[01:21] <cjwatson> ogra-cb_: Eh, damn, you must have deployed debian-cd changes without the corresponding cdimage changes.
[01:21] <cjwatson> ogra-cb_: I was going to do those in a carefully coordinated way this evening when I got back from watching a film ...
[01:22] <cjwatson> ogra-cb_: I've just gone ahead and deployed it now - I was going to test it, but I probably can't make it much worse now.
[01:24] <cjwatson> I guess I can try your manual invocation.
[01:33] <infinity> bdmurray: Of course it will, yes.
[01:37] <cjwatson> ogra-cb_: That seems to have more or less worked now.
[10:59] <ogra_> cjwatson, oh, sorry, i didnt mean to get into your way
[11:02] <cjwatson> Ah well, it seems to have worked out now
[11:03] <cjwatson> And precise image building shouldn't die on locks any more, so that should help psivaa
[11:03] <ogra_> the images i got lookg good at least (despite having completely untested content :) )
[11:03] <cjwatson> (Also it means we don't have the bogus .1 suffix any more - the datestamps are now namespaced per-series as well
[11:03] <cjwatson> )
[11:03] <psivaa> cjwatson: that would indeed :)
[11:03] <ogra_> oh, sweet
[11:05] <ogra_> so now to my always reoccuring embarrassment of messing up /etc/default-arches
[11:07] <ogra_> hmm, its intresting that the gzipping debian-cd does actually saves 100M for the filesystem image
[11:08] <ogra_> the original .ext4 file is 100M bigger ... and only contains a tarball
[11:10] <ogra_> (well, a tar.gz, so it is already compressed)
[12:08] <psivaa> Raring server installs fail today: Just reported bug 1081567
[12:08] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1081567 in partman-base (Ubuntu) "Server installations fail with 'partman: No matching physical volumes errorfound' " [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1081567
[12:09] <cjwatson> Thanks
[12:10] <cjwatson> Though the first line of the last screen of the syslog doesn't happen to be the real error :)
[12:15] <psivaa> cjwatson: ok thanks, will keep that in mind :)
[12:15] <cjwatson> Not that it's especially easy to spot the real error here; I think debootstrap is failing very early but it's not really saying why
[12:16] <cjwatson> I've given the bug a fairly generic title for now until such time as I've debugged it
[12:21] <psivaa> cjwatson: ack
[13:04]  * cjwatson rebuilds the Ubuntu desktop amd64/i386 images that failed this morning
[14:54] <fly-away> hi there
[14:55] <GridCube> hi
[14:57] <fly-away> why nvidia-tegra-codecs-ventana could leave https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/quantal/+queue yet?
[14:57] <fly-away> could't
[14:57] <fly-away> *
[14:59] <cjwatson> If it's still in the queue then it simply hasn't been reviewed yet.
[14:59] <cjwatson> (No, I'm not going to do it, neck-deep in debugging GRUB at the moment)
[17:41] <bdrung> can someone let the gnustep-base packages in?
[23:09] <cjwatson> debian-installer, livecd-rootfs, and ubiquity (on its way) in precise-proposed should be the last of the secure boot uploads, all being well
[23:10] <cjwatson> ubiquity has a number of other fixes which we've been accumulating in our to-be-SRUed queue for a while
[23:16] <infinity> cjwatson: I'll have a poke in a bit, or start on it anyway.  I'll trade you for precise/initramfs-tools, which is also a fix for lts-quantal kernels.
[23:17] <infinity> (Not wildly urgent, that fix, unless you're in the minority who likes to type in initrds without BIOS support for your keyboard, but...)
[23:22] <cjwatson> xnox: Could you fill in some SRU detail (test case, in particular) on bug 1046241, please?
[23:22] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1046241 in ubiquity (Ubuntu Precise) "gtk ubiquity reminds an accordion when installing lvm in "long" locales" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1046241
[23:23] <cjwatson> infinity: Easy trae.
[23:23] <cjwatson> *trade, even
[23:24] <cjwatson> infinity: Did you ever figure out if bug 1066376 could be closed for real?
[23:24] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1066376 in initramfs-tools (Ubuntu Precise) "keyboard doesn't work to enter password with panda and encrypted partitions" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1066376
[23:25] <cjwatson> IIRC there was some doubt about whether the initramfs was really up to date.
[23:27] <infinity> cjwatson: Oh, no, it was two bugs.  I still need to hunt and find the other half, but that's Panda-specific, and not a concern for the SRU.
[23:28] <infinity> cjwatson: (It seems that the module list on Pandas is indeed coming out a lot smaller, and I haven't looked at why yet)
[23:28] <cjwatson> OK
[23:28] <cjwatson> Nice catch on that mlocate thing, BTW
[23:29] <infinity> cjwatson: updatedb killed a glibc testsuite here today, which made me think about it. :P
[23:29] <cjwatson> Hah.  How did it manage that?
[23:29] <cjwatson> atime or something?
[23:30] <infinity> Nah, just load.  A few of the glibc tests do a really good job of attempting to kill the machine, having another process doing the same ends in doom.
[23:37] <infinity> top - 16:37:40 up 9 days, 19:59,  9 users,  load average: 10142.96, 3237.69, 1246.60
[23:37] <infinity> cjwatson: ^-- An example of glibc's love for my laptop.
[23:38] <infinity> Turns out it gets twitchy if anything else wants some CPU time at around that point.
[23:39] <cjwatson> !
[23:39] <cjwatson> I don't believe I've ever seen much beyond 1500 before.