| LocutusOfBorg | Unit193, yes, because I want to do the debian transition asap | 07:10 |
|---|---|---|
| Unit193 | Heh, it was on the TODO for today, but thanks! (I closed a couple other Debian bugs in the meantime, so all's good) | 07:11 |
| === mitya57_ is now known as mitya57 | ||
| LocutusOfBorg | doko, https://launchpadlibrarian.net/432385023/buildlog_ubuntu-eoan-armhf.sbcl_2%3A1.5.4-1_BUILDING.txt.gz | 09:33 |
| LocutusOfBorg | cc: error: unrecognized -march target: armv5 | 09:33 |
| LocutusOfBorg | cc: note: valid arguments are: armv4 armv4t armv5t armv5te armv5tej armv6 armv6j armv6k armv6z armv6kz armv6zk armv6t2 armv6-m armv6s-m armv7 armv7-a armv7ve armv7-r armv7-m armv7e-m armv8-a armv8.1-a armv8.2-a armv8.3-a armv8.4-a armv8.5-a armv8-m.base armv8-m.main armv8-r iwmmxt iwmmxt2 native; did you mean 'armv4'? | 09:33 |
| LocutusOfBorg | is that normal? | 09:33 |
| LocutusOfBorg | looks like it is https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GCC-9-Dropping-Older-ARM | 09:37 |
| LocutusOfBorg | maybe armv7 is the correct replacement? | 09:39 |
| === ricab is now known as ricab|bbl | ||
| doko | LocutusOfBorg: armhf is armv7 both in Debian/Ubuntu | 10:43 |
| === ricab|bbl is now known as ricab | ||
| === ricab is now known as ricab|lunch | ||
| doko | amurray, apw, infinity: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-9-cross/+bug/1836045 I haven't figured out the root cause yet. for now just rebuilding the c-t-b packages | 13:18 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1836045 in gcc-9-cross (Ubuntu) "ftbfs: gnat cross targeting powerpc" [High,Confirmed] | 13:18 |
| === ricab|lunch is now known as ricab | ||
| doko | infinity, apw: also https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1836064 | 13:32 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1836064 in linux (Ubuntu) "linux-5.2 (?) breaks the c-t-b builds" [Undecided,New] | 13:32 |
| apw | sforshee, ^ | 13:34 |
| sforshee | doko: I reponded on bug 1836064, looks like glibc has a fix upstream for that | 13:59 |
| ubottu | bug 1836064 in linux (Ubuntu) "linux-5.2 (?) breaks the c-t-b builds" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1836064 | 13:59 |
| sforshee | doko, infinity, amurray: while on the topic of kernel headers changes breaking glibc, I had also filed bug 1830044 a while back | 14:03 |
| ubottu | bug 1830044 in glibc (Ubuntu) "glibc 2.29-0ubuntu2 ADT test failure with linux 5.2.0-0.1" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1830044 | 14:03 |
| doko | sforshee: any idea about the powerpc constants? | 14:27 |
| sforshee | doko: looking | 14:35 |
| Laney | what's up with this dkms breakage? e.g. https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-eoan/eoan/amd64/o/oss4/20190708_225935_da9bd@/log.gz which is https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/QXfgjvDDnM/ | 15:03 |
| doko | Laney: duflu asked about that yesterday ... | 15:07 |
| Laney | doko: unfortunately we aren't the same person :( | 15:07 |
| doko | well, it was on #u-d: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2019-June/040741.html | 15:07 |
| doko | -desktop even | 15:08 |
| Laney | I've seen the announcement | 15:08 |
| Laney | is it expected that it breaks builds? | 15:09 |
| doko | yes | 15:09 |
| doko | anything that is not user space | 15:09 |
| Laney | might it be worth calling this out? | 15:13 |
| Laney | I see oss4-dkms and fwts-efi-runtime-dkms so far looking at the glib2.0 autopkgtest regressions | 15:13 |
| doko | don't call me, I'm neither security nor kernel | 15:20 |
| Laney | & are we expected to fix this or turn the flag off? if the latter, could dkms do that for us? | 15:20 |
| Laney | https://launchpadlibrarian.net/432423025/nvidia-graphics-drivers-430_430.26-0ubuntu2_430.26-0ubuntu3.diff.gz I see that tseliot1 turned it off there | 15:21 |
| Laney | amurray: ^--- | 15:21 |
| tseliot | I don't know if my message showed up, so I am going to write it again | 15:26 |
| tseliot | doko: did you notify the kernel team before making that change? | 15:27 |
| doko | tseliot: not my area, please ask security | 15:27 |
| doko | amurray: ^^^ | 15:27 |
| doko | tseliot: did the kernel team notify ubuntu-devel before uploading 5.2? | 15:28 |
| tseliot | doko: I don't deal with kernel releases. I only fix the nvidia dkms packages when they fail to build against a new kernel (usually, either in our PPA or in -proposed) | 15:30 |
| tseliot | doko: also, I don't see the point of that question, since I can reproduce the problem with Linux 5.0 | 15:31 |
| sforshee | tseliot: the kernel in -proposed add -fcf-protection=none to the kernel's retpoline flags to fix the issue, I've sent a patch upstream too | 15:32 |
| doko | tseliot: and I don't see the point why you are asking me ... | 15:32 |
| tseliot | sforshee: ok, that's good. Is that only for 5.2? (just so I know when I shouldn't apply my patch) | 15:33 |
| doko | something broken, must be doko ... | 15:33 |
| tseliot | doko: because of your name in the changelog? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-9/+bug/1830961/comments/14 | 15:34 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1830961 in virtualbox (Ubuntu) "Kernels & kernel drivers fail to build with gcc-9 [error: ‘-mindirect-branch’ and ‘-fcf-protection’ are not compatible]" [Critical,Confirmed] | 15:34 |
| sforshee | tseliot: so far it's only applied to 5.2, I'm not sure there's a reason to apply it to 5.0 now that 5.2 is in eoan-proposed | 15:34 |
| doko | tseliot: please read amurray's email about the hardening flags | 15:34 |
| Laney | sforshee: oho, so it should fix itself when that migrates? | 15:35 |
| sforshee | Laney: yes | 15:35 |
| Laney | nice | 15:35 |
| tseliot | sforshee: ok, I'll drop the patch when that is in then, thanks | 15:36 |
| tseliot | doko: I saw his email now. I imagine our testing framework caught the dkms failures with the new gcc, maybe when it was already in. Anyway, I'm glad it will be fixed soon. | 15:41 |
| doko | sforshee: do a fgrep -r SO_RCVTIMEO, for the 5.0 and 5.2 sources. It looks like all archs except powerpc were updated ... | 17:57 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, hey, on bug #1551623 the submitter replied to your comment pointing to a dpkg fix for triggers, maybe that would make sense to get instead (and SRU), can you get that one on the foundations agenda to discuss? | 18:58 |
| ubottu | bug 1551623 in gconf (Ubuntu) "[SRU] package gconf2 3.2.6-3ubuntu6 failed to install/upgrade: dependency problems - leaving triggers unprocessed" [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1551623 | 18:58 |
| bdmurray | seb128: Will do, thanks! | 19:01 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, thx! | 19:02 |
| seb128 | xnox, bug #1835968 claims to be a regression from your openssl 1.1 patch/SRU | 19:18 |
| ubottu | bug 1835968 in ruby2.5 (Ubuntu) "Regression in backported patch for openssl 1.1" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1835968 | 19:18 |
| seb128 | bdmurray, I never know, what's the best way to flag SRU regressions? | 19:19 |
| seb128 | just tagging the bug? | 19:19 |
| seb128 | that doesn't ping the SRU team members though right? e.g doesn't lead to have the bug reviewed in priority to decide what's the next action needed? | 19:20 |
| bdmurray | seb128: I think vorlon and I are both subscribed to regression-update tagged bug reports. | 19:22 |
| seb128 | ah ok, I didn't even know you could subscribe to a tag | 19:22 |
| seb128 | good to know, thx :) | 19:22 |
| vorlon | yep | 19:22 |
| bdmurray | lol, that's old | 19:22 |
| bdmurray | well my +subscriptions page is timing out | 19:24 |
| seb128 | same here :-/ | 19:25 |
| rbasak | TIL | 19:31 |
| tsimonq2 | I often wonder if that timeout threshold should be raised. | 19:31 |
| tsimonq2 | Some pages I expect to take some time to load. | 19:31 |
| Unit193 | doko: Re: dwz on compressed sections. I had found https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24725 upstream and presumed that sufficed, or did you specifically want one reported in Ubuntu(/Debian)? | 20:58 |
| ubottu | sourceware.org bug 24725 in default "[dwz] Support compressed debug sections" [Enhancement,New] | 20:58 |
| doko | Unit193: yep, but not much we can do downstream. There is discussion elsewhere if and when error codes should just be ignored | 21:37 |
| Unit193 | Indeed not, that's why I figured that was the best option. Some of the ruby team members were wondering if it'd be better to wait for dwz to be fixed, or fix it in ruby2.5. | 21:38 |
| doko | Unit193: does ruby compress debug sections by default? | 21:56 |
| Unit193 | doko: As noted in the other channel, for some odd reason yeah it's an upstream default. | 21:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!