[00:00] <nacc> xnox: i'll see if that's doable and if not just disable the test for now so it can propogate
[00:00] <xnox> 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] <xnox> with reboot between the two.
[00:01] <nacc> xnox: thanks, that's handy
[00:01] <xnox> nacc, we can override the test results for open-iscsi to propagate, but that's best to have a fixed test....
[00:04] <nacc> xnox: ack, i'll try and get it fixed by EOW
[00:12] <xnox> mwhudson, there are now smart ExecStartPre= shell script in the systemd unit to bail out when not-needed / setup
[00:12] <xnox> slangasek, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1708313
[00:12] <xnox> not I ?! =)
[00:24] <sergiusens> 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] <slangasek> 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] <slangasek> checking ubuntu-image; I'm going to re-test with -proposed u-i + snapcraft so it's clear from the log
[00:44] <slangasek> xnox: why should PrivateNetwork fail there?  it's just containers
[00:49] <sergiusens> thanks slangasek
[00:59] <xnox> slangasek, it is a good point. but also i don't know how our armhf infra is setup.
[00:59] <xnox> slangasek, is it priviledged or unpriviledged lxc1? what is the host? are there any config overrides that punch things through?
[01:00] <slangasek> hmm
[01:00] <xnox> at the moment i setup straight up lxc1 artufl armhf container on an artful arm64 host
[01:00] <slangasek> all good questions
[01:00] <xnox> but i suspect the host may not be xenial, and i'm debugging obsolete software not matching production.
[01:00] <slangasek> "may not be xenial" - I would expect it is. don't the logs report the kernel version?
[01:01] <xnox> the logs report armhf kernel....
[01:01] <slangasek> the armhfness is a lie
[01:01] <xnox> 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] <slangasek> 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] <xnox> slangasek, given we are not doing as much phone testing, i am suspecting our armhf and arm64 testing went downhill.
[01:04] <slangasek> I haven't seen evidence of this in general
[01:04] <slangasek> arm64 will be VMs, not containers, when the RTs finish
[01:04] <xnox> ok.
[01:05] <xnox> moving armhf from lxc to lxd?
[01:05] <xnox> that should be easy, given how reliable s390x lxd is.
[01:05] <xnox> no?
[01:06] <slangasek> that part I don't know
[01:12] <slangasek> xnox: on the autopkgtest side, the infra believes it is using lxd for armhf, not lxc.  kernel is 4.4 on xenial.
[01:14] <xnox> slangasek, how old/new lxd? from release and/or backports?
[01:15] <slangasek> xnox: 2.0.9
[01:16] <slangasek> which I guess means we're a little behind
[01:16] <xnox> slangasek, so trusty?
[01:16] <slangasek> xnox: no, xenial-updates-1
[01:17] <xnox> 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] <xnox> slangasek, on artful host, launching artful armhf lxd container says armv8l in uname -a
[01:36] <xnox> 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] <xnox> or ssh backdoor into them? i think pitti did open up a connection into those machines by hand before.
[01:36] <xnox> running adt tests here on xenial host, with qemu runner, using artful cloud-image as base - passes.
[01:36] <xnox> did that with amd64, todo with i386.
[01:38] <xnox> ..
[01:39] <xnox> i just got hashsum missmatch in ftpmaster.internal
[01:39] <xnox> http://paste.ubuntu.com/25230244/
[01:39] <xnox> this is wow.
[01:41] <slangasek> xnox: sorry, it's dinner time here.  I can look at this later in the evening
[01:41] <xnox> i should sleep too
[01:41]  * xnox goes to drink some tea to calm down
[02:35] <infinity> 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] <infinity> apw: If we could come up with a sane way to boot armv7 images in scalingstack, we could ditch the silly hack.
[02:38] <infinity> Maybe I should find some "free time" (ha ha ha) for that.
[02:38]  * apw giggles at infinity
[02:41] <infinity> jbicha: ubuntu-gnome/xenial seems to have 0 testing so far.
[02:44] <stgraber> xnox: hmm, uname -m not showing the right personality is weird, we don't see that behavior on x86
[02:51] <stgraber> ah, just found apw's kernel patch. Feels pretty weird that linux32 on aarch64 otherwise gives you the exact same as linux64...
[02:51] <jbicha> infinity: sorry, I'll take a look in the morning
[02:52] <apw> 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] <stgraber> oh, it does indeed
[02:53] <stgraber> you get aarch64 for 64bit and armv8l for 32bit
[02:53] <stgraber> root@1ss-arm64:~# uname -a
[02:53] <stgraber> 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] <stgraber> root@1ss-arm64:~# setarch linux32 -- uname -a
[02:53] <stgraber> 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] <apw> right, just unfortuantly we are armv7 optimised
[02:54] <infinity> Has less to do with optimisation.
[02:54] <apw> s/optimised/targetted/
[02:55] <infinity> And more to do with Stupid Software doing Stupid Things when building and seeing a uname it doesn't know.
[02:55] <stgraber> it can get even more confusing though :)
[02:55] <infinity> This is why i686 "stalled" on i686 too.
[02:55] <infinity> Despite us now being up to i786 (or i868 for Core, I've lost track) according to Intel.
[02:55] <stgraber> root@blah:~# uname -a
[02:55] <stgraber> 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] <infinity> 886...
[02:55] <stgraber> root@blah:~# setarch linux32 -- uname -a
[02:55] <stgraber> 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] <stgraber> that's on an arm64 system that doesn't support the 32bit personality
[02:56] <infinity> stgraber: Right, and that's correct.
[02:56] <infinity> Well, more correct would be setarch bubbling up a "that personality no exist" error, but whatever.
[02:56] <stgraber> yeah, I'd expect an error :)
[02:57] <stgraber> oh, the kernel does do the right thing, it's just setarch being useless :)
[02:57] <stgraber> personality(PER_LINUX32)                = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
[02:57] <infinity> Right.
[02:58] <infinity> I still think it was a mistake for ARM to not require v7 compat in v8, but oh well.
[02:59] <infinity> It's an even larger headache than v7 not requiring NEON.
[02:59] <infinity> Mistakes, though, why learn from them?
[03:20] <slangasek> sergiusens: ubuntu-image+snapcraft looking a bit better now in zesty, two passes, two xfails, and one fail (ppc64el)
[03:21] <slangasek> infinity: how frozen is xenial-updates, could snapcraft be released or no?
[03:21] <slangasek> (non-image-affecting)
[03:21] <infinity> slangasek: non-image-affecting is fine.
[04:16] <xnox> 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] <xnox> basically use multiarch technology and tools
[04:19] <wgrant> 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] <slangasek> yes, arm64 images are uefi
[04:20] <wgrant> 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] <infinity> 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] <xnox> infinity, sure. armhf-on-arm64 kvm is better than lxd for adt testing. armhf-on-armhf does sound backwards.
[04:48] <xnox> to kill armhf, do we need an armv8l port then? or whatever the tag is?
[04:58] <xnox> 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] <sil2100> infinity: let me pick up netboot amd64 images now for some testing
[07:59] <infinity> 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] <sil2100> 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] <sil2100> Ubuntu GNOME looking fine on amd64, giving a quick spin of i386 now
[10:15] <LocutusOfBorg> hello, not sure if tsimonq2 already requested that, but please force badtest
[10:15] <LocutusOfBorg> fpc/3.0.2+dfsg-2 on amd64 (zesty)
[10:16] <LocutusOfBorg> libreoffice/1:5.3.1-0ubuntu2 i386 (zesty=
[10:16] <LocutusOfBorg> we tried them with themself as trigger
[10:16] <LocutusOfBorg> and the failed
[10:18] <tsimonq2> LocutusOfBorg: I didn't say something yet, thank you :)
[10:25] <infinity> LocutusOfBorg: libreoffice failing might be a kernel issue.
[10:26] <infinity> apw: There was some talk that those fixes for the fixes for the fixes still didn't fix libreoffice, right?
[10:27] <tsimonq2> infinity: But it's not a gtk+2.0 issue, correct? (that's what triggered the test)
[10:27] <infinity> tsimonq2: Sure, but force-badtest would also be a lie.
[10:27] <infinity> tsimonq2: You can say "this shouldn't hold up gtk" without saying "please ignore the test forever".
[10:27] <tsimonq2> infinity: "this shouldn't hold up gtk" :P
[10:27] <LocutusOfBorg> infinity, yes, I agree, I'm following the Debian bug too
[10:28] <tsimonq2> infinity: Regardless, the point in asking is to make sure that the SRU can migrate properly.
[10:28] <LocutusOfBorg> ok, well, so ignore it only once is the correct request? I agree this shouldn't be forced forever
[10:29] <LocutusOfBorg> I see libreoffice blacklisted on s390x not sure what does it mean
[10:29] <tsimonq2> 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] <infinity> 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] <infinity> tsimonq2: And yes, we know.
[10:29] <LocutusOfBorg> oh ok, so they are not blocking? really nice!
[10:30] <tsimonq2> infinity: Alright, just covering my bases. :)
[10:30] <tsimonq2> +1 LocutusOfBorg
[10:30] <LocutusOfBorg> I mean, not so nice but meh
[10:30] <tsimonq2> 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] <sil2100> infinity: GNOME i386 looks good as well, marked as so some minutes ago
[10:49] <infinity> sil2100: Shiny.
[10:49] <sil2100> infinity: anything else needs testing? I don't see anything that's not-touched besides netboot
[10:52] <infinity> 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] <sil2100> infinity: sweet, the changes for .3 look ok or should I work some more on those?
[11:04] <infinity> sil2100: I'll look in a bit.
[11:04] <infinity> sil2100: But if it looks kinda like a list of bugs, I'll probably not have complaints.
[11:06] <infinity> sil2100: Looks reasonable to me.
[11:07] <sil2100> 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] <apw> 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] <doko> looking at gcc-7-cross-ports in update_excuses.html: why is the ppc64el build listed as missing
[13:17] <doko> and the cross compilers seem to be installable as well
[13:32] <infinity> doko: The uninstallable stuff might be component mismatches.  Not sure about the ppc64el thing.
[13:33] <doko> ahh, yes, demoting
[13:33] <doko> gcc-7-cross-ports is kept in main because of the need of powerpc on ppc64el
[13:34] <infinity> doko: Erm, the ppc64el thing is because you didn't bump versions.
[13:35] <infinity> Why the second one didn't fail to upload is a mystery I'd rather not think about.
[13:35] <doko> hmm, I removed the binaries before uploading the second one ...
[13:35] <infinity> That would be why it didn't fail to upload.
[13:35] <infinity> Also, ick.
[13:35] <doko> anyway, doing the 7.2 release candidate today
[13:35] <infinity> doko: Binaries (and sources) should never, ever, ever re-use versions in the archive.  Things go nutty.
[13:36] <infinity> Totally an LP bug that it even let that happen.
[13:37] <infinity> cjwatson: ^
[13:40] <cjwatson> I'm pretty surprised that was allowed, certainly.  Please file.
[13:40] <cjwatson> And don't pull that sort of binary-removal stunt again.
[13:40] <infinity> doko: Yes.  Pretty please don't remove a file because it conflicts with another you want with different contents. :P
[13:41] <infinity> doko: Files in the history of an archive must be unique.
[13:42] <cjwatson> I guess it's possible we only explicitly check that for sources.
[13:43] <doko> infinity: ack
[13:45] <infinity> 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] <cjwatson> infinity: Do you happen to remember an example?
[13:46] <infinity> 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] <infinity> But yes, we get builds failing to upload due to binary version conflicts (and also version downgrades).
[13:46] <cjwatson> Version conflicts are different.
[13:47] <infinity> Different than... A version conflict?
[13:47] <cjwatson> 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] <infinity> We may be saying the same thing, sort of?
[13:48] <infinity> 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] <infinity> Or, that seems to describe what I've seen.
[13:49] <cjwatson> Does it actually reject, or just crash during publication?
[13:49] <cjwatson> 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] <infinity> I think doko's gcc-cross packages have rejected in the past for this same reason.
[13:50] <infinity> Cause they really should encode more version info than they do.
[13:50] <infinity> It's entirely possible this one rejected and he did the removal and then retried the build. :P
[13:51] <cjwatson> Ah, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-6-cross-ports/20ubuntu4/+build/12555755 is an example.
[13:52] <infinity> Yup.
[13:53] <cjwatson> Missed it because it's done in lp.soyuz.model.queue:PackageUpload rather than in archiveuploader.
[13:53] <cjwatson> So right, that's basically a last-ditch check against stuff that hasn't been removed.
[13:54] <cjwatson> Might be interesting to see what would break if we just removed the "AND bpph.dateremoved IS NULL" condition from that query.
[13:54] <cjwatson> Possibly a performance disaster, not sure.
[13:56] <cjwatson> 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 ..
[13:57] <infinity> cjwatson: It's almost certainly failed pretty hard already, because a-f cache.
[13:57] <infinity> (as in, the sums in Packages are probably for the old files)
[13:57] <cjwatson> Quite possibly.
[13:57] <infinity> Because a-f makes the entirely reasonable assumption that archive members are unique. :P
[13:58] <cjwatson> doko: Is this a thing you've done in the past?  Because if so we may need to audit the archive.
[13:59] <doko> 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] <doko> for the next upload
[14:00] <doko> the skew goes away with the next gcc-7 upload, and all cross builds succeeding
[14:00] <cjwatson> I don't understand why that would result in version skew.  Wouldn't you bump all the versions in sync?
[14:01] <doko> no, it's looking at the binaries found in the archive
[14:01] <doko> if I hardcode that, then I usually forget to bump the number for a new upload :/
[14:01] <infinity> doko: It really needs to tack on the version of the gcc-cross package as well, so it remains unique per build.
[14:01] <cjwatson> Ah, so retrying -cross-ports with a different base toolchain or something
[14:02] <infinity> doko: As in, the "cross1" at the end could be "cross20ubuntu5" or something for gcc-6-cross-ports_20ubuntu5
[14:02] <doko> infinity: yeah, but then you had a version number like -12ubuntu1cross5ubuntu2 ...
[14:02] <doko> ugly
[14:02] <infinity> doko: Shorten "Ubuntu" to "u" and it's not the worst.
[14:02] <infinity> I mean, they're ugly regardless. :P
[14:03] <infinity> And shorten "cross" to "c" or "x"
[14:03] <infinity> -12ubuntu1x5u2
[14:03] <apw> and it looks like a disk name in solaris
[14:03] <infinity> In Debian, it's be a nice short -12x5
[14:03] <infinity> Hahaha.
[14:11] <sil2100> apw: yes :)
[14:14] <xnox> 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] <doko> the kiosk seed is pulling in qtubuntu. is this expected?
[14:21] <doko> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg
[14:23] <jbicha> doko: looks like yes: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/ubuntu.artful
[14:24] <doko> jbicha: but all the -cpp packages are unmaintained, aren't they?
[14:24] <infinity> I was under the impression pretty much that whole dep tree is unmaintained.
[14:24] <doko> xnox: ^^^
[14:25] <xnox> doko, yes kiosk seed pulling in qtubuntu is expected.
[14:25] <xnox> and alan_g is on the hook to minimise deps.
[14:25] <xnox> (alan_g and co)
[14:26] <xnox> they have requested that in a bug report, mentioned in the seed text.
[14:27] <alan_g> Saviq: FYI ^^
[14:28] <xnox> 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] <Saviq> we're cutting off at platform-api
[14:28] <xnox> whoop whoop =)
[14:28] <Saviq> as in, we won't depend on that, soon
[14:28] <Saviq> so that graph will look much nicer
[14:28] <xnox> doko, infinity ^
[14:29] <Saviq> the other fruit is content-hub, which we need to cut off in qtubuntu, too, and are already on it
[14:48] <doko> looks like the debian perl team is busy updating everything ...
[14:53] <xnox> 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]
[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] <teward> 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] <teward> in queue as of 3/25/2017
[19:11] <teward> jgrimm: ^ cc
[19:14] <nacc> teward: not especially
[19:14] <nacc> teward: i think the sponsorship queue is a bit behind for server
[19:14] <nacc> i believe i have a pilot session next week
[19:14] <teward> nacc: "behind" I think is an understatement - this is 5 months since last activity... just saying.
[19:15] <teward> (and this is breaking my experimenting with postfix heh)
[19:15] <teward> 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] <teward> (at least NGINX updates get handled real quickly... oh wait, that's my uploads... nevermind :P)
[19:15] <nacc> teward: feel free to bump in the bug and we should see it in the triage rota
[19:16] <teward> bumped :p
[19:20] <nacc> teward: thanks
[19:20] <nacc> 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] <teward> nacc: indeed, but I'm happy to do that if needed.
[19:35] <teward> because i want this working :P
[19:35] <nacc> teward: :)
[19:46] <jgrimm> teward, nacc.  as far i know its ready to go, had just been waiting for sponsors to get around to it
[19:46] <nacc> jgrimm: +1 agreed
[19:46] <teward> which is "never" if you don't prod them every so often :P
[19:47] <jgrimm> template including how to test for sponsor so should be easy enough nacc. let me know if you have questions
[19:47] <teward> 5 months is infinite lagtime.
[19:47] <jgrimm> teward, :)
[19:47] <teward> (in the IT world anyways)
[19:47] <nacc> jgrimm: yep, i saw that
[19:47] <teward> 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)
[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]