[00:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: cross-toolchain-base-ports [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [18ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop) [04:40] slangasek: yes, it needs nss-pem which needs some static nss libs packaged to build [04:46] glandium refuses to package them, so i was thinking of taking it to the tech-ctte [05:02] but if the tests are blocking stuff, just ignore them for now.. [05:22] tjaalton: so nss-pem is only needed for the tests? [05:28] slangasek: no, it's needed for server install to pass [05:29] and useful on the client too, since certmonger needs it [05:29] when renewing certificates [05:30] well, then I'm not sure there's a point in ignoring the test failures to get the package into release... since these are the test failures [05:31] not freeipa itself, I thought it's blocking other things [05:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted cross-toolchain-base-ports [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [18ubuntu1] [05:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xorg-lts-transitional [source] (bionic-proposed) [3:14] [05:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xorg-lts-transitional [amd64] (bionic-proposed/none) [3:14] (no packageset) [05:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xorg-lts-transitional [arm64] (bionic-proposed/none) [3:14] (no packageset) [05:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xorg-lts-transitional [i386] (bionic-proposed/none) [3:14] (no packageset) [05:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xorg-lts-transitional [armhf] (bionic-proposed/none) [3:14] (no packageset) [05:47] tjaalton: not anymore, no [05:48] okay [06:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xorg-lts-transitional [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/none) [3:14] (no packageset) [06:12] cyphermox: any update on the review of pysmi/pycryptodome? bug 1748572 [06:12] bug 1748572 in pysmi (Ubuntu) "[MIR] pysmi, pycryptodome" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1748572 [06:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xorg-lts-transitional [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [3:14] [06:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xorg-lts-transitional [armhf] (bionic-proposed) [3:14] [06:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xorg-lts-transitional [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [3:14] [06:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xorg-lts-transitional [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [3:14] [06:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted xorg-lts-transitional [i386] (bionic-proposed) [3:14] [06:44] infinity: ah, bugger. [07:01] infinity: i'll have a go at those crashes when i'm at work, and i've alerted upstream (https://github.com/Blosc/c-blosc/issues/223) [07:05] it's strange that the armhf debian build succeeded fine though. [07:12] estan: If Debian's works and ours doesn't, there's a fair chance the issues are alignment-related. [07:13] estan: Debian runs on ARMv7 hardware with alignment fixups at runtime. We run on ARMv8 hardware that falls over on unaligned access with ARMv7 code. [07:14] estan: 9 times out of 10, that'll be a SIGBUS, not a SIGSEGV, but when you do it just wrong, segfaults occur, so my bet's on that. [07:16] is LP selective with it's debian mirror? some packages seem to not have "been picked up by LP yet", while newer ones have [07:16] estan: Upshot of caring about unaligned access is that it'll be a (very minor) performance increase on even x86 for upstream to fix it. :P [07:17] tjaalton: You want wgrant or cjwatson. [07:18] tjaalton: (and probably #launchpad, not here, but meh) [07:20] ok [08:31] infinity: ah ok. thanks for the input. i'm sure it's that then. the upstream author has also been sloppy with endianness in the past, so i wouldn't put alignment issues past him :) i see the failures are in the tests related to the shuffling that blosc does, where i think he twiddles around with bytes/bits. [08:34] infinity: are you still working on that dpkg SRU for .asc files in format 1.0? IIRC that's what tjaalton's problem is about [08:49] filed FFE bug 1755717 for xcb-proto/libxcb [08:49] bug 1755717 in xcb-proto (Ubuntu) "FFE: xcb-proto/libxcb 1.13" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1755717 [09:41] sil2100, good morning, seems that in less than 12h we got already a lot of happy people wrt vbox stack, and zero new bug founds [09:41] (except for one reporting the issue fixed in -proposed, marked as duplicate) [09:41] I'll redo all the tests today [10:04] LocutusOfBorg: \o/ thanks! [11:09] juliank: re: zstd for initramfs: sure, let's measure boot speed with it and lz4 and add support for the best [11:10] juliank: imo decompression time is way more important than size in initramfs case [11:22] rbalint: there's no kernel support yet, we were a bit optimistic yesterday :( [11:23] It's great that you're working on this. [11:23] But I think it's premature for Bionic. [11:23] juliank: :-) [11:23] If we hit a zstd edge case in initramfs unpack that causes failure, we'll have broken users with no automatic way for them to recover. [11:24] _I_ never said anything about doing that this cycle :D [11:25] the kernel patches from october or november have not been reviewed yet AFAICT [11:25] probably the submitter should resend them [11:25] If we want to do something _now_, it would be adding support for lz4 I guess. [11:26] juliank, as in mainline has not yet taken them ? [11:26] no maintainer has responded to them [11:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-117.141] (core, kernel) [11:27] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10003007/ [11:27] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10003011/ [11:27] 2017-10-12 these are the latest oners [11:27] *ones I could find [11:32] I guess I'll ping him and ask for a status update [11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-117.141] [11:45] cjwatson: Oh. Yes. Yes I am. By which I mean I wasn't, but I will today. [15:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-themes (xenial-proposed/main) [14.04+16.04.20171116-0ubuntu1 => 14.04+16.04.20180307-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop) (sync) [15:33] AAs old binaries left on amd64: kernel-signed-image-4.15.0-11-generic-di, linux-signed-image-4.15.0-11-generic, linux-signed-image-4.15.0-11-lowlatency (from 4.15.0-11.12) [15:33] please clean up bionic-proposed, from un-migrated kernel udebs [15:41] xnox, looking [15:49] xnox, wacked [16:10] jamespage, percona-extradb-cluster-5.7 ... what is happening with that, is it replacing -5.6 ? [16:11] apw: yep - raised a bug for the RM somewhere [16:11] ubuntu-archive subbed [16:11] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/percona-xtradb-cluster-5.6/+bug/1752373 [16:11] Ubuntu bug 1752373 in percona-xtradb-cluster-5.6 (Ubuntu) "[RM] replaced by percona-xtradb-cluster-5.7 package" [Undecided,New] [16:13] jamespage, ahh ok, thanks [16:14] jamespage, what about https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/percona-server-5.7 ? is that coming? [16:15] and ditto percona-server-5.6 [16:15] jamespage, and there is no issue with version skew with that and percona-server [16:16] xnox: nope and I actually think we should drop ps-5.6 [16:17] apw: there should not be - have a missed something? [16:17] jamespage, no information here, just asking [16:17] ack no should be fine [16:17] apw, i think cluster & server are standalone things; and do not depend on each other. [16:18] jamespage, please file RM for ps-5.6 then. Old / unmaintained / not-desired. [16:18] request of maintainer; or some such [16:27] jamespage, ok, cleared out [16:42] xnox: ack will do [16:42] apw: ta [16:42] * jamespage feels fresher already [17:42] jbicha: gnome-calculator is showing up on component-mismatches, I see that's because you seeded it with "upgrades" as a rationale; but we don't normally retain packages in main with "upgrade" as a rationale. And the metapackage won't depend on them anymore. Was this discussed somewhere? [17:42] jbicha: btw your bzr committer setting is missing a closing > [17:43] slangasek, i believe the package needs to be there, to perform deb -> snap migration no? [17:43] * xnox hopes there is no deb->snap complexities for gnome-calculator.... [17:43] bzr config fixed. I wonder how long that's been broken [17:43] the commit doesn't mention migration, but lack thereof [17:43] it was discussed briefly in #ubuntu-desktop today [17:44] seb128: do you want to weigh in on gnome-calculator and friends? ^ [17:44] promoting it back in, is contrary to the existing practice. so yeah, it is interesting to know what's different about gnome-calculator. [17:45] well there are 4 total apps, gnome-calculator was just the first one and the only one that had been fully demoted yet [17:51] Laney: or you? ^ [17:59] yes we wanted to keep "officially" supporting those for upgraders [18:00] I think they won't be marked for autoremoval, and I'm not sure of a way to keep them installed via a metapackage but if there is one we could do that [18:00] supporting as deb -> snap isn't something we are doing for 18.04 [18:05] * Laney is going, hopefully Seb can give you more information if you want it [19:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dpkg (xenial-proposed/main) [1.18.4ubuntu1.3 => 1.18.4ubuntu1.4] (core) [19:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted dpkg [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.18.4ubuntu1.4] [21:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pciutils (xenial-proposed/main) [1:3.3.1-1.1ubuntu1.1 => 1:3.3.1-1.1ubuntu1.2] (core) [21:57] tempted to remove make-dfsg from proposed ... [23:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: beets (bionic-proposed/primary) [1.4.6-2]