[02:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219)
[02:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Xubuntu Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219)
[05:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219)
[05:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Kubuntu Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219)
[06:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[06:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[06:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[06:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gocryptfs [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [1.2-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1]
[11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1]
[11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1]
[11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1]
[11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1]
[11:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected nut [i386] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu1]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2]
[11:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted nut [i386] (zesty-proposed) [2.7.4-5ubuntu2]
[11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1]
[11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [i386] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1]
[11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1]
[11:37] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gocryptfs [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [1.2-2ubuntu1]
[13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu)
[13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu)
[13:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu)
[13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu)
[13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu)
[13:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu)
[13:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: x265 [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [2.3-1] (kubuntu)
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1]
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1]
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1]
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1]
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1]
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1]
[14:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted x265 [i386] (zesty-proposed) [2.3-1]
[14:51] <santa_> good afternoon release wizards
[14:52] <santa_> we have a problem right now with gpgme blocking the migration of most kubuntu's packaging out of -proposed
[14:53] <santa_> gpgme is making another package FTBFS with -proposed enabled
[14:53] <santa_> therefore that is making many autopkgtests fail
[14:54] <santa_> we proposed a fix for this here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gpgme1.0/+bug/1647204/comments/44
[14:54] <santa_> but we would need an upload of this fix (we don't have any active motu on the team unfortunately)
[14:55] <santa_> so if you could help us with this particular issue, that would be terrific. thanks in advance
[14:57] <clivejo> apw: would you be able to help on the above? ^
[14:59] <mapreri> santa_: gpgme1.0 is in main, so you'd need a core-dev, not a motu (so I can't help)
[15:01] <santa_> mapreri: oh, thanks for the clarification. I still need to get more familiar with ubuntu's "bureaucracy" :)
[15:02] <clivejo> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gpgme1.0/+bug/1647204
[15:02] <clivejo> should we sub the sponsor team again?
[15:02] <mapreri> it's already subscribed
[15:03] <mapreri> let me ask dkg if he'd upload that to debian
[15:05] <apw> is the whole change the reduction in the thread count from 100 to 10 in those two tests ?  that feels like a rather arbitrary fix without context.
[15:05] <apw> what is the symptoms when it is at 100 ?
[15:06] <mapreri> launchpad-buildd hangs.
[15:06] <santa_> apw: it doesn't build, let me dig a bit, to see if I can find the specific failure...
[15:07] <santa_> apw: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/02/18/%23kubuntu-devel.html#t20:02
[15:07] <apw> santa_, the patch implies but does not elucidate that you have confirmed that the failure it finds is not the intended failure mode tested but some other factor
[15:08] <apw> santa_, ok that does tell me more what i wanted to know
[15:08] <apw> it would be good if the patch said that we run out of memory in a fork-storm
[15:08] <jbicha> yes, I subscribed ~ubuntu-sponsors to that bug several hours ago
[15:08] <clivejo> thanks jbicha
[15:11] <jbicha> have the Ubuntu Qt maintainers seen this bug? that QtCore error seemed odd
[15:50] <mapreri> santa_: from dkg (gpg* maintainer in Debian): https://paste.debian.net/plain/915558
[15:51] <mapreri> (guess it's a FYI)
[16:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop amd64 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219)
[16:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Builds: Ubuntu GNOME Desktop i386 [Zesty Beta 1] has been updated (20170219)
[16:31] <apw> mapreri, santa_, that osunds liek the symlink makes no sense ...
[16:33] <santa_> we could try to patch the kde package which is failing to build instead
[16:33] <clivejo> apw: how should it be done?
[16:33] <santa_> in any case that is meant to be a temporary thing to be droped later
[16:33] <apw> santa_, it sounds like that is essentially a transition for the consumers of that library, if that change is dev library is expected
[16:35] <clivejo> its a bit of a vicious circle
[16:37] <clivejo> kf5-kdepim-apps-libs is the package that needs it
[16:37] <apw> clivejo, well that is only a build-time depedency and we are uploading this to free built-binaries
[16:37] <apw> clivejo, so why does it need that.  and if we are having to rebuild _that_ anyhow, it would be just as easy to fix it, in theory
[16:38] <clivejo> KDE PIM
[16:38] <apw> * libkf5gpgmepp-dev             (for libgpgme11-dev)
[16:38] <apw> that is the only reverse-depends right?
[16:38] <clivejo> huge beast of a thing and not having a working gpgme has lead to us having to hold it back for now
[16:39] <apw> clivejo, will someone get round to fixing the reverse-depends if i let you bodge this, and remember to remove the bodge
[16:40] <clivejo> If I recall kf5-kdepim-apps-libs is split out into new packages
[16:41] <apw> oh gawd
[16:41] <apw> someone on your side like to make your life hard
[16:41] <clivejo> oh yes
[16:41] <clivejo> remember that list of new packages I told you about?
[16:42] <clivejo> approx 20 new packages for PIM
[16:42] <apw> i guess now you have lots of FFEs to file too
[16:43] <clivejo> but its either an all or nothing
[16:45] <clivejo> so far we have held back the PIM packages to 16.04 and its deps
[16:46] <apw> ok i'll look at this patch and perhaps mark that patch for not carrying forward in the next merge
[16:46] <apw> so you have to do something about it then :)
[16:46] <clivejo> can you hold back on it a sec
[16:47]  * apw stops
[16:47] <clivejo> would you be willing to force kf5-kdepim-apps-libs tests?
[16:49] <clivejo> would the release team work with us to ensure the new packages are accepted and get in?
[16:49] <apw> i assume if they ahve been accepted for the release (as in FFE or whatever equivalent it needed)
[16:49] <apw> then i assume we would work with you to get them in
[16:50] <clivejo> who would make that decision?
[16:50] <apw> well at this stage i assume a big pile of updates would need an FFE, so that would be the place
[16:51] <apw> to ahve the discussion.  i am assuming that if KDE wants KDE to be specific thing, and are committing
[16:51] <apw> the effort to get it done, then it would get approved.  but i don't think i should make that decision on my own
[16:51] <clivejo> well these are all the latest KDE Apps 16.12
[16:52] <apw> so right now we have half of KDE as 16.12 and half as 16.04, which sounds like a bad idea from a support
[16:52] <clivejo> but as we had problems with gpgme and 20+ new packages to get in, we have been holding off
[16:52] <apw> point of view... and i assume it is that you would be asking to correct
[16:53] <clivejo> our aim is to get everything to 16.12
[16:53] <apw> and that sounds like a laudible and sensible plan to me, so would likely get my vote
[16:54] <clivejo> but with PIM deps, one part of it not working, can bring the entire stack down
[16:54] <apw> presumably that is an argument for it being in sync version wise
[16:55] <santa_> I think we could do it
[16:55] <santa_> but we need to get the NEW packages accepted
[16:55] <santa_> right now we have good resources to update all of this
[16:56] <apw> right the point of the FFE would be commiting both sides to it
[16:56] <clivejo> we have no MOTU's on our team at the moment, and found it very difficult to get previous NEW packages accpted
[16:57] <apw> clivejo, yep, someone would likely be voluntold to help with New reviews
[16:58] <clivejo> so for the FFE, we would open it against something high up in that stack, like Kontact?
[17:00] <santa_> apw: ok, I think the thing is doable in our side; what we can offer is 1. packages not ftbfsing, 2. most autopkgtests passing in amd64/i386
[17:00] <santa_> about the autopkgtests I would expect a little bit of mercy on some things
[17:00] <clivejo> esp on weird arch's!
[17:00] <apw> clivejo, nominally on all packages you want to update (obviously not on the ones which do not exist) so perhaps the one you are splitting or something
[17:03] <clivejo> most exist already, just split from source package
[17:03] <clivejo> http://paste.ubuntu.com/24027977/
[17:05] <clivejo> apw: that would take forever, PIM has a lot of packages
[17:05] <clivejo> in the past we have selected one top tier package and opened an FFE for that to cover all the packages below
[17:06] <apw> clivejo, do what you did before indeed; get all that information in the FFE and do send me the bug number where you get that
[17:06] <clivejo> this is an example of Frameworks FFE - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/plasma-desktop/+bug/1625392
[17:06] <apw> clivejo, whatever worked last time, do that
[17:08] <clivejo> apw: is it possible to hold the entire packageset in proposed until we are happy everything is working as it should?
[17:08] <apw> clivejo, we can cirtainly block things in -proposed
[17:08] <clivejo> but like 50 odd packages?
[17:13] <clivejo> apw: could you force-bad-tests kf5-kdepim-apps-libs for the time being?
[17:16] <clivejo> its holding back 5 key frameworks from migrating
[17:17] <apw> clivejo, if you make me a list of what you want held, it can be held
[17:17] <apw> if there are some key libraries tha the remainder dep on we can hold those, and the rest get help as a result
[17:17] <clivejo> ok, its more a thought at the moment
[17:18] <clivejo> we know that KDE PIM 16.04 is working and is tested very well
[17:19] <clivejo> 16.12 I know amd64 is working great, but we would need feedback for other arch
[17:22] <santa_> I would like to note that we still have some problems with some archs
[17:22] <santa_> http://gpul.grupos.udc.es/ka-iron-hand_reports/applications_staging/16.12.1_zesty_retry_builds.pdf
[17:23] <santa_> we will work on it
[17:23] <santa_> we also have a private wannabuild/buildd infrastructure to check the autopkgtests
[17:24] <apw> clivejo, ok that ADT failure is triggered by the fact the tests mandate a rebuild, which we know will fail
[17:25] <apw> clivejo, so i think we can badtest that reasonable.
[17:26] <clivejo> thanks
[17:35] <santa_> apw: thank you very much, we are going to work on kde applications issues on our side
[23:48] <valorie> Hi folks, I was just setting up torrents for seeding 16.04.2 and I see that Lubuntu i386 seems to be missing here: http://torrent.ubuntu.com:6969/
[23:48] <valorie> I checked and it is marked ready, and was reported as such here in the chan
[23:48] <valorie> infinity: ^^^