[00:16] <mup> PR snapcraft#3722 closed: static: black update to 22 syntax <Created by sergiusens> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3722>
[00:21] <mup> PR snapcraft#3724 opened: spread: remove git user config from pbr test <Created by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3724>
[00:21] <mup> PR snapcraft#3725 opened: tests: use lxd in clean provider test <Created by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3725>
[01:11] <mup> PR snapcraft#3605 closed: WIP: Add gnome-42 extension <Created by kenvandine> <Closed by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3605>
[01:26] <mup> PR snapcraft#3724 closed: spread: remove git user config from pbr test <Created by sergiusens> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3724>
[05:55] <mborzecki> morning
[07:07] <pstolowski> morning
[09:06] <mup> PR snapcraft#3725 closed: tests: use lxd in clean provider test <Created by cmatsuoka> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3725>
[10:05] <mvo> jamesh: out of curiosity, why is 11708 still draft? seems reviewers are happy with it
[10:09] <mup> PR snapd#11743 opened: o/devicestate: use snap handler for copying and checksuming preseeded snaps <Preseeding 🍞> <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/11743>
[10:50] <jamesh> mvo: I've dropped the draft flag. I think there's probably still more stuff that needs to be added, but it gets us a fair way
[10:51] <jamesh> mvo: I'll need a new libseccomp for the futex_waitv bit to actually do anything though
[10:59] <jamesh> is there anything that can be done about the inclusive-naming-check CI test when I'm dealing with APIs that use the word "slave"?
[11:06] <transhumanist> figured I would ask: https://bpa.st/4U4A  I added the section about svc with passthrough but it says Issues while validating snapcraft.yaml: mapping values are not allowed in this context on line 28, column 18
[11:07] <transhumanist> as far as I know I am running latest of snapcraft
[11:11] <jamesh> transhumanist: remove two spaces on lines 28 and 29
[11:30] <transhumanist> thanks james, that fixed that error then it generates this one : Issues while validating snapcraft.yaml: The 'apps/svc' property does not match the required schema: 'command' is a required property   should svc be under anbox: instead?
[11:31] <transhumanist> sorry jamesh
[11:32] <jamesh> it depends on what you're trying to do. If you're adding a new daemon, you'll need to specify a command line to launch it.
[11:32] <jamesh> i.e. add a command: property
[11:32] <transhumanist> I am trying to get it so I can launch the app through systemd without permission denied error
[11:33] <transhumanist> there is  a systemd directory in the container
[11:34] <transhumanist> should I be using that one instead?
[11:36] <transhumanist> my systemd configuration looks like this: https://bpa.st/Z47A but I think its probably not right
[11:39] <transhumanist> perhaps I should be just asking in the forum since it appears to be a very specific use case
[11:42] <jamesh> I really don't know enough about anbox to say for certain, but if you're executing scripts from within the snap rather than the endpoints it exposes in /snap/bin, you'll probably have trouble
[11:43] <jamesh> the commands in /snap/bin will have snapd set up the correct sandbox environment to run the snap's code.
[11:45] <transhumanist> you wouldn't have an article on this would you? I mean , it seems to me it makes sense to use the systemd service directory thats in the container if it actually works, yes?
[11:46] <transhumanist> yes thats the problem executing from outside the container
[11:53] <transhumanist>  I will ask on the forum, thanks
[12:05] <mup> PR snapd#11744 opened: secboot: partial reprovision <Run nested> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/11744>
[12:45] <mup> PR snapd#11714 closed: many: move recovery key responsibility to devicestate/secboot, prepare for a future with just optional recovery key <Run nested> <factory reset 🔌> <Created by pedronis> <Merged by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/11714>
[12:45] <mup> PR snapd#11745 opened: many: use UC20+/pre-UC20 in user messages as needed <Created by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/11745>
[13:46] <mup> PR snapd#11739 closed: gadget/install, o/devicestate: do not create recovery and reinstall keys during installation <Run nested> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/11739>
[15:47] <mup> PR snapcraft#3726 opened: legacy command: remove close and release <Created by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3726>
[17:22] <mup> PR snapcraft#3726 closed: legacy command: remove close and release <Created by sergiusens> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3726>
[18:32] <mup> PR snapd#11708 closed: interfaces: add a steam-support interface <Squash-merge> <Needs security review> <Created by jhenstridge> <Merged by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/11708>
[18:47] <mup> PR snapd#11746 opened: tests: install snapd while restoring in snap-mgmt <Simple 😃> <Run failed> <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/11746>
[18:57] <mup> PR snapcraft#3727 opened: commands: status and list-tracks <Created by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3727>
[19:57] <mup> PR snapcraft#3728 opened: ci: disable Python 3.9 unit testing <Created by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3728>
[21:57] <mup> PR snapcraft#3718 closed: parts: run debug shell on build environment <Created by cmatsuoka> <Merged by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3718>
[22:07] <mup> PR snapcraft#3729 opened: parts: handle build base <Created by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3729>
[22:47] <mup> PR snapcraft#3728 closed: ci: disable Python 3.9 unit testing <Created by sergiusens> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3728>
[23:12] <diddledani> who is in charge of review-tools these days? https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/review-tools-doesnt-know-what-private-shared-memory-is/29767
[23:13] <diddledani> also can you push internally to get the store team to stick to the rules - if a snap is rejected because of the review tools it is unfair that Canonical employees can override that for the Steam snap when the general public cannot do the same
[23:46] <ogra> diddledani, who says you can not ? just file a store request 
[23:47] <diddledani> there's no wording in the automated denial that indicates that a store request would be considered
[23:47] <ogra> (there were bugs with the stre declaration which is why review-tools do not work yet, it is being fixed)
[23:47] <ogra> *store
[23:48] <ogra> (not sur ehow fast though, there is a sprint next week i think)
[23:48] <diddledani> the fact that it's an immediate denial rather than a "needs manual review" response to me alludes to there being no recourse
[23:49] <diddledani> even if there is recourse the messaging tells me otherwise
[23:49] <ogra> yeah thats the bug ... the declaration is wrong and tells review-tools to immediately reject (though i understood there are two parts of the prob this is just the one side i know)