[00:37]  * micahg is still wondering if someone can have a look at Firefox in unapproved :)
[00:38] <asac> micahg: not on sunday i guess ;)
[00:38] <asac> wait till europe wakes up
[00:39] <micahg> asac: k, chris is out tomorrow due to holiday in UK, so I said I'd follow up on this
[00:39] <asac> well. if the bug that its closing is properly mentioned then it will get in
[00:39] <asac> i am quite sure ;)
[00:40] <stgraber> ScottK: hmm, nope, where did you post it ?
[00:42] <micahg> asac: hmm, there isn't a bug specifically allowing upload...that's the issue
[03:20] <ScottK> stgraber: There are po file changes in the ltsp diff that aren't documented.  Are those wanted/correct?
[03:36] <stgraber> ScottK: nope, please reject, I'll re-upload
[03:36] <ScottK> stgraber: Will do.
[03:41] <stgraber> not sure what happened to -0ubuntu1 because that one was a real mess ... I'm working on a clean -0ubuntu2 and will update the changelog accordingly (as it'll fix the mess made by -0ubuntu1 at the same time)
[03:44] <ScottK> stgraber: You can reupload it as ubuntu1.
[03:47] <stgraber> ScottK: nope. Because -0ubuntu1 is what's currently in the archive and is a mess. -0ubuntu2 is the one you just rejected. So I'm reviewing everything that was in .diff.gz in -0ubuntu1 and shouldn't have been there, then will re-upload -0ubuntu2 to fix that + fix d-i and document what was changed.
[03:47] <ScottK> Ah.  OK.
[03:47] <ScottK> BTW, I accepted edubuntu-artwork, so at least that's in.
[03:48] <stgraber> thanks
[03:49] <ScottK> No problem.  That's what I get paid the big bucks to do.
[03:49] <ScottK> No, wait.  I don't....
[03:49] <ScottK> ;-)
[03:49] <stgraber> ;)
[04:01] <stgraber> ok, done doing the change-review, updated changelog and re-uploaded ltsp
[04:03] <stgraber> nothing in these missing upstream changes might break the install process, the only thing it may impact is the thin client boot process but I had already reviewed the upstream changes before I released 5.2.4 upstream and other distros (including Debian) run with these, so they should all be good.
[04:04]  * stgraber still wonders how he managed to upload a non-clean .diff.gz ... I usually check that there's only debian/ in there ...
[04:07] <ScottK> po files are weird.
[04:07] <ScottK> Still waiting for LP to generate the diff.
[04:08] <stgraber> debdiff will be quite long
[04:08] <stgraber> but .diff.gz is clean now
[04:08] <stgraber> so the "upstream => 0ubuntu2" delta is clean now (as in, only debian/ is in there)
[04:08]  * ScottK nods
[04:08] <ScottK> (and waits)
[04:09] <stgraber> "upstream => 0ubuntu1" was a mess with some of the changes from 5.2.4 changes being reverted by what was in the .diff.gz (that wasn't intended)
[04:19] <ScottK> stgraber: This one still has the po file changes like "+"Language: \n"" in es.po.  I'm guessing a blank Language field isn't right.
[04:23] <stgraber> ScottK: you see that in .diff.gz ?
[04:24] <stgraber> oh, that's probably from the .po that are in debian/
[04:25]  * stgraber looks
[04:26] <stgraber> ok, found the issue (though I still have no clue what caused it), please reject again ... sorry
[04:26] <ScottK> No problem.
[04:26]  * stgraber starts to believe it's to do with running a dpkg-buildpackage locally at some point and the clean target not doing its job properly
[04:26] <ScottK> Done.
[04:30] <stgraber> hmm, these Language fields must be added by some debhelper script ...
[04:31] <stgraber> I just took the debian/ from -0ubuntu1 and applied the changes I wanted and I still have these when diffing both debian/ directories
[04:33]  * stgraber suspects debconf-updatepo
[04:33] <stgraber> yup, that's the one ... running it manually causes the Language: \n issue
[04:43] <stgraber> re-uploaded a new source package with all of these Language: field set so debconf-updatepo doesn't break them ...
[04:43] <stgraber> I'm really not sure that field is mandatory though as I can't find it set in any of the .po I found ... might be a debconf-updatepo bug
[04:52] <ScottK> diff still pending.
[05:19] <ScottK> stgraber: Accepted.
[05:19] <stgraber> ScottK: thanks
[05:20] <ScottK> No problem.  You might file a bug against updatepo so it at least gets investigated.
[05:30] <micahg> ScottK: still around?
[07:12] <slangasek> micahg: accepted now; sorry for the delay
[07:13] <micahg> slangasek: no problem, thanks
[07:13] <micahg> slangasek: do you have time for a quick question?
[07:14] <slangasek> micahg: sure
[07:14] <micahg> I have bug 622900 which is a security update, but there's been a bug fix point release afterwards already that can be sync'd, should I update the bug for the new point release and get a new ack or wait till this goes through?
[07:14] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 622900 in phpmyadmin (Ubuntu) "Please sync phpmyadmin 4:3.3.5.1-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) (affects: 1) (heat: 262)" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/622900
[11:17] <NCommander> ping, is anyone awake? I just patched a bug which has prevented amd64 images from building, and I'd like to do a one-off respin of ubuntu/amd64 to test, and if successful, spin the entire image set for amd64 since we don't have ANY
[12:35] <ScottK> NCommander: Bank holiday in the UK today.  You may have to wait for slangasek to wake up.
[12:36] <NCommander> ScottK: well, once he's up, he can do spins. I did one in DEBUG mode, so I'm sure its fixed
[12:54] <persia> NCommander, ScottK: Is there a reason we wouldn't want to do spins, so things are ready for tomorrow?
[12:55] <NCommander> No reason not to where I'm sitting
[12:55] <NCommander> I wanted to doa headsup ping before I started spinning
[12:56] <ogra> well, thats for china, how about the rest of the world :P
[12:56] <persia> ogra, Any "tomorrow".  it's a bank holiday in the UK, but without a respin, it can be a while before there are images.
[12:57] <ogra> persia, NCommander was referring to "where he sits" :P
[12:57] <persia> But one of cjwatson, iulian, Riddel, pitti, ScottK, sistpoty, or slangasek needs to make the call.
[13:01]  * ogra pokes the queue bot ... 
[13:01] <ogra> i just uploaded ubuntu-netbook-efl-default-settings 0.6 why ist it picked up
[13:01] <ogra> *isnt
[13:02] <persia> Takes a bit.
[13:03] <ogra> well, i have the LP mail since quite a while
[13:03] <persia> Anyway, I'm not sure it matters that much.  I don't believe any of the release managers are currently about.
[13:03] <ogra> persia, ScottK is here :)
[13:03] <ogra> i wanted to nag him about it
[13:06] <persia> I think he's probably dealing with morning stuff at this hour, and not available until he gets a gap between $work and meetings.
[13:06] <persia> I could be mistaken.
[13:43] <cjwatson> NCommander: you don't need to respine
[13:44] <cjwatson> everything, just one wil be fine I guess
[13:44] <cjwatson> NCommander: where's the patch?
[13:51] <NCommander> cjwatson: already deployed
[13:54] <KE1HA> cjwatson:  Just FYI, a bit off topic but, a user named diva, in the grub channel, ran into your bootloader issue on a dell machine.
[13:54] <cjwatson> NCommander: please fix the PATH setting in crontab instead
[13:54] <cjwatson> KE1HA: I'm aware, and yes it's off-topic here
[13:55] <cjwatson> I'm in that channel too and read it
[14:39]  * ogra wonders why the  queuebot ignores his upload
[14:43] <cjwatson> I'll look when I'm not on holiday
[14:44] <ogra> cjwatson, thanks, i'll try to get the package out of the qeue before though
[14:45] <ogra> *queue
[14:55] <cjwatson> ogra: it's not going to be noticed by queuebot now.  some kind of bug with multiple versions of the same package, from a cursory look at the code
[14:56] <ogra> cjwatson, ah, thanks
[15:50] <ScottK> ogra: ubuntu-netbook-efl-default-settings is the one you need, right?
[16:18] <ogra> ScottK, yep
[16:18] <ScottK> ogra: I can accept that.
[16:19] <ogra> ScottK, that would be awesome
[16:19] <ScottK> ogra: Done.
[16:19] <ogra> thanks a lot :)
[16:19] <ScottK> You're welcome.
[17:05] <slangasek> micahg: ah, so apparently I was mistaken and disappeared right as you asked the question. :)  At minimum, I would say you need to update the sync request to mention that it has to be synced from testing now...
[17:14] <mvo> slangasek: is bug #620956 something that you could look at? if not I'm happy to do it tomorrow, its just a conffile prompt, not criticial
[17:14] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 620956 in ifupdown (Ubuntu) "Upgrading ifupdown from lucid to maverick creates two spurious debconf questions (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/620956
[17:22] <jdstrand> skaet, robbiew: hey, so I got ufw 0.30 together and would like to get it into beta, if possible. It wouldn't be devastating if we didn't, but it would be nice, particularly for bug #618410
[17:22] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 618410 in ufw (Ubuntu) "/etc/ufw/applications.d has wrong syntax (affects: 2) (dups: 1) (heat: 254)" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/618410
[17:23] <jdstrand> skaet, robbiew: I got it into Debian over the weekend, and would like to sync 0.30.0-1 from sid
[17:23] <jdstrand> skaet, robbiew: as mentioned in the release meeting on friday, this addresses the bugs in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/ReleaseStatus/Maverick#Planned%20changes%20for%20Beta
[17:23] <ScottK> jdstrand: Is it bug fixes or new features too?
[17:23] <jdstrand> ScottK: bug fixes only
[17:23] <ScottK> jdstrand: Go ahead an sync then.
[17:24] <robbiew> yeah...what ScottK said :)
[17:24] <jdstrand> what is in maverick is a prerelease of 0.30
[17:24] <jdstrand> rock on
[17:24] <jdstrand> actually, I may also fix bug #580032 with an ubuntu1
[17:24] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 580032 in ufw (Ubuntu) (and 2 other projects) "can't read ufw error messages in russian (affects: 2) (heat: 16)" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/580032
[17:24] <jdstrand> but cool. uploading :)
[17:28] <ogra> slangasek, is there a way to tag the linux-ti-omap4 package so no release manager will accept it accidentially ? the resulting binary wont work with the bootloaders yet and i'm a bit scraed someone accepts it by accident
[17:28] <ogra> (which would make our images unbootable)
[17:33] <ScottK> ogra: Not uploading it would be the best way.
[17:33] <ogra> ScottK, to late :)
[17:33] <ScottK> ogra: You might sent mail to ubuntu-release.
[17:33] <ogra> i only noticed the kernel team did the upload when it hit the archive already
[17:34] <ScottK> I can reject it if you want.
[17:36] <ogra> hmm thats probably the safest
[17:37] <ScottK> OK.  Would you please let them know what we're doing and why.
[17:37] <ogra> let me ask
[17:37]  * ScottK waits
[17:37]  * ogra wants to coordinate with kernel team before making their uploads go away :)
[17:39] <micahg> slangasek: so, that would be better than updating for the new version?
[17:39] <slangasek> mvo: 620956> oh, is *that* what caused those prompts for me, hmm.  I can try to look at it today
[17:39] <slangasek> mvo: what's your first thought on how to fix this?  checksum match && removal of old "conffile" before upgrade?
[17:40] <slangasek> ogra: yes, asking us to reject the package is the way to tag it :)
[17:40] <ogra> ScottK, ok, you can reject it (said tgardner), the binary that will result from that package is for HW (panda ES2.0) thats not even available to the arm team yet and the bootloader we have in the images does not support that HW at all
[17:40] <slangasek> micahg: if you want the security fix in quickly, I think that's the way to go first, yes
[17:40] <ogra> slangasek, right, i was hoping there was a less bandwith wasting way :)
[17:41] <ScottK> OK.  linux-ti-omap4 going away then.
[17:41] <slangasek> micahg: but I don't think there's one right answer here
[17:41] <ogra> ScottK, thanks
[17:41] <micahg> slangasek: k, I'll go for the security fix first, thanks
[17:41] <ScottK> ogra: Done.
[17:41] <ogra> thanks :)
[18:05] <slangasek> so, what was this problem that made all of amd64 not build?
[18:05] <ScottK> NCommander said he'd committed a fix, but not what it was.
[18:08] <slangasek> NCommander: where did this amd64 fix land?
[18:12] <slangasek> ogra: if linux-ti-omap4 has been rejected for upload, does that mean bug #605739 needs retargeting?
[18:12] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 605739 in linux-ti-omap4 (Ubuntu Maverick) (and 1 other project) "BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:94d23 (affects: 2) (heat: 92)" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/605739
[18:14] <mvo> slangasek: yeah, checksum-match && removal was what came to my mind, not sure if its ideal, but it will certainly do the job
[18:41] <ScottK> jdstrand: Your ufw upload has some instances of ""Language: \n"" in it.  stgraber ran into a similar problem on ltsp.  Apparently updatepo is adding it now for some reason.  His solution was to make sure it was present and defined in all the po files.
[18:41] <ScottK> I'm not sure what happens if it's present and unset, but I doubt it's good.
[18:49] <jdstrand> ScottK: I see de and es. Shall I just put them in and upload and you'll review/accept?
[18:51] <ScottK> jdstrand: I let you know when I saw de.  Add them and reupload (same version number, I'll reject the first one)
[18:51] <jdstrand> ScottK: thanks
[18:53] <ScottK> jdstrand: Just a nit (not something I'd reject it for, but you mention Postfix in the description for "Mail submission" (587).  Port 587 is defined in an IETF RFC and not at all Postfix specific.
[18:53] <jdstrand> it seems 0.29.3 didn't have a "Language:" at all
[18:54] <jdstrand> ScottK: oh, that is a thinko
[18:54] <jdstrand> ScottK: that was supposed to b generalized and I missed it
[18:54] <jdstrand> ScottK: but, on the plus side, I am not installing those yet
[18:54] <ScottK> OK.  There's your bug report....
[18:54] <jdstrand> hehe
[18:54] <jdstrand> ScottK: thanks :)
[18:54] <ScottK> jdstrand: re language, updatepo seems to be adding it now if it's missing.  Not sure why.
[18:55] <jdstrand> yeah
[18:55] <jdstrand> I'll add it in and check all of them
[18:56] <ScottK> 443 is a bit of an interesting one too as it's also used by Microsoft MUAs for smtps.
[18:56] <ScottK> Neither that nor the MSN usage is supported by the well known ports assignment.
[18:57] <ScottK> I like how you put insecure in the name of telnet.
[18:58] <jdstrand> re msn-- yeah, that was tricky-- I did quite a bit of research trying to get them right-- that one was hard
[18:58] <jdstrand> I'd have to dig up the source, I don't have it handy
[19:00] <ScottK> I didn't even know about that usage.
[19:00] <ScottK> Actually, I'm mis remembering.  smtps is 465
[19:01] <jdstrand> yes, that sounds right
[19:18] <ScottK> Fixed the Unity FTBFS on amd64 via the obscure magic of the retry button.
[19:40] <ScottK> jdstrand: pot still has an empty Language: field.
[19:40] <ScottK> Not sure we care.
[19:40] <ScottK> (or if it's wrong)
[19:41] <ScottK> Off for a bit.
[20:03] <jdstrand> ScottK: I'm not a translations guru, but templates.pot is simply what a translator will use and 'fill in'. a '"Language: \n"' I would think would be expected, since we shouldn't specify a language in the template
[20:04] <jdstrand> ScottK: to verify this, I ran debconf-gettextize debian/templates and found is does create '"Language: \n"'
[20:04] <jdstrand> ScottK: so I think it is fine as is. if you don't want it in the diff.gz, I'll reupload
[20:07] <jdstrand> ScottK: err, I mean autgenerated
[20:17] <cjwatson> ScottK: empty Language field> gettext 0.18 introduced the Language field, which is supposed to be a more reliable way to identify the po file's language from contents alone than previous header fields.  It tries to guess what its contents should be, but sometimes it fails.  That said, empty Language won't actually break anything that I know of.
[20:17] <cjwatson> and yes, I'm inclined to agree with jdstrand
[20:26] <cjwatson> NCommander: I've fixed PATH in crontab and reverted your debian-cd change; hope that's ok
[21:04] <ScottK> jdstrand and cjwatson: Thanks.
[21:04] <ScottK> jdstrand: Accepted.
[21:05] <jdstrand> \o/
[21:05] <jdstrand> ScottK: thanks
[21:28] <cjwatson> uploaded openoffice.org-voikko, which should fix the last uninstallable on amd64/i386.  please review
[21:31] <cjwatson> is there an Ubuntu Studio representative here?
[21:31] <cjwatson> I had a vague memory it was ScottL
[21:34] <cjwatson> curious what they're going to do about the linux-headers-rt recommendation from ubuntustudio-desktop, given that linux-rt's been removed
[21:41] <cjwatson> anything else that's known to be beta-critical and needs review?
[21:42] <ScottK> cjwatson: Accepted.
[21:43] <ScottK> Not that I know of.
[21:43] <cjwatson> ta
[21:44] <ScottK> didrocks just mentioned in #uubntu-devel that his evolution upload is intended for beta.
[22:26] <GrueMaster> ScottK: I finished adding the results for Kubuntu 10.04.1  Sorry for the delay, major issues with maverick consumed all my time.  Note that the dove image still fails to boot kdm (bug 571732) and the installer crashes on omap, likely due to low memory.
[22:26] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 571732 in qt4-x11 (Ubuntu) "ksplashx_scale crashed with SIGILL in QImage::transformed() (affects: 1) (heat: 28)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/571732
[22:27] <ScottK> GrueMaster: OK.  Thanks.  I gather that's not a regression though.
[22:28] <stgraber> will we get a daily for Edubuntu tomorrow or do we already have to poke someone for a respin ? (to include the oem fix from cjwatson)
[22:28] <GrueMaster> No.  I had to look up the release notes, as I had done the testing on 10.04 for dove.  Not sure on omap.  Don't know if it was tested.  I also don't know if we officially announced a Lucid image on omap.
[23:06] <cjwatson> stgraber: autobuilds are still on