[00:00] xnox: i'll see if that's doable and if not just disable the test for now so it can propogate [00:00] yeah, and there is reboot command support in dep8 as well, if you want to like 1) [ -z "$ADT_REBOOT_MARK" ] && setup disks, and then later [ -n "$ADT_REBOOT_MARK" ] && check that daemon is autostarted and running. [00:00] with reboot between the two. [00:01] xnox: thanks, that's handy [00:01] nacc, we can override the test results for open-iscsi to propagate, but that's best to have a fixed test.... [00:04] xnox: ack, i'll try and get it fixed by EOW [00:12] mwhudson, there are now smart ExecStartPre= shell script in the systemd unit to bail out when not-needed / setup [00:12] slangasek, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1708313 [00:12] Ubuntu bug 1708313 in systemd (Ubuntu) "PrivateNetwork=yes fails in lxc1 armhf on arm64 kernel" [Undecided,New] [00:12] not I ?! =) [00:24] slangasek: long shot, but can I get snapcraft 2.33 into xenial-updates and zesty-updates? the armhf test failure for snapcraft proper is just timeouts (ran twice already, squid.internal timeout in different tests) and the ubuntu-image ones are test errors in ubuntu-image proper (sil mentioned those are fixed in 1.1) [00:43] sergiusens: xenial-updates is currently frozen for point release; snapcraft seems safe since it shouldn't impact images but I'll just highlight infinity to double-check [00:44] checking ubuntu-image; I'm going to re-test with -proposed u-i + snapcraft so it's clear from the log [00:44] xnox: why should PrivateNetwork fail there? it's just containers [00:49] thanks slangasek [00:59] slangasek, it is a good point. but also i don't know how our armhf infra is setup. [00:59] slangasek, is it priviledged or unpriviledged lxc1? what is the host? are there any config overrides that punch things through? [01:00] hmm [01:00] at the moment i setup straight up lxc1 artufl armhf container on an artful arm64 host [01:00] all good questions [01:00] but i suspect the host may not be xenial, and i'm debugging obsolete software not matching production. [01:00] "may not be xenial" - I would expect it is. don't the logs report the kernel version? [01:01] the logs report armhf kernel.... [01:01] the armhfness is a lie [01:01] testing everything in lxc1 on an old kernel/host with new binaries inside makes a lot of sense when one is developing that for the arm64 android phones. [01:01] I don't know if it fakes the version? [01:01] * xnox wants armhf testing to move to lxd [01:02] * xnox wants arm64 lxd testing added, given we do have arm64 hosts hooked up in adt [01:02] * xnox wants arm64 kvm testing added - but this might be trickier to do [01:03] slangasek, given we are not doing as much phone testing, i am suspecting our armhf and arm64 testing went downhill. [01:04] I haven't seen evidence of this in general [01:04] arm64 will be VMs, not containers, when the RTs finish [01:04] ok. [01:05] moving armhf from lxc to lxd? [01:05] that should be easy, given how reliable s390x lxd is. [01:05] no? [01:06] that part I don't know [01:12] xnox: on the autopkgtest side, the infra believes it is using lxd for armhf, not lxc. kernel is 4.4 on xenial. [01:14] slangasek, how old/new lxd? from release and/or backports? [01:15] xnox: 2.0.9 [01:16] which I guess means we're a little behind [01:16] slangasek, so trusty? [01:16] xnox: no, xenial-updates-1 [01:17] ah, ok. [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-7-cross-ports [amd64] (artful-proposed) [3ubuntu2] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-libs-browser [amd64] (artful-proposed) [2.0.0-1] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted syslog-ng [arm64] (artful-proposed) [3.10.1-3ubuntu1] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted syslog-ng [i386] (artful-proposed) [3.10.1-3ubuntu1] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted syslog-ng [s390x] (artful-proposed) [3.10.1-3ubuntu1] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gcc-7-cross-ports [i386] (artful-proposed) [3ubuntu2] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted syslog-ng [armhf] (artful-proposed) [3.10.1-3ubuntu1] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted syslog-ng [amd64] (artful-proposed) [3.10.1-3ubuntu1] [01:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted syslog-ng [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [3.10.1-3ubuntu1] [01:28] slangasek, on artful host, launching artful armhf lxd container says armv8l in uname -a [01:36] slangasek, about stalled amd64/i386 systemd adt tests - can i get a juju log? or like nova console log of the instances running the test? [01:36] or ssh backdoor into them? i think pitti did open up a connection into those machines by hand before. [01:36] running adt tests here on xenial host, with qemu runner, using artful cloud-image as base - passes. [01:36] did that with amd64, todo with i386. [01:38] .. [01:39] i just got hashsum missmatch in ftpmaster.internal [01:39] http://paste.ubuntu.com/25230244/ [01:39] this is wow. [01:41] xnox: sorry, it's dinner time here. I can look at this later in the evening [01:41] i should sleep too [01:41] * xnox goes to drink some tea to calm down [02:35] xnox: Our buildds and autopkgtest hosts are booted with 'compat_uts_machine=armv7l' on the cmdline. [02:37] * apw had forgotten that thing exists [02:38] apw: If we could come up with a sane way to boot armv7 images in scalingstack, we could ditch the silly hack. [02:38] Maybe I should find some "free time" (ha ha ha) for that. [02:38] * apw giggles at infinity [02:41] jbicha: ubuntu-gnome/xenial seems to have 0 testing so far. [02:44] xnox: hmm, uname -m not showing the right personality is weird, we don't see that behavior on x86 [02:51] ah, just found apw's kernel patch. Feels pretty weird that linux32 on aarch64 otherwise gives you the exact same as linux64... [02:51] infinity: sorry, I'll take a look in the morning [02:52] stgraber, i thought it gave you something else, just the 32bit form of the hardware, not the form our 32bit images are optimised for [02:53] oh, it does indeed [02:53] you get aarch64 for 64bit and armv8l for 32bit [02:53] root@1ss-arm64:~# uname -a [02:53] Linux 1ss-arm64 4.4.0-75-generic #96-Ubuntu SMP Thu Apr 20 09:56:48 UTC 2017 aarch64 aarch64 aarch64 GNU/Linux [02:53] root@1ss-arm64:~# setarch linux32 -- uname -a [02:53] Linux 1ss-arm64 4.4.0-75-generic #96-Ubuntu SMP Thu Apr 20 09:56:48 UTC 2017 armv8l armv8l armv8l GNU/Linux [02:54] right, just unfortuantly we are armv7 optimised [02:54] Has less to do with optimisation. [02:54] s/optimised/targetted/ [02:55] And more to do with Stupid Software doing Stupid Things when building and seeing a uname it doesn't know. [02:55] it can get even more confusing though :) [02:55] This is why i686 "stalled" on i686 too. [02:55] Despite us now being up to i786 (or i868 for Core, I've lost track) according to Intel. [02:55] root@blah:~# uname -a [02:55] Linux blah 4.11.0-10-generic #15-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 29 15:07:09 UTC 2017 aarch64 aarch64 aarch64 GNU/Linux [02:55] 886... [02:55] root@blah:~# setarch linux32 -- uname -a [02:55] Linux blah 4.11.0-10-generic #15-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 29 15:07:09 UTC 2017 aarch64 aarch64 aarch64 GNU/Linux [02:55] that's on an arm64 system that doesn't support the 32bit personality [02:56] stgraber: Right, and that's correct. [02:56] Well, more correct would be setarch bubbling up a "that personality no exist" error, but whatever. [02:56] yeah, I'd expect an error :) [02:57] oh, the kernel does do the right thing, it's just setarch being useless :) [02:57] personality(PER_LINUX32) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument) [02:57] Right. [02:58] I still think it was a mistake for ARM to not require v7 compat in v8, but oh well. [02:59] It's an even larger headache than v7 not requiring NEON. [02:59] Mistakes, though, why learn from them? [03:20] sergiusens: ubuntu-image+snapcraft looking a bit better now in zesty, two passes, two xfails, and one fail (ppc64el) [03:21] infinity: how frozen is xenial-updates, could snapcraft be released or no? [03:21] (non-image-affecting) [03:21] slangasek: non-image-affecting is fine. [04:16] infinity, about that. to get "armhf" images booting in scaling stack, all we need is a regular arm64-uefi-firmware image with arm64 kernel and armhf userspace and compat_uts_machine=armv7l. slap together and done. we will still not be able to test armhf kernels in adt, but at least we will gain all the isolation-machine tests [04:17] * xnox assumes arm64 images are uefi images in scaling stack. if not mimic whatever arm64 images have for a bootloader. [04:17] basically use multiarch technology and tools [04:19] xnox, infinity: You can also construct an armhf image that boots an armhf kernel directly, without using UEFI, but it's a bit messy. [04:20] yes, arm64 images are uefi [04:20] Last time I tried it it required using images that masqueraded as AMIs and AKIs, so I got ovmf working instead, but direct kernel boot does work on bos01. [04:25] xnox: My point wasn't to boot armhf-on-arm64, I want armhf-on-armhf. But I'd rather drop armhf entirely, given a perfect world. [04:48] infinity, sure. armhf-on-arm64 kvm is better than lxd for adt testing. armhf-on-armhf does sound backwards. [04:48] to kill armhf, do we need an armv8l port then? or whatever the tag is? [04:58] also what is the point of i386 if joules edison and galileo got axed, and even that were 64-bit capable. [04:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: behave [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [1.2.5-1ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [06:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [06:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: te923con [i386] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: te923con [s390x] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: te923con [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: te923con [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: te923con [arm64] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset) [06:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: te923con [armhf] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset) [07:57] infinity: let me pick up netboot amd64 images now for some testing [07:59] sil2100: Not super concerned about netboot testing, it's not really coupled to the ISOs and point release (despite evidence to the contrary). [08:01] infinity: ok, I'll move to -GNOME then [08:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu MATE Desktop amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [08:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu MATE Desktop i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [08:51] Ubuntu GNOME looking fine on amd64, giving a quick spin of i386 now === klebers_ is now known as klebers [10:15] hello, not sure if tsimonq2 already requested that, but please force badtest [10:15] fpc/3.0.2+dfsg-2 on amd64 (zesty) [10:16] libreoffice/1:5.3.1-0ubuntu2 i386 (zesty= [10:16] we tried them with themself as trigger [10:16] and the failed [10:18] LocutusOfBorg: I didn't say something yet, thank you :) [10:25] LocutusOfBorg: libreoffice failing might be a kernel issue. [10:26] apw: There was some talk that those fixes for the fixes for the fixes still didn't fix libreoffice, right? [10:27] infinity: But it's not a gtk+2.0 issue, correct? (that's what triggered the test) [10:27] tsimonq2: Sure, but force-badtest would also be a lie. [10:27] tsimonq2: You can say "this shouldn't hold up gtk" without saying "please ignore the test forever". [10:27] infinity: "this shouldn't hold up gtk" :P [10:27] infinity, yes, I agree, I'm following the Debian bug too [10:28] infinity: Regardless, the point in asking is to make sure that the SRU can migrate properly. [10:28] ok, well, so ignore it only once is the correct request? I agree this shouldn't be forced forever [10:29] I see libreoffice blacklisted on s390x not sure what does it mean [10:29] infinity (cc apw): This isn't just a Zesty issue from what I can tell, it seems to be a Xenial issue as well. [10:29] LocutusOfBorg: Nah, just informing an SRU team member that it's not a gtk regression should be fine. I mean, we'll mentally ignore it, but no need to commit anything to infra, since britney doesn't drive migrations in SRUs... yet. [10:29] tsimonq2: And yes, we know. [10:29] oh ok, so they are not blocking? really nice! [10:30] infinity: Alright, just covering my bases. :) [10:30] +1 LocutusOfBorg [10:30] I mean, not so nice but meh [10:30] Yeah, I don't know about nice but maybe convenient is the better word. :P [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base arm64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base armhf [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base powerpc [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base ppc64el [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base s390x [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server arm64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server armhf+raspi2 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server powerpc [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server ppc64el [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server s390x [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [10:49] infinity: GNOME i386 looks good as well, marked as so some minutes ago [10:49] sil2100: Shiny. [10:49] infinity: anything else needs testing? I don't see anything that's not-touched besides netboot [10:52] sil2100: I think we're getting down to just paperwork and me asking computers to do things that take a very long time. [10:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: budgie-wallpapers [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [17.10] (no packageset) [11:03] infinity: sweet, the changes for .3 look ok or should I work some more on those? [11:04] sil2100: I'll look in a bit. [11:04] sil2100: But if it looks kinda like a list of bugs, I'll probably not have complaints. [11:06] sil2100: Looks reasonable to me. [11:07] infinity: if there's anything I can help, just poke! We'll be going out for lunch in a moment but I'll be back soonish [11:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ganeti [i386] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.15.2-10] (no packageset) [11:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ganeti [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.15.2-10] (no packageset) [11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ganeti [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.15.2-10] (no packageset) [11:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ganeti [s390x] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.15.2-10] (no packageset) [11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Studio DVD amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [11:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Studio DVD i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [11:30] sil2100, do you want these ubuntu-image things in the queue accpted over what is in -proposed ? [11:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ganeti [arm64] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.15.2-10] (no packageset) [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted behave [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.2.5-1ubuntu1] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ganeti [amd64] (artful-proposed) [2.15.2-10] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ganeti [i386] (artful-proposed) [2.15.2-10] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ganeti [s390x] (artful-proposed) [2.15.2-10] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted te923con [arm64] (artful-proposed) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted te923con [i386] (artful-proposed) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted te923con [s390x] (artful-proposed) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted budgie-wallpapers [amd64] (artful-proposed) [17.10] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ganeti [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [2.15.2-10] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted te923con [armhf] (artful-proposed) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ganeti [arm64] (artful-proposed) [2.15.2-10] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted te923con [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] [12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted te923con [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.6.1-1ubuntu1] [13:17] looking at gcc-7-cross-ports in update_excuses.html: why is the ppc64el build listed as missing [13:17] and the cross compilers seem to be installable as well [13:32] doko: The uninstallable stuff might be component mismatches. Not sure about the ppc64el thing. [13:33] ahh, yes, demoting [13:33] gcc-7-cross-ports is kept in main because of the need of powerpc on ppc64el [13:34] doko: Erm, the ppc64el thing is because you didn't bump versions. [13:35] Why the second one didn't fail to upload is a mystery I'd rather not think about. [13:35] hmm, I removed the binaries before uploading the second one ... [13:35] That would be why it didn't fail to upload. [13:35] Also, ick. [13:35] anyway, doing the 7.2 release candidate today [13:35] doko: Binaries (and sources) should never, ever, ever re-use versions in the archive. Things go nutty. [13:36] Totally an LP bug that it even let that happen. [13:37] cjwatson: ^ [13:40] I'm pretty surprised that was allowed, certainly. Please file. [13:40] And don't pull that sort of binary-removal stunt again. [13:40] doko: Yes. Pretty please don't remove a file because it conflicts with another you want with different contents. :P [13:41] doko: Files in the history of an archive must be unique. [13:42] I guess it's possible we only explicitly check that for sources. [13:43] infinity: ack [13:45] cjwatson: Things fail to upload all the time for that reason. Or does it maybe only check published binaries, rather than all of history? [13:45] infinity: Do you happen to remember an example? [13:46] I suspect doko's own package is an example (though, not sure how far back I'd have to go to find it). [13:46] But yes, we get builds failing to upload due to binary version conflicts (and also version downgrades). [13:46] Version conflicts are different. [13:47] Different than... A version conflict? [13:47] I'm not saying there are no checks on binary uploads, just that I suspect the same-version-different-contents check is absent. [13:47] We may be saying the same thing, sort of? [13:48] I mean, a build with a version already published will reject. Unless it's a copy (thus same contents). But a build with a version that's historically been used but not currently published will, apparently, accept. [13:48] Or, that seems to describe what I've seen. [13:49] Does it actually reject, or just crash during publication? [13:49] I see plenty of "Version older than that in the archive" rejections in recent history, but nothing that's obviously a version-conflict rejection. [13:50] I think doko's gcc-cross packages have rejected in the past for this same reason. [13:50] Cause they really should encode more version info than they do. [13:50] It's entirely possible this one rejected and he did the removal and then retried the build. :P [13:51] Ah, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-6-cross-ports/20ubuntu4/+build/12555755 is an example. [13:52] Yup. [13:53] Missed it because it's done in lp.soyuz.model.queue:PackageUpload rather than in archiveuploader. [13:53] So right, that's basically a last-ditch check against stuff that hasn't been removed. [13:54] Might be interesting to see what would break if we just removed the "AND bpph.dateremoved IS NULL" condition from that query. [13:54] Possibly a performance disaster, not sure. [13:56] So yeah, removal successfully hammered the upload through to the point where it failed later. And it might have failed even more disastrously depending on how it interacted with https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/238826 .. [13:56] Ubuntu bug 238826 in Launchpad itself "Death-row misbehave on binary collision" [Low,Triaged] [13:57] cjwatson: It's almost certainly failed pretty hard already, because a-f cache. [13:57] (as in, the sums in Packages are probably for the old files) [13:57] Quite possibly. [13:57] Because a-f makes the entirely reasonable assumption that archive members are unique. :P [13:58] doko: Is this a thing you've done in the past? Because if so we may need to audit the archive. [13:59] cjwatson: no, afaicr. in the past we had failing builds on one or two archs, whith other archs succeeding, and then the version skew for the binaries [13:59] for the next upload [14:00] the skew goes away with the next gcc-7 upload, and all cross builds succeeding [14:00] I don't understand why that would result in version skew. Wouldn't you bump all the versions in sync? [14:01] no, it's looking at the binaries found in the archive [14:01] if I hardcode that, then I usually forget to bump the number for a new upload :/ [14:01] doko: It really needs to tack on the version of the gcc-cross package as well, so it remains unique per build. [14:01] Ah, so retrying -cross-ports with a different base toolchain or something [14:02] doko: As in, the "cross1" at the end could be "cross20ubuntu5" or something for gcc-6-cross-ports_20ubuntu5 [14:02] infinity: yeah, but then you had a version number like -12ubuntu1cross5ubuntu2 ... [14:02] ugly [14:02] doko: Shorten "Ubuntu" to "u" and it's not the worst. [14:02] I mean, they're ugly regardless. :P [14:03] And shorten "cross" to "c" or "x" [14:03] -12ubuntu1x5u2 [14:03] and it looks like a disk name in solaris [14:03] In Debian, it's be a nice short -12x5 [14:03] Hahaha. [14:11] apw: yes :) [14:14] what is solaris? [14:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [14:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [14:21] the kiosk seed is pulling in qtubuntu. is this expected? [14:21] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg [14:23] doko: looks like yes: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/ubuntu.artful [14:24] jbicha: but all the -cpp packages are unmaintained, aren't they? [14:24] I was under the impression pretty much that whole dep tree is unmaintained. [14:24] xnox: ^^^ [14:25] doko, yes kiosk seed pulling in qtubuntu is expected. [14:25] and alan_g is on the hook to minimise deps. [14:25] (alan_g and co) [14:26] they have requested that in a bug report, mentioned in the seed text. [14:27] Saviq: FYI ^^ [14:28] the graph is nice: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg this may be a useful guide on as to what to drop. [14:28] we're cutting off at platform-api [14:28] whoop whoop =) [14:28] as in, we won't depend on that, soon [14:28] so that graph will look much nicer [14:28] doko, infinity ^ [14:29] the other fruit is content-hub, which we need to cut off in qtubuntu, too, and are already on it [14:48] looks like the debian perl team is busy updating everything ... [14:53] doko, helpful. stop the importer?! =) [15:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [15:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Mythbuntu Desktop amd64 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [15:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Mythbuntu Desktop i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [15:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop i386 [Xenial 16.04.3] has been marked as ready [15:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: 39 entries have been added, updated or disabled [15:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fwupd [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/main) [0.9.6-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core) [15:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fwupd [amd64] (artful-proposed/main) [0.9.6-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core) [15:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fwupd [s390x] (artful-proposed/main) [0.9.6-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core) [15:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fwupd [i386] (artful-proposed/main) [0.9.6-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core) [15:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fwupd [arm64] (artful-proposed/main) [0.9.6-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core) [15:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fwupd [armhf] (artful-proposed/main) [0.9.6-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core) [15:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [s390x] (artful-proposed/main) [4.11.0-13.19] (core, kernel) [15:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (vivid-proposed/main) [3.19.0-90.98] (core, kernel) [15:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (zesty-proposed/main) [4.10.0-30.34] (core, kernel) [15:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [4.10.0-30.34] [15:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (vivid-proposed) [3.19.0-90.98] [16:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe-edge [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.11.0-13.19~16.04.1] (kernel) [16:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-89.112] (core, kernel) [16:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [4.4.0-89.112~14.04.1] (kernel) [16:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.10.0-30.34~16.04.1] (kernel) [16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe-edge [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.11.0-13.19~16.04.1] [16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-89.112] [16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.10.0-30.34~16.04.1] [16:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [4.4.0-89.112~14.04.1] === infinity changed the topic of #ubuntu-release to: Released: Xenial 16.04.3, Zesty 17.04 | Archive: open | Artful Release Coordination | Please don't upload things during freezes where you shouldn't, or be prepared to apologise to the release team | We accept payment in cash, check or beer | melior malum quod cognoscis [16:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/main) [4.11.0-13.19] (core, kernel) [17:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: mozjs52 (artful-proposed/primary) [52.2.1-1~git1] [19:11] is there a reason https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postfix/+bug/1595096 has just sat on the sponsoring list for eternity and never been looked at? [19:11] Ubuntu bug 1595096 in postfix (Ubuntu Xenial) "cannot create multi postfix instance by postmulti command" [Medium,In progress] [19:11] in queue as of 3/25/2017 [19:11] jgrimm: ^ cc [19:14] teward: not especially [19:14] teward: i think the sponsorship queue is a bit behind for server [19:14] i believe i have a pilot session next week [19:14] nacc: "behind" I think is an understatement - this is 5 months since last activity... just saying. [19:15] (and this is breaking my experimenting with postfix heh) [19:15] i'll do a power user hack for now and compile an updated package in a PPA, but... [19:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [i386] (artful-proposed/main) [4.11.0-13.19] (core, kernel) [19:15] (at least NGINX updates get handled real quickly... oh wait, that's my uploads... nevermind :P) [19:15] teward: feel free to bump in the bug and we should see it in the triage rota [19:16] bumped :p [19:20] teward: thanks [19:20] teward: i'm guessing hte debdiff probably needs updating too, but that's ok [19:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [arm64] (artful-proposed/main) [4.11.0-13.19] (core, kernel) [19:35] nacc: indeed, but I'm happy to do that if needed. [19:35] because i want this working :P [19:35] teward: :) [19:46] teward, nacc. as far i know its ready to go, had just been waiting for sponsors to get around to it [19:46] jgrimm: +1 agreed [19:46] which is "never" if you don't prod them every so often :P [19:47] template including how to test for sponsor so should be easy enough nacc. let me know if you have questions [19:47] 5 months is infinite lagtime. [19:47] teward, :) [19:47] (in the IT world anyways) [19:47] jgrimm: yep, i saw that [19:47] jgrimm: I had a habit before I got PPU rights - I always bothered sponsors every week until they uploaded my things, esp. if it's critical. Now for nginx, I just upload and wait for the SRU teams :P [20:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [amd64] (artful-proposed/main) [4.11.0-13.19] (core, kernel) [21:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvme-cli (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.5-1ubuntu0.1 => 0.5-1ubuntu0.2] (no packageset) [22:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [armhf] (artful-proposed/main) [4.11.0-13.19] (core, kernel) === nacc_ is now known as nacc [23:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: git-lfs [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/none) [2.2.1-1] (no packageset) [23:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-approvals-go-approval-tests [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0~git20170712.0.c1e747e-1] (no packageset) [23:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-chzyer-readline [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [1.4-1] (no packageset) [23:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: lua-mode [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [20151025-2] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-aliyun-aliyun-oss-go-sdk [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [1.5.0+dfsg1-1] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-hashicorp-go-rootcerts [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0~git20160503.0.6bb64b3-1] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-cheekybits-is [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0~git20150225.0.68e9c06-1] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: git-lfs [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [2.2.1-1] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: git-lfs [s390x] (artful-proposed/none) [2.2.1-1] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: inflection [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.3.1-1] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: org-mode [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [9.0.9+dfsg-3] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: git-lfs [i386] (artful-proposed/none) [2.2.1-1] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: more-itertools [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [3.2.0-2] (no packageset) [23:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-glendc-gopher-json [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.1.0+git20170414.0.dc47430-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: backdoor-factory [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [3.4.2+dfsg-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-gophercloud-gophercloud [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0~git20170728.0.0118feec-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-tdewolff-test [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0~git20170115.0.a7cf99a-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ruby-declarative-option [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.1.0-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-denverdino-aliyungo [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0~git20170721.0.80ceb80-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-gopkg-go-playground-validator.v8 [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [8.18.1-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-opentracing-opentracing-go [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [1.0.2-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ruby-rash-alt [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.4.3-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: astral [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [1.4-1] (no packageset) [23:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ruby-uber [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.1.0-1] (no packageset) [23:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ruby-errbase [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0.3-1] (no packageset) [23:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ruby-test-xml [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.1.8-1] (no packageset) [23:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ruby-declarative [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [0.0.9-1] (no packageset) [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted astral [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.4-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-denverdino-aliyungo [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20170721.0.80ceb80-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-tdewolff-test [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20170115.0.a7cf99a-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ruby-declarative [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0.9-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ruby-rash-alt [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.4.3-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ruby-uber [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.1.0-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted backdoor-factory [amd64] (artful-proposed) [3.4.2+dfsg-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-gopkg-go-playground-validator.v8 [amd64] (artful-proposed) [8.18.1-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ruby-test-xml [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.1.8-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-opentracing-opentracing-go [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.0.2-1] [23:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ruby-errbase [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0.3-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted git-lfs [amd64] (artful-proposed) [2.2.1-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted git-lfs [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [2.2.1-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-aliyun-aliyun-oss-go-sdk [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.5.0+dfsg1-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-cheekybits-is [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20150225.0.68e9c06-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-glendc-gopher-json [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.1.0+git20170414.0.dc47430-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-hashicorp-go-rootcerts [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20160503.0.6bb64b3-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted lua-mode [amd64] (artful-proposed) [20151025-2] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted org-mode [amd64] (artful-proposed) [9.0.9+dfsg-3] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted git-lfs [i386] (artful-proposed) [2.2.1-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-approvals-go-approval-tests [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20170712.0.c1e747e-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-gophercloud-gophercloud [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20170728.0.0118feec-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted more-itertools [amd64] (artful-proposed) [3.2.0-2] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted git-lfs [s390x] (artful-proposed) [2.2.1-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted inflection [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.3.1-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-chzyer-readline [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.4-1] [23:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ruby-declarative-option [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.1.0-1]