[04:53] <mborzecki> morning
[07:05] <pstolowski> morning
[07:07] <mborzecki> pstolowski: hey
[07:19] <pstolowski> mborzecki: need any other reviews?
[07:20] <mborzecki> pstolowski: i think i'm good right now
[07:21] <mborzecki> pstolowski: anything in your validation sets branches that needs looking at?
[07:22] <pstolowski> mborzecki: no, i'm good for now as well, thanks
[07:22] <mup> PR snapd#10982 opened: i/b/common_test: refactor AppArmor features test <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by mardy> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10982>
[07:26] <mborzecki> mardy: hi, i've commented in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10918#pullrequestreview-790768022 does this answer the questions you had?
[07:26] <mup> PR #10918: osutil/disks: add methods to replace gadget/ondisk functions  <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10918>
[08:12] <pstolowski> mardy: need reviews in any particular order?
[08:23] <mardy> pstolowski: this one would help, because then I rebase the sysmodule capability on top of it: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10918
[08:23] <mup> PR #10918: osutil/disks: add methods to replace gadget/ondisk functions  <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10918>
[08:24] <pstolowski> mardy: i approved it yesterday already
[08:27] <mardy> pstolowski: sorry, wrong link :-) https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10982
[08:27] <mup> PR #10982: i/b/common_test: refactor AppArmor features test <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by mardy> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10982>
[08:28] <pstolowski> ok
[08:33] <mvo> hey, I'm a bit out-of-touch right now but I do see some 18.04 related lxd failures in some of the recent spread runs, does anyone know more what's up here? is someone looking :) ?
[08:33] <mvo> (also 20.04 it seems?)
[08:34]  * mvo has some vague memory this was talked about but can't remember
[08:36] <pstolowski> mvo: afair mborzecki said that lxd from candidate (that we reported a bug for) was promoted to stable regardless
[08:36] <pstolowski> but maybe it's something else now?
[08:36] <mvo> pstolowski: ok, I will see if I can find osmething out from the lxd ppl
[08:36] <mvo> mborzecki: 10980 looks like it's good to go?
[08:37] <mborzecki> mvo: yes, if there are no futher comments then we should land it and the kylen try it
[08:38] <mborzecki> mvo: also, https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10947 can land too
[08:38] <mup> PR #10947: tests: run spread tests on debian 11 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10947>
[08:40] <pstolowski> mborzecki: do you know about that lxd issue ^? is this the same you looked at earlier this week
[08:41] <mborzecki> pstolowski: the nested one failing? yeah, according to guys in mm it shoudl be fixed in edge now
[08:42] <mup> PR snapd#10947 closed: tests: run spread tests on debian 11 <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10947>
[08:42] <mup> PR snapd#10980 closed: o/devicestate: copy timesyncd clock timestamp during install <Run nested> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10980>
[08:47] <mup> PR snapd#10983 opened: spread: run lxd tests with version from latest/edge <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10983>
[09:27] <mup> PR snapd#10982 closed: i/b/common_test: refactor AppArmor features test <Simple 😃> <Skip spread> <Created by mardy> <Merged by mardy> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10982>
[09:29] <mardy> mborzecki: I just added a comment to the same PR, I think that the +1 is correct but I still don't get why we don't subtract StartLBA
[09:34] <mborzecki> mardy: yeah, i think there's some confusion about the purpose or the kind of the size information returned there
[09:35] <mborzecki> in certain scenarios (eg. layout) we need to know the actual block device size 
[09:35] <mborzecki> while in other cases we only need to know the usable size (eg. expanding ubuntu-data)
[09:36] <pstolowski> mardy: sorry, i was going to review 10982 but was in a meeting, and now it landed (with 1 review?)
[09:42] <mardy> pstolowski: np, I was was a bit surprised that the button was green, but since it affects the tests only I thought it was safe to merge. But of course you can comment if you see something wrong, I will address them in a follow up
[09:43] <mardy> pstolowski: that at least unblocked me to update https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10933 (which also needs a re-review, BTW :-) )
[09:43] <mup> PR #10933: interfaces: suppress denial of sys_module capability <Created by mardy> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10933>
[09:43] <pstolowski> mardy: no worries, i'm a bit surprised you could land it yourself, i didn't know it would work with 1 review
[10:07] <mborzecki> pstolowski: simple selinux policy fix https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10984
[10:07] <mup> PR #10984: data/selinux: allow snap-confine to read udev's database <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10984>
[10:08] <mup> PR snapd#10984 opened: data/selinux: allow snap-confine to read udev's database <Simple 😃> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10984>
[15:19] <mup> PR snapd#10985 opened: o/hookstate: print cohort with snapctl refresh --pending <Refresh control> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10985>
[16:22] <mup> PR pc-amd64-gadget#54 closed: Classic experiments <Created by sil2100> <Merged by sil2100> <https://github.com/snapcore/pc-amd64-gadget/pull/54>