[05:58] <slangasek> infinity: hmm, where did we get to on the question of apt being made smarter in handling multiarch libs with cross-arch virtual package conflicts?
[11:49] <jamespage> please could the openvswitch fixes for bug 1125611 be pushed to updates asap
[11:49] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1125611 in openvswitch (Ubuntu Quantal) "DKMS brcompat module circular dependency causes broken module" [Critical,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1125611
[11:50] <jamespage> I know we normally do the 7 day settle
[11:53] <cjwatson> jamespage: can you verify bug 1088160?
[11:53] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1088160 in openvswitch (Ubuntu Quantal) "module-assistant install of openvswitch-datapath fails on quantal due to drop of _mod postfix" [Medium,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1088160
[11:55] <jamespage> cjwatson, doing it now
[11:57] <jamespage> cjwatson, done
[12:02] <cjwatson> jamespage: Thanks - released
[12:04] <jamespage> cjwatson, ta
[13:32] <infinity> slangasek: I think Colin suggested perhaps fiddling with resolver weights to make real packages less important, but I'm not sure we "got" anywhere, per se.  We identified the (obvious) misbehaviour, but not a solution.
[13:32] <cjwatson> I think I also suggested Debug::pkgProblemResolver=1 as the next step
[20:16] <phillw> cjwatson: are you about?
[20:59] <rtg> infinity, do you know the name for the 12.04.2 desktop and server seeds ? I wanna find out for sure what kernel meta-packages were used.
[21:00] <infinity> rtg: If you want to know, you don't want the seeds (they change over time), you want the actual ISOs.
[21:00] <infinity> rtg: Nothing other than the ISO is "12.04.2", the archive moves on.
[21:01] <infinity> rtg: http://releases.ubuntu.com/12.04.2/ubuntu-12.04.2-desktop-amd64.manifest
[21:01] <rtg> infinity, surely the current seed is still the same ? I'll check the manifest.
[21:02] <infinity> rtg: I haven't changed the current seed.  On the other hand, the seeds only dictate d-i images.  Desktop/live images don't pull by ABI at all.
[21:02] <infinity> rtg: My point was that I'll be changing the seeds soon, and the images are the only authority on what made 12.04.2
[21:03] <slangasek>  * Signed-Kernel-Stem: linux-signed linux-signed-image
[21:03] <slangasek>  * ${Signed-Kernel-Stem}-generic-lts-quantal [amd64]
[21:03] <slangasek> that's what's in the live seed
[21:03] <rtg> infinity, so the issue is that linux-generic-lts-quantal was used as the meta-package. I was sure I had a bug open with a 12.04.2 milestone to make sure linux-image-hwe-generic was used.
[21:03] <slangasek> which I think is probably what you're actually interested in
[21:04] <infinity> rtg: Oh, fun.
[21:04] <rtg> right, gonna make rolling forward awkward
[21:04] <infinity> rtg: Not awkward if we just make lts-quantal depend on the next big thing later.
[21:05] <rtg> infinity, correct, but that is going to be exception wrt to our kernel process.
[21:05] <rtg> exceptional*
[21:05] <infinity> See /msg
[21:29] <utlemming> infinity: who might I ping over a neglected SRU? I put one in nearly two weeks ago, and it has sat with out any love.
[21:29] <infinity> utlemming: Possibly me.
[21:30] <utlemming> infinity: Bug #1111690 is the one.
[21:30] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1111690 in walinuxagent (Ubuntu Quantal) "[SRU] walinuxagent IsPackaged() logic is broken, runs two instances of waagent" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1111690
[21:40] <infinity> utlemming: Ahh, the "ignoring" there is that no one uploaded it, yes?  You probably wanted ubuntu-sponsors subscribed for that to happen.
[21:40] <infinity> utlemming: I can look at it, though.
[21:42] <phillw> infinity: did you see the fix for bug 1128597 pass today? the little critter is still there.
[21:42] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1128597 in ubiquity (Ubuntu) "ubiquity-dm crashed with TypeError in run(): Can't convert 'bool' object to str implicitly" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1128597
[21:42] <utlemming> infinity: :) oh, I missed that part
[21:43] <infinity> phillw: xnox said he'd commit a fix, didn't he?  These things aren't instant.
[21:44] <phillw> infinity: (23:35:53) xnox: don't worry about it, I will commit a fix in a minute.
[21:44] <infinity> phillw: Yes, I see that you posted that in the bug log an hour ago.
[21:45] <phillw> as it stopping lubuntu desktop amd64 even trying to install, I had hoped it would be in for the next spin... :/7
[21:48] <phillw> infinity: I was expecting a fix-released, so thought it would be in todays automatic re-spin. Hence my only now commenting on the bug. I thought it had been 'nailed to the cross' and vanquished.
[21:49] <infinity> phillw: There's a branch linked to the bug.  xnox hasn't merged it and uploaded yet, hence it's not Fix Released.  Patience.
[21:50] <phillw> infinity: okies, boss! Just that we cannot test the ISO's affected. :)
[21:51] <slangasek> xnox: bug #1128597> doesn't look like the fix has been committed yet; you think you'll get to it yet today?
[21:51] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1128597 in ubiquity (Ubuntu) "ubiquity-dm crashed with TypeError in run(): Can't convert 'bool' object to str implicitly" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1128597
[21:58] <infinity> utlemming: Uploaded backports for P and Q for that bug.
[21:58] <utlemming> infinity: awesome, thank you. I'll get to verifying those asap
[21:59] <infinity> utlemming: Well, someone needs to accept them still.  But, if you verify my diffs match what you expect, I can self-accept, since it was basically your upload.
[22:01] <utlemming> infinity: ack
[22:01] <infinity> utlemming: Want to poke those in the queue and see if they're what you expect?
[22:01] <utlemming> infinity: yeah, I'm looking at the queue now...still pending
[22:26] <utlemming> infinity: I see the precise one, and its good, but I haven't seen quantal enter the queue
[22:27] <infinity> utlemming: It's in unapproved.
[22:27] <infinity> utlemming: You're probably looking at new.
[22:27] <infinity> (They should be identical except for changelogs anyway)
[22:27] <utlemming> infinity: and that one looks good
[22:27] <utlemming> infinity: so the uploads both look good
[22:29] <infinity> utlemming: Alright, will accept in a sec.
[23:20] <phillw> infinity: I'm sorry to be a pain, but bug 1111690 is showing as
[23:20] <phillw>  Launchpad.netNot allowed hereSorry, you don't have permission to access this page or the information in this page is not shared with you.You are logged in as Phill Whiteside.
[23:20] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1111690 in walinuxagent (Ubuntu Quantal) "[SRU] walinuxagent IsPackaged() logic is broken, runs two instances of waagent" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1111690
[23:21] <phillw> I'm just trying to show some new comers about a bug being fixed and released, with the bug status being updated....
[23:27] <infinity> phillw: It's not a private bug... If it was, the bot wouldn't be able to read it.
[23:27] <infinity> phillw: Are you sure you didn't mistype it?
[23:28] <SergioMeneses> hello infinity but I have the same issue
[23:28] <infinity> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/walinuxagent/+bug/1111690
[23:28] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 1111690 in walinuxagent (Ubuntu Quantal) "[SRU] walinuxagent IsPackaged() logic is broken, runs two instances of waagent" [High,Fix committed]
[23:28] <infinity> ^--- That doesn't work for you?
[23:28] <cjwatson> Apparently it's due to a private blueprint link
[23:28] <SergioMeneses> infinity, no
[23:29] <infinity> cjwatson: That's... Silly.  Really?
[23:29] <cjwatson> The bug itself is public and information on it can be retrieved over the API
[23:29] <SergioMeneses> it says: not allowed here
[23:29] <cjwatson> But if you try to render the whole thing you hit the private bp
[23:30]  * infinity just unlinks it.
[23:31] <infinity> SergioMeneses: Better now?
[23:32] <cjwatson> It really ought to, I don't know, just not render the bp link or something
[23:32] <infinity> Ideally, yes.
[23:32] <phillw> infinity: it allows access now,
[23:32] <SergioMeneses> infinity, perfect!
[23:33] <phillw> just something I was not expecting on a progress of a big.
[23:33] <phillw> *bug*
[23:38] <phillw> cjwatson: and infinity can we safely leave that 'bug' about the 'private bp' for you to sort out. I have inadvertantly picked a wrong bug to follow 'live'.
[23:38] <infinity> phillw: It's unlinked from the blueprint now, should be fine.
[23:40] <phillw> infinity: what is is this linking? I'm about up to speed on bugs being made private, but not for one vanishing with such a report.
[23:41] <infinity> phillw: Bugs can be linked to blueprints.  When they are, the bug page shows a link to the blueprint.  If the blueprint is private, that causes the whole bug page to go kaboom.
[23:41] <infinity> phillw: It's a misfeature, to be sure.  As Colin says, it should probably just not render the link.
[23:42] <phillw> infinity: in the case of 'general bugs' going private, it is asked that they ask the bug-team. In this rare case, should they ask here?
[23:43] <cjwatson> no.  probably #launchpad or something
[23:43] <cjwatson> #ubuntu-release isn't generally a sensible bug escalation channel
[23:43] <cjwatson> we've just occasionally used it as such for image showstoppers around release time
[23:44] <phillw> cjwatson: and what should they inform them of? I know ubuntu-release is not the correct channel. You guys and gals have enough on your plate!
[23:46] <phillw> Having the correct procedures in place means we can tell people 'where to go' (Which I'm sure you would like to tell me often :) )
[23:46] <cjwatson> I can't give you a general answer to that because it sort of depends exactly what the problem is; I'm not prepared to state that all mysteriously private bugs are due to the same problem!
[23:47] <cjwatson> somebody is going to have to work out that the bug appears to be private to the web UI and yet public over the API (e.g. to the bot that generates pending-sru.html)
[23:47] <cjwatson> In general this sort of thing is likely to need somebody who at least moderately understands LP to apply a degree of creative thinking
[23:48] <infinity> Or, at the very least, someone who can see the bug.
[23:48] <cjwatson> I'm sure somebody in #ubuntu-bugs can be found who can manage that
[23:48] <cjwatson> (Or similar channels)
[23:48] <phillw> cjwatson: so, would it be reasonable to ask them to head to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/Testing#My_Bug_went_Private
[23:49] <cjwatson> that doesn't look like a sensible URL for general advice on these matters
[23:49] <cjwatson> unless it's specifically for Lubuntu people
[23:49] <cjwatson> But sure, the advice there is fine
[23:49] <phillw> yeah, ditto. Thanks guys, I'll get things updated cjwatson it was the link as to where to go I was referring to :)
[23:50] <cjwatson> #ubuntu-bugs may not be able to resolve everything but they should at least know whom to ask
[23:52] <phillw> again, thanks. I'll leave you good people in peace. Just send out a hunting party for xnox :D