[02:58] <AfC> Can someone suggest when cjwatson might be on?
[05:15]  * TheMuso sighs. Distributed development will *NEVER* *EVER* work IMO unless we switch to it wholesale.
[05:18] <micahg> TheMuso: what broke now?
[05:19] <micahg> TheMuso: well, people are supposed to check Vcs-* links before uploading
[05:20] <Tejas> tejas@tejas:~$ sudo su
[05:20] <Tejas> Cannot execute csh: No such file or directory
[05:20] <Tejas> need help!!
[05:20] <micahg> TheMuso: a gentle reminder is appropriate when someone forgets, if it becomes chronic, we should talk :)
[05:20] <micahg> Tejas: #ubuntu or #ubuntu+1 for support
[05:21] <Tejas> Thanks
[05:22] <TheMuso> micahg: The thing is, I have seen various reminders like that to the people in question on RIC before, and since it never seems to get through, I've given up.
[05:49] <didrocks> good morning
[05:53] <TheMuso> Hey didrocks.
[05:54] <didrocks> hey TheMuso
[06:17] <TheMuso> ~/c
[08:00] <Laney> morning
[08:01] <didrocks> hey Laney, how are you?
[08:04] <Laney> hey didrocks, I'm good thanks. What about you?
[08:04] <didrocks> Laney: I'm fine! Turned around the desk yesterday so that I can see the window. I'm under the impression to have a new office :)
[08:04] <didrocks> at least, a lot more light!
[08:05] <Laney> haha
[08:06] <Laney> I'll be moving home next week, so a whole new everything for me!
[08:06] <didrocks> waow! far from your present home?
[08:06] <Laney> no, just a couple of miles slightly closer to the city centre
[08:07] <didrocks> nice ;)
[08:07] <Laney> most importantly is that it's a place of my own - no more sharing :P
[08:07] <didrocks> heh, yeah, will be a big difference
[08:24] <chrisccoulson> good morning everyone
[08:25] <didrocks> hey chrisccoulson, good week-end?
[08:25] <chrisccoulson> didrocks, yeah, not too bad thanks. how about you?
[08:25] <didrocks> chrisccoulson: was good, thanks!
[08:26] <chrisccoulson> i had another barbeque at the weekend
[08:26] <chrisccoulson> but just for us this time, we didn't invite anybody around. which was quite nice :)
[08:28] <didrocks> heh, good that the weather is nice in the UK as well :)
[08:28] <mvo> chrisccoulson: hey, good morning, do you have any idea about https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/acroread/9.5.1-1precise1/+build/3404003 ? I ask because you touched it last ;)
[08:30] <didrocks> chrisccoulson: you should have run away when you still had time, I saw mvo preparing his machiavelic plan on #software-center :)
[08:30] <didrocks> hey mvo!
[08:30]  * didrocks hugs mvo
[08:31] <chrisccoulson> mvo, it seems that ia32-libs is not installable. not sure about that though. i guess acroread should be multi-arch'd at some point. i just haven't had time to do it ;)
[08:33] <mvo> didrocks: ha! a spy ;)
[08:34] <didrocks> mvo: sneaky, isn't it? :p
[08:38] <mvo> ;)
[08:59] <chrisccoulson> hi seb128, i didn't notice you there! how are you?
[09:00] <seb128> chrisccoulson, hey, I'm good thanks, how are you?
[09:01] <seb128> chrisccoulson, woke up early, I had to go out for some errands but I'm back ;-)
[09:01] <chrisccoulson> heh
[09:01] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i'm not too bad thanks, other than https://bugs.launchpad.net/globalmenu-extension/+bug/1025011/comments/47 ;)
[09:01] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 1025011 in firefox "Firebug extension causes firefox to crash (can be triggered by opening HUD)" [Critical,Confirmed]
[09:02] <seb128> chrisccoulson, is that still the same you were working on 10 days ago?
[09:02] <seb128> or another hud like issue?
[09:02] <chrisccoulson> seb128, it's a second issue, triggered by firebug and made worse by the way the HUD works
[09:03] <seb128> chrisccoulson, what made it start? you suggest in that comment it's an external factor?
[09:04] <chrisccoulson> seb128, yeah, it's a firebug change which exposed a couple of dormant bugs in our code
[09:04] <seb128> chrisccoulson, the SRU process takes 1 week, it's not that slow, and you can use security to bypass the week if that's a regression for a security update (firefox go through security)
[09:04] <chrisccoulson> seb128, a week is a long time for people who wake up unable to start their browser any more ;)
[09:05] <seb128> chrisccoulson, firefox doesn't suggest to disable addons when start is buggy?
[09:05] <chrisccoulson> seb128, no, it's a startup crash for most people. it doesn't even get that far
[09:05] <seb128> we can probably fast-track a fix if it's obvious
[09:06] <chrisccoulson> well, it will get disabled if mozilla decide to blocklist it
[09:06] <seb128> if it's non trivial though the SRU team will want the normal week testing
[09:06] <seb128> what? appmenu?
[09:07] <chrisccoulson> seb128, yeah. they have a blocklisting mechanism for problematic addons ;)
[09:07] <seb128> chrisccoulson, don't we ship appmenu in a deb and don't rely on the web? can they block that?
[09:07] <chrisccoulson> yeah, they can blocklist anything. firefox pings for a blocklist update every day
[09:07] <seb128> you better make sure we don't end up on that list :p
[09:08] <chrisccoulson> yeah, that would be bad
[09:08] <seb128> can you SRU that fix today and I will make the SRU team fast track it?
[09:08] <seb128> chrisccoulson, if you upload today we might still get that in 12.04.1
[09:08] <seb128> would be better to have the .1 iso with that bug
[09:08] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i'll see what i can do
[09:08] <seb128> to *not* have
[09:09] <seb128> chrisccoulson, thanks
[09:51] <Chipaca> who do I have to pester to see movement on bug #1021661 ?
[09:51] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1021661 in bamf "emacs window not picked up on startup" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1021661
[09:57] <didrocks> Chipaca: see on the product strategy channels, like #ubuntu-unity
[09:57] <Chipaca> didrocks: thanks
[12:24] <arand> If a package is in the multiverse repo, does apturls work? Second, is there a canonical place to get the "available on the SOC" button image(s)?
[12:24] <arand> ->Do they suggest adding multiverse if it isn't?
[12:27] <didrocks> arand: hey, I think it does suggest adding it, but mvo can confirm ^
[12:32] <arand> For using the image on a wiki, is there a place I can link it, or would I use a static image, e.g. http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~canonical-ca-hackers/ubuntu-webcatalog/trunk/view/head:/src/webcatalog/static/images/scbutton-non-free-200px.png?
[12:34] <arand> Reading http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~canonical-ca-hackers/ubuntu-webcatalog/trunk/view/head:/LICENSE   It seems that I can't use the image though, since it's using the Ubuntu logo, and what I'm using it for would be documentation (of an official release)...
[12:47] <chrisccoulson> hmmm, my daughter has stuffed a pea up her nose
[12:50] <seiflotfy> alecu: can we agree on only logging non-local stuff (since local will be logged by zeitgeist anyhow :P)
[13:50] <chrisccoulson> how on earth does the fact that i have an application spewing lots of debug info to a console running tmux slow compiz down to an unusable crawl? :/
[14:16] <kenvandine> jdstrand, did you get a chance to look at bug 1029549
[14:16] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1029549 in libsignon-glib "[MIR] online-accounts and friends" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1029549
[14:29] <jdstrand> kenvandine: not yet, very high on my todo list
[14:29] <kenvandine> cool
[14:29] <kenvandine> it's blocking me getting some patches merged into other apps from main
[14:29] <kenvandine> jdstrand, thanks!
[14:42] <ayan> all: we're seeing a bug in one of the OEM teams where upon resume from S3, you're left with a black screen and a mouse pointer only.  has anyone else seen this kind of bug?
[15:18] <Laney> dput ubuntu ... is bad muscle memory when uploading dubious stuff to a crack PPA :P
[15:18]  * Laney caught it in time
[15:19] <didrocks> Laney: I had some dummy wrapper at some point doing that :)
[15:19] <didrocks> another dput in path, asking "ehhhhh, are you sure?"
[15:19] <Laney> hah
[15:19] <Laney> I think I'd just get too used to confirming everything
[15:19] <Laney> need a captcha or something
[15:20] <Laney> or something that punches me in the face
[15:20] <didrocks> tssss :) not!
[15:20] <didrocks> the confirm was only on a heuristic that I didn't want to push this package to ubuntu
[15:20] <didrocks> otherwise, no confirm :)
[15:20] <seb128> you need a smart wrapper at least
[15:20] <seb128> like if the version has ~ default to a ppa
[15:20] <Laney> worth an upload, worth the pain of being punched :P
[15:20] <seb128> like ~ppa or
[15:20] <didrocks> that and package name :)
[15:20] <Laney> that would be good
[15:21] <didrocks> when unity was not ready to be pushed to the distro but only in the ppa, it was scanning that :)
[15:21] <didrocks> (for the whole stack)
[15:24] <Laney> need some way of testing this fontconfig stuff
[16:21]  * didrocks grrr about no-typeahead
[17:23]  * didrocks waves good evening
[18:02] <dobey> kenvandine, mterry: are you guys super busy? or might you have a few minutes to review a new package for universe in quantal?
[18:03] <mterry> dobey, I'm about to eat a late lunch.  But after, I can
[18:03] <dobey> mterry: great. ping me when you get back. and enjoy lunch :)
[19:08] <mterry> dobey, so what sort of review do you need?
[19:10] <dobey> mterry: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1035392
[19:10] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 1035392 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] u1db" [Wishlist,In progress]
[19:11] <mterry> dobey, so you don't need this in main or anything, just a sanity check and upload to quantal?
[19:12] <dobey> mterry: yeah, just needs to be in universe for quantal; we'll probably try to MIR it next release though
[19:12] <mterry> dobey, sure thing
[19:13] <dobey> mterry: and once it's in ubuntu, would like to have it added to the ubuntuone package set as well of course :)
[19:13] <dobey> don't remember who i'm supposed to bug about that though
[19:14] <mterry> dobey, I think an archive admin
[19:34] <micahg> dobey: the DMB can do that, you just need to mail devel-permissions asking for it
[19:34] <dobey> ah, that's the list, right. thanks micahg
[19:34] <micahg> mterry: new sources need 2 MOTU/core-dev signoffs before upload, dobey is seeking those reviews :)
[19:35] <micahg> well, technically before archive entrance, not upload, but it's usually not nice to force the AA reviewing to be the second
[19:36] <dobey> micahg: care to review it?
[19:36] <dobey> :)
[19:36] <micahg> dobey: I don't think you want to wait until I have time for it :), although I might be able to work it into my piloting...
[19:38] <mterry> dobey, u1db looks fine to me.  I'd run update-maintainer on it, but that's it.
[19:38] <dobey> micahg: should be quick for you to do, if you can find a couple minutes to do it. i tried to take proper care of everything when setting up the nightlies builds of u1db a couple months ago :)
[19:39] <micahg> dobey: ok, will try to take a look when I pilot then
[19:39] <micahg> mterry: can you comment in the bug to that regard?
[19:39] <dobey> mterry: ah, right. good catch. i'll fix that now, thanks :)
[19:40] <mterry> micahg, sure
[19:40] <micahg> thanks
[19:45] <dobey> mterry, micahg: just re-attached the files after rebuilding after update-maintainer
[21:15] <seb128> micahg, since when are double ack needed for NEW packages?
[21:17] <micahg> seb128: umm, as far back as I know (uploader can count as one), dobey isn't MOTU/core-dev so he needs 2
[21:17] <seb128> ok, weird rule, we never applied it around
[21:17] <micahg> seb128: basically 2 eyes on each package
[21:17] <micahg> *sets of eye
[21:18] <seb128> that's always the case, sponsors and archive admin reviewers are not the same person
[21:18] <micahg> seb128: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages#Going_through_MOTU
[21:19] <micahg> fourth bullet in the second section
[21:19] <seb128> is motu still a thing?
[21:19] <micahg> yes
[21:19] <micahg> but core devs count as MOTU
[21:19] <seb128> that document doesn't say that ;-)
[21:20] <micahg> this does: https://launchpad.net/~motu :)
[21:20] <micahg> well, this one: https://launchpad.net/~motu/+members#active
[21:20] <seb128> well, anyway usually one sponsor is enough for most thing, motu might have their rules but I don't think they make sense
[21:20] <seb128> we strungle enough on reviewers and sponsors
[21:20] <micahg> seb128: this is for a new source
[21:20] <seb128> right
[21:21] <seb128> well, we do without that for most desktop packages and nobody told us off for it
[21:21] <seb128> so I guess it's a motu specific stuff, I will not comment on what they do
[21:21] <seb128> but there is no reason to apply that to e.g dobey's upload
[21:21] <micahg> well, the idea is to prevent bad stuff from hitting the archive
[21:21] <micahg> so, the double check is to make sure that nothing's been missed
[21:21] <seb128> well, if a coredev and an archive admin don't prevent that you have another issue
[21:22] <seb128> we double check
[21:22] <seb128> it requires an uploader and an archive admin to get to universe
[21:22] <stgraber> well, whoever-uploads + reviewing-AA == 2 so it's technically always true, unless you get a sponsor who doesn't review the upload, but then that sponsor really should stop sponsoring stuff
[21:22] <micahg> well, that's 2, but the AAs are usually super busy, so that's why they're not inherently counted there
[21:22] <seb128> then you add a mir reviewer for main
[21:22] <seb128> well, aa are needed to get to the archie
[21:22] <seb128> so they are always counted
[21:23] <seb128> you can't get out of the NEW queue without an archive admin review
[21:23] <stgraber> I'd be quite scared if an AA wasn't doing a full package review, that's after all what they're supposed to do isn't it? :)
[21:23] <stgraber> not saying they're not busy, they certainly are, but if they do a review I'd expect them to do it completely
[21:23] <micahg> they count, but the idea is to prevent a lot of back and forth on the archive admin's part as they have plenty of other stuff to do
[21:23] <seb128> well, if anyone has upload right they should know better than throwing back and forth unready stuff
[21:24] <micahg> seb128: well, we're human, we all make mistakes, it's especially hard when one is engrossed in something to always see the flaws hence the outside review
[21:24] <micahg> seb128: anyways, I offered to review/upload dobey's package already, so it's not an issue in this case
[21:25] <seb128> well, as said we have 2 people there, the uploader and the archive admin reviewer
[21:25] <seb128> but the "you need 2 ack before upload" doesn't make sense, we have enough slowness and blockers in our processes without adding extra ones
[21:26] <seb128> speaking as an archive admin I'm happy to review anything that got uploaded, usually people who are granted upload rights know enough to not make us waste much time
[21:26] <micahg> seb128: we have a limited number of archive admins and more uploaders, it would seem to make sense to not block on the AA having to review/write up lots of package rejection mails (and we do get plenty still from what I've seen)
[21:27] <micahg> anyways, there shouldn't be new sources all that often that it would actually slow anything down
[21:28] <seb128> right, let's apply best judgement there, I do trust most of the people on that channel to not do stupid things with their uploads and when they do it's usually trivial to fix and a short rountrip
[21:28] <seb128> but I will refrain to comment on whether that's true or not for other groups ;-)
[21:30] <dobey> heh
[21:31] <dobey> i'm just trying to follow the documented process on the wiki :)
[21:32] <micahg> dobey: I applaud you're choice here, which is one of the reasons I agreed to do the review
[21:32] <micahg> s/you're/your/
[21:37] <micahg> seb128: oh, it actually does say coredevs are included, 1st bullet point, first section
[21:38] <seb128> well, that rules might make sense for new comers
[21:39] <seb128> it should probably be updated to consider ppu uploaders at the same level that motus
[21:39] <seb128> than
[21:39] <seb128> it likely didn't get revisited since we have ppu and upload sets
[21:41] <micahg> no, we specifically relate it to people with component level access, the idea is a broad base of knowledge to be able to catch most issues, PPU are very limited in scope
[21:42] <micahg> akin to DMs who can't upload new packages initially
[21:43] <micahg> s/relate/limit/
[22:43] <jasoncwarner_> morning everyone
[22:46] <Laney> I don't think the archive admin's review is the same as a sponsor's one.
[22:46] <Laney> but also that is indeed a MOTU process, not something for the whole archive
[22:47] <Laney> and it can only ever be advisory