[02:08] <Logan> if you were the one who uploaded an SRU fix, can you mark it as verification-done if you've verified the fix works? Or does it have to be a different person?
[02:08] <sarnold> I think it's considered poor form but I haven't seen any actual rules against it
[02:09] <teward> there's a couple cases where I've done it
[02:09] <teward> but they were minor changes or just changing a default config file option
[02:09] <Logan> hmm, okay. I think I'll give it a week or so to see if the original bug reporter verifies it, and I'll verify it otherwise
[02:09] <teward> and sarnold has seen at least two of those such SRU 'fixes' I uploaded which I approvified.
[02:09] <Logan> since I would like to see this fix pushed out
[02:09] <sarnold> it's hard enough to get folks to help test though :(
[02:09] <teward> sarnold: especially with more obscure things
[02:10] <sarnold> yeah
[02:10] <teward> sarnold: 'course when it's nginx I give a pretty good test case to run through
[02:10] <teward> then anyone can
[02:10] <Logan> either of you running Cosmic and want to verify? :P It's not very obscure. It's getting reportbug to work
[02:10] <sarnold> and half the time the reporter has reinstalled or gave the machine away or something
[02:10] <teward> sarnold: or, it's security related and i bother you all anyways
[02:10] <teward> Logan: sorry, I'm an LTS-follower, 18.04, not 18.10
[02:10] <Logan> :(
[02:10] <teward> i can maybe install a VM?
[02:10] <sarnold> Logan: I'm on bionic.. would it go in an lxd instance?
[02:10] <Logan> I don't want to make you do that, haha
[02:10] <Logan> I don't see why not?
[02:11] <teward> oh i can do that too *spin spin spin*
[02:11] <teward> got a test case and a bug # ?
[02:11] <Logan> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pysimplesoap/+bug/1794235
[02:12] <Logan> basically, reportbug -B debian fails in the current Cosmic install. When it tries to fetch current bugs from the Debian BTS for the source package you specified, it throws an error that it can't connect to the BTS
[02:12] <teward> blurgh, the ubuntu cloud images for LXD server is being slow
[02:12] <teward> sarnold: do I throw salt at stgraber for that or SA?
[02:12] <sarnold> probably stgraber.. funny thing, it started at 700kb/s for me but finished at 11MB/s
[02:14] <teward> it's lagging at 565kBps here
[02:14] <teward> and getting slower
[02:14] <teward> and I"m jacked into a gig ethernet uplink
[02:14] <sarnold> Logan: is there a standard "i'm just testing" package?
[02:14] <teward> with a gig internet speed :P
[02:17] <teward> Logan: or alternatively, do you have another test case for how we can test this that DOESN'T involve reportbug
[02:17] <teward> because Debian hates it when I test things on their prod infa
[02:17] <teward> infra*
[02:17] <Logan> sarnold: hmmm... anything should trigger it
[02:18] <Logan> gedit?
[02:18] <Logan> and then you can just skip putting in a version
[02:18] <Logan> teward: this isn't really testing on their prod infra - it's just starting to try to report a bug and failing :P
[02:18] <Logan> (I guess you could consider that testing, but still)
[02:18] <teward> ah
[02:18] <stgraber> teward, sarnold: cloud images (ubuntu: and ubuntu-daily:) come from cloud-images.ubuntu.com which is UK-only and can be overloaded...
[02:18] <teward> well i have 50 bugs to report so I mean :P
[02:18] <teward> stgraber: which could explain the slow speed
[02:19] <teward> stgraber: no mirrors I take it :|
[02:19] <stgraber> teward, sarnold: the community image server (images:) is geoip-ed with US and UK servers and tends to have much less of a bandwidth issue
[02:19] <teward> which explains the 30MBps I got for the Debian image heh
[02:19] <stgraber> there have been talks about getting Canonical IS to setup the same geoip environment for cloud-images.ubuntu.com, but not much progress has been done so far...
[02:22] <teward> Logan: is there a package sitting in proposed awaiting testing and verification?
[02:23] <Logan> that is correct
[02:23] <teward> ACK
[02:23] <teward> *test*
[02:23] <sarnold> Logan: does this look useful? https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/3trVMSHtpy/
[02:23] <sarnold> stgraber: oh cool, thanks
[02:24] <Logan> sarnold: not quite, unfortunately. Before installing the fixed version of python3-pysimplesoap, please try running "reportbug -B debian" (again, after configuration) and putting in a source package name and then a blank version. It should then fail to query the BTS
[02:24] <Logan> then, after installing the fixed python3-pysimplesoap, doing the same thing should show a list of bugs for that source package in the Debian BTS
[02:25] <teward> uhm....
[02:26] <teward> oh that's why  1 moment
[02:29] <sarnold> Logan: okay, I destroyped and started over.. it looks pretty similar :/ https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/4HGk5WCxw7/
[02:29] <teward> Logan: verified that it works, at least for Report Bug
[02:29] <teward> sarnold: test using 'nginx' as a target
[02:29] <teward> something you don't have installed
[02:30] <Logan> yeah, sarnold, where it said you had a newer version and you just exited out, that avoided the failure path
[02:30] <teward> you'll get the bug list pulled eventually.  and leave version string blank
[02:30] <teward> Logan: verification-done-cosmic (per my tests)
[02:30] <Logan> sweet, thanks teward! And thank you sarnold as well :)
[02:30] <teward> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/SpH22V25Td/
[02:31] <sarnold> d'oh :D
[02:31] <Logan> teward: and you reproduced the failure case before upgrading pysimplesoap?
[02:31] <sarnold> Logan: so, all good?
[02:31] <Logan> yup, I believe so :)
[02:31] <Logan> although I just found another bug
[02:31] <Logan> that will need another SRU
[02:31] <Logan> good times
[02:31] <sarnold> oh man
[02:32] <Logan> and it's in the same package!
[02:32] <sarnold> isn't that the way it always goes? every time I look at source code I find something.
[02:32] <teward> Logan: affirmative, as the case was stated :P
[02:32] <Logan> the Debian maintainer removed the egg info for the Python package for no explained reason
[02:32] <Logan> so if you try running the debianbts command, it fails because it can't find the distribution for pysimplesoap
[02:32] <Logan> that's an easy test case - just run that command, and it fails
[02:33] <Logan> teward: :)
[02:33] <Logan> and to be clear, it's broken in both the original version in Cosmic and in the SRU upload - not a regression from the SRU
[02:34] <teward> Logan: I'mma verification-done the SRU as is
[02:34] <Logan> ty!
[02:34] <teward> that way it can be 'acceptified'
[02:35] <teward> and yes i know that's not a word i've been drinking a little this evening sue me
[02:35] <Logan> :D
[02:36] <teward> bug updated
[02:37] <Logan> re the above that I just mentioned: I fixed pysimplesoap to actually install its egg-info, but it turns out that the debianbts command doesn't actually do anything. Yay?
[02:37] <Logan> ❯❯❯ debianbts
[02:37] <Logan> 2018-11-21 21:35:01,159 WARNING debianbts Not implemented yet, sorry!
[02:37] <Logan> glad they're installing a binary that's not implemented -_-
[02:38] <teward> lol...
[02:38] <Logan> (apparently the command I was thinking of is bts, which *is* implemented)
[06:23] <seb128> xnox, hey, thx for the systemd fix, I reported bug #1804584 with the SRU details etc
[07:29] <doko> jbicha: thanks for resetting the postgresql-common tests :-(((
[08:03] <tjaalton> seb128: please also nominate it for the series
[09:12] <seb128> tjaalton, that's a comment from a SRU team perspective? (others have not been asking for that and it's not documented on the wiki that nominations are required)
[09:47] <RAOF> tjaalton: the `sru-review` tool should automatically add an appropriate task (as long as there's at least one Ubuntu task already there)
[10:25] <tjaalton> seb128: yes, and true that it's not mentioned on the wiki
[10:26] <tjaalton> RAOF: ah, well having the nominations there would tell me to go look the other queues next
[10:27] <tjaalton> just that pretty much everyone else seem to add those :)
[11:38] <doko> jamespage: please have a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-oauth2client/+bug/1804606 there is an old MIR, but that expired.
[11:39] <jamespage> looking
[14:22] <jamespage> doko: cinder -> resource-agents (but lp keeps timing out on me)
[14:23] <doko> o python-googleapi: python3-googleapi
[14:23] <doko>    [Reverse-Recommends: resource-agents (MAIN)]
[14:23] <doko> so only a recommends?
[14:26] <doko> jamespage: make it a suggestion?
[14:29] <jamespage> doko: that might make sense yes
[14:30] <jamespage> just looking
[14:33] <jamespage> doko: yeah that will work fine
[14:33] <jamespage> doko: uploading now
[14:58] <doko> jamespage: ok, closing that report as invalid
[14:59] <jamespage> doko: ack - I think I already did that
[14:59] <doko> ta
[15:53] <mdeslaur> tkamppeter: are you working on ghostscript 9.26 in disco? I want to make sure I use your orig tarball for the stable releases
[21:35] <seb128> xnox, I'm about to close IRC/call it a day but just as a fyi, I commented on bug #1799364, that change is problematic and got reverted upstream since so I think we should rediscuss the issue before SRUing it
[21:36] <seb128> FourDollars, ^
[21:37] <seb128> bdmurray, oh, the unity-settings-daemon which was in xenial-proposed cleared off and migrated to update, if you could have another look to the one in the queue which we discussed the other day :)
[21:38] <seb128> oh that note calling it a day, see you tomorrow ubuntu-ers!