[08:16] <Laney> cyphermox: I can't tell if light-themes needs a UIFe - does it or are these changes not relevant for desktop?
[08:50] <cjwatson> sigh, I so desperately wish we had binNMU support
[08:50] <Laney> been there
[08:52] <cjwatson> (I probably shouldn't have synced haskell-lifted-base yesterday)
[08:58] <cjwatson> could somebody wave through those haskell-*?  they're the bottom of a many-level stack
[09:02] <seb128> cjwatson, I can (it's ok for me to ack them right, no release team material there?)
[09:03] <Laney> too slow old man
[09:05] <seb128> Laney, being slow pays out, less work to do, you need to learn youngster :p
[09:08]  * Laney hangs his head in shame
[09:10] <iulian> Heh.
[09:13] <cjwatson> seb128: indeed I don't think there's any release team material in these
[09:20] <cjwatson> also could somebody please review libdebian-installer?  it's syncing up with current kernel layout
[09:20] <cjwatson> (I can't, I sponsored it)
[09:36] <ogra_> mknjl;ipo98oiuyjbn ·/[p#]=-09iuo,m @:}#[
[09:36] <jokerdino> hmm
[09:36] <jokerdino> that could be the password i wanted.
[09:47] <ogra_> jokerdino, heh, nope,  but probably the cat you want
[09:47] <jokerdino> it turns out to be a nice cat after all!
[09:48] <ogra_> she is a good pwgen :)
[09:48] <jokerdino> haha.
[09:48] <ogra_> (we feed her cryptic food at times ... that helps
[09:48] <ogra_> )
[09:48] <jokerdino> more entropy than the universe.
[09:54] <stgraber> cjwatson: taking a look
[09:56] <stgraber> done
[09:57] <cjwatson> ta
[09:58] <Daviey> cjwatson: You'd like binNMU to help with transitions?
[10:11] <cjwatson> yes
[10:12] <cjwatson> I sat down with the soyuz folks of the day about four or five years ago to thrash out a design, but implementing it never made it to the top of the list
[11:19]  * cjwatson accepts language packs
[11:21] <apw> infinity, new linux-{,-meta}lowlatency to match linux in the queue ^^
[11:32] <cjwatson> ^- next batch of rebuilds
[11:38] <cjwatson> would be helpful if somebody could process the haskell syncs in NEW too
[11:39] <Laney> what are they for?
[11:39] <cjwatson> if I'm very lucky I might be able to get this wrapped up today, or mostly so ...
[11:39] <cjwatson> deps of project-template
[11:39] <cjwatson> which was a dep of something I now forget
[11:39] <cjwatson> new yesod which works with new conduit, I think
[11:40] <Laney> aha, yes, yesod is depwait
[11:41] <cjwatson> haskell-strict-concurrency is IIRC FTBFS with GHC 7.6, but I'd sort of like to upload a rebuild so that the build failure is visible on LP before removing it - does that make sense to anyone else or am I just being anal?
[11:44] <cjwatson> also: it's becoming increasingly clear that the haskell stuff that was raising random signals in armhf builds is also stuff that build-depends on ghc-ghci
[11:44] <cjwatson> chell, shakespeare-css, ...
[11:49] <Laney> well, strict-concurrency was an easy fix ...
[11:49]  * Laney better upload that
[11:50]  * ogra_ would appreciate if someone could let livecd-rootfs free 
[11:51]  * apw would prefer linux*lowlatency was built with the same compilers that the main kernel was, ie started building before gcc-4.7 starts
[11:52] <ogra_> upload a -build1 ?
[11:52] <cjwatson> Laney: oh, ok
[11:52] <cjwatson> apw: will accept shortly
[11:52] <cjwatson> I was staying clear of livecd-rootfs since I contributed to that upload
[11:53] <Laney> There's a pattern to those OldException fixes, at least if they only use catch
[11:53] <cjwatson> who rejected gcc-4.7?
[11:53] <apw> cjwatson, i don't know who did, but there was two at the same version number in my listing
[11:53] <Laney> Move to Control.Exception and use a ScopedTypeVariable with IOException on the second argument
[11:53] <cjwatson> ah
[11:53] <Daviey> ogra_ / cjwatson: Approved livecd-rootfs
[11:53] <cjwatson> thanks
[11:53] <ogra_> thx
[11:54] <cjwatson> apw: just looking to see what's up with LP queue diff generation - it might just be behind due to lots of language packs
[11:55] <apw> cjwatson, np no rush
[11:56] <cjwatson> ah, process-pending-packagediffs has a limited maximum throughput of 50 packages every 12 minutes
[11:58] <doko_> cjwatson, me, uploaded a new one fixing #1168267
[11:59] <cjwatson> ok
[11:59] <doko_> would be nice to get these accepted before the weekend
[12:10] <cjwatson> doko: noted
[13:10] <cyphermox> Laney: yeah it's only changes for touch, doesn't affect desktop
[13:58] <rtg_> infinity, cjwatson, slangasek: please NEW the Nexus4 kernel and meta: linux-nexus4, linux-meta-nexus4
[14:17] <stgraber> the ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu diff is likely pretty long but should be reasonable once you ignore all the translation updates, then you should just be left with the removal of the skype icon
[14:19] <cjwatson> stgraber: ack
[14:34] <Laney> Does UIF cover Xubuntu too or are they supposed to handle docs themselves?
[14:35] <Laney> They want to change their default wallpaper
[14:37] <slangasek> Laney: I'm not aware of anything going through ubuntu-docs that would be impacted by Xubuntu - I guess I would turn the question back to them and just make sure they're confident they've done any coordination they need to
[14:37] <slangasek> since UIF is all about "don't change without coordinating with the relevant doc/translation folks"
[14:39] <Laney> Yeah. I'll say something like that, just thought I'd see if anyone knew offhand.
[14:49] <bdmurray> cjwatson: could you have a look at my sru-report merge proposal? https://code.launchpad.net/~brian-murray/ubuntu-archive-tools/gray-removals/+merge/158502
[14:51] <cjwatson> bdmurray: trying to figure out how "if m_date.replace(tzinfo=None) < today - datetime.timedelta(16):" matches up with your description of "If a bug is tagged removal-candidate (not been verified for more than 90 days)"
[14:51] <bdmurray> cjwatson: it gets tagged removal candidate after 90 days and says will be removed in 15 days
[14:51] <cjwatson> (a) doesn't seem to relate to tags (b) seems to be 16 days not 90?
[14:52] <cjwatson> oh
[14:52] <cjwatson> right, gotcha
[14:52] <bdmurray> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/print-manager/+bug/1091340/comments/7
[14:52] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1091340 in print-manager (Ubuntu Quantal) "print-manager spams .xsession-errors" [Undecided,Fix committed]
[14:52] <cjwatson> ah, the commits make it clearer
[14:53] <bdmurray> I should have been clearer in the description, sorry.
[14:53] <slangasek> rtg_: hi, re: linux-nexus4, how is this being used in the context of raring?  Is this on the same footing with linux-nexus7 (universe, no security support)?
[14:53] <cjwatson> bdmurray: should we perhaps be checking the tag and not the message?
[14:53] <rtg_> slangasek, yes AFAIK
[14:54] <cjwatson> bdmurray: ah, never mind, doesn't matter due to the > published_date check
[14:54] <bdmurray> cjwatson: the message has a date associated with it and the tag doesn't (unless you parse the activity log). although we could double check the tag.
[14:54] <cjwatson> bdmurray: merged
[14:57] <bdmurray> thanks
[17:03] <slangasek> rtg_: other q... having these kernels in the archive doesn't mean someone's expecting us to suddenly have nexus4 images released with 13.04, does it?
[17:04] <rtg_> slangasek, the intent is to have Ubuntu touch images based on kernels from the archive. I'm working on getting flash-kernel to work on the N4 and N7 devices.
[17:04] <slangasek> ok
[17:04] <slangasek> rtg_: does that mean these kernels are both androided up?
[17:05] <rtg_> slangasek, it'll likely be a few weeks before the touch images actually use these kernels, but I'm laying the groundwork. The N4 kernel actually works on the device. We've still got some issues with the N7 kernel.
[17:05] <slangasek> ok
[17:05] <rtg_> so, yeah, they are androided up
[17:07] <slangasek> rtg_: anyway, just making sure there's no expectation for a last-minute n4 image - it's fine to have the kernels in universe in the meantime
[17:07] <rtg_> slangasek, no expectation as far as I know.
[17:09] <ogra_> rtg_, btw, has the last linux-nexus7 been tested on the n7 desktop images to make sure we didnt regress ?
[17:10] <rtg_> ogra_, AFAIK Paolo is still working on the touchscreen issue. I think the desktop image works, but not touch image.
[17:10] <ogra_> regarding our discussion in #ubuntu-touch i'm a bit worried now
[17:11] <ogra_> ok
[17:11] <ogra_> just wanting to make ksure there didnt sneak the wrong android config options in (paraniod network would be a desaster)
[17:11] <rtg_> ogra_, do we have a desktop image for the N4 ?
[17:11] <ogra_> nope
[17:12] <slangasek> no, nor should we
[17:12] <rtg_> good, thats what I thought
[17:12] <ogra_> and we might drop the n7 one to not clash with the kernel stuff in 13.10
[17:12] <ogra_> (not sure though, we need *one* desktop image and need to decide which HW that will run on)
[17:35] <balloons> so, I'm curious what the timetable for the rc milestone will be
[17:35] <balloons> who's going to run it? when can I expect it to appear? I want to line up testing properly :-)
[17:36] <ogra_> there is an RC ?
[17:36] <ogra_> i mean ... a specific milestone
[17:37]  * ogra_ thought the last beta was the last milestone until final
[17:39] <ScottK> It is
[17:39] <slangasek> ogra_: we have the desktop image for Panda still
[17:39] <balloons> I thought so too, but the release schedule lies to me.. Or I'm misreading it :-)
[17:39] <balloons> so I thought I'd come confirm and see what's up
[17:40] <slangasek> balloons: where do you see this?  Let's fix it
[17:40] <slangasek> tjaalton, balloons: btw, any progress on the mesa testing question?
[17:40] <balloons> slangasek, yes, indeed.. I think tjaalton is gone by now. But we've had representative testing from all vendors
[17:41] <balloons> lots of intel coverage too.. no issues reported by anyone :-)
[17:41] <balloons> slangasek, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RaringRingtail/ReleaseSchedule.. notice it has release canidate on april 18th
[17:42] <ogra_> slangasek, in 13.10 ?
[17:43] <ogra_> slangasek, the kernel will start smelling by then
[17:43] <slangasek> ogra_: it smells already ;)
[17:43] <ogra_> its already moldy
[17:43] <balloons> slangasek, let's see.. 2 amd, 2 nvidia, and 6 intel, plus some virtual machine testing :-)
[17:43] <ogra_> and pray that we dont need some new kernel features for udev or upstart :)
[17:44] <slangasek> ogra_: well, it's already missing kernel features that upstart /wants/... I don't expect our kernel requirements to uplift further in that regard
[17:45] <ogra_> no, but udev is usually really evil if it comes to such stuff ... upstart has always been graceful here
[17:45] <ScottK> balloons: That's not a milestone.  That's when we start working images for the release milestone.
[17:45] <ogra_> i doubt anyone will want  to invest time into that image
[17:45] <slangasek> balloons: so yeah, we still refer to "release candidate" there, and it accurately describes what we're doing, but it's not a milestone... I think I'm going to leave the pages as-is for right now
[17:46] <ogra_> anyway, 13.10 is still far out ...  :)
[17:46] <balloons> slangasek, ScottK no worries.. you just asked why I was confused :-) So we'll simply test dailies as planned
[17:48] <slangasek> ogra_: we're certainly not going to invest tremendous amounts of effort into panda going forward, no; only the minimum needed to ensure we can continue validating the desktop stack on arm, and when that becomes too time-consuming we can look at other approaches but there's no point second-guessing the plan because some other component *might* become incompatible with that kernel
[17:48] <slangasek> ogra_: bear in mind that we've got android BSP kernels in the mix now, too... the panda 3.5.0 is not the worst kernel we have to deal with in terms of Ubuntu userspace compatibility
[17:50] <ogra_> slangasek, heh, true
[17:51] <ogra_> i would personally prefer an n7 desktop image though, because the tegra driver is lots easier to handle (and we have confirmation from nvidia to support the next xserver) ...
[17:52] <ogra_> but that would likely mean two kernels
[18:23] <knome> Laney, slangasek: i think steve is right. i've never really seen anything related to xubuntu in other than xubuntu, or online, docs
[18:28] <Laney> knome: Okey doke. You could check with the docs team if you want, but it's up to you.
[18:30] <knome> i'll do them personal favors and send cookies if there's anything that affects them i'm not aware of.
[18:30] <knome> i think it's fine
[18:34] <xnox> knome: have you seen bug 1163504 lubuntu artwork package is using trademarked icon without permission (skype)
[18:34] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1163504 in lubuntu-artwork (Ubuntu Raring) "Trademarked assets" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1163504
[18:34] <knome> xnox, no, and i'm also not very much on top of lubuntu's development
[18:35] <knome> xnox, is there something i can do for the bug though=
[18:35] <knome> ?
[18:35] <xnox> hmm... sorry thought you are in lubuntu as well.
[18:35] <xnox> need to find relevant people, or I will simply upload.
[18:37] <knome> nope :)
[18:37] <knome> would you be willing to help with the xubuntu package as well?
[18:37] <knome> our next task is to find a sponsor for that one...
[18:43] <knome> (and we have another one waiting as well :/)
[18:43] <knome> (that's a bugfix, but needs sponsoring)
[19:00] <phillw> xnox: I was led to believe that lubuntu need take no actions over the trademark issue?
[19:01] <phillw> I do recall asking :)
[19:30] <tjaalton> slangasek, balloons: yep, the mesa testing seems to go fine
[19:31] <slangasek> tjaalton, balloons: IIRC the target I asked for was "4 different subfamilies for each major chipset, plus binary driver regression testing" - are we going to reach that?
[19:32] <tjaalton> slangasek: binary drivers aren't affected, but seeing more radeon/nouveau testing would be nice
[19:33] <slangasek> tjaalton: so when binary drivers are in use, there's no mesa code loaded in memory by any programs?
[19:33] <slangasek> if so, then full ack
[19:33] <phillw> xnox: I'm the 'other' person on release managers for lubuntu, https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-product-managers
[19:33] <tjaalton> slangasek: right, they have their own libGL
[19:37] <tjaalton> slangasek: i'll prepare the official upload after the weekend, thanks
[19:55] <tjaalton> slangasek: can I include a commit or two to fix known bugs? or take this as golden and sru the rest?
[19:56] <slangasek> tjaalton: I think we would want to review those extra commits separately since they're not currently undergoing user testing
[19:56] <slangasek> tjaalton: doesn't mean we can't have them in, but they should definitely be called out separately on the FFe bug
[19:57] <slangasek> tjaalton: also, I feel strongly that the radeon/nouveau testing is more than "would be nice", I think it's essential that it happen
[19:57] <slangasek> tjaalton: did we get any lab testing of this, like was discussed?
[19:58] <tjaalton> slangasek: aiui not yet, balloons?
[19:59] <balloons> slangasek: tjaalton no no lab testing.. It was non-trivial to do so. but I do have a list of potential machines
[19:59] <balloons> it's not setup like I thought it would be to facilitate this easily
[19:59] <balloons> I plan to discuss this at the next UDS :-)
[20:00] <tjaalton> slangasek: we'll prepare 9.1.2 as first sru, so no problem doing another round then
[20:06] <tjaalton> k, back to wknd mode :)
[23:48] <phillw> any of the release team about for a real short chat?