=== wgrant_ is now known as wgrant
=== maclin1 is now known as maclin
=== Guest5394 is now known as Laney
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator (artful-proposed/main) [17.10.1 => 17.10.2] (no packageset)08:16
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [3.13.0-135.184] (core, kernel)08:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [3.13.0-135.184]08:45
oSoMoNgood morning release team09:14
oSoMoNcan gdm3 3.26.1-3ubuntu3 migrate from -proposed to -updates?09:15
oSoMoNthe SRU has been verified and marked as such09:15
apwoSoMoN, is that safe to release on its own ?09:17
apwoSoMoN, and as it has not yet hit its SRU minimum age, do we ahve a justification for expediting it09:18
* apw notes that he believe that gdm3 and gnome-session must move together09:21
didrocksoSoMoN: apw: FYI, I just saw the first report of people upgrading and getting fallback to gnome classic (can impact some users on upgrade, which is what the gdm/gnome-session fixes are for)11:02
oSoMoNapw, sorry I somehow missed your questions earlier… gdm3 and gnome-session should move together indeed11:08
sil2100Yeah, I'm about to publish those two now11:09
oSoMoNapw, and as pointed out by Didier, this SRU addresses an upgrade path, so the sooner the better11:09
oSoMoNsil2100, excellent, thanks!11:09
sil2100apw: I'll handle it, I more-or-less approve of the skip-aging exception and I know the context11:10
apwsil2100, ack thanks11:13
andreasrbasak: hi,where is your merges report for the server team again? Somewhere in reports.qa.ubuntu.com, but I lost the link11:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.14]11:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [arm64] (xenial-proposed) [2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.14]11:58
xnoxsil2100, can you release systemd from xenial-proposed into xenial-updates?12:04
sil2100xnox: I'm in the middle of reviewing the bugs just now12:04
xnoxah, thanks.12:05
xnoxsil2100, although some bugs affect nplan too, systemd & nplan srus can land independent of each other.12:05
sil2100Ok, good to know, since I see 2 still unverified for the nplan one12:06
rbasakandreas: http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server/merges.html12:25
andreasyep, thx12:25
sil2100xnox: could you take a look at the autopkgtests related to systemd on zesty?12:28
sil2100xnox: I didn't look at them yet but I see there's quite some, wonder if any are related12:28
xnoxsil2100, yes, but not now. it took me a while to resolve all of tests on xenial.12:29
xnoxsil2100, none are related as far as i can tell, but needs hints / overrides / bugs filed. which is what i did for xenial.12:29
xnoxbut not yet on zesty.12:30
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apturl (artful-proposed/main) [0.5.2ubuntu12 => 0.5.2ubuntu13] (ubuntu-desktop)13:48
slashdsil2100, good day, are you guys accepting patch in Artful, even if 'Bb' not totally publicly define yet ?13:57
clivejowhen does the Busty Booby archive open?14:07
jbichaclivejo: it can't open without a name, and then usually it takes a few days to update the toolchain (compiler, dpkg, etc.)14:09
clivejosomeone not poke Mark with a big stick?14:10
LocutusOfBorgmark stopped giving names a few releases ago IIRC14:11
jbichaI believe he still picked artful, he just didn't blog about it14:12
clivejowho picks now?14:12
clivejohe hasn't blogged in over a year14:13
clivejois he still alive?14:13
jbichahe still picks name and he is very much still alive, he posted on twitter last week https://twitter.com/sabdfl14:14
acheronukhe was on BBC News 24 the other week14:16
acheronukclivejo: https://youtu.be/eGj7eagbUNg14:18
clivejocould be a robot impersonating him :/14:21
sil2100slashd: that's a hard question! I'm a bit too much of a freshman in the SRU/release teams to say what's the rule here, but I'd say it's possible if the fix is important14:22
slashdsil2100, ack tks ;)14:23
ogra_clivejo, yeah, it is actualy an IoT robot running UbuntuCore, if we dont put the sabdfl costume on it, it looks like http://media.pennlive.com/food/photo/robot-1ca28a1d05691962.jpeg14:23
sil2100slashd: anyway, I'd say yes if it matches the SRU standards ;)14:23
slashdsil2100, anyway 'Bb' will be copied over artful right ?14:24
slashdso 'Bb' will have the SRU'd patch anyway if my understanding is good14:24
cjwatsonogra_: I'm pretty sure that if I walked into a store and saw that, I'd turn around and walk right out again and look for a pub instead14:24
cjwatsonin order to forget14:24
sil2100Yeah, but best if you also ask someone from SRU+release with more experience14:24
sil2100I mean, it will have it then but I'm not sure if it's all formally acceptable14:25
slashdsil2100, sure I'll wait then, it's not critical ;)14:25
slashdthanks sil210014:25
apwslashd, artful is open for SRUs, when BB opens it will start from whatever is in A14:45
slashdapw, sil2100 ^ thanks14:46
slashdddstreet, ^14:46
LocutusOfBorgapw, also -proposed pocket?15:13
LocutusOfBorgwhat happens if it gets rejected?15:13
apw-propsoed gets copied to bb-proposed too yes15:13
apwif somethign getrs rejected it might have gotten into bb, and you get to fix that too15:14
apwmuch as you would now if bb was open, you'd upload it there, upload a backport to aa, that would fail, you would fix bb and re-upload aa15:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-control-center (artful-proposed/main) [1:3.26.1-0ubuntu4 => 1:3.26.1-0ubuntu5] (ubuntu-desktop)15:28
LocutusOfBorgack thanks15:31
bdmurrayslangasek: Could you review my cracklib2 SRU?16:47
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: resolvconf (xenial-proposed/main) [1.78ubuntu4 => 1.78ubuntu5] (core)16:47
slangasekbdmurray: yep, looking16:49
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cracklib2 [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.9.2-3ubuntu1]16:52
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cracklib2 [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.9.2-1ubuntu1]16:53
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lshw (artful-proposed/main) [02.18-0.1ubuntu3 => 02.18-0.1ubuntu4] (core)16:55
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lshw (zesty-proposed/main) [02.18-0.1ubuntu3 => 02.18-0.1ubuntu3.1] (core)17:12
bdmurrayslangasek: I'm seeing some upgrade failures due to unity being blacklisted - that seems like a no brainer right?17:26
slangasekbdmurray: blacklisted?17:38
bdmurrayslangasek: blacklisted for removal17:38
slangasekunity, not unity8?17:39
bdmurrayslangasek: yes, just unity17:39
slangasekI agree that it should no longer be in the blacklist; I am surprised that having it blacklisted is causing upgrade problems17:40
bdmurrayYeah it was fine in my testing17:40
slangasekexample failure?17:41
bdmurrayBut is it worth digging into?17:41
slangasekit's probably worth a small amount of digging17:41
ubot5Ubuntu bug 1726255 in ubuntu-release-upgrader (Ubuntu) "do-release-upgrade failed to upgrade from 17.04 to 17.10" [Undecided,New]17:41
slangasekbdmurray: looks like ubuntu-session Breaks: on old hud/unity packages is what's causing the unexpected removal; I'd suggest logging a bug against ubuntu-session for the desktop team to look at, and get their sign-off on dropping the blacklist17:45
bdmurrayslangasek: bug 1681231 is v-done for zesty if you want to fast track it19:49
ubot5bug 1681231 in apt (Ubuntu) "package cracklib-runtime 2.9.2-3 failed to install/upgrade: dependency problems - leaving triggers unprocessed" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/168123119:49
slangasekbdmurray: agreed, releasing, thanks20:07
smoserhey. so if i was going to upload cloud-init to x, z, a i could/should do that ?20:45
smoserand then just deal with anything about 'b' later on ?20:46
naccsmoser: in theory, if it gets into aa before bb opens, it'll get copied forward20:47
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (artful-proposed/main) [17.1-18-gd4f70470-0ubuntu1 => 17.1-25-g17a15f9e-0ubuntu1~17.10.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)21:17
blackboxswhere we go for real21:17
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (zesty-proposed/main) [17.1-18-gd4f70470-0ubuntu1~17.04.2 => 17.1-25-g17a15f9e-0ubuntu1~17.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)21:25
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (xenial-proposed/main) [17.1-18-gd4f70470-0ubuntu1~16.04.2 => 17.1-25-g17a15f9e-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)21:28
=== maclin1 is now known as maclin
bdmurrayslangasek: durh, the unity blacklist issue is due to not having universe enabled.22:13
slangasekbdmurray: oh, wellthen22:15
slangasekbdmurray: sounds like a valid user setup and that unity should be removed in that case, no?22:16
bdmurrayslangasek: Yes.22:16
jbichapersonally, I think we *should* have marked unity for autoremoval, but we'll need the rest of the Desktop Team to weigh in on that22:20
bdmurrayslangasek: I'm going test and upgrade w/ universe enabled and unity not blacklisted just to be safe before thinking about an SRU.22:27

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!