[00:12] <xnox> infinity, slangasek: added two more packages to the list; that's it i'm out of tricks to get this transition any further. and mingw-ocaml and llvm-toolchain-3.8 uninstallability seems fakenews to me - would like to see what britney thinks about it.
[05:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.02~beta2-9ubuntu1.14]
[05:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2-signed [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.34.16]
[05:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected shim [sync] (trusty-proposed) [0.9+1474479173.6c180c6-1ubuntu1]
[05:41] <slangasek> xnox: why is coinst reportedly installable on 4 of 6 archs?
[05:48] <slangasek> xnox: possibly related to the mingw-ocaml; but also coinst build-depends on js-of-ocaml, so ok
[05:51] <slangasek> oh it's because it has a runtime dep on those archs
[06:00] <slangasek> xnox: all done
[06:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: grub2 (trusty-proposed/main) [2.02~beta2-9ubuntu1.14 => 2.02~beta2-9ubuntu1.14] (core)
[08:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-p-finally [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.0.0-2]
[08:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cockpit (zesty-backports/universe) [142-1~ubuntu17.04.1 => 145-1~ubuntu17.04.1] (no packageset)
[08:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cockpit (yakkety-backports/universe) [142-1~ubuntu16.10.1 => 145-1~ubuntu16.10.1] (no packageset)
[08:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cockpit [source] (zesty-backports) [145-1~ubuntu17.04.1]
[08:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cockpit (xenial-backports/universe) [142-1~ubuntu16.04.1 => 145-1~ubuntu16.04.1] (no packageset)
[08:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cockpit [source] (xenial-backports) [145-1~ubuntu16.04.1]
[08:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cockpit [source] (yakkety-backports) [145-1~ubuntu16.10.1]
[08:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: cockpit [amd64] (yakkety-backports/universe) [145-1~ubuntu16.10.1] (no packageset)
[08:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: cockpit [amd64] (zesty-backports/universe) [145-1~ubuntu17.04.1] (no packageset)
[09:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted cockpit [amd64] (zesty-backports) [145-1~ubuntu17.04.1]
[09:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted cockpit [amd64] (yakkety-backports) [145-1~ubuntu16.10.1]
[10:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (xenial-proposed/main) [2.26.9 => 2.26.10] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[10:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.26.9+16.10 => 2.26.10+16.10] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[10:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (zesty-proposed/main) [2.26.9+17.04 => 2.26.10+17.04] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[10:07]  * apw will look at those snapds ^
[10:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: snapd (trusty-proposed/universe) [2.26.9~14.04 => 2.26.10~14.04] (no packageset)
[10:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.26.10+17.04]
[10:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2.26.10+16.10]
[10:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.26.10]
[10:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.26.10~14.04]
[10:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected intel-microcode [source] (yakkety-proposed) [3.20170511.1~ubuntu16.10.0]
[10:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected intel-microcode [source] (yakkety-proposed) [3.20170511.1~ubuntu16.10.0]
[10:35] <flexiondotorg> I'm in urgent need for an archive admin to review and upload a couple of package for Ubuntu MATE.
[10:35] <flexiondotorg> Who can I bribe with beer? ;-)
[10:35] <flexiondotorg> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1699333
[10:36] <flexiondotorg> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1699334
[10:39] <apw> mapreri, ^ i think you did the initial reviews on these, would you be able to check your concerns were addressed
[10:44] <mapreri> apw, flexiondotorg: sure
[10:44] <flexiondotorg> mapreri Thanks!
[10:44] <mapreri> flexiondotorg: and you really need not an archive admin before they are uploaded; plus it's imho nice to ping the same person that reviewed before than other "random" people
[10:45] <flexiondotorg> mapreri Noted.
[10:45] <mapreri> then, it's also my fault as apparently I archived the LP mail without noticing it was about this package…
[10:45] <flexiondotorg> mapreri I'd really like these landed in the archive so I can get them in Ubuntu MATE for Alpha 2. We really need testing feedback.
[10:46] <flexiondotorg> I believe fossfreedom is interested in these packages for Ubuntu Budgie too.
[10:46] <mapreri> I reviewed them before alpha 1 for that reason
[10:46] <mapreri> now, asking people to rush 3 weeks later feels kind of rude, sorry
[10:46] <flexiondotorg> mapreri Yeah. Sadly I didn't have time to follow up until this weekend :-(
[11:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ros-rospkg [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [1.1.1-1] (no packageset)
[11:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ros-rosdistro [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.2-2] (no packageset)
[11:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ros-rosinstall-generator [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.1.13-3] (no packageset)
[11:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ros-vcstools [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.1.39-3] (no packageset)
[11:26] <mapreri> flexiondotorg: .
[11:26] <flexiondotorg> mapreri o/
[11:28] <flexiondotorg> mapreri Regarding 1 and 4. That is required for the hardening flags to be enabled in debian/rules.
[11:28] <mapreri> flexiondotorg: it shouldn't be needed, as dh_auto_configure already export those
[11:29] <mapreri> if it is needed there is something fishy going on that in my experience make sense to investigate (but for now it's fine leaving it there.
[11:29] <mapreri> )
[11:29] <flexiondotorg> Another DD said they were required for other packages I requested sponsoring :-/
[11:29] <mapreri> well, point 4
[11:30] <mapreri> point 1 really doesn't make much sense
[11:30] <mapreri> dpkg 1.16 was what, wheezy?
[11:30] <mapreri> it's needed if you are using debhelper compat level < 9
[11:31] <mapreri> anyhow, I need to go afk now, please follow up in the bug report
[11:31] <mapreri> besides, it OT for #-release
[11:32] <mapreri> also, feel free point me to public places where people disagrees about what I've written here and in the bug, happy to read and either correct myself or correct whoever wrote it :)
[11:35] <flexiondotorg> mapreri I've followed the advice for hardening from here - https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening
[11:38] <mapreri> that paragraph is not so well structured but it's to be read like this: """To use "dpkg-buildflags", either ( switch to dh(1) to do builds (requires debian/compat=9), ) or ( (  use it directly in your builds to set the default compiler and linker flags: {{{ stuff }}} ) or  ( you can use the new buildflags.mk file (dpkg-dev >= 1.16.1~) to set all *FLAGS: ) )"""
[11:38] <mapreri> so using dh compat >= 9 is in opposition to use DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS + include
[11:38] <mapreri> it's a wiki, so please do feel free to improve it
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ros-rosdistro [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.6.2-2]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ros-rospkg [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.1.1-1]
[11:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ros-rosinstall-generator [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.1.13-3]
[11:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ros-vcstools [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.1.39-3]
[13:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: shim-signed (trusty-proposed/main) [1.19~14.04.1 => 1.32~14.04.1] (core)
[14:02] <xnox> slangasek, https://bileto.ubuntu.com/excuses/2867/artful.html this does not look right. is it new behaviour for bileto to treat everything as always failed for silos?
[14:03] <slangasek> uh
[14:04] <slangasek> you tell me, I don't upload to silos
[14:04] <slangasek> I have this thing called the Ubuntu archive that I can upload to and then the autopkgtests run only once
[14:10] <apw> slangasek, you rebel
[14:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [2.02~beta2-9ubuntu1.14]
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted network-manager [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.8.2-1ubuntu1]
[14:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected shim-signed [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.32~14.04.1]
[14:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: shim-signed (trusty-proposed/main) [1.19~14.04.1 => 1.32~14.04.1] (core)
[14:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted shim-signed [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.32~14.04.1]
[14:52] <sil2100> jbicha: hey! A quick question regarding the zesty mutter SRU - do you know what was the reason for SRUing 3.24.2 instead of 3.24.3 that's in artful?
[14:58] <xnox> slangasek, how dare you!
[14:58] <xnox> also now it's not considering half of my ocaml things due to grouping from PPA sigh
[14:59] <xnox> also rerunning why3 adt tests three thousand times for every ocaml package it depends on
[15:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: shim-signed (trusty-proposed/main) [1.32~14.04.1 => 1.32~14.04.2] (core)
[15:41] <sil2100> Hey! Does anyone know what's up with i386 autopkgtests? I might just be paranoid but excuses shows a *lot* of 'Test in progress'
[15:42] <sil2100> e.g. my recent pyparted upload finished all tests and only the i386 is left which doesn't seem to be running really
[15:43] <xnox> sil2100, amd64+i386 queues are really one queue.
[15:43] <xnox> is amd64 progressing?
[15:45] <infinity> One queue that doesn't always balance correctly.
[15:45]  * sil2100 is just paranoid then
[15:57] <slangasek> xnox: if it shows as 'in progress' and you find them also listed on the 'running' page, then good.  if you don't find them on the 'running' page, then we will need to requeue
[15:57] <slangasek> er, sorry, the above is for sil2100
[15:58] <sil2100> I didn't see it on the running page
[15:58] <sil2100> Oh, wait, now I see it
[15:59] <sil2100> nvm!
[15:59] <infinity> slangasek: Except for that short gap when it's picked from the queue, but doesn't show up as a logtail yet.
[15:59] <infinity> Unless someone fixed that.
[15:59] <slangasek> yes
[16:00] <apw> yeah that is most annoying
[16:00] <slangasek> I meant for the "a lot of 'in progress'"
[16:00] <slangasek> if there's a lot of 'in progress' and there's not a long queue on /running, we need to kick it
[16:00] <infinity> Indeed.
[16:02] <Laney> Do you see that?
[16:02] <Laney> I don't
[16:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (xenial-proposed/main) [229-4ubuntu18 => 229-4ubuntu19] (core)
[16:20] <powersj> Looks like the virt-host tasksel entry is now gone.
[16:20] <powersj> in artful, still in zesty
[16:22] <powersj> ah found it LP: #1540323
[16:23] <jbicha> sil2100: mutter 3.24.3 was released a month after the 3.24.2 SRU was prepared :|
[16:23] <jbicha> SRU queue gets backed up sometimes :(
[16:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected update-manager [source] (zesty-proposed) [1:17.04.4]
[16:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-manager (xenial-proposed/main) [1:16.04.6 => 1:16.04.7] (core)
[16:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-manager (zesty-proposed/main) [1:17.04.3 => 1:17.04.4] (core)
[17:08] <santa_> slangasek: hi, I need to ask you a question. when you worked on removing some binary packages for kdepim, was the "kdepim-doc" binary package removed? (thanks for that byt the way)
[17:17] <infinity> santa_: kdepim-doc isn't in artful.
[17:20] <santa_> infinity: I see, yet src:kmail still have it, so we got things like this: https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-artful/artful/amd64/k/kmail/20170713_125039_2013a@/log.gz (which is blocking the kde frameworks 5.36 migration[1]) so I have the impression we should drop it because I see no point in having such thing
[17:21] <santa_> [1] http://gpul.grupos.udc.es/ka-iron-hand_reports/frameworks_archive/5.36_artful_proposed_migration.pdf
[17:22] <santa_> so maybe we should upload an updated kmail dropping that transitional?
[17:23] <infinity> santa_: Oh.  Or someone just messed up and removed a binary they shouldn't have.
[17:24] <infinity> santa_: Yeah, I'll fix that.  Don't stop producing the transitional, I'm sure it's sane and correct to have one.
[17:26] <santa_> really? I don't see the point in having such transitional. I mean, it depends on kmail. so let's say you had the kdepim documentation installed. that would install kmail on upgrade wtf?
[17:26] <infinity> santa_: I didn't look at the package itself before declaring it sane.
[17:27] <infinity> santa_: if it indeed doesn't depend on some docs, that seems a bit sillier.
[17:28] <santa_> yeah, I mean, I understand it was probably removed by accident, but now that this binary package got my attention ... well it seems it shouldn't be there in the first place
[17:29] <santa_> infinity: anyway if you can fix this without need from us to upload a new kmail, that's great, this way we could retry the failing autopkgtests
[17:30] <santa_> and if we want to remove it, we could do so for 17.04.x and not 16.12
[17:30] <infinity> Yeah, I'll fix it.
[17:31] <santa_> ok, thank you very much
[17:38] <infinity> santa_: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/artful/amd64/kdepim-doc
[17:38] <infinity> santa_: Should publish "soon".
[18:35] <mitya57> Can someone please force qupzilla to migrate? It now depends on qtwebengine so can’t build on all architectures.
[18:44] <flexiondotorg> mapreri Thank for you help earlier. I've addressed everything you identified - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1699333
[18:47] <flexiondotorg> jbicha L_aney approved this earlier - https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mate-dev/indicator-session/mate-integration/+merge/325600
[18:47] <flexiondotorg> jbicha As the last person to upload indicator-session any change you could help me out?
[18:47] <flexiondotorg> *chance
[18:58] <infinity> mitya57: "force" is not the word you're looking for.
[18:59] <mitya57> infinity, should I be looking for “remove old binaries” then?
[18:59] <infinity> mitya57: Yeah, which I'm now doing.
[19:00] <mitya57> infinity, thanks!
[19:00] <infinity> mitya57: That should ideally also come with a statement like "I've checked that there are no reverse-dependencies and nothing will break by removing it".
[19:01] <infinity> mitya57: But I checked that this time, and removed.
[19:02] <mitya57> infinity, lubuntu-qt-desktop depends on it, but it itself is only built on i386 amd64 armhf, so it should be OK.
[19:02] <infinity> mitya57: Yeahp.
[19:02] <infinity> mitya57: reverse-depends mentions the arches (though in a not entirely intuitive way)
[19:02] <infinity> * lubuntu-qt-desktop            (for qupzilla)
[19:02] <infinity> Packages without architectures listed are reverse-dependencies in: amd64, armhf, i386
[19:02] <mitya57> I ran it, but checked Launchpad to be completely sure.
[19:02] <mitya57> Thanks again. I will try to use better statements next time :)
[19:03] <infinity> Okay, in a very unintuitive way.
[19:03] <infinity> mitya57: I mean, the AA actioning it will almost certainly double-check your statements for validity, but your making the statements implies you've checked (and, also implies that half the requests won't make it to us at all because in answering the question for yourself, you find you can't make the statement yet)
[19:05] <mitya57> infinity, what will you think about the request to remove ubuntu-ui-toolkit and all its reverse-dependencies, if I make one? Will it be possible?
[19:06] <infinity> mitya57: Pretty sure it's on the chopping block for obvious reasons anyway, but I'm not driving that.  Laney might have insight.
[19:06] <infinity> mitya57: But when the request comes from the desktop team with sane documentation of what to remove and why and why we don't care anymore, etc, I'll be happy to do the slaughter.
[19:08] <mitya57> I can provide a list, but indeed it would be nice if someone from Canonical explains why we/they don’t care anymore.
[19:09] <infinity> mitya57: I believe the intent is to drop that whole stack, to ui-toolkit, unity8, touch apps, etc.  But yes, I want a verbose bug with rationale and a full list of packages and statement of (lack of) support, etc.  Just to dot the Ts and cross the Is.
[19:09] <mitya57> Ack.
[19:09] <infinity> I assume that will also have a pleasant side-effect of letting us drop a buch of Qt delta and get back in line with Debian there.
[19:11] <mitya57> infinity, that is why I want it. I am mostly ready with Qt 5.9 update in https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/2819/+packages and would like to land that to archive soon.
[19:12]  * infinity nods.
[19:12] <infinity> mitya57: So, yeah, I don't recall who was driving it, but I know Laney will have context to either tell you what's what or point you to someone who can.
[19:13] <infinity> mitya57: But I agree that the time to push harder on getting that sorted is now.
[19:13] <mitya57> Great. Let’s see what Laney says then.
[20:02] <jbicha> there's a starter bug at LP: #1695928, I think slangasek said earlier he was going to look at that at some point later in the cycle from then
[20:03] <jbicha> I think he wanted to know how soon you need the removals for the Qt transition
[20:03] <jbicha> mitya57: ^
[20:05] <mitya57> jbicha, the sooner the better. I want to go on VAC since Thursday, it would be nice if I could land Qt before that. If no I will still do it during my VAC, but my reaction times will get a bit longer.
[23:22] <xnox> Laney, slangasek infinity - can someone please explain why ocaml et.al are not considered given that they are all installable and all tests pass
[23:22] <xnox> what does it mean "Grouped with PPA ~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/2865" ?!
[23:23] <xnox> how do I make e.g. why3 to be considered, and all the depepends that it claims to be not considered?
[23:23] <xnox> there is nothing on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration
[23:28] <xnox> slangasek, https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/britney/+git/britney2-ubuntu/tree/britney2/policies/sourceppa.py doesn't tell me _which_ friend is the culprit
[23:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: makedumpfile (xenial-proposed/main) [1:1.5.9-5ubuntu0.4 => 1:1.5.9-5ubuntu0.5] (core)
[23:29] <xnox> hm.
[23:29] <xnox> autopkgtest for why/2.38-1build3: amd64: Pass, armhf: Regression ♻ , i386: Regression ♻ , ppc64el: Regression ♻ , s390x: Regression ♻
[23:50] <xnox> slangasek, http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/why can why adt failures on non-amd64 be overriden? on the basis that debian doesn't care about non-amd64 adt tests?
[23:50] <xnox> i'm adding more logging, and building on more arches to why, and will file a bug to debian about that.