[06:27] <seb128> goood morning desktopers!
[06:28] <oSoMoN> good morning desktoppers
[06:28] <duflu> Hi seb128 and oSoMoN 
[06:29] <duflu> And yes Launchpad is down
[06:29] <seb128> lut oSoMoN, hey duflu, how are you?
[06:29] <duflu> seb128, doing OK. How are you?
[06:29] <seb128> a bit tired but alright otherwise!
[06:31] <ricotz> good morning
[06:31] <seb128> ricotz, hey, how are you?
[06:34] <duflu> Hi ricotz 
[06:34] <ricotz> seb128, seems I still need some time to get operational :)
[06:34] <seb128> ricotz, coffee!
[06:35] <ricotz> hehe, I am not a coffee person ;P
[06:38] <seb128> tea!? ;)
[06:40] <oSoMoN> hey duflu, salut seb128, morning ricotz 
[06:57] <seb128> jamesh, hey, is https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/pull/705#issuecomment-1123392120 still on your backlog?
[07:15] <seb128> launchpad is back for those who were waiting on it btw
[07:17] <didrocks> good morning
[07:23] <seb128> didrocks, lut didrocks, en forme aujourd'hui?
[07:23] <didrocks> seb128: ça va, et toi ?
[07:23] <seb128> ca va ! :)
[07:28] <luna> morning
[07:31] <didrocks> hey luna 
[07:32] <duflu> Hi didrocks and luna 
[07:33] <didrocks> hey duflu 
[07:46] <oSoMoN> salut didrocks, good morning luna 
[07:49] <ricotz> oSoMoN, schopin, hi :), what is the state of the cargo updates?
[07:51] <schopin> incoming shortly
[07:51] <oSoMoN> schopin, do you know why the rustc/impish/riscv64 build failed?
[07:53] <didrocks> salut oSoMoN 
[08:01] <schopin> oSoMoN: yes, it's because it failed more than a dozen releases ago and apparently nobody bothered to fix it.
[08:03] <oSoMoN> schopin, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rustc/1.57.0+dfsg1+llvm-0ubuntu1~21.10.1 was successful
[08:03] <oSoMoN> do you mean it's an upstream bug?
[08:06] <lissyx> I know we're on ubuntu channel, but have you experience in running snapd/snapcraft on debian (sid) ?
[08:07] <lissyx> I'm trying and it seems broken
[08:09] <ricotz> schopin, great
[08:09] <schopin> oSoMoN: oh right, it's only on focal that we have the bootstrapping problem.
[08:09] <schopin> no logs, I retried the build.
[08:10] <oSoMoN> thanks
[08:11] <lissyx> nevermind, it looks like it is working
[08:11] <oSoMoN> lissyx, I don't, personally, but afaik Debian is among the distributions that are used to test snapd and snapcraft in CI, so the expectation is that it should work
[08:11] <lissyx> hopefully should be able to rebuild the firefox snap directly
[08:12] <lissyx> oSoMoN, somehow it was not started by default and then the systemd unit deactivates itself for socket activation
[08:12] <lissyx> hence non 0 exit code and me worrying
[08:14] <lissyx> and 'snap run snapcraft build' will do it
[08:14] <lissyx> :)
[11:12] <lissyx> hm snap run snapcraft build fails at hg clone with some 137 exit code :/
[11:22] <lissyx> oSoMoN, I do find on some snapcraft forum it's because the default allocation is 2GB of RAM, and one needs to override with SNAPCRAFT_BUILD_ENVIRONMENT_MEMORY=
[11:23] <lissyx> obviously 2GB for building firefox is not enough, but there's nothing defined in the snapcraft.yml for that?
[11:26] <oSoMoN> lissyx, no, snapcraft doesn't allow to specify build requirements like this
[11:27] <lissyx> you mean snapcraft.yml
[11:34] <lissyx> do you happen to have some doc somewhere if there are other specifics to follow ?
[11:35] <lissyx> (looks like download of dependencies is super slow, right now gnome-3-38-2004 at 150kB/s)
[11:39] <ogra> note that "snapcraft build" is almost always the wrong thing to do ... you only want "snap run snapcraft" ... 
[11:40] <ogra> "build" is just one interim step you are explicitly calling (but will not produce a snap)
[11:40] <lissyx> good to know
[11:41] <lissyx> let's hope I can now pull those deps a bit faster ...
[11:43] <lissyx> still the same
[11:49] <seb128> lissyx, do you need a specific revision? we could publish one to another channel
[11:50] <lissyx> seb128, specific rev of ?
[11:50] <seb128> lissyx, we also discussed with oSoMoN about stored old snaps on a public space
[11:50] <lissyx> I'm trying to rebuild firefox-snap
[11:50] <lissyx> and right now being super limited by the network
[11:50] <lissyx> I see many reports, but mostly for mainland china
[11:50] <lissyx> I'm in France, and my network is more than decent (Orange, 2Gb FTTH, 10GbE LAN)
[11:50] <seb128> lissyx, revision of the firefox-snap, it sounded like you were trying to downgrade to a previous version yesterday
[11:51] <lissyx> seb128, for that, maybe, but oSoMoN tested directly and he could not repro
[11:51] <lissyx> so we assume it was fixed by something else
[11:51] <seb128> ack
[11:51] <lissyx> I've been trying to ping the reporter but ...
[11:51] <lissyx> anyway, I still need to be able to repro the build
[11:52] <seb128> lissyx, about snapd on debian, https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snap-on-debian
[11:54] <oSoMoN> there are intermittent outages which might explain your slow downloads from the store: https://status.snapcraft.io/
[11:58] <lissyx> at least it's not just the build
[11:58] <lissyx> my VM where I want to  test the about:restartrequired bug I experienced the other day, also shows slow rates :)
[12:11] <lissyx> oSoMoN, so, installed a stable, let it run and "snap refresh firefox --beta" refuses to do anything because it is running already
[12:12] <seb128> close firefox
[12:12] <lissyx> seb128, that's the point
[12:12] <lissyx> seb128, trying to repro https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1772219
[12:12] <seb128> ?
[12:14] <seb128> lissyx, snapd recently landed that feature to delay updates if the software is active, so I'm unsure you can easily trigger that situation again
[12:15] <lissyx> seb128, recently like how?
[12:15] <oSoMoN> in snapd 2.55
[12:15] <seb128> 10 days ago
[12:15] <lissyx> hm
[12:15] <lissyx> I hit the bug 7 days ago
[12:16] <seb128> you maybe didn't have the new snapd yet
[12:16] <lissyx> yes maybe
[12:16] <lissyx> let me check
[12:16] <seb128> https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/wip-refresh-app-awareness
[12:16] <oSoMoN> maybe the feature can be disabled to try and reproduce the bug, but there's not much point now that it is the default (finally!)
[12:16] <lissyx> yeah
[12:17] <lissyx> except confirming it was the root cause and it's now not possible to hit that
[12:17] <lissyx> so according to dpkg.log, 2.55.3 installed on 2022-05-06
[12:18] <lissyx> is this may 6th or june 5th
[12:19] <lissyx> looks to be may 6th
[12:19] <seb128> that version didn't have refresh awareness yet, it landed in .5
[12:19] <seb128> but snapd autorefresh itself without needing to update the deb
[12:19] <lissyx> ok
[12:20] <lissyx> I see a snapd mentionned in snap changes
[12:20] <lissyx> on june 01
[12:20] <seb128> right
[12:20] <seb128> that's more likely
[12:20] <lissyx> so it would be 2.55.5
[12:20] <seb128> yes
[12:20] <lissyx> and now the 1000$ question
[12:20] <lissyx> did it refreshed the firefox snap before the snapd snap?
[12:21] <lissyx> so when doing the firefox snap refresh, it would still run the non-fixed snapd
[12:22] <seb128> if it allowed it to refresh then it was either not the new snapd yet or a bug
[12:23] <lissyx> I'd assume "not the new snapd yet" because, alphabetic ordering?
[12:24] <seb128> I don't know if refreshes go to alphabetic order, but snaps changes should give timestamps?
[12:24] <lissyx> how to get exact ones?
[12:24] <lissyx> ah  --abs-time
[12:25] <lissyx> so snapd refreshed at 07:48:10
[12:25] <lissyx> and firefox refreshed at 07:48:31
[12:27] <seb128> I doubt snapd restarted itself in the middle of a transaction
[12:27] <lissyx> do I need to restart snapd for "snap set core experimental.refresh-app-awareness=false" ?
[12:27] <seb128> so you probably had the old snapd active when the firefox refresh started
[12:28] <seb128> lissyx, I don't think so, I'm asking on our snapd channel though, I'm unsure if that flag is still working or the feature is non-experimental now and ignoring it
[12:28] <lissyx> ah
[12:29] <lissyx> well
[12:29] <lissyx> I can maybe revert to older snapd?
[12:29] <seb128> that's not going to be easy unless you didn't have a revision update since
[12:30] <seb128> $ snap list --all | grep snapd
[12:30] <seb128> if it lists 2.55.3 then you can snap revert snapd
[12:30] <lissyx> 2.54.4
[12:30] <seb128> lissyx, snapd people say you can use  --ignore-running 
[12:30] <seb128> to force a refresh
[12:30] <lissyx> ok, let me try that
[12:31] <lissyx> and it would mean the flag is not used anymore I guess
[12:59] <oSoMoN> and launchpad is timing out again… :/
[13:42] <oSoMoN> lissyx, yes, I just saw your comment on the bug. It should be fixed with https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/51947744ce12247f378a1db2379ffaad3fcd18c3, which landed 4 hours ago, so I'm guessing the next nightly should be good
[13:43] <lissyx> ok
[13:43] <lissyx> I've cherry-picked your fix in the meantime
[13:49] <lissyx> oSoMoN, so unfortunately, it seems neither stable/beta has older builds available :/
[13:50] <lissyx> I cant find the launchpad url for edge channel :)
[13:50] <lissyx> https://launchpad.net/~mozilla-snaps/firefox/+snap/firefox-snap-edge this does not work
[13:51] <oSoMoN> lissyx, no, nightly builds are done differently, on github: https://github.com/canonical/firefox-snap/actions/workflows/nightly-build.yml
[13:52] <lissyx> ah I might be more lucky there then
[13:53] <lissyx> and I dont see the artifacts
[13:53] <lissyx> (as much as I remember we had the same behavior on deepspeech, non collaborators to the repo dont have artifacts
[13:54] <lissyx> oSoMoN, do you think you could get me nightly snap from before revision 1437 which is the current nightly ?
[13:58] <lissyx> haha snapcraft also limits to two CPUs
[13:58] <lissyx> oSoMoN, ok maybe it'll be faster for me to just rebuild snaps now :)
[13:59] <oSoMoN> lissyx, sure, I can get you older revisions on demand
[14:01] <lissyx> (I prefer if I can be more autonomous so I dont bother you constantly)
[14:01] <lissyx> let's hope snap network improved, since I need to snapcraft clean to change memory/cpu
[14:02] <oSoMoN> lissyx, yes, I'd also like to make it easier for everyone to bisect. I'll start working on some tooling for this, I'll keep you posted
[14:02] <lissyx> oSoMoN, do you think it could be feasible to archive the builds somewhere?
[14:03] <lissyx> then you could just patch mozregression to support snap?
[14:03] <oSoMoN> lissyx, I need to think about it, but yes, that'd be ideal
[14:03] <lissyx> (or even better in my fancy dreams, having a tc + mach task that builds the snap your way)
[14:16] <diddledani> @kenvandine I'ma ping you in all the places ;-) https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/qt-6-apps-are-problematic-flagging-risk-to-cmake-snap-being-pulled-in-the-future/30382
[14:20] <lissyx> ok it's faster now
[14:20] <lissyx> 64 cpus, 64 GB ram
[14:31] <oSoMoN> :)
[14:34] <lissyx> how is the snap revision populated in the package?
[14:37] <oSoMoN> the revision is assigned store-side, at upload time
[14:40] <lissyx> ok
[14:40] <lissyx> manually installed my snap
[14:40] <lissyx> I hope "snap refresh firefox" will pull from store after
[14:42] <lissyx> it's not :(
[15:11] <lissyx> oSoMoN, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1772902 could it even be, once again, because of old snapd? revisions 1194 (which version of firefox is that?) and 1406 (101.0-2) could hint in that direction
[16:30] <lissyx> oSoMoN, what is the way to disable snap's sandbox?
[16:30] <lissyx> I tried uninstalling and reinstalling with --devmode
[16:30] <lissyx> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1770462
[16:39] <lissyx> oSoMoN, ok, did another time it worked
[16:48] <lissyx> oSoMoN, sorry by advance for the spam of needinfo :(
[17:22] <seb128> lissyx, ideally those sort of usecases would be handled by having firefox go through portals to open the files when called with an argument probably?
[17:23] <lissyx> I know nothing about those, so I'm open to how to fix
[17:49] <oSoMoN> lissyx, about refreshing a manually installed snap, you'll need to specify the channel, and pass --amend, e.g. `snap refresh firefox --stable --amend`