[02:13] <mup> PR snapd#9576 opened: [RFC] snap-bootstrap: be more robust for recover mode, ignore some errors <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9576>
[02:18] <mup> PR snapd#9577 opened: many: seal a fallback object to the recovery boot chain <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9577>
[03:18] <mup> PR snapcraft#3344 closed: pyproject: add isort with black-compatible configuration <Created by cjp256> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3344>
[06:24] <mup> PR snapd#9570 closed: gadget/internal: tune ext4 setting for smaller filesystems <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9570>
[06:54] <zyga-mbp> mvo my last day
[06:54] <mvo> good morning zyga-mbp
[06:55] <mvo> zyga-mbp: yes, sad but true
[06:55] <zyga-mbp> I think I got a cold though, last evening I felt terribly weak
[06:55] <zyga-mbp> I'll get to finish what I worked on with pedronis yesterday now
[06:59] <mvo> thanks zyga-mbp ! let me know if I can help in any way
[07:01] <zyga-mbp> sure
[07:01] <zyga-mbp> mvo how do I sign the CLA?
[07:04] <mvo> zyga-mbp: should be super easy, just go to https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors
[07:04] <mvo> zyga-mbp: and navigate to https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors/agreement
[07:04] <mvo> zyga-mbp: and the rest is hopefully straightforward
[07:06] <mborzecki> morning
[07:08] <mvo> good morning mborzecki
[07:09] <mvo> mborzecki: there are some questions from ian in 9565, I would have pushed myself but I'm unsure about the devicestate_test.go questions, could you please have a look? I think this is ready otherwise (and we can always land tweaks in a followup, will make other PRs easier :)
[07:10] <mvo> mborzecki: just to be clear, if this pr just needs tiny tweaks I would merge and do a followup to avoid the spread run time overhead :)
[07:12] <mborzecki> mvo: i'll push those fixes and we can let it run once more
[07:12] <mborzecki> and then land :P
[07:12] <mvo> mborzecki: ok
[07:13] <mborzecki> mvo: hm let me check whether the little tweak in the test is actually making anything different
[07:13] <mvo> mborzecki: sounds good
[07:15] <zyga-mbp> good morning mborzecki
[07:15]  * zyga-mbp goes to the office
[07:16] <mborzecki> mvo: yeah, i've restarted the run which shuld be quick now since most jobs were green, and we can land it
[07:16] <mborzecki> zyga: heya
[07:17] <zyga> o/
[07:19] <mborzecki> zyga: so, when is the farewell party? :P
[07:20] <zyga> mborzecki, I can drop for a beer to Frankfurt next year ;)
[07:20] <mborzecki> zyga: sgtm ;) guess many old colleagues would love to have a beer with you
[07:21] <mvo> mborzecki: oh, it was just ubuntu-18.04 failing, that was a misconfigured apt-get afaict, I can force-land this (unless there is more than this one 18.04 error?)
[07:21] <mborzecki> mvo: already restarted
[07:21] <mvo> zyga: +1 for FRA
[07:24]  * mvo nods
[07:24] <mvo> mborzecki: no worries, will be quick :)
[07:45] <mup> PR snapd#9565 closed: overlord/devicestate: bind mount ubuntu-save under /var/lib/snapd/save on startup <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9565>
[07:57] <mborzecki> brb, graphics corruption on 5.9.1 strikes again
[08:00] <mborzecki> re
[08:02] <zyga> mborzecki, did you consider reverting to an older kernel?
[08:03] <mborzecki> zyga: 'the arch way' there is only one kernel version
[08:03] <mvo> mborzecki: welcome back
[08:03] <zyga> mborzecki, nkvd would approve, march forward ;-)
[08:04] <zyga> mborzecki, but not even the previous kernel you mean?
[08:05] <mborzecki> zyga: no, there's just one kernel package version eg. `linux`, you can have other kernels, eg `linux-lts` which is the latest LTS, but who runs that? :P
[08:05] <mborzecki> zyga: iirc manjaro does something funny, they have linux59, linux58 and so on
[08:06] <pstolowski> morning
[08:06] <mborzecki> zyga: on the rpm side, the kernel is also a 'special' package iirc and you can have more than one
[08:06] <zyga> mborzecki, I wish we can do linux snap for ubuntu classic for 22.04
[08:06] <zyga> including a way to pick one of the supported LTS kernels, upstream kernels, etc
[08:06] <zyga> I would *love* that
[08:07] <zyga> even though OMG DRAGONS apply
[08:07] <mborzecki> heh, hwe/upstream kernels would be great
[08:07] <zyga> mborzecki, yeah, I think so, though I don't know how that is implemented
[08:07] <mborzecki> it's a bummer when an lts release does not even boot
[08:07] <zyga> long term unsupported release
[08:10]  * zyga suspends and reboots for OS update
[08:14] <zyga> and back
[08:14] <zyga> I love this part of VMs
[08:14] <zyga> like suspending a lisp image
[08:15] <mup> PR snapd#9578 opened: o/devicestate: unit test tweaks <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9578>
[08:25] <mup> PR snapd#9579 opened: tests: rename hasHooks to hasInterfaceHooks in the ifacestate tests <Simple 😃> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9579>
[08:35] <mup> PR snapd#9575 closed: testutil, cmd/snap/version: fix misc little errors <Simple 😃> <Test Robustness> <Created by anonymouse64> <Merged by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9575>
[09:06] <pedronis> mborzecki: hi, I tried to answer your question
[09:08] <mborzecki> pedronis: ok, i got confused with the last commit where IsDirectory() got removed, but didn't notice save avaialble is set to true int he branch where there is no mount
[09:11] <mborzecki> ok, and keypair manager creates the path, so we're not blocked by https://github.com/snapcore/core20/pull/91 being available
[09:11] <mup> PR core20#91: hooks: add /var/lib/snapd/save <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by xnox> <https://github.com/snapcore/core20/pull/91>
[09:12] <mborzecki> and i clearly need more coffee
[09:13] <pedronis> mborzecki: the IsDirectory was a left over for when your PR was running that code also on UC16/UC18
[09:14] <mborzecki> ah, i see
[09:20] <mup> PR snapd#9566 closed: boot: store the TPM{PolicyAuthKey,LockoutAuth}File in ubuntu-save <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <Merged by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9566>
[09:28] <zyga> pedronis, I've updated the export manager
[09:29] <zyga> pedronis, some comments are still TODOs on my side but the main change is in place
[09:33] <pedronis> zyga: thanks, special.go is quite simpler now
[09:34] <zyga> pedronis, I think the only thing we need to think about now is the instance case
[09:34] <zyga> pedronis, do we want .../export/snap_key/revision/set
[09:35] <zyga> or .../export/snap/revision_key/set
[09:35] <pedronis> yes
[09:35] <pedronis> ah sorry
[09:35] <pedronis> I mean the former: /export/snap_key/revision
[09:36] <zyga> so the more direct
[09:36] <pedronis> because of where we put current
[09:36] <zyga> sure, I'll do that shortly
[09:36] <pedronis> it's the only reasonable thing
[09:36] <zyga> with the re-mapping layer we will need anyway this is easier and less surprising
[09:36] <zyga> +1
[09:36] <zyga> and even less special cases I think
[09:36] <zyga> I tried adding some more tests but there's at least one missing still
[09:37] <zyga> coverage is good but some specific cases have no explicit tests
[09:37] <zyga> even though it doesn't show up as missing coverage
[09:39] <pedronis> mborzecki: are you looking at #9560 again?
[09:39] <mup> PR #9560: gadget/many: drop usage of gpt attr 59 for indicating creation of partitions <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9560>
[09:39] <mborzecki> pedronis: yeah, it's on my list for today
[09:45] <mup> PR snapd#9580 opened: [RFC] store: download timeout <Bug> <Needs Samuele review> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9580>
[09:45] <pstolowski> pedronis: ^
[09:46] <pedronis> pstolowski: thank you, I don't think I'll get to it before I'm back next week though
[09:47] <pstolowski> pedronis: sure
[10:04] <mvo> pstolowski: 9580 looks pretty neat from a first glance
[10:05] <pstolowski> mvo: thanks, it's tricky stuff, so i'm cautiously optimistic ;) and looking forward to full spread runs
[10:05] <mup> PR snapd#9578 closed: o/devicestate: unit test tweaks <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9578>
[10:05] <mup> PR snapd#9579 closed: tests: rename hasHooks to hasInterfaceHooks in the ifacestate tests <Simple 😃> <Created by stolowski> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9579>
[10:09] <mvo> pstolowski: yeah, it looks like a winner but I have not really digged deep yet, just a first feeling from reading it :)
[10:12] <pedronis> mvo: I tried to answer you questions in #9573, but I'm probably confused
[10:12] <mup> PR #9573: o/devicetate,dirs: keep device keys in ubuntu-save/save for UC20 <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9573>
[10:13] <mvo> pedronis: look but it's probably me being confused, I don't/did not had the full picture but let me read first
[10:15] <mvo> pedronis: what's the longer term plan with "saveAvailable"? will we dynamically umount /save or mount it RO or is the fact that we have /save pretty static? sorry, maybe that was the missing piece for me
[10:16] <pedronis> mvo: I don't know, but otoh I expect a limited set of very structured places to care about that flag or final flaggs
[10:16] <pedronis> if we get m.saveAvailable everywhere we are doing it wrong
[10:17] <pedronis> you proposal seems more going into let's ask about save a bit everywhere
[10:17] <mvo> pedronis: ok and it's "static" in the sense that other parts of snapd will not mess with /save (umount,remount) without this part knowing?
[10:17] <pedronis> mvo: yes, if you look at that my other PR, my main idea is that there will be with* helpers for each things that needs touching save
[10:17] <mvo> pedronis: my proposal would use saveAvailable() the same amount of times as we check the boolean, I was mostly wondering if it might be a TOCTOU issue
[10:18] <pedronis> mvo: what I'm confused, is that sounds you expect the flag to change at random places
[10:18] <pedronis> I would expect to have "one" place to do mount unmount, touch flag
[10:18] <mvo> pedronis: not the flag, but potentially the state of /var/lib/snapd/save
[10:18] <mvo> pedronis: aha, ok
[10:19] <pedronis> mvo: but we control the state
[10:19] <mvo> pedronis: then we should be fine. I was worried because we set it three times to true currently but yeah, this makes sense
[10:19] <mvo> pedronis: let me re-read it again with the added context, thanks for explaining this
[10:20] <pedronis> if we are worried about the mount state to change behind our back, and then yes we need to do something else
[10:20] <pedronis> mvo: to be clear I mostly did the flag as a flag atm because it covers: let us return an error if something tries to use a save helper on UC16/UC18
[10:20] <zyga> pedronis, used snap.Revision now, only the instance key remains
[10:20] <pedronis> that's probably clearer in the ollow
[10:20] <pedronis> *follow up
[10:20] <mup> PR snapd#9581 opened: tests/nested/core20/save: check the bind mount and size bump <Run nested> <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9581>
[10:21] <mvo> pedronis: ta
[10:21]  * mvo reads 9574 too
[10:22] <zyga> meh gofmt
[10:22] <pedronis> mvo: but you are probably right that the TODO on saveAvailable is probably too specific
[10:30] <zyga> pedronis, a pass over https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9546 would be good now
[10:31] <mup> PR #9546: overlord: add inert export manager <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9546>
[10:31] <zyga> I only want to add more tests
[10:31] <zyga> and there's the question of ErrNoState and not returning that in a specific case that I think is okay but you should respond to that point explicitly
[10:37] <pstolowski> abeato: hey, maybe you have thoughts about https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9580#discussion_r514990758 ? this PR introduces download timeout and as is, it requires average speed of 256 bytes/sec, measured over 5-minute time windows
[10:37] <mup> PR #9580: [RFC] store: download timeout <Bug> <Needs Samuele review> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9580>
[10:48] <abeato> pstolowski, I've not followed the bug too much tbh, but sometimes they have cellular connections that might dropt and could cause this sort of problem
[10:49] <pstolowski> abeato: ok, good to know. do you have any thoughts about realistic throughputs from the field?
[10:50] <pedronis> zyga: I did another pass
[10:50] <abeato> pstolowski, don't know the throughput, but something that can happen very realistically is that suddenly the modem is not able to rx/tx packets anymore but it won't drop the connection immediately. Effectively that means that suddenly you get zero bandwidth
[10:50] <pedronis> zyga: and answered your question
[10:51] <abeato> and it can take a long time until something puts the interface down...
[10:52] <pstolowski> abeato: right, the explains the issue i'm trying to fix
[10:52] <zyga> thanks, looking
[10:52] <abeato> pstolowski, so, the safeguard you are implementing seems to me like a very good thing to have
[10:52] <abeato> pstolowski, and not only for this customer
[10:53] <pstolowski> abeato: yes, we have seen it once on desktop
[10:53] <pstolowski> abeato: we just need to be careful no to go overboard with this
[10:54] <abeato> pstolowski, right - also I think cellular is usually the hardest case, where you can have more issues
[10:55] <abeato> pstolowski, which is of course a quite frequent setup in IoT
[11:05] <pedronis> mborzecki: fsck-on-boot failed here:  https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9573/checks?check_run_id=1331162810 don't think is related to the PR but anyway annoying
[11:05] <mup> PR #9573: o/devicetate,dirs: keep device keys in ubuntu-save/save for UC20 <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9573>
[11:05] <pedronis> mborzecki: on 18.04
[11:07] <mborzecki> hmm `umount: /boot/grub: target is busy`
[11:07] <mborzecki> maybe snapd was writing something there?
[11:15] <zyga> pedronis, updated some, replied to others
[11:16] <pedronis> zyga: I re-replied
[11:16] <zyga> oh that was quick :)
[11:16] <pedronis> mborzecki: mvo: I'll force merge 9573, I'll work some tweaks in 74
[11:16] <mborzecki> ok
[11:17] <mvo> pedronis: ta
[11:17] <mvo> pedronis: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9573#discussion_r515005938 would be nice to get a yes/no or followup :)
[11:17] <mup> PR #9573: o/devicetate,dirs: keep device keys in ubuntu-save/save for UC20 <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9573>
[11:17] <mborzecki> ok
[11:19] <pedronis> mvo: I answered to it
[11:19] <mvo> ta
[11:21] <pedronis> mvo: core20 will ship with /save precreated
[11:21] <mup> PR snapd#9573 closed: o/devicetate,dirs: keep device keys in ubuntu-save/save for UC20 <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by pedronis> <Merged by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9573>
[11:21] <pedronis> right now it works anyway because a couple of path will auto-create it anyway
[11:21] <mvo> pedronis: sorry, one more question - when you write "
[11:21] <mvo> in the final world it will always come from core20 itself" do you mean the core20 snap? asking because this is on the writable partition
[11:21] <pedronis> yes, the core20 snap
[11:21] <mvo> ok
[11:22] <pedronis> mvo: core18 and core20 come with a bunch of defined dirs in /var/lib/snapd
[11:22] <pedronis> mborzecki has a PR to do add /save to core20
[11:22] <pedronis> I think it was even merged
[11:22] <pedronis> not sure if it's on some channel yet or not though
[11:23] <mvo> pedronis: ok, then we are good. thanks
[11:25] <zyga> hmmm
[11:25] <zyga> I wonder if there's a subtle mistake in this logic
[11:26] <zyga> snapstate.CurrentInfo requires the snap to have a current revision
[11:26] <pedronis> that's correct
[11:26] <pedronis> snaps always have a current revision
[11:26] <zyga> I check for NotInstalledError
[11:26] <pedronis> or they are not installed
[11:26] <zyga> so perhaps that's fine
[11:26] <pedronis> they might not be active though
[11:27] <zyga> I was wondering if this worked because we are not hitting the path for snapd in practice
[11:27] <pedronis> being active and having a current revision is orthogonal
[11:27] <pedronis> if something is inactive
[11:27] <zyga> ah, I didn't realize this, that's much better then
[11:27] <pedronis> then the curren revision is the last active revision
[11:27] <zyga> because it has to work for inactive case as well
[11:27] <zyga> that's okay then
[11:27] <mborzecki> pedronis: yes, it was merged, but the latest edge is from 10.27, so still without the change
[11:31] <zyga> pedronis, pushed again
[11:32] <zyga> I'll rebase the full branch on this and see if everything passes
[11:33] <pedronis> zyga: the helper to remove the full export/snap is the rest? for remove?
[11:34] <pedronis> *is in the rest
[11:34] <zyga> pedronis, hmm, sorry, which helper exactly?
[11:34] <zyga> pedronis, all of the export manager is in in the smaller PR
[11:35] <pedronis> zyga: when we remove a snap we need to remove the export/snap dir? unlink just remove a version? not current for example
[11:35] <zyga> the unexport-content task removes that
[11:35] <zyga> it is in this branch, but it is not used until the full branch
[11:36] <zyga> the helper to remove the content is here as well, we simply remove the manifest serialized in the state IIRC
[11:36] <pedronis> I'm probably confused
[11:36] <pedronis> there is something wrong or I'm misunderstanding
[11:36] <zyga> the function that removes files for a given manifest is removeExportedFiles
[11:36] <zyga> it is called from doUnexportContent
[11:37] <zyga> which is the handler for unexport-content task
[11:37] <zyga> is that what you were expecting?
[11:38] <zyga> good morning ijohnson
[11:39] <pedronis> zyga: I think it depens on order of things I suppose
[11:40] <pedronis> I think the bits are there
[11:40] <pedronis> zyga: I suppose the issue, is that actual I don't when we unexport content, we do it after we switched it, right?
[11:40] <zyga> in the sense of task ordering, the remove-content runs after unlink-snap, ensuring we, by that time, have picked a new current symlink (or removed it)
[11:40] <pedronis> *actually I don't know
[11:41] <zyga> rigth
[11:41] <zyga> *right
[11:41] <zyga> all content with corresponding snaps is on disk
[11:41] <pedronis> then I think this should work
[11:41] <zyga> we rewrite the current symlink before we remove the content
[11:41]  * pedronis lunch
[11:41] <zyga> I'll break for coffee while tests run
[11:46] <mup> PR snapd#9582 opened: [RFC] gadget/quantity: introduce a new package that captures quantities  <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9582>
[12:04] <zyga> hey cachio
[12:04] <cachio> zyga, hey
[12:04] <zyga> cachio, my last day :)
[12:05] <zyga> can I review anything for you?
[12:05] <cachio> zyga, yes, I know :(
[12:05] <cachio> zyga, #9524
[12:06] <mup> PR #9524: tests: new boot state tool <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9524>
[12:06] <cachio> that one that you already started
[12:06] <zyga> sure, let me look
[12:06] <cachio> thanks
[12:14] <mup> PR snapcraft#3345 opened: project_loader, formatting_utils: take empty env values into account <Created by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3345>
[12:25] <zyga> cachio, https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9524#pullrequestreview-520607334
[12:25] <mup> PR #9524: tests: new boot state tool <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9524>
[12:26] <cachio> zyga, looking
[12:31] <mup> PR snapd#9583 opened: features: enable classic-preserves-xdg-runtime-dir <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9583>
[12:37] <zyga> brb
[12:46] <dot-tobias> ogra: Do you have a tip how I can improve build time for the WPE kiosk snap on ARM? Building on a Pi 4 with 4GB RAM in an LXD container fails most of the time (“unexpected EOF”), I guess its too resource-intensive. Launchpad works, but aborts after ~6 hours because of https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1885164 (reported by cjp256). Next escalation step would be to attempt cross-compilation …
[12:46] <mup> Bug #1885164: snap builds: network access timeout <build-infrastructure> <buildfarm> <lp-snappy> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1885164>
[12:47] <ogra> dot-tobias, add swap ?
[12:47] <zyga> buy 8GB riscv board and cross-compile (/me runs)
[12:53] <ogra> haha
[12:53] <dot-tobias> ogra: That is … something I completely overlooked 🙈
[12:55] <ogra> dot-tobias, also, make sure your storage pool is large enough to write all temporary files during build ... this error sounds more like there isnt enough disk space ...
[12:55] <dot-tobias> zyga: Nice, but still would require to read up quite a bit on cross compiling to do it right and not sink in more days than necessary 😅 <joke>I just came here to package a web app!</joke> 😄
[12:57] <dot-tobias> ogra: I'm using the “dir” storage, followed your blog article https://ograblog.wordpress.com/2020/07/10/building-snap-packages-on-ubuntu-core/ → default lxd snap configuration. I thought that meant it can use 100% of the host resources, which is a 64GB SD card
[12:59] <cachio> zyga, #9524 updated, thanks for the review
[12:59] <mup> PR #9524: tests: new boot state tool <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9524>
[12:59] <ogra> ah, that might be fine then ...
[12:59] <zyga> cachio, looking
[13:02] <zyga> cachio, +1
[13:02] <cachio> tx
[13:02] <zyga> cachio, I'd call the command functions cmd_ ... so that they stand out a little bit more but meh :)
[13:02] <zyga> it's internal now
[13:02] <zyga> part of the benefits of having programs
[13:03] <cachio> hehe
[13:06] <zyga> mborzecki, could you help me with the selinux denial in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9530/ please?
[13:06] <mup> PR #9530: interfaces: share /tmp/.X11-unix/ from host or provider <Needs security review> <Squash-merge> <⚠ Critical> <⛔ Blocked> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9530>
[13:07] <zyga> specifically in centos7 only
[13:09] <mborzecki> zyga: sure, let me see
[13:12] <pedronis> mborzecki: I'm looking at Ian RFC PR, and now I'm very confused,  where do we mount save in initramfs?  we mount to /run/mnt/ubuntu-save, right?
[13:12] <mborzecki> yes
[13:15] <zyga> I'll pick up https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9204
[13:15] <mup> PR #9204: sandbox: track applications unconditionally <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9204>
[13:16] <pedronis> ijohnson: your RFC PR seems quite confused about the 2nd argument to maybeMountSave
[13:18] <ijohnson> pedronis: in meeting let's talk in our meeting later
[13:18] <niemeyer> / ExecutableExists returns whether there an exists an executable with the given name somewhere on $PATH.
[13:18] <niemeyer> :P
[13:20] <zyga> niemeyer, that an an an mistake :D
[13:24] <pedronis> zyga: well the doc document it that way, so I suppose it was intentional
[13:24] <zyga> lol
[13:24] <zyga>     # we are expecting the test to fail on a cgroup v2 system
[13:24] <pedronis> it's very oddly placed though
[13:24] <zyga> this is why the xdg-settings test was failing :)
[13:25] <zyga> it's fixed now
[13:25] <zyga> pedronis, "there an exists" => "there exists" perhaps
[13:25] <pedronis> ah, that as well
[13:26] <pedronis> my point is that it's in stat.go
[13:26] <zyga> I only meant the typo
[13:27] <pedronis> I see, I thought the question was more that FileExists and ExecutableExits are very different beasts similarly named
[13:28] <zyga> mborzecki, there's some SNAFU in centos-7 now
[13:28] <zyga> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/6GyXX4FWZM/
[13:29] <zyga> that is from https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9546/checks?check_run_id=1331732115
[13:29] <mup> PR #9546: overlord: add inert export manager <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9546>
[13:29] <zyga> there's no selinux-policy-base 3.13.1-268
[13:29] <zyga> archive skew?
[13:40] <zyga> mborzecki, woot, https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9204 should now pass
[13:40] <mup> PR #9204: sandbox: track applications unconditionally <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9204>
[13:40] <zyga> have a look at the last patch, it's pretty much what was expected
[13:41] <zyga> I didn't notice this part of the test before, how silly of me
[13:43] <zyga> jamesh, note that https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9204 tweaks the set of allowed dbus-daemon processes (in the invariant checker), IIRC one of your pull requests also did something similar
[13:43] <mup> PR #9204: sandbox: track applications unconditionally <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9204>
[13:43] <mborzecki> zyga: sorry, didn't look, got distracted doing reviews
[13:43] <zyga> mborzecki, no worries
[13:43] <mborzecki> zyga: but it looks like the epel package was built against a newer selinux-policy than is availble in centos repos
[13:44] <mborzecki> zyga: keep in mind that centos is suppsod to sync from rhel and rebuild packages, although it's unclear how laggy that process is (apparently quite laggy)
[13:44] <mborzecki> and epel packages are built against rhel :P
[13:46] <zyga-mbp> they should have called it EEL packages, enterprise extras for linux ;-)
[13:54] <zyga> one more patch for today https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9584
[13:54] <mup> PR #9584: tests: fix rare interaction of tests.session and specific tests <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9584>
[13:56] <mup> PR snapd#9584 opened: tests: fix rare interaction of tests.session and specific tests <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9584>
[14:32] <mup> PR snapd#9581 closed: tests/nested/core20/save: check the bind mount and size bump <Run nested> <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9581>
[14:52] <zyga-mbp> I'll join my last tgif early, if you want to talk about anything I'm there
[15:01] <mvo> zyga-mbp: still in a meeting :(
[15:12] <mup> PR snapd#9585 opened: interfaces/builtin: Add LVM interfaces <Created by fnordahl> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9585>
[15:23] <zyga> pstolowski, https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/install/authenticode
[15:23] <zyga> that's what I thought about but that's for drivers
[15:42] <pedronis> mvo: mborzecki: ijohnson: I defconflicted and updated #9574
[15:42] <mup> PR #9574: o/devicestate,a/sysdb: make a backup of the device serial to save <Run nested> <UC20> <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9574>
[15:52] <mvo> pedronis: thank you!
[15:53] <ijohnson> pedronis: ack will take another look
[15:55] <zyga-mbp> pedronis if you do another pass over export manager I can make more progress on this last day, if not that's fine as well and I fully understand
[15:59]  * cachio lunch
[16:40] <ogra> xnox, ijohnson perhaps one of you can point this guy to the right place to modify the kernel cmdline in UC20 (do we have any docs how to do this, given thats rather essential at times to initialize peripherials etc) https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/configure-grub-with-ubuntu-core-20/20835
[16:41] <ijohnson> ogra: yeah I will respond, it's sad and messy atm if they want fde
[16:41] <ijohnson> and actually even if they don't want fde it's still sad and messy
[16:41] <ogra> oh my
[16:41] <ogra> we should just have switched everything to u-oot 😛
[16:42] <ogra> *u-boot
[16:42] <ogra> (or port ondra's LK stuff to x86 !!)
[16:42] <ijohnson> we should chain load u-boot to grub to lk back to grub and then throw in the pi bootloader just for fun at the end
[16:43] <ogra> !
[16:55] <mvo> ijohnson: if you could review 9574 at some point today, that woudl rock
[16:55] <ijohnson> mvo: sure
[16:55] <mvo> ijohnson: thank you!
[16:56]  * mvo if off for dinner and one last time hockey before all is shut down
[16:56] <ijohnson> mvo: also I just reviewed #9555
[16:56] <mup> PR #9555: asserts: implement "storage-safety" in uc20 model assertion <Skip spread> <UC20> <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9555>
[16:56] <ijohnson> a couple of comments for you but nothing major hopefully
[16:56] <ijohnson> I like the prefer-unencrypted option now though, thanks for getting that addressed
[17:14]  * cachio afk -> errands
[18:10] <zyga> thanks ijohnson
[18:10] <zyga> I was surprised by the volume of red there
[18:10] <zyga> and I realized I force-pushed an earlier version
[18:11] <zyga> laptop repo vs desktop repo
[18:11] <ijohnson> ah
[18:11] <ijohnson> I've done that kind of error before :-)
[18:12]  * zyga goes afk for the evening
[18:12] <zyga> ijohnson, star trek discovery day :D
[18:12] <zyga> to boldly reherse the same old story with new cast and different starship design
[18:12] <zyga> (spoken with honest trailers voice)
[18:12] <ijohnson> hahahahaha
[20:23] <mup> PR snapd#9583 closed: features: enable classic-preserves-xdg-runtime-dir <Created by zyga> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9583>
[20:23] <mup> PR snapd#9584 closed: tests: fix rare interaction of tests.session and specific tests <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9584>
[21:46] <mup> PR snapcraft#3346 opened: Fix rosdep ROS_PYTHON_VERSION <Created by artivis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3346>