[01:43] slangasek, any insight into who might have updated klibc-utils without updating initramfs-tools? seems to be breaking the overnight builds based on what [01:44] is sync-ing in from debian. [01:44] I'm trying to figure out who sync'ed klibc ^^^ and got stuck by Bug #1007235. Any other suggestions on who to talk to? [01:44] Launchpad bug 1007235 in launchpad "No way to see who sync'ed a pacakge" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1007235 [01:47] ScottK: I synced it. [01:47] ScottK: How is it breaking things? [01:48] klibc-utils : Breaks: initramfs-tools (< 0.103) but 0.99ubuntu13 is to be installed [01:48] Oh. [01:48] I didn't do the current sync that introduced that breakage. [01:48] That was probably an autosync. [01:48] I'm sure it was. [01:49] It just seemed suprising we'd suddenly be able to sync klibc. [01:49] ... surprising ... [01:49] We merged it all upstream. [01:49] So... [01:49] Yay sync. [01:49] Until now. :P [01:49] Great. [01:50] Since you TIL, then I think you get to keep both halves of the installability problem ... (I'm certainly not touching initramfs-tools - way beyond me). [01:50] a proper breaks could be merged upstream if they'll take a control.in file w/rules [01:51] I have a break in the next hour, I'll look at either cherry-picking the initramfs-tools bit required to make that breaks valid, or drop the breaks. for now. [01:53] I was going to merge initramfs-tools anyway, but that might not be a one hour job. [01:53] Let me poke. [01:53] err..not control.in, but anyways, I"m just making noise here [01:54] infinity: Thanks. [01:55] As soon as I find somewhere with halfway reliable wireless, I'll mangle this. [01:57] For the release team meeting tomorrw: http://www.chrisharding.net/wetherobots/comics/2007-11-12-Delegate.jpg.pagespeed.ce.FnV4r2Ng4x.jpg [01:57] ;-) [02:06] ScottK, lol. [02:16] ScottK: Cherry-picked pseudo-merge uploaded for now for firefighting reasons, I'll look into doing a proper full merge later when I'm not headless chickening here in Hong Kong. [02:16] Sounds good. [02:16] skaet: ^^^ [02:16] thanks infinity, Scottk [02:17] It would be really nice if we could tell who did the sync... [02:17] Like I said, it was almost certainly an autosync, since I synced previously. [02:17] http://paste.ubuntu.com/1017328/ <-- I already uploaded that, but a quick post-review for me? :P [02:18] I'm sure. I just couldn't figure out who had done the manual sync. [02:18] Oh, I did the manual sync. [02:18] That should be scrapable from -changes. [02:18] Not sure if there's any other sane location to find that. [02:19] * infinity looks. [02:19] No .changes file for this one. [02:19] Yeah, native syncs seem to kinda break the audit trail there a bit. :/ [02:20] Which is why I filed Bug #1007235. [02:20] Launchpad bug 1007235 in launchpad "No way to see who sync'ed a pacakge" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1007235 [02:20] Maybe if you whine in the bug a bit too. [02:20] ScottK: that's a dupe [02:20] Of? [02:21] bug 861488 [02:21] Launchpad bug 861488 in launchpad "Mention sync requester on package version page" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/861488 [02:21] Thanks. [02:21] micahg: Want to eyeball the diff above for me? [02:21] infinity: sure [02:25] infinity: looks sane enough assuming those files are properly put there in quantal [02:25] ScottK: And yeah, like I thought, manual syncs do still hit -changes. [02:25] ScottK: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/quantal-changes/2012-May/001674.html [02:26] micahg: Hence the klibc-utils dependency bump. [02:26] infinity: ah, I wasn't sure what created those files ;) [02:26] Interesting. [02:27] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/quantal/+source/klibc/2.0~rc5-1 says "No changes file available." [02:27] ScottK: There isn't one. [02:27] ScottK: The message on -changes agrees. :P [02:27] OK. [02:28] ScottK: But LP's mails to -changes are LP-specific faff, with .changes appednded (if available). The first bit still gets sent. [02:28] Ah. Right. [02:28] appednded! Typing is hard. [02:37] ScottK, infinity: The bug lies; it is visible through the API [02:37] See creator_link on https://api.launchpad.net/devel/ubuntu/+archive/primary?ws.op=getPublishedSources&distro_series=/ubuntu/quantal&source_name=klibc&version=2.0~rc5-1 [02:38] Although it may not have been at the time the bug was filed. [02:38] Because the implementors of the original feature apparently didn't care about making anything traceable in the slightest :) [02:38] So now we just need an Ubuntuish version of who-uploads. [02:38] tumbleweed: ^^^ Maybe you'd be up for that? [02:41] we already have who can upload :) (and in Ubuntu it should rather be called something like who-uploaded) [04:00] infinity: so, ah, by faking up the version number for initramfs-tools, you've made https://merges.ubuntu.com/i/initramfs-tools/REPORT go away [04:00] infinity: and the package has been failing to import into bzr [04:02] * micahg had assumed that infinity would take care of that when he was free to do so [04:03] he even said so himself :) [04:06] slangasek: the problem is the more appropriate 0.103~ubuntu0 wouldn't have validated the breaks in klibc [04:06] yes, so we didn't we just fix the breaks in klibc? [04:07] s/we/why/ [04:07] not sure, seemed like the saner thing to do would've been to temporarily drop it [04:08] slangasek: I intend to merge it shortly anyway, I didn't see the point in having a delta in klibc. [04:08] wait, sorry, not really saner (a little tired over here) [04:09] slangasek: And the breaks was valid regardless (as in, I needed to do the cherry-pick and/or merge). [04:09] slangasek: As for the package failing to import, I'm not entirely sure why that would be. [04:10] slangasek: the import failure is a couple months old: http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/initramfs-tools.html#2012-04-11%2000:19:27.544309 [04:11] meh, that's not for trunk [04:16] * ScottK wonders if micahg should go to bed ... [04:17] Happy mailmain day (just got my first one). [04:17] main/man [04:17] barry: ^^^ [04:17] ScottK: well, I'm just testing stuff ATM, so critical thinking isn't pertinent [04:18] slangasek: and apparently the importer was already broke for that branch as you just imported the last revision that infinity did (for precise) [04:19] ScottK: I've got about another hour or so before bed [04:19] OK. [04:20] Back when we were discussing merging the SRU and release teams, I volunteered to join the SRU team to help out. I got a "thanks", but I've no idea what the next step is on that? [05:06] ScottK: I think the next step would be to get you some SRU training. [05:07] Which wouldn't necessarily be much; it just requires a little organisation. [05:14] RAOF: what about bzr in quantal? [05:37] micahg: Grrr. The time when I *don't* check that the "fix released" in quantal really means fix released in quantal... [05:38] RAOF: I thought someone said they were going to modify the script to check the version in the dev release [05:38] Yes, that was probably me. [05:40] RAOF: well, you can poke jelmer to do an upload :) (and to not close tasks that aren't done) [05:40] Yeah, I will. [06:23] infinity: the package fails to import because the importer fails? :) not saying it's your fault, just pointing out that we're now lacking in tools to help with the merge === tkamppeter_ is now known as tkamppeter [06:45] cjwatson, hi [08:22] I'm trying to work on the bug to display sync uploaders on +source/package [08:22] but, well, LP. [08:27] ScottK: yeah, I've also been thinking we need a who-uploaded tool [08:47] hmm [08:47] tumbleweed: could it be that seeded-in-ubuntu gives a false negaitive when binaries are OOD? [08:47] negative [08:47] yes [08:47] known issue [08:47] ok [08:47] (well, known to me. no bug filed) [08:48] ta [08:48] source<->binary resolution is tricky with lplib when the most recent build failed [08:50] could you go back in history until you hit a build with binaries? [08:52] tumbleweed: is it just me, or is it unreasonable that binary-publishing-history doesn't have an (optional) field/link to source-publishing-history [08:52] in the lplib [08:52] api [08:53] that would be handy [08:54] * xnox comes from OpenERP background, where the ORM layer trivially supports one2many and many2one back references which are not stored in the database, but computed on-the-fly and servered to the API consumers [08:54] * xnox wants that from lplib [08:55] * tumbleweed can't say it's been an issue for me, though [08:56] xnox: openerp experience you say.... fancy reviewing an openerp packaging branch? [08:57] he's all over that [08:57] Daviey: I have been, from the sidelines =)))) I have been mentoring yolanda privately to update and fix packaging. I want her to become contributing developer and make sure she helps maitnaining the package. [08:57] It's my dream to upload openerp =) in a sane way. [08:58] pish, don't bother with contributing developer. It's not useful just membership [08:58] DM :-) [08:58] tumbleweed: it did mean a lot to her =))))) [08:58] Laney: that as well. [08:58] xnox: So i've been trying to help Yolanda aswell.. but time has been an issue.. Have you reviewed her latest branch, post-NEW-rejection? [09:05] Daviey: not sure. I have been going back and forth with her. I have seen her branch from 2 days ago I believe. [09:05] Daviey: I said to Yolanda, that I will consider uploading it to Debian. But from my point of view it is not ready yet. [09:06] Also note. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/+bugs?field.tag=affects-openerp-itp [09:10] xnox: So, i haven't had a chance to look at the branch from 2 days ago.. but do you think it is ok? I'mn happy to NEW review it, but i don't want to get too involved in the packaging now, if i am doing that. [09:11] Daviey: I understand. My concerns are: (I) should we embed javascript libraries or not? (II) should we support 5.0/6.0/7 series or simply conflict? [09:14] xnox: Personally, if embedding can be avoided, it should be done.. But there are a host of packages that embed.. so it shouldn't be a blocker if reasonable effort has been done to avoid it... version numbers? You mean versoned package names? Meh, i don't have an opinion either way [09:16] Daviey: OpenERP S.A. employes a business model - pay to upgrade. So those who are running 5.0/6.0/7 are stuck with it. Unless they do database migration/ETL themselves. So should we ship /usr/share/openerp/ or should we ship /usr/share/openerp/6.1/ [09:16] in case we will provide other versions in the future. [09:19] ahh, ISWYM.. yeah, in that case, versioned does indeed make sense. [09:24] Daviey: ok. [11:30] hi guys, we have a problem with the Mac iso's for lubuntu. The testers cannot ascertain fully what is causing it as there are no logs that they can use to view the issues? [11:31] http://pastebin.com/hq5EhQcn [11:43] "Nothing in the logs" - sometimes if you aren't familiar with the installer you can miss things. That's why I always encourage people to post logs even if they don't see anything in them themselves [11:48] cjwatson: hiyas, the guys reporting it are experienced testers. I've asked that they raise a bug, but as it is not installing such details are not going to be there! [11:48] if it cannot even partition, then there will be no logs :/ [12:02] phillw: Untrue [12:02] cjwatson, hi [12:02] tkamppeter: hello [12:02] phillw, logs are stored during installation in /var/log/syslog and /var/log/installer/* [12:02] phillw: And /var/log/partman [12:03] phillw, -> #ubuntu-testing [12:05] cjwatson, I have sorted out the CUPS SRU for Precise now. All referenced bugs are either verified for the Precise SRU or reopned/made invalid for Quantal as it turned out that the changes do not cover them. [12:06] cjwatson, regressions did not turn up. [12:06] Great, thans [12:06] *thanks [12:17] ^- FWIW that last one was an API accept [12:18] I need to make at least one more improvement to the API before I'm prepared to get people to start using a client tool for that, though [12:18] (At the moment, there's no sensible way to filter getPackageUploads short of iterating over everything it returns) === chuck__ is now known as zul [13:37] skaet, is the release meeting in 20 minutes? [13:38] brendand, no, 1:20 [13:38] why oh why can't google calendar cope with time zones! [13:39] or DST, whatever it needs to deal with [13:39] * tumbleweed has no trouble with it [13:40] (these days) [13:41] * ogra_ neither ... it properly shows the meeting at 5pm central european time here [13:41] (then again, I also live in a country that doesn't bother with DST, so the meeting time does move around a bit for me) [13:57] slangasek: I tend to merge packages like that fairly manually anyway, as they require a pretty careful audit, so I'm not really fussed about automated tools having a sad. [13:59] infinity: afterall, as long as we have all the relevant .dsc merge is possible ;-) [14:01] tumbleweed: brendand: on the foundations team wiki I have put this (to work around google calendar's brokeness): Held weekly at 1600 UK time BST/GMT (Afternoon tea time) Wednesdays on #ubuntu-meeting @ freenode. [14:01] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_(meal)#Afternoon_tea [14:01] xnox, what's weird is if i actually add it to my calendar it says 1600! [14:01] xnox, but in the creation screen it still says 1500 [14:02] brendand: yeap. Internally google calendar stores the meetings in the timezone of the event creator, respecting DST changes. [14:02] * xnox bets that screws over the meeting times for anyone in like china/japan/australia [14:03] at least it's obviously a foreign time when its several hours out [14:17] cjwatson, hi, I used copy-proposed-kernel.py to try to sync precise ti-omap4 from bug 1004555, from kernel ppa to -proposed, but since yesterday it's sitting on the queue (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+queue?queue_state=1). Is there something someone should do to complete it? [14:17] Launchpad bug 1004555 in linux-ti-omap4 "linux-ti-omap4: 3.2.0-1414.19 -proposed tracker" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1004555 [14:24] herton: Yes, an archive admin needs to accept it. I'm looking now. [14:25] cjwatson, thanks [14:43] skaet: FWIW, regarding "who might have updated klibc-utils" - yes, it was an auto-sync. I'm not going to get into manually reviewing auto-syncs for possible problems. Also, shouldn't we be thinking first about getting the problem solved, and only a distant second about whom to blame? :-) [14:44] (Glad to see the problem's solved, anyway) [14:45] cjwatson, certainly don't expect manual reviewing of the auto-syncs. ;) just trying to figure out who might have a clue about how to sort it. Infinity handled, all good. [14:45] I'll admit, when syncing out Ubuntu delta's.. i don't tend to look *too* closely if the Debian version is going to introduce issues.. as the way i see it, if it didn't have a Ubuntu delta, it would have been auto-sync'd. [14:46] There's that [14:46] Oh, regarding auto-syncs [14:47] I'm going to be away for the weekend; I'll have my phone with me, but I haven't managed to get launchpadlib authentication working when sshed into my laptop, so I don't know whether I'll be able to run auto-syncs [14:47] Perhaps somebody who's going to be around could occasionally run it? [14:48] And by "the weekend", I mean "until Tuesday", since we have a double bank holiday here [14:48] I was gonna look at the SRU queue. If I say what I want approved will someone do it? [14:48] I just blacklisted most of the stuff that's whining regularly, so you don't have to be aware of that; there are a couple of packages that have been removed and it's not clear whether they should be reintroduced, but auto-sync defaults to "no" for those so if you just hit enter it should DTRT [14:49] bdmurray, yeah, post in the channel here, and one of us will handle. [14:50] I'd accept unity-lens-video [14:50] Due to bug 1006917, which I discovered when trying to automate this, you do need to be in ubuntu-core-dev as well as in ubuntu-archive to run auto-syncs. [14:50] Launchpad bug 1006917 in launchpad "Distribution archive owners cannot necessarily copy packages" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1006917 [14:50] bdmurray: i'd suggest publishing SRU's over the weekend has bad karma attached to it.. heck, even Friday's. [14:51] Daviey: even to -proposed? [14:52] Daviey, good point. bdmurray, batch up a list for -release and we'll clean them up on monday? [14:52] bdmurray: no, -proposed seems safe to me.. Are you now ~ubuntu-sru ? [14:53] ... please wait two minutes and ask that question again ... [14:54] ... he is now :-) [14:54] (I had a pending mail to get round to) [14:55] cjwatson: gotta love open processes :) [14:55] hey, the existing team trained him, said he was ready [14:55] works for me! [15:36] cjwatson, anything still missing for the CUPS SRU to go to -updates? [15:38] tkamppeter: err - oh, I thought you were talking about the cups-filters upload? [15:39] You mean cups itself? [15:43] if someone could reject the 5.2.3 upload of software-center to precise-proposed that would be nice, there is a 5.2.2.2 with a trivial tweak to the startup time query to the software-center-agent data uploaded now. this is important for the humble bundle integration and really trivial (just tweaking the delay from 30s to 3s) [15:43] and a review of 5.2.2.2 if possible, it will improve the user experience quite a bit for the humble bundle buyeers [15:44] mvo: 5.2.3 rejected [15:45] ta [15:49] tkamppeter: OK, cups published now. The janitor will close the bugs you've "disconnected", so you'll need to reopen them after it's done that [16:05] SRU: I just spotted a regression in the lxc package currently in -proposed. I fixed that regression in quantal and uploaded a new version of the package to -proposed. The fix is trivial (reversed logic in shell script), so would really appreciate it if it could go in ASAP, thanks. [16:05] oh, but I forgot to use -v for that upload .... [16:05] * stgraber reuploads [16:05] :) [16:06] please reject ^ [16:06] another one is coming in a few seconds :) [16:07] lxc rejected [16:10] mvo, do you need 5.3 rejected or just do be delayed to after 0.5.2.2 is dealt with? [16:10] oh, Daviey already rejected it so ignore that ;-) [16:10] seb128: doesn't matter since we can unreject anyway [16:11] and the good one ^ [16:11] cjwatson, right [16:11] did anyone in the SRU team saw mvo's request earlier to review the 5.2.2.2 update and can get to it today? [16:12] would be a shame to delay the fix to next week when those games got advertized around and probably quite some users will install them ;-) [16:13] mvo, you probably want a bug report associated with the upload [16:13] (just looked to the diff) [16:13] mvo, the changelog doesn't have one === scott-work_ is now known as scott_work [16:24] skaet, bug 1007512 ... i made it low prio though [16:24] Launchpad bug 1007512 in live-build "building arm livefs proceeds even though flash-kernel is unavailable" [Low,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1007512 [16:55] cjwatson, linux-ti-omap4 3.2.0-1414.19 also ended in universe in -proposed instead of main (bug 1004555), similar to what happened to ti-omap4 in oneiric [16:55] Launchpad bug 1004555 in linux-ti-omap4 "linux-ti-omap4: 3.2.0-1414.19 -proposed tracker" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1004555 [16:57] herton: already fixed, see bug [16:58] cjwatson, cool, thanks [16:59] seb128: yeah, there is no bugreport right now, I can fix that, but really its a trivial one line diff from -30s to +3s [16:59] mvo, I'm trying to help you, they started rejecting any SRU which doesn't have a testcase, regression potential and impact on its description [17:00] mvo, so I guess one without bug reference has no chance to get approved [17:00] mvo, i.e not my call but I suggest you get a bug with the things I list in the description [17:04] seb128: right ok [17:15] cjwatson: so bdmurray was asking about direct queue access as an SRU team member... are we putting people through full AA training for that? [17:16] slangasek: I thought not, but with an understanding that they wouldn't touch New stuff. IIRC SpamapS started out that way. [17:16] * slangasek nods [17:16] I see that RAOF and SpamapS are both in ~ubuntu-archive [17:17] they got full training AIUI though? [17:17] or maybe I'm misremembering [17:17] RAOF, SpamapS: did you get full AA training? :) [17:17] We don't have much more flexibility until I get bug 648611 fixed [17:17] Launchpad bug 648611 in launchpad "ubuntu-sru either have too much or too little permission as queue admins" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/648611 [17:17] yep [17:17] Although the DB patch for that has landed, so maybe I can move that up [17:17] I thought not based off the release team consolidation email [17:18] (lp:launchpad/db-devel r11604) [17:32] seb128: thanks again for your input, I uploaded a new 5.2.2.2 now, with proper instructions etc etc [17:33] mvo, thanks [17:41] SpamapS, cjwatson, slangasek: could one of you review the s-c SRU mvo just did today, it's a 1 liner and as he described "it will improve the user experience quite a bit for the humble bundle buyeers" [17:42] i.e would be nice to get it in proposed before the w.e [17:42] I added some more context info the bug description, hope its clear now what the beneifts are [17:47] bdmurray: ^^ any chance you could review this? I'm happy to push the button, but don't have time at the moment to look [17:47] seb128: does it supersede the big one uploaded yesterday? [17:48] SpamapS, yes [17:48] SpamapS, the one from yesterday got rejected to let that trivial one in first [17:49] seb128: gotchya. It also needs to be uploaded to quantal. [17:49] mvo, ^ [17:49] rmadison may be lying to me tho [17:49] SpamapS: there is no quantal version yet, so it can just be copied [17:49] mvo, they stopped doing pocket copies [17:50] mvo: we're pretty late in the cycle. Are you sure thats still safe? [17:50] oh, ok [17:50] in this case I can upload it [17:50] well, it is safe in this case because it's arch: all python [17:50] no problem [17:50] toolchain changes and all [17:50] but it's simpler if mvo can just upload [17:50] I will do anything that helpls this SRU [17:50] (anyone wants a cup of tea?) [17:50] debhelper has advanced too.. not sure if that really matters. :-P [17:51] it really shouldn't [17:51] :) [17:51] mvo, just change the changelog target, debuild -S and dput :p [17:51] target /and version number/ ;) [17:51] old school, bzr-buildpackage ;) [17:51] hehe [17:51] bdmurray: ^^ review away sir [17:51] oh and there are two different ones in the proposed queue.. one from 2 hours ago, one from 15 min or so [17:52] right, the 15min version has a bugnumber [17:52] SpamapS, the most recent one has a bug reference that the previous didn't have [17:52] i.e reject the old one [17:52] ok [17:52] seb128 correctly pointed out I should do it the right way [17:52] rejected [17:52] thanks [17:54] uploaded for quantal is building now too [17:55] queue isn't showing it yet [17:55] er queuediff [18:23] cjwatson, thank you very much. === yofel_ is now known as yofel [19:17] bdmurray, SpamapS, slangasek: can we get that SRU in before it's w.e?! [19:18] bdmurray, SpamapS, slangasek: it's a one liner and we get through several update rounds to avoid issues, what's blocking it? [19:19] the bug should be in shape, the update is a one liner, the fix is in quantal ... what is missing? [19:19] the diff shows as pending but I guess we could *gasp* manually do it [19:19] in the queue page [19:20] I'm looking at it [19:20] bdmurray, thanks [19:21] and w.e.? I have four hours or so left [19:21] bdmurray, well, I know how things are going, I'm sure 90% of the SRU queue will still be there on monday ;-) [19:22] we just want to make sure that one goes in today [19:22] slangasek: I'd approve software-center if I could [19:22] SpamapS: ^ [19:22] bdmurray, thanks ;-) [19:22] mvo, ^ [19:23] bdmurray: accepted [19:23] slangasek, bdmurray, mvo: thanks [19:23] bdmurray: any idea why the diff never showed up? [19:24] slangasek: it just says pending in the queue - so does euca2ools [19:24] nautilus which is #3 works [19:25] * mvo hugs slangasek and bdmurray [19:25] bdmurray: hmm; I guess that needs following up on [19:26] maybe it's due to load from the humble bundle :P [19:26] heh [19:26] slangasek: did you run sru-accept? I've a local change I wanted to test [19:27] I hadn't, I just did the queue accept [19:27] what's the bug #? [19:27] I'll do it [19:27] oh, you have a local change, right :) [19:27] please go ahead [19:29] mvo, can you do a GnomeAppInstallDesktopDatabaseUpdate [19:29] Alpha 1 next week... [19:29] skaet: will monday be good enough? [19:29] * mvo will also do command-not-found and a debian-package-description update [19:30] mvo, wanted to get the monday images having it if possible. [19:30] (from the overnight dailies), so testing can start. [19:32] if you can't get it done today, first thing on monday? [19:32] skaet: heh :) I start the extraction run now, if it finishes before my bedtime I do it today, otherwise monday morning. deal? [19:32] deal. :) [19:33] mvo, post in the channel when you've done it. so we know we can build images then. :) [19:34] oki [19:35] it usually takes some time (~1-4h depending on the amount of data it needs to download) [19:35] mvo, cjwatson: Any progress on getting do-release-upgrade working by alpha1? [19:36] stgraber: it should be close now, I prepeared the meta-release-development update and the new version works for me(tm) and is uploaded, but I think there was a ftbfs [19:43] wah, how can u-m ftbfs [19:44] sigh, nvidia rearrangements [19:45] yeah, just noticed that too, I have no clue what happend with the "obsolete" nvidia pkg names if it just got killed entirely or just reshuffled :/ [19:46] I'm looking [19:46] Leave it with me if you like, it's earlier here than there ... [19:47] hrm, hrm, it looks like its simply not installing it, the textfile is still in the 0.2.44 tarball [19:47] cjwatson: thanks a lot, that would be great, its really getting late(ish) [19:47] but current version is .53 [19:47] (moved into ubuntu-drivers-common) [19:48] heh :) [19:48] ah, looks like it's just moved to /usr/share/ubuntu-drivers-common/obsolete [19:48] good point! [19:49] cjwatson: are you fixing it alreay in u-m or shall I? now that I know the updated location its pretty quick for me, but if you have stated already I am happy of course [19:49] I've started [19:49] cool, I leave it for you then [19:49] thanks again! [19:49] though quick review? [19:50] http://paste.ubuntu.com/1018468/ [19:50] (thought I might as well update the name of the local copy too) [19:52] cjwatson: looks excellent! [19:53] OK, uploading shortly then [19:53] ta [20:05] bdmurray: sru-accept-web-links might have been better branched fresh from lp:ubuntu-archive-tools rather than from your previous branch - it has conflicts [20:05] bdmurray: but I'll merge it and drop out the conflicts [20:20] cjwatson: yeah, I'll sort out my local branch [20:22] skaet: still running, but I call it a day now, monday morning it will be [20:23] * mvo waves [20:23] thanks mvo [20:24] * skaet appears to have missed him. [20:24] stgraber, looks like monday morning manual is the plan. ^ [20:32] skaet: k [20:34] hey 12.04.1 team, how do I mark a bug that should get fixed in 12.04.1? [20:34] ie: bug 755842 [20:34] Launchpad bug 755842 in compiz-wall-plugin "Non-maximized windows which sit on the border of a workspace move when called" [Medium,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/755842 [20:37] mdeslaur, milestone it to 12.04.1 and nominate it to series precise [20:37] skaet: am I allowed to do that for bugs that are obviously for other teams? [20:38] that should get it on the radar, other teams will decide what they'll fix. [20:38] skaet: ok, thanks! [21:36] Could an SRU team member copy libgcrypt11 from precise-proposed to precise-updates? It's been confirmed in the bug (verification-done-precise) and is 14 days old. Thanks [21:38] doing [21:39] cjwatson: thanks, that one was bothering me every time I'd go through the pending SRUs (as its status was essentially inaccurate) :) [21:40] done [21:40] I'll remove that tag once the janitor has noticed [21:41] (maybe somebody could extend sru-report to support the verification-done-$RELEASE scheme?) [21:43] I guess that'd be good yes, might do it next week, can't be too difficult [22:37] cjwatson, all cups bugs disconnected from the SRU are corrected now, except bugs which are marked duplicate, as there I do not get the menu to change status. [22:43] right, that's fine - thanks