[00:01] <tyhicks> fwiw, it just clicked with me why it should go through -security
[00:01] <tyhicks> I want the libseccomp SRU for snappy enablement but it is also for bug #1682102
[00:02] <tyhicks> that bug affects all HWE users including those that disable -updates
[00:02] <tyhicks> going through -security is the only way to reach them and get the bug fixed
[00:03] <tyhicks> that infi nity sure is a smart guy
[00:06] <slangasek> tyhicks: he doesn't highlight mid-message, you can compliment infinity all you want with no fear of it going to his head
[00:07] <tyhicks> slangasek: good to know for future insults, as well ;)
[02:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libseccomp (xenial-proposed/main) [2.2.3-3ubuntu3 => 2.3.1-2.1ubuntu2~16.04.1] (core) (sync)
[02:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libseccomp [sync] (xenial-proposed) [2.3.1-2.1ubuntu2~16.04.1]
[02:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-meta [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.361.1]
[02:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-meta [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.379.1]
[02:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-meta [source] (artful-proposed) [1.404.1]
[05:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evqueue-core [amd64] (bionic-proposed/none) [2.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evqueue-core [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/none) [2.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evqueue-core [s390x] (bionic-proposed/none) [2.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evqueue-core [armhf] (bionic-proposed/none) [2.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evqueue-core [i386] (bionic-proposed/none) [2.0-1] (no packageset)
[05:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: evqueue-core [arm64] (bionic-proposed/none) [2.0-1] (no packageset)
[07:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted evqueue-core [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [2.0-1]
[07:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted evqueue-core [armhf] (bionic-proposed) [2.0-1]
[07:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted evqueue-core [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [2.0-1]
[07:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted evqueue-core [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [2.0-1]
[07:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted evqueue-core [s390x] (bionic-proposed) [2.0-1]
[07:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted evqueue-core [i386] (bionic-proposed) [2.0-1]
[08:34] <LocutusOfBorg> please accept ldc if possible
[08:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ldc [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [1:1.5.0-1]
[08:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ldc [i386] (bionic-proposed) [1:1.5.0-1]
[08:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ldc [armhf] (bionic-proposed) [1:1.5.0-1]
[08:40] <infinity> LocutusOfBorg: Done.
[08:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ldc [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [1:1.5.0-1]
[08:52] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks!
[12:05] <cpaelzer> hi, we are still unsure why the trusty portion of bug 1657256 is still in unapproved
[12:05] <cpaelzer> missed on SRU or a reason that has to be fixed
[12:05] <cpaelzer> rbasak: if you are around you'd be on SRU today and know most of the context already - if you could take a look later on?
[12:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [amd64] (artful-proposed) [9-2ubuntu0.17.10.1]
[12:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [armhf] (artful-proposed) [9-2ubuntu0.17.10.1]
[12:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [arm64] (artful-proposed) [9-2ubuntu0.17.10.1]
[12:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [i386] (artful-proposed) [9-2ubuntu0.17.10.1]
[12:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [source] (zesty-proposed) [9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1]
[12:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupdate (zesty-proposed/main) [9-1 => 9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1] (core)
[12:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupdate (zesty-proposed/main) [9-1 => 9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1] (core)
[12:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupdate (zesty-proposed/main) [9-1 => 9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1] (core)
[12:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupdate (zesty-proposed/main) [9-1 => 9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1] (core)
[12:19] <xnox> Laney, i think i did something bad.... somehow systemd/235-2ubuntu2 is not in http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/running and there are no results either. It's as if it did not get triggered at all?
[12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupdate-signed (zesty-proposed/main) [1.13 => 1.13ubuntu0.1] (core)
[12:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1]
[12:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1]
[12:20] <apw> xnox, did you check again, there is a window where it is between the queue and the runners
[12:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1]
[12:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate [i386] (zesty-proposed) [9-1ubuntu0.17.04.1]
[12:21] <xnox> apw, deffo.
[12:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected fwupdate-signed [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.13ubuntu0.1]
[12:22] <xnox> apw, plus given the length of our queues things should have been either done (emptish arm/s390x/power) or still be in the queue (i386/amd64) or have results in. and it's been 21h now since it publised in proposed with all binaries.
[12:23] <Laney> dunno, busy debugging lcy01, maybe someone else can look in the journal
[12:24] <xnox> Laney, i was thinking, there is no self-service way to retrigger those, apart from coming up with the links myself, right?
[12:24]  * xnox can script that.
[12:25] <xnox> then again no rush, given the queue lengths and fixing lcy01 will fix the world.
[12:26] <Laney> retry-autopkgtest-regressions --state=RUNNING
[12:26] <Laney> oops
[12:26] <Laney> that might have been me accidently deleting them
[12:27] <xnox> ah, that retry is nice one!
[12:27] <xnox> meh, no harm done deleting them.
[12:27] <Laney> I think there was an ubuntu1 that wasn't done and I wanted to delete that
[12:27] <Laney> but typoed and put ubuntu2
[12:28]  * Laney was trimming superseded requests out of the queue
[12:29] <slashd> o/ sil2100 are we still good for u-a-t release today ?
[12:32] <Laney> xnox: you need RUNNING-ALWAYSFAIL too
[12:32] <Laney> or is it ALWAYSFAILED? can't quite remember
[12:33] <xnox> Laney, well, i'll wait for just systemd one to pass, before spamming with reverse deps.... as systemd itself has not been passing.
[12:33] <Laney> okey dokey
[12:35] <sil2100> slashd: yes
[12:35] <sil2100> ;)
[12:35] <slashd> sil2100, ok ;) thanks
[12:35] <sil2100> slashd: I'll eat lunch, take a look at the test results and consider releasing
[12:36] <slashd> sil2100, sound good to me, have a good lunch
[12:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupdate-signed [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.13ubuntu0.1]
[12:38] <sil2100> Thanks o/
[12:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected fwupdate-signed [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.11.2]
[12:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted bind9 [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-8ubuntu1.9]
[12:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted bind9 [source] (zesty-proposed) [1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-10.1ubuntu5.3]
[13:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mdadm [source] (xenial-proposed) [3.3-2ubuntu7.6]
[13:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mdadm [source] (trusty-proposed) [3.2.5-5ubuntu4.4]
[13:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted langford [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.0.20130228-5ubuntu1~16.04.1]
[13:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libvirt [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.3.1-1ubuntu10.15]
[13:25] <cpaelzer> thanks
[13:26] <arges> : )
[13:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libvirt [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.5.0-3ubuntu5.6]
[14:06] <sil2100> slashd: ok, I like that each series got at least 2 testers do the testing
[14:06] <sil2100> slashd: do you know if anyone else was doing some dogfooding of it on xenial?
[14:14] <slashd> sil2100, yeah I ask more than 1 ppl to test
[14:14] <slashd> sil2100, yeah they test various stuffs
[14:14] <slashd> for xenial
[14:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cups (artful-proposed/main) [2.2.4-7ubuntu2 => 2.2.4-7ubuntu3] (core)
[14:59] <cking> apw, it seems that zfs-linux is blocked on a lxd s390x test case failure "error: wrong number of subcommand arguments",  this is unrelated to zfs-linux .  The zfs-linux regression tests pass all OK, so I think it's fine for releasing
[14:59] <cking> https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-bionic/bionic/s390x/l/lxd/20171107_222111_4ead8@/log.gz
[15:00] <cking> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/bionic/update_excuses.html#zfs-linux
[15:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libclc (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.2.0+git20170213-1~16.04.1 => 0.2.0+git20170330-4~16.04.1] (no packageset)
[15:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: camp [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.8.1-2] (no packageset)
[15:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zeroc-ice [s390x] (bionic-proposed/universe) [3.6.4-1+buster] (cli-mono)
[15:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: camp [i386] (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.8.1-2] (no packageset)
[15:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: camp [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.8.1-2] (no packageset)
[15:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zeroc-ice [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/universe) [3.6.4-1+buster] (cli-mono)
[15:38] <slangasek> doko: did you happen to see that the icu transition entangles haskell?
[15:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: camp [armhf] (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.8.1-2] (no packageset)
[15:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: camp [arm64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [0.8.1-2] (no packageset)
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted camp [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [0.8.1-2]
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted camp [armhf] (bionic-proposed) [0.8.1-2]
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted camp [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [0.8.1-2]
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted camp [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [0.8.1-2]
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted camp [i386] (bionic-proposed) [0.8.1-2]
[15:48] <tjaalton> infinity: seems that new mesa + a backported patch fixes a cert blocker bug, so the xenial backport is now more important to get in -proposed soon
[15:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zeroc-ice [i386] (bionic-proposed/universe) [3.6.4-1+buster] (cli-mono)
[15:51] <doko> slangasek: yes :-/
[15:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mesa (xenial-proposed/main) [17.0.7-0ubuntu0.16.04.2 => 17.2.4-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (core, xorg)
[15:52] <doko> and gnustep, but that one is now done
[15:52] <doko> and libva
[15:56] <tjaalton> doko: hi, what do you need (from me) to fix bug 1722162 in xenial?
[15:58] <dgadomski> hi rbasak, could you please approve cups for artful (bug 1729910)?
[16:00] <rbasak> dgadomski: sorry, I've not been able to work much time recently so I'm not doing SRU reviews right now
[16:00] <doko> tjaalton: did you test the fix?
[16:00] <tjaalton> doko: no :)
[16:00] <tjaalton> guess I'll do that first
[16:00] <doko> that would be good. and then maybe we should keep the binutils-2.26 package in trusty in sync
[16:01] <dgadomski> rbasak: sure, no worries
[16:01] <tjaalton> ok
[16:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sssd (xenial-proposed/main) [1.13.4-1ubuntu1.8 => 1.13.4-1ubuntu1.9] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[16:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zeroc-ice [armhf] (bionic-proposed/universe) [3.6.4-1+buster] (cli-mono)
[16:13] <apw> cking, did the lxd guys say that was their fault ?
[16:14] <cking> apw, nope. but if one looks at the failure log, it looks like a lxd specific test failure and nowt do to with zfs
[16:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: casablanca (artful-proposed/universe) [2.9.1-1 => 2.9.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[16:17] <cking> stgraber, did you see that the lxd test are failing: https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-bionic/bionic/s390x/l/lxd/20171107_222111_4ead8@/log.gz
[16:17] <cking> ..and this is stopping zfs-linux from landing in bionic
[16:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: zeroc-ice [arm64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [3.6.4-1+buster] (cli-mono)
[16:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (artful-proposed) [4.13.0-17.20]
[16:45] <stgraber> cking: replied to your e-mail, it's likely going to go away with the retry but since we have a multi-days queue, it's going to take a while
[16:46] <cking> stgraber, ah, that makes sense now, thanks
[17:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted resolvconf [source] (trusty-proposed) [1.69ubuntu1.2]
[17:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-xdg-basedir [amd64] (bionic-proposed/none) [3.0.0-1] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: scotch [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/universe) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2] (no packageset)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: scotch [amd64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2] (no packageset)
[17:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: scotch [s390x] (bionic-proposed/universe) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2] (no packageset)
[17:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: scotch [i386] (bionic-proposed/universe) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2] (no packageset)
[17:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: scotch [arm64] (bionic-proposed/universe) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2] (no packageset)
[17:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: scotch [armhf] (bionic-proposed/universe) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2] (no packageset)
[17:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: mesa (artful-proposed/main) [17.2.2-0ubuntu1 => 17.2.4-0ubuntu1~17.10.1] (core, xorg)
[17:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-xdg-basedir [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [3.0.0-1]
[17:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted scotch [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2]
[17:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted scotch [armhf] (bionic-proposed) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2]
[17:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted scotch [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2]
[17:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted scotch [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2]
[17:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted scotch [s390x] (bionic-proposed) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2]
[17:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted scotch [i386] (bionic-proposed) [6.0.4.dfsg1-2]
[17:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xorg-server-hwe-16.04 (xenial-proposed/main) [2:1.19.3-1ubuntu1~16.04.4 => 2:1.19.5-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (no packageset)
[18:27] <tjaalton> doko: binutils was already tested on a staging ppa, I just forgot about it..
[18:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: binutils (xenial-proposed/main) [2.26.1-1ubuntu1~16.04.5 => 2.26.1-1ubuntu1~16.04.6] (core)
[18:35] <slangasek> doko: and libical seems to be confused about timezones, only on 32-bit archs?
[18:39] <doko> slangasek: right, and I prepared libical3, which doesn't have this issue anymore. so the current issues are the ftbfs caused by qt (mit ya wanted to have a look), and libreoffice (tests are already ignored on some other archs)
[18:40] <doko> and haskell-blogliterately has the arm64 issue
[18:40] <slangasek> ok
[18:41] <slangasek> yes, I've removed the blogliterately binaries already
[18:47] <doko> slangasek: and I didn't check the libva status, but eod for me here
[18:47] <slangasek> ack, cheers
[19:23] <slangasek> infinity: is there a reason ubuntu-core daily builds are disabled in nusakan cron?
[19:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (artful-proposed/main) [2.478 => 2.478.1] (desktop-core)
[19:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (xenial-proposed/main) [2.408.22 => 2.408.23] (desktop-core)
[19:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: livecd-rootfs (zesty-proposed/main) [2.441.8 => 2.441.9] (desktop-core)
[19:50] <sil2100> bdmurray, slangasek: hey! Could anyone of you review my livecd-rootfs SRUs in artful, zesty and xenial?
[20:00] <bdmurray> sil2100: I could in a bit
[20:02] <sil2100> bdmurray: thanks!
[20:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nplan (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.29~16.04.1 => 0.31~16.04.1] (no packageset)
[20:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nplan (zesty-proposed/main) [0.29~17.04.1 => 0.31~17.04.1] (core)
[20:42] <sil2100> bdmurray: hmmm, I see something strange going on with one of the xenial SRUs in the queue
[20:43] <bdmurray> ?
[20:43] <sil2100> bdmurray: maybe you know what's causing this - when I'm trying to review nvidia-graphics-drivers-304, LP seems to have a really huge debdiff of that package from a previous version (one from release instead of -updates)
[20:44] <bdmurray> sil2100: which release?
[20:44] <sil2100> bdmurray: xenial
[20:44] <sil2100> bdmurray: I did a debdiff against the -updates version and the changes look sane
[20:45] <sil2100> bdmurray: I guess I can just accept it, maybe it's an LP bug?
[20:45] <sil2100> bdmurray: the .changes file looks correct, but it's like LP diffed against the wrong thing
[20:46] <slangasek> maybe the version currently in -updates was uploaded via security, so its publishing history doesn't match?
[20:46] <sil2100> hm, might be that
[20:48] <bdmurray> Yeah, sounds like an LP issue.
[20:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: resolvconf (trusty-proposed/main) [1.69ubuntu1.2 => 1.69ubuntu1.3] (core)
[20:58] <infinity> slangasek: core dailies are disabled cause I wanted to find out first if there's a series 18 core that they'll be building against.
[20:59] <slangasek> infinity: k.  I'm re-enabling, we're currently doing 16 daily builds using the devel toolchain and want to continue doing that until there's a reason to change
[21:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-characters (artful-proposed/universe) [3.26.1-1 => 3.26.2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntugnome)
[21:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: binutils [i386] (bionic-proposed/main) [2.29.1-7ubuntu1] (core)
[21:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell (artful-proposed/main) [3.26.1-0ubuntu5 => 3.26.2-0ubuntu0.1] (desktop-extra, mozilla, ubuntu-desktop)
[21:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: binutils [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [2.29.1-7ubuntu1] (core)
[22:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (artful-proposed/main) [2.0.8-0ubuntu1~17.10.1 => 2.0.8-0ubuntu1~17.10.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[22:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.8-0ubuntu1~17.04.1 => 2.0.8-0ubuntu1~17.04.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[22:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (xenial-proposed/main) [2.0.8-0ubuntu1~16.04.1 => 2.0.8-0ubuntu1~16.04.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[22:17] <stgraber> those 3 fix an SRU regression currently in -proposed, would be great to have them accepted soon ^
[22:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted binutils [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [2.29.1-7ubuntu1]
[22:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted binutils [i386] (bionic-proposed) [2.29.1-7ubuntu1]
[22:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apport (artful-proposed/main) [2.20.7-0ubuntu3.1 => 2.20.7-0ubuntu3.2] (core)
[22:36] <infinity> slangasek: So, yeah.  When I did the cdimage bits, I ran across your core_series bit, and made >= bionic be 18.  But of course, that just affects publishing, not the build.  Looks like livecd-rootfs will need to mirror that change (which is icky).
[22:36] <infinity> slangasek: Maybe now that we (are about to) have two core series', we should look at cleaning that up so it's only defined once and magically passed around.
[22:39] <slangasek> infinity: ah.  ok, we should revert that until such time as there is an 18, I think?
[22:39] <slangasek> which has remained an open question
[22:39] <infinity> slangasek: Perhaps s/revert/comment/ or something, but sure.
[22:41] <slangasek> infinity: we want to continue building edge dailies of 16, with the most up-to-date toolchain available, which is bionic.  Does LP even recognize series 18 yet?
[22:41] <slangasek> (for snap builds)
[22:41] <slangasek> I assume not
[22:41] <nacc> slangasek: it is not presented as an option in the web UI
[22:41] <nacc> slangasek: but then againn, neither is Bionic yet
[22:42] <nacc> (under Series)
[22:42]  * slangasek nods
[22:42] <infinity> slangasek: Yeah, I'm sure that's a thing that still needs sorting.
[22:42] <slangasek> yeah, it would definitely be premature for lp to expose series 18 before it's been defined by the snapd team
[22:42] <infinity> slangasek: Reverting my change will still leave you broken, as you'd (correctly, IMO) ranged series-16 as 16.04 <= >= 17.10
[22:43] <infinity> slangasek: But yes, we can just mangle that to "everything is 16" for now.
[22:43]  * slangasek nods
[22:44] <slangasek> infinity: the only reason I'm saying to mangle to "everything is 16" is that I've heard hesitation in person about what/when series 18 happens.  also, livecd-rootfs might poooossibly have series=16 hardcoded.
[22:45] <infinity> slangasek: livecd-rootfs definitely has 16 hardcoded, which I mentioned above. :)
[22:45] <slangasek> right
[22:46] <slangasek> we talked about moving this into launchpad-buildd instead of indirecting through livecd-rootfs... do we still think that's a good idea?
[22:46] <infinity> slangasek: OTOH, I could (and am about to) argue that for series where series != LTS, mapping series to core-series seems to have no sane meaning.
[22:46] <infinity> slangasek: Like, I would think the goal is to build 16 from 16.04 and 18 from 18.04, not to build 16 from 17.10 tools.
[22:46] <infinity> (As in, all the tools needed should be in xenial or we've oopsed)
[22:47] <infinity> I mean, we don't test that 'DIST=bionic VERSION_ACTUALLY=xenial build-a-thing' works for any other image types.  Why is core special?
[22:48] <slangasek> infinity: this is an optimization to reduce SRU drag, which even for livecd-rootfs alone still matters
[22:48] <slangasek> the only things that are actually in the release in question which factor into the image build are livecd-rootfs, ubuntu-image, and e2fsprogs
[22:49] <infinity> slangasek: Do you view it as temporary until $something has stabilised?  Upending the "we build a release on the release" thing we do for one project feels gross.
[22:50] <infinity> slangasek: And it's about to go strangely sideways when 16 and 18 do both exist, but you still want 16 test builds, since you're both arguing that "release we build on" and "target release" aren't coupled while you couple them. :)
[22:50] <infinity> (Well, "couple" in the rather progressive polyamorous sense here)
[22:51] <infinity> Anyhow, before conversation continues, fixing the current state to work as expected.
[22:52] <slangasek> infinity: yes, it's a temporary thing to save time while developing, not a design constraint
[22:53] <slangasek> if and when series 18 exists, I would switch to building on xenial
[22:53] <infinity> slangasek: Kay.  For now, >= bionic now also thinks it's 16.
[22:53] <infinity> slangasek: It's a 1-line revert to get it back to 18.
[22:54] <slangasek> also, if we did actually move the ubuntu-image logic out of livecd-rootfs into launchpad-buildd; and if we switched to using the ubuntu-image snap instead of deb (which we can do now, and should do); then there are zero SRUs involved in updating the tooling for ubuntu-core builds
[22:54]  * infinity nods.
[22:55] <infinity> And then the series<>core mapping could exist in just the one place in cdimage, I imagine.
[22:55] <infinity> And only there because we're silly and doing DIST=xenial build-core ... Which we don't have to do.  We could rethink that as a different set entirely (like rtm, etc)
[22:56] <infinity> Though, it has advantages being mapped to the current in-devel LTS, I suppose.
[22:56] <infinity> If we care about tracking testing with the iso tracker for future images or some such.
[22:59] <slangasek> well, we have a bug open about the fact that the banners we produce for the core image webpages are also wrong
[23:34] <cjwatson> infinity,slangasek: Gustavo indicated to the store team at the rally that non-16 series are currently considered an escape hatch rather than something that's definitely going to happen in e.g. LTS-like cycles (letting snaps use stuff from bionic will AIUI be done using the upcoming base snaps instead)
[23:34] <cjwatson> so we have no current plans to introduce series 18
[23:40] <tsimonq2> Nice, so autopkgtesters being slow are blocking the Qt transition...
[23:41] <slangasek> cjwatson: right, that was my understanding as well
[23:42] <slangasek> tsimonq2: yes, that happens when we sync thousands of packages at cycle opening that all need testing ;)  If there are tests you see in the queue that are pointless because they'll be superseded by later more complete tests, though, let us know and we can prune the queue
[23:44] <tsimonq2> slangasek: If only the autopkgtesters had some sort of intelligent queue, so that package foo that isn't seeded, is in Universe, and is known to fail runs after package bar that is seeded in a couple flavors, is in Main, and should pass
[23:52] <infinity> cjwatson: Ahh, I hadn't been involved in these new and improved conversations on the matter.