[08:35] <Laney> looks like python3-virtkey needs to be promotd
[08:35] <Laney> O gentle archive admin
[08:39] <Laney> didrocks: ^ perhaps you could do this (to get daily images today)? python-virtkey probably then falls out I guess (but didn't verify)
[08:40] <didrocks> Laney: ok, it's python-virtkey -> python3-virtkey basically?
[08:40] <Laney> yeah, for onboard
[08:40] <didrocks> doing
[08:40] <Laney> excellent
[08:41] <didrocks> done and no reverse-depends for python-virtkey
[08:41] <didrocks> moving to universe
[08:42]  * Laney wonders when the ipmitool situation will be cleaned up
[08:42] <Laney> just checking quantal_probs
[08:45] <Laney> thanks btw
[08:54] <xnox> Do I need FFe for fixing bug 1052040
[08:54] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1052040 in ubiquity "[regression] ubiquity greeter does not have overlay scrollbars in quantal, but it did in precise" [Medium,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1052040
[08:55] <xnox> see attached screenshots.
[08:55] <xnox> well... not FFE, but rather UIFE
[09:13] <Laney> xnox: you should ask #ubuntu-docs or their ML if it's in any screenshots
[09:13] <Laney> but otherwise consider it approved from my pov
[09:14] <iulian> xnox: If it is a regression and you guys didn't want to change it, then I'd consider it a bug fix.
[09:14] <xnox> Laney: well... it's on here http://www.ubuntu.com/download/help/install-ubuntu-desktop
[09:14] <iulian> Oh, I'm too slow this morning.
[09:14] <Laney> it is
[09:15] <xnox> Laney: * Cannot join #ubuntu-docs (Channel is invite only).
[09:15] <Laney> -doc?
[09:15] <Laney> I guessed TBH
[09:15] <Laney> maybe they don't have a channel, if so just mail the list instead
[09:16] <iulian> #ubuntu-doc seems to be genuine.
[09:16] <Laney> \m/
[09:17]  * xnox is confused about Laney \m/
[09:18] <Laney> http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_530/1282035293x7EkQE.jpg
[09:19] <iulian> He doesn't want to show his head, only feet. It's sort of like a Laney 2.0, cyberman.
[09:19] <iulian> Oh, was wrong.
[09:19]  * xnox is not down with the kids
[09:22] <iulian> OK, uni time, ta-ta.
[09:31] <babyface_> why no quantal  desktop isos today ?
[09:32] <babyface_> anybody know this ?
[09:32] <Laney> component mismatch
[09:32] <Laney> will be fixed soon
[09:32] <babyface_> Laney,  are you talking to me ?
[09:32] <Laney> yes
[09:32] <babyface_> Laney, ok, got it. thanks.
[09:33] <Laney> onboard depended on a package in universe which we just promoted to main this morning
[09:41] <Laney> babyface_: respinning now
[11:09] <Laney> babyface_: should be there now
[14:09] <balloons> ping cjwatson
[14:10] <cjwatson> balloons: best to include a reason please
[14:10] <balloons> cjwatson, sorry mate. I wanted to chat with you about the tech board summary.. Specifically, I wanted more information on the nvidia drivers decision(s)
[14:11] <balloons> when will the changes occur -- and it looks like both precise and quantal will get new -experimental packages for nvidia/fglrx. Will these also show in jockey?
[14:12] <cjwatson> I'm mainly the secretary here :-)  Talk to bryceh and pitti about implementation details
[14:12] <balloons> cjwatson, thanks.. will do
[14:12] <cjwatson> wg 27
[14:12] <cjwatson> oops
[14:27] <xnox> Can somebody look at bug 1042649
[14:27] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1042649 in ubiquity "[FFe] [UIFe] Manual Partitioning Crypt" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1042649
[14:27] <xnox> ?
[14:27] <xnox> it is now ready to be uploaded and it was previously discussed at the release meetings.
[14:27] <xnox> I have notified doc & translation teams before, but will notify them again, once this is uploaded.
[14:28] <stgraber> xnox: well, they need to ack prior to upload
[14:28] <xnox> stgraber: ok. Before or after FFe is granted?
[14:28] <stgraber> well, at least the doc team should
[14:28] <stgraber> xnox: before
[14:29] <xnox> ok.
[14:29] <stgraber> we can still review the FFe but the best we can give you is a conditional +1 on doc + translation approving it
[14:29] <stgraber> xnox: planning to land that for beta2 I guess?
[14:29] <xnox> stgraber: yes.
[14:31] <xnox> stgraber: I am also planning to land lvm2-advanced before beta2 (bug 1042647) but that is not ready yet.
[14:31] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1042647 in ubiquity "[FFe] [UIFe] Manual Partitioning LVM" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1042647
[14:42] <xnox> stgraber: well I emailed the ubuntu doc team mailing list. there was no response last time though....
[14:42] <stgraber> xnox: try to poke jbicha on IRC
[14:43] <xnox> stgraber: ok.
[14:43] <stgraber> he doesn't seem to be online at the moment, but he's usually not too far away
[15:24] <knome> stgraber, any ETA when bug 1039158 is pushed to production?
[15:24] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1039158 in ubuntu-qa-website "Add css to have dl/dt/dd show as numbered list for testcases" [Wishlist,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1039158
[15:25] <knome> stgraber, i mean, the fix, not the bug ;]
[15:26] <stgraber> knome: fixing other things first, hopefully before beta2
[15:27] <knome> stgraber, ok, no hurry, just wondering :)
[15:27] <knome> stgraber, but it would be nice to get it in before beta freeze
[15:29] <stgraber> knome: well, the tracker isn't subject to beta freeze but yeah, should be rolled out before the weekend
[15:29] <knome> stgraber, i know... but it affects the testing experience, and we might to some cooperation with a local uni, and we might get up to 60 testers
[15:32] <knome> anyway, bbl
[16:15] <Laney> ogra_: any chance we can get that linux-ti-omap4 copied to release?
[16:19] <cjwatson> Laney: infinity's on it (#ubuntu-installer)
[16:19] <cjwatson> assuming you mean quantal
[16:20] <Laney> sure do
[16:20] <Laney> cheers
[16:29] <ogra_> Laney, right, infinitys job rather than mine
[16:30] <ogra_> he eats kernels for breakfast ;)
[16:30] <infinity> Om nom nom.
[16:30] <Laney> Flickerless panda plz
[16:30] <infinity> I'll flicker your panda.
[16:31] <infinity> And because I haven't been mesmerised by it yet this morning, it's time for: http://lucifer.0c3.net/~adconrad/loose-pandas.gif
[16:31]  * Laney hopes no children are watching
[16:32] <ogra_> hahahahaha
[16:32] <ogra_> thats like my 5 (!) racoon babies that visit me every evening :)
[16:33] <ogra_> (we never had 5 before ... 2 in max, seems leaving my garden alone improved the ecosystem for racoons)
[16:35] <cjwatson> infinity: That's fifty shades of awesome
[16:40] <skaet> Laney, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-lens-music/+bug/1049593 - could you check that your concerns have been addressed?
[16:40] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1049593 in ayatana-design "[FFE][UIFE]Dash - Finesse the placement, movement and behaviour of the 12.10 Dash " [Critical,Fix committed]
[16:42] <Laney> skaet: what do you think?
[16:45] <skaet> Not answering the regression question, but much more detail provided on the fixes associated with this.
[16:46] <skaet> Lots of the contents in the description seem like fixes to me.
[16:47] <Laney> yep
[16:47] <Laney> still misses -doc notification
[16:47]  * Laney tries and fails to tab complete jbicha
[16:50] <skaet> yeah,  haven't seen him since earlier this morning.
[16:50]  * Laney wonders about a dash sprint taking place after UIF ;-)
[16:51] <ogra_> Laney, to get clean ?
[16:52] <Laney> ?
[16:52] <ogra_> http://arch9.okr.ro/auctions/2009/06/20/238872979-3315892-500_500.jpg
[16:52] <Laney> haha
[16:53] <didrocks> tssss ogra_ :)
[16:53] <Laney> we don't have that over here
[16:53] <ogra_> con bicarbonato !
[16:53] <Laney> so the joke kind of passed me by :P
[16:53] <ogra_> :)
[16:53] <xnox> is that how the blur effect is done?!
[16:53] <xnox> =)
[16:53] <didrocks> in France, it's "Dash 2 in 1" :)
[16:53] <ogra_> haha
[16:53] <skaet> Laney,  getting comments on the fallback plan added now.
[16:53] <Laney> by drinking it?
[16:53] <ogra_> didrocks, same in germany :)
[16:53] <Laney> skaet: you might as well ask them to mail the docs team while you're at it
[16:54] <didrocks> it's not like if I didn't pointed them almost 100x times about the process page for both FFe and UIFe
[16:55] <skaet> Laney, didrocks. done.
[16:58] <didrocks> skaet: thanks
[17:13] <skaet> didrocks, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/1042323 - is this ready to land for beta 2,  can't tell.
[17:13] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1042323 in compiz "[FFE] Port GTK Window Decorator to GSettings" [High,Fix released]
[17:14] <cjwatson> Laney: can I just unsubscribe ubuntu-archive from bug 1046649, since backporters can process backports themselves now?  or is there any other fixup I need to do?
[17:14] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1046649 in precise-backports "Please backport fonts-cns11643 98.1-1 (multiverse) from quantal" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1046649
[17:15] <skaet> jbicha, could you look over https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-lens-music/+bug/1049593 and comment on impact?
[17:15] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1049593 in ayatana-design "[FFE][UIFE]Dash - Finesse the placement, movement and behaviour of the 12.10 Dash " [Critical,Fix committed]
[17:15] <cjwatson> I'm confused about why ubuntu-release was ever subscribed to that bug in the first place.
[17:16] <Laney> cjwatson: he said -release but meant -archive AFAICS
[17:17] <Laney> and yeah, just remove the subscription unless you particularly fancy uploading it
[17:18] <Laney> NCommander: ^ you should just upload it
[17:18] <Laney> (using backportpackage to prepare the package for you)
[17:18] <cjwatson> Laney,NCommander: OK, done
[17:19] <Laney> cheers
[18:04] <jbicha> skaet: I looked at it & wasn't happy about how huge of a bug it was, can you let my email response to ubuntu-release through?
[18:06] <skaet> jbicha, will do
[19:25] <Laney> jbicha: thatnks for that mail
[19:55] <skaet> Laney, https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/713423 -- not sure I'm following wha you're still looking for on this one.  The questions you asked seem to have been answered.
[19:55] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 713423 in ayatana-design "[FFe/UIFe] Unity launcher gets cluttered when having multiple partitions and/or external volumes attached" [High,Fix committed]
[19:56] <Laney> skaet: does it have uife?
[19:57] <skaet> Laney, https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/713423/comments/21
[19:57] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 713423 in ayatana-design "[FFe/UIFe] Unity launcher gets cluttered when having multiple partitions and/or external volumes attached" [High,Fix committed]
[19:57] <Laney> good
[19:58] <Laney> I wasn't necessarily still looking for anything
[19:59] <Laney> well, he didn't say when it could land :-)
[20:00] <skaet> He said it was ready to land now.
[20:00] <skaet> but they're blocking on FFe approval,  so I'm trying to get it resolved.  :)
[20:01] <Laney> oh
[20:01] <Laney> let me approve it quickly
[20:01] <skaet> Thanks.  :)
[20:01] <Laney> i'm busy fixing a different build failure atm, so my brain isn't really in release mode
[20:03] <skaet> Thanks
[20:13] <Laney> doko: speaking of that, please take drift off the blacklist
[20:13] <Laney> it is fixed and I'm going to NMU it
[20:14] <doko> Laney, ok
[20:54] <xnox> skaet: Laney: I got +1 from documentation teams for bug [FFe & UIFe] 1042649 and bug [UIFe] 1052040
[20:54] <xnox> are those ok to be uploaded from release team point of view?
[20:55]  * xnox kinda had an ok from stgraber earlier, but I'm not sure if it counts.
[20:55] <xnox> and kinda from skaet / release team meeting
[20:55] <xnox> but not explicit.
[20:55] <xnox> hence poking about it again =)
[20:56] <knome> in non-clear issues, i'll just interpret to be the best alternative for me ;]
[20:59] <skaet> xnox,  backed up looking at 2 issues ahead of you.   Will check those next if someone doesn't beat me to it. ;)
[20:59] <Laney> UIFe fine, FFe I'm not so sure, I'll let stgraber decide
[20:59] <Laney> given the *cough* fun at b1
[21:01] <xnox> Laney: in theory, if it lands now & fun repeats it will be fixed by friday. Not landing it on friday and having the fun all the way to next tuesday.
[21:02] <xnox> Laney: for example I will not consider uploading it Thursday afternoon or later. I'll upload it into ppa or -proposed.
[21:02] <xnox> Laney: I didn't like b1 at all...
[21:03] <Laney> well, fun happened last time when people started testing the installer in earnest
[21:03] <Laney> i.e. next week
[21:03] <Laney> I assume you still need a code review to land it anyway?
[21:05] <xnox> Laney: true, if I find someone to review it. The usual suspects for partman are very busy. (colin, stephan, ... not sure who else)
[21:06] <Laney> I dunno, it just makes me wary
[21:06] <Laney> but I defer to someone else rather than nacking
[21:06] <xnox> Laney: you reserve the right to say "i told you so" ;-)
[21:07]  * xnox ponders if quantal beta1 will be reminded to me every time i make freeze exception requests.
[21:45] <jbicha> skaet: by your comment on bug 1005682, I presume you want us to revert to WebKit 1.8 since 1.9.2 as a development snapshot isn't really supportable
[21:45] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1005682 in webkit "FFE: Update webkit to 1.9.91" [Wishlist,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1005682
[21:48] <jbicha> I guess the Release Team shouldn't have been subscribed anyway until newer WebKit versions didn't FTBFS
[21:48] <skaet> jbicha,  yes,  the commentary in the bug pointed that it would be safer to stay with 1.8 at this point.
[21:48] <Laney> erm
[21:50] <Laney> did it break ABI since 1.8?
[21:52] <infinity> Yeah, reverting webkit sounds like a lot more trouble than it's worth.
[21:54] <jbicha> Laney: um, probably? you're welcome to dig through the diff at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/webkit/1.9.2-1ubuntu1
[21:54] <infinity> Laney: Everything would absolutely have to be rebuilt, if it was rebuilt against 1.9
[21:55] <infinity> Laney: As for *API*, I'm less sure.  Seems to be conflicting reports about epiphany, or are we just shipping an old version?
[21:55] <skaet> Laney,  infinity - what's in the archive right now is webkit_1.8.1 - I was just trying to advocate we stay at it, rather than approve the update.
[21:55] <Laney> Dunno. It sound like a pain in the backside.
[21:56] <infinity> Oh.
[21:56] <jbicha> skaet: no, a developer snapshot 1.9.2 is currently in the archive
[21:56] <Laney> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/webkit/1.9.2-1ubuntu4 that's what we have currently
[21:56] <infinity> skaet: Err, yeah.  It's 1.9.2
[21:56] <infinity> skaet: You're looking at precise.
[21:57] <infinity> I think the sane way forward here is probably forward, with a hard commitment for the desktop team to update quantal to 1.10 final, even if it lands post-release.
[21:57] <skaet> infinity,  was looking: http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/w/webkit/?C=M;O=D
[21:57] <infinity> But if reverting really is painless, that would do.
[21:57] <infinity> skaet: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/webkit
[21:57] <jbicha> all we need is to magically get WebKit 1.9 to build in quantal :)
[21:58] <infinity> skaet: Much easier to decipher than a directory full of files.
[21:58] <skaet> infinity, yup, see it now.
[21:58] <infinity> jbicha: Oh.  It stopped building at some point?
[21:59] <jbicha> I believe the current version builds, it's future snapshots that aren't buildable yet
[21:59] <infinity> Ahh, right.  Following the bug breadcrumbs.
[22:00] <jbicha> infinity: We're stuck with a developer snapshot of Epiphany until we get the newer WebKit as the dependency was bumped
[22:00] <skaet> infinity, Laney - please comment on path of least risk on the bug.   I'm definitely leaning to least risk at this point.
[22:01] <infinity> Well, if someone can make a snapshot build, pushing to 1.10 sounds less painful than reverting and rebuilding the world.
[22:01] <infinity> And less "risky", in the sense that it's closer to what people have been testing.
[22:02] <infinity> Reverting to old software (when it interacts with other new things) doesn't magically mean you get to be as bug-free as precise.
[22:02] <Laney> and it might not just be a matter of rebuilding everything (if new stuff depends on new stuff)
[22:02] <skaet> infinity,  yeah, understood.   micahg,  what's possible?
[22:04] <cjwatson> how big is the reverse dep tree anyway?
[22:06] <jbicha> Mageia was also having trouble getting WebKit 1.9 to build
[22:06] <infinity> 140 reverse build-deps.  Not sure how far down the tree that gets one.
[22:06] <cjwatson> ow
[22:06] <cjwatson> and those are all on 1.9 already?
[22:07] <infinity> And not sure how many things have been rebuilt against the new ABI (and thus need a rebuild) versus need the new API (thus needing a revert as well) and how many wouldn't need to be touched.
[22:07] <infinity> A versioned rdep scan would be more accurate for the ABI-rebuild question, the API one's a bit tougher.
[22:08] <infinity> And might just be epihany, if we're lucky.
[22:08] <Laney> I gave it back in the PPA, you never know.
[22:15] <skaet> infinity, Laney - have reset it back to inprogress for quantal,  based on the above comments.   If one of you encounters micahg while I'm offline, can you discuss this further with him and see what the path of least pain is here?
[22:49] <knome> skaet, it's not too funny when we're past FFe and suddenly our image jumps up 6MB of gnome dependencies... :/
[22:50] <cjwatson> In case anyone wonders, the new upstream releases of libpipeline and man-db I just synced are bugfix-only, mainly to defend against near-future glibc and automake changes.
[22:50] <knome> cjwatson, thanks for reviewing indicator-sound
[22:51] <cjwatson> Not sure that was me actually
[22:51] <knome> skaet, looks like it's the onboard stuff, that depends on mousetweaks, and depends on much more gnome stuff
[22:51] <knome> skaet, this. is. not. funny. after. FFe.
[22:52] <skaet> knome.  agreed.
[22:53] <knome> thanks. (ed: that was the very very mild version i forwarded to release team)
[22:54]  * skaet needs to break away from IRC so she can catch up on todays mail.   *sigh*
[22:54] <cjwatson> knome: bug 1041303, apparently
[22:54] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1041303 in onboard "Feature freeze exception request: Plz update Onboard to 0.98.0 targeted at quantal" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1041303
[22:54] <cjwatson> (I had no involvement - just for reference)
[22:55] <knome> well yeah. it sucks. is some action going to be taken or is it just going to be left as is?
[22:56] <cjwatson> I don't know - have you talked with the people who proposed the update in the first place?
[22:57] <cjwatson> that's probably better than going through -release in the first instance
[22:57] <knome> no, because we just found this out a few minutes ago
[22:57] <cjwatson> right, but you had time to talk to the release team ;-)
[22:57] <knome> sure.
[22:58] <knome> i thought the release team was on top of things like this (as you were - thanks)
[22:58] <cjwatson> just saying, if you're asking about action then it's generally best to talk to relevant developers first
[22:58] <cjwatson> rather than "pre-escalating" if you will
[22:59] <knome> i don't really know how to proceed anyway - what is it that i'm actually able to do myself? should i ask them to revert the whole package as it affects us, or simply dropping the dependency (which they seem to need)
[23:00] <knome> ok, comment added to the bug
[23:00] <knome> is there something else we can do?
[23:00] <Laney> if mousetweaks is a problem then it is a recommends, so may be able to be removed
[23:01] <Laney> I suggest you talk to the uploader.
[23:02] <knome> how do i check who is the uploader?
[23:02] <Laney> the bug says
[23:03] <Laney> but file a /new/ one, instead of commenting on this old done one.
[23:03] <Laney> Maybe mousetweaks itself could get fixed.
[23:04] <knome> yeah, maybe, but before b2freeze? i doubt so.
[23:04] <Laney> Who knows?
[23:05] <cjwatson> knome: you should explain the problem to them and have a conversation about it
[23:05] <cjwatson> rather than pre-specifying possible solutions if you aren't sure
[23:06] <knome> sending an email.
[23:07] <Laney> TheMuso is someone to speak to about mousetweaks, judging from the changelog.
[23:10] <jbicha> oh I guess you could change the dependency back to mousetetweaks (misspelled) ;)
[23:11] <knome> jbicha, i'd laugh at that if it was earlier in the cycle, but it's <2 days to beta 2 freeze and this brings 6MB more packages to our already oversized ISO.
[23:12] <knome> somebody on the release team, maybe approver, wants a CC of the mail to be on top of the issue?
[23:13] <Laney> I think you'll be happier if you speak to TheMuso on IRC
[23:13] <knome> idle for 18 hours.
[23:14] <knome> Laney, PM'ing, if he doesn't reply soon (>2am here), i'll send the mail and add you both to the CC.
[23:15] <Laney> don't bother adding me
[23:15] <knome> can you explain why?
[23:16] <Laney> I can't speak to the merits of the change you're asking for, so I don't see what point me receiving an email about it has
[23:17] <knome> you approved the FFe?
[23:17] <knome> TheMuso said he doesn't know anything about the packaging.
[23:19] <knome> ok, he's demoting mousetweaks to suggests.
[23:20] <Laney> did you ask him about the g-c-c recommends from mousetweaks?
[23:20] <knome> no, i didn't
[23:20] <Laney> I'd have thought that would be a better first place to look
[23:21] <knome> i have no idea about the packaging, the requirements, or anything else regarding to this issue either.
[23:21] <Laney> perhaps some investigation would reveal that it could be Enhances.
[23:21] <knome> perhaps
[23:22] <Laney> I'll leave you with that
[23:22] <Laney> night.
[23:22] <knome> sleep tight
[23:23] <knome> too bad i'm not competent to investigate that