[17:32] <bdmurray> cjohnston: ^
[17:32] <cjohnston> I'm guessing the other cj, bdmurray ?
[17:33] <bdmurray> yes the one with a w - cjwatson
[17:34] <cjohnston> heh
[17:36] <cjwatson> ta
[17:37] <cjwatson> bdmurray: you didn't need to correct precise to precise-proposed :)
[17:38] <cjwatson> Laney: rejecting your software-center upload, but only in favour of bdmurray's which includes it
[17:38] <Laney> aye aye
[18:17] <Laney> I don't really know anything about udebs - how would I go about finding out why gtk+3.0 doesn't want to migrate?
[18:17] <Laney>     * i386: libgtk-3-0-udeb, libvte-2.90-9-udeb
[18:17] <cjwatson> Probably because the udeb is built with wayland support and the rest of wayland isn't udebificated
[18:17] <Laney> this upload was to disable that
[18:18] <Laney> and the wayland one did migrate
[18:18] <cjwatson> well, they have dependencies like any other package
[18:18] <cjwatson> those dependencies are only allowed to be satisfied by other udebs (i.e. */debian-installer/binary-*/Packages.gz)
[18:20] <infinity> Nah, it's because the udeb depends on libc6-udeb (>= 2.17)
[18:20] <infinity> It'll migrate shortly.
[18:20] <infinity> Why the udeb dependencies don't seem to use .symbols, I don't know.
[18:20] <cjwatson> Ah yes, it's made clear(ish) by _excuses
[18:20] <cjwatson> "Depends: gtk+3.0 eglibc"
[18:20] <Laney> ah, yeah, didn't look there
[18:20] <infinity> Are udeb deps not generated by dpkg-shlibdeps?
[18:21] <infinity> Cause the non-udeb packages depend on, like, libc6 (>= 2.4) or something.
[18:21] <cjwatson> They are, or should be
[18:21] <infinity> Seems silly that the udebs are much stricter.
[18:21] <cjwatson> But there's special udeb support in shlibdeps, and maybe glibc doesn't set it up quite right
[18:21] <infinity> Anyhow, mostly a non-issue, it'll migrate soon enough.
[18:22] <infinity> It's possible glibc has no idea how to do that correctly, yes. :P
[18:22] <Laney> Policy 8.6 says "Libraries with a corresponding udeb must also provide a shlibs file, since the udeb infrastructure does not use symbols files."
[18:22] <infinity> s/glibc has/I have/
[18:22] <cjwatson> Ah, heh
[18:22] <infinity> Right.  No symbols.  Check.
[18:22] <cjwatson> Probably nobody cares much
[18:22] <infinity> Hence the strict dep.
[18:22] <infinity> Not world-ending.
[18:22] <cjwatson> Since we don't need partial upgrade handling for udebs or anything
[18:23] <infinity> Laney: Anyhow, should migrate in this cycle, dante/armhf just lagged a tag.
[18:24] <Laney> Aye, ta.
[19:33] <smagoun> Hi, can we sneak a new gnome-settings-daemon into precise-updates? The package has been sitting in precise-proposed for >1 month. There is 1 bug listed in the SRU; I verified it today. Bug 1034090
[19:33] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1034090 in gnome-settings-daemon (Ubuntu Precise) "Hotkeys not functional after upgrade to quantal's xorg (new xinput version)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1034090
[19:53] <infinity> smagoun: We're not past letting things into updates, don't worry.
[19:54] <smagoun> infinity: oh, I know. I will break out the big guns when I get really desperate: a free XPS 13 for each bug resolved :P
[19:55] <infinity> smagoun: Don't want one.
[19:55] <infinity> smagoun: Entice me with something with a Lenovo logo.
[19:55] <smagoun> infinity: X1 carbon?
[19:55] <infinity> smagoun: T430s, or a Carbon X1, maybe?
[19:56] <vanhoof> infinity: T40p
[19:56] <vanhoof> =P
[19:58] <micahg> infinity: I see my two SRUs never were accepted, I'm guessing it's too late, I guess I don't mind too much
[20:00] <infinity> micahg: Not too late, but if they're not installation/media/first-impression critical, it's not a big deal either way.
[20:01] <micahg> yeah, not needed for 12.04.2, I'll remove the milestones I added
[20:01] <davmor2> infinity: you want ideapad y580 you know you do
[20:02] <infinity> davmor2: Pretty sure I don't.
[20:02] <infinity> There aren't many laptops that are an upgrade to my T420s.
[20:02] <infinity> The T430s being one of the few. :P