[00:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: cross-toolchain-base-ports [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [18ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[04:40] <tjaalton> slangasek: yes, it needs nss-pem which needs some static nss libs packaged to build
[04:46] <tjaalton> glandium refuses to package them, so i was thinking of taking it to the tech-ctte
[05:02] <tjaalton> but if the tests are blocking stuff, just ignore them for now..
[05:22] <slangasek> tjaalton: so nss-pem is only needed for the tests?
[05:28] <tjaalton> slangasek: no, it's needed for server install to pass
[05:29] <tjaalton> and useful on the client too, since certmonger needs it
[05:29] <tjaalton> when renewing certificates
[05:30] <slangasek> 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] <tjaalton> 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] <slangasek> tjaalton: not anymore, no
[05:48] <tjaalton> okay
[06:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: xorg-lts-transitional [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/none) [3:14] (no packageset)
[06:12] <tjaalton> cyphermox: any update on the review of pysmi/pycryptodome? bug 1748572
[06:12] <ubot5`> 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] <estan> infinity: ah, bugger.
[07:01] <estan> 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] <estan> it's strange that the armhf debian build succeeded fine though.
[07:12] <infinity> estan: If Debian's works and ours doesn't, there's a fair chance the issues are alignment-related.
[07:13] <infinity> 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] <infinity> 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] <tjaalton> 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] <infinity> 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] <infinity> tjaalton: You want wgrant or cjwatson.
[07:18] <infinity> tjaalton: (and probably #launchpad, not here, but meh)
[07:20] <tjaalton> ok
[08:31] <estan> 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] <cjwatson> 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] <tjaalton> filed FFE bug 1755717 for xcb-proto/libxcb
[08:49] <ubot5`> bug 1755717 in xcb-proto (Ubuntu) "FFE: xcb-proto/libxcb 1.13" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1755717
[09:41] <LocutusOfBorg> 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] <LocutusOfBorg> (except for one reporting the issue fixed in -proposed, marked as duplicate)
[09:41] <LocutusOfBorg> I'll redo all the tests today
[10:04] <sil2100> LocutusOfBorg: \o/ thanks!
[11:09] <rbalint> juliank: re: zstd for initramfs: sure, let's measure boot speed with it and lz4 and add support for the best
[11:10] <rbalint> juliank: imo decompression time is way more important than size in initramfs case
[11:22] <juliank> rbalint: there's no kernel support yet, we were a bit optimistic yesterday :(
[11:23] <rbasak> It's great that you're working on this.
[11:23] <rbasak> But I think it's premature for Bionic.
[11:23] <rbalint> juliank: :-)
[11:23] <rbasak> 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] <juliank> _I_ never said anything about doing that this cycle :D
[11:25] <juliank> the kernel patches from october or november have not been reviewed yet AFAICT
[11:25] <juliank> probably the submitter should resend them
[11:25] <juliank> If we want to do something _now_, it would be adding support for lz4 I guess.
[11:26] <apw> juliank, as in mainline has not yet taken them ?
[11:26] <juliank> 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] <juliank> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10003007/
[11:27] <juliank> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10003011/
[11:27] <juliank> 2017-10-12	 these are the latest oners
[11:27] <juliank> *ones I could find
[11:32] <juliank> 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] <infinity> 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] <xnox> 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] <xnox> please clean up bionic-proposed, from un-migrated kernel udebs
[15:41] <apw> xnox, looking
[15:49] <apw> xnox, wacked
[16:10] <apw> jamespage, percona-extradb-cluster-5.7 ... what is happening with that, is it replacing -5.6 ?
[16:11] <jamespage> apw: yep - raised a bug for the RM somewhere
[16:11] <jamespage> ubuntu-archive subbed
[16:11] <jamespage> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/percona-xtradb-cluster-5.6/+bug/1752373
[16:11] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 1752373 in percona-xtradb-cluster-5.6 (Ubuntu) "[RM] replaced by percona-xtradb-cluster-5.7 package" [Undecided,New]
[16:13] <apw> jamespage, ahh ok, thanks
[16:14] <xnox> jamespage, what about https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/percona-server-5.7 ? is that coming?
[16:15] <xnox> and ditto percona-server-5.6
[16:15] <apw> jamespage, and there is no issue with version skew with that and percona-server
[16:16] <jamespage> xnox: nope and I actually think we should drop ps-5.6
[16:17] <jamespage> apw: there should not be - have a missed something?
[16:17] <apw> jamespage, no information here, just asking
[16:17] <jamespage> ack no should be fine
[16:17] <xnox> apw, i think cluster & server are standalone things; and do not depend on each other.
[16:18] <xnox> jamespage, please file RM for ps-5.6 then. Old / unmaintained / not-desired.
[16:18] <xnox> request of maintainer; or some such
[16:27] <apw> jamespage, ok, cleared out
[16:42] <jamespage> xnox: ack will do
[16:42] <jamespage> apw: ta
[16:42]  * jamespage feels fresher already
[17:42] <slangasek> 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] <slangasek> jbicha: btw your bzr committer setting is missing a closing >
[17:43] <xnox> 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] <jbicha> bzr config fixed. I wonder how long that's been broken
[17:43] <slangasek> the commit doesn't mention migration, but lack thereof
[17:43] <jbicha> it was discussed briefly in #ubuntu-desktop today
[17:44] <jbicha> seb128: do you want to weigh in on gnome-calculator and friends? ^
[17:44] <xnox> 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] <jbicha> 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] <jbicha> Laney: or you? ^
[17:59] <Laney> yes we wanted to keep "officially" supporting those for upgraders
[18:00] <Laney> 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] <Laney> 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] <doko> tempted to remove make-dfsg from proposed ...
[23:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: beets (bionic-proposed/primary) [1.4.6-2]