[00:02] <stgraber> oh right, I guess I should do mine eventually... I've had all the paperwork stacked on my desk for a while now, just need to find the CRA login/password I somehow manage to loose every year and then some motivation...
[00:03] <knome> stgraber, i could be your paid assistant to remember passwords
[00:06] <knome> stgraber, silence is acceptance?
[00:06] <GrueMaster> I like that idea.
[00:06] <knome> :)
[00:06] <stgraber> knome: the problem with that password is that I received it on some sheet of paper and I'm really efficient at loosing anything that's on paper ;) I guess I should just e-mail it to myself, then it'll be properly indexed :)
[00:06] <knome> stgraber, or, send it by mail to me, and i'll archive it for you. for a small compensation.
[00:07] <GrueMaster> Heh.  I need to find my pin for my student loan info so I can work on consolidating them.
[00:07] <GrueMaster> It was mailed to me on a 3x5 card.  No name on the card, just on the envelope.
[00:08] <knome> that's why you both should really process everything through computers right away.
[00:09] <GrueMaster> I plan on saving mine to floppy once I find it.  Oh, wait....
[00:09] <knome> the floppy or the card?
[00:12] <GrueMaster> Does it matter?
[00:13] <knome> hmmh. i think it does :)
[00:13] <cjwatson> mercifully I haven't yet tripped any of the triggers that would cause me to have to fill out manual tax returns (touch wood), which is just as well since I have the bureaucracy-related organisation levels of a deranged chipmunk
[00:15] <GrueMaster> Fortunately, I can do mine in a Windows VM (only reason I keep it around still).  But every few years, my wife does something that inadvertently screws up our ability to e-file.  Last year, she took a month of sick pay due to surgery.
[00:16] <cjwatson> ... which reminds me it's actually kind of important that I register my son's birth within the legal time limit.  I should go do that tomorrow ...
[00:16] <GrueMaster> yea, that might be important.  Wouldn't want animal control to think he was a stray.  :P
[00:16] <cjwatson> I think if you have to fill out a manual tax return in the UK it at least can be on paper.
[00:17] <GrueMaster> (congrats btw).
[00:17] <cjwatson> ta :)
[00:31] <infinity> cjwatson: I (and any Canonical employee in Canada who isn't in Quebec) am stuck filing manually, sadly.
[00:37] <mdeslaur> infinity: seriously, you have to file it _manually_?
[00:37] <mdeslaur> infinity: do they need you to mail stuff to them, or what?
[00:38] <infinity> mdeslaur: Quebec has my provincial taxes, the feds have no record of that, so I need to file manually, send in my Releve 1, and let them battle it out.
[00:38] <infinity> mdeslaur: It's a serious pain in the butt.
[00:39] <infinity> mdeslaur: But we're all taxed as if we're Quebecois, regardless of our which province we live in. :/
[00:39] <infinity> s/our //
[00:39] <mdeslaur> infinity: so you get a crapload of money back :)
[00:39] <infinity> mdeslaur: There's that.  I get an okay return.  But it's still an annoying hassle.
[00:40] <infinity> mdeslaur: If Quebec could just play nicely with others, it wouldn't matter.
[00:40] <mdeslaur> infinity: damn baby boomers :)
[00:44] <knome> enlight me on PAE. will it be default for 12.04 already? if yes, can people with older computers install 12.04 at all?
[00:44] <doko> now, is the unity/staging repository built for every commit? I think that's not acceptable
[00:45] <stgraber> knome: yes it'll be the default, the non-pae kernel will still be in the archive. It's probably ok for flavours to choose to go with pae by default but it'll need some tweaking
[00:45] <ScottK> mdeslaur:  "I get an OK return" is another way of saying "I gave the government an interest free loan".
[00:45] <stgraber> knome: others will need to use a d-i mini.iso (netinstall) to get the non-pae kernel
[00:46] <knome> stgraber, so, derivatives will use non-pae by default?
[00:46] <ScottK> knome: Not unless they decide to.
[00:46] <knome> i'm confused :D
[00:46] <ScottK> He was saying that was a choice different flavors might take, not that they had.
[00:47] <knome> he said: "probably ok for flavours to choose to go with pae by default"
[00:47] <knome> which lead me thinking derivatives don't have pae
[00:48] <stgraber> knome: everyone is PAE only by default but you can ask to go non-PAE on a per-image basis (I think, I'm not exactly sure where the changes needs to happen to be honnest ;))
[00:48] <knome> stgraber, okay. that's in 12.04 already?
[00:48] <stgraber> yes
[00:49] <knome> stgraber, if yeah, how was i able to run 12.04 in vbox with no pae enabled?
[00:49] <knome> or is that supposed to work too
[00:49] <stgraber> knome: either because vbox was lying or because it was a very old image ;)
[00:49] <knome> something around 0301
[00:49] <knome> march, that is :P
[00:49] <stgraber> hmm, that should have been pae-only
[00:50] <knome> could've been 2802..
[00:50]  * knome changes timestamp syntax on-the-fly
[00:50] <stgraber> hmm, confirmed that all xubuntu images are currently using the PAE kernel
[00:50] <knome> okay...
[00:51] <stgraber> so it should have failed to boot in vbox if it indeed simulated a non-pae environment
[00:51] <knome> mmh. okay...
[00:51] <knome> weird
[00:51] <knome> i need to bring this up on our community meeting
[00:52] <stgraber> I think it'd make sense for xubuntu or at least lubuntu to go with a non-pae kernel by default, otherwise we'll basically end up having no ubuntu flavours that's bootable on old hardware
[00:52] <stgraber> (where "old" includes 1.6Ghz pentium M, so really not that old)
[00:53] <stgraber> and pointing to a d-i netinstall image isn't that great as it's definitely harder for the user to install and doesn't provide a live environment
[00:57] <knome> stgraber, yup
[01:01] <knome> anyway, i'll get back to you with this later ;)
[01:01] <knome> now i need to sleep, so nighty
[01:08] <doko> infinity, I turned on the old arm buildds to catch up
[08:48] <Riddell> hmm libical-dbg in New has a curious debugging file system e.g. usr/lib/debug/.build-id/bc/e20ac21fa0ba1123c73c4dded2ade72a4f136b.debug
[08:48] <Riddell> anyone seen that before?
[08:50] <Riddell> fabo: yours? ^^
[08:50] <pitti> Riddell: yes
[08:50] <pitti> Riddell: that's the new debhelper 9 style
[08:50] <pitti> arguably it looks crap
[08:50] <fabo> it's debhelper 9
[08:50] <fabo> using build id
[08:50] <pitti> but apparently it's the new glib/gdb way
[08:50] <pitti> Riddell: please don't accept that yet, though
[08:51] <pitti> Riddell: the package FTBFSed on arm* and powerpc, so seb128 ought to fix that first (I think he requested the sync)
[08:51] <pitti> we should only binNEW it once it's built on all arches, otherwise library transitions will be a pain
[08:52] <Riddell> interesting, I'll have to google that
[08:52] <Riddell> pitti: leaving libdbg, I'll do the source new packages
[08:53] <Riddell> leaving libical-dbg I should say
[08:54] <pitti> Riddell: do you have an opinion on bug 343363? i. e. adding the recommends of cryptsetup-bin to udisks, so that this works out of the box instead of producing error messages?
[08:54] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 343363 in cryptsetup "FFe: gnome functional depends on cryptsetup, but not in package management" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/343363
[08:54] <Riddell> pitti: seems like a good thing, what's the downside?
[08:55] <pitti> Riddell: none known to me
[08:55] <pitti> well, 100 kB CD size of course, but we can spend that
[08:55] <pitti> it's a long-standing wrt
[08:55] <pitti> wart
[08:55] <pitti> but now we have the cryptsetup package split, so we can add it without affecting boot time etc.
[08:55] <Riddell> it has my blessing :)
[08:56] <pitti> Riddell: I just wanted a second pair of eyes on it as I'm biased there
[08:56] <pitti> Riddell: ok, thanks
[09:55] <Riddell> according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure when a SRU is in -propsed I can just accept it if sane without having to wait for ubuntu-sru to approve
[09:55] <Riddell> is that right?
[10:03] <pitti> I'd rather have the SRU team do this; but if it's trivial and obviously correct, go ahead
[10:03] <pitti> but please make sure the bug tasks are all present, it's fixed in precise, and run sru-accept.py
[10:04] <Riddell> it's not trivial so I'll update the documentation to make that clear
[10:08]  * Riddell changes to "The ~ubuntu-sru team will review and approve then the archive admins will accept your upload."
[10:32] <knome> hey! we at xubuntu are planning a slight changes to our logo (or as some people like to point out, a change in the logo is not slight), and would like to upload that for beta2. that would not affect *ANY* layouts or strings, so i'm asking how closely would you like us to follow the UIFe process, which basically ensures translators and documentators know about it, but this isn't relevant for them. so is it enough to ask the release team, and if 
[10:33] <knome> ^ we also don't have any translations from launchpad, so for xubuntu, this translators+documentators process is useless anyway
[10:35] <knome> ^ the change is http://temp.knome.fi/xubuntu/precise_logo/logo_comparison.png to make the logo easier to use on various backgrounds + make it a bit brighter.
[12:57] <jamespage> any archive admins around? could do with some opinion/guidance on bug 928501
[12:57] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 928501 in ebox "[FFe] Upload new Zentyal packages (was Precise will ship totally broken ebox packages)" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/928501
[12:58] <cjwatson> Could somebody process libidl through binary NEW?  It'll be making libidl0 on !i386 uninstallable until that happens, I think
[13:00] <pitti> cjwatson: done
[13:05] <cjwatson> ta
[13:51] <Riddell> jamespage: it's the release team you're after for FFes
[13:52] <tumbleweed> Riddell: I offered him an FFe, but it needs archive-admin volunteering
[13:52] <Riddell> tumbleweed: what sort of volunteering?
[13:52] <tumbleweed> NEW review
[13:53] <Riddell> that'll be me
[13:53] <jamespage> Riddell, tumbleweed: also I'd like to know that the archive admin team is happy with the proposed native package format BEFORE I upload
[13:53] <jamespage> (so as not to waste everyones time :-))
[13:53] <tumbleweed> jamespage: IMO, we bikeshedded that enough, and it's up to you as the sponsor
[13:54] <Riddell> jamespage: Zentyal is now an ubuntu project?
[13:54] <jamespage> tumbleweed, well I am
[13:54] <jamespage> Riddell, Zentyal is an Ubuntu only project
[13:54] <Riddell> mm reading comments now
[13:54] <jamespage> Riddell, ta
[13:55] <Riddell> fine with me in that case
[13:56] <Riddell> give me a ping when it needs New review
[13:56] <jamespage> Riddell, probably also worth pointing out that is really a rename of the ebox packages
[13:56] <jamespage> tumbleweed: want to firm up on that FFe? I'll upload to NEW now if so.
[13:56] <tumbleweed> jamespage: already done
[13:56] <jamespage> tumbleweed, thankyou
[13:57] <tumbleweed> np
[14:01] <Riddell> jamespage: remember to file removing bugs for ebox as well
[14:01] <jamespage> Riddell, on it now
[14:02] <jamespage> Riddell, OK if I add tasks to bug 928501?
[14:02] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 928501 in ebox "[FFe] Upload new Zentyal packages (was Precise will ship totally broken ebox packages)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/928501
[14:04] <Riddell> jamespage: for removal?  I think I'd prefer a new bug for that
[14:04] <jamespage> Riddell, ack
[14:46] <infinity> jamespage: If there's a rename going on, are there also transitional packages?
[14:54] <jamespage> infinity, the package set is self contained so I don't think it actually requires any transitional packages
[14:55] <jamespage> the packages have appropriate Replaces: fields so that they superceed their ebox-* equivalent
[14:57] <tumbleweed> jamespage: the users won't be upgraded to the new packages without transitional packages
[15:01] <jamespage> tumbleweed, infinity: you are quite correct; my oversight
[15:01]  * jamespage wonders whether his brain is to full sometimes
[16:18] <mvo> hi, I uploaded a release-upgrader-apt to lucid-proposed with a fix for #940396 - it would be great if someone could have a look and accept so that the auto-upgrade-tester can use this apt version to verify that it fixes the bug and also that there are no regressions from it
[16:18] <mvo> bug #940396
[16:18] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 940396 in apt "lucid -> precise main all failed to upgrade: dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of kde-runtime" [Critical,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/940396
[16:32] <infinity> mvo: Done.
[16:33] <mvo> ta!
[16:34]  * mvo is *really* curious for the output of the upgrader tester tomorrow
[16:36] <ScottK> Hmmm.
[16:36] <ScottK> No Kubuntu live images today.
[16:36]  * ScottK got no failure logs in email, however.
[16:37] <ScottK> Would someone please see where they went?
[16:38] <infinity> I don't see any failures...
[16:39] <infinity> ScottK: Last successful images were ~10 hours ago... How fresh did you want 'em?
[16:40] <ScottK> infinity: It helps if I look in the right directory. Sorry for the noise.
[16:40] <ScottK> Those are plenty fresh.
[16:45] <infinity> ScottK: How about I just update the timestamps every few minutes? ;)
[16:45] <infinity> (Which I'm about to do for ubuntu-core, while testing something...)
[16:46] <ScottK> Well, I still won't find them if I'm in daily and not daily-live, so probably not worth it.
[16:52] <infinity> stgraber: Oh, hrm.  I think I see the oops.  dvd builds aren't "foo-dvd", but just "dvd".
[16:52] <infinity> stgraber: Going to test a 1-char fix. :P
[16:52] <stgraber> ;)
[16:55] <infinity> (It seems that sometimes, they're also foo-dvd, or even bar_dvd... Because consistency is awesome... I'll use *dvd)
[17:06] <stgraber> well, at least they're all called dvd ;)
[17:14] <infinity> stgraber: Should be fixed.
[17:14]  * infinity goes and commits his cowboyed changes properly.
[17:15] <infinity> stgraber: Well, should be fixed when the mirrors finish rsyncing.  But I assure you it's correct on cdimage. ;)
[17:16] <stgraber> infinity: yep, looks good here (well, only amd64 is here but that's because rsync is still running)
[17:19] <pitti> mvo: will the auto-upgrade tester use the proposed version?
[17:22] <pitti> mvo: there's noting in lucid-proposed
[17:23] <infinity> pitti: There sure it.
[17:23] <infinity> s/it/is/
[17:23] <pitti> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+queue?queue_state=1 ?
[17:23] <infinity> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/release-upgrader-apt
[17:23] <infinity> pitti: I already accepted it.
[17:23] <pitti> ah, someone already accepted it then?
[17:23] <pitti> ah, thanks
[17:24] <pitti> no bug refs, hmm
[17:24] <pitti> mvo: ^ you'll need to poke me for sending this to -updates manually
[19:23] <mvo> pitti: will do, thanks!
[20:47] <knome>  
[20:47] <knome> oops :)
[22:18] <ScottK> Nice to see Canonical upstreams doing their usual job of meshing their development efforts with the distro release schedule.
[22:23] <infinity> That sounded sarcastic.
[22:23] <infinity> Did I miss a groanworthy announcement?
[22:23] <ScottK> Only one word was sarcastic.
[22:23] <ScottK> Multiple FFes for new packages needed for MaaS in the release team bug list.
[22:24] <infinity> Ahh, I haven't opened that search page today.
[22:24] <infinity> And now I shall continue to not do so.
[22:24] <ScottK> It was in bug mail for me.
[22:24] <infinity> My bug mail is a mess, and tends to land in /dev/null.
[22:25] <ScottK> Apparently the "the srcNEW reviewers", whoever they are, are aware of it.
[22:25] <infinity> As in, the archive admins?
[22:25] <infinity> I just got a new imaginary title!
[22:25] <ScottK> That would be my guess.  "the srcNEW reviewers" is the term used in multiple bug reports.
[22:26] <ScottK> Two, IIRC.
[22:38] <stgraber> can I get a quick release team ack on bug 750134?
[22:38] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 750134 in ubiquity "[UIFe] "Try Ubuntu" and "Install Ubuntu" icons differ widely in size" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/750134
[22:38] <stgraber> docteam already +1ed
[22:39] <Laney> you have something to upload?
[22:39] <Laney> that patch looks ... concise.
[22:39] <stgraber> Laney: the change is simply replacing the .png with the one from the bug
[22:39] <stgraber> Laney: his debdiff is indeed kind of pointless ;)
[22:40] <Laney> OK, just thought I'd check. Looks good.
[23:33] <NCommander> infinity: ping, can you approve a FFE for linux-armadaxp (3.0->3.2?)
[23:34] <infinity> NCommander: That's pre-approved.
[23:34] <stgraber> jbicha: hey there, could you have a look at bug 950206?
[23:34] <NCommander> oh great, saves me a bug
[23:34] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 950206 in friendly-recovery "[UIFe] add LVM and APT information to system-summary" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/950206
[23:35] <infinity> NCommander: As in, linux-armadaxp wouldn't be in main at all if it wasn't for the assumption that it would rev to 3.2
[23:38] <jbicha> stgraber: done
[23:40] <stgraber> jbicha: thanks. I'll do a quick test here and upload it then.