[16:40] <ScottK> infinity: ^^^ fixed.
[18:34] <bdmurray> slangasek, infinity: could one of you remove libappindicator from precise-proposed fixing bug 1122596 due to a lack of verification?
[18:34] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1122596 in libappindicator (Ubuntu Precise) "Race condition in app_indicator_init() causes application crash" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1122596
[18:35] <bdmurray> and consolekit (bug 1130923) for the same reason
[18:35] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1130923 in consolekit (Ubuntu Precise) "consolekit: ck-get-x11-display-device segmentation fault" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1130923
[18:35] <infinity> bdmurray: Can we try to ping the uploader first?
[18:36] <bdmurray> infinity: I am the uploader
[18:36] <infinity> Oh, so you are. :P
[18:37] <infinity> bdmurray: Can it be verified via the crashdb signature not affecting the new version?
[18:37] <infinity> bdmurray: For the appindicator race, that is.
[18:39] <bdmurray> infinity: Yes, I'd think so but I don't know what the crash signature is (that particular bug is not an apport crash)
[18:39] <infinity> bdmurray: As for the CK one, if the patch was identical for both P and Q, I'd hate to throw away the P upload because the reporter was running Q.
[18:40] <infinity> I think this might be a case where we could check the crashdb to see if the new version appears to have been horribly misbuilt and crashy in precise-proposed, compare the diffs, and if all looks well, let 'er in.
[18:44] <zul> can someone promote python-oslo.sphinx please (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/oslo-sphinx/+bug/1199872)
[18:44] <ubot2`> Ubuntu bug 1199872 in oslo-sphinx (Ubuntu) "[MIR] oslo-sphinx" [High,Fix released]
[18:44] <bdmurray> I agree, however looking at errors there aren't many crashes about libappindicator
[18:44] <bdmurray> https://errors.ubuntu.com/?package=libappindicator&period=year
[18:46] <infinity> Curious.  I wonder which crash report the submitter was referring to. :/
[18:47] <bdmurray> "#2 cause of crashes in the Steam client"?
[18:48] <infinity> Oh.  Right, library crash.  Probably being misattributed to binaries linking it.
[18:48] <infinity> Always fun.
[18:48] <bdmurray> Either way I think we should do something with these two
[18:48] <infinity> That does make it harder to hunt down. :(
[18:49] <infinity> I think the consolekit one isn't contentious at all.  If the patch matches the verified quantal patch, and it's not an explodey spike of bad on errors, just release it.
[18:50] <seb128> infinity, bdmurray: why do we reject fixes we thing are good, if they don't create regression?
[18:50] <infinity> But the appindicator one is a bit stickier.  Hard-to-reproduce-but-obvious-races like that probably just need a few eyes for secondary review, then a regression test (ie: it no blowy up more than the last one), and a release.
[18:50] <seb128> even if they don't get verified there is a chance they do what we think they should do
[18:50] <seb128> thing->think
[18:50] <infinity> seb128: To be fair, there's been no followup on the bug at all, not even someone saying "been running this for a few weeks with no regression", which I would probably accept as "verification" for this sort of bug.
[18:51] <seb128> well, people not having issues don't tend to go look for bug reports to confirm they don't exist
[18:51] <infinity> seb128: No, but the submitter might. :P
[18:51] <infinity> (Or the uploader... *looks at bdmurray*)
[19:05] <infinity> That was one heck of a quick NEW review...
[19:07] <seb128> infinity, yeah, it was reviewed from the ppa before being synced over
[19:08] <infinity> Fair enough.
[20:13] <stgraber> slangasek: OVMF testing of that latest desktop image looked good, all packages installed by default and used by default. I now pushed the first 3 packages to precise-proposed
[20:13] <stgraber> once accepted, built and published, I'll push the remaining two
[20:22] <stgraber> hmm, we have an existing ubiquity SRU in proposed... let's see if I can confirm those bugfixes so it can go away and make room for mine
[21:08] <stgraber> slangasek: do you have a minute to review those 3 packages ^
[21:08] <stgraber> slangasek: I'm testing the last ubiquity SRU now so once I'm done it can be moved to -updates (it's not a big issue to release on a Friday as we're not spinning updated media) then I can push the new ubiquity and grub2-signed and be done with this bug
[21:12] <slangasek> yep, reviewing now
[21:33] <stgraber> slangasek: I just confirmed the last SRU for ubiquity, so would be great if you could release it to -updates
[22:41] <slangasek> stgraber: so on grub2, ubuntu_shim_by_default.patch basically reverts half of ubuntu_install_signed.patch ... I think they ought to be merged into a single patch for sake of un-confusion.  Do you want to reupload, do you want me to make the change and reupload?
[22:41] <slangasek> well ok not half, but I definitely don't think they should be separate patches here
[22:41] <slangasek> stgraber: as for ubiquity SRU, yeah, I'll look at that as well
[22:45] <stgraber> slangasek: I made them separate because of Debian merging the first one later on (it's no longer an ubuntu_* patch in saucy) so I cherry-picked the patch as-is from saucy
[22:45] <stgraber> I don't mind merging them though, was actually trying to make things clearer by keeping the two separate :)
[22:47] <slangasek> stgraber: hmm.  ok, I still think it should be merged in as a single patch, but if the reality is that this is a delta from Debian and the other patch isn't, that's argument enough for me to accept it as-is for now
[23:57] <slangasek> stgraber: ok, packages all accepted and ubiquity moved along