< BlueMatt> sipa: oops, sorry for the late response on the cmpctblock v2 bip, but I think I might've fucked you with the versioning scheme :/
< GitHub22> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8558: Add copyright header to wallet_text_fixture.cpp (master...2016_08_wallet_test_fixture_copyright) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8558
< GitHub30> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2468292a0353...a55a018d5f2d
< GitHub30> bitcoin/master fa785d1 MarcoFalke: Use __func__ to get function name for output printing
< GitHub30> bitcoin/master a55a018 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8548: [wallet] Use __func__ to get function name for output printing...
< GitHub157> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8376: [Wallet][Trivial] Fix exception message to reference actual thrower. (master...2016-07-19-cwallet-sethmasterkey) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8376
< GitHub27> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8548: [wallet] Use __func__ to get function name for output printing (master...Mf1608-walletFunc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8548
< GitHub169> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a55a018d5f2d...760741a00833
< GitHub169> bitcoin/master faaec13 MarcoFalke: [qa] Remove unused code
< GitHub169> bitcoin/master 760741a MarcoFalke: Merge #8551: [qa] Remove unused code...
< GitHub173> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8551: [qa] Remove unused code (master...Mf1608-qaUnused) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8551
< GitHub77> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/760741a00833...bb0f763a253f
< GitHub77> bitcoin/master 653bb3d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Add copyright header to wallet_text_fixture.cpp...
< GitHub77> bitcoin/master bb0f763 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8558: Add copyright header to wallet_text_fixture.cpp...
< GitHub185> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8558: Add copyright header to wallet_text_fixture.cpp (master...2016_08_wallet_test_fixture_copyright) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8558
< GitHub50> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bb0f763a253f...37e77c106cb5
< GitHub50> bitcoin/master 4207630 Daniel Kraft: trivial: remove unused variable...
< GitHub50> bitcoin/master 37e77c1 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8554: trivial: remove unused variable...
< GitHub62> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8554: trivial: remove unused variable (master...remove-block-tmp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8554
< xinxi> I guess you will be interested.
< sipa> xinxi: I don't know chinese :)
< xinxi> It does not really matter as long as you can recognise your nice photo and the github url.
< sipa> haha
< xinxi> We may start to prove Bitcoin soon.
< sipa> good luck
< xinxi> yeah, it's not an easy project. We need some luck and your guys' help.
< sipa> wumpus: time to tag 0.13.0?
< wumpus> sipa: ACK
< wumpus> oh I missed the highlight here somehow: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8518
< sipa> i'd fix #8555 if it's obvious what the solution is
< sipa> but it's so minor that we could as well do it for 0.13.1
< btcdrak> wumpus: i found a blocker, really sorry...
< wumpus> * [new tag] v0.13.0 -> v0.13.0
< wumpus> btcdrak: oh no!
< btcdrak> hehe. was just joking
< * btcdrak> fires up Gitian
< * jonasschnelli> un-dusts gitian builder
< * sipa> is on battery power; gitian building delayed for a few hours
< btcdrak> finally! proof sipa is actually a machine!
< GitHub40> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8559: Fix maxuploadtarget recommended minimum calculation (master...2016/08/max_ut) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8559
< wumpus> btcdrak: oh no, the machine conspiracy behind bitcoin is out in the open now
< sipa> you will be assimilated
< Thireus> Hi guys
< Thireus> Can someone please post the sha256sum and md5sum of v0.13.0.tar.gz?
< wumpus> Thireus: just the source tarball?
< wumpus> b89b2d68db7fee03cf1db6331386f1a56c2d759a31f745f0283858df6ebc986c src/bitcoin-0.13.0.tar.gz
< wumpus> that is "b89b2d68db7fee03cf1db6331386f1a56c2d759a31f745f0283858df6ebc986c"
< Thireus> the release
< wumpus> strictly spoken there is no release yet just a tag
< Thireus> that one is the rc3
< Thireus> I can see a release there
< Thireus> what's the difference?
< wumpus> that it wasn't built and checked yet
< Thireus> ok thanks
< Thireus> will wait then :)
< wumpus> you cn use rc3, by definition there have been no code changes since
< Thireus> ah that's what I was looking for as well, thanks
< Thireus> I'll stick to the previous release for now
< Thireus> just wanted to make sure I had a non-tempered version of the 0.13.0
< Thireus> that's the hashes I've gt
< Thireus> sha256sum v0.13.0.tar.gz:
< Thireus> 852581d21716b74e0539f7fd2f9c17f5506f1c21c5cec6642b0286823ba97193
< Thireus> md5sum v0.13.0.tar.gz:
< Thireus> 1cee144c1a359d0f202be401744f9be7
< wumpus> how did you create it?
< Thireus> I downloaded it
< Thireus> it's on the release page of the Bitcoin github
< wumpus> it's not available for download yet, it will be uploaded once three people have the same gitian output
< wumpus> that's just a tarball of the repository
< Thireus> 3 hours ago
< wumpus> as I said, there is no release yet
< Thireus> that's what I use when I compile the sources
< wumpus> you can download a dump of the repository for a certain tag from github, but that's not the same as a release
< wumpus> it's the same as you would get with 'git clone'
< Thireus> uhm
< Thireus> I don't know the release process
< Thireus> github —> flagegd for release —> … —> ?
< Thireus> thanks
< Thireus> I see, I was missing some extra steps
< Thireus> gitian especially
< wumpus> you can also build from a tag from git yourself, sure, but then it doesn't make sense to ask that the hash is here. You should check the signature on the tag "git tag -v v0.13.0".
< achow101> Anyone else having problems with gitian on Ubuntu 16.04
< jonasschnelli> achow101: I'm on Debian 7. Works wonderful with KvM
< achow101> how do I set it up using kvm? I'm using lxc right now
< jonasschnelli> Not sure how I did it...
< jonasschnelli> Did it aprox 1 year ago.
< achow101> time to hit up the gitian builder docs then
< wumpus> lxc is slightly more difficult to set up, as it requires some global configuration
< wumpus> kvm on the other hand doesn't usually work when nested in a VM
< jonasschnelli> Yes. I guess KVM requires to run the gitian host on a physical machine, although VMWare can emulate KVM in a VM.
< achow101> wumpus: lxc isn't working for me, and I am not using a vm as the host (thankfully)
< wumpus> jonasschnelli: right, there is some CPU bit, that if you VM environment supports it, and it is enabled, can allow for nested virtualization :)
< wumpus> but I'm not aware of anyone using it in that way, it seems awfully specific
< wumpus> Gavin had a very strange setup at some point where he built in vmware w/ Ubuntu VM directly. But the problem of using an 'alternative' setup is that it may have differences that result in different executables
< wumpus> (although this is mostly solved with the depends system, there is no reliance on any OS-shipped libraries)
< Lauda> I have the same problems as achow101 https://i.imgur.com/PIBLTPN.png
< Lauda> Inside a VM - Linux Mint 18
< wumpus> Lauda: maybe stupid suggestion: can you try running the command again? I have a similar problem which appears only the first time I run something with lxc after VM boot
< wumpus> the second and later times it just works (TM)
< wumpus> there's something weird with the LXC setup but I don't know enough about it to debug it
< wumpus> (it may be that some setup step has to be done in advance which is skipped by gitian, so a race condition happens)
< Lauda> It's actually a script from achow101, but following the gitian guide also resulted in the same problem (IIRC). Secondary run - http://i.imgur.com/c9CRLo3.png
< Lauda> Then it proceeds to provide the same errors for each build
< wumpus> the /dev/shm line is probably where you need to look for the error
< wumpus> this docker error looks similar https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/12912
< Lauda> There's nothing there besides a few pulse-shm files. Thanks for the link, I'll look into it
< sipa> bitcoin core 0.13 ARM signature validation speed on Nexus 5X: 1.03ms/txin
< instagibbs> havent built gitian in quite a while, what does "export SIGNER=" supposed to look like
< sipa> instagibbs: whatever you want to call youself
< wumpus> usually the first part of your email address, but something that can be passed to gpg to identify your key
< instagibbs> ok, something corresponding to your uid i assume
< wumpus> you can also use the gpg key-id
< instagibbs> wumpus, ok
< sipa> it's the directory name for your signatures under https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gitian.sigs/tree/master/0.13.0rc1-linux for example
< wumpus> yes, it's also used for the directory name
< achow101> how long should it take for gitian to check the a kvm image is running?
< jonasschnelli> We should really improve sync information or add a SPV send-out mode in 0.14
< wumpus> yes
< GitHub93> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/37e77c106cb5...41d8e78f94c5
< GitHub93> bitcoin/master fab2e26 crowning-: CDB: fix debug output...
< GitHub93> bitcoin/master 41d8e78 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8539: CDB: fix debug output...
< GitHub51> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8539: CDB: fix debug output (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8539
< achow101> for some reason my qemu vm for gitian won't start
< cfields_> gitian builders: v0.13.0 sigs are up
< MarcoFalke> pushed both
< cfields_> MarcoFalke: got it, thanks
< timothy> hi, when will you release the 0.13 tarballs?
< sipa> when we have enough gitian builds
< sipa> presumably in the next day or so
< michagogo> Looks like it's just one set of signeds short
< michagogo> (My set is building right now)
< * michagogo> wishes there were some kind of progress indicator when building
< michagogo> Apparently someone over at Debian made patches relating to GCC 6 and OpenSSL 1.1 -- has anyone here seen that and looked to see if it makes sense?
< michagogo> (I mean, someone who actually has the ability to evaluate that... unlike myself :-/ )
< michagogo> Never mind, I misread
< michagogo> Looks like both were fixed on our end -- it was just the bugs that were closed by the new uploads
< aj> michagogo: there were a couple of ssl patches due to EVP_CIPHER_CTX and EVP_MD_CTX and ECDSA_SIG becoming opaque that are still needed as of rc3, https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin-deb/blob/master/debian/patches/3001_openssl_1_1_fixes.patch (kinda ugly since what works with openssl 1.1 doesn't work with openssl 1.0.2...)
< michagogo> Ah.
< michagogo> Is that patch PR'd?
< michagogo> aj: ^
< aj> michagogo: no, it's not; feel free to open one
< michagogo> aj: I don't know enough about the code (or code in general) to feel comfortable with that
< michagogo> s/with/doing/
< michagogo> I mean, if it breaks earlier OpenSSL it probably needs some kind of configure-time check to activate or not activate the patch
< michagogo> (Or something)
< gmaxwell> perhaps we should drop the openssl comparison functions from the tests. :( it's not worth carrying around a bunch of openssl version ifdefs just for tests.
< gmaxwell> at least for libsecp256k1 we can make the openssl test in configure just not find 1.1
< sipa> we don't use the EVP_* stuff anymore in 0.13, right?
< gmaxwell> sipa: look at the patch.
< gmaxwell> Payment protocol.
< gmaxwell> sorry I didn't redflag this, I'd also thought we had eliminated all that openssl usage.
< sipa> oh, i didn't see there was a 'bitcoin' in that URL
< sipa> i thought you were talking about some generic openssl patches
< gmaxwell> sipa: no openssl 1.1 has ripped out a bunch of the leaky api.