[03:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ruby2.5 (bionic-proposed/main) [2.5.1-1ubuntu1.4 => 2.5.1-1ubuntu1.5] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[03:25] <Ukikie> \o/
[06:58] <LocutusOfBorg> sorry bdmurray I fixed 4 packages and left one n in one of them...
[06:58] <LocutusOfBorg> feel free to correct!
[08:02] <Laney> LocutusOfBorg: we treat neutral like pass at the minute, which is not ideal
[08:02] <Laney> but nobody's gotten around to updating our copy of britney yet to have better handling there
[08:02] <Laney> ...
[08:29] <Laney> sil2100: I'll try to look this week btw (sorry for slow reply, was travelling back from .br)
[08:30] <Laney> but need to get some of GNOME 3.33.4 out really, so I have to work on that first
[08:30] <Laney> keep uncovering transitions and sub-transitions so it's a bit slow
[08:33] <sil2100> Laney: sure thing! Yeah, I can imagine that - anyway, thanks and good luck o/
[09:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-56.62~16.04.1] (kernel)
[09:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-56.62~16.04.1] (kernel)
[09:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-158.186] (core, kernel)
[09:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.15.0-56.62~16.04.1]
[09:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-158.186]
[09:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (xenial-proposed) [4.15.0-56.62~16.04.1]
[09:44] <LocutusOfBorg> please hint alt-ergo/*/armhf because it is not built there anymore
[09:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (disco-proposed/main) [5.0.0-23.24] (core, kernel)
[09:58] <LocutusOfBorg> please hint coyote/2019.02.25-1/ppc64el, regressed in release
[09:58] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, ^^ can you pleeease do the two hints?
[09:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.0.0-23.24~18.04.1] (kernel)
[09:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [ppc64el] (disco-proposed/main) [5.0.0-23.24] (core, kernel)
[09:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.0.0-23.24~18.04.1] (kernel)
[09:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-hwe [arm64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.0.0-23.24~18.04.1] (kernel)
[10:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-23.24~18.04.1]
[10:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [ppc64el] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-23.24~18.04.1]
[10:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-hwe [arm64] (bionic-proposed) [5.0.0-23.24~18.04.1]
[10:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (disco-proposed) [5.0.0-23.24]
[10:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [ppc64el] (disco-proposed) [5.0.0-23.24]
[10:02] <sil2100> LocutusOfBorg: eh, are you actually testing the changes you are releasing to ubuntu-image?
[10:02] <sil2100> LocutusOfBorg: because your latest upload will make the pep8 tests fail, since now there's 3 E501 line too long errors
[10:03] <sil2100> It's always best to submit one upload that fixes all issues than 5 uploads in a row
[10:04] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, alt-ergo appears to be attempting to build on armhf and fialing ?
[10:04] <sil2100> Especially that all it needs is running 'tox' on the source to see if the tests are clean
[10:20] <LocutusOfBorg> sil2100, I did test it
[10:20] <LocutusOfBorg> yes apw
[10:20] <LocutusOfBorg> it has been removed from Debian/armhf
[10:20] <apw> that isn't the same as no-longer-built-on-armhf
[10:21] <apw> but it has not been removed in the version we have
[10:21] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, update_excues is not complaining about "missing build on armhf"...
[10:22] <LocutusOfBorg> sil2100, you right, I ran flake8 . --count --select=E9,F63,F72,F82 --show-source --statistics
[10:22] <LocutusOfBorg> instead of flake8 . --count --show-source --statistics
[10:23] <LocutusOfBorg> I was focusing on the failing test...
[10:32] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, autopkgtest for gazebo/9.6.0-2: amd64: Pass, arm64: Regression ♻ , armhf: Regression ♻ , i386: Pass, ppc64el: Regression ♻ , s390x: Always failed
[10:32] <LocutusOfBorg> same here, it is an NBS now
[10:32] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, it is FTBFS on armhf, i assume it was not an architecture in the old version
[10:33] <LocutusOfBorg>  alt-ergo | 1.30+dfsg1-2         | disco/universe         | source, amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, s390x
[10:33] <LocutusOfBorg>  alt-ergo | 1.30+dfsg1-2         | eoan/universe          | source, amd64, arm64, i386, ppc64el, s390x
[10:33] <rbalint> my ppa's s390x libnfs tests on eoan don't show up, while i think one aready finished (tried running it several times) https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-eoan-rbalint-scratch3/?format=plain
[10:33] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, it was I guess, sorry but I don't follow you :)
[10:34] <rbalint> submit succeeded, am i doing it in the wrong way?
[10:34] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, it is all just a lot inconsistent with the world
[10:34] <LocutusOfBorg> rbalint, what is the line you do to trigger it?
[10:35] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, I think the new version has been removed from archive, the old one recopied before release, but without armhf
[10:35] <LocutusOfBorg> does it sound right?
[10:36] <LocutusOfBorg> rbalint your test is still running? http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/running
[10:37] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg, two is running, but i think i started 3
[10:37] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg, also i submitted the first around 12 hours ago
[10:39] <LocutusOfBorg> it's dead jim :)
[10:39] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg, :-)
[10:40] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg, now only one is running, maybe there is something with copying the results
[10:40] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg, start line https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=eoan&arch=s390x&package=libnfs&ppa=rbalint/scratch3&trigger=valgrind/1:3.15.0-1ubuntu1&trigger=libnfs/3.0.0-2ubuntu1~rbalint1
[10:42] <LocutusOfBorg> looks good to me
[10:43] <rbalint> it started the job fine, i just can't see the results
[10:44] <rbalint> LocutusOfBorg, i think i found the issue, a bad systemd is getting in from the ppa
[10:46] <rbalint> this should fix the reboot, i still should have got the logs even when the testbed fails to reboot
[10:46] <Laney> something in the dependencies or the PPA is making the test machine fail to come up and autopkgtest usually blames itself there rather than the maintainer
[10:46] <Laney> I can fix it so you get blamed :-)
[10:47] <rbalint> Laney, hm, interesting options
[10:47] <Laney> done, you should start to see results soon
[10:49] <rbalint> Laney, thanks, but if the machines fail to come up very often due to issues unrelated to packages i'm ok with keeping them configured that way
[10:50] <Laney> it's a per package switch
[10:50] <Laney> if you triggered with systemd this would already have happened
[10:50] <rbalint> Laney, so i got it for libnfs?
[10:50] <Laney> but PPAs always fulfil dependncies so you can get a bit unlucky there
[10:50] <Laney> yes
[10:51] <Laney> it basically assumes most packages aren't likely to break the boot themselves
[10:51] <LocutusOfBorg> can rbalint be blamed also for my faults 😂?
[10:51] <Laney> but clearly some do have that capacity
[10:51] <Laney> you see, rbalint was trying to test his packages before putting them in the archive
[10:51] <Laney> so he wins here :-)
[10:52] <rbalint> :-D
[10:52] <LocutusOfBorg> my problem is not about missing testing, is about bad testing :D
[11:14] <ginggs> would someone please 'force-badtest python-sparse/0.2.0-1/i386' ? - it has regressed in release
[11:14] <ginggs> also please 'force-badtest satpy/0.16.1-1'
[12:26] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, coyote isn't even in release to regress there
[12:28] <apw> ginggs, python-sparse seems to need 'six' to migrate if i am reading the testing right
[12:31] <ginggs> apw: ah i see LocutusOfBorg tested those together, i can do that for the new scipy
[12:33] <apw> ginggs, that one is less obvious but worth a shot; let me know
[12:39] <didrocks> LocutusOfBorg: I'm crossing finger for this upload of ubuntu-image to pass ;) I want to unblock grub2 :p
[13:10] <rbalint> RAOF, bdmurray: could you please release ubuntu-meta to disco in your sru cycles?
[13:21] <LocutusOfBorg> didrocks, I did upload for that reason...
[13:22] <LocutusOfBorg> force-badtest python-asdf/2.3.2-2/s390x <-- apw can you please bump that hint? 2.3.3-1 is the current version
[13:22] <LocutusOfBorg> autopkgtest for coyote/2019.02.25-1: amd64: Pass, arm64: Pass, armhf: Pass, i386: Pass, ppc64el: Regression ♻ , s390x: Pass
[13:22] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, ^^ not sure why but autopkgtests things this is a regression=
[13:22] <didrocks> LocutusOfBorg: yeah, I bet ;) still 20 minutes to go, let's see
[13:23] <LocutusOfBorg> didrocks, it is fine
[13:24] <LocutusOfBorg> I tested on ppa
[13:25] <didrocks> ah great, thanks for this! :)
[13:32] <LocutusOfBorg> the first failure was tested with pep8, but I introduced another because I tested only that specific code
[13:32] <LocutusOfBorg> the second one was tested with ppa
[13:52] <ginggs> apw: http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/p/python-sparse/eoan/i386 passed when triggered with six \o/
[13:52] <apw> ginggs, that is a thing at least
[13:53] <ginggs> apw: did you look at satpy?  it seems to have regressed in release on all archs
[13:55] <apw> ginggs, i did not, is that a six consumer by any chance
[13:56] <ginggs> apw: hmm, yes
[13:57] <apw> ginggs, so perhaps a retest of something against that just in case it is a slew of the same thing
[13:57] <ginggs> apw: trying now, thanks
[14:55] <LocutusOfBorg> didrocks, enjoy your new grub
[15:03] <didrocks> LocutusOfBorg: yep, got the email ;)
[15:09] <bdmurray> rbalint, RAOF: I've released ubuntu-meta
[15:11] <RAOF> Thanks! I'm at the roadmap sprint, so a bit less SRUy than my normal Wednesday 😀
[15:12] <ginggs> apw: triggering with six didn't help the satpy tests
[15:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected ruby2.5 [source] (bionic-proposed) [2.5.1-1ubuntu1.5]
[15:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1019.21~16.04.1] (kernel)
[15:45] <slashd> sil2100, can you look at makedumpfile in excuse page for ppc64el. seems like it doesn't find a crashdump in /var/crash and fails, but it doesn't seem related to the change I have sponsored, since same problem with eoan-proposed version -1 : http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/m/makedumpfile/eoan/ppc64el
[15:45] <slashd> vorlon, ^ since you also have an uploaded affected by that makedumpfile failure ^
[15:46] <gpiccoli> slashd, hi o/
[15:47] <slashd> sil2100, vorlon : could it be an infra issue ?
[15:53] <Laney> ginggs: not sure why six would fix that, looks like a change in pygac to me and you need to supply a config file now
[15:54] <Laney> hopefully an easy fix
[16:02] <sil2100> slashd: hm, indeed it looks like a constant failure for both old and new version
[16:03] <sil2100> slashd: not sure if infra version, maybe something changed in its dependencies (kernel?) that causes this failure
[16:03] <slashd> sil2100, indeed
[16:03] <slashd> sil2100, possibly, hard to test without local testing ;/
[16:03] <slashd> and I don't have access to the failing arch
[16:04] <slashd> sil2100, what i can tell with the data we have is that the change I have upload have nothing to do with this failure.
[16:05] <slashd> gpiccoli, ^ fyi
[16:05] <Laney> slashd: sure you do (canonistack-bos01)
[16:06] <gpiccoli> Tnx slashd
[16:06] <gpiccoli> Laney, indeed we have that machine, I'm gonna try to reproduce the failure there
[16:06] <slashd> gpiccoli, Laney thanks
[16:07] <gpiccoli> But I guess Eric's comment is accurate, if we are failing the current proposed version and the latest one (already released), it's not something introduced by the change proposed
[16:07] <slashd> sil2100, how do you want to proceed ? us testing locally first ? and see how it goes ? or ignore the failure since we know it was there before my upload ?
[16:07] <gpiccoli> if we could possibly do it in parallel, that'd be amazing!
[16:08] <slashd> gpiccoli, right the failure can be worked on separately IMHO
[16:08] <gpiccoli> agreed =)
[16:17] <sil2100> slashd: I would say we should first try to investigate the failure, see what could have caused the issue, fill in a bug and if it's not something we can easily figure out or fix, hint it
[16:18] <sil2100> slashd: maybe we could get someone from the kernel team to take a look?
[16:19] <gpiccoli> sil2100, cascardo is the kdump guy, he's PTO for now, I'll take a look and sync with him
[16:19] <slashd> gpiccoli, sil2100 sound good thanks guys
[16:21] <ginggs> Laney: ack, yes, and I saw your comments  in #debci
[16:22] <Laney> not related to the particular failure itself, but we should have caught it
[16:56] <sil2100> gpiccoli, slashd: thanks!
[17:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-rollup-plugin-alias [amd64] (eoan-proposed/universe) [1.5.2-1] (no packageset)
[18:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted librsync [s390x] (eoan-proposed) [2.0.2-1]
[18:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted node-rollup-plugin-alias [amd64] (eoan-proposed) [1.5.2-1]
[18:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted golang-go.opencensus [amd64] (eoan-proposed) [0.22.0-1]
[18:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted librsync [arm64] (eoan-proposed) [2.0.2-1]
[18:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted librsync [i386] (eoan-proposed) [2.0.2-1]
[18:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted librsync [amd64] (eoan-proposed) [2.0.2-1]
[18:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted librsync [ppc64el] (eoan-proposed) [2.0.2-1]
[18:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted librsync [armhf] (eoan-proposed) [2.0.2-1]
[18:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: plasma-discover [amd64] (eoan-proposed/universe) [5.16.4-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[18:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: plasma-discover [i386] (eoan-proposed/universe) [5.16.4-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[18:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: plasma-discover [s390x] (eoan-proposed/universe) [5.16.4-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[18:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: plasma-discover [ppc64el] (eoan-proposed/universe) [5.16.4-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[18:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted aodh [source] (disco-proposed) [8.0.0-0ubuntu1.1]
[18:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted spice-html5 [source] (disco-proposed) [0.1.7-3ubuntu0.19.04.1]
[18:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: plasma-discover [arm64] (eoan-proposed/universe) [5.16.4-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[18:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: plasma-discover [armhf] (eoan-proposed/universe) [5.16.4-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu)
[18:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd-glib [source] (disco-proposed) [1.49-0ubuntu0.19.04.0]
[18:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted snapd-glib [source] (bionic-proposed) [1.49-0ubuntu0.18.04.0]
[18:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-flashback [source] (disco-proposed) [3.30.0-1ubuntu6.1]
[18:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-flashback [source] (bionic-proposed) [3.28.0-1ubuntu1.4]
[18:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nss [source] (disco-proposed) [2:3.42-1ubuntu2.2]
[18:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nss [source] (bionic-proposed) [2:3.35-2ubuntu2.4]
[19:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nss [source] (xenial-proposed) [2:3.28.4-0ubuntu0.16.04.7]
[19:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libblockdev [source] (disco-proposed) [2.20-7ubuntu0.1]
[19:08] <coreycb> bdmurray: if you have a moment, we've regression tested bug 1838263 successfully. since it fixes a regression I'd like to see if we can get it to -updates asap. frickler was going to test but wasn't able to get machines today. it's just adding a patch back that was inadvertently dropped, so personally i think we're good on testing.
[19:21] <bdmurray> coreycb: Isn't comment #5 in bug 1838263 the same as comment #2 in bug 1830341? The point being if the tests let this through before is it really a good test?
[19:25] <coreycb> bdmurray: that's a fair point. part of regression testing is to verify base functionality isn't regressed, but agree it didn't catch this one.
[19:36] <bdmurray> coreycb: I've gone ahead and released it
[19:36] <coreycb> bdmurray: thanks
[20:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.15.0-1019.21~16.04.1]
[20:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [4.15.0-1019.21] (kernel)
[20:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cinder [source] (disco-proposed) [2:14.0.1-0ubuntu1]
[20:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oracle [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [4.15.0-1019.21]
[20:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted horizon [source] (disco-proposed) [3:15.1.0-0ubuntu1]
[20:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted logwatch [source] (bionic-proposed) [7.4.3+git20161207-2ubuntu1.1]
[20:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libinput [source] (bionic-proposed) [1.10.4-1ubuntu0.18.04.1]
[20:56] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: node-react [amd64] (eoan-proposed/universe) [16.2.0-3build1] (no packageset)
[21:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted lubuntu-default-settings [source] (bionic-proposed) [0.54.3]
[21:57] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libarchive [source] (bionic-proposed) [3.2.2-3.1ubuntu0.4]
[22:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nvidia-graphics-drivers-340 [source] (bionic-proposed) [340.107-0ubuntu0.18.04.3]
[22:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted spice-html5 [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.1.4-1ubuntu1.16.04.1]
[23:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted software-properties [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.96.20.9]