[06:44] <lissyx> firefox snap build is broken for me on stable/esr :( https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/blame/fc985d4c5aa3d7f552dd1837a947f29e133f0eb0/snapcraft/parts/yaml_utils.py#L93-L94
[06:56] <lissyx> ok the error I am seeing might rather be related to apt
[07:08] <lissyx> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1841580
[07:08] -ubottu:#ubuntu-desktop- Mozilla bug 1841580 in Firefox Build System "Firefox Snap ESR and stable build broken due to arm64 focal packages repository missing" [--, New]
[07:45] <seb128> goood morning desktopers!
[07:58] <nteodosio> Good morning, seb128!
[08:08] <seb128> nteodosio, hey, how are you doing today?
[08:10] <nteodosio> Very good, thanks, also the wheather is perfect today. And you, seb128?
[08:10] <seb128> I'm alright thanks! It's too windy here but at least it's not overheating :)
[08:51] <Wimpy> Morning desktopers o/
[08:57] <seb128> Wimpy, hey, how are you doing?
=== JanC_ is now known as JanC
[11:10] <lissyx> seb128, hello
[11:11] <lissyx> seb128, is the behavior leading to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1841580 a bug i should file against snapcraft?
[11:11] -ubottu:#ubuntu-desktop- Mozilla bug 1841580 in Firefox Build System "Firefox Snap ESR and stable build broken due to arm64 focal packages repository missing" [--, New]
[12:00] <seb128> lissyx, I don't understand the rational fo the change, better to ask to bandali 
[12:01] <seb128> seems like the clang part requires a newer libstdc++ than what is available in the focal serie?
[12:01] <lissyx> I'm not questionning this part
[12:01] <lissyx> rather than adding arm64 specific repo for this ends up in adding all arm64 focal repos and some are broken
[12:02] <seb128> well I'm sort of questioning the change, why is the arm64 build having newer libstdc++ requirements than amd64?
[12:04] <seb128> but that put aside the focal sources are expected on a core20 build so it seems rather a connectivity or server issue if it failed to fetch the indexes?
[12:29] <lissyx> seb128, clearly not a connection issue, I repro'd over time from different sources, it's pure 404
=== cpaelzer_ is now known as cpaelzer
[12:37] <seb128> lissyx, I don't know, it's a bit confusing to me with the little context I have, maybe similar to https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapcraft/+bug/2009278 ?
[12:37] -ubottu:#ubuntu-desktop- Launchpad bug 2009278 in Snapcraft "Can't mix ports.ubuntu.com and archive.ubuntu.com (building multi-arch snaps)" [Undecided, Confirmed]
[12:38] <seb128> but seems worth reporting on the snapcraft forum if you think it's a snapcraft issue
[12:39] <lissyx> seb128, as of right now, build is broken for me
[13:00] <seb128> lissyx, I don't have arm64 hardware to test on but bandali does so let's wait for him
[13:09] <seb128> lissyx, the build log/error is from trying to build on arm64 or on amd64?
[13:09] <lissyx> seb128, amd64
[13:09] <seb128> aaahhh
[13:09] <seb128> that was never mentioned in the description, I was assuming you were trying to build on arm64
[13:09] <seb128> ok, that starts making more sense
=== JanC is now known as Guest5729
=== JanC_ is now known as JanC
[14:01] <bandali> good morning
[14:02] <bandali> seb128, the reason for that change is that we use clang/llvm from upstream-provided binaries, which i'm guessing are built by different volunteers from one arch/artifact to the next
[14:03] <bandali> so it seems that the volunteer who did built the arm64 artifact used newer gcc than the others (amd64 and armhf)
[14:04] <bandali> anyway, as we can see, using libstdc++6 from gcc-11 fixes native builds: https://launchpad.net/~mozilla-snaps/firefox/+snap/firefox-snap-esr
[14:04] <bandali> but it didn't occur to me to check cross builds since i don't normally build that way. now to find a fix...
[14:11] <seb128> bandali, well, I don't think the problem is trying to cross build, but that building on amd64 now tries to enable an arm64 ppa source
[14:12] <seb128> bandali, the architecture tag tells it what architecture to target, not to enable the source only on that architecture
[14:12] <seb128> bandali, the clang provided upstream requires newer libstdc++ might be a bug to report upstream
[14:13] <seb128> or a comment to add to the bug lissyx reported
[14:17] <bandali> ack
[14:18] <bandali> lissyx, can you please try deleting the "architectures: [arm64]" line from snapcraft.yaml and see if it helps?
[14:35] <lissyx> bandali, I already did and that's how I know this is the problem
[14:36] <lissyx> I removed the whole package entry though
[14:36] <lissyx> not just the arch live
[14:36] <lissyx> line
[14:38] <lissyx> bandali, just removing the arch seems not enough
[14:38] <bandali> lissyx, ack. it would be nice to try deleting just that line, since we'll need to keep the stanza for native arm64 builds
[14:38] <lissyx> let me ensure with clean first
[14:38] <bandali> ah. hmm... seb128 any thoughts?
[14:38] <bandali> ok thanks
[14:39] <seb128> lissyx, is that requirement for a newer libstdc++ from upstream on arm64 considered a feature or a bug?
[14:40] <lissyx> I have no idea
[14:40] <lissyx> that sounds not normal imho, but I dont know for sure
[14:41] <bandali> i think that 'upstream' would be clang/llvm, not mozilla
[14:41] <bandali> and it *might* be arbitrary, just the consequence of tooling choices the volunteer used for building that version of clang/llvm arm64 binaries
[14:42] <bandali> all things considered, we need a better solution for clang/llvm
[14:43] <lissyx> why not having a snap?
[14:48] <seb128> bandali, hum, we download clang for a random upstream location and not from the ubuntu archive nor a mozilla bundle?
[14:53] <bandali> seb128, yes, though not *completely* random: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases
[14:54] <bandali> i would much rather we could use one from ubuntu archive or ones built by mozilla
[14:56] <seb128> bandali, we don't have a ppa with newer llvm for focal?
[14:58] <lissyx> bandali, ok maybe it works removing the arch line
[14:58] <bandali> seb128, not that i know of? there's https://apt.llvm.org but unfortunately it doesn't include amrhf builds
[14:58] <bandali> lissyx, it does?
[14:59] <lissyx> well it starts to build it seems
[14:59] <bandali> ok, please do keep me posted
[14:59] <bandali> thank
[14:59] <lissyx> but that might prove breaking my WIP https://treeherder.mozilla.org/jobs?repo=try&revision=06f91476c237d3881b9dfb17fb4ecf1979c57dab
[14:59] <bandali> s
[15:00] <bandali> sorry not sure i understood that last one. 'breaking WIP'?
[15:02] <lissyx> my wip patch to have upstream-like builds on treeherder
[15:16] <bandali> so removing just the "architectures: [arm64]" still failed?
[15:21] <lissyx> bandali, no, on a local build it seems to work
[15:22] <lissyx> bandali, but since having the package-repositories triggers some apt-related work during the build, it will break on treeherder
[15:33] <bandali> lissyx, i see. is that fine with you? just a note that using the ppa won't be necessary for core22 (which we'll hopefully merge into stable very soon) but will be necessary on the esr branch if we are to keep it on core20 for the duration of 115esr support