[05:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [s390x] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [s390x] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [arm64] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [armhf] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [arm64] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[05:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [armhf] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[06:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mutter [source] (zesty-proposed) [3.24.2-0ubuntu0.1]
[06:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apt [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.3.7]
[06:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected mythtv [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2:0.28.0+fixes.20160413.15cf421-0ubuntu2.16.10.1]
[06:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apt [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.3.8]
[06:58] <apw> ^ 3 duplicate in the queue
[07:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sudo [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.8.19p1-1ubuntu1.2]
[07:21] <apw> tjaalton, it looks like your sudo fix for LP: #1686803 got lost in yakkety with the upload of a security update.
[07:22] <tjaalton> apw: bah, noone cares at this point :)
[07:22] <tjaalton> I think
[07:22] <apw> tjaalton, bah that should be: bug #1607666
[07:23] <tjaalton> looks like it wouldn't get verified anyway
[07:23]  * apw idly wonders how long yakkety has before EOL
[07:24] <apw> tjaalton, well it did in xenial and zesty i assume, and is released in those i think
[07:24] <apw> so we are left i in a bit of a muddle
[07:24] <flocculant> morning - -running artful with kernel from -proposed, seem to have an issue with alsa and that kernel, can't report issue with ubuntu-bug (proposed I assume) not sure of best way to proceed (reported at least to alsa)
[07:24] <flocculant> apw: Ubuntu 16.10 will reach end of life on Wednesday, July 20, 2017
[07:24] <tjaalton> apw: I think it's fine to wontfix it, the guy says they don't deploy yakkety so can't test it
[07:25] <tjaalton> zesty got the new upstream version
[07:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sudo [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.8.16-0ubuntu3.3]
[07:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sudo [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.8.16-0ubuntu1.5]
[07:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted telegram-desktop [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.0.29-1ubuntu1.17.04.1]
[07:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted postfix [source] (zesty-proposed) [3.1.4-4ubuntu1]
[07:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted postfix [source] (yakkety-proposed) [3.1.0-5ubuntu1]
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (yakkety-proposed/main) [231-9ubuntu5 => 231-9ubuntu6] (core)
[11:27] <sil2100> jamespage: hey!
[11:27] <jamespage> sil2100: hello
[11:28] <sil2100> jamespage: I'm looking at releasing some of the packages that we have in -proposed - was looking at the ones frome LP: #1696139
[11:28] <sil2100> jamespage: my question here is - do we need for all of them to be released at once?
[11:29] <jamespage> sil2100: ideally yes as we tested proposed, rather than individual parts
[11:32] <sil2100> jamespage: ok, in that case would you be able to test/get someone to test the two bugs that are still not verified? LP: #1649616 and LP: #1675088
[11:32] <sil2100> jamespage: once those are marked as verified I'll be able to flush the whole stack from -proposed at once
[11:32] <sil2100> Thanks!
[11:33] <sil2100> (those two bugs were included in the uploads of heat and keystone along with the 'new upstream release' bug)
[11:37] <jamespage> sil2100: that matches my expectations!
[11:52] <sil2100> jamespage: could you give me a ping once those two bugs are green?
[12:08] <jamespage> sil2100: can do
[12:17] <LocutusOfBorg> autopkgtest for apt/unknown: armhf: Regression ♻
[12:17] <LocutusOfBorg> WTF? armhf, you so sad
[12:18] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, retry it, i am starting to think we have a sad runner in the pool
[12:18] <apw> have not had a chance to investigate it yet
[12:18] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, I already retried them, I'm having a look about how it goes
[12:19] <apw> i had a lot of those over the weekend i think it was, and retried them and most came out ok
[12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [source] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:20] <LocutusOfBorg> wonderful, I'll keep retry/check then
[12:20] <LocutusOfBorg> not a good timing to upload perl :(
[12:21] <LocutusOfBorg> queues were empty
[12:22] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, can we have libreoffice/i386 forced bad? I don't like that "ignore/retry" continuous kick
[12:22] <LocutusOfBorg> testsuite sucks, and wasting power cycles for that is just useless
[12:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [amd64] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [ppc64el] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [i386] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [arm64] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [powerpc] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:24] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, hello, do you want me to upload ghc building with bfd on arm64?
[12:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [armhf] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [armhf] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [powerpc] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [arm64] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [ppc64el] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [i386] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[13:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartshine (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.36-0ubuntu2 => 0.36-0ubuntu2.17.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartshine (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.36-0ubuntu2 => 0.36-0ubuntu2.16.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartshine (trusty-proposed/universe) [0.36-0ubuntu2 => 0.36-0ubuntu2.14.04.1] (no packageset)
[13:28] <sil2100> Hello! Looking at the zesty NEW queue, I see someone approved the new gce-compute-image-packages binary for amd64 but not for all the other arches - does anyone know why it's like that?
[13:28] <sil2100> The xenial and yakkety binaries got accepted for all arches, same for trusty
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, please make doxygen and freetype migrate? hinting libreoffice/i386 should be enough
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> gstreamer, pango, cairo
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> all of them waiting for that libreoffice
[14:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted freeipa [source] (zesty-proposed) [4.4.3-3ubuntu2.1]
[14:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libepoxy [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.3.1-1ubuntu1.17.04.2]
[14:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libepoxy [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.3.1-1ubuntu0.16.04.2]
[14:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xorg-server-hwe-16.04 (xenial-proposed/main) [2:1.18.4-1ubuntu6.1~16.04.1 => 2:1.19.3-1ubuntu1~16.04.1] (no packageset)
[14:44] <Saviq> hi team, we got an email about mir/miral being stuck in artful-proposed for a few days now, are we in Alpha1 freeze or so?
[14:45] <apw> Saviq, nope
[14:45] <Saviq> any idea why those don't migrate then http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/artful/update_excuses.html#mir ?
[14:46] <jbicha> Saviq: thanks for asking, you need to rebuild unity-system-compositor
[14:46] <jbicha> after that page, there's https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/artful/update_output.txt
[14:46] <jbicha> which is a bit hard to read
[14:46] <Saviq> yeah, I can't parse that, sorry :D
[14:46] <cjwatson> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration has some advice on learning how to do so
[14:47] <apw> Saviq, from the huge list of things which are broken by those promoting, i assume they are creating an ABI break and you have not rebuilt everything that uses those ?
[14:47] <cjwatson> also, if the problem is that we're in a freeze, then update_excuses will say so explicitly
[14:47] <apw> http://paste.ubuntu.com/25018646/
[14:47] <apw> Saviq, ^ those are the relevant bits
[14:47] <Saviq> yup, thanks
[14:48] <jbicha> Saviq: I recommend rebuilding unity-system-compositor, that might be all you need
[14:50] <Saviq> jbicha, yeah I'm not sure that should happen, we'll look into it, thanks
[14:52] <jbicha> Saviq: libmirserver43 was bumped to 44 so everything that depends on 43 needs to be rebuilt
[14:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted hw-detect [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.117ubuntu2.2]
[14:54] <apw> Saviq, what jbicha said ... unity-system-compositor is linked against libmirserver43 so is broken if that mir migrates
[14:54] <jbicha> qtmir and qtmir-gles too
[14:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted hw-detect [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.117ubuntu3.1]
[14:55] <Saviq> yeah, I'm not sure why those weren't part of that upload, we'll take care of that, thanks
[14:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apt [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.2.23]
[15:14] <Trevinho> Hey, can someone from the SRU team promote https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-control-center/15.04.0+16.04.20170214-0ubuntu1 ?
[15:14] <Trevinho> As it's blocking the upcoming SRU
[15:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sssd [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.13.4-1ubuntu1.6]
[15:28] <slashd> vtapia ^
[15:45] <slashd> sil2100, doing SRU today related work today ?
[15:45] <slashd> doing SRU related work today lol
[15:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (xenial-proposed/main) [2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.04.1 => 2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.04.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[15:47] <sil2100> slashd: yes, a bit, I didn't have time yesterday + the US guys are off
[15:48] <sil2100> But I'm finishing in a bit
[15:48] <slashd> sil2100, ok I'll ping the vanguard tomorrow then
[15:48] <sil2100> slashd: what's up? You need some action on something?
[15:50] <slashd> sil2100, was wondering if you could move multipath-tools from trusty-proposed to trusty-updates, if everything look good to you. I checked and everything lgtm
[15:50] <sil2100> I was looking at that today, need to remind myself what were my thoughts about that one
[15:50] <slashd> Note that pending SRU still shows LP:  	1687004 has not verified, but it is, it simply that we did it a couples minutes ago and it didn't refresh the page yet.
[15:50] <sil2100> One moment
[15:50] <sil2100> Ah
[15:50] <slashd> sil2100, sure
[15:51] <sil2100> Ok, yeah, probably wasn't verified back then
[15:51] <slashd> sil2100, yeah that was probably it, there is no clear way to reproduce it, as mentioned it is base on dump analysis
[15:52] <slashd> but knowing Rafael he did a lot of testing using valgrind, etc ....
[15:53] <slashd> sil2100, they are both mark as green now in pending SRU
[15:54] <sil2100> Will take care of that one in a minute
[15:54] <slashd> sil2100, much appreciated
[15:54] <slashd> sil2100, and sorry for the changelog lp thing, I have took a note for next time.
[15:54] <slashd> re: sssd ^
[15:57] <sil2100> slashd: no worries, I didn't expect it to cause any issues with the tooling, but I guess it should be good now
[15:57] <slashd> sil2100, ack
[16:00] <sil2100> slashd: multipath-tools released o/
[16:01] <slashd> sil2100, thanks for this last minute request
[16:01] <slashd> tinoco, ^^
[16:02] <sil2100> np!
[16:05] <tinoco> tau =)
[16:05] <tinoco> tku =)
[17:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-85.108] (core, kernel)
[18:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.10.1 => 2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.10.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[18:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.7-0ubuntu1~17.04.1 => 2.0.7-0ubuntu1~17.04.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[18:51] <slashd> Hi, Does someone with upload rights in devel release who has some cycle to sponsor a debdiff https://launchpadlibrarian.net/326769765/artful-ksh_93u+20120801-3.2.debdiff ? Once in Artful, I can sponsor the SRU myself.
[18:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-85.108]
[18:56] <mitya57> slashd, the correct version number would be 93u+20120801-3.1ubuntu1
[18:56] <mitya57> Otherwise, will upload to artful now.
[18:58] <slashd> mitya57, much appreciated, you'll do the correction or want me to re-generate a new debdiff ?
[18:58] <mitya57> I will do.
[18:58] <slashd> mitya57, thanks much
[19:00] <mitya57> slashd, uploaded.
[19:00] <slashd> mitya57, thanks you very much
[19:01] <slashd> mitya57, you were right about the version, I think I misread when I saw, it I was under the impression it was ubuntu3.1, thanks for catching this
[19:01] <slashd> need some glasses
[20:16] <slangasek> xnox: do you know why udev is failing to configure on armhf for autopkgtests? (e.g. http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/l/lazarus/artful/armhf)
[20:35] <infinity> slangasek: Going to assume it's less to do with armhf and more to do with lxd.
[20:50] <slangasek> infinity: s390x didn't show the problem, and this is certainly a regression in the behavior
[20:50] <infinity> slangasek: s390x is lxc, not lxd, just to be confusing.
[20:50] <slangasek> ah right
[20:50] <slangasek> well anyway. still a behavior regression :)
[20:50] <infinity> Not saying it's not a problem, just guessing it's not arch-specific.
[20:56] <slangasek> and nagios3 autopkgtest is failing cross-arch because Error: The new file apt.cfg does not exist!
[22:12] <xnox> slangasek, hahahahah elipsised logs are useful - Jul 04 12:23:38 autopkgtest-lxd-qemhph systemd[1]: systemd-udevd.service: Fai…ed
[22:13] <xnox> slangasek, also why is that calling invoke-rc.d on ubuntu?! initscript udev?!
[22:13] <xnox> wtf.
[22:13] <xnox> what is this?! 2004?
[22:14] <xnox> slangasek, there is also an upgrade bug where open-vm-tools tries to call udevadm trigger or settle and that is not allowed whilst udev is upgrading. that is from trusty->xenial do-release-upgrade of EC2 instance.
[22:14] <xnox> slangasek, do we do cloud lts-lts upgrade testing in all the clouds?
[22:24] <slangasek> xnox: invoke-rc.d is the policy interface and always has been
[22:24] <slangasek> lts-lts upgrade testing in "all the clouds" - I'm sure not
[22:25] <xnox> sorry for rebooting my irc bouncer.