[00:36] <infinity> LocutusOfBorg: So, what's the issue tilix has?  I just installed it and it appears to run/work...
[00:39] <infinity> LocutusOfBorg: Does that mean your rebuild worked fine, or is my system special? :P
[00:46] <jbicha> infinity: tilix works fine for me now too LP: #1721101
[00:49] <infinity> jbicha: And the offending symbol is definitely there in an objdump, so it's clearly being resolved correctly now.
[00:49] <infinity> jbicha: So, crisis averted?
[00:50] <jbicha> ok I closed the bug, thanks
[00:50] <infinity> May point to an entirely different bug about one of tilix's deps not properly tracking ABI.
[00:50] <infinity> Cause that sort of beakage should never happen when library/symbol deps are sane.
[00:52] <jbicha> it's that new D language stuff
[00:52] <infinity> "new"
[00:52] <infinity> Only 15 years old.
[00:52] <infinity> But everyone always (poorly) reinvents the same wheels over and over.
[00:53] <jbicha> well gtk-d is new, right?
[00:53] <infinity> Probably.
[00:53] <infinity> I've only recently seen people writing GUI stuff in D.
[00:53] <infinity> So, I guess it's the new hotness.
[00:53] <infinity> God help us.
[01:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libgig (artful-proposed/universe) [4.0.0-3 => 4.0.0-5] (no packageset) (sync)
[01:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libgig [sync] (artful-proposed) [4.0.0-5]
[01:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mupdf (artful-proposed/universe) [1.9a+ds1-4 => 1.11+ds1-1.1] (no packageset) (sync)
[01:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mupdf [sync] (artful-proposed) [1.11+ds1-1.1]
[01:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: wireshark (artful-proposed/universe) [2.4.0-1 => 2.4.2-1] (no packageset) (sync)
[01:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted wireshark [sync] (artful-proposed) [2.4.2-1]
[05:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: winetricks (artful-proposed/universe) [0.0+20170101-1ubuntu2 => 0.0+20170823-1] (no packageset) (sync)
[05:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted winetricks [sync] (artful-proposed) [0.0+20170823-1]
[06:12] <LocutusOfBorg> infinity, gtk-d not tracking correctly ABI is an already known issue
[06:12] <LocutusOfBorg> and from next upload will have ABI changes
[06:13] <LocutusOfBorg> see message 50 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877168
[06:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libmongodb-perl (artful-proposed/universe) [1.4.5-1ubuntu1 => 1.8.0-1] (no packageset) (sync)
[06:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libmongodb-perl [sync] (artful-proposed) [1.8.0-1]
[06:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: libbson-perl (artful-proposed/primary) [1.4.0-1]
[07:14] <infinity> Laney: armhf autopkgtest hosts are consistently exploding with ENOSPC.  Not sure how to get a better view into them to see why.  Any ideas?
[07:17] <apw> gawd, those things are a pita atm
[07:20] <sil2100> uh, the gtk+3.0 upload still stuck in -proposed I see
[07:23] <sil2100> Laney: you're assigned to the bug for the software-properties ADT regression - you working on that? :)
[07:40] <infinity> Laney: Belay that.  armhf runners are happier now that they're not under load.  But we definitely have Serious Issues when they're under load.  If they don't ENOSPC, they hit an nr_files limit.  Neither is good.
[07:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: base-files (artful-proposed/main) [9.6ubuntu101 => 9.6ubuntu102] (core)
[07:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted base-files [source] (artful-proposed) [9.6ubuntu102]
[08:05] <Laney> sil2100: I've been trying but I don't know how to fix it yet
[08:05] <Laney> infinity: ok, well I would have logged onto one of the machines that was having problems and seen what was going on
[08:08] <infinity> Laney: I guess I don't know enough about the setup to know why that would be happening in the first place.
[08:09] <infinity> Laney: nr_files limit being hit makes sense if the global kernel limit is being hit across several containers.
[08:09] <infinity> Laney: But ENOSPC under load makes less sense to me, unless all the containers share a scratch space or something?
[08:09] <infinity> In which case, it may well be that we've just parallelised a little too hard.
[08:10] <Laney> That hasn't been tweaked in ages, and we've had extremely large queues very many times
[08:11] <infinity> Laney: Andy and I were seeing this with the glibc flood, as well as other recent ones.
[08:12] <infinity> Laney: But before that, I admit I wasn't in a position to be paying attention.
[08:14] <apw> it cirtainly seems to be bad now, and i've not noticed this failure mode before
[08:15] <Laney> any pointers for being able to see some evidence?
[08:16] <apw> Laney, we had a recent failure on umbrello with this
[08:16] <apw> and on tracker-miners
[08:17] <Laney> 8 sh[31883]: 2017/10/13 18:32:10 socat[22766] E connect(5, AF=2 10.43.42.145:8443, 16): Connection refused
[08:18] <infinity> Laney: http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/b/blogilo/artful/armhf
[08:19] <infinity> Laney: Those three failures were all ENOSPC, and occurred when the armhf queue was going full tilt.  Retrying when it was quiet made them pass.
[08:20] <apw> Laney, i've pm'd you a couple of logs with one of each
[08:20] <infinity> jibel: LP: #1723404 confuses ,e.
[08:20] <infinity> jibel: Confuses me, too.
[08:20] <infinity> jibel: Steve marked it fix committed, you marked it fix released, I see zero evidence of that bug in the livecd-rootfs source.
[08:21] <jibel> infinity, I checked the locale this morning on the image and it was correct. Let me double check
[08:21] <infinity> jibel: It may well be that the bug was fixed somewhere.  It clearly wasn't in the package the bug is assigned to. :P
[08:22] <jibel> infinity, it is fixed in casper
[08:23] <jibel> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/artful-changes/2017-October/011801.html
[08:23] <infinity> jibel: Check, thanks.  Reassigning.
[08:23] <infinity> I'm confused enough these days without people helping. ;)
[08:24] <infinity> He fixed it oddly...
[08:24] <sil2100> ;)
[08:26] <sil2100> I don't remember seeing LP: #1723760 when testing the iso a week ago
[08:26]  * sil2100 tries to check
[08:27] <infinity> Man, I hope that typo is actually in the kernel, not the bug submitter's by-hand copying.
[08:28] <Laney> infinity: This is going to be much easier if we catch it in the act
[08:28] <infinity> sil2100: I suspect that bug is the "not showing 'remove media and press enter' message" bug that has plagued us ever since plymouth.
[08:28] <Laney> thanks for the report & sorry for the inconvenience
[08:28] <infinity> Laney: I'll be sure to upload glibc again tomorrow.
[08:28] <Laney> hopefully we can jettison this lxd stuff at some point
[08:29] <infinity> Laney: Did anyone have a frank "future arch support" discussion at the rally?
[08:29] <infinity> Laney: Cause I'd love to see armhf and i386 die.
[08:29] <jibel> sil2100, I cannot reproduce it in a VM.
[08:30] <jibel> sil2100, I get the 'remove media' prompt and the VM properly shutdowns
[08:30] <infinity> jibel: Yeah, he's probably not getting the prompt.  Which happens sometimes.
[08:31] <infinity> jibel: His hilarious "copy" and "paste" of kernel output is meaningless, that was from boot, not shutdown.
[08:31] <infinity> (I'm loving "cashing", though)
[08:31] <jibel> :)
[08:32] <infinity> Not getting the prompt looks a whole lot like hanging.  But it's also entirely safe to cut power there, so it's been a bit of "meh" every time we try to fix it and only slightly succeed.
[08:32] <infinity> The best answer is probably going to be to pivot to another root.
[08:32] <apw> i see it often enough that i am always pleasently supprised when i do see the promt
[08:33] <infinity> Or give up and change the shutdown message to "we're going to try to shut down now, count to 20 and then set your computer on fire".
[08:34] <infinity> I wish we could just have the confidence that Microsoft does that people only run one OS, and it's ours.
[08:34] <infinity> Cause that makes their method so much simpler.
[08:35] <infinity> When they boot to CD, if they find a bootable HDD, they turn around and chain to it (on a delay).
[08:35] <infinity> Thus they can just reboot willy-nilly in the installer without removing media.
[08:35] <infinity> Maybe we could try that anyway.  Worst case, people boot into their old default Fedora or Win10? :P
[08:38] <infinity> Oh, actually, better idea.  We have grub on our ISOs now.  We could legit poke gently for other grubs, and chain only to one we recognize.  Otherwise timeout and leave you at the boot menu.
[08:38] <apw> "Hit a key to boot this CD in the next 10s"
[08:38] <infinity> So, on reboot with an Ubuntu CD in, you'd get Ubuntu.
[08:39] <apw> now that i like
[08:39] <apw> horrible semantics if you have a broken grub on the HDD probabally, but hey
[08:39] <infinity> Well, it'd have an interruptable delay, as you say above.
[08:39] <infinity> But that would be the triggering condition for that.
[08:39] <infinity> Without finding an Ubuntu, we'd just unconditionally launch you into the CD boot menu.
[08:40] <apw> and it would let us have a recovery option for "grub is broke"
[08:40] <apw> because you went near win10
[08:40] <infinity> Cause I don't think "I have an Ubuntu CD in my drive, but I want you to boot through to windows" is a sane or reasonable flow.
[08:40] <infinity> But "I left it on on reboot, why am I in the installer again" is lame.
[08:43] <sil2100> infinity: the missing -az langpacks have been uploaded
[08:43] <sil2100> Unfortunately I have no idea why they failed getting created during the last time, will try figuring out that later today, but a re-run just did the trick
[08:44] <infinity> sil2100: Thanks.
[08:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: r-cran-curl (artful-proposed/universe) [2.8.1-1ubuntu2 => 3.0-1] (no packageset) (sync)
[08:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted r-cran-curl [sync] (artful-proposed) [3.0-1]
[08:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-linuxkit-virtsock [sync] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20170720.0.0416e3d-1]
[08:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libbson-perl [sync] (artful-proposed) [1.4.0-1]
[09:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: golang-github-linuxkit-virtsock [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [0.0~git20170720.0.0416e3d-1] (no packageset)
[09:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libbson-perl [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [1.4.0-1] (no packageset)
[09:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: bitz-server (artful-proposed/universe) [1.0.0-3 => 1.0.0-5] (no packageset) (sync)
[09:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: why (artful-proposed/primary) [2.39-2]
[09:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted bitz-server [sync] (artful-proposed) [1.0.0-5]
[09:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-github-linuxkit-virtsock [amd64] (artful-proposed) [0.0~git20170720.0.0416e3d-1]
[09:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libbson-perl [amd64] (artful-proposed) [1.4.0-1]
[09:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-graphics-drivers-384 (artful-proposed/restricted) [384.90-0ubuntu2 => 384.90-0ubuntu3] (no packageset)
[09:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-384 [source] (artful-proposed) [384.90-0ubuntu3]
[09:27] <tseliot> infinity: hey, any chance nvidia can get in ^ ?
[09:28] <tseliot> infinity: never mind
[09:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted why [sync] (artful-proposed) [2.39-2]
[09:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: why [amd64] (artful-proposed/none) [2.39-2] (no packageset)
[09:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: why [s390x] (artful-proposed/none) [2.39-2] (no packageset)
[09:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: why [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/none) [2.39-2] (no packageset)
[09:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: why [i386] (artful-proposed/none) [2.39-2] (no packageset)
[09:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: why [armhf] (artful-proposed/none) [2.39-2] (no packageset)
[10:29] <acheronuk> hi. are we likely to get any further iso respins in before the ubuntu-on-air community iso testing @ 15:00 UTC today?
[10:31] <infinity> acheronuk: I'm literally about to press the button.
[10:31] <infinity> acheronuk: So, they should be freshly done by then.
[10:32] <infinity> Might still be warm.
[10:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted why [amd64] (artful-proposed) [2.39-2]
[10:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted why [i386] (artful-proposed) [2.39-2]
[10:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted why [s390x] (artful-proposed) [2.39-2]
[10:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted why [armhf] (artful-proposed) [2.39-2]
[10:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted why [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [2.39-2]
[10:32] <acheronuk> infinity: excellent. thank you
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base arm64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base armhf [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base ppc64el [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Base s390x [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Alternate amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Alternate i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[10:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: r-cran-curl (artful-proposed/universe) [3.0-1 => 3.0-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[10:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted r-cran-curl [source] (artful-proposed) [3.0-1ubuntu1]
[11:01] <sil2100> Sweet
[11:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Desktop amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Lubuntu Desktop i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Desktop amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Budgie Desktop amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Budgie Desktop i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server arm64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server ppc64el [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server s390x [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu MATE Desktop amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu MATE Desktop i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Kylin Desktop amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Kylin Desktop i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (zesty-proposed/main) [4.10.0-38.42] (core, kernel)
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Studio DVD amd64 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Studio DVD i386 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[11:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell-extension-multi-monitors (artful-proposed/universe) [0.00~git20160725.1.7390a66-1 => 0.00~git20171014.1.df5d6e4-1] (no packageset) (sync)
[11:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-shell-extension-multi-monitors [sync] (artful-proposed) [0.00~git20171014.1.df5d6e4-1]
[11:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: graphicsmagick (artful-proposed/universe) [1.3.26-14 => 1.3.26-15] (ubuntustudio) (sync)
[11:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server armhf+raspi2 [Artful Final] has been updated (20171016)
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170921+dfsg1-0ubuntu1~14.04.0 => 20171006+dfsg1-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (xenial-proposed/universe) [20170921+dfsg1-0ubuntu1~16.04.0 => 20171006+dfsg1-0ubuntu1~16.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gce-compute-image-packages (zesty-proposed/universe) [20170921+dfsg1-0ubuntu1~17.04.0 => 20171006+dfsg1-0ubuntu1~17.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: appstream-generator (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.6-1ubuntu1 => 0.6.7-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[12:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted appstream-generator [source] (artful-proposed) [0.6.7-1ubuntu1]
[12:22] <LocutusOfBorg> any archive admin, please remove libmongodb-perl on i386
[12:22] <LocutusOfBorg> missing build on i386: libmongodb-perl (from 1.4.5-1ubuntu1)
[12:22] <LocutusOfBorg> not sure how you missed it, when you removed mongodb on i386
[12:23]  * LocutusOfBorg is probably missing something
[12:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: appstream-generator (artful-proposed/universe) [0.6.6-1ubuntu1 => 0.6.7-1ubuntu2] (no packageset)
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted appstream-generator [source] (artful-proposed) [0.6.7-1ubuntu2]
[12:58] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, perhaps it was removed from -release, and that is in -proposed
[13:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-98.121] (core, kernel)
[13:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-98.121]
[14:12] <smoser> join #ubuntu-devel
[14:14] <slashd> sil2100, would you have time to release to systemd into trusty-updates (LP: #1718966)
[14:14] <slashd> sil2100, there is a few regression but they are all documented in the bug ^
[14:18] <sil2100> slashd: sure, let me take a look since I have a quieter moment now
[14:19] <slashd> sil2100, thanks a lot
[14:19] <slashd> tinoco, ^
[14:31] <sil2100> slashd: ok, looks goodish, let me publish - but before that I'll add a hint for the network-manager failure maybe
[14:32] <slashd> sil2100, ok thanks
[14:32] <slashd> tinoco, ^
[14:32] <tinoco> slashd: sil2100: tku
[14:49] <rbasak> Can we ignore the dep8 test for mariadb-10.1 please so that it can migrate? It's not a regression, rather caused by a new test that never succeeded on s390x. See https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1723947 for details.
[14:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: qemu (artful-proposed/main) [1:2.10+dfsg-0ubuntu2 => 1:2.10+dfsg-0ubuntu3] (ubuntu-server, virt)
[14:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [4.10.0-38.42]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: wpa (artful-proposed/main) [2.4-0ubuntu9 => 2.4-0ubuntu10] (core)
[15:04] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, can you fix it then?
[15:04] <LocutusOfBorg> I don't really know/remember if you keep a public log for removals
[15:15] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, sorry got distracted
[15:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [4.4.0-98.121~14.04.1] (kernel)
[15:26] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, is there a removal bug ?
[15:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.10.0-38.42~16.04.1] (kernel)
[15:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-lts-xenial [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [4.4.0-98.121~14.04.1]
[15:31] <LocutusOfBorg> ta!
[15:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ppc64-diag [ppc64el] (xenial-proposed/universe) [2.7.4-1~16.04] (no packageset)
[15:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ppc64-diag [ppc64el] (trusty-proposed/universe) [2.7.4-1~14.04] (no packageset)
[15:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ppc64-diag [powerpc] (xenial-proposed/universe) [2.7.4-1~16.04] (no packageset)
[15:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ppc64-diag [powerpc] (trusty-proposed/universe) [2.7.4-1~14.04] (no packageset)
[15:40] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, none I'm aware of, this is why I was trying to search removals logs
[15:40] <apw> hrm
[15:40] <LocutusOfBorg> mongodb has been syncd by jbicha_ maybe he knows
[15:41] <cjwatson> removals are logged in the package's publication history in LP
[15:41] <LocutusOfBorg> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mongodb/+bug/1679792
[15:41] <LocutusOfBorg> here we are
[15:42] <LocutusOfBorg> updated the bug
[15:42] <LocutusOfBorg> cjwatson, even binary removals?
[15:42] <LocutusOfBorg> we are talking about mongodb dropped on i386
[15:46] <cjwatson> LocutusOfBorg: yes
[15:46] <cjwatson> though they can be a little hard to find
[15:47] <cjwatson> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/artful/i386/mongodb just says "ANAIS" i.e. "architecture not included in source", which means that the package dropped i386 from its Architecture line
[15:52] <LocutusOfBorg> oh, I have to go to the single architecture page, I usually search "publishinghistory" from +source/foo
[15:53] <LocutusOfBorg> so, why the removal didn't propagate to i386 for its reverse-dependencies?
[15:53] <LocutusOfBorg> meh
[16:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: edubuntu-docs (artful-proposed/universe) [11.03.2 => 11.03.3] (edubuntu)
[16:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.10.0-38.42~16.04.1]
[16:47] <cjwatson> LocutusOfBorg: human error I assume
[17:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell-extension-tilix-dropdown (artful-proposed/universe) [5-1 => 5.1-1] (no packageset) (sync)
[17:23] <LocutusOfBorg> ack thanks!
[17:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-shell-extension-tilix-dropdown [sync] (artful-proposed) [5.1-1]
[17:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sugar-calculate-activity (artful-proposed/universe) [44-1 => 44-3] (sugar) (sync)
[17:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [3.13.0-134.183] (core, kernel)
[17:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [3.13.0-134.183]
[17:39] <slangasek> bdmurray: I see you accepted ppc64-diag into xenial-proposed for LP: #1708494, but rbasak rejected the same package for trusty-proposed due to lack of test case; do you want to un-reject the trusty one as well, now that upstream has provided a test case in the comments?
[17:40] <bdmurray> slangasek: I think I did but couldn't use sru-review because there were multiple versions in the rejected queue
[17:40] <slangasek> bdmurray: ahh ok
[17:40] <slangasek> bdmurray: then, thanks :)
[17:40] <bdmurray> I'll add a comment though.
[17:47] <LocutusOfBorg> I subscribed archive-admins to lp: #1679792
[17:47] <LocutusOfBorg> hopefully we will see autopkgtests starting soon
[18:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: autopkgtest (artful-proposed/main) [5.0.1 => 5.0.2] (core) (sync)
[18:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: llvm-toolchain-snapshot (artful-proposed/universe) [1:6.0~svn311834-4~build4 => 1:6.0~svn315736-1] (no packageset) (sync)
[18:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted llvm-toolchain-snapshot [sync] (artful-proposed) [1:6.0~svn315736-1]
[18:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sagemath (artful-proposed/universe) [8.0-8ubuntu2 => 8.0-8.1~build1] (no packageset)
[18:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sagemath [source] (artful-proposed) [8.0-8.1~build1]
[18:48] <rbasak> If not already considered, please could the security team consider wpa in artful unapproved? It seems likely a fairly important fix to me. Perhaps 0-day SRUable, but users installing with wifi available would still be affected (though maybe not catastrophically because apt will maintain integrity).
[18:55] <LocutusOfBorg> +1
[19:04] <rbasak> Uh, I meant the release team
[19:04] <rbasak> Also, I'd like the fix on my laptop pretty please :)
[19:05] <tsimonq2> +1 on wpa
[19:06] <tsimonq2> infinity: Might it be worth a respin or is that out of the question?
[19:07] <valorie> I don't see that it's accepted yet?
[19:07] <valorie> +1 for speedy release in whatever means necessary
[19:07] <tsimonq2> I can justify a respin for Lubuntu, and we may not be the only flavor to consider doing that if it's thrown in the right place.
[19:08] <valorie> I've not gotten an update yet at least in artful
[19:08] <nacc> rbasak did say "in artful unapproved"
[19:08] <tsimonq2> valorie: Yep, a member of the release team needs to accept it into Artful.
[19:08] <nacc> as the archive is frozen, the release team has to accept it still
[19:08] <tsimonq2> nacc: Right...
[19:09] <valorie> oops, sorry, right
[19:09] <valorie> see that now
[19:09] <nacc> feels like we're all in basic agreement :)
[19:10] <tsimonq2> I personally feel like it should be ushered through and a global respin should be done.
[19:10] <valorie> +1
[19:10] <tsimonq2> But that is not my decision to make. :)
[19:10] <valorie> although that means our tests have to be redone
[19:10] <valorie> but then that is expected
[19:11] <tsimonq2> While that is true, in my opinion the benefits outweigh the downsides.
[19:12]  * flocculant adds voice for Xubuntu on that
[19:16] <valorie> tsimonq2: amen to that
[19:17] <bdmurray> infinity, sil2100: cdimage still mentions using i386 images http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/daily-live/current/
[19:18] <tsimonq2> Speaking of cdimage, I think bashfulrobot was having some issues of some sort? Ping. ;)
[19:19] <rbasak> I'm not necessarily saying that the release team _should_ accept it. I just think they should consider it. I don't know the reasons why it might be a bad idea :)
[19:21] <tsimonq2> True. Of course, it's their final decision. But if Lubuntu has the option I'd like it in the 17.10 ISOs. (I'm not sure if a respin would pull it in if it was thrown into artful-updates)
[19:30] <GrindamN> Howdy everyone
[19:45] <sil2100> bdmurray: on the sprint we decided to still build i386 images but not publishing them for milestones
[19:46] <valorie> sil2100: how will testing be done then?
[19:46] <valorie> daily images only?
[19:56] <bdmurray> sil2100: The instructions say "use the i386 images instead. Choose this if you are at all unsure." I think the "use the i386 images" is hard enough that putting that there is not a great idea.  The second part should definitely be removed.
[19:58] <valorie> in Kubuntu we got rid of that wording quite awhile ago
[19:59] <valorie> most people who need i386 know to look for it, because they are using rather old machines
[19:59] <wxl> yeah and for many lubuntu users that wording is still relevant
[19:59] <valorie> yes
[20:00] <valorie> but our users in for instance Taiwan are largely i386 users
[20:02] <sil2100> valorie: there will be no testing of the i386 images as those are no longer 'supported'
[20:02] <sil2100> For Ubuntu
[20:03] <sil2100> Flavors can, of course, support it if they wish :)
[20:03] <sil2100> bdmurray: yeah, I guess we need to get that changed indeed
[20:05] <valorie> sil2100: thanks for clarifying
[20:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (artful-proposed/partner) [1:20171010.1-0ubuntu1 => 1:20171016.1-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[20:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (xenial-proposed/partner) [1:20171010.1-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 => 1:20171016.1-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (no packageset)
[20:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (trusty-proposed/partner) [1:20171010.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1 => 1:20171016.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1] (no packageset)
[20:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: adobe-flashplugin (zesty-proposed/partner) [1:20171010.1-0ubuntu0.17.04.1 => 1:20171016.1-0ubuntu0.17.04.1] (no packageset)
[20:10] <wxl> waaaait a minute
[20:11] <wxl> will i386 images be provided at all?
[20:11] <sil2100> For main Ubuntu? No
[20:11] <chrisccoulson> hi, could somebody please approve those flash/partner uploads please? (and copy them from proposed to release once they're built)
[20:11] <wxl> let me rephrase :)
[20:12] <wxl> will the canonical machinery be building i386 images for the flavors that want them or are they left to their own devices to deal with this?
[20:12] <sil2100> Machinery will be building i386 images for flavors that want those images, so yes
[20:12] <sil2100> There is no change for flavors
[20:12] <valorie> good
[20:12] <wxl> ok, phew
[20:13] <sil2100> We only stopped building the i386 images for Ubuntu Desktop :)
[20:13] <valorie> that was my understanding; good to hear it confirmed
[20:13] <wxl> so theoretically we (flavors) could test the i386 images during the milestones
[20:13] <valorie> still available for server images, netboot etc.?
[20:13] <wxl> and theoretically the flavor milestones for i386 would still be published
[20:13] <wxl> ohhh good question re: netboot
[20:14] <valorie> because occasionally I have to direct someone to that route
[20:14] <wxl> ditto
[20:15] <sil2100> Server - yes, netboot - here I would guess yes as well, but I don't know much about those parts yet
[20:15] <valorie> cool
[20:15] <wxl> ubuntu desktop only does beta milestones right? or just the final one?
[20:16] <sil2100> wxl: final beta and the final release
[20:16] <wxl> and of course even during alpha milestones amd64 images will be floating about, but the process will be largely community supported as it has been, so we can just add our i386 images to that. so yeah, i don't think there will be much of a change
[20:17] <wxl> works for me thx :)
[20:17] <wxl> if you do find anything about netboot (i don't know who's in charge) in that they have no plans to support i386, i'm sure flavor teams would be willing to take that on together
[20:18]  * valorie nominates tsimonq2
[20:21] <sil2100> I mean, I didn't hear anything about anyone not wanting netboot i386 which is why I just assume we'll leave those as is
[20:21] <infinity> We build netboot for all arches we build binaries for.
[20:21] <infinity> For a variety of reasons.
[20:23] <jbicha> some of you flavors should consider dropping i386 support too :)
[20:23] <infinity> I don't disagree.
[20:23] <infinity> Dropping i386 images today is a nice way to signal a soft transition to a future where we stop building i386 debs.
[20:23] <wxl> i see that as reasonable, except for lubuntu. we'll be the last to go, when all support it completely dropped.
[20:24] <wxl> suffice it to say, it would probably be wise to start discussing it
[20:24] <flocculant> start?
[20:24] <infinity> Continue?
[20:24] <wxl> with the community
[20:24] <flocculant> I thought it was ongoing for cycles :)
[20:24] <wxl> the team has been discussing it for a while
[20:24] <flocculant> anyway - we're thinking about it - but likely post-18.04
[20:30] <valorie> possibly we'll have to do that as well for kubuntu
[20:31] <valorie> however I really would not like to lose some of our enterprise users such as Munich and Taiwan
[20:31] <infinity> valorie: You have "enterprise" users who use hardware more than 15 years old?
[20:32] <valorie> infinity: in Taiwan, lots of old computers even in government offices
[20:32] <infinity> That's.... Bizarre.
[20:32] <infinity> But also, anecdotes like that are why I'm now collecting hard data on the matter.
[20:32] <valorie> there has been a major push to get those users off xp and even older windows versions onto free software
[20:33] <valorie> the same might be true in India where we just picked up another -- also government offices
[20:33] <valorie> in Assam
[20:34] <valorie> each of them has a specialized respin with a smaller offering of applications
[20:34] <valorie> pretty much libreoffice plus a few others
[20:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-software (artful-proposed/main) [3.26.1-0ubuntu1 => 3.26.1-0ubuntu2] (ubuntu-desktop)
[20:35] <infinity> I mean, eventually, 32-bit builds will just become unmaintainable, because programmers are terrible, their software is even worse, and we can't afford to fix everything that everyone else breaks due to not having the hardware.
[20:35] <valorie> infinity: true
[20:35] <valorie> but poor people have few options
[20:35] <valorie> I assume as more new machines become available second-hand, that will slowly change
[20:36] <wxl> i think it should be less of an issue for kubuntu, since you're not necessarily designing for low spec machines. honestly, kubuntu is best experienced with all the bells and whistles cranked to 11 XD
[20:36] <valorie> it's amazing how people make do
[20:36] <wxl> yeah i mean jeez if you look at all the xp and older machines out there.. it's kind of frightening
[20:36] <wxl> makes KRACK look like no big deal XD
[20:36] <valorie> wxl: it's become lighter and more efficient over time
[20:36] <dax> kde scales down to crap hardware pretty well these days.
[20:37] <valorie> my travel laptop works pretty well
[20:37] <wxl> i wasn't trying to say it was heavy
[20:37] <dax> not least because "old computer" in 2017 is a lot faster than "old computer" a decade ago
[20:37] <valorie> even with touchscreen, etc.
[20:37] <wxl> just that it's not meant to be light
[20:37] <wxl> exclusively, i mean
[20:37] <valorie> right
[20:38] <wxl> i mean we run kubuntu on crap machines at work and they do wonderful, but at times i've been prone to turn off compositing, etc. for people
[20:38] <valorie> now that plasma will run on phones.... it's lost some fat
[20:38] <valorie> of course my phone is much more powerful than my first computer
[20:38] <wxl> :)
[20:38] <wxl> mine too
[20:39] <wxl> i had *128 kB* of RAM
[20:40]  * valorie had 80k baby
[20:41] <wxl> niiice
[20:41] <valorie> Coleco ADAM
[20:41] <wxl> mine was a C128
[20:41] <valorie> 300 baud and I was online
[20:41] <valorie> oops, we are off-topic
[20:41] <valorie> sorry
[20:41] <wxl>  /join #ubuntu-release-offtopic XD
[20:41] <wxl> (not really)
[20:41] <valorie> lol
[20:41] <nacc> heh
[21:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted autopkgtest [sync] (artful-proposed) [5.0.2]
[21:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted edubuntu-docs [source] (artful-proposed) [11.03.3]
[21:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sugar-calculate-activity [sync] (artful-proposed) [44-3]
[21:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (artful-proposed) [1:20171016.1-0ubuntu1]
[21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-software [source] (artful-proposed) [3.26.1-0ubuntu2]
[21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted qemu [source] (artful-proposed) [1:2.10+dfsg-0ubuntu3]
[21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted graphicsmagick [sync] (artful-proposed) [1.3.26-15]
[21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted wpa [source] (artful-proposed) [2.4-0ubuntu10]
[21:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lmbench (zesty-proposed/multiverse) [3.0-a9-1.3 => 3.0-a9-1.3ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)
[21:49] <tsimonq2> So I see src:wpa was approved.
[21:49] <tsimonq2> What's the plan of action?
[21:49] <nacc> tsimonq2: this might be worth an e-mail to ensure everyone sees it?
[21:52] <tsimonq2> nacc: Sure, I can send it in a bit.
[21:52] <infinity> nacc: The plan of action is to only let it migrate if we have a better reason for a re-spin, otherwise it'll be shunted to security/updates.
[21:52] <infinity> Err.
[21:52] <infinity> tsimonq2: ^
[21:52] <infinity> nacc: What's worth an email?
[21:53] <nacc> infinity: that discussion you just had :)
[21:53] <tsimonq2> infinity: I honestly think it's a good reason for a respin.
[21:53] <infinity> nacc: Yeah, I disagree. :)
[21:53] <nacc> infinity: fair enough :)
[21:53] <infinity> Not sending out emails for everything I accept.
[21:53] <infinity> tsimonq2: No it's not.
[21:53] <nacc> infinity: oh no, sorry, not for that
[21:53] <nacc> infinity: to discuss the respinn with the flavors
[21:53] <nacc> or something
[21:53] <nacc> since not all are online right now, i'd assume
[21:53] <infinity> tsimonq2: Installer images, by their very frozen-in-time nature, are full of security issues.
[21:53] <nacc> heh
[21:55] <infinity> (ie: I'm not going to panic to respin the last xenial point release for this either)
[21:55] <tsimonq2> infinity: How many people do you think might put Ubuntu something-or-other-maybe-flavor on a USB drive once it's released and expect to be able to connect to WiFi with secure HTTPS? :P
[21:55] <tsimonq2> I mean, just saying.
[21:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lmbench (xenial-proposed/multiverse) [3.0-a9-1.1 => 3.0-a9-1.1ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)
[21:56] <infinity> https isn't broken by this.
[21:56] <tsimonq2> But as far as I can tell, https can be bypassed by this.
[21:56] <jbicha> infinity: hmm, is 16.04.4 happening soon?
[21:57] <infinity> jbicha: In 3 months.
[21:57] <jbicha> ok, I'll probably forget by then :)
[21:57] <infinity> tsimonq2: How?
[21:58] <tsimonq2> infinity: mdeslaur (or any other security team people) could probably answer that question better than I.
[21:58] <dax> it "breaks https" only insofar as you can MITM connections and sslstrip. which is a property of all hostile networks and not worth noting in 2017
[21:59] <infinity> tsimonq2: This is a protocol "wire" attack.  Yes, you could come up with a scenario where I attack an *unecrypted* stream of yours to inject malware, which you then run locally, which then keylogs and scrapes your SSL work locally, pre-encryption.  But that's a far cry (and more far-fetched) from "bypassing https".
[22:00] <infinity> Anyhow, we will probably find some other reason for a respin and render the point moot, but anyone who thinks "I burned an ISO from 2 months ago, and haven't done security updates, it must be perfectly secure" is just plain wrong, and I can't fix that with one last-minute update.
[22:01] <infinity> So, no, security updates are not a valid reason to trigger a respin.
[22:01] <infinity> Even when they have scary media-friendly names. :)
[22:01] <tsimonq2> infinity: But should people be able to expect that if they install it on release day that it should be secure?
[22:02] <infinity> Nope.
[22:02] <infinity> That's why we have 0-day updates.
[22:02] <infinity> People should expect that if they're up-to-date, we're done our best.
[22:02] <nacc> and why there are security updates in general it feels like
[22:02] <tsimonq2> Alright.
[22:02] <tsimonq2> infinity: Then I rest my case.
[22:03] <infinity> Don't fret, someone's bound to find a bunch of installer bugs (or maybe fix that nouveau/displayport thing in time) or some such.
[22:04] <infinity> But if not, it'll be sitting in -security, and either ticking the "download updates during install" box, or just updating post-reboot will be fine.
[22:04] <tsimonq2> (Watch this be the one (unfortuately rare) release that it doesn't happen. :P)
[22:04] <infinity> And people who install an OS on an untrusted network (and I'd consider any WiFi in sniffing range of your neighbours to count) probably get what they ask for.
[22:05] <jbicha> why does "download updates during install" only install security updates?
[22:05] <infinity> Was just telling sil2100 about my experience installing WinXP, connected to dial-up in Australia back in 2003.  Was compromised and rootkitted before I ever got a chance to run Windows Updates.
[22:05] <tsimonq2> Wow.
[22:06] <infinity> And never since have I installed an OS without a trusted network between me and the internet (ie: a wire and a firewall).
[22:06] <tsimonq2> jbicha: Does it?
[22:07]  * infinity -> breakfast.
[22:11] <rbasak> I don't trust my WPA wifi network.
[22:11] <rbasak> It has stuff like my TV on it.
[22:11] <rbasak> Which has never had a security update to my knowledge, so might as well be treated as owned by some malicious attacker somewhere.
[22:15] <Bashing-om> rbasak: " The following packages will be upgraded: dkms wpasupplicant . " :)
[22:46]  * sil2100 EOD
[22:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: flashplugin-nonfree (artful-proposed/multiverse) [27.0.0.159ubuntu1 => 27.0.0.170ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[22:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted flashplugin-nonfree [source] (artful-proposed) [27.0.0.170ubuntu1]
[23:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu Server Subiquity amd64 [Artful Final] (20171016) has been added
[23:34] <bashfulrobot> Hey infinity - I hear you are the one to talk to. looks like when pullign eth Ubuntu Budgie ISO via Rsync, all people are gettign an error.
[23:34] <bashfulrobot> Running : rsync -zhhP rsync://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-budgie/daily-live/current/artful-desktop-amd64.iso
[23:34] <bashfulrobot> Now unless I fudged that command...
[23:35] <bashfulrobot> results in: @ERROR: Unknown module 'ubuntu-budgie'
[23:35] <bashfulrobot> rsync error: error starting client-server protocol (code 5) at main.c(1666) [Receiver=3.1.2]
[23:35] <bashfulrobot> I had a few people try this on different machines. Same issue
[23:37] <bashfulrobot> I'm just about to jump in my car - will check in once I get home.