[02:46] <ScottK> wgrant: Makes sense, but I thought NotAutomatic was supposed to pull depends from backports if needed?  Should I file a bug on this?
[02:47] <lifeless> ScottK: on apt? yeah
[02:48] <ScottK> OK.  I'll grab a log and talk to mvo tomorrow.
[03:09] <wgrant> ScottK: Probably not an apt bug.
[03:09] <wgrant> ScottK: Since if you look at the log, sbuild apt-get installs the deps.
[03:09] <wgrant> ScottK: A new sbuild would fix this.
[03:16] <lifeless> czajkowski: popey: ping
[03:17] <lifeless> czajkowski: popey: would like to know if bug 815623 being addressed would impact loco workflow adversely
[03:54] <ScottK> wgrant: OK.  Then do I need to file a bug for sbuild?
[04:00] <wgrant> ScottK: Could you file a bug about this particular issue at https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-buildd/+filebug?
[04:00] <ScottK> SUre.
[04:05] <ScottK> wgrant: Bug #815666
[04:06] <wgrant> Thanks.
[04:09] <superm1> hey folks, i was looking for a good way to identify if a release was an LTS release or not from launchpadlib.  currently the solution i've got is a bit hacky in that i check for a ubuntu-$VER.[0-9] milestone and if it exists assume it's an LTS
[04:09] <wgrant> superm1: Launchpad doesn't know that.
[04:09] <superm1> but it's not clear to me if there is a better way, and additionally whether that milestone will have been created say when P launches
[04:27] <micahg> wgrant: what about checking if a core package is supported for 5yr?
[04:28] <wgrant> micahg: You could, but that's not exactly launchpadlib nor something I'd rely on forever.
[04:31] <superm1> would that likely be better than my milestone solution you think though?
[06:46] <tumbleweed> superm1: distro-info?
[06:52] <czajkowski> lifeless: with regards to that bug mentioned, I'm not sure, my best idea would be to mail loco contacts and let them know the changes it would have or any impact
[06:52] <lifeless> czajkowski: I don't know their addresses; I was pointed at you and popey
[06:53] <lifeless> czajkowski: the change is that open teams (which many of the loco teams are) will no longer mail the admins when someone joins or leaves the team
[06:53] <lifeless> delegated teams (which ubuntu-loco-teams is) still will
[06:53] <czajkowski> lifeless: loco contacts mailing list
[06:53] <czajkowski> let me get the address
[06:54] <lifeless> thanks
[06:54] <czajkowski> lifeless: loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com
[06:54] <czajkowski> it's a modersated list so you may need to suscribe
[06:55] <czajkowski> but all of the teams are on there so best way to notify them there is a change coming
[06:55] <czajkowski> thanks for the heads up
[07:03] <lifeless> czajkowski: I have mailed that list; probably needs moderation.
[07:11] <czajkowski> poke dholbach perhaps...
[07:12] <czajkowski> KombuchaKip: actually smurf or popey moderate it
[07:12] <czajkowski> bah
[07:12] <czajkowski> lifeless: popey moderates it
[07:13] <lifeless> ah right
[07:13] <lifeless> another hour or two and he'll be around
[07:16] <popey> lifeless / czajkowski done
[07:16] <czajkowski> popey: ty
[07:17] <lifeless> popey: thank you
[07:18] <czajkowski> lifeless: thanks for taking the time to give a heads up to loco teams, much appreciated.
[07:18] <lifeless> czajkowski: I nearly didn't :)
[07:18] <lifeless> wgrant twisted my arm
[07:19] <lifeless> (I would have blogged about the change regardless, it being quite visible)
[07:19] <czajkowski> heh the last time a chane was made and it effected teams in a bad way matrevell got an earful from me :)
[07:19] <lifeless> yeah :)
[07:20] <lifeless> that was making something previously possible impossible though; quite a different sort of change
[11:56] <danilos> bigjools, hi, I have no idea how would I triage this: bug 815666? can you please give me a hand?
[11:57] <bigjools> danilos: just set it to high
[11:58] <danilos> bigjools, cool, thanks
[11:58] <danilos> bigjools, this should not be treated as a regression, right?
[11:59] <bigjools> danilos: I don't think so
[11:59] <danilos> ack, ta
[11:59] <bigjools> some may disagree
[13:03] <czajkowski> lifeless: you following the mailing list ?
[14:08] <superm1> tumbleweed, the problem with distro-info is that it wouldn't update automagically when new OS releases come out since it's just parsing a CSV
[14:08] <superm1> i was hoping to have a solution that wouldn't require poking every 6 months
[14:33] <tumbleweed> superm1: well, it'll work as long as distro-info is kept up to date... (which one assumes bdrung will do for LTSs, via SRU)
[15:32] <micahg> superm1: bdrung committed to updating distro-info in an SRU for supported releases
[15:32] <superm1> doesn't it make more sense to have it fetching data from the web somewhere so that's not required though?
[15:33] <micahg> no, otherwise you can't use it in builds
[15:33] <superm1> what would you do to use it in a build?
[15:33] <superm1> *why
[15:35] <micahg> superm1: version specific links, dev programs that need to know what a supported release is
[15:35] <superm1> ah i see
[15:38] <Daviey> micahg / superm1: I'd love --lpapi --http (using http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/meta-release) ?
[15:38] <micahg> Daviey: I think he'd be happy taking patches :)
[15:39] <Daviey> superm1: groovy ^^ :)
[15:56] <micahg> Daviey: I don't know what you gain though
[15:57] <micahg> if the idea is to have the information in an offline form, what do you gain by trying to get it online as well
[15:57]  * micahg guesses this is getting OT
[18:43] <jdstrand> hi! after upgrading to oneiric I can no longer 'bzr update' my trees. I get the following traceback: http://paste.ubuntu.com/651899/. I filed bug #816071
[18:44] <jdstrand> a couple of others on oneiric were unable to reproduce
[18:45] <jdstrand> but this is completely blocking my work
[18:46] <jdstrand> can someone take a look at the paste/bug and help me?
[19:07] <jdstrand> I am good, jelmer helped me (bzr, not LP)
[19:36] <lifeless> czajkowski: if its cc'd to me, yes.
[19:37] <czajkowski> lifeless: not sure they are cc'ing, but I got them to reply on the bug also
[19:38] <czajkowski> lifeless: what timezone are you in ?
[19:39] <lifeless> UTC+12
[19:42] <lifeless> czajkowski: I see no replies, so I guess everyone replied to the list only :(
[19:43] <czajkowski> lifeless: I suspected that I did poke people to reply on the bug
[19:43] <lifeless> thanks
[19:43] <czajkowski> lifeless: you should be able to read the archive
[19:43] <lifeless> yah, just caught up
[19:45] <lifeless> I think its going to be hard to get significant stats :)
[19:46] <czajkowski> its a low voulme ml if you do suscribe
[19:47] <lifeless> someone subscribed loco council to the bug, so I think that that will do :)
[19:47] <czajkowski> I suscribed us to the bug
[19:47] <czajkowski> me being loco council
[19:47] <czajkowski> well one of 6
[19:47] <lifeless> ah, cool
[19:48] <czajkowski> I couldnt find the buttong to suscribe me :/
[19:48] <lifeless> edit bug mail -> 'me', 'ok' or something like that
[19:49] <lifeless> please fila a bug though, confusion is bad ;)
[19:49] <czajkowski> lifeless: file the bug against lp ?
[19:49] <lifeless> yeah
[19:51] <czajkowski> lifeless: got a link handy to do that ...
[19:51] <czajkowski> please
[19:51] <lifeless> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/815623/+subscriptions
[19:51] <czajkowski> no to log a bug on lp
[19:51] <lifeless> lol :)
[19:52] <lifeless> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+filebug
[19:52] <czajkowski> so not functioning this evening
[19:52] <czajkowski> cheers
[19:55] <czajkowski> lifeless: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/816105
[20:05] <Quintasan> Hi, is there an ETA for source 3.0 (quilt) support in Recipes? I would like to get daily builds of Telepathy-KDE but it is not possible since rules use 3.0 (quilt), not (native)
[20:16] <czajkowski> hmm
[20:16] <czajkowski> my bug was changed to a question
[20:16] <czajkowski> I beg to differ
[20:16] <czajkowski> :/
[20:20] <micahg> czajkowski: they probably saw the title and thought it was a support request :)
[20:28] <czajkowski> rather annoying
[20:28] <czajkowski> it's not a Q&A
[20:28] <czajkowski> it's a bug
[20:28] <czajkowski> as in right now the issue it is's unclear on how to suscribe yourself to a bug but can suscribe someone else
[20:29] <micahg> czajkowski: I was just referring to the way you phrased it, it's definitely a bug issue :)
[20:29] <idnar> so, there's an Ubuntu source package linked to my Launchpad project, but the link is incorrect; the source package is for a completely different piece of software. How do I go about correcting this?
[20:30] <czajkowski> micahg: so how do I un make it a Q&A and make it back to a bug
[20:31] <micahg> czajkowski: should be a link on the bug to convert back
[20:31] <czajkowski> cheers
[20:31] <czajkowski> done
[20:32]  * micahg makes title look less Q&A
[20:32] <czajkowski> knock yerself out
[20:32] <czajkowski> just leave it as a bug :)
[20:36] <czajkowski> micahg: want to make it confirmed :D
[20:36] <czajkowski> and not invalid
[20:37] <micahg> I set it back to new, not sure I want to confirm (it won't help it along in any event, it needs an LP member to triage it)
[20:38] <czajkowski> nods
[20:38] <czajkowski> ok
[22:09] <wgrant> idnar: Did you get the link removed?
[22:11] <idnar> wgrant: not yet; https://launchpad.net/kali/+packages is the project in question
[22:15] <wgrant> idnar: Removed.
[22:15] <idnar> wgrant: thanks :)
[22:48] <lifeless> micahg: are you interested in being an LP bug triager?
[22:49] <micahg> lifeless: interested? sure, able?  I already have another 2 hats that I'm working on :)
[22:50] <micahg> I don't really have as much time as I used to have to keep up on what's happening in LP