[03:28] <lamont> ScottK: around still?
[03:39] <lamont> SRU team god: review for bug 786956 ?
[03:39] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 786956 in debootstrap (Ubuntu Lucid) (and 1 other project) "debootstrap lacks oneiric support in lucid (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/786956
[03:47] <ScottK> lamont: Yes.
[03:47] <ScottK> lamont: I'm not in the SRU team.  Bug SpamapS.
[03:48] <ScottK> He's both west of you and in the SRU team.
[03:48] <lamont> ah, cool
[03:48] <lamont> SpamapS: ^^
[05:11] <SpamapS> lamont: accepted into -proposed
[05:12] <lamont> ta
[05:25]  * ScottK thinks SpamapS was just torturing you by waiting.  He accepted that 7 minutes before pitti good morning'ed on ubuntu-devel.
[05:26] <micahg> ScottK: that would make it the same time...
[14:54] <didrocks> hey
[14:55] <didrocks> small question, I think I have a good view now on how to seed unity-2d by default (I'll probably clean up the packaging still), with the qt part (which will be untouched first)
[14:55] <didrocks> I think it can be in a good shape for thursday (looking at it tomorrow and taking one extra day for unseen issues)
[14:55] <didrocks> not sure if it's good to seed it before or after alpha1
[14:56] <didrocks> right now, we don't have any "fallback" session anymore (gnome-panel won't be there by default)
[14:56] <didrocks> so maybe worth to try to make it for first alpha?
[15:00] <ScottK> Alpha 1 is always very rocky, so if you think you've got a shot at building an image with it, I'd go for it.
[15:15] <didrocks> ScottK: ok, will do that then, thanks :)
[15:16] <charlie-tca> I would go for it too. Without a fallback, we will get a lot of nvidia users complaining/fileing useless bugs
[15:17] <cjwatson> agreed
[15:18] <didrocks> ok, I'll try to seed that for Thursday
[15:24] <ScottK> didrocks: qt4-x11 is needing a merge from Debian as well, so if you have additional changes you need for it it'd be nice to get the merge done at the same time (we should get someone who was in the upstream patch review at UDS to look at it so make sure we get those bits right).
[15:26] <didrocks> ScottK: well, not before alpha1 I'm afraid, but post apha1, I can have a look and discuss that on #kubuntu-devel if you have no volonteer for the merge (the only change I'm seeing right now in qt4-x11 is one for qtcreator, but the DD is quite busy right now and I need to speak about the plan with the qt guys as well)
[15:26] <ScottK> Yes.  Please.
[15:26] <didrocks> ScottK: ok, I'm adding myself a WI for the merge post-alpha1 then
[15:27] <didrocks> and of course, will make it reviewed on #kubuntu-devel
[15:27] <ScottK> Sounds good.
[15:29] <cjwatson> I'm getting down to minor details (at least on x86) in the live-build migration; not yet sure whether to attempt to land that for alpha-1 though
[15:30] <cjwatson> the biggest remaining thing is how to handle generating manifest-desktop
[15:49] <cody-somerville> cjwatson, I use a binary hook and to generate the manifest-desktop for OEM Services.
[15:50] <cody-somerville> (I also use a binary hook to recompress initramfs with lzma but its been my intention to patch live-build at some point to handle it)
[15:59] <cjwatson> I'm not happy with relying on binary hooks
[16:00] <cjwatson> I gave my reasoning for this in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=627332#25
[16:00] <ubot4> Debian bug 627332 in live-build "update mlocate database?" [Wishlist,Open]
[16:00] <cjwatson> cody-somerville: too slow :-)  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=627677
[16:00] <ubot4> Debian bug 627677 in live-build "alternative initramfs compressor" [Wishlist,Open]
[16:01] <cjwatson> general bug for manifest handling: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=627439
[16:01] <ubot4> Debian bug 627439 in live-build "handling Ubuntu's multiple manifest scheme" [Wishlist,Open]
[16:56] <slangasek> cjwatson: do you still mean to add hal to the transition tracker?
[16:56] <slangasek> (maybe it's there already, I don't have a link handy to the web UI...)
[16:57] <cjwatson> seb128: will do, thanks.  should be soon, I just need to take safekeeping copies of the images that weren't released with natty
[16:57] <cjwatson> er, oops
[16:57] <cjwatson> (accidental up-arrow)
[16:57] <cjwatson> slangasek: had forgotten about it, is there a work item somewhere for it?
[17:00] <cjwatson> and is it just libhal* deps we care about, or hal itself, or both?
[17:07] <slangasek> cjwatson: no work item, the conversation we had was to scrap the blueprint in favor of the tracker :-)
[17:07] <slangasek> cjwatson: and we care about both libhal* and hal
[17:13] <cjwatson> Laney: please pull the tracker branch
[17:13] <cjwatson> slangasek: ^- done once Laney does that
[17:14] <Laney> banzai
[17:14] <Laney> any progress on the IS hosting?
[17:14] <cjwatson> lamont asked me a question about it but it went dark after that
[17:14] <slangasek> cjwatson: ta
[17:17] <lamont> cjwatson: lillypilly is being its own slow self
[18:03] <cody-somerville> cjwatson, Its always been my intention to reduce the number of standard hooks we needed to zero for the same rationale.
[18:04] <cjwatson> cody-somerville: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-o-live-build, if you haven't seen it
[18:04] <cjwatson> anything marked done there is either fixed in unstable or has a Debian bug
[18:05] <cjwatson> (I'll make an ubuntu1 upload if I need to, though I would prefer not to)
[18:05] <cjwatson> (Debian bug with a patch, that is)
[18:06] <cody-somerville> cjwatson, I took a quick look yesterday but haven't had a chance to give it a proper read yet. Very excited about this. Huge kudos for your contributions.
[23:43] <lamont> SpamapS: I would really like to see sysvinit from -proposed not land until that has the fix to bug 619246 in it
[23:43] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 619246 in sysvinit (Ubuntu) "invoke-rc.d don't return same anwswer when the variable RUNLEVEL is setup at boot time (affects: 4) (heat: 22)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/619246
[23:43] <lamont> that would be most relevant to my desires
[23:47] <SpamapS> Hm
[23:48] <SpamapS> lamont: its waiting on bug 665185 right now... and I believe there is another lucid sysvinit SRU that is blocked on that one
[23:48] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 665185 in sysvinit (Ubuntu Maverick) (and 2 other projects) "/etc/init.d/sendsigs fails to kill some processes (affects: 1) (heat: 30)" [Low,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/665185
[23:50] <SpamapS> lamont: they're totally unrelated.. but.. I wouldn't mind letting bug 619246 into -proposed if you promised to verify 665185 too..
[23:50] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 619246 in sysvinit (Ubuntu) "invoke-rc.d don't return same anwswer when the variable RUNLEVEL is setup at boot time (affects: 4) (heat: 22)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/619246
[23:51] <lamont> SpamapS: I might be talked into that
[23:51] <lamont> is that as simple as uploading to -proposed, or where do I get to send it for review?
[23:51] <SpamapS> lamont: since 665185 is a race condition .. verification can consist of "I installed it and rebooted a couple times and my data is still on the filesystem"
[23:52] <SpamapS> Yeah, you'd just upload it to -proposed.
[23:52] <lamont> ta
[23:53] <lamont> it'll be this weekend at the earliest
[23:53] <lamont> it's just that if you stuff 17.2 into lucid-updates, you'll regress my world and make me sad
[23:55] <SpamapS> I'm not sure I follow .. 17.2 causes problems, but only if you don't have the invoke-rc.d fix?