[00:27] <ogasawara> slangasek: which kernel failed to build?  I see everything successfully build for 2.6.35-19.26.
[00:28] <persia> 19.27
[00:28] <ogasawara> there's a there's a 19.27?
[00:28] <persia> Some large number of udebs got deleted, so a no-change upload was attemtped to restore them...
[00:29] <ogasawara> so we now need a 19.28?
[00:29] <persia> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/2.6.35-19.27
[00:29] <persia> Right, and slangasek wanted an explanantion of why 19.27 completely failed to work
[00:30] <ogasawara> I never uploaded a 19.27 so I 'm not sure where that even came from
[00:30] <persia> (maybe more stuff ought be automatically calculated from the changelog entry or something)
[00:30] <persia> Changelog is on that LP page.
[00:30] <persia> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/54532084/linux_2.6.35-19.26_2.6.35-19.27.diff.gz is the diff
[00:31]  * persia suspects most of the debian/control changes were unexpected by the uploader
[00:32] <ogasawara> ok, gimme a few minutes to get the ABI in order and I'll upload a 19.28
[00:34] <persia> Is there any documentation on what needs doing to allow no-change uploads in the future?  It's a rare need, but sometimes critical for release milestones (like this time)
[00:35] <ogasawara> persia: basically the ABI directory within the kernel needed to be bumped to the previous upload, ie 2.6.35-19.26 when 2.6.35-19.27 was uploaded.
[00:35] <ogasawara> I suspect it was still at 2.6.25-19.25 and thus failed the ABI checks
[00:36] <ogasawara> s/2.6.25/2.6.35/
[00:37] <persia> Right.  I think that's the bit of information slangasek was requesting (although cleaning up and uploading -19.28 would be much appreciated)
[00:37] <ogasawara> yep, just want to get our git tree to match and will upload -19.28
[00:38] <persia> Thank you.
[00:44] <persia> Could someone accept that please?  Blocks d-i, which blocks beta for some architectures,
[01:15] <ogasawara> Ah seems slangasek did a 2.6.25-19.28 as well.  So either the one he did or I did should be good to accept.
[01:17] <persia> His is also ABI clean this time?
[01:18] <ogasawara> persia: should be, according to his changelog and a quick scan of the diff
[01:20] <persia> Hm.  Wonder why the bot didn't report it.
[01:20] <ogasawara> looking at the timestamp it seems the bot's reported his, but not mine.
[01:21] <persia> That makes me all sorts of confused, because if he was preparing that whilst you were discussing it, I'd think he'd have said something :)
[01:22] <ogasawara> maybe he was head down getting it done.
[01:22] <ogasawara> no worries either way.
[01:23] <persia> yeah
[01:23] <persia> now just needs an archive-admin around quick enough to take advantage of the relatively quiescent buildds.
[01:29]  * ogasawara is going to cook some dinner.  I'll check back in a bit to make sure everything is good.
[04:23] <micahg> is anyone available to push firefox through unapproved?
[07:29] <slangasek> ogasawara: thanks, accepting yours so I don't cause even further skew from git
[07:30] <slangasek> micahg: I'll have a look
[07:31] <micahg> slangasek: thanks
[14:25] <asac> anyone here? is there a linux-meta-linaro package in the queue?
[14:25] <asac> please let it in if so ... the omap meta package isnt installable atm and linaro images fail ;)
[14:26] <asac> gratias
[16:35] <micahg> slangasek: any luck with Firefox?
[18:48] <stgraber> pushed a new edubuntu-artwork package, we'd appreciate having it for beta but it's not critical (fixes our splash and icon theme)
[18:49] <stgraber> something that really should go in though is that ltsp package I uploaded yesterday or beta won't have a working LTSP in Ubuntu Alternate
[18:50] <stgraber> (as in, users will get a d-i red screen during the install)
[23:18] <ScottK> stgraber: Did you see my question about the po file changes in the ltsp upload?