| mborzecki | morning | 06:04 |
|---|---|---|
| mborzecki | need to drive the kids to school, back in 30 or so | 06:41 |
| mborzecki | re | 07:15 |
| mup | PR snapd#7948 opened: spread: drop copr repo with F30 build dependencies <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7948> | 08:08 |
| pokk | besides the docker snapcraft not seeming to work it's rather fun to build snaps | 08:58 |
| pokk | well done everyone! | 08:58 |
| sdhd-sascha | Hello, I could need some advice: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/interface-shared-memory/14759 | 09:21 |
| sdhd-sascha | Where should a access to a specific shared-mem be added? | 09:21 |
| mvo | cachio: hey, good morning! I pushed an update to 7943, but for some reason it's still not not quite working on gce - do you think you could run it with a console again? | 12:02 |
| cachio | mvo, hey, sure | 12:02 |
| mvo | cachio: thank you! | 12:02 |
| cachio | mvo, yaw | 12:02 |
| mvo | cachio: i also enabled the smoke test and it works in qemu | 12:02 |
| cachio | mvo, I run core20 suite in gce and passed | 12:24 |
| cachio | mvo, I also see that it is running well on travis https://travis-ci.org/snapcore/snapd/jobs/627684724#L5851 | 12:26 |
| cachio | mvo, which error did you see? | 12:26 |
| mvo | cachio: \o/ | 12:27 |
| mvo | cachio: I triggering it locally and saw an issuee connecting to the instance, it looked like it did not come back after a reboot | 12:28 |
| cmatsuoka | cachio, mvo: good morning | 12:28 |
| mvo | cachio: but maybe it was something local or something rare? | 12:28 |
| mvo | cmatsuoka: good morning! happy friday :) | 12:28 |
| cmatsuoka | cachio: do you know what this error is? https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/YzRSfTrpX7/ | 12:28 |
| mvo | cmatsuoka: could this be a leftover in parts/* that confused the dpkg-buildpackage run? | 12:29 |
| cmatsuoka | mvo: yay, I'm following the irc conversation, congratulations! | 12:29 |
| cmatsuoka | mvo: humm maybe, good idea, let me check | 12:29 |
| mvo | cmatsuoka: thanks! yeah, if we get a green run in travis that will be an amazing christmas present | 12:30 |
| cmatsuoka | indeed it will! | 12:30 |
| cachio | mvo, 3 exececutions 2 passed | 12:47 |
| cachio | 3/3 sorry | 12:47 |
| cachio | all passed | 12:47 |
| cachio | I'll test it more to make sure it works well | 12:51 |
| cachio | I added a loop to run the tests the whole day | 12:51 |
| mup | Bug #1857128 opened: Missing configuration option to allow a snap to openFile without prompting <Snappy:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1857128> | 12:53 |
| * cachio afk 10 mins | 12:56 | |
| mborzecki | mvo: left a question for ian in #7947, aiui bootloader.Options.Recovery triggers the new behavior | 12:57 |
| mup | PR #7947: boot/many: support new UC20 style kernel extraction <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7947> | 12:57 |
| mborzecki | (or should trigger the new behavior) | 12:57 |
| cmatsuoka | mborzecki: that udevadm-calls-after-each-operation thing might hold some water, i added an extra trigger --settle after filesystem creation and it's not failing (so far) | 13:13 |
| mborzecki | cmatsuoka: hahah | 13:14 |
| cmatsuoka | i hate those magical fixes, especially when they work! | 13:14 |
| * cmatsuoka really needs to understand how udev works | 13:15 | |
| mborzecki | cmatsuoka: as we looked at the anaconda/blivet code they did use settle very often after any operation on storage | 13:15 |
| cmatsuoka | I don't doubt they did that after being bitten a few times | 13:16 |
| === ricab is now known as ricab|lunch | ||
| mborzecki | hm this is interesting https://bugs.launchpad.net/snappy/+bug/1857128 isn't that covered by the portals too? | 13:22 |
| mup | Bug #1857128: Missing configuration option to allow a snap to openFile without prompting <Snappy:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1857128> | 13:22 |
| jdstrand | Saviq: hey (I'm not actually here), but I noticed in nautilus a 184M volume. it turns out it is a loopback mount in /media/jamie/disk that is the multipass snap. I did not do this myself. is this intended behavior? | 13:36 |
| jdstrand | Saviq: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/X7bh7QygyQ/ | 13:38 |
| * jdstrand wanders off | 13:38 | |
| Saviq | jdstrand: no, we never did this ourselves | 13:46 |
| jdstrand | weird | 13:48 |
| jdstrand | Saviq: well, fyi in case it comes up again, 2019-12-09T17:23:21.609994Z was the snapcraft-started-at in the manifest.yaml | 13:48 |
| * jdstrand unmounts | 13:48 | |
| mvo | cachio: nice! | 13:51 |
| cachio | mvo, so far 100% pass | 13:52 |
| mvo | mborzecki: cool, thanks! I still haven't reviewed this pr yet, will try to do some good reviews this aftersoon | 13:52 |
| mvo | cachio: very cool | 13:52 |
| cachio | 18 executions | 13:52 |
| jdstrand | Saviq: looking at the logs, it seems that org.gnome.Shell.HotplugSniffer was involved, so you can disregard | 13:52 |
| cmatsuoka | cachio: going to the standup? | 14:01 |
| === ricab|lunch is now known as ricab | ||
| mup | PR snapd#7949 opened: cmd/snap, daemon: stop over-normalising channels <Created by chipaca> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7949> | 14:37 |
| mup | PR snapd#7950 opened: overlord/snapstate: tracks are now sticky <Created by chipaca> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7950> | 14:40 |
| Chipaca | mvo: mborzecki: two tiny PRs ^ | 14:44 |
| cachio | Chipaca, mvo cmatsuoka mborzecki could someone please take quick look to #7851 | 14:46 |
| mup | PR #7851: tests: use test-snapd-sh snap instead of test-snapd-tools - Part 3 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7851> | 14:46 |
| Chipaca | sure | 14:46 |
| cachio | Chipaca, just 36 files changed | 14:46 |
| mvo | Chipaca: thanks, looking | 14:46 |
| mvo | cachio: yes, looking | 14:47 |
| cachio | mvo, thanks!! | 14:47 |
| mborzecki | mvo: Chipaca: about portals, the whole diff is: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/B66tNMNryV/ | 14:48 |
| Chipaca | cachio: why the change from test-snapd-sh to test-snapd-sh.sh? | 14:48 |
| cachio | Chipaca, to be consistent bertween the local snap and the remote snap | 14:50 |
| mvo | mborzecki: woah, that's nice and short | 14:50 |
| Chipaca | cachio: fair | 14:50 |
| cachio | the snap that we download uses test-snapd-sh.sh, so the change makes the local snap use the same | 14:50 |
| cachio | mvo, so you need a test-snapd-sh for uc20 right? | 14:51 |
| Chipaca | mborzecki: WHen → When :-p | 14:51 |
| Chipaca | mborzecki: doesn't that change it over unconditionally? ie without checking whether portals are there? | 14:52 |
| mvo | cachio: yeah, I think that will make the test better | 14:53 |
| cachio | Chipaca, thanks for the +1 | 14:53 |
| cachio | mvo, ok, I'll create it after lunch | 14:53 |
| mvo | cachio: thank you! | 14:53 |
| cachio | the same for test-snapd-tools right? | 14:54 |
| mvo | cachio: I'm working on a fix now to not (ab)use snapd-core-fixup.sh to setup the user for spread :) | 14:54 |
| mvo | cachio: yes | 14:54 |
| mvo | cachio: but maybe we don't need test-snapd-tools anymore now that we have -sh | 14:54 |
| mvo | cachio: wdyt? | 14:54 |
| mup | PR snapd#7851 closed: tests: use test-snapd-sh snap instead of test-snapd-tools - Part 3 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7851> | 14:55 |
| cachio | mvo, we use test-snapd-tools-core18 in 2 tests | 14:55 |
| mvo | cachio: ok, thanks, I don't remember enough details, you can choose :) | 14:55 |
| cachio | mvo, ok, thanks | 14:56 |
| mborzecki | Chipaca: we try to ping the service by calling org.freedesktop.DBus.Peer.Ping() if that fails the snapd user session launcher is used | 14:56 |
| * cachio lunch | 14:57 | |
| mup | PR snapd#7951 opened: tests: use test-snapd-sh snap instead of test-snapd-tools - Part 3 (2.43) <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7951> | 14:59 |
| mvo | cachio: for later - I ported https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7951 double check would be great | 14:59 |
| mup | PR #7951: tests: use test-snapd-sh snap instead of test-snapd-tools - Part 3 (2.43) <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7951> | 14:59 |
| === hggdh is now known as QuosqueTandem | ||
| mup | PR snapd#7952 opened: snap-bootstrap: trigger udev after filesystem creation <UC20> <Created by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7952> | 15:46 |
| mup | PR snapd#7953 opened: tests: use new snapd.spread-tweaks.service unit <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/7953> | 16:20 |
| roadmr | cachio, sil2100 : did either of you release core18 about 50min ago? | 16:56 |
| Chipaca | EOY for me. TTFN, HANEOY, etc etc etc | 17:05 |
| Chipaca | 👋 | 17:05 |
| sil2100 | roadmr: ok, so it might have been me, but it was a bit earlier than that - since it was phased to 100% at the usual time but wasn't released fully, so I did the final push without phase percentage some time ago - did I break something with that...? | 17:31 |
| sil2100 | Since I should have done a no-percentage release when we reached 100%, but it popped out of my mind | 17:31 |
| sil2100 | Probably shouldn't have been trigger happy and doing the no-percentage push now, since I guess 100% phasing != no-phased-percentage | 17:33 |
| roadmr | sil2100: did you use phasing for the release? | 17:34 |
| roadmr | sil2100: we saw a storm of requests (like when core was released unphased and we'd have to scramble to throttle on our side) | 17:34 |
| sil2100 | roadmr: yes | 17:34 |
| roadmr | sil2100: interesting... so you started at what percentage? | 17:35 |
| sil2100 | roadmr: and I think it should have been sitting in 100% phasing for a while | 17:35 |
| sil2100 | roadmr: I think yesterday I started with 20% | 17:35 |
| sil2100 | roadmr: when did the storm of requests start? | 17:35 |
| roadmr | sil2100: aha, that should have been ok | 17:35 |
| roadmr | 16:34 UTC first alert, so it probably started shortly before that | 17:36 |
| sil2100 | roadmr: so my phasing was a bit uneven this time, since yesterday it was 20, then 50, then 70 but with long periods in-between those | 17:36 |
| sil2100 | But yeah, I'd expect most should have gotten it yesterday regardless | 17:37 |
| roadmr | sil2100: right, it makes no sense that the final 30% would break things, everyting else looked stable | 17:37 |
| roadmr | sil2100: ok, no problem - your procedure looks correct | 17:38 |
| sil2100 | roadmr: also, as said, it was sitting on phasing 100% for quite a while, I only did the final no-progressive call those ~2 hours ago | 17:39 |
| sil2100 | Since I always have to do the final release API call after phasing to 100% | 17:39 |
| roadmr | right and we saw the issue about 1h ago, so they don't seem to correlate that well :/ | 17:39 |
| roadmr | np sil2100, I'll keep digging for what else may have caused it | 17:40 |
| roadmr | (it could have been a tail of core18 stragglers + a vscode-insiders release) | 17:40 |
| mup | PR snapcraft#2850 opened: hooks: enable command-chain <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/2850> | 19:31 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!