[06:00] <slangasek> infinity: do you know of any reason that libc6-dbgsym would be missing for the most recent version in artful?
[06:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libvirt (xenial-proposed/main) [1.3.1-1ubuntu10.13 => 1.3.1-1ubuntu10.14] (ubuntu-server, virt)
[06:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libvirt (zesty-proposed/main) [2.5.0-3ubuntu5.4 => 2.5.0-3ubuntu5.5] (ubuntu-server, virt)
[09:15] <LocutusOfBorg> autopkgtest for snapd/2.27+17.10: amd64: Pass, armhf: Always failed, i386: Regression ♻ , ppc64el: Pass, s390x: Always failed
[09:15] <LocutusOfBorg> please ignore on i386 or forcebad or update the hint?
[09:23] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, why ?
[09:33] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, seems broken in release, I'm running a test
[09:44] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, i have poked the package owner who thinks that is transitory and retrying
[09:55] <LocutusOfBorg> still failing AFAICS
[10:02] <infinity> tjaalton: I think it's poor messaging to tell vendors that the HWE stack is only supported "for 6mo".  In fact, moving to the rolling model was meant to fix that.
[10:03] <infinity> tjaalton: The HWE stack is now supported for the life of the LTS, it just so happens that the versions increment.
[10:03] <infinity> tjaalton: (but hey, we only support vim or firefox or glibc if you're on the latest version we ship too)
[10:05] <tjaalton> infinity: well, "supported" in this case means they need to adjust when it rolls
[10:05] <infinity> tjaalton: Or, perhaps worded differently, anyone who thinks we support snapshots of package sets in time is wrong (and, indeed, I've seen much evidence that larger vendors think we support everything on a given ISO, even if they never run apt after install).
[10:05] <infinity> tjaalton: Sure, yes.  The HWE stack isn't *stable*, but it is *supported*.
[10:06] <infinity> I wish it could be both, but the former sort of runs counter to the point of it.
[10:06] <tjaalton> right, bad wording on my part
[10:06] <tjaalton> "6mo lifespan" was what they said
[10:07] <infinity> tjaalton: Also, speaking of Certain Vendors(tm) who I won't talk smack about in a public channel, is there any chance of getting them to ship their drivers in the distro so they can get per-kernel CI for free? :P
[10:07] <apw> infinity, the bit about that wording that is worrying is it would be reasonable to interpret that 16.04.3 is supported for 5 years from its release
[10:07] <infinity> I mean, it's not just major kernel versions where we break DKMS.  Sometimes is Just Happens because of an intrusive backport on a stable branch.
[10:08] <tjaalton> infinity: we'll see about that
[10:08] <infinity> apw: Oh, sure, I wasn't taking issue with fixing the 16.04.3 wording, I was taking issue with Timo's follow-up comment that HWE is supported for 6mo. ;)
[10:08] <infinity> tjaalton: I mean, I'd love it shipped in the distro, but if that can't happen, I'd honestly be open to working with them to get them hooked into some CI with us, and also help them get a proper apt archive for their stuff.
[10:09] <infinity> tjaalton: Cause that level of breakage reflects poorly on us both.
[10:11] <tjaalton> sure does
[10:11] <tjaalton> things are on the planning phase atm
[10:14] <infinity> tjaalton: Worst case, if they weren't comfy with us distrbuting (and the broad license that would have to go with that), stuffing their things in a private PPA and running some private autopkgtest jobs against it for new kernels would probably work.
[10:16] <tjaalton> alright
[10:18] <infinity> tjaalton: Oh, and while I'm tying up loose ends from the point release... Any movement on the unforunate nouveau rendering bug?
[10:18] <tjaalton> infinity: no, the reporter refuses to file it upstream
[10:19] <tjaalton> "what's the point"
[10:19] <tjaalton> so, meh
[10:19] <infinity> File it for them?
[10:19] <infinity> I mean, it affects lots of people, I assume.
[10:19] <tjaalton> it'd just rot
[10:19] <infinity> Does the bug exist in current mesa too, or only on that stable branch?
[10:21] <tjaalton> yeah current upstream is broken too
[10:21] <infinity> Fun.
[10:21] <tjaalton> I talked to them
[10:22] <tjaalton> the bug is limited to this older gen GF
[10:23] <tjaalton> apparently
[10:23] <tjaalton> which the devs don't havce
[10:23] <tjaalton> have
[10:23] <tjaalton> GF7, released in 2005
[10:24] <tjaalton> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/+bug/1704596/comments/7
[10:40] <infinity> tjaalton: Ahh, the lack of hardware on which to test certainly makes it more problematic.
[10:41] <infinity> tjaalton: I'd offer to help if I had anything of that generation, but I'm pretty sure I don't.
[10:41] <tjaalton> also, they'd need apitrace of it, not gonna run ubuntu
[10:42] <tjaalton> anyway, since it has a working blob..
[10:42] <infinity> For now.
[10:43] <tjaalton> there's another on a 10y old radeon where gtk3 tooltips are corrupted, has a proposed patch already I think
[10:43] <infinity> But grudgingly also agreed that 12yo hardware isn't our biggest concern.
[10:43] <tjaalton> exactly
[10:44] <infinity> I wonder if maybe these sorts of things are more appropriately quirked in higher level UI bits.
[10:44] <infinity> I mean, sure, game rendering would still suck, but playing games on 12yo hardware is kinda "you get what you (don't) pay for".
[10:45] <infinity> But it's not uncommon for one of our competitors to, eg, look at your model/generation of card and just turn off some pretty.
[10:46] <tjaalton> there are some quirks shipped with mesa
[10:47] <infinity> Ahh, I meant more at a unity/gnome-shell level where they can just say "oh, you have crap hardware, you don't get shadows", etc.
[10:47] <infinity> Which could just be an age cutoff because, frankly, rendering shadows under 30 windows is hideously taxing on old GPUs too, even when it's not buggy.
[10:48] <tjaalton> ah, right
[11:02] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, how do you feel about demoting camitk to proposed until the gcc-7 ITK sadness is sorted out, so we can progress with dbus and qt5.9 transition?
[11:06] <apw> it doesn't sound liek the sort of thing that has a wide range of users, but i see it has some reverse-depends too
[11:08] <LocutusOfBorg> all of them blocked by the insighttoolkit4/gdcm/castxml sadness?
[11:08] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, i am not unsympathetic, i am unable to build a kernel any more because of gcc-7
[11:09] <LocutusOfBorg> The removal of insighttoolkit4 will also cause the removal of (transitive) reverse dependencies: ants camitk elastix fw4spl ginkgocadx itksnap nifti2dicom otb plastimatch vmtk
[11:10] <LocutusOfBorg> this is what I would demote for some days, it is broken and blocking other things...
[11:10] <LocutusOfBorg> castxml is ongoing by upstream/debian and will probably unblock all of them
[11:10] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, I can agree your frustration wrt kernel and gcc-7
[11:10] <LocutusOfBorg> I tried to help, but I failed :/
[11:12] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, so just castxml and its reverse depends would unblock you ?
[11:13] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, e5dfa3f902b9a642ae8c6997d57d7c41e384a90b wrt linux?
[11:13]  * LocutusOfBorg leaves for lunch
[11:13] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, I think so, yes
[11:14] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, yep one of many fixes we will need to find and apply
[11:14] <apw> i have dropped 4.11
[11:14] <apw> i have dropped 4.11 back to gcc-6, and we'll fight that battle on 4.12
[12:14] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, 4.12.5 should contain mostly all of them AFAICS
[12:15] <apw> yeah 4.12 is looking good
[12:15] <LocutusOfBorg> if you want I can craft a patchset to make the current one build with gcc-7
[12:16] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, na, we've good a 4.12 which builds just fine, thanks
[12:17] <LocutusOfBorg> ack
[12:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-92.115] (core, kernel)
[12:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-92.115]
[12:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [4.4.0-92.115~14.04.1] (kernel)
[13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [s390x] (artful-proposed/main) [4.12.0-11.12] (core, kernel)
[13:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [4.4.0-92.115~14.04.1]
[13:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/main) [4.12.0-11.12] (core, kernel)
[15:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: linux-firmware (xenial-proposed/main) [1.157.11 => 1.157.12] (core, kernel)
[15:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-cloud-sdk (xenial-proposed/partner) [163.0.0-0ubuntu1~16.04.0 => 166.0.0-0ubuntu1~16.04.0] (no packageset)
[15:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-cloud-sdk (zesty-proposed/partner) [163.0.0-0ubuntu1~17.04.0 => 166.0.0-0ubuntu1~17.04.0] (no packageset)
[15:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnutls26 (trusty-proposed/main) [2.12.23-12ubuntu2.8 => 2.12.23-12ubuntu2.9] (core)
[15:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnutls28 (zesty-proposed/main) [3.5.6-4ubuntu4.1 => 3.5.6-4ubuntu4.2] (core)
[15:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnutls28 (xenial-proposed/main) [3.4.10-4ubuntu1.3 => 3.4.10-4ubuntu1.4] (core)
[15:53] <dpb1> hi bdmurray, please reject https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/zesty/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=cloud-init, the merge and upload is invalid, thanks for catching
[15:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.27]
[15:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.27+17.04]
[15:54] <apw> ^ rejected per the uploader
[15:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected snapd [source] (trusty-proposed) [2.27~14.04]
[15:56] <bdmurray> dpb1: will do
[15:57] <bdmurray> apw: Are they going to verify their last upload?
[15:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected cloud-init [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.7.9-233-ge586fe35-0ubuntu1~17.04.1]
[15:58] <bdmurray> dpb1: The xenial one too?
[15:58] <dpb1> bdmurray: yes, both of them
[15:59] <apw> bdmurray, i hear they are yes, which is why i am holding that one in the queue, well was before it became junk
[16:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected cloud-init [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.7.9-233-ge586fe35-0ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[17:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: zfs-linux (xenial-proposed/main) [0.6.5.6-0ubuntu17 => 0.6.5.6-0ubuntu18] (no packageset)
[18:15] <slangasek> jbicha: do you have any plans to investigate the mongodb/arm64 build failure?
[18:22] <jbicha> slangasek: not really, sorry :( I synced the package earlier because I believe server guys wanted s390x support
[18:22] <slangasek> ah, then this is cpaelzer's problem ;)
[18:33] <slangasek> jbicha, cpaelzer: well, both the artful and the artful-proposed versions are now FTBFS with gcc-7; I'm not going to remove binaries to unblock a package that I know is FTBFS...
[18:37] <jbicha> current stable release of mongodb is 3.4.7 released this week, the Debian package hasn't been updated in a while
[18:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [armhf] (artful-proposed/main) [4.12.0-11.12] (core, kernel)
[18:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [arm64] (artful-proposed/main) [4.12.0-11.12] (core, kernel)
[18:54]  * tsimonq2 wonders why lots of private jobs are done at once, clogging the build queues :(
[18:58] <slangasek> sometimes that happens because of security updates
[19:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-notifier (xenial-proposed/main) [3.168.4 => 3.168.5] (ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[19:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [amd64] (artful-proposed/main) [4.12.0-11.12] (core, kernel)
[19:34] <acheronuk> those jobs are holding up: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cmake/3.9.1-1 on amd64 so cmake-data package will not be built, so going to get FTBFS on anything that uses cmake (on !x86) until it clears :(
[19:34] <acheronuk> tsimonq2: ^^
[19:35] <tsimonq2> Yep, sort of why I'm sad at long build queues :(
[19:38] <slangasek> I can certainly bump cmake builds' priorities
[19:39] <slangasek> done, though amd64 is still 25 minutes out apparently
[19:39] <slangasek> (estimated)
[19:40] <acheronuk> thanks. just rubbish timing that synced now
[19:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux [i386] (artful-proposed/main) [4.12.0-11.12] (core, kernel)
[20:30] <cpaelzer> slangasek: jbicha: how did I earn the honor to be my problem - wit hmy s390 bagde?
[20:31] <slangasek> cpaelzer: yes ;)
[20:31] <cpaelzer> hmm :-/
[20:31] <cpaelzer> I shouldn
[20:31] <cpaelzer> 't have checked IRC before sleeping today :-)
[20:31]  * cpaelzer is taking a not what this is about
[20:33] <cpaelzer> jbicha: if you have some background on "the server guys wanted s390x" please feel free to send me
[20:33] <cpaelzer> I can find out if otherwise
[20:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sagemath [i386] (artful-proposed/universe) [7.6-3ubuntu3] (no packageset)
[20:58] <jbicha> cpaelzer: LP: #1595242
[21:04] <dpb1> cpaelzer: let's chat monday -- I'll add this detail to a card in TODO
[21:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux [amd64] (artful-proposed) [4.12.0-11.12]
[21:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux [armhf] (artful-proposed) [4.12.0-11.12]
[21:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [4.12.0-11.12]
[21:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux [arm64] (artful-proposed) [4.12.0-11.12]
[21:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux [s390x] (artful-proposed) [4.12.0-11.12]
[21:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux [i386] (artful-proposed) [4.12.0-11.12]
[22:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sagemath [amd64] (artful-proposed/universe) [7.6-3ubuntu3] (no packageset)
[22:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-seq [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.3.5-2]
[22:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sambamba [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.6.6-1]
[22:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted swath [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.5.5-2]
[22:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted python-pymeasure [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.4.5-1]
[22:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sambamba [i386] (artful-proposed) [0.6.6-1]
[22:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (artful-proposed/main) [4.12.0-11.12] (core, kernel)
[22:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (artful-proposed) [4.12.0-11.12]