[02:26] <jbicha> RAOF: hi, if you have time for SRUs today, it might be nice to push chrome-gnome-shell/xenial and yakkety into updates since FF54 will be released this week
[02:27] <RAOF> jbicha: My SRU day is tomorrow morning, unless I've somehow missed Tuesday :)
[02:27] <RAOF> That said, let me look... A)
[02:27] <jbicha> (chrome-gnome-shell seems to basically work with Firefox 54 though)
[02:27] <RAOF> :)
[02:28] <jbicha> RAOF: I thought it was Tuesday where you were?
[02:28] <jbicha> I'm following https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Publishing
[02:28] <RAOF> jbicha: It is Tuesday, but that Wiki page is in Pacific time :)
[02:29] <jbicha> seriously?
[02:29] <jbicha> that sounds convenient… :)
[02:32] <RAOF> That was simple enough. Enjoy your shiny new chrome-gnome-shell/xenial,yakkety
[05:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd (xenial-backports/main) [2.13-0ubuntu3~ubuntu16.04.1 => 2.14-0ubuntu3~16.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[05:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd (yakkety-backports/main) [2.13-0ubuntu3~ubuntu16.10.1 => 2.14-0ubuntu3~16.10.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[05:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxd (zesty-backports/main) [2.13-0ubuntu3~ubuntu17.04.1 => 2.14-0ubuntu3~17.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[05:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lxd [source] (xenial-backports) [2.14-0ubuntu3~16.04.1]
[06:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lxd [source] (yakkety-backports) [2.14-0ubuntu3~16.10.1]
[06:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lxd [source] (zesty-backports) [2.14-0ubuntu3~17.04.1]
[09:49] <LocutusOfBorg> fossfreedom, budgie-desktop syncd in ubuntu
[09:58] <LocutusOfBorg> fossfreedom, it fails to build, patch appreciated
[11:32] <didrocks> cjwatson: hey, would you know why I can't access to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/artful/+upload/15602063/+files/pim-sieve-editor_16.12.3-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb ? (I tried multiple pim-sieve-editor binary packages in NEW)
[11:40] <cjwatson> didrocks: Hmm, probably my mistake - I think when I changed the queue page to proxy those files through the webapp rather than linking straight to the librarian, I forgot that PackageUpload:+files doesn't yet handle binary packages
[11:40] <cjwatson> didrocks: Can you file a bug?
[11:42] <didrocks> cjwatson: sure, bug #1697680. Is there any way I can access them to check before binNEW them?
[11:45] <cjwatson> didrocks: "queue fetch 15602063" works fine
[11:45] <cjwatson> (or any other queue fetch mode)
[11:46] <didrocks> cjwatson: perfect, thanks!
[11:48] <cjwatson> It's probably about as complicated as http://paste.ubuntu.com/24848569/ plus tests, so hopefully don't take too long
[11:48] <cjwatson> *won't take
[11:49] <didrocks> cjwatson: ah indeed, no hurry anyway, preferred to ping just in case this changed over time and I didn't notice :)
[11:50] <cjwatson> Yeah, it's a recent-ish regression
[13:11] <jamespage> please could horizon 10.0.4-0ubuntu1 be rejected from the yakkety UNAPPROVED queue - there is a problem with the orig-static.tar.gz bundle
[13:29] <apw> jamespage, rejected .... though where is queubot ...
[13:30] <jamespage> taking a break I guess :)
[13:30] <jamespage> apw: ta
[13:31]  * apw wonders who is responsible for stroking queuebot ...
[13:34] <sil2100> infinity: btw. you want to take care of all the HWE stack packages or should I take the rest? I see things like libwacom in the queue now
[13:54] <smoser> infinity, i'm sure you'll get another chance sometime. thanks.
[13:58] <apw> bdmurray, do you know who runs queuebot ?
[14:03] <cyphermox> hi, could someone please review nplan from the queue for all releases: nplan 0.23~$release; and netcfg
[14:41] <bdmurray> apw: Maybe stgraber
[14:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted heat [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:6.1.2-0ubuntu1]
[14:44] <slashd> good day sil2100 ;) hope you are doing well. I know it's not your SRU day today, but I sent you a message yesterday on #ubuntu-release and I had some internet issue a few minutes after so if you answered me I never got it. It was about moving from -proposed to -updates 2 packages "vlan" (for all affected releases but Trusty) and "ebtables" for all affected releases.
[14:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nova [source] (xenial-proposed) [2:13.1.4-0ubuntu1]
[14:44] <sil2100> slashd: hey! You're in luck, I'm wearing my SRU hat today since yesterday I was busy with kernel SRUing
[14:45] <sil2100> slashd: I either didn't get that message or missed it completely, so I can take a look at it in a moment
[14:45]  * slashd going to buy a lottery ticket
[14:45] <slashd> sil2100, thanks I appreciate it.
[14:45] <slashd> ddstreet^^^^
[14:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntukylin)
[14:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [s390x] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntukylin)
[14:58] <sil2100> slashd: all done, looking good - I'll try to keep an eye out for vlan on trusty once it gets enough time in -proposed
[15:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntukylin)
[15:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [i386] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntukylin)
[15:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [armhf] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntukylin)
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [arm64] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntukylin)
[15:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: klibc (trusty-proposed/main) [2.0.3-0ubuntu1.14.04.2 => 2.0.3-0ubuntu1.14.04.3] (core)
[15:15] <slashd> sil2100, ok thanks much appreciated !
[15:16] <slashd> ddstreet, ^^^^^^^
[15:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nplan [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.23~17.04.1]
[15:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted klibc [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.0.3-0ubuntu1.14.04.3]
[15:51] <bdmurray> cyphermox: Is bug 1630285 fixed in Artful?
[16:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (trusty-proposed/partner) [1:20170509.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1 => 1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.1] (no packageset)
[16:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (yakkety-proposed/partner) [1:20170509.1-0ubuntu0.16.10.1 => 1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.16.10.1] (no packageset)
[16:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (xenial-proposed/partner) [1:20170509.1-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 => 1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (no packageset)
[16:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (zesty-proposed/partner) [1:20170509.1-0ubuntu0.17.04.1 => 1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.17.04.1] (no packageset)
[16:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (trusty-proposed) [1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.1]
[16:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.16.10.1]
[16:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.16.04.1]
[16:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (zesty-proposed) [1:20170613.2-0ubuntu0.17.04.1]
[16:26] <slashd> sil2100, another quick question for you, about the percona-xtradb-cluster-5.5, what if I need to SRU a fix for a "real" Trusty only issue with this block package in trusty-proposed ?
[16:26] <slashd> Mmike^
[16:28] <slashd> sil2100, re: LP: #1657256 ^^
[16:29] <slangasek> are i386 autopkgtest runners stalled out?
[16:30] <Laney> they are the same as the amd64 ones
[16:34] <slangasek> Laney: any idea why the i386 queue is so much longer, then?
[16:36] <sil2100> slashd: hm hm, normally we'd just drop the package that's in -proposed and release the new, trusty-only fix as is, but maybe it would be good to discuss with the wider SRU team if maybe we could include it on top of the -proposed changes
[16:36] <Laney> the workers pick jobs from the queues in the order they connected to them
[16:36] <sil2100> slashd: how far is the artful fix for 5.6 from being ready?
[16:36] <Laney> that order is supposed to be randomised
[16:36] <Laney> but maybe that isn't working, or maybe most of them randomly picked amd64
[16:37] <infinity> sil2100: I'll attack more hwe stuff today.
[16:37] <Laney> they will be processed sooner or later anyway
[16:39] <slangasek> Laney: right, if we're confident they'll eventually processed, that's fine, but if there's an RNG bug that means i386 isn't being tried while there's anything in the amd64 queue, that's going to slow down transitions a fair amount
[16:41] <slangasek> Laney: also there are a good number of items on http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/running showing a suspicious lack of output on amd64
[16:42] <slangasek> e.g. kitemviews amd64 artful
[16:46] <Laney> slangasek: The cloud VMs fail from time to time - they time out and get retried
[16:46] <Laney> I see the normal queue is being processed in parallel to the huge one, and is much smaller - wouldn't expect it to be a particular problem for transitions
[16:47] <Laney> maybe we misunderstood and the queues are consumed in some kind of sorted order or something
[16:47] <Laney> the random.shuffle(queues) thing looks right to me
[16:48] <Laney> https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/autopkgtest-cloud/tree/worker/worker#n575
[16:48] <slashd> sil2100, as of how far is the fix to 5.6, I'll need to discuss with Mmike tomorrow, he is eod now but I think it's still far from it, since no upstream fix is done yet
[16:48] <slashd> sil2100, I'll resync with Mmike and will keep you posted.
[16:49] <slangasek> Laney: what's the timeout on the cloud VMs, and what's the failure rate in your experience?
[16:51] <tsimonq2> What's the process for requesting that a package be demoted to Universe from Main? I'm not finding docs on it...
[16:52] <Laney> I get mail every 6 hours and there's usually a few in there
[16:53] <Laney> Another thing that happens when the capacity is completely used is that we exceed our quota and back off
[16:56] <slangasek> Laney: ah; who else do these mails go to besides you?
[16:56] <nacc> tsimonq2: it's not being held by anything?
[16:56] <Laney> nobody
[16:56] <Laney> do you want them?
[16:57] <slangasek> Laney: certainly seems like something more than one person should have eyes on.  Sure, you can include me
[16:57] <slashd> sil2100, Mmike is here, just talk to him on another channel
[16:57] <slangasek> tsimonq2: you don't request demotions; you unseed the package or remove its reverse-deps, and the rest takes care of itself
[16:57] <slashd> Mmike, how far is the artful fix for 5.6 from being ready?
[16:57] <nacc> slangasek: can you accept sphinx-celery from the queue for artful?
[16:57] <tsimonq2> nacc: I'm wondering how complicated it would be to ask for the Qt packages to be demoted to Universe as Unity 8 is no longer a thing and the Qt people working for Canonical are no longer working there.
[16:58] <tsimonq2> slangasek: ^
[16:58] <apw> Laney, cirtianly my ppa bits got round robined with the huge ones
[16:58] <nacc> tsimonq2: it should fallout naturally by removing seeds and revdeps
[16:58] <nacc> tsimonq2: heh, exactly as slangasek just said, sorry!
[16:59] <Laney> slangasek: ok, enjoy!
[16:59] <slangasek> nacc: new python2 binary package, not present in Debian; it's not a slam dunk to accept this, no
[17:00] <tsimonq2> nacc, slangasek: Is there an easy way to find rdeps for a package that are only in Main?
[17:00] <slangasek> nacc: can you elaborate why it's needed?
[17:00] <slangasek> tsimonq2: reverse-depends -c main; seeded-in-ubuntu
[17:00] <tsimonq2> slangasek: Can that work with source packages or only binary ones?
[17:01] <slangasek> tsimonq2: try and see, the commands have documentation :)
[17:01] <tsimonq2> slangasek: ack, sorry
[17:01] <cyphermox> bdmurray: yes, it is, since 0.13
[17:01] <bdmurray> cyphermox: can you update the bug then?
[17:01] <Laney> apw: yeah, but it looks like it is preferring amd64 within queues to me
[17:01] <Mmike> slashd, sil2100, hey
[17:02] <bdmurray> smoser: Can you add some regression potential information to bug 1692093?
[17:02] <smoser> bdmurray, ack.
[17:03] <Mmike> slashd: so, percona-5.6 fix is not close - the trusty-proposed one can go away and I'll propose the SRU for bug 1366997
[17:03] <slashd> sil2100, ^^
[17:05] <nacc> slangasek: sure, sorry -- jamespage requested some help with openstack pike bits stuck in a-p. Specifically kombu in a-p (synced from experimental) needs a newer celery (LP: #1690688). Newer celery b-d on python{,3}-sphinx-celery in order to build it's documentation. But as I write this, I'm realizing that perhaps I can just use the python3 version. So nevermind! Sorry to waste your time. I'll ping
[17:05] <nacc> again later if this build fails :)
[17:06] <smoser> bdmurray, done
[17:06] <bdmurray> smoser: And bug 1692087 needs regression potential. Bug 1687712 needs all SRU info.
[17:08] <bdmurray> smoser: bug 1636345 is also missing SRU template
[17:08] <sil2100> Oh
[17:08] <sil2100> slashd, Mmike: ACK
[17:09] <cyphermox> bdmurray: done
[17:10] <Mmike> sil2100: thnx
[17:10] <slashd> sil2100, thanks for you precious help
[17:12] <bdmurray> Oh, that's not helpful that last bug has an "SRU information" attachment.
[17:14] <slangasek> nacc: ok; will you reupload to drop this binary again and I can reject out?
[17:14] <smoser> bdmurray, i will add one. i intended to not include that in the changelog
[17:14] <smoser> as it is not related to ubuntu... its freebsd (other than regresion potential)
[17:14] <smoser> i will add a template though
[17:14] <nacc> slangasek: yeah, i've not yet uploaded the celery change, so you can reject please
[17:15] <slangasek> nacc: ok
[17:15] <nacc> slangasek: thanks for ... listening? :) you helped, regardless
[17:15] <slangasek> :)
[17:15] <bdmurray> smoser: okay, let me know when everything is set.
[17:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected sphinx-celery [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.3.1-1ubuntu1]
[17:20] <smoser> bdmurray, done
[17:38] <bdmurray> smoser: bug 1692087 was missed
[17:38] <smoser> missed ?
[17:39] <bdmurray> I mentioned it was missing a regression potential and I don't see one yet.
[17:44] <smoser> oh. i didnt see you had. sorry. only saw the first. added.h
[18:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.7.9-153-g16a7302f-0ubuntu1~17.04.1]
[18:23] <tjaalton> sil2100: hi, I managed to miss your ack of mesa for zesty, so maybe you could check the new bugfix version on the queue when you have time, and I'll get that one properly tested
[18:24] <tjaalton> it's also the final version of 17.0.x series
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nplan [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.23~16.10.1]
[18:32] <bdmurray> cyphermox: and nplan 0.23 for xenial is meant to supersede the existing SRU?
[18:32] <cyphermox> yup
[18:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nplan [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.23~16.04.1]
[18:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (yakkety-proposed) [0.7.9-153-g16a7302f-0ubuntu1~16.10.1]
[19:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.7.9-153-g16a7302f-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[19:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu2] (ubuntukylin)
[19:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [s390x] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu2] (ubuntukylin)
[19:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu2] (ubuntukylin)
[19:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [i386] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu2] (ubuntukylin)
[20:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [arm64] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu2] (ubuntukylin)
[20:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evolution [armhf] (artful-proposed/universe) [3.24.2-0ubuntu2] (ubuntukylin)
[20:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: click (xenial-proposed/main) [0.4.43+16.04.20160203-0ubuntu2 => 0.4.43+16.04.20170613-0ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop) (sync)
[23:05] <slangasek> jbicha: what's the rationale for adding a binary 'tests' package for evolution?
[23:20] <jbicha> slangasek: it's for installed tests https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/InstalledTests
[23:20] <jbicha> you can see other examples by doing something like
[23:20] <jbicha> apt-file search /usr/share/installed-tests/
[23:28] <infinity> jbicha: I assume these are (or will be) run from autopkgtests?
[23:28] <infinity> Since that's pretty much a perfect fit.
[23:32] <jbicha> infinity: yes, I just hadn't finished testing them yet
[23:32] <infinity> jbicha: Excellent.  Happy to see an upstream initiative that dovetails so nicely into downstream CI.
[23:32] <jbicha> for instance, the new e-d-s installed-tests didn't completely pass reliably yet so I didn't want e-d-s's autopkgtests to start failing because of that
[23:33] <infinity> Reminds me that we put a bunch of work into making the glibc tests runnable out-of-tree against the installed libc, but never quite hit the finish line.  I should revisit that.
[23:33] <jbicha> infinity: are you interested in doing unity8-related removals or is xnox handling that?
[23:34] <infinity> jbicha: I'm standing by for people to give me lists of packages and sign-offs and promises that party B won't yell at me five minutes after party A asks me to remove stuff.
[23:35] <infinity> jbicha: But I also think slangasek and Laney were on the case as AAs (and, as you say, xnox as a core-dev working on lists).  So may be enough cooks in that kitchen.
[23:36] <infinity> Err, Laney as release and slangasek as AA, I guess.
[23:37] <jbicha> I probably should have waited until e-d-s 3.24 was in artful before dropping Ubuntu Online Accounts because address-book-service will need to be rebuilt or dropped to complete the transition
[23:53] <slangasek> jbicha: I fail to see why this design requires the 'installed' tests to be part of a package; this could work just as well as build in tree, install just the tests to a local target, run against the packaged bits, and impose no overhead on the archive
[23:58] <jbicha> I'm just doing the packaging; if you have concerns about installed tests, maybe you can ask the people who packaged the other tests before me?
[23:59] <jbicha> but you don't have to build the source package to run these tests: that's kind of the point