[03:23] <slangasek> doko__: so the net effect of this is that ipv6 transitional addresses would only be used for connecting to IPv6-only sites?  that seems reasonable
[03:34] <ScottK> Unfortunately the IETF consensus seems to be that breaking IPv4 NAT is a feature, not a bug.
[03:34] <ScottK> So we get stuck trying to make it work in the real world.
[03:36] <slangasek> well, as described, it doesn't *break* NAT; the only argument for making this change is that IPv6 transitional addresses are less reliable than established IPv4 NAT
[03:37] <ScottK> Which I think is a fair statement.
[03:39] <slangasek> that hasn't been my experience, FWIW - I find them equally reliable, with certain obvious benefits to being able to use a public address in the former case - but I'm ok with this change if others find that to be the case
[03:39] <slangasek> (I had to think through it to assure myself that it wasn't going to make 6to4 and teredo /completely/ useless, since if someone has deployed either of those they've done so for a reason)
[03:40]  * ScottK nods
[09:11] <slangasek> cjwatson: you added a note to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BetaProcess right after 8.04.1 asking for a u-d-a announcement about post-release plans, but I don't find anything in my mail history about this; what level of detail were you looking for, if you remember?
[09:12] <cjwatson> hm, nothing in wetware memory ...
[09:12]  * cjwatson searches the external memory store :-)
[09:17] <cjwatson> 13:59 <mdz> this thread on -devel has gotten me wondering...
[09:17] <cjwatson> 13:59 <mdz> did anyone tell the community about the 8.04.1 plan?
[09:17] <cjwatson> 14:07 <cjwatson> hmm, I mentioned the team focusing on 8.04.1 in a public meeting, and the .1 team meetings were on the fridge, but I'm not seeing anything where the whole plan was laid out
[09:18] <cjwatson> 14:10 <mdz> I think we should try to do better at that for the next LTS
[09:18] <cjwatson> 14:10 <mdz> whatever our approach is
[09:18] <cjwatson> 14:10 <mdz> it seems big enough (certainly in retrospect) to have warranted a -devel-announce email
[09:18] <cjwatson> 14:27 <cjwatson> as at least a probably-good-enough placeholder, I've added a note to BetaProcess about it
[09:18] <cjwatson> (private conversation on 2008-07-07; seems to be nothing secret though)
[09:18] <slangasek> ok
[09:19] <slangasek> are there any plans for 10.04.1 like there were for 8.04.1?
[09:19] <cjwatson> and I think that the thread being referred to was https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-July/025720.html and thread
[09:20] <cjwatson> hmm, I haven't been told that there wasn't, and my understanding was that the 8.04 cycle was setting a pattern for future LTSes
[09:20] <cjwatson> but I see that LucidReleaseSchedule doesn't have anything explicit about it
[09:20] <slangasek> in terms of dedicating folks to work on post-release fixes?
[09:20] <cjwatson> robbiew: ^- has this been discussed among the platform managers?
[09:21] <slangasek> I mean, I've assumed there would be LTS point releases again staggered at roughly the halfway point of the cycle
[09:35] <ttx> cjwatson: the slight drawback of using debian-installer/splash=false is that existing server installation preseeds will have to be modified to keep the "old" (as in pre-10.04) server boot behavior
[09:35] <ttx> cjwatson: or am I understanding it wrong ?
[09:36] <slangasek> ttx: isn't the server ISO setting that by default on the boot commandline?
[09:36] <ttx> slangasek: I was thinking about netboot-ers
[09:36] <slangasek> ah
[09:36] <slangasek> then yeah
[09:37] <ttx> I just saw the splash screen on my just-installed netbooted UEC setup :)
[09:37] <slangasek> it's purty!
[09:38] <ttx> (tbh I have to look very fast to see it)
[09:38] <cjwatson> ttx: yes - I don't really see a way round that
[09:38] <cjwatson> I think I suggested release-noting that in the bug, though I don't remember for sure
[09:38] <cjwatson> in any case, preseeding has never been guaranteed to be stable from release to release
[09:38] <ttx> cjwatson: that works for me, we just need to document that well.
[09:39] <cjwatson> we don't break it gratuitously, but we've never hesitated to change it when we need to
[09:39] <ttx> (togather with the Alt-F7 trick)
[09:40] <ttx> cjwatson: The beta2 behavior has been working for me so far, I still have to debunk some spotty reports of failure (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2010-April/004022.html)
[10:33] <quadrispro> hello folks
[10:34] <quadrispro> could anyone take a look at this? bug 561316
[15:17] <mvo> pitti: what are the chances for a FFe for bug #45129 (diff http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/update-manager/main/revision/1778) ? I'm trying currently to do a formal FFe, but LP won't let me :/
[15:20] <pitti> mvo: sub'ed -release and approved
[15:20] <pitti> mvo: it's half a bug fix anyway
[15:20] <mvo> pitti: nice, thanks!
[15:20] <mvo> pitti: I felt so too, but wanted to check with you first
[15:21] <pitti> thanks to you!
[15:34] <lamont> slangasek: wanna kick another livecd-rootfs build on acorn, just to see?
[15:34] <lamont> it's kinda disk abused atm, but that's just to see if I can make it fall over faster - so don't take this run as indicative of time needs
[15:56] <ogra> lamont, archive is out of sync on armel atm
[15:56] <ogra> (gnome-c-c needs to finish building and promotion)
[17:45] <lamont> ogasawara: doesn't matter so much - acorn fell over
[20:00] <slangasek> lamont: is acorn less over-fallen now?  Any use in another livefs try?
[20:07] <lamont> slangasek: well, it'll either work or fall over..drives arrive in a day or 2
[20:07] <slangasek> so doing another try doesn't tell you anything new :)