[00:37] <phillw> nice easy question... will grub ever say "Xubuntu", "Kubuntu" or always say "Ubuntu"?
[04:45] <infinity> antarus / cjwatson: Huh, I could have sworn I accepted that Unity/24h thing last week.  Maybe I dreamed it.
[04:46] <infinity> Oh, or I ran sru-accept but forgot to actually accept it from the queue.  We so need to fix that.
[05:34] <ScottK> phillw: Ubuntu always.
[06:24] <antarus> infinity: I can't say I'm overly familiar with the specifics, but I'm not afraid to bug you guys about it ;)
[06:25] <antarus> (specifics of the SRU process, that is)
[06:51] <infinity> antarus: Heh.  I'm fairly sure I was just asleep at the wheel when I half-accepted that unity upload.  But Colin's got it covered, so all good.
[09:51] <xnox> phillw: you can preseed that.
[09:52] <xnox> phillw: and it should work (both server and desktop)
[09:53] <xnox> phillw: x|k|ubuntu are equivalent operating system installed from the same archive. note that one install can have all three ubuntu-desktop, kubuntu-desktop, xubuntu-desktop packages installed, or used-to be installed and later removed.
[12:33] <Riddell> gosh there's a programme in here using AGPL, I presume we consider that free software
[12:34] <cjwatson> Yes
[12:35] <Riddell> hockeypuck (0.8.1~bzr104) raring; urgency=low     hmm not sure that style of version number is kosher
[12:35] <Riddell> hmm, a native package
[12:35] <cjwatson> What's wrong with it?
[12:35] <cjwatson> It's fine if it's native
[12:37] <cjwatson> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=17;bug=495721 - Debian ref on AGPL
[12:37] <Riddell> yeah I guess so, not sure why an OpenPGP Key Server is a native ubuntu only project but ok if that's what they want
[12:38] <cjwatson> Yeah, it's odd but not reject-worthy on its own
[13:21] <cjwatson> plars: I'm thinking of disabling -proposed in 12.04 images later today, in preparation for 12.04.2.  How are things looking for smoke-testing (you're running verification for .2, aren't you?)?
[13:43] <zequence> Is there a release schedule for 12.04.2 somewhere, with more detailed info than https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/ReleaseSchedule and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RaringRingtail/ReleaseSchedule
[13:47] <cjwatson> zequence: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2013-January/001009.html
[13:51] <zequence> cjwatson: Thanks. I was just curious. Ubuntu Studio would have had cause for doing a couple of updates, but that'll have to wait.
[13:51] <cjwatson> It's pretty late.  They could maybe just about make it if they're critical and ready to go.  If they're not critical, best to wait.
[13:52] <zequence> Not critical. More aesthetic, really.
[13:52] <zequence> We'll wait
[14:22] <plars> cjwatson: we have automated jobs that get watched daily, and are looking good for the iso smoke testing. The upgrade testing showed up with a couple of jobs failing this morning that need to be investigated, and there are a few dpkg-dist files left over on some of the upgrade testing.
[14:22] <plars> cjwatson: otherwise, we've been spot checking the daily isos manually in preparation for locking things down and getting the release candidate images on the iso tracker
[15:32] <plars> cjwatson: the upgrade failures I mentioned earlier seem to be caused by some jenkins madness, and they're getting rerun now
[15:34] <cjwatson> plars: OK, great.  For 12.04.2 I'm less concerned about upgrade testing anyway since that is not tied to milestone releases.
[15:36] <plars> cjwatson: indeed
[15:56] <slangasek> hi, can someone tell me why ubuntukylin-default-settings was rejected from raring?  I was expecting to accept it here shortly once the dependencies made it to the archive
[15:58] <Laney> slangasek: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-archive/2013-February/045989.html
[15:58] <ogra> because of the werid name ?
[15:59] <ogra> why does it need a GLP3 copy ?
[15:59] <ogra> *GPL
[15:59] <ogra>  /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 exists, just needs to point there
[16:01]  * ogra agrees wrt the naming ... i would have called it ubuntu-default-settings-kylin
[16:02] <slangasek> Laney: ta
[16:03] <slangasek> ubuntukylin is the proposed name of the flavor
[16:03] <slangasek> so the package name is correct as-is
[16:05] <ogra> ah, k
[16:06] <cjwatson> Riddell: I agree with ogra; it is not necessary to have a GPLv3 copy, as long as there's a common-licenses reference
[16:06] <cjwatson> We need to stop rejecting for that, it's ridiculous
[16:07] <ogra> well, we need to check for the reference still indeed
[16:07] <cjwatson> The intent of the copyright holder needs to be clear
[16:07] <cjwatson> And there needs to be a reference in debian/copyright in the case of common-licenses, or a full copy in debian/copyright otherwise
[16:08] <cjwatson> But as far as the rest of the package is concerned, we don't need to police exactly how the licensing is applied as long as it's clear - and for a native package, debian/copyright should be sufficient
[16:08] <Riddell> it was mostly for the poor description I rejefcted
[16:09] <Riddell> "This package contains customized default settings." doesn't explain at all what it's good for
[16:09] <cjwatson> I agree that that should be improved
[16:09] <cjwatson> But let's not confuse uploaders with unnecessary requirements :)
[18:21] <infinity> cjwatson: Are we definitely settled on d-i components and ready for a "final" (barring last-minute argh) dot-two upload?
[18:24] <infinity> cjwatson: Well, you have a no-change rebuild in the queue, accept when ready.
[20:57] <tgm4883> I've got an odd request. Is it possible to get a previous release ISO removed from http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/
[20:57] <tgm4883> specifically, the Mythbuntu ISOs
[20:57] <tgm4883> Notably, because of this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/mythbuntu/+bug/992241
[20:57] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 992241 in Mythbuntu "Upgrading using the live cd wipes /var/lib/mythtv/*" [Critical,Fix released]
[20:57] <tgm4883> which was fixed in 12.04.1
[20:58] <tgm4883> I suppose the 12.04 ISOs should be removed as well, leaving just the 12.04.1 ISOs
[20:58] <infinity> http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/mythbuntu/releases/12.04/release/ <-- Only references 12.04.1
[20:59] <tgm4883> infinity, ah, so it does
[20:59] <tgm4883> infinity, so then only 11.10
[20:59] <infinity> 11.10 is EOL shortly anyway, but we could certainly remove it prematurely for just mythbuntu, if that's what that project wants.
[21:00] <tgm4883> infinity, is my say enough, or do you need superm1 and/or Daviey
[21:00] <superm1> i think given the situation it would be better, we've had a few people grabbing them and losing data
[21:00] <tgm4883> IDK who you have down for "can make decisions for Mythbuntu"
[21:00] <infinity> tgm4883: I'd like some level of consensus.
[21:01] <infinity> superm1: That helps.
[21:01] <tgm4883> infinity, we've discussed it internally
[21:01] <infinity> Anyhow, I can just archive them out of the published tree for now, and we can decide later if we just want them to go away entirely or what.
[21:01] <tgm4883> well, except for Daviey, but he's british :P
[21:01] <tgm4883> infinity, sounds good
[21:01] <superm1> good, thanks
[21:03] <infinity> tgm4883 / superm1: Done.  Check mirrors in a few minutes to make sure that's what you wanted.
[21:13] <infinity> tgm4883 / superm1: Should be all good now.
[21:13] <tgm4883> infinity, looking good, thanks again
[21:18] <cjwatson> infinity: I hope so, thanks - accepted
[21:18] <cjwatson> (d-i)
[21:21] <infinity> cjwatson: We don't actually archive non-releases.u.c ISOs to old-releases or anywhere interesting, do we?
[21:22] <infinity> cjwatson: I just moved the above mythbuntu/oneiric to www/mythbuntu-oneiric, but if there's no archiving or anything that we plan to do for it, I should perhaps just delete it.
[21:24] <cjwatson> I think they go on old-releases
[21:24] <cjwatson> Or should
[21:25] <cjwatson> http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/mythbuntu/releases/
[21:25] <cjwatson> Actual execution of this has been a bit mixed as you can see, but ...
[21:25] <infinity> Oh, I'm blind.
[21:25] <infinity> Or, rather, didn't scroll down. :P
[21:25] <infinity> So, yeah, we'll keep that off to the side there until we decide to archive all of oneiric.
[21:38] <cjwatson> -proposed is now disabled for subsequent precise image builds
[21:38] <cjwatson> Still a few verifications worth doing
[23:19] <infinity> tjaalton: ^---?
[23:20] <infinity> tjaalton: The previous SRU was done through the security PPA intentionally, but not this one correcting it?
[23:20] <tjaalton> infinity: right, it fixes the goofs in the packaging
[23:20] <infinity> mdeslaur: Want to help out with this?
[23:21] <tjaalton> hm, didn't think of it needing to go through the ppa again
[23:21] <infinity> tjaalton: Yes, but we built it in the security PPA, so it could later be released to security.  That whole thing sort of fails if the fix to the goof isn't done the same way. :P
[23:21] <tjaalton> infinity: ah, ok :)
[23:21] <mdeslaur> ah, yeah
[23:21] <infinity> mdeslaur: Want to just grab those from the queue and bounce them through the PPA?
[23:22] <infinity> mdeslaur: And then I'll reject them. :P
[23:22] <mdeslaur> infinity: sure, one sec
[23:22] <tjaalton> what about verifying the security bugs, is it needed?
[23:22] <tjaalton> or upstream bugs that a drive-by reporter filed ages ago..
[23:23] <tjaalton> fixed by the upstream release
[23:23] <tjaalton> ok to just mark them v-d?
[23:23] <mdeslaur> ok, got them
[23:23] <infinity> mdeslaur: Got both releases?
[23:23] <mdeslaur> yep
[23:24] <tjaalton> cool, thanks
[23:24] <infinity> tjaalton: The general theory of MREs is that you don't necessarily need to verify every bug (but please do have a pretty solid idea that they are in fact fixed).
[23:25] <infinity> tjaalton: Marking them all v-done, however, makes life easier for us.
[23:25] <infinity> tjaalton: (And verifying them to some degree also helps you realise you screwed up, as you apparently did :P)
[23:25] <tjaalton> infinity: yeah, they were filed upstream and fixed some time ago already, the cve's are fresh but they're pretty serious about these..
[23:26] <tjaalton> oh yeah, went through all the packaging fixes/bugs, and noticed them right away..
[23:26] <tjaalton> verified the rest
[23:27] <infinity> Right, when that's all happy in the PPA again, let me know, and I'll copy to -proposed again for your second round of verification. :P
[23:27] <tjaalton> yeah
[23:28] <infinity> If everything's fine except this one bug you've just (re-)fixed (properly), we can probably fast-track it due to the security releasy bits.
[23:29] <tjaalton> yeah the other one is an obvious fix, working around the upstream issue of string substitution in autoconf..
[23:30] <tjaalton> didn't bother writing a correct patch for it, this will do for now
[23:30] <tjaalton> (passing --datadir)
[23:31] <infinity> There's nothing I like to hear more than "didn't bother writing a correct patch".
[23:31] <tjaalton> :)
[23:32] <infinity> Oops, I should have given my kvm 4 CPUs before I went and built glibc in it.
[23:32] <infinity> Oh well, 2 will do.
[23:33] <tjaalton> I did ping upstream about it though, will file a ticket next ;)