[07:32] <LocutusOfBorg> hello, can we please hint node-d3-transition? it fails now against itself and I opened an upstream ticket https://github.com/d3/d3-transition/issues/126
[07:32] <ubot3> Issue 126 in d3/d3-transition "test 122 failure on Ubuntu" [Open]
[07:32] <gitbot> d3 issue 126 in d3-transition "test 122 failure on Ubuntu" [Open]
[07:32] <LocutusOfBorg> https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/node-d3-transition/impish/arm64
[07:34] <LocutusOfBorg> looks like random failing on amd64 and failing on arm64
[08:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-kvm [amd64] (hirsute-proposed/main) [5.11.0-1008.8] (core)
[08:26] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-kvm [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1040.41] (no packageset)
[08:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fabric-manager-450 [amd64] (impish-proposed) [450.119.04-0ubuntu1]
[08:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fabric-manager-460 [amd64] (impish-proposed) [460.73.01-0ubuntu1]
[09:11] <RikMills> so upgrades to 21.04 are back to being disabled. is that an error since the shim bug is fixed? or another reason?
[09:12] <RikMills> as it was reported that upgrades were switched on last week
[09:22] <jamespage> sil2100: morning
[09:23] <jamespage> if you have cycles today the verification of the ceph uploads for focal and groovy has been completed - the unverified bug is the patch that was dropped in the .2 uploads
[09:23] <juliank> RikMills: some more things boot, others still don't
[09:24] <juliank> RikMills: not sure if reason, but https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1928434
[09:24] <ubot3> Launchpad bug 1928434 in shim (Ubuntu) "shim-signed does not boot on EFI 2.40 by Apple" [Critical, Triaged]
[09:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-kvm [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-1040.41]
[09:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-kvm [amd64] (hirsute-proposed) [5.11.0-1008.8]
[09:39] <RikMills> juliank: ah, the meta-release file modification time/date would make sense with that bug coming to light
[10:13] <sil2100> jamespage: hey! Thanks for the heads up, I'll try to get to it in a bit o/
[10:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gke-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1044.46~18.04.1] (no packageset)
[11:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: libvirt-glib [amd64] (impish-proposed/universe) [4.0.0-1] (desktop-extra)
[13:03] <sil2100> jamespage: ok, looking at it right now - in the meantime a gentle reminder about ceph in hirsute!
[13:04] <sil2100> jamespage: oh and whoops, groovy ceph FTBFS on armhf!
[13:04] <sil2100> /<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/src/mgr/PyModuleRegistry.cc:420:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
[13:05] <sil2100> hm, might be transient, let me re-try the build
[13:05] <sil2100> Ouch, I see armhf builds of ceph take ~10 hours?
[13:06] <sil2100> I won't be able to release it without armhf built
[13:06] <sil2100> Anyway, re-triggering, leaving the build log of the failure opened just in case
[13:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd-signed (groovy-proposed/main) [1.30.1 => 1.30.2] (core)
[13:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [source] (groovy-proposed) [1.4.7-0~20.10.2]
[13:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd-signed [source] (groovy-proposed) [1.30.2]
[13:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (groovy-proposed/main) [1.4.7-0~20.10.2 => 1.4.7-0~20.10.2] (core)
[13:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (groovy-proposed/main) [1.4.7-0~20.10.2 => 1.4.7-0~20.10.2] (core)
[13:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fwupd (groovy-proposed/main) [1.4.7-0~20.10.2 => 1.4.7-0~20.10.2] (core)
[14:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fence-agents [s390x] (impish-proposed/universe) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4] (no packageset)
[14:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fence-agents [amd64] (impish-proposed/universe) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4] (no packageset)
[14:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fence-agents [ppc64el] (impish-proposed/universe) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4] (no packageset)
[14:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fence-agents [arm64] (impish-proposed/universe) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4] (no packageset)
[14:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fence-agents [armhf] (impish-proposed/universe) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4] (no packageset)
[14:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: resource-agents [s390x] (impish-proposed/main) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4] (ubuntu-server)
[14:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: resource-agents [amd64] (impish-proposed/main) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4] (ubuntu-server)
[14:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: resource-agents [ppc64el] (impish-proposed/main) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4] (ubuntu-server)
[14:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: resource-agents [arm64] (impish-proposed/main) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4] (ubuntu-server)
[14:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [amd64] (groovy-proposed) [1.4.7-0~20.10.2]
[14:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [armhf] (groovy-proposed) [1.4.7-0~20.10.2]
[14:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fwupd [arm64] (groovy-proposed) [1.4.7-0~20.10.2]
[14:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: resource-agents [armhf] (impish-proposed/main) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4] (ubuntu-server)
[14:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: fence-agents [riscv64] (impish-proposed/universe) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4] (no packageset)
[14:50] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: resource-agents [riscv64] (impish-proposed/main) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4] (ubuntu-server)
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fence-agents [amd64] (impish-proposed) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fence-agents [armhf] (impish-proposed) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fence-agents [riscv64] (impish-proposed) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted resource-agents [amd64] (impish-proposed) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted resource-agents [armhf] (impish-proposed) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted resource-agents [riscv64] (impish-proposed) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fence-agents [arm64] (impish-proposed) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fence-agents [s390x] (impish-proposed) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted resource-agents [ppc64el] (impish-proposed) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted fence-agents [ppc64el] (impish-proposed) [4.7.1-1ubuntu4]
[14:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted resource-agents [s390x] (impish-proposed) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4]
[15:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted resource-agents [arm64] (impish-proposed) [1:4.7.0-1ubuntu4]
[15:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted libvirt-glib [amd64] (impish-proposed) [4.0.0-1]
[15:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gke-5.4 [amd64] (bionic-proposed) [5.4.0-1044.46~18.04.1]
[15:15] <vorlon> RikMills-M: meta-release> LP: #1928434
[15:15] <ubot3> Launchpad bug 1928434 in shim (Ubuntu) "shim-signed does not boot on EFI 2.40 by Apple" [Critical, Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1928434
[15:19] <RikMills> vorlon: thanks for confirming the reason :)
[15:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-gkeop [amd64] (focal-proposed/main) [5.4.0-1016.17] (no packageset)
[15:36] <jamespage> sil2100: I'd missed that :)
[18:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-gkeop [amd64] (focal-proposed) [5.4.0-1016.17]
[19:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: pacemaker (focal-proposed/main) [2.0.3-3ubuntu4.2 => 2.0.3-3ubuntu4.3] (i386-whitelist, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[20:08] <fossfreedom> Hi - quick question to the release team please.  Just checking today's Impish daily for Ubuntu Budgie - the apt sources are still "hirsute" - any ideas what I may have missed to ensure apt sources pick up from the impish repos?
[20:40] <Eickmeyer> Question for the SRU team: I submitted bug 1928146 as a SRU for nvidia-modprobe and nvidia-settings. Dropped the nvidia-settings since that's part of a separate SRU, but the upload for nvidia-modprobe is done.
[20:40] <ubot3> Bug 1928146 in nvidia-settings (Ubuntu Hirsute) "Please SRU nvidia-modprobe 465.24 and nvidia-settings 460.73" [High, Fix Committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1928146
[21:02] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: I don't read a question in the above?
[21:03] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Sorry, my mistake. I was wondering if anybody had taken a look at it? I guess I'm just concerned that I saw no action. I realize there's a ton of other SRUs, but hadn't even received an acknowledgement.
[21:08] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: when you say you "submitted" it, are you referring to opening the bug tasks for earlier releases?  Because I don't see anything in the queue; the SRU team processes SRUs that have been uploaded, so a bug opened on the stable releases without a corresponding upload is not on our radar
[21:09] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: I uploaded nvidia-modprobe already?
[21:09] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: to which release?  again, it's not in the queue
[21:10] <Eickmeyer> Hirsute, Groovy, and Focal. If it's not there, I'll try again.
[21:10] <vorlon> ok
[21:12] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: This is weird. I have .upload files with records of upload for each one of those releases.
[21:13] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: I see it in the Unapproved queue.
[21:13] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: for which release?
[21:13] <Eickmeyer> Hirsute, Groovy, and Focal. All 3.
[21:14] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: you uploaded it to backports?
[21:14] <vorlon> that would explain why I wasn't seeing it with 'queue -Q unapproved -s hirsute-proposed'
[21:14] <vorlon> and backports are not the domain of the SRU team but of the moribund backports team
[21:15] <Eickmeyer> Oh shoot. I suppose I can fix that. Wanna reject those?
[21:15] <vorlon> sure
[21:15] <Eickmeyer> Thanks.
[21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected nvidia-modprobe [source] (groovy-backports) [465.24.02-1~ubuntu20.10.1]
[21:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected nvidia-modprobe [source] (hirsute-backports) [465.24.02-1~ubuntu21.04.1]
[21:16] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Weird that it went to backports for those. The one for Focal was definitely for updates though.
[21:17] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: it should only have gone to backports if you had 'backports' in debian/changelog
[21:17] <Eickmeyer> That might explain it. I should've specified the SRU title.
[21:17] <vorlon> and yes, I see it in the queue for focal; the focal queue seems to have a few things ahead of it
[21:18] <Eickmeyer> Awesome. I'll just reupload for hirsute and groovy then.
[21:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-modprobe (groovy-proposed/multiverse) [460.32.03-0ubuntu20.10.1 => 465.24.02-1~ubuntu20.10.1] (no packageset)
[21:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nvidia-modprobe (hirsute-proposed/multiverse) [460.32.03-1 => 465.24.02-1~ubuntu21.04.1] (no packageset)
[21:23] <Eickmeyer> vorlon: Do those look any better? ^
[21:23] <vorlon> Eickmeyer: yep :)
[21:24] <Eickmeyer> Awesome. :)
[22:14] <sergiodj> vorlon: new sssd from debian depends on libpam-wrapper, which is not on i386.  I'm checking if it can be disabled there (it's <!nocheck>), but just a heads up that we might need more packages on i386 because :-/
[22:15] <vorlon> sergiodj: annoying :) libpam-wrapper itself seems to be a trivial build though
[22:15] <sergiodj> yeah
[22:15] <sergiodj> I'll keep you posted :)
[22:17] <mwhudson> so what are the usual reasons for tests passing locally but not on the autopkgtest machines
[22:17] <mwhudson> this one involves ghostscript, which makes me think apparmor
[22:18] <mwhudson> but surely the autopkgtest runners don't have different apparmor config to what autopkgtest-buildvm-ubuntu-cloud does?
[22:18] <mwhudson> or if they do, i would like to register a complaint :-)
[22:27] <vorlon> not that I'm aware of
[22:27] <vorlon> network config is often different (proxy, firewall)
[22:28] <mwhudson> i think the xfig failures are because something ghostscipty is failing and then it tries to pop up a dialog to explain why and this fails because there is no ui running
[22:28] <mwhudson> but this of course neatly obscures what the ghostscripty failure is :/
[22:29] <mwhudson> testing a change that should show the error better, maybe
[22:30] <mwhudson> if this is down to network config differences, i would also like to register a complaint, but not with our infrastructure this time :)
[22:35] <mwhudson> heh christian's mail to ubuntu-devel reminds me that it can be ISA differences too
[22:35] <bdmurray> vorlon: I've sru-verified ubuntu-release-upgrader in focal-proposed which fixes bug 1928397. I think it'd be nice to release early but I'm fine either way.
[22:35] <ubot3> Bug 1928397 in ubuntu-release-upgrader (Ubuntu Focal) "ensure python is marked for removal when upgrading from 18.04 to 20.04" [Undecided, Fix Committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1928397
[22:35] <mwhudson> (that would also be upsetting)
[22:36] <bdmurray> At this rate I'm gonna put money on mwhudson being upset
[22:37] <mwhudson> yeah that's pretty likely
[22:38] <mwhudson> Cannot open pipe with command:
[22:38] <mwhudson> gs -q -dNODISPLAY "--permit-file-read=../.././data/cross.pdf" -c "(../.././data/cross.pdf) (r) file runpdfbegin 1 pdfgetpage /MediaBox pget pop == quit"
[22:38] <mwhudson> well ok
[22:38] <mwhudson> why not, damn you
[22:49] <vorlon> soooo what changed that caused update-motd autopkgtest to start failing with an 'Invalid argument' to fcntl?  doesn't appear to be glibc, which migrated a day later
[22:50] <vorlon> and the kernel didn't change
[22:51] <vorlon> and python3.9 didn't change
[22:54] <mwhudson> how does it even call fcntl? flock i guess?
[22:54] <vorlon> seems to be a direct call to fcntl.fcntl within debian/tests/wait-for-apt-update-to-finish
[22:55] <mwhudson> oh yeah i see it
[22:55] <mwhudson> armhf only
[22:55] <mwhudson> lxd / seccomp?
[22:57] <mwhudson> there was a lxd release on the 7th, which is around the window when it started failing
[22:59] <mwhudson> although this run is after that https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-hirsute/hirsute/armhf/u/update-motd/20210513_173146_86ab6@/log.gz and although it fails for other reasons, no EINVAL
[23:00] <vorlon> we don't get lxd versions in the logs, do we
[23:01] <vorlon> but right, it'd be the same lxd version across suites
[23:01] <mwhudson> doesn't look like it
[23:01] <mwhudson> no libseccomp changes
[23:02] <mwhudson> anyway it's the host one that would matter surely
[23:03] <mwhudson> vorlon: i'll try running it in a lxd locally
[23:07] <mwhudson> https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=impish&arch=amd64&package=xfig&ppa=mwhudson/devirt&trigger=xfig/1:3.2.8-2ubuntu1~ppa3 -> "You submitted an invalid request: xfig/1:3.2.8-2ubuntu1~ppa3 is not published in PPA mwhudson/devirt impish"
[23:07] <mwhudson> er, yes it is?
[23:10] <mwhudson> unsurprisingly update-motd tests pass locally in a lxd
[23:10] <mwhudson> vorlon: can you or IS get syslog from the hosts? i guess they are ephemeral vms so "not easily"?
[23:21] <vorlon> mwhudson: the host is persistent, so I can get into it and check syslog; anything particular you want me to look for?
[23:22] <mwhudson> vorlon: just secomp / apparmor noise
[23:22] <mwhudson> but it's totally guessing at this point
[23:25] <vorlon> mwhudson: nothing aligned with the times of the tests
[23:26] <mwhudson> vorlon: hmmph
[23:26] <mwhudson> vorlon: jam a strace in somewhere?
[23:27]  * mwhudson just making stuff up now