[01:48] <mup> PR snapd#7364 opened: overlord/snapstate: add migration function to fix invalid channel spec <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7364>
[03:08] <mup> PR snapcraft#2662 closed: windows installer <Created by cjp256> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/2662>
[06:07] <zyga> good morning
[06:29] <zyga> good morning pedronis
[07:01] <pstolowski> morning
[07:06] <zyga> good morning pawel, mvo
[07:07] <mvo> hey zyga and pstolowski
[07:09] <pstolowski> mvo: hey, i'm applaying yours & John suggestions to the snap switch PR; interestingly, snap revert op test is explicitily expecting the "..forwarding" message. wrong test?
[07:09] <pedronis> mvo: hi, tests/main/install has a weird name, it's really install-fontconfig-cache
[07:10] <pedronis> I noticed because it apparently confused Ian
[07:11] <zyga> flock nil pointer failure https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/W7rNxA82/
[07:11] <zyga> I'll check that out after breakfast
[07:11] <pedronis> mvo: anyway, I'm looking/tweaking Ian PRs
[07:12] <mvo> pedronis: yes, sorry for that
[07:12] <mvo> pedronis: cool, thanks
[07:12] <mvo> pstolowski: interessting, maybe it does make sense for revert? worth checking with john when he is around
[07:13] <mvo> pstolowski: but I think john is right, I was overdoing it a bit in my pastebin suggestion. the unit test might be useful hopefully
[07:16] <mup> PR snapd#7360 closed: snap: use deterministic paths to find the built deb <Created by sergiusens> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7360>
[07:16] <pstolowski> mvo: yep, i'll apply your 'equals' test tweak, ty
[07:17] <mvo> pedronis: 7313 LGTM, do you want to wait for john before merging or is that good?
[07:25] <pedronis> mvo: I would wait for John to give a look
[07:26] <mvo> ta
[07:41] <pedronis> mvo: #7359 can be reviewed,  and hopefully the spread tests are right now
[07:41] <mup> PR #7359: overlord/snapstate: check channel names on install <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7359>
[07:43] <mvo> pedronis: great, I have a look now
[07:51] <mvo> pedronis: thank you!
[07:53] <mvo> pedronis: about 7364, whats your feeling, should we do it this way or via a patch?
[07:58] <pedronis> mvo: not sure at all, apparently the store is very very liberal
[07:58] <pedronis> (which I don't remember it being)
[08:00] <mvo> pedronis: I see, hm, hm
[08:00]  * mvo scratches head
[08:00] <pedronis> mvo: you can send this:  ////18/////stable/////
[08:01] <mvo> pedronis: meh, "fun"
[08:02] <mvo> zyga: bad news, "main/mount-ns" failed on master
[08:02] <zyga> oh, can you show me how?
[08:02] <mvo> zyga: in the ubuntu-18.04-64 tests
[08:02] <mvo> zyga: sure, one sec, let me paste the relevant bits
[08:03] <zyga> do you have a log or was it locally?
[08:03] <mvo> zyga: its master
[08:03] <mvo> zyga: https://travis-ci.org/snapcore/snapd/jobs/577710067
[08:03] <mvo> zyga: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/wjvW4PrkDk/
[08:04] <zyga> hmmm
[08:04] <zyga> I see it
[08:04] <zyga> it seems LXD test fixes were not enough somehow
[08:04] <zyga> one moment
[08:05] <zyga> oh
[08:05] <zyga> lxd didn't run in that set!?
[08:05] <mvo> zyga: I don't know, I have not looked deeper yet
[08:08] <pstolowski> mvo: do you have powers to create a track for test-snapd-tools snap in the store (for the new spread tests i'm preparing)?
[08:08] <mvo> pstolowski: I think only the store can do this
[08:08] <mvo> pstolowski: the formal process is to ask in the forum but given that its a test snap hopefully this is a quick one
[08:10] <mvo> pedronis: I was leaning slightly towards a patch before because it means less things to worry about in snapstate and because its a one-off thing. but no super strong opinion
[08:10] <pedronis> mvo: we need to chat I think
[08:11] <pedronis> also with John when he's around
[08:15] <mvo> pedronis: ok, I have a meeting in 45min but time until then
[08:17] <pstolowski> mvo: got it, thanks
[08:31] <pedronis> mvo: Chipaca: hi, let me know when we can chat about /stable
[08:32]  * Chipaca doesn't like stables
[08:37] <mvo> pedronis, Chipaca ready when you are, I'm looking at this firstboot_test.go unit test failure we see sometimes
[08:37] <pedronis> mvo: that's fixed one of my PRs
[08:37] <pedronis> if it's the MissingBase one
[08:38] <mvo> pedronis: aha, nice. looking
[08:38] <pedronis> mvo: Chipaca: going to the standup HO
[08:38] <Chipaca> i'll be there in a minute
[08:39] <pstolowski> mvo: i'm gonna request track "2.0" for test-snapd-tools, any objections / suggestions?
[08:39] <mvo> pedronis: I'm there now - did you fix the issue by using better helpers? or was there someting deeper
[08:59] <mup> PR snapd#7365 opened: tests: spread test for snap refresh/switch channel and risk switching <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7365>
[09:35] <pedronis> Chipaca: we forgot to mention, this is relevant as well: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7359
[09:35] <mup> PR #7359: overlord/snapstate: check channel names on install <Squash-merge> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7359>
[09:39] <Chipaca> pedronis: I was just noticing that the path to install lets you get nasty channels into state no problem, only showDone prints the error (once it's too late to abort)
[09:39] <Chipaca> same for refresh i think
[09:40] <Chipaca> ugh, 60kB/s download :-(
[09:40] <pedronis> Chipaca: with that code it shouldn't be the case
[09:41] <pedronis> Chipaca: anyway, sorry I didn't mention it, but it needs a review, be built on top
[09:41] <Chipaca> to print the warning and continue the check needs to be done way earlier than snapstate
[09:49] <pedronis> Chipaca: yes, but snapstate needs to fail if it gets something not normalized
[09:49] <pedronis> Chipaca: to print a warning we need to do this ins cmd_snap_op, no?
[09:50] <Chipaca> yep
[09:56] <zyga> mvo: I have an idea
[09:56] <zyga> checking it onw
[09:56] <zyga> *now
[10:03] <zyga> hmm
[10:03] <zyga> cannot build spread?
[10:03] <zyga> cmd/humbox/main.go:170:39: m.HTTPHandler undefined (type autocert.Manager has no field or method HTTPHandler)
[10:05] <Chipaca> zyga: spread and snapd have different deps
[10:05] <zyga> should I use separate GOPATH for each thing>?
[10:07] <Chipaca> probably
[10:07] <Chipaca> zyga: snapd shouldn't need anything from gopath right now though
[10:07] <Chipaca> zyga: you might have some old deps in there :)
[10:08] <zyga> thanks, let me look
[10:10] <mvo> pedronis: the SeedMissingBase test failure is understood now, s.makeAssertedSnap() makes a local_1.0.snap and snaptest.MakeTestSnapWithFiles() also makes one. but what is signed/used is inconsistent so sometimes (when the second rolls over) the two get out of sync because the second is stored in the squashfs header
[10:11] <pedronis> mvo: ah
[10:11] <zyga> mvo: wow
[10:11] <zyga> nice
[10:13] <mvo> zyga: predronis fixed all of this afaict in his refactor
[10:34] <mvo> pedronis: given that 7341 is mostly shuffling things around, should we be ok with a single review? I would love to move forward with 7345
[10:35] <mvo> pedronis: 7341 probably needs a master merge to get green
[10:36] <mvo> pedronis: also 7067 seems to be super close, we could do the comments in a followup
[10:38] <mup> PR snapd#7347 closed: gadget: do not error on gadget refreshes with multiple volumes <Created by mvo5> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7347>
[10:39] <pstolowski> huh, #7345 was quite a beast
[10:39] <mup> PR #7345: overlord/devicestate,seed:  small step, introduce seed.LoadAssertions and use it from firstboot <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7345>
[10:42] <mup> PR snapd#7366 opened: interfaces/gpg-keys: Allow access to gpg-agent and creation of lockfiles <Created by ppd1990> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7366>
[10:43] <zyga> uhgh
[10:43] <zyga> as soon as I'm done with current stuff I'm looking at xdg-portal-filechooser
[10:43] <zyga> I restarted that like 20 times
[10:43] <zyga> today
[10:43] <zyga> is that even possible, not sure :?
[10:46] <mvo> pstolowski: its based on another pr
[10:47] <pstolowski> mvo: allright, i reviewed the entire thing then
[10:50] <zyga> mvo: I reproduced the bug
[10:50] <zyga> mvo: it's super surprising!!!
[10:50] <zyga> mvo: it's not any other test
[10:50] <zyga> mvo: it's just REBOOT
[10:50] <zyga> mvo: spread somwhow gets different behavior on 2nd boot
[10:50] <zyga> mvo: on 1st boot the mount table is different than later on
[10:51] <zyga> mvo: I think that's because project-prepare doesn't run after reboot
[10:51] <zyga> mvo: I'll check that
[10:51] <pedronis> mvo: I think because pstolowski reviewed all of 7345 7341 got two reviews now
[10:51] <pedronis> mvo: so I'll merge master into it, try to address your comments and it can land
[10:51] <pstolowski> +1
[10:56] <mvo> pedronis: thank you!
[11:01] <mup> PR snapd#7367 opened: snap, cmd/snap: support (but warn) using deprecated multi-slash channel <Created by chipaca> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7367>
[11:01] <Chipaca> pedronis, mvo, please let me know if this is what you had in mind: ^^^
[11:11] <pedronis> Chipaca: yessish, but is it missing tests?
[11:11] <pedronis> I mean I cannot tell it does what is supposed to from the test in cmd_snap_op_test.go
[11:12] <pedronis> mvo: fun: E: Failed to fetch http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/dists/xenial-pgdg/main/binary-amd64/Packages.bz2  Hash Sum mismatch
[11:15] <mvo> pedronis: meh, not again
[11:33] <pstolowski> mvo: question to #7336
[11:33] <mup> PR #7336: tests: add debug section to interfaces-contacts-service <Test Robustness> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7336>
[11:40] <zyga> brb
[11:49] <zyga> mvo: and I now understand the origin of the failure as well
[11:49] <zyga> well, that's that :)
[11:49] <zyga> mvo: the origin is that on ubuntu we remove lxd on project prepare
[11:49] <zyga> but since it had executed it left behind its stale state
[11:52] <zyga> mvo: I'll collect some tangible proof for the commit message and have a solution shortly
[12:16] <mup> PR core18#138 opened: Use snapcraft's now-non-default destructive mode for building on travis <Created by sil2100> <https://github.com/snapcore/core18/pull/138>
[12:17] <Chipaca> pedronis: ah, i started writing a unit test but then realised it was almost the same as an existing one so i modded that, but maybe it's not super clear
[12:18] <pedronis> Chipaca: it's not clear at all, I expected the reverse
[12:18] <pedronis> also a test about this would have /stable in it, no?
[12:18] <Chipaca> pedronis: the reverse to what?
[12:18] <pedronis> Chipaca: turning /stable => latest/stable
[12:18] <pedronis> not turning stable into stable
[12:21] <pstolowski> cachio: re 7361, what about apt-hooks?
[12:22] <cachio> pstolowski, hi, yes, testing this right now
[12:23] <pstolowski> cachio: ah, ok, no worries, i wasn't sure if you saw the question in the PR
[12:23] <cachio> pstolowski, yes, I am also testing another test which failed
[12:23] <cachio> I'll push that in a momento
[12:23] <pedronis> Chipaca: no, I'm not going silly, the warning code in cmd_snap_op is not exercised
[12:24] <pedronis> at all
[12:24] <Chipaca> pedronis: ah! hm. I'll fix that.
[12:24] <Chipaca> i was talking about the code in snap :-)
[12:25] <pedronis> Chipaca: no, I was talking about the code in cmd_snap_op
[12:25] <pedronis> anyway travis is not with us today
[12:34] <mvo> zyga: ta
[12:57]  * ijohnson pours one out for travis
[12:57] <ijohnson> morning folks
[12:57] <pstolowski> hey ijohnson
[12:57] <mup> PR snapcraft#2691 opened: travis: use apt addon to prevent apt update issues <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/2691>
[12:57] <ijohnson> hey pstolowski
[13:01] <ijohnson> hey I see this unit test failure on travis but not locally, anybody else seen this? https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/SHm3dWhgNP/
[13:01] <Chipaca> pedronis: pushed unit test for that
[13:02] <mvo> ijohnson: fixed in one of pedronis prs
[13:06] <mup> PR snapcraft#2689 closed: schema: build-base support for the snapd type <Created by sergiusens> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/2689>
[13:21] <Chipaca> snap install http --channel=$(printf "/%.0s" {1..65527})stable$(printf "/%.0s" {1..65527})
[13:23] <mvo> Chipaca: you are having fun?
[13:25] <mup> PR core18#138 closed: Use snapcraft's now-non-default destructive mode for building on travis <Created by sil2100> <Merged by sil2100> <https://github.com/snapcore/core18/pull/138>
[13:35] <Chipaca> mvo: I hit the limit of my shell before I hit any other limit :-)
[13:35] <Chipaca> also my patience
[13:37] <ijohnson> pedronis: can I push a shellcheck fix to #7359 ?
[13:37] <mup> PR #7359: overlord/snapstate: check channel names on install <Squash-merge> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7359>
[13:37] <pedronis> ijohnson: yes
[13:37] <ijohnson> ack, one moment
[13:37] <pedronis> Chipaca: that's probably for you to review ^ (I touched it too much to do a review myself at this point)
[13:38] <pedronis> mvo: Chipaca: all the PRs in play are now marked 2.41
[13:39] <mvo> pedronis: thank you
[13:44] <cachio> mvo, are you promoting to beta today right?
[13:45] <mvo> cachio: that was my plan but it seems like we have too much pending in the 2.41, I want to merge them all before I push a new version
[13:45] <mvo> cachio: so more likely tomorrow
[13:52] <cachio> mvo, good
[13:52] <cachio> mvo, thanks for the news
[14:11] <mup> PR snapd#7368 opened: cmd/snap,image,seed:  move image.ValidateSeed to seed.ValidateFromYaml <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7368>
[15:03] <cachio> zyga, hey, #7256 updated
[15:03] <mup> PR #7256: tests: adding retry command and use it to delete $XDG directory <Simple 😃> <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7256>
[15:04] <pstolowski> pedronis: can you +1 my request https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/track-request-2-0-for-test-snapd-tools/12965/2 ?
[15:05] <cachio> zyga, tested on py2 and 3
[15:05]  * cachio lunch
[15:06] <pstolowski> thanks pedronis and roadmr !
[15:07] <roadmr> ;)
[15:11] <zyga> cachio: thank you, I'll review it soon
[15:20] <roadmr> pstolowski: your track is ready 💯
[15:30] <sergiusens> mvo: cachio did you guys have a chance to see if that snapd I built was correct?
[15:31] <sergiusens> mvo: can you give a nod on my PR if possible to merge and tag a release?
[15:34] <pstolowski> roadmr: thank you!
[15:34] <pstolowski> now i need someone to push something there
[15:35] <pstolowski> mvo: do you have rights to push test-snapd-snap to the new track?
[15:40] <Chipaca> ijohnson: i think your patch pr would be cleaner if it built on my pr
[15:40] <Chipaca> ijohnson: but we're targetting different things :-/
[15:40] <Chipaca> this'll be fun :-)
[15:41] <ijohnson> Chipaca: ok, I'll hold off on doing anything more to my patch PR until yours is ready, I am about to leave for the airport in ~20 minutes, so I probably won't be able to do much yet today
[15:41] <Chipaca> ijohnson: i might merge the two into a pr that targets 2.41
[15:42] <ijohnson> Chipaca: that's fine with me
[15:42] <Chipaca> similarly i can take your snapstate pr about this, stack it on the deprecation one, and add a check for that in there, again targeting 2.41
[15:43] <Chipaca> i'll be taking a break before i delve into that though :-)
[15:47] <pedronis> Chipaca: sorry, I'm confused, I thought in the end we wante to turn /stable into latest/stable
[15:48] <pedronis> becauses stable means just switch risk atm
[15:50] <Chipaca> pedronis: hmm, if that was what we wanted, then I might need to take steps :-)
[15:50] <Chipaca> pedronis: before we were using one and printing the other, which was wrong
[15:50] <pedronis> that's why I asked
[15:51]  * ijohnson is quite confused about what /stable is supposed to be turned into and when
[15:51] <Chipaca> pedronis: the code that does  mx.Channel = ch.Name  would be wrong though
[15:52] <pedronis> yes
[15:52] <Chipaca> ijohnson: quite
[15:52] <pedronis> ijohnson: the issue is that Channel in states are actual channel,  the channel on the command line are intentions
[15:52] <mvo> pstolowski: I think so, what snap what track? I can also make you contributor then you can also do it
[15:53] <pedronis> so conceptually we might not normalize them the same way
[15:53] <Chipaca> I think turning /stable into latest/stable is OK, although I don't think saying it's just stable would break anything
[15:53] <pedronis> Chipaca: anyhow
[15:53] <pstolowski> mvo: test-snapd-tools, track 2.0
[15:53] <Chipaca> and given that /latest/stable turns into latest/stable, turing /stable to stable might be easier to think of
[15:54] <mvo> pstolowski: sure, let me look at this
[15:54] <pedronis> Chipaca: did you get to work on the patch that is really the thing that will break people
[15:54] <pedronis> there we want to turn /stable in stable
[15:54] <Chipaca> pedronis: ijohnson has the patch
[15:54] <pedronis> where?
[15:54] <Chipaca> https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7364/files
[15:54] <mup> PR #7364: overlord/snapstate: add migration function to fix invalid channel spec <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7364>
[15:54] <pedronis> that's not a patch
[15:55] <pedronis> it's also not the full normalisation either
[15:55] <pedronis> I thought I said this
[15:55] <pedronis> at some point :)
[15:55] <Chipaca> pedronis: i mean, that's what the patch needs to do (just for every snap)
[15:56] <Chipaca> pedronis: so i thought i'd build it on that
[15:56] <pedronis> don't think it's doing the right thing
[15:56] <Chipaca> hmm, ok
[15:56] <pedronis> the patch needs to FieldsFunc and join by "/" again
[15:56] <pedronis> I think
[15:56] <Chipaca> eh, ok
[15:57] <Chipaca> i'll do that instead then
[15:57] <Chipaca> but after my break
[15:57] <pedronis> ok
[15:57] <pedronis> sorry, this is confusing
[15:58] <pedronis> Chipaca: about your other PR, not sure, maybe we should just keep if we get push back when things go to beta or candidate
[15:58] <pedronis> there is no obvious thing for it to do
[15:58] <pedronis> still
[15:59] <ijohnson> pedronis, Chipaca: okay, well feel free to abandon my PR #7364 and go with what Chipaca has or will have, I will check in tomorrow to see what happens but am unable to do anymore work now unfortunately
[15:59] <mup> PR #7364: overlord/snapstate: add migration function to fix invalid channel spec <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7364>
[16:00] <ijohnson> BTW I resolved the merge conflict between PR 7367 and 7359, the branch is here: https://github.com/anonymouse64/snapd/tree/channels-with-extra-slashes-with-7359
[16:00] <mup> PR #7367: snap, cmd/snap: support (but warn) using deprecated multi-slash channel <Created by chipaca> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7367>
[16:00] <ijohnson> talk to y'all tomorrow
[16:01] <sergiusens> jdstrand: hey, is this something you can quickly sort "error: snap "review-tools" is not available on edge for this architecture (s390x) but exists on other architectures amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el)." ?
[16:03] <mvo> pstolowski: there are some complications but I'm on it
[16:54] <kyrofa> noise][1, niemeyer: is this our current doc for brand stores? https://docs.ubuntu.com/core/en/build-store/
[16:55] <kyrofa> I was surprised to find that on docs.ubuntu.com instead of snapcraft
[17:02] <mup> PR core18#136 closed: Remove the 60-unminimize motd, identify system as Ubuntu Core 18 <Created by sil2100> <Merged by sil2100> <https://github.com/snapcore/core18/pull/136>
[17:13] <Saviq> pedronis: hey, could you (or one of you snapd masters) suggest what should be done to "clean" snapd's state (without removing the installed snaps or their data)? context: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/building-multipass-images-with-packer/12361
[17:13] <Saviq> thanks! :)
[17:35] <pstolowski> mvo: ack, ty
[18:11] <jdstrand> sergiusens: I can enable it. I can't test it, but I can enable it
[18:12] <mup> PR snapd#7363 closed: cmd/snap-confine: fix group and permission of .info files <Bug> <Created by zyga> <Merged by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7363>
[18:14] <jdstrand> sergiusens: done. I'm building it
[18:14]  * jdstrand crosses fingers
[18:25]  * zyga still debugs stuff
[18:26] <sergiusens> jdstrand I will get it tested by clicking on adt-retry
[18:26] <sergiusens> jdstrand surprised this went away as it used to be working before
[18:27] <Saviq> jdstrand: hey do you know about ure and uno-libs3 perpetually causing review-tools to barf about 4063-1 and 4102-1?
[18:29] <Saviq> USNs claim the latest packages (6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.9 in our case) have the fix, but still review-tools is unhappy
[18:31] <roadmr> poor review-tools 😞
[18:33] <jdstrand> sergiusens: I never built for s390x.... /me hmms
[18:34] <jdstrand> Saviq: let me look. is it possible you have a revision that is in a channel/track that is lingering without the fix?
[18:38] <jdstrand> Saviq: what package? multipass? mir-kiosk? I get all the emails for outdated packages and don't see what you see. can you paste?
[18:40] <jdstrand> sergiusens: fyi, says it'll build in 2 hours
[18:47] <Saviq> jdstrand: egmde-confined-desktop, I checked the manifest that it has the latest packages
[18:48] <Saviq> jdstrand: you've got mail
[18:50] <jdstrand> Saviq: the package name was enough. /me looking
[18:50] <jdstrand> that is a big snap
[18:59] <jdstrand> Saviq: 6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.9 < 1:6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.8
[19:00] <jdstrand> Saviq: snapcraft is dropping the epoch in the manifest
[19:00] <jdstrand> stage-packages:
[19:00] <jdstrand> - uno-libs3=6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.9
[19:00] <sergiusens> jdstrand: wow, that build is sure taking its time to start
[19:00] <jdstrand> USN has 1:6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.8
[19:02] <jdstrand> sergiusens: there seems to be a bug in the way that snapcraft is calculating what was staged. likely because snapcraft is parsing the on disk filename of the deb and that filename omits the epoch
[19:03] <jdstrand> sergiusens: shall I file a bug? if so, where? LP?
[19:12] <jdstrand> sergiusens: actually, hold on
[19:12] <sergiusens> jdstrand: was looking as this code base was not fresh
[19:12] <sergiusens> jdstrand: we use python-apt for this and use .candidate
[19:12] <sergiusens> I can look deeper, just not right now
[19:14] <Saviq> jdstrand, sergiusens: ack, filing bug
[19:15] <jdstrand> Saviq: no, don't
[19:16] <jdstrand> it turns out that libreoffice is one of those weird packages that uses different versions for the binaries
[19:16] <jdstrand> Source: libreoffice (1:6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.9)
[19:16] <jdstrand> Package: uno-libs3
[19:16] <jdstrand> Version: 6.0.7-0ubuntu0.18.04.9
[19:18] <Saviq> ah, source vs. package
[19:18] <Saviq> s/package/binary/
[19:18] <Saviq> so review-tools needs to take that into account?
[19:18] <jdstrand> there are limitations to what the review-tools can do since they don't have all the information. I'll see if I can come up with some
[19:18] <jdstrand> something
[19:19] <Saviq> kk
[19:19] <Saviq> shall I file bug for review-tools then?
[19:19] <sergiusens> epochs are evil!
[19:20] <jdstrand> Saviq: no real point, I am working on it
[19:20] <jdstrand> I had another thing I'm working on, so I'll do both. if I need to, I'll fill it
[19:22] <Saviq> "I had another thing I'm working on, so I'll do both"
[19:22] <jdstrand> hmm, the usn db has the wrong version (it includes the epoch)
[19:35] <sergiusens> mvo: what does ~ >>> snap run --strace riot-web
[19:35] <sergiusens> /var/lib/snapd/snap/strace-static/current/bin/strace: Unexpected wait status 0x8b
[19:36] <sergiusens> error: exit status 1 mean?
[19:36] <mup> PR snapd#7350 closed: tests: check snap_daemon user and group on system-usernames-illegal test are not created <Simple 😃> <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7350>
[19:46] <roadmr> jdstrand: hm. Review-tools doesn't know about gpio-control interface apparently :( and I'm being asked to allow-{installation,autoconnection} for it for a couple of snaps. Do you know what the deal is with that interface?
[19:47] <mup> PR snapd#7359 closed: overlord/snapstate: check channel names on install <Squash-merge> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7359>
[19:47] <mvo> sergiusens: hm, hm, that is an issue with strace usually
[19:48] <roadmr> jdstrand: I was able to just plonk some json in plugs referring gpio-control, just concerned that tools will be unhappy with it
[19:49] <jdstrand> what up with all the review-tools stuff today?
[19:49]  * jdstrand looks
[19:52] <roadmr> hehe sorry jdstrand  :(
[19:53] <jdstrand> roadmr: there are several that were added and not documented in the forum either
[19:53] <roadmr> jdstrand: 😢
[19:53] <jdstrand> roadmr: let me add those, fix the icon issue and get you a tag. that may be tomorrow
[19:53] <mup> PR snapd#7357 closed: cmd/snap: fix snap switch message <Simple 😃> <Squash-merge> <Created by stolowski> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7357>
[19:53] <mup> PR snapd#7369 opened: overlord/snapstate: check channel names on install (2.41) <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7369>
[19:53] <roadmr> jdstrand: sure thing, no huge rush - I asked code-insiders to re-request manual review but they haven't so far
[19:54] <jdstrand> degville: hey, fyi, https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/supported-interfaces/7744 is missing packagekit-control and appstream-metadata. it lists gpio-control but without a link
[19:56] <jdstrand> roadmr: plonking the json is fine. thanks! did you want me to review?
[19:57] <roadmr> jdstrand: not necessarily, it seems like a straightforward allow-installation: true (and same for allow-autoconnection) and the interface is well-scoped, it's also in a snap for a brand store
[19:57] <roadmr> no superprivileged shenanigans or anything
[19:57] <roadmr> (just that when trying to generate the json, I used review-tools which barfed at the interface name - but I wrangled it manually and it was ok)
[19:59] <jdstrand> roadmr: cool. fyi, ad1045d
[19:59] <jdstrand> (not a tag)
[19:59] <roadmr> looked more like a year to me :) only the trailing "d" threw me off
[20:00] <jdstrand> hehe
[20:08] <degville> jdstrand: thanks for letting me know! I'll fix it.
[20:19] <jdstrand> degville: thanks!
[20:20] <jdstrand> Saviq: it is more involved than a quick fix, so I filed a bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/usn-tool/+bug/1841848
[20:20] <mup> Bug #1841848: snap USN notifications reporting binaries with different versions than source as out of date when they are not <review-tools:New> <USN Tool:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1841848>
[20:21] <jdstrand> Saviq: I'll get it done this cycle (hopefully soon)
[20:33] <mup> PR snapd#7370 opened: tests: fix ephemeral mount table in prepare-image <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7370>
[20:34] <zyga> jdstrand: ^ this one took a while to figure out
[20:34] <zyga> I feel so dumb now
[20:34] <zyga> jdstrand: it's not a security bug, just a curious thing
[20:36] <sergiusens> mvo_: fwiw, I am on manjaro
[20:36] <sergiusens> trying out the snap story over here
[20:36] <sergiusens> some hits and misses
[20:36] <zyga> sergiusens: ha, I will no longer accept comments about using macos from you ;)
[20:36] <zyga> (I'm totally joking)
[20:37] <sergiusens> zyga: ALL the apps I use are snaps though :wink:
[20:37] <zyga> sergiusens: I think that's mostly true of me as well, I just use fare fewer apps
[20:37] <zyga> sergiusens: maybe the browser
[20:37] <zyga> I use macos browser because it's got my entire state and that's easier
[20:38] <zyga> anyway :)
[20:38] <sergiusens> well, then you barely use any snaps!
[20:38] <sergiusens> chromium and firefox are snaps for me too
[20:38] <zyga> sergiusens: I spend all my day in an editor and shell
[20:38] <zyga> shell is not a snap but the editor is
[20:38] <zyga> sergiusens: yeah but they don't have iphone sync that's good :P
[20:38] <zyga> sync wins
[20:39] <sergiusens> emacs is available as a snap
[20:39] <zyga> sergiusens: I'm using a snap editor
[20:39] <zyga> sergiusens: (not emacs though)
[20:39] <sergiusens> nice
[20:39] <zyga> I need a good editor ;)
[20:39] <zyga> I use sublime
[20:39] <zyga> sergiusens: today I only made one patch
[20:39] <zyga> I feel so tired
[20:39] <zyga> it's been an exhausting pathc
[20:39] <zyga> *patch
[20:44] <jdstrand> zyga: wow. that seemed 'fun'. it was a fun read :) nice work
[20:44] <zyga> jdstrand: writing that commit message helped
[20:45] <jdstrand> hehe, they tend to
[20:45] <zyga> jdstrand: especially since the fix is not that long
[20:45] <zyga> but was not on our radar for weeks and months
[20:45] <jdstrand> I like to write documentation before code often times
[20:45] <zyga> jdstrand: with this fix, again, the mount namespace on classic systems should no longer be flaky
[20:45] <zyga> but I thought so before
[20:45] <zyga> the reboot bug caught me totally by surprise
[20:46] <jdstrand> that mount tool is the tool that keeps on giving
[20:47] <zyga> jdstrand: indeed
[20:47] <zyga> jdstrand: I have one new tool like that under development and one more in early stages
[20:47] <zyga> jdstrand: but thats for later :)
[20:47] <jdstrand> :)
[20:47] <zyga> (one detects leaked processes, the other can detect leaks of various kinds by delegating to mountinfo-tool and the new process-tool
[20:48] <pedronis> zyga: prepare-image ?
[20:53] <zyga> pedronis: hmm?
[20:55] <zyga> thunderstorm!
[20:55] <zyga> shutting my desktop down
[20:55] <pedronis> zyga: your PR summary contains prepare-image, but I'm not sure how it relates
[20:56] <zyga> oh, I'll correct it!
[20:56] <zyga> thanks!
[20:56] <zyga> fixed
[21:01] <mup> PR snapcraft#2691 closed: travis: use apt addon to prevent apt update issues in CLA-check <Created by cjp256> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/2691>
[21:14]  * zyga EODs
[22:00] <Chipaca> let it be known that I hate patches