[11:00] <Laney> urgh, I ought to remove my old transition pages
[11:00] <Laney> spent a while just now looking at ancient output
[17:10] <GrueMaster> s there a reasone why the last natty daily build for preinstalled-headless-armel is being copied in with the current daily headless-preinstalled for oneiric?  http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-headless/daily-preinstalled/
[17:11] <ogra_> GrueMaster, looks like a bug to me
[18:08] <ScottK> I've filed the MIR for promotion of new binary packages from a Main source as doko requested (Bug #789659).  In the meantime kde4libs is now depwait and further work on KDE is blocked waiting for libdlrestrictions1 and libdlrestrictions-dev.  I would appreciate it if someone would promote them so the team can keep working.  If the MIR review produces issues, then I'll make sure they are addressed.
[18:08] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 789659 in pkg-kde-tools (Ubuntu) "MIR libdlrestrictions1 and libdlrestrictions-dev (affects: 1) (heat: 8)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/789659
[19:31] <cjwatson> GrueMaster: long-standing known bug/misfeature in the cdimage code.  I'll clean up the stale images in a bit.
[19:33] <ScottK> cjwatson: If you have a moment, I'd really appreciate it if you would do the promotion of libdlrestrictions1 and libdlrestrictions-dev I mentioned above?
[19:37] <cjwatson> doko's been very annoyed with people doing pre-promotions in the past
[19:38] <cjwatson> though I find it weird that we've started needing MIRs for binaries.  When and why did that change?
[19:40] <ScottK> No idea.
[19:41] <ScottK> Since it's either approve the MIR or carry a permanent significant delta from Debian in all the core KDE packages, I think I know what happens in the end.
[19:41] <ScottK> If there's stuff that needs fixing in the new code, we'll work it out with Debian (this is native Debian code)
[19:42] <ScottK> So I think the point of the MIR would be to identify issues that ought to be worked out, not do we promote it or not.
[21:18] <cjwatson> ScottK: done, see bug comment
[21:18] <ScottK> Thanks.
[21:20] <ScottK> I think the comment makes complete sense.