[09:35] <ogra> hmm, did someone turn off image autobuilds ? i got no images butu i also got no failre mails
[09:35]  * ogra checks on antimony
[09:38] <Riddell> images seem to be building today
[09:41] <ogra> hmm, nothing obvious and a manual build seems to be running fine
[09:41] <ogra> weird
[10:32] <sistpoty|work> cjwatson: can you moderate my mail regarding delegates to u-d-a please?
[10:49] <cjwatson> sistpoty|work: dodne
[10:49] <cjwatson> done
[10:50] <sistpoty|work> thanks cjwatson
[11:30] <bdrung_> is bug #640682 ok?
[11:30] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 640682 in ibus-unikey (Ubuntu) "Please sync 0.5-2 from debian unstable (affects: 2) (heat: 22)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/640682
[11:32] <micahg> could someone please look at bug 631836
[11:32] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 631836 in activeldap (Ubuntu) "FFe: Sync activeldap 1.2.2-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) (affects: 2) (dups: 1) (heat: 255)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/631836
[16:00] <doko> Binary only promotions to main
[16:00] <doko>  ------------------------------
[16:00] <doko>  o libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental                                         {mesa}
[16:00] <doko>    [Reverse-Depends: libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental-dbg]
[16:00] <doko> cjwatson: ok to demote these?
[16:00] <cjwatson> YM promote?
[16:01] <cjwatson> er, I think so, but I was holding off on that one because I vaguely recall there being a bug about it
[16:01] <cjwatson> anyone know?
[16:03] <doko> well, the eperimental doesn't encourage me
[16:21] <Riddell> yes there was a bug
[16:22] <Riddell> bryce wanted it in universe
[16:22] <Riddell> bug 638097
[16:22] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 638097 in mesa (Ubuntu) "Universe binary demotion request for libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental (affects: 1) (heat: 491)" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/638097
[16:23] <Riddell> moved libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental-dbg to universe
[16:24] <doko> Riddell: libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental too?
[16:24] <Riddell> yes
[16:25] <cjwatson> Riddell: I think it needs seed mangling to make sure it stays there
[16:25] <cjwatson> given that it's showing up in component-mismatches
[16:26] <Riddell> even now that libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental-dbg is also demoted?
[16:26] <cjwatson> yes.  component-mismatches does not consider what is currently in main, it considers what it thinks should be in main and compares
[16:26] <cjwatson> you shouldn't close such a bug until component-mismatches says that you can demote the package
[16:28] <cjwatson> I'll sort it out
[16:30] <Riddell> I see, the -dbg package gets pulled in because it's -dbg and it needs an Extra-exclude
[16:30] <cjwatson> right, that's what I'm doing now
[16:58] <bdrung_> can a release team member have a look at bug #645339?
[16:58] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 645339 in mozilla-devscripts (Ubuntu) "Drop transitional and removed packages from Recommends (affects: 1) (heat: 8)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/645339
[17:04] <cjwatson> bdrung_: is it a good idea to drop these recommends in maverick?  I'd have thought it would be generally good to keep them for partial upgrades and the like
[17:04] <cjwatson> bdrung_: for the purposes of NBS, we can consider these as false positives ...
[17:05] <micahg> cjwatson: they were all transitional packages in Lucid
[17:05] <cjwatson> bdrung_: I don't actually object to the change I suppose, but you shouldn't do it if NBS is the only reason
[17:05] <cjwatson> bdrung_: ok
[17:06] <cjwatson> then I guess it's fair enough
[17:07] <bdrung_> cjwatson: the NBS is mostly the reason (having useless items in recommends). one benefit of rebuilding (all) extension is to let them pick up the benefits of the newer version of mozilla-devscripts
[17:10] <bdrung_> cjwatson: and it will make sure that coming SRUs won't hit any issues (and SRUs will come once firefox-4.0 comes to maverick)
[17:11] <cjwatson> what other benefits?
[17:11] <cjwatson> you only list one changes
[17:11] <cjwatson> change
[17:11] <cjwatson> IOW, what set of changes am I accepting here if I ack rebuilding all the extensions?
[17:12] <cjwatson> your bug didn't mention that there was an ulterior motive
[17:12] <micahg> bdrung_: firefox-4.0 isn't coming to maverick
[17:12] <bdrung_> micahg: really? will maverick EOL before firefox 3.6 EOL?
[17:13] <micahg> bdrung_: well, we'll jump to 4.1 probably, but everything will need updates most likely
[17:13] <bdrung_> cjwatson: some changes in mozilla-devscripts 0.21
[17:14] <micahg> bdrung_: we have 0.23 in maverick
[17:14] <cjwatson> I think the implication is that extensions haven't been rebuilt for a while?
[17:14] <cjwatson> but I'd really prefer somebody to actually be clear about this
[17:14] <bdrung_> yes, some packages may weren't rebuild after the release of m-d 0.23
[17:15] <bdrung_> yes, some packages may weren't rebuild after the release of m-d 0.21
[17:15] <bdrung_> cjwatson: before releasing m-d 0.21 i did a rebuild test with all extensions.
[17:15] <cjwatson> I can see the changelog but I don't have the background to work out what it all means for extensions.  Please try to explain in plain English in the bug what the effects of rebuilding extensions will be
[17:17] <bdrung_> cjwatson: it will add a configuration file in /etc/xul-ext (if has a config file) and will install the extension into /usr/share/xul-ext/<package> instead of /usr/share/xul-ext-<package>
[17:18] <cjwatson> in the bug, please?
[17:23] <bdrung_> cjwatson: done
[17:32] <bdrung_> can a release team member have a look at bug #643691? ubuntu-dev-tools should be ready now.
[17:32] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 643691 in ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu) "FFe: Please sync ubuntu-dev-tools 0.103 (universe) from Debian experimental (main) (affects: 1) (heat: 8)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/643691
[17:50] <ScottK> bdrung_: Does this have the fixes for the problems found in yesterday's testing?
[17:53] <bdrung_> ScottK: yes
[17:53] <ScottK> OK.  I'll have a look.
[17:54] <bdrung_> ScottK: and even more bug fixes
[17:56] <ScottK> bdrung_: Approved.
[17:56] <bdrung_> ScottK: thanks
[17:56] <ScottK> No problem.
[17:57] <ScottK> bdrung_: Since you're going to be uploading this in Debian now, I'll warn you that it is quite normal for people to commit a lot of not tested, barely functional changes to u-d-t, so I wasn't suprised the testing found problems.  Be careful.
[17:58] <bdrung_> ScottK: ok, i will remember that.
[18:03] <ScottK> Several cycles ago I got annoyed by it and started testing it.  Once I had upwards of a dozen bugs filed I got tired and quit.
[18:08] <bdrung_> ScottK: the package needs test suites
[18:38] <bdrung_> cjwatson: we still have the ACK for m-d from you?
[19:56] <doko> cjwatson: is it ok to accept the llvm-defaults binaries in NEW?
[19:57] <cjwatson> bdrung_: for m-d itself, but I haven't acked the extensions rebuild yet.  will look in a bit
[19:58] <cjwatson> doko: I never accept binaries from something I uploaded.  I can have a look at yours after dinner
[19:59] <doko> cjwatson: no. just wanted you to review them
[20:11] <ScottK> Is the queuebot off on purpose?
[20:44] <cjwatson> ScottK: no, it dies if something goes wrong with my connection
[20:45] <cjwatson> I should probably make it wait for a while and retry
[20:45] <ScottK> Thanks.
[20:45] <cjwatson> hm, arguably I should make it not do that on startup, too
[20:46] <doko> not unbusy
[20:46] <cjwatson> maybe I ought to run it on chiark or something
[20:46] <cjwatson> don't like running irc bots on company equipment
[22:34] <Daviey> Hi friendly release team.  jdstrand has uploaded a fix for bug #628055... (^^ from queue-bot).  Would it be possible for that to be accepted in time for daily iso build?
[22:34] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 628055 in libvirt (Ubuntu Maverick) (and 3 other projects) "Instances don't start correctly on 32bit systems with large disk files (affects: 2) (heat: 12)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/628055
[22:35] <Daviey> (Justification, currently UEC on i386 is pointless)
[22:35] <ScottK> Looking.
[22:35] <jdstrand> its more than just UEC, but that is probably more than enough
[22:35] <jdstrand> s/its/it's/
[22:35] <Daviey> oh yeah, sure.
[22:36] <Daviey> jdstrand, I don't see any other teams sponsoring you at the bar, for uploading that...   So UEC is the prime target :)
[22:36] <jdstrand> hehe
[22:36] <bdrung_> any archive admin here?
[22:37] <jdstrand> bdrung_: it is not my day, but what do you need?
[22:37] <bdrung_> jdstrand: i like to get mozilla-devscripts 0.24 synced (ACKed in bug #645339)
[22:37] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 645339 in ubufox (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "Drop transitional and removed packages from Recommends (affects: 1) (heat: 12)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/645339
[22:38] <ScottK> Daviey (and jdstrand): Accepted.
[22:38] <Daviey> ScottK, \o/
[22:38] <Daviey> Thanks ScottK
[22:39] <jdstrand> ScottK: thanks :)
[22:39] <ScottK> Daviey: You're welcome. (jdstrand too).
[22:39] <jdstrand> bdrung_: I can do that
[22:39] <bdrung_> jdstrand: why?
[22:39] <jdstrand> bdrung_: because you asked me to?
[22:40] <jdstrand> I suppose I don't have to...
[22:40] <bdrung_> jdstrand: it's the second time this day that i misread something
[22:40] <jdstrand> :)
[22:40] <bdrung_> which inverted the meaning :)
[22:40] <jdstrand> bdrung_: so just so we are clear. you *would* like me to tend to bug 645339?
[22:40] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 645339 in ubufox (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "Drop transitional and removed packages from Recommends (affects: 1) (heat: 12)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/645339
[22:41] <bdrung_> jdstrand: yes :)
[22:47] <jdstrand> bdrung_: done
[22:48] <bdrung_> jdstrand: thanks