/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2019/07/08/#ubuntu-release.txt

-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.0.0-21.22~18.04.1] (kernel)07:00
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.0.0-21.22~18.04.1] (kernel)07:00
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [arm64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.0.0-21.22~18.04.1] (kernel)07:01
LocutusOfBorghello, is autosync having a sad day?07:04
UkikieI believe that debian-archive-keyring needed an update.07:16
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-21.22~18.04.1]07:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-21.22~18.04.1]07:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-21.22~18.04.1]07:57
LocutusOfBorggeneral question: docker.io i386 test started failing because of "lxc launch ubuntu-daily:eoan/i386 docker -c security.nesting=true"08:26
LocutusOfBorgis that normal? maybe daily i386 builds are not ship anymore? so can we skip such test?08:26
LaneyLocutusOfBorg: Talk to stgrabe_r or the LXD team, and find out. If it's dropped, stop running that test on i386 IMHO.08:28
LocutusOfBorgI think mapreri rbalint or amurray might want to ask ^^ (you all have some packages that are failing that test in -proposed) :)08:33
* Laney sees the work slide off LocutusOfBorg's shoulders08:34
LocutusOfBorgmeh, I'm getting usually blamed for trying to fix other people's uploads :) but I pinged him on -devel, my question here in -release channel wanted to be more general, such as "will we badtest all i386 in the next days, or something similar?"08:36
LaneyI dunno what the i386 plan is with respect to autopkgtest actually08:41
Laneynobody's talked to me about it08:41
Laneyso carry on for now08:42
LocutusOfBorgmaybe this is not an issue, not sure... we might have a bunch of stuff migrating if we badtest i38608:42
sil2100Laney: hey! This might be nothing, but I noticed that the pending-sru report hasn't been updated since Saturday - could you log into snakefruit for me and check if all is good with sru-report there?08:45
Laneysil2100: ok, but I don't know where that's logged08:45
sil2100Laney: I guess it should be ran via cron? I don't know if the output is logged anywhere, hmm08:46
sil2100Laney: since sru-report usually just outputs the html webpage to stdout08:46
Laneywe get cron spam in the mailbox08:46
Laneylet me see08:46
Laneyif not I can just run it I guess08:46
cjwatsonLocutusOfBorg,Ukikie: yes, this is on my list to sort out today08:47
cjwatson(autosync)08:47
cjwatsonLaney: it wouldn't be surprising if some stuff on snakefruit hung during Friday's network outage08:48
cjwatsoncheck start times and kill them if they're ancient08:48
LaneyI think there's a stuck process08:48
* Laney nods cjwatson 08:48
Laneywe had that with proposed-migration too08:48
sil2100Laney, cjwatson: thanks guys o/08:49
sil2100Since sru-report ran fine when I was running it locally08:49
Ukikiecjwatson: That's what your remarks in -devel seemed to indicate, thanks btw. :)08:50
Laneysil2100: Let's see if it works in 15 minutes08:55
sil2100Laney: it works o/10:18
dokofinally, gcc-8 doesn't try to promote again \o/11:42
stgraberLaney, LocutusOfBorg: if it's using ubuntu-daily, then those are the official cloud images, not the images that the LXD team generates, so not much I can do about those13:02
stgraberfor the ones that we generate ourselves, we do have i386 for eoan still (images:ubuntu/eoan/i386)13:02
Laneyah right13:27
Laneyof course I can't generate an i386 autopkgtest image myself now for the same reason13:34
Laneyso like should we turn off i386 testing for eoan?13:35
Laneythis does feel a bit cart before horse though13:53
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lazr.restfulclient (xenial-proposed/main) [0.13.4-5ubuntu1 => 0.13.4-5ubuntu2] (core)13:55
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lazr.restfulclient [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.13.4-5ubuntu2]14:12
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libfm-qt [source] (disco-proposed) [0.14.1-0ubuntu2.1]14:54
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: openjdk-14 (eoan-proposed/primary) [14~4-0ubuntu1]15:24
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted openjdk-14 [source] (eoan-proposed) [14~4-0ubuntu1]15:25
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cinder (bionic-proposed/main) [2:12.0.7-0ubuntu1 => 2:12.0.7-0ubuntu2] (openstack, ubuntu-server)15:36
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted aptdaemon [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.1.1+bzr982-0ubuntu14.1]15:43
vorlonLaney: based on conversations w/ LP team, I expect we will want to use an amd64 image with i386 binaries installed via multiarch for testing; this of course isn't viable for all the packages that exist today and want testing16:14
Laneyvorlon: Something like that sounds good, if that is how we're to be using i386, yes. That'd require work to make possible, of course. I'm still worried that stopping image production before we've really got going on any of the work for this was premature...16:44
cjwatsonI thought I remembered us saying in London that the autopkgtest work needed to be done before the images were dropped17:23
cjwatsonICBW but it would seem like the sort of thing I'd say :)17:24
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: openjdk-14 [s390x] (eoan-proposed/universe) [14~4-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)17:28
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: openjdk-14 [armhf] (eoan-proposed/universe) [14~4-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)17:31
vorlonLaney: certainly; in practice the images were dropped per the original plan, before we changed course17:53
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: openjdk-14 [i386] (eoan-proposed/universe) [14~4-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)18:10
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted openjdk-14 [armhf] (eoan-proposed) [14~4-0ubuntu1]18:40
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted openjdk-14 [s390x] (eoan-proposed) [14~4-0ubuntu1]18:40
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted openjdk-14 [i386] (eoan-proposed) [14~4-0ubuntu1]18:40
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: base-files (disco-proposed/main) [10.1ubuntu9 => 10.1ubuntu9.1] (core)18:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: base-files (cosmic-proposed/main) [10.1ubuntu7 => 10.1ubuntu7.1] (core)18:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: base-files (bionic-proposed/main) [10.1ubuntu2.4 => 10.1ubuntu2.5] (core)18:45
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: designate (bionic-proposed/main) [1:6.0.1-0ubuntu1 => 1:6.0.1-0ubuntu1.1] (openstack, ubuntu-server)18:53
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: openjdk-14 [amd64] (eoan-proposed/universe) [14~4-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)18:57
Laneyvorlon: ok, cool, so is there a chance they can be put back on then?19:22
Laney(afk now; attempting a crossgrade - if you never see me again it was nice to work with you all)19:22
vorlonLaney: in principle, though rcj might shoot me19:23
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: base-files (xenial-proposed/main) [9.4ubuntu4.8 => 9.4ubuntu4.9] (core)19:34
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: edk2 (cosmic-proposed/universe) [0~20180803.dd4cae4d-1ubuntu1 => 0~20180803.dd4cae4d-1ubuntu1.1] (no packageset)19:36
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted openjdk-14 [amd64] (eoan-proposed) [14~4-0ubuntu1]19:37
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected base-files [source] (xenial-proposed) [9.4ubuntu4.9]19:38
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: edk2 (bionic-proposed/universe) [0~20180205.c0d9813c-2 => 0~20180205.c0d9813c-2ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)19:45
infinityvorlon: Being shot is a small price to pay.20:02
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nova (disco-proposed/main) [2:19.0.1-0ubuntu1 => 2:19.0.1-0ubuntu2] (openstack, ubuntu-server)21:17
vorlonok so what's going on with ppc64el auotpkgtests?21:42
vorlonLaney: I see that there are no bos01 runner units on the master, but I see no commits related to this in autopkgtest-cloud, no local changes to the checkout, and no discussion of this in scrollback21:52
vorlonjuliank: ^^ do you know anything?21:52
Laneyvorlon: bos01 is busted, see cRT #11933921:55
Laneysorry if I forgot to document it21:55
vorlonok21:55
LaneyI was going to go to IS office hours tomorrow and ask for it to be worked on21:55
Laneybut feel free to give it a 999999999999 or whatever21:56
vorlonwell, it seems I can only set a deadline on that queue :P21:57
vorlonwhich is not the most helpful21:57
Eickmeyerbdmurray: I further updated the test case on bug 183370 per sil2100's request. I have further updated the test case since you seem to be confused (or have confused me), so I hope it's crystal clear now.22:01
ubot5bug 183370 in Me TV "Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_link_button_new_with_label: assertion `uri != NULL' failed" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/18337022:01
Eickmeyerer... bug 183374022:01
ubot5bug 1833740 in ubuntustudio-installer (Ubuntu Disco) "[SRU] Option in ubuntustudio-installer pulling-in gdm3" [Medium,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/183374022:01
Eickmeyerbdmurray: ^22:01
* Eickmeyer accidentally a number22:01
bdmurrayEickmeyer: I'm not confused about the test case I'm curious what you did to verify that the bug is fixed which lead you to tagging it verification-done-disco.22:05
Eickmeyerbdmurray: I did exactly what I just commented.22:05
bdmurrayEickmeyer: Generally I expect to see something like "I installed ubuntustudio-installer version 1.2.3 from -proposed and I saw that ubuntustudio-gnome-branding was no longer an option".22:06
Eickmeyerbdmurray: ack, do you need that exact comment?22:07
bdmurrayNo, this conversation will do for me but do you under the distinction between the test case and the verification process?22:08
Eickmeyerbdmurray: I do understand. Comment #5 was in reference to comment #3.22:11
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mu-editor [source] (disco-proposed) [1.0.2+dfsg-2ubuntu0.1]22:59
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted pulseaudio [source] (disco-proposed) [1:12.2-2ubuntu3.1]23:05

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