[10:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ebtables [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.0.10.4-3.5ubuntu1.17.04.1]
[10:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ebtables [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.0.10.4-3.5ubuntu1.16.10.1]
[10:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ebtables [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.0.10.4-3.4ubuntu2]
[10:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ebtables [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.0.10.4-3ubuntu1.14.04.1]
[10:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted vlan [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.9-3.2ubuntu2.17.04.2]
[10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted vlan [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.9-3.2ubuntu2.16.10.2]
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted vlan [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.9-3.2ubuntu1.16.04.3]
[10:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted vlan [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.9-3ubuntu10.3]
[11:47] <slashd> thanks sil2100 for the ebtables and vlan
[11:54] <slashd> bdmurray, Good morning, sil2100 if you have some time today could you please look at the following -proposed Green packages (verified) -- https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html) for "sssd" (Trusty) & "openssl" (Zesty/Yakkety/Xenial) ?
[12:45] <jbicha> also, could you look at the chrome-gnome-shell unapproved SRUs today to fix a regression-proposed issue?
[12:50] <infinity> jbicha: X and Y?
[12:53] <jbicha> yes
[12:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted chrome-gnome-shell [source] (xenial-proposed) [9-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.04.3]
[12:55] <infinity> jbicha: Done and done.
[12:55] <jbicha> thank you
[12:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted chrome-gnome-shell [source] (yakkety-proposed) [9-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.10.1]
[13:29] <sil2100> slashd: will look in a minute :)
[14:06] <sil2100> slashd: hmmm, I'm looking at the openssl bits and I'm a bit concerned
[14:06] <sil2100> slashd: two things:
[14:07] <sil2100> slashd: 1) I see autopkgtest regressions in xenial and yakkety - are those documented somehow on the bug? If those are expected to fail, could you mention  that in the bug?
[14:10] <sil2100> slashd: 2) There was an automated 'verification-failed' posted to the bug as per reports from the version in -proposed but the tags are getting removed - what's the reason for those auto-failures being reported? Is it unrelated? Not an issue?
[14:11] <sil2100> slashd: also, woudl be nice if someone included some info about the tests performed and version numbers - our new SRU procedures require/recommend putting test details during verification
[14:21] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, https://code.launchpad.net/~costamagnagianfranco/+recipe/boinc-upstream-daily
[14:21] <LocutusOfBorg> seems your latest debhelper upload is to blame?
[14:22] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't see the automatic autoreconf being run, and the difference is just in toolchain
[14:25] <jbicha> LocutusOfBorg: as a workaround, try updating debian/compat to 10 ?
[14:26] <LocutusOfBorg> it would probably break older builds :)
[14:27] <jbicha> LocutusOfBorg: how far back are you building for? yakkety has dh 10 and xenial-backports does too
[14:28] <LocutusOfBorg> yeah probably time to move to compat 10, but parallel builds are broken, so I'm forced to add some --no-parallel
[14:28] <LocutusOfBorg> anyhow, I don't care about artful, as long as Laney knows about the issue :)
[14:28] <Laney> sec
[14:28] <Laney> if you've got time, please try it on Debian too, and report a bug there?
[14:28] <jbicha> I think it would be more important for you to tell Debian's dh maintainers about the issue :)
[14:29] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, sure, experimental ongoing
[14:41] <LocutusOfBorg> sigh, I can't blame Laney anymore :p http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#experimental/boinc/7.6.33+dfsg-12/buildlog
[14:42] <LocutusOfBorg> so... RC bug?
[14:46] <slashd> sil2100, the regression are recurring failure for quite some time. wgrant can you document the testing you have made in bug (LP: #1674399) the new SRU procedures require/recommend putting test details during verification. (see sil2100 comment above)
[14:48] <slashd> sil2100, most of them, I'll review them one by one to make sure
[14:49] <rbasak> sil2100, slashd: IMHO, the procedures haven't changed; we just started pushing people to actually follow them :)
[14:49] <sil2100> rbasak: sure, right
[14:49] <slashd> rbasak, which is good
[14:50] <slashd> rbasak, I normally do it, I haven't notice for that particular one that the details wasn't there.
[14:51] <sil2100> Indeed, your bugs usually are very detailed in regards to testing
[14:51] <sil2100> A +1 on that
[14:55] <slashd> sil2100, thanks, so I'll have another look at openssl, and will get back to you. what about "sssd" ?
[14:55] <sil2100> slashd: I released it before moving on to openssl :)
[14:56] <slashd> sil2100, thanks you very much
[14:56] <sil2100> yw!
[15:14] <slashd> sil2100, do you know how can I find the test before two versions if not listed in here : http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/p/postgresql-9.5/xenial/armhf. For instance, I see it passed for "openssl/1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.3" and failed for "openssl/1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.7", but it seems like I don't have the test inbetween
[15:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (xenial-proposed/universe) [2.29 => 2.29.2] (no packageset)
[15:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (yakkety-proposed/universe) [2.29+16.10 => 2.29.2+16.10] (no packageset)
[15:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapcraft (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.29+17.04 => 2.29.2+17.04] (no packageset)
[15:34] <LocutusOfBorg> debian bug: #863887 opened
[15:38] <Laney> thx
[15:38] <Laney> I know what the bad commit is
[15:50] <kyrofa> apw, snapcraft 2.29.2 is up
[15:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupdate (xenial-proposed/main) [0.5-2ubuntu4 => 9-1ubuntu0.16.04.1] (core)
[15:53] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, would you mind sharing it in the bug report? :p
[15:54] <Laney> NO I'm keeping it to myself. :P
[15:56] <LocutusOfBorg> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debhelper/debhelper.git/commit/?id=cb5054c507c0c76d1c47ce5f55605586e57405bf ?
[15:56] <Laney> ok, ok, I posted
[16:03] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks!
[16:05] <kyrofa> slangasek, upstream setuptools busted all python2 and 3 projects using snapcraft. The fix is in snapcraft 2.29.2. Could you accept that into proposed for x y and z, please?
[16:06] <sergiusens_> btw, this might not be as urgent anymore -> ‎[16:16] ‎<‎jamespage‎>‎ "python-setuptools 36.0.1 has been released and now making its way into jobs"
[16:06] <sergiusens_> kyrofa: ^
[16:06] <kyrofa> sergiusens_, ...
[16:07] <jamespage> that pretty much broke the world ;)
[16:07] <kyrofa> It was awful, yeah
[16:08] <slangasek> ok, so is this fixed upstream and no urgency on the SRU?
[16:08] <kyrofa> And they seemingly did it with full knowledge of what they were doing
[16:09] <kyrofa> slangasek, hold off for a sec, verifying
[16:12] <cjwatson> https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/1043 was the upstream fix
[16:12] <cjwatson> I'd tend to agree that that shouldn't be separately worked around unless snapcraft independently requires six (which I don't think it does)
[16:13] <cjwatson> looks not so much like "no urgency" as "reject" to me?
[16:13] <sergiusens_> slangasek: yeah, let's hold off on the SRU, I just checked the diff and reverted the `import six` they had in there ... https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/1043/files
[16:13] <slangasek> ok
[16:14] <sergiusens_> cjwatson: it doesn't... I was under the impression they wouldn't fix it (sorry, I wasn't on top of this one)
[16:14] <slangasek> kyrofa, sergiusens_: are we agreed that I can reject these?
[16:14] <sergiusens_> I am +1 for not doing this if not needed
[16:14] <sergiusens_> slangasek: yeah, please
[16:17] <sergiusens_> to be specific, please reject
[16:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapcraft [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.29.2+17.04]
[16:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapcraft [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.29.2+16.10]
[16:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapcraft [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.29.2]
[16:23] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: try 'deb https://swift.canonistack.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_e8074875467b46b7ab3c41ac60ccfbe7/ubuntu artful main'?
[16:24] <kyrofa> Indeed, tests pass without the patch. sergiusens, jamespage: good catch, thank you
[16:26] <LocutusOfBorg> looking
[16:26] <Laney> signed with my key, you can find that in keyring.d.o
[16:27] <LocutusOfBorg> Laney, [trusted=yes] for your repo :p
[16:28] <LocutusOfBorg> works
[16:28] <LocutusOfBorg> at least it is autoreconfiguring
[16:28] <LocutusOfBorg> ta
[16:28] <Laney> shocking
[16:30] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks, the build is good, I will kill it
[16:31] <Laney> k, guess I'll upload that revert then
[16:31] <LocutusOfBorg> ta
[16:33] <Laney> .
[17:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-settings [amd64] (artful-proposed/main) [17.10.2] (ubuntu-desktop)
[17:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected ubuntu-settings [amd64] (artful-proposed) [17.10.2]
[18:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: thunderbird [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/main) [1:52.1.1+build1-0ubuntu1] (mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)
[19:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.26.1 => 2.26.4] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[19:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.26.1+16.10 => 2.26.4+16.10] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[19:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (zesty-proposed/main) [2.26.1+17.04 => 2.26.4+17.04] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[19:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (trusty-proposed/universe) [2.26.1~14.04 => 2.26.4~14.04] (no packageset)
[19:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected nplan [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.22~16.04.1]
[19:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected nplan [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.22~16.10.1]
[19:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected nplan [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.22~17.04.1]
[19:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: thunderbird [amd64] (artful-proposed/main) [1:52.1.1+build1-0ubuntu1] (mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)
[20:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: thunderbird [i386] (artful-proposed/main) [1:52.1.1+build1-0ubuntu1] (mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)
[20:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: live-build (trusty-proposed/main) [3.0~a57-1ubuntu11.3 => 3.0~a57-1ubuntu11.4] (desktop-core)
[20:41]  * cyphermox pokes queuebot
[20:41] <cyphermox> where's my livecd-rootfs upload?
[20:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (trusty-proposed/main) [2.208.13 => 2.208.14] (desktop-core)
[20:44] <cyphermox> ah, there we go
[21:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: thunderbird [arm64] (artful-proposed/main) [1:52.1.1+build1-0ubuntu1] (mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)