[06:25] <zyga-mbp> good morning
[06:50] <mborzecki> morning
[06:52] <zyga-mbp> mborzecki hey
[06:52] <mborzecki> zyga-mbp: hey
[08:08] <pstolowski> morning
[09:03] <zyga> mborzecki, https://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=swap-fix
[09:03] <zyga> mborzecki, any chance this is killing suse images?
[09:03] <zyga> maybe it's not the fs but swapfile vs swap partition?
[09:07] <mborzecki> zyga: no i don't think so, from the backtraces we have it's like xfs workqueue is building up
[09:07] <zyga> mborzecki, mmm
[09:08] <zyga> mborzecki, I'm puzzled by the fact that the official images use xfs
[09:08] <zyga> is there btrfs involved as well?
[09:08] <zyga> I recall that the "snapper" program was really heavy and it was a part of the default install
[09:08] <mborzecki> zyga: not in this one, but default kvm images use btrfs iirc ;)
[09:09] <zyga> that's even more confusing, why differ so much
[09:09] <zyga> oh well
[09:09] <zyga> good luck on tracking that bug down
[09:10] <mborzecki> zyga: fwiw, i have kiwi that sets up ext4 on rootfs and the image seems to be working fine so far in gce
[09:11] <zyga> mborzecki, did you try talking to anyone at suse?
[09:11] <mborzecki> zyga: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182761
[09:12] <zyga> nice
[10:22] <mup> PR snapd#9985 opened: boot: fix typo, should be systems <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9985>
[10:41] <pedronis> pstolowski: hi, looks like #9978 can be merged
[10:41] <mup> PR #9978: asserts: use Fetcher in AddSequenceToUpdate <validation-sets :white_check_mark:> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9978>
[10:42] <pstolowski> pedronis: uff, finally, thanks
[10:43] <pedronis> mborzecki: I should review #9921 and #9940 right?
[10:43] <mup> PR #9921: boot: helper for setting up a try recover system  <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9921>
[10:43] <mup> PR #9940:  boot: cmd/snap-bootstrap: handle a candidate recovery system v2 <Run nested> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9940>
[10:43] <mborzecki> pedronis: yes, please do if you can
[10:47] <mup> PR snapd#9978 closed: asserts: use Fetcher in AddSequenceToUpdate <validation-sets :white_check_mark:> <Created by stolowski> <Merged by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9978>
[10:52] <mup> PR snapd#9980 closed: o/devicestate: test that users.create.automatic is configured early <Created by pedronis> <Merged by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9980>
[11:02] <mup> PR snapd#9986 opened: polkit: add a package to validate polkit policy files <Created by jhenstridge> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9986>
[11:16] <pstolowski> pedronis: i think i'll re-open #9922 anew (the comments so far were addressed). rebasing is confusing again
[11:16] <mup> PR #9922: api: validation sets monitor mode <Needs Samuele review> <validation-sets :white_check_mark:> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9922>
[11:49] <pedronis> pstolowski: silly question, are you dropping things when you rebase?
[11:51] <pstolowski> pedronis: i usually 'rebase -i' and mark commits for squashing
[11:52] <pstolowski> that's only when i want to clean history of course
[11:54] <pedronis> pstolowski: you usually need to use d as well, if you are rebasing because master had got a different variant of the same code
[11:55] <pedronis> pstolowski: but maybe that's what you meant
[11:56] <pstolowski> pedronis: use 'd' where?
[11:56] <pedronis> pstolowski: in the commands you pass with -i
[11:56] <pedronis> when you edit the instructions
[11:57] <pstolowski> pedronis: ah there, ok.. i need to see
[11:57] <mup> PR snapd#9985 closed: boot: fix typo, should be systems <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9985>
[12:06] <pstolowski> pedronis: yes, that did it! thanks!
[12:07] <mup> PR snapd#9987 opened: tests: improve tests documentation - part 1 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9987>
[12:40] <mborzecki> meh, tweaking modenv for good/current recovery systems
[12:41] <mborzecki> did some naiive changes and it feels a bit silly to load essential snaps from seed twice for the same system
[12:41] <mvo> pedronis: I updated 9981 a bit more, needs a bunch of more docstring text I think but the gist should be there now
[12:41] <mvo> pedronis: thanks again for your suggestions about this one!
[12:42] <pedronis> mvo: thanks, I have no time to look at it right now though
[12:42] <mvo> pedronis: no problem, not urgent
[12:42] <mvo> pedronis: the other two need to land first anyway or it's too messy to review
[12:42] <mvo> pedronis: I will poke ppl
[12:53] <cachio> mborzecki, hi, is it ok to merge #9975 ?
[12:53] <mup> PR #9975: tests: fix new tumbleweed image <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9975>
[12:53] <cachio> the idea is to continue with the other tests in a second PR
[12:53] <mborzecki> cachio: ah. ok, then, let me +1 it
[12:54] <cachio> thanks
[12:54] <mborzecki> cachio: left some notes what about the tweaks we need: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9975#issuecomment-789489540
[12:54] <mup> PR #9975: tests: fix new tumbleweed image <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9975>
[12:54] <cachio> mborzecki, yes I saw that, I'll include that in the next PR
[12:55] <mborzecki> cachio: cool, thank you!
[12:55] <cachio> snap run issue is happening since long time ago
[12:55] <cachio> the seg fault one
[12:57] <mup> PR snapd#9975 closed: tests: fix new tumbleweed image <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9975>
[13:22] <mup> PR snapd#9988 opened: o/snapshotstate: create snapshots directory on import <Bug> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9988>
[13:25] <rbasak> Is there a manifest of what packages are used to form core20 somewhere?
[13:25] <rbasak> I'm not sure if this the right place to ask. Which team makes the core images?
[13:26] <pedronis> mborzecki: I reviewed 9921, it looks ok, but still a bit unsure if the helper has the right granularity
[13:26] <ogra> rbasak, /snap/core20/current/snap/manifest.yaml
[13:26] <pedronis> rbasak: core20 is produced by foundations
[13:26] <rbasak> ogra: perfect, thanks! And useful to know for next time, thanks pedronis
[13:26] <ogra> rbasak, though note that even though that lists the packages, bits and pieces of them might be removed
[13:27] <rbasak> Sure
[13:27] <rbasak> The issue is that I'm trying to work around snapcraft not including recursive dependencies stated in stage-packages when using a classic snap
[13:27] <rbasak> I'm working through them one by one, which is really tedious.
[13:27] <ogra> hehm yeah
[13:27] <rbasak> I thought I'd try the set difference between what I need, and what core20 includes
[13:28] <rbasak> Uh
[13:28] <rbasak> Intersection I guess
[13:37] <mup> PR snapd#9989 opened: boot: reseal the run key for all recovery systems, but recovery keys only for the good ones <Run nested> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9989>
[13:42] <mup> PR snapd#9990 opened: tests: fix tumbleweed spread tests part 2 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9990>
[14:43] <mup> PR snapd#9977 closed: bootloader/lkenv: add recovery systems related variables <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9977>
[15:25] <mup> PR snapcraft#3460 opened: repo: introduce DebPackage class to standardize package name parsing <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3460>
[15:45] <mup> PR snapcraft#3459 closed: repo: account for arch & version when filtering stage packages <Created by cjp256> <Closed by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3459>
[15:45] <mup> PR snapcraft#3461 opened: repo: account for arch & version when filtering stage packages <Created by cjp256> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3461>
[16:05]  * cachio lunch
[16:23] <ijohnson> degville: btw did you finish that system user assertion doc you were working on and wanted me to review?
[16:26] <degville> ijohnson: I did - I actually made my edits to the forum post. It would be really helpful if you wanted to take a look over it: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/system-user/19740
[16:27] <ijohnson> degville: ah ok, I for some reason was waiting for a gdoc to review, I'll haea look at the forum then thanks
[16:27] <ijohnson> *have
[16:27] <degville> just noticed that https://ubuntu.com/core/docs/system-user is a 404. I'll fix that.
[16:28] <degville> ijohnson: thank you!
[16:28] <degville> ijohnson: (feel free to paste it into a gdoc if it's easier for you to leave comments)
[16:29] <ijohnson> I'll just comment on the forum that's fine with me
[16:29] <ijohnson> (or edit it myself if it's trivial enough :-) )
[16:31] <ijohnson> degville: actually doc looks great as-is thanks for all the work on it
[16:32] <degville> ijohnson: brilliant, thanks for looking!
[16:32] <ijohnson> np
[16:53] <mup> PR snapd#9991 opened: tests/main/lxd/prep-snapd-in-lxd.sh: dump contents of sources.list <Simple 😃> <Test Robustness> <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9991>
[17:09] <ijohnson> oops store is unhappy now
[17:11] <cjwatson> yes, see ~is-outage on MM
[17:11] <ijohnson> yeah not a big deal for me, just noticed some tests failing in CI
[17:33] <mup> PR snapd#9992 opened: snapstate: error is "snap refresh" has no updates because of conflicts <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/9992>
[22:34] <om26er> is there a way for a project to have multiple snapcraft.yaml files in it i.e. can we tell `snapcraft` cli too somehow to use a specific yaml file ?
[23:44] <ijohnson> om26er: no unfortunately not
[23:45] <om26er> ijohnson bummer! that'd make for a very useful feature for projects that want to do "variants" of their software
[23:47] <ijohnson> om26er: yeah it would be useful, you could try filing a bug/feature request at bugs launchpad.net/snapcraft