that every time?
[10:00]  * apw can vouch for the usefulness (in a performance sense) of caching with the created since thing
[10:02] <cjwatson> order_by_date=True helps a lot, but you still don't want to iterate over years of data.
[10:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: walinuxagent (zesty-proposed/main) [2.2.9-0ubuntu1 => 2.2.12-0ubuntu1~17.04.1] (ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[10:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: walinuxagent (trusty-proposed/main) [2.2.9-0ubuntu1~14.04.1 => 2.2.12-0ubuntu1~14.04.1] (ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[10:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: walinuxagent (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.2.9-0ubuntu1~16.10.1 => 2.2.12-0ubuntu1~16.10.1] (ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[10:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: walinuxagent (xenial-proposed/main) [2.2.9-0ubuntu1~16.04.1 => 2.2.12-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[10:27] <sil2100> To anyone from the SRU team - could you please take a look at the new walinuxagent in the queues? ^
[10:28] <sil2100> apw: ^ would you have a moment to take a look at those? Those are kinda special (plain backports), so reviewing them usually is quite fast
[10:28]  * apw can shortly yes ...
[10:29] <sil2100> Thanks! :)
[10:34] <darkxst> apw, thanks!
[10:43] <apw> sil2100, it is reasonable to state that this daemon need to be kept up to date to keep it in step with the azure substrate, right ?
[10:48] <sil2100> apw: yeah
[10:48] <apw> sil2100, this seems to have a new systemd unit in it, i have not seen anything for upstart for trusty ?
[10:51] <sil2100> apw: you mean the init/arch/waagent.service addition?
[10:52] <apw> sil2100, lyeah
[10:52] <sil2100> apw: it's only for arch linux, it's not relevant for us - we have the .service file in init/ubuntu/ + we ship upstart configs through the packaging
[10:53] <apw> sil2100, ack thanks
[10:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted walinuxagent [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.2.12-0ubuntu1~17.04.1]
[10:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted walinuxagent [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.2.12-0ubuntu1~16.10.1]
[10:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted walinuxagent [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.2.12-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[10:56] <sil2100> apw: thank you!
[10:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted walinuxagent [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.2.12-0ubuntu1~14.04.1]
[10:58] <ogra_> * #ubuntu-devel :Cannot join channel (+r) - you need to be identified with services
[10:58] <ogra_> huh ?
[10:58] <ogra_> since when is that in place ?
[11:00] <Laney> spam attack the other day, maybe since then
[11:00] <ogra_> hmpf
[11:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfs-linux (zesty-proposed/main) [0.6.5.9-5ubuntu4 => 0.6.5.9-5ubuntu4.1] (core)
[11:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfs-linux (yakkety-proposed/main) [0.6.5.8-0ubuntu4.2 => 0.6.5.8-0ubuntu4.3] (no packageset)
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfs-linux (xenial-proposed/main) [0.6.5.6-0ubuntu16 => 0.6.5.6-0ubuntu17] (no packageset)
[11:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected yubikey-piv-manager [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.3.0-1+ubuntu17.04.1]
[11:14] <apw> ^ duplicate in the queue, replaced by one with a bug number
[11:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted zfs-linux [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.6.5.9-5ubuntu4.1]
[11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted zfs-linux [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.6.5.8-0ubuntu4.3]
[11:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted zfs-linux [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.6.5.6-0ubuntu17]
[11:57] <slashd> Good day rbasak, could you please look at both packages waiting in the upload queue... #1 pkg: vlan releases: t/x/y/z (LP: #1573272) - The fix is in -proposed, but a regression has been found, and we re-upload a modified patch to fix it, so the current -proposed can be overwritten. #2 pkg: ebtables releases: t/x/y/z (LP :#1645324), upstream project is un-maintained in favour of nft. We submitted the patch to Debian, no
[11:57] <slashd> merge yet, but I talked with sil2100 which sponsor the patch in devel release and was okay for me to go ahead with the upload in stable releases.
[13:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python-werkzeug (trusty-proposed/main) [0.9.4+dfsg-1.1ubuntu2 => 0.9.4+dfsg-1.1ubuntu2.1] (ubuntu-server)
[13:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python-werkzeug (xenial-proposed/main) [0.10.4+dfsg1-1ubuntu1 => 0.10.4+dfsg1-1ubuntu1.1] (ubuntu-server)
[15:06] <Laney> autopkgtest queues are more or less empty - mass retrying the regressions
[15:06]  * apw nods
[15:07] <Laney> ohhh yeahhhh that's the stuff
[16:17] <bdmurray> cjwatson: While I don't have to that specific date I want to find out which packages have SRUs that are still phasing and that could be quite old e.g. trusty mugshot SRU from 947 days ago.
[16:18] <bdmurray> cjwatson: Is there some better way to find those packages or should I just be caching the ones still phasing?
[16:18] <cjwatson> hmmm
[16:21] <cjwatson> do file a bug against LP about this, but I think maybe we should extend Archive.getPublishedBinaries to let you query only the ones with non-None phased_update_percentage?
[16:21] <slangasek> SRU team have any opinions on LP: #1686183 and forward-copying to post-precise?  I think my intent had been to binary copy it forward since it's currently a trivial shell script, any objections?
[16:21] <cjwatson> you'd then have to aggregate those into source packages, but it would be a much smaller data set
[16:22] <bdmurray> I also think the complete query is faster if the release is trusty instead of xenial.
[16:22] <cjwatson> that seems backwards, but who knows - I doubt that will be a productive avenue of investigation TBH
[16:23] <cjwatson> an orders-of-magnitude reduction in the size of the data set is going to beat anything like that
[16:24] <bdmurray> Sure, I just think there might be another issue if trusty really is faster than xenial.
[16:25] <cjwatson> I'd expect the size of the xenial set to be smaller, but is that in fact the case?
[16:26] <cjwatson> also, xenial had one more architecture; that might make a difference
[16:26] <cjwatson> you have one bit where you're making per-binary queries
[16:27] <cjwatson> at least one that I immediately see
[16:27] <cjwatson>                     for allpb in archive.getPublishedBinaries(
[16:27] <cjwatson>                             exact_match=True, pocket='Updates',
[16:27] <cjwatson>                             binary_name=pbs[0].binary_package_name):
[16:27] <cjwatson>                         if allpb.distro_arch_series.distroseries == release:
[16:28] <cjwatson> you could optimise that by either (a) doing string manipulations on allpb.distro_arch_series_link so that you don't have to go to the webservice to fetch the contents of the link, or (b) keeping a local cache of distro_series objects and evaluating that yourself
[16:28] <cjwatson> I think this is a bit of a gotcha in lazr.restfulclient
[16:30] <bdmurray> cjwatson: Thanks, I'll have a look at that and file the LP bug you suggested.
[16:31] <cjwatson> yep, quick local test says that the chunk of code above is actually two webservice GETs per binary
[16:31] <cjwatson> so fixing that will make a big difference
[16:32] <cjwatson> (one for the distroarchseries, one for the distroseries)
[16:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected lxd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.0.10-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[16:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.13-0ubuntu3~ubuntu16.04.1 => 2.0.10-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[17:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nplan (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.21~16.04.1 => 0.22~16.04.1] (no packageset)
[19:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: chrome-gnome-shell (xenial-proposed/universe) [9-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.04.2 => 9-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.04.3] (no packageset)
[19:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: chrome-gnome-shell (yakkety-proposed/universe) [9-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.10 => 9-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.10.1] (no packageset)
[20:09] <jbicha> any SRU Team member have time to look at those chrome-gnome-shell updates? ^ it fixes a regression-proposed
[20:46]  * valorie goes outside
[21:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nplan (yakkety-proposed/main) [0.12 => 0.22~16.10.1] (no packageset)
[21:10] <tsimonq2> stgraber: Hey there :)
[21:11] <tsimonq2> stgraber: Are you able to help with Nusakan for Alpha 1?
[21:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nplan (zesty-proposed/main) [0.20 => 0.22~17.04.1] (core)
[21:12] <stgraber> tsimonq2: know the dates?
[21:13] <tsimonq2> stgraber: June 29th is that Thursday
[21:15] <stgraber> tsimonq2: yeah, I'll take care of the nusakan bits, not travelling that week
[21:16] <tsimonq2> stgraber: Ok, want to add yourself to the ReleaseTaskSignup page or do you want me to?
[21:16] <stgraber> I'll do it
[21:17] <tsimonq2> Ok
[21:32] <nacc> infinity: how do deletions from debian get propogated to ubuntu? src:php-arc was being held in ubuntu (it's been deleted in Debian), because it was removed without fixing its revdeps there. I fixed the revdeps in ubuntu in artful, and now src:php-arc has none and can be removed.
[21:34] <jbicha> nacc: if a package has Ubuntu-specific changes, it's a lot more difficult for it to be noticed
[21:34] <jbicha> you can file a removal bug when you find those and subscribe ubuntu-archive
[21:34] <nacc> jbicha: yes, i understand
[21:35] <jbicha> those bugs are usually reviewed at least once near the end of the release cycle
[21:36] <nacc> jbicha: ack, thanks