[00:45] <mwhudson> does anyone see what happened here? https://launchpadlibrarian.net/325167198/buildlog_ubuntu-artful-s390x.vim_2%3A8.0.0197-4ubuntu3_BUILDING.txt.gz
[00:51] <sarnold> no idea. but I got a giggle out of this "Test BufferLength and BufferAssSlice"
[00:58] <tsimonq2> hah
[03:53] <slangasek> so who's blindly retrying haskell package builds to punish me? :)
[03:55] <sarnold> ugh
[03:56] <sarnold> I don't know what you did to deserve thjat but that's a mean thing to do to someone
[03:56] <slangasek> sarnold: what I did was upload no-change rebuilds for the transition, now someone's retrying them without looking at the build logs ;)
[04:00] <tsimonq2> slangasek: I've been getting emails on artful-changes.
[04:00] <tsimonq2> slangasek: he-who-is-never-on-irc :P
[08:06] <rbasak> slangasek: ah. So you think it's appropriate to be there, just not in the minimal seed? I must have got you confused with someone else saying it was deprecated and should be removed altogether.
[09:19] <sil2100> Hey! Anyone here could force ignore octave-io's failing armhf test? Checking the logs it's been failing for longer and from the logs (and one re-run) I see that random tests seem to be failing, not the same ones everytime
[09:19] <sil2100> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#octave-io
[10:24] <ginggs> sil2100: i cannot even see where it was ever successful, but britney seems to think it was
[10:26] <ginggs> sil2100: i don't know if it matters, but #ubuntu-release is usually the channel for that
[10:30] <sil2100> ginggs: thanks!
[12:59] <flexiondotorg> Any MOTUs or core devs here who could take a look at LP: #1699333 and LP: #1699334 please?
[13:00] <flexiondotorg> I'd like to include there in Ubuntu MATE 17.10 Alpha 1. Ubuntu Budgie are interested in the packages too.
[13:00] <seb128> flexiondotorg, how come you are not MOTU yet? ;-)
[13:00] <flexiondotorg> Long term I'll ask the DMB to add them to my packageset so I can maintain them.
[13:00] <flexiondotorg> seb128 I know right.
[13:01] <flexiondotorg> On the long list of "stuff I should do".
[13:01] <seb128> flexiondotorg, replying to your direct question, I can try to have a look on monday but today is just too busy with things I've to do already
[13:02] <flexiondotorg> seb128 Thanks.
[13:02] <flexiondotorg> If anyone is able to improve on seb128's kind offer, I'd appreciate it :-)
[13:02] <jbicha> flexiondotorg: apply to be a Debian Maintainer too :)
[13:02] <flexiondotorg> jbicha In progress :-)
[14:23] <slangasek> rbasak: I think I may have said at one point that it was deprecated, but I may have been wrong ;)
[14:26] <rbasak> slangasek: no problem. I think we're all clear on it now. Well, to be clear, ethtool is staying seeded, but not in minimal since it doesn't need to be in minima.
[14:26] <rbasak> l
[14:39] <mapreri> somebody know what's wrong with https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencv/3.1.0+dfsg1-1~exp1ubuntu1/+build/12795080 ?
[14:39] <mapreri>  sbuild-build-depends-opencv-dummy : Depends: libvtk6-dev but it is not going to be installed
[14:40] <mapreri> not really geared to test installation issues of !x86 in ubuntu (and I don't use dose, etc)
[14:58] <oSoMoN> awe_, hey, I see that you did some extensive testing on bug #1585863 a while back, would you be able to test Aron's packages in https://launchpad.net/~happyaron/+archive/ubuntu/nm-oem/+packages to confirm the fix on xenial by any chance?
[15:13] <awe_> oSoMoN, I can take a look, but from my recollection, the bug was considered fixed when a new version of network-manager was SRU'd
[15:13] <awe_> so Aaron's patches weren't required
[15:14] <awe_> see comment https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/1585863/comments/94
[15:15] <awe_> four dollars re-opened the bug based on two comments with zero details
[15:25] <oSoMoN> awe_, yeah, after reading all the comments in the bug it wasn't clear to me either that the patches were required
[15:25] <oSoMoN> if 1.2.6-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 that's in xenial already fixes the issue, then perfect
[15:30] <oSoMoN> FourDollars: I know it's EOW for you, but when you get a chance would you mind commenting on bug #1585863 to clarify the situation?
[15:30] <oSoMoN> thanks!
[15:32] <awe_> oSoMoN, I added an additional comment to the bug
[15:32] <awe_> which provides a method for checking whether the bug has been hit or not
[15:32] <awe_> the problem is that sometimes when coming out of S3
[15:33] <awe_> NM failed to initiate  WiFi scanning
[15:33] <awe_> and if it doesn't scan
[15:33] <awe_> it can't detect APs
[15:33] <awe_> which means it's re-connect to APs
[15:33] <oSoMoN> awe_, thanks, that’s very helpful! Hopefully 1.2.6 did fix the issue, and no more work will be needed on that one
[15:34] <oSoMoN> let’s see if F_ourDollars can clarify the situation
[15:39] <awe_> willcooke might also be interested to hear that this has been re-opened
[15:39]  * willcooke reads
[15:39] <awe_> (maybe "interested" isn't the right word)
[15:39] <awe_> ;)-
[15:40] <willcooke> hqa
[15:40] <willcooke> ha
[15:40] <willcooke> Yeah, so I /think/ it is fixed.  But I was confused by that bug as well
[15:41] <willcooke> Pretty sure we'd be hearing a lot more about it if it was still broken.  But good to be sure
[15:41] <FourDollars> oSoMoN: Aron's patch is still needed. Please check the bug comments again.
[15:42] <oSoMoN> FourDollars, thanks mate, I’ll work on the SRU then
[15:42] <awe_> based on what evidence?
[15:42] <FourDollars> oSoMoN: Thx a lot.
[15:43] <awe_> willcooke, can we bring jbicha into the conversation?
[15:43] <willcooke> awe_, I don't think he'll know about this one, he's only done the merge from Debian (n-m 1.8)
[15:44] <awe_> the bug doesn't even say *which* patch is required
[15:44] <willcooke> yeah, I think this might be a red herring
[15:44] <oSoMoN> I gotta take off for today, I’d appreciate if relevant bits of the conversation could be saved to the bug report
[15:44] <willcooke> oSoMoN, sure thing
[15:44] <oSoMoN> thanks!
[15:44] <awe_> I think my comments says it all
[15:45] <awe_> we need proof something is broken before we decide a patch is needed
[15:59] <mapreri> somebody can guess what's wrong with https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencv/3.1.0+dfsg1-1~exp1ubuntu1/+build/12795080 ?    ← slangasek ?  (given you seemed so interested ^^)
[16:05] <slangasek> mapreri: you might be able to decipher it using chdist to see why it might be uninstallable on that arch
[16:13] <mapreri> ok, it's due to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865465
[16:14] <nacc> mapreri: http://paste.ubuntu.com/24933694/
[16:14] <nacc> mapreri: it's uninstallable with artful-proposed on s390x
[16:14] <mapreri> yeah, got to it
[16:14] <mapreri> eventually
[16:14] <mapreri> pity, but should be fixed by the next autosync, theoretically
[16:38] <slangasek> mdeslaur: have you seen LP: #1700079 ? I am unconvinced from the description that it's a regression vs. a race-condition in the systemd unit
[17:25] <rbasak> slangasek: that's from adac and/or frickler in #ubuntu-server earlier today. Two people reported the same thing, so I asked for a bug report.
[17:57] <sarnold> slangasek: btw mdeslaur is out for the weekend
[18:29] <slangasek> sarnold: ok.  would someone else from security look at this, should I assign the bug to him so he sees it on his return?
[18:30] <sarnold> slangasek: probably best to assign it to him, none of us spotted anything in postinsts or unit files or elsewhere. :/ I'm not even sure if this is expected or not. Is it?
[18:31] <slangasek> sarnold: it is not expected that restarting the server on upgrade fails?
[18:32] <sarnold> slangasek: hrm. I read too quickly I thought that was the hanging clients that everyone experienced.. hrm.
[18:40] <sbeattie> slangasek: the curious thing is it only happening with unattended upgrades, both reporters in #ubuntu-server last night were unable to reproduce it outside of that. Though it could just be unattended upgrades making it easier to lose whatever race is happening.
[18:41] <slangasek> sbeattie: how many times did they try outside of unattended-upgrades?  sample size of 4 isn't much to draw conclusions from
[18:43] <sbeattie> slangasek: unknown
[19:06] <LocutusOfBorg> hello apw, how do you feel about suricata sync/merge?