/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2021/07/15/#ubuntu-devel.txt

mwhudsonah waiting for gcc-10 to build00:45
mwhudsonhttps://code.launchpad.net/~dbungert/curtin/+git/curtin/+merge/40565501:57
mwhudsonno01:57
mwhudsonlrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2021-06-28 02:52 ./libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2 -> /libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.201:57
mwhudsonhmm01:57
mwhudsonhow did i do that01:57
sarnoldfun01:57
mwhudsonoh for heavens sake01:58
mwhudsonfrom=debian/tmp-x32$rtld_so \01:58
mwhudsonsoname=`basename $rtld_so` \01:58
mwhudsonto="debian/tmp-x32//libx32/$soname" ; \01:58
mwhudsonif [ $from != $to ]; then \01:58
mwhudsonthat's comparing debian/tmp-x32/libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2 with debian/tmp-x32//libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.201:59
mwhudsontseliot: what happen02:08
mwhudson(looking at ubuntu-drivers autopkgtests)02:08
mwhudsoner build logs02:08
mwhudsonare these messages coming from apt??02:34
mwhudsonyes they are but it looks like they've been emitted since 2014 so what has changed?02:41
FourDollarsRegarding https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1932559, I saw oem-somerville-gendry-meta on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+queue after I executed ./copy-package --from ppa:canonical-oem-metapackage-uploaders/ubuntu/oem-metapackage-staging --from-suite focal --to ubuntu --to-suite focal-proposed oem-somerville-gendry-meta. But its Component is 'universe' instead of 'main'. Any idea?03:59
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1932559 in Ubuntu "[MIR] oem-somerville-gendry-meta" [Undecided, Confirmed]03:59
mwhudsonFourDollars: i'm no expert, but i would guess that will get deault with when the queue gets processed04:15
seb128hum, I don't seem to be able to sso login to do autopkgtest retries08:43
seb128like https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/request.cgi?release=impish&arch=amd64&package=colord&trigger=gnome-settings-daemon/40.0.1-1ubuntu1 sends me to a sso login page08:44
seb128I click the button, get the ubuntu one page with my username listed and checked, I click 'yes, log me in' and I get a non secure redirection warning from firefox08:44
seb128bah, and now it worked08:44
seb128alright, probably a transient issue and bad timing08:45
tseliotmwhudson, ?08:51
slyonseb128: After investigating the systemd vs network-manager autopkgtests I think there is an actual regression in NM v1.32: https://pad.lv/193631209:32
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1936312 in network-manager (Ubuntu) "nm-online times out, failing autopkgtests" [Undecided, New]09:32
seb128slyon, hey, thanks for investigating. I wonder if that's my fault for removing ubuntu_revert_systemd.patch in https://git.launchpad.net/network-manager/commit/?id=4c4f717209:46
ubottuCommit 4c4f717 in network-manager "Update packaging for the new version"09:46
seb128slyon, that sounds similar to bug #1914062 which was why it was added but the problem was supposed to be fixed in systemd09:47
ubottuBug 1914062 in systemd (Ubuntu) "NetworkManager-wait-online.service in 1.28.0-2ubuntu1 fails to start in LXC" [High, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/191406209:47
slyonyes that looks very related. could we keep that ubuntu_revert_systemd.patch?09:51
mwhudsontseliot: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-drivers-common/1:0.9.109:51
mwhudsondoko: gcc-10 taking 24 hours + on amd64 doesn't seem normal? :/09:54
slyonseb128: looks like the supposed fix in systemd (247.3-1ubuntu1) was reverted only one day later by @stgraber https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu/+source/systemd/commit/?h=ubuntu-impish&id=efebddfe37efff6a259ef7fd59212d65ad1b848b10:16
ubottuCommit efebddf in ~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu/+source/systemd "Revert 'Don't start udevd service and sockets in LXC'"10:16
slyonI'm not sure whats going on there... looks like we have 2 patches available to fix the problem, both dropped from the current packages10:17
slyonMaybe stgraber can comment on that situation (^^^) once he is available10:20
seb128slyon, right, thanks for noticing the revert!10:25
seb128stgraber, ^10:25
mwhudsonthere seems to be an almost universal law that clisp migrations are blocked by sbcl failures and vice versa10:30
mwhudson(and also that they are completely incomprehensible, but that may be because i haven't really done any common lisp in like 15 years)10:31
dokomwhudson, it is normal, if a build ends on slow hardware. yes, fastest builds are around 10h10:32
mwhudsondoko: ah ok10:33
dokomwhudson, I only checked the bison rebuild, nothing else. the other rebuilds did already migrate10:33
mwhudsondoko: yeah, the _dl_catch_error thing on i386 is strange10:34
mwhudsonmakes https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#glibc ugly to look at10:35
tseliotmwhudson, yes, I noticed the failures, I suspect the error from the log is just a red herring, and it's the actual writing the package list to a file that is failing10:42
laneyjuliank: any comments on https://gist.github.com/iainlane/cf7a426ea35066e7ace8046cab922e6a as a way to find esm updates you "could" get?11:09
=== davdunc_ is now known as davdunc
julianklaney: looks ok to me11:18
laney👍11:19
laneya constant on the API for -32768 would be nice11:19
xnoxslyon:  there was a fix submitted by stgraber's team into systemd, which got merged. We must run udevd service and sockets in LXC. And issues that were preventing from running them should be fixed in latest systemd release. Is the tl;dr that I know about.11:20
julianklaney: I'd just skip that check, to be honest11:22
juliankIf you manually pin ESM down, it will pop up as disabled, but oh well11:22
laneyjuliank: not sure what you mean, pop up how?11:23
julianklaney: If you remove the check, you'd also see ESM upgrades you missed out on because of local pinning config11:23
laneyoic11:23
julianklaney: Though presumably you'd want to just check priority < 011:23
laneyis that desirable?11:23
juliankI realized that you probably want to check for "disabled" ESM and not ESM updates that are not the candidate because you have a PPA with higher version :)11:24
laneyyeah11:24
laneyI guess I want to say, if we remove this Pin-Priority: never, would it be the candidate?11:25
julianklaney: I mean, you could also call policy.set_priority(version, 500) and then check if it becomes the candidate :D11:26
juliankscary11:26
laneyheh11:26
laneyis that smart?11:26
laneyit feels kinda smart11:26
juliankOr maybe it doesn't work I don't remember11:26
juliankbecause it's supposed to not be overridable by preferences files11:27
laneyi'll try it, see what happens11:27
laneysuppose I have to remember the old priority and unset it at the end11:27
laneymake me a context manager for this kind of thing :D11:28
julianklaney: Um, well, the priority is probably 0 by default (it falls back to the package file)11:28
julianklaney: But the current thing essentially is what I did in the ua apt hook11:29
julianklaney: Where do you want to put this code, btw?11:29
juliankbecause python-apt is scary slow, hence we went with C++ for the hook (and Go for the new one)11:29
laneyjuliank: update-manager11:29
juliankah, ok, makes sense there11:30
laneyideally I'll find an existing loop through the cache to put this in11:30
julianklaney: You could loop over the PackageFile objects first and check if any actually are a disabled ESM source before checking further11:33
julianklaney: But it's only accessible from apt_pkg I think11:33
julianklaney: Probably I think it's best to keep the code as is rather than try to play with the policy, I'm scared a bit by policy.cc11:34
* juliank is not sure it's possible to reset the priority, or well, actually set it11:36
juliank:D11:36
juliankyeah, apt is broken, SetPriority() forgets to set the type11:37
juliankIn [14]: c._depcache.policy.set_priority(c["apt"].candidate._cand, 912)11:38
juliankIn [15]: c._depcache.policy.get_priority(c["apt"].candidate._cand)11:38
juliankOut[15]: 50011:38
julianklol11:38
juliankapparently nothing relies on this :D11:39
laneyjuliank: heh, ok11:57
laneyI don't know about PackageFiles sooooo11:57
laneyif you think it's fine I'll leave it as is, maybe fix the -32768 bit11:57
slyonxnox: thanks! I'll try to digg that up, to find out why it doesn't work12:03
xnoxslyon:  it was fixed upstream.....12:04
slyonyeah, I'm currently searching upstream github12:04
slyonxnox: with "latest release" did you mean v249 (from ~8days ago) or v248?12:05
xnoxslyon:  i think it is https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/18559 which got closed in favor of dozen other prs.12:06
ubottuPull 18559 in systemd/systemd "udevadm: don't return early" [Closed]12:06
xnoxi.e. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/18684/files12:07
ubottuPull 18684 in systemd/systemd "sd-device, udev: several cleanups and one udevadm fix" [Merged]12:07
xnoxhttps://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/1871712:07
ubottuPull 18717 in systemd/systemd "sd-device-monitor: introduce two new filters and use them in dissect-image.c" [Merged]12:07
slyonthanks for the pointer!12:07
xnoxso it should be there since v248-rc112:07
xnoxand v248 should work just fine with udev _enabled_ to run in lxd containers.12:08
xnox(i can't remember what upstream default is, in Ubuntu we _must_ have udev enabled)12:08
xnoxlots of device passthrough features and products depend on it from Canonical.12:08
slyonok. I will double check that12:08
iceyhey jamespage - is 22+ hours normal for a ceph build on riscv64?!12:33
lucasmouraHi sil2100, when you have some time, can you take a look at this SRU here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/193490212:59
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1934902 in ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu Impish) "[SRU] ubuntu-advantage-tools (27.1 -> 27.2) Xenial, Bionic, Focal, Hirsute" [Undecided, New]12:59
lucasmouraWe need the packages on the proposed pocket to start our tests here which will allow the SRU to proceed13:00
xnoxicey:  you can look how long previous build took..... "Finished on 2021-05-27 (took 2 days, 7 hours, 12 minutes, 53.1 seconds)"13:44
iceyxnox: ah thanks for the pointer; and wow, two days!13:46
sil2100lucasmoura: hey! Let me take a look in a bit, I didn't start my SRU shift yet - will do shortly13:54
lucasmouraThanks sil210013:56
=== genii-core is now known as genii
seb128bryyce, would probably makes sense to hold on disruptive updates that get in the way of the openldap transition14:07
seb128bryyce, the apache2 and backuppc updates from yesterday show autopkgtest regressions14:08
seb128bdmurray, is anyone working on update-manager autopkgtests failing? that's also in the way to unblock the openldap, gnome, etc transitions14:09
bdmurrayseb128: I started having a look yesterday and will dive into it more today14:34
bdmurrayxnox: Do you have an idea of what's going on in bug 1924850?14:35
ubottuBug 1924850 in usrmerge (Ubuntu) "package usrmerge 24ubuntu3 failed to install/upgrade: installed usrmerge package post-installation script subprocess returned error exit status 1" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/192485014:35
seb128bdmurray, I expect the fix is going to be similar to http://launchpadlibrarian.net/548108821/apturl_0.5.2ubuntu20_0.5.2ubuntu21.diff.gz14:38
seb128bdmurray, in case that's helping14:38
xnoxbdmurray:  it feels like people have installed a usrmerged system. trying to upgrade. as part of upgrade usrmerge is installed for the first time. and it is confused about life and is trying to convert.... an already converted system.14:56
xnoxbdmurray:  i'm not sure how they installed their systems.14:57
bdmurrayxnox: okay, so it seems like a corner case then?14:58
xnoxbdmurray:  it has not come up in my testing. but it seems like multiple people are hitting it. it would be nice to figure out how to reproduce this issue and see if we can fix anything in usrmerge to make it less confused about life.15:03
bdmurrayxnox: okay, I'll test some more and ask for details15:06
sergiodjseb128: FWIW openldap has been blocked waiting on gnome-shell to become installable again; that's why it's still in -proposed :(15:07
sergiodjwell, arguably now ceph is also blocking openldap, but I saw the issue has been resolved15:08
bryyceseb128, thanks for pointing out the test failures; they appear unrelated to apache and from the logs might just be test flaking, but I'll see if I can get them to pass15:25
bryyceseb128, the apache2 merge itself should be pretty unremarkable, I'm not too worried about it vis a vis openldap.  I agree with you though it would be great to get it cleared since many things are gated on it right now.15:26
TJ-xnox: bdmurray reading the code in convert_file() and applying the logic to my 20.04 amd64 installation where /bin is a symlink to /usr/bin this install would hit the last fatal("Both $n and /usr$n exist") if -e "/usr$n";  - it is unfortunate that there are 4 identical error messages so it is difficult to know where the error was triggered15:27
iceybryyce: I was looking briefly at the apache2 regression - I'd be tempted to retry the failure as it seemed networking related rather than anything related to either diaspora-installer or apache2; that said, are there networking differences between the different architectures on the autopkgtest setup?15:30
icey(I'm about to drop offline for the day but wanted to share the observation, didn't get any deeper than that)15:31
bryyceicey, I looked as well and agree it seems something intermittent.  We'll take care of retriggers and such15:31
iceybryyce: thanks, I don't have permissions so was thinking about trying to repro on ppc64el tomorrow morning, much easier to poke the retry :)15:32
xnoxTJ-:  that can't be good.15:32
xnoxTJ-:  i would have hoped conversions would not even be started on an already merged system.....15:33
iceyanyways,15:33
* icey drops15:33
TJ-xnox: ahhh, so 20.04 would be expected to have been converted since it is a fresh install?15:33
xnoxTJ-:  yes.... we have started to do mergedusr installations long before enforcing usrmerge on upgrade; so we have only just now started to install usrmerge package, which should expect either already converted system or not. And it shouldn't convert already preinstalled systems as merged.15:37
xnoxTJ-:  upgrade paths from splitusr needs to start installation using like bionic.15:37
TJ-xnox: ahhh, thanks for the clarification :)15:42
seb128sergiodj, right, I know, we finally got the things cleared up on the GNOME side now, which is why I'm checking on other things that got in the way since15:49
sergiodjseb128: ack, thanks15:49
sergiodjbryyce: two of the failing test (diaspora-installer and munin) passed with a retrigger15:52
sergiodjI've re-retriggered backuppc with all-proposed15:52
sergiodj... and it's failed again.  sigh15:57
bryycesergiodj, well, some progress at least15:58
bryycethe backuppc problem is failure to ping localhost; that seems suspect15:59
bryycesimilar issue when backuppc ran against glibc16:00
bryycesergiodj, do you have an armhf login handy?  might be worth logging in and seeing if ping is failing generally16:02
sergiodjbryyce: not right now.  I had an armhf machine reserved last week16:04
bryycethe glibc error suggests it could be a permission/ownership issue on /bin/ping616:05
sergiodjit's a very similar error to the one seen when using glibc/2.33-0ubuntu9 as the trigger16:06
bryyceyep16:06
sergiodjcanonistack is misbehaving as usual, I might have to resort to other machines16:11
bryycesergiodj, i'm going to give it one more retrigger just in case16:13
sergiodjbryyce: +116:13
bryycesergiodj, internet has lots of matches on this error message but suggested solutions are all over the map.  But sounds like network config issues might sometimes cause this issue16:15
sergiodjbryyce: yeah, a lot of solutions revolving around capabilities16:16
sergiodjI'll have my lunch now, will check more when I'm back16:16
bryyceditto16:17
bdmurrayseb128: I've uploaded update-manager16:39
laneywelp17:13
laneynow my /boot can't fit two kernels, initrds etc17:13
seb128bdmurray, thanks17:52
mwhudsonoh yeah i saw that ping permission denied thing, was odd21:12
bryycemwhudson, we're still scratching our heads; any ideas?  I see newpid has a similar ping6 error on armhf21:12
bryyceer, same error but with ping, not ping621:13
mwhudsonbryyce: no idea at all sorry21:20
TJ-does it have CAP_NET_RAW ? or alternatively setting net.ipv4.ping_group_range appropriately?21:20
mwhudsonsome seccomp nonsense maybe?21:20
bryycemwhudson, could be; the internet is rife with idea variety here21:21
mwhudsoni mean the fact that it only happens on armhf and armhf is the only arch that runs in a container is unlikely to be a coincidence21:21
bryycemm, good point21:22
mwhudsonbut i would guess the containers are privileged so eh i don't know21:22
mwhudsontrying on canonistack would be interesting but it's not cooperating?21:22
bryycesergio hasn't been able to reproduce it in his armhf environments21:23
bryycehe's currently trying via ppa21:23
mwhudsonthose failing makes me thing the container-ness is more likely to be the problem then21:30
mwhudsonin which case we can ignore the failure tbh21:30
bryycemwhudson, yeah I'm leaning that way too...  https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/HQSxN9qRYQ/ maybe21:54
bryyceor just hint it21:55
mwhudsonbryyce: uhh21:55
mwhudsoni think hinting it would be less gross but ymmv :)21:55
bryycewell I can't upload hints, so it's extra work but agree it's probably cleaner21:56
bdmurraybryyce: I'm here for you bryyce21:58
bdmurrayso much so I said it twice21:58
bryycemwhudson, more seriously though, the patch would disable just the broken portion of the tests, whereas a hint would be a broader brush21:58
mwhudsontrue21:59
bryycein any case, whatever is done for backuppc, newpid likely needs the same treatment21:59
bryycesince backuppc and newpid are both syncs currently, a hint probably does make more sense22:01
sergiodjah, you're talking about the bug here too22:09
sergiodj:)22:09
bryycesergiodj, sorry :-)22:09
sergiodjbryyce: no need!  I was AFK anyway ;)22:10
bryycepresently I'm writing a bug report22:10
bryycesergiodj, if you're +1 on hinting backuppc I can put an MP in for it22:10
sergiodjbryyce: let me just see if reinstalling iputils-ping solves the issue; the test is running right now22:11
bryyceok cool22:11
bryycesergiodj, meanwhile, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/backuppc/+bug/193643722:11
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1936437 in backuppc (Ubuntu) "Backuppc autopkgtest fails doing ping6 due to 'Operation not permitted'" [Undecided, New]22:11
sergiodjbryyce: so, reinstalling iputils-ping seems to have solved the problem22:15
sergiodjbryyce: I can attach a debdiff to the bug if you're OK with it22:15
sergiodjand if we choose this route, then I'll also propose the change to the debian package22:15
bryycesergiodj, yep please do22:18
sergiodjbryyce: on it22:18
bryycesergiodj, huh, I'm glad I mentioned that but honestly felt like too much a long shot22:20
sergiodjbryyce: yeah, who knows what's going on...  perhaps we should add the iputils package to this bug as well22:20
bryycemwhudson, ftr: https://github.com/backuppc/backuppc/issues/17722:21
ubottuIssue 177 in backuppc/backuppc "Ping to local machines don't work" [Closed]22:21
mwhudsonbryyce: huh22:22
bryycemaybe https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/iputils/+bug/1302192 ?22:23
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1302192 in iputils (Ubuntu Trusty) "capabilities not preserved on installation" [Undecided, Confirmed]22:23
bryycethat's pretty ancient though22:23
sarnoldhold on..22:23
mwhudsonit could be something like that but not definitely that22:23
sarnoldnet.ipv4.ping_group_range = 0214748364722:24
sarnoldI think on focal and newer systemd (iirc) forces this ^^^ but on older releases it's set to 0 022:24
sergiodjsarnold: do you happen to know which Ubuntu base system the autopkgtest runners use?22:26
sergiodjI tried reproducing this bug on hirsute, focal and bionic, to no avail22:26
sarnoldsergiodj: I don't know but xenial or bionic wouldn't surprise me22:26
sergiodjusing an lxd armhf container, of course22:26
sergiodjah, I didn't try xenial22:26
sergiodjbryyce: posted a patch there22:34
bryycesergiodj, would it make sense to add iputils-ping as a Depends in t/control?  It is already a B-D though so may already be pulled in?22:37
bryycesergiodj, also should do the reinstall on all arch's or limit the reinstall to just armhf?22:37
sergiodjbryyce: I *think* it's already there, although it doesn't seem to be pulled in explicitly22:38
sergiodjit's Priority: important, so I think it's there22:39
sergiodjbryyce: as for reinstalling only on armhf, I thought about it but decided to keep the patch simpler.  but if you think it's better, then I can certainly update the patch22:40
bryyce@sergiodj, I don't have strong feelings.  I'd probably limit it but as long as it works *shrug*22:43
bryyce@sergiodj, ok given that +1 to upload22:43
sergiodjbryyce: ACK, thanks22:43
mwhudsonthat's ... a thing i guess23:28
mwhudsondo the base images lack xattrs or something? i thought we fixed all those bugs :(23:29
sarnoldI thought I heard that fscaps had to be handled via maintainer scripts, and if setting the caps didn't work, then the maintainer script would have to set setuid on the executables23:30
sarnold.. with the consequence being that fscaps are basically not used23:30
sarnold(I haven't actually looked lately)23:30

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!