[17:24] <arraybolt3[m]> Calamares landed in Proposed! \o/
[17:25] <arraybolt3[m]> (Well, OK, it's not all the way in Proposed yet, but it's been accepted.)
[17:26] <arraybolt3[m]> BTRFS install bug fix also landed.
[17:26] <arraybolt3[m]> (Er, was accepted. Let's see how many other things I can misphrase...)
[17:27] <arraybolt3[m]> Simon Quigley (Developer) Dan Simmons Leo K guiverc Eickmeyer kgiii @teward001 ^^^
[17:28] <Eickmeyer[m]> Yes, well aware. You saw the rest where he's going to build us some test .iso images to play with and do some validation so that we can get it out to updates tomorrow.
[17:29] <arraybolt3[m]> Sounds good. (Sorry if this was annoying, I was excited and since it was new I wasn't sure if had been noticed or not.)
[17:30] <Eickmeyer[m]> Well, just keep an eye out for the .iso. He'll ping us via IRC and/or the bug when he gets the images built.
[17:31] <arraybolt3[m]> (I am glad I brought it up, I didn't realize the "manual build" was an ISO build, so now I'll be prepared.)
[17:32] <Eickmeyer[m]> Yeah, he's building the .iso against the proposed repo, which is irregular.
 Starting to test Lubuntu Jammy proposed..
[17:35] <arraybolt3[m]> I'll wait for the ISO to pop out and then grab my testing SSD. (I wish I had a pair of them right now, but I've only got one - that's fine, It'll just take me longer to do all the tests.) I'm planning on running through the whole testing checklist twice, once on my Elitebook, once on an older Chromebook, all bare metal.
[17:36] <Eickmeyer[m]> @leokolb I'd wait for the ISO.
[17:36] <arraybolt3[m]> (Should any VM testing be involved? My gut feeling is, do everything on bare metal, but we should make sure VMs don't break, too.)
 Where will it be available? (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <Eickmeyer[m]> @leokolb I'd wait for the ISO.)
[17:36] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: Yeah, a VM test should be enough verification.
 I will test  bare metal
[17:37] <Eickmeyer[m]> @leokolb Just watch the bug report, Lukasz will let us know. Most likely it'll be a jammy daily in the usual location.
 sounds good (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <Eickmeyer[m]> @leokolb Just watch the bug report, Lukasz will let us know. Most likely it'll be a jammy daily in the usual location.)
[17:49] <Eickmeyer[m]> Looks like there's something from 1/2 hour ago, but I'm not sure if it's the right one: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/lubuntu/jammy/daily-live/20220728/
[17:49] <arraybolt3[m]> Eh, can't hurt to sync it and run a quick calamares --version to find out.
[17:50] <arraybolt3[m]> (Launchpad would have to be moving at supersonic speeds for that to happen though - he only uploaded it around an hour ago.)
[17:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> I know for a fact the current Ubuntu Studio one isn't right, it doesn't match at all since it was built 22 hours ago. Nothing currently building.
 Checked the manifest ,,not there (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <Eickmeyer[m]> Looks like there's something from 1/2 hour ago, but I'm not sure if it's the right one: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/lubuntu/jammy/daily-live/20220728/)
[17:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> True.
[17:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, it's not there. 
[17:50] <arraybolt3[m]> OK, then nevermind on the sync.
[17:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> Good eye Leo.
 According to Lukasz will be several hours and on Fridays daily ISO -
[17:52] <arraybolt3[m]> I thought it was going to be on a manually built ISO and then go into -updated on Friday.
[17:52] <arraybolt3[m]> s/updated/updates
[17:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> leokolb76: No, you're misinterpreting that. He's manually building the ISOs against the propsed repository so we have something for validation testing.
[17:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> There will be something later today, and then he'll release from proposed to updates tomorrow if the validation passes our testing.
 sorry my mistake (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <Eickmeyer[m]> leokolb76: No, you're misinterpreting that. He's manually building the ISOs against the propsed repository so we have something for validation testing.)
[17:54] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: You said VM testing should be enough - I have lots of physical hardware here and was going to do physical and virtual testing. Would it be more useful for me to stick to VMs, or am I right that the more hardware we test on, the better?
[17:55] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: I mean, time is of the essence here. Lukasz seems to want the best results in the lowest amount of time.
[17:55] <Eickmeyer[m]> I, for one, am only going to be able to test in a VM for Studio.
[17:55] <arraybolt3[m]> That's a good point. And if I use all VM's I can do multiple installs at the same time. I'll hammer through the whole test suite in GNOME Boxes and virt-manager, then once verification is done I'll move on to less breakneck baremetal testing.
[17:56] <arraybolt3[m]> Or actually, how about I do Lubuntu in VMs and Studio on bare metal since you're going to be doing Studio in VMs anyway?
[17:56] <Eickmeyer[m]> That sounds fine to me. We can coordinate that testing here since #ubuntustudio-devel is dead at the moment. Len is away on his boat.
[17:57] <arraybolt3[m]> OK. Sounds good.
[17:57] <Eickmeyer[m]> And Simon has tasked me with helping here however I can because he needs to be away for a couple days to deal with some personal items.
[17:58] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: Would it be better for the Studio tests to be done on a system with NVIDIA? My desktop has an NVIDIA card and I can plug my testing SSD in it.
[17:59] <arraybolt3[m]> Or I can do it with Intel graphics by plugging the same SSD into my laptop.
[17:59] <Eickmeyer[m]> Doesn't matter. My Kubuntu Focus system just happens to have Nvidia, but we don't have that in a Studio system by default.
[18:00] <arraybolt3[m]> OK. Then I'll do it on my laptop since that will leave me my faster desktop for VM testing.
[18:00] <Eickmeyer[m]> Works for me.
 Just got calamares 3.2.60-ubuntu0,1 from proposed
[18:03] <arraybolt3[m]> OK, then the ISO should be right around the corner hopefully!
 Just got calamares-settings-ubuntu 1.22.04.4.1 and btrfs partitioned and booted success on bare metal
[18:57] <arraybolt3[m]> I see the ISO is specifically marked "rebuilding" for both distros.
 Yes now uploading..I just verified btrfs now good (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <arraybolt3[m]> I see the ISO is specifically marked "rebuilding" for both distros.)
 ISO downloaded and testing underway
[19:20] <arraybolt3[m]> Prepping to do the same
 I will file these tests on both test tracker and the Lubuntu checklist..
 Bad news ...btrfs failed using the ISO just built..will amend the bug report..and test again on another box
[19:32] <arraybolt3[m]> @Leokolb: Are you sure you used the right ISO? The patch used in Jammy is the same one that fixed the problem in Kinetic.
[19:32] <arraybolt3[m]> (Er, it's the same fix I mean.)
[19:32] <Eickmeyer[m]> FYI, I don't know if the calamares-settings-ubuntu SRU was part of this.
[19:33] <arraybolt3[m]> Oh, in the ISO... maybe the ISO doesn't have it. That makes sense.
[19:33] <arraybolt3[m]> @Leokolb: Enable -proposed and see if you can install calamares-settings-lubuntu in the live environment - maybe it's not on the special ISO we got from sil2100.
[19:34] <arraybolt3[m]> (I just verified the correct patch did indeed make it into jammy proposed.)
 I will recheck my ISO again..
[19:36] <arraybolt3[m]> It'll be a while before my tests start - my Internet is working nice and fast, but when gigabytes of data are involved ~25 Mbps doesn't make it speedy.
 OK i downloaded again and will test this .. (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <arraybolt3[m]> It'll be a while before my tests start - my Internet is working nice and fast, but when gigabytes of data are involved ~25 Mbps doesn't make it speedy.)
 Can confirm I had to do an update on the ISO to get the BTRFS settings..i.e 22.04.4.1 .. now running the test
[19:44] <arraybolt3[m]> Whew, OK. That makes sense - building a while ISO against -proposed would have been risky IMO, so for him to have only put just Calamares in makes sense to me.
[19:45] <tsimonq2> Needs a rebuild?
[19:45] <arraybolt3[m]> I think it should be fine.
[19:45] <tsimonq2> I can swoop in for prob < 5 mins to do that whenever you need me to
[19:45] <arraybolt3[m]> We'll just need to manually install the package into the live env on each installation.
[19:45] <tsimonq2> tsimonq2: Today and tomorrow consider me busy. Weekend will be easier
[19:49] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: Ubuntu Studio ISO finished building but can't be downloaded on my end.
[19:50] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: I'm running a zsync now, seems to be working on my end.
[19:50] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: I'm getting 404 errors on the http URL and zsync tells me it can't find the control file when I give it the URL.
[19:51] <arraybolt3[m]> Are you sure you're not downloading the older one?
[19:51] <arraybolt3[m]> (I've refreshed my page to make sure.)
[19:51] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: this is today, literally from just over 1/2 hour ago UTC.
[19:51] <Eickmeyer[m]> http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntustudio/jammy/dvd/20220728/
[19:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> No 404s for me.
[19:52] <arraybolt3[m]> That's the same ISO I'm trying to pull, but off the testing tracker.
[19:52] <arraybolt3[m]> http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/429/builds/254614/downloads
[19:52] <Eickmeyer[m]> Don't use the testing tracker in this case, it might not work.
[19:52] <arraybolt3[m]> I see - the links in the testing tracker are malformed.
[19:52] <LeoK[m]> arraybolt3[m]: The testing tracker is not correct ISO for studio
[19:53] <arraybolt3[m]> The ones for Lubuntu look right, is that right? http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/429/builds/254612/downloads
[19:53] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: Thanks for the good link.
[19:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> Links tend to be malformed for Studio because Studio was the first to go over the CD size limit and request a DVD size limit, hence the filename has "dvd" in it.
[19:53] <Eickmeyer[m]> The release team tends to forget that sometimes.
[19:54] <arraybolt3[m]> Ah, makes sense.
[19:54] <arraybolt3[m]> Studio ISO now zsyncing.
[19:54] <LeoK[m]> arraybolt3: Confirm that BTRFS good after updating ISO..can you test this as well and confirm the comments i will enter to bug report..
[19:55] <arraybolt3[m]> Woot! Just started the first install, I'll spin up another one at the same time to test it out.
[19:56] <LeoK[m]> arraybolt3[m]: OK thanks will update bug rep now and I have to signoff for tonight.will resume further tests in the AM (my time)..😀
[19:57] <Eickmeyer[m]> We might need to comment on the Calamares SRU that we need the calamares-settings-ubuntu SRU to go through as well for the .1 release for all the bugs to get fixed, but otherwise I think a verification-done works for the calamares SRU so long as we can test Studio as well. (I'm blocked in ${dayjob} at the moment}).
[19:58] <LeoK[m]> Eickmeyer[m]: I can do that in the AM for Studio if ok with everyone..
[19:59] <Eickmeyer[m]> Well, I'll be able to do it this evening, and I think arraybolt3 much sooner.
[19:59] <arraybolt3[m]> Yeah, I can do that in the time between installs.
[19:59] <LeoK[m]> OK ..great team👍️
[20:01] <arraybolt3[m]> (Sorry if I'm a bit slow - I ended up having to use my laptop for all the testing due to my house and Internet setup, so I'm hammering this poor 3rd gen i5 and may be a bit laggy.)
[20:01] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: This is on the Calamares SRU, or the calamares-settings-ubuntu SRU?
[20:04] <Eickmeyer[m]> Just a comment on the Calamares SRU with a reference to the calamares-settings-ubuntu SRU and its bug number.
[20:04] <arraybolt3[m]> Got it.
[20:06] <arraybolt3[m]> Comment added
[20:09] <arraybolt3[m]> OK, multiple VM installs at once isn't a good idea, lesson learned.
 @Leokolb I saw your comment on the calamares-settings-ubuntu package, you really rescinded that? It's not fixed with the package in proposed?
[20:15] <arraybolt3[m]> I'm doing a BTRFS install test on an EFI VM right now.
[20:15] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, because we need to be 100% accurate on that. We can't be deleting tags like that, we need to change them back to what they were if we're not sure.
[20:17] <arraybolt3[m]> Added back verification-needed tag.
[20:17] <arraybolt3[m]> (Since we are in fact still verifying it.)
[20:18] <Eickmeyer[m]> Uhh... I did that too?
[20:19] <arraybolt3[m]> Verifi-needed-verification-cation-needed I guess?
[20:19] <arraybolt3[m]> (It didn't actually do that, that's a joke. It looks like it's working just fine.)
[20:19] <Eickmeyer[m]> Just refresh, you'll see I actually beat you to it.
[20:19] <arraybolt3[m]> Nice. All that matters is that it happened.
[20:20] <Eickmeyer[m]> Exactly, it's not a race.
[20:20] <Eickmeyer[m]> I just wanted to make sure that, for the bot's sake, it was fine.
[20:22] <arraybolt3[m]> We need to add an LVM install to the checklist since that's one of the bugs this new package fixes.
[20:24] <arraybolt3[m]> Booting fresh BTRFS with EFI installation.
[20:25] <arraybolt3[m]> Success!
[20:31] <arraybolt3[m]> Oh great. I just accidentally submitted seven or so successful tests for one testcase because my browser was being slow and I kept hitting the Submit button trying to make it go. :-P 🤦‍♂️
[20:32] <arraybolt3[m]> Hey, found the Delete Result button. Whew!
[20:46] <Eickmeyer> arraybolt3[m]: Did you verify the calamares-settings-ubuntu BTRFS bug is resolved with that? bdmurray is looking now.
[20:47] <arraybolt3[m]> I did. The bug is resolved in Lubuntu at least.
[20:47] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: I'll test Ubuntu Studio next.
[20:47] <Eickmeyer[m]> Sounds good, let me know ASAP and mark both verifications as done ASAP if it's good.
[20:48] <arraybolt3[m]> Studio's ISO is booting now.
 @Leokolb You're off the hook with this one, I want arraybolt3 to do the verifications on this one.
[20:48] <Eickmeyer[m]> Just easier for one person to do the verifications if we're in a hurry.
[21:01] <arraybolt3[m]> Studio install finished, rebooting.
[21:07] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: Studio BTRFS worked - reported testcase on ISO testing tracker, added a comment to the bug report and set verification-done-jammy and verification-done.
[21:07] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: Excellent, thanks!
[21:13] <Eickmeyer[m]> arraybolt3: Awesome, and cala is verification-done as well? @leokolb?
[21:13] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: I thought we had to do the full test suite for cala verification-done to happen.
[21:14] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ok, lets run that full test suite then.
[21:14] <arraybolt3[m]> OK. I'm on install 4 out of ~36 (that combines Lubuntu and Ubuntu Studio).
[21:14] <arraybolt3[m]> Eickmeyer: Does Ubuntu Studio ever create a swap file?
[21:14] <arraybolt3[m]> (In the installer?)
[21:15] <Eickmeyer[m]> It should, I didn't change it too much from the Lubuntu modules as of 20.10.
[21:15] <arraybolt3[m]> Hmm. I've never seen a swap file be generated by default and I was wondering if that was an intentional change for the sake of better performance (avoid CPU spiking from unintended disk access during music recording).
[21:16] <arraybolt3[m]> Hey, though, I guess it would actually do that, so if it turns out that it's true that Studio doesn't make a swapfile, let's just roll with it and say "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
[21:18] <Eickmeyer[m]> Alrightythen!
[21:19] <Eickmeyer[m]> I think originally it created a swap partition.
[21:19] <Eickmeyer[m]> When automatically partitioning.
[21:19] <arraybolt3[m]> Hmm. I'll find out shortly.
[21:20]  * arraybolt3[m] creates Ubuntu Studio USB for bare-metal testing
 i'm busy putting out fires elsewhere.  what do you need from me? (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <arraybolt3[m]> Simon Quigley (Developer) Dan Simmons Leo K guiverc Eickmeyer kgiii @teward001 ^^^)
 and by 'fires' i mean stuff that is way above LUbuntu right now
[21:23] <arraybolt3[m]> @teward001: Nothing, just letting you know the Calamares SRU is happening.
 *points at the bugs* yep i know
 i'm on the sponsors list too ;)
[21:24] <arraybolt3[m]> Sorry, I got excited :)
[21:24] <arraybolt3[m]> (I may never live this one down...)
 (shoves arraybolt3 into tsimonq2's trash can)
[21:28]  * arraybolt3[m] just found an untouched bag of Oreos in the trash can
[21:37] <Eickmeyer[m]> What's the expiration on those oreos?
[21:38] <arraybolt3[m]> January 1, 1970
[21:38] <arraybolt3[m]> (i.e., no expiration date)
[21:38] <arraybolt3[m]> (deleted previous message to avoid giving away the joke)
[22:02] <Eickmeyer[m]> Heh, it's not missing from IRC.
[22:02] <arraybolt3[m]> ... Oh well.
[22:20] <arraybolt3[m]> OK, I'm gonna take a short break. That was a TON of testing done so far, though. So far everything's been working!
[23:33] <arraybolt3[m]> I'm back and have two more test installs going.
 I am once again asking if someone can help triage this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xscreensaver/+bug/1974231 as I need this to launch to see what changes are for the new version in the manual