[08:34] <tseliot> any archive admins around?
[08:35] <stgraber> tseliot: I'm sort of here (at a conference)
[08:36] <tseliot> stgraber: I have some packages approved for an SRU but the binaries are stuck in NEW (precise-proposed)
[08:36] <stgraber> tseliot: ah, ok, I'll take a quick look then
[08:37] <tseliot> stgraber: nvidia-prime, fglrx-pxpress, nvidia-graphics-drivers-319, nvidia-graphics-drivers-319-updates, nvidia-graphics-drivers-304, nvidia-graphics-drivers-304-updates, nvidia-graphics-drivers-173-updates, nvidia-settings-319, nvidia-settings-319-updates, nvidia-settings-304, nvidia-settings-304-updates, nvidia-persistenced, fglrx-installer-updates, fglrx-installer-experimental-13
[08:38] <tseliot> stgraber: nvidia-prime and fglrx-pxpress belong in main, the nvdia and fglrx drivers in restricted, nvidia-settings* in main (same as nvidia-persistenced)
[08:41] <stgraber> tseliot: hmm, fglrx-pxpress is in universe in saucy
[08:42] <tseliot> stgraber: I have a MIR for that, let me find the bug report...
[08:43] <stgraber> tseliot: hmm, I'm not fond of the idea of promoting this in the LTS before it's done in the dev release...
[08:44] <tseliot> stgraber: I guess the MIR hasn't been approved yet. Using universe should be ok for now, I'll have the packages moved as soon as the MIR is approved
[08:44] <stgraber> ok, accepting to universe for now then
[08:46] <tseliot> thanks
[08:46] <tseliot> didrocks: please have a look at bug #1204820 when you can
[08:46] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1204820 in nvidia-prime (Ubuntu) "[MIR] nvidia-prime & fglrx-pxpress" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1204820
[08:48] <stgraber> tseliot: all done
[08:48] <tseliot> stgraber: excellent, thanks!
[08:49] <stgraber> (restarting queuebot as it didn't notice)
[08:55] <didrocks> tseliot: looks both good. is anything build-dep on them or will you add them to the support seed?
[08:56] <tseliot> didrocks: nothing really depends on them now
[08:56] <didrocks> tseliot: ok, please add them to the support seed then
[08:56] <didrocks> then, once pushed, I'll promote them
[08:58] <tseliot> didrocks: I'm not sure how to do that or why
[08:58] <didrocks> tseliot: if we don't do that, nothing will pin them in main
[08:58] <didrocks> and so someone will demote them
[09:00] <tseliot> didrocks: ok, so maybe either supported-hardware-common or supported-hardware-desktop?
[09:01] <didrocks> tseliot: oh, I don't know those, I'm sued to "supported" in bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/ubuntu.saucy/, but if there is anything else
[09:01] <didrocks> tseliot: just push to the one which makes sense and give me a sign so that I do the promotion
[09:02] <tseliot> didrocks: ok, shall I do that for precise too? (the packages are also in precise-proposed)
[09:02] <didrocks> tseliot: yeah
[09:02] <tseliot> didrocks: ok, good
[09:03] <didrocks> tseliot: but wait for it to be out of proposed to remember me to promote it there as well
[09:03] <didrocks> (the override is lost between proposed and update if it's the same than proposed -> release)
[09:03] <tseliot> didrocks: ok
[09:14] <tseliot> didrocks: ok, I've just committed revision 2152 for saucy, so the two packages should be pinned
[09:14] <didrocks> tseliot: thanks! promoting
[09:15] <tseliot> didrocks: great, thanks!
[09:16] <didrocks> tseliot: yw, done :)
[09:17] <tseliot> :)
[09:24] <stgraber> tseliot: ok, I'll promote it in precise too then
[09:25] <tseliot> stgraber: ok, thanks
[09:27] <stgraber> tseliot: done
[09:27] <tseliot> stgraber: great, thanks again :)
[09:35] <tseliot> stgraber: BTW, is nvidia-persistenced in saucy?
[09:35] <stgraber> tseliot: doesn't look like it
[09:36] <tseliot> stgraber: it was reviewed by cjwatson, then I applied his changes, reuploaded but it was never reviewed or approved again
[12:06] <rtg> infinity, are you ready to promote linux 3.11 ?
[12:53] <tseliot> stgraber: still around?
[12:55] <stgraber> tseliot: yeah
[12:55] <tseliot> stgraber: I don't see fglrx-installer-experimental-13 in precise-proposed
[12:56] <tseliot> (same bug report)
[12:56] <tseliot> i.e. 1198942
[12:57] <stgraber> tseliot: I only processed the new binaries this morning, not new sources. fglrx-installer-experimental-13 is a new source pending review in precise-proposed
[12:57] <stgraber> (so is nvidia-persistenced apparently)
[12:57] <tseliot> stgraber: oh, so they haven't been approved yet
[12:57] <stgraber> right
[12:58] <tseliot> ok, I should probably ask slangasek about that then
[12:58] <stgraber> tseliot: is fglrx-installer-experimental-13 mostly an identical copy from saucy? if so, I can confirm that part and let it in based on that, otherwise I don't think I've got the time to do a full New review of it
[12:59] <tseliot> stgraber: fglrx-installer-experimental-13 is the same as fglrx and fglrx-updates in saucy
[12:59] <stgraber> tseliot: note that cjwatson, doko, slangasek and I are all at Debconf this week, so it may be difficult for us to find enough time in a row to do a full New review
[13:00] <tseliot> oh
[13:00] <stgraber> tseliot: ok, I'll grab the saucy source and do a diff, if they seem sufficiently identical (just obvious packaging changes), I'll let it in and then let its binaries in too
[13:00] <tseliot> stgraber: thanks a lot
[13:16] <stgraber> ae8f805e52508dd2fde55be3dc7dffd1  fglrx-installer-updates_13.101.orig.tar.gz
[13:16] <stgraber> 12ae4dc15542382eb0c119729af6fd70  ../precise/fglrx-installer-experimental-13_13.101.orig.tar.gz
[13:16] <stgraber> tseliot: ^
[13:18] <stgraber> ok, they're actually identical except for the precise one being shifted one level (no top level fglrx-installer in that tarball)
[13:21] <stgraber> -PATCH_MATCH[0]="^3.[10-11]"
[13:21] <stgraber> +PATCH_MATCH[0]="^3.[10]"
[13:21] <stgraber> tseliot: ^ is that going to be a problem once we backport the saucy kernel to precise?
[13:23] <stgraber> tseliot: debian/pxpress also indicates some code that's in precise but not in saucy (_find_process function and code to call dpkg --configure -a)
[13:24] <slangasek> tseliot: is fglrx-installer-experimental-13 already in saucy?
[13:24] <stgraber> besides that the rest seems mostly identical to saucy's
[13:24] <slangasek> ah, so it is
[13:24] <slangasek> stgraber: thanks for tending :)
[13:24] <stgraber> slangasek: as fglrx-installer-updates, yes
[13:48] <tseliot> stgraber: that would be a problem for 12.04.4, it shouldn't be for 12.04.3 (Which won't ship 3.11)
[13:48] <tseliot> stgraber: that part of code (debian/pxpress) is only used when called from jockey and there's no jockey in saucy
[13:49] <tseliot> slangasek: no, but the same driver is in fglrx and fglrx-updates (it only has a different name)
[13:55] <stgraber> tseliot: ok, thanks for the answers. I'll let it in now (the rest indeed is a copy + rename)
[13:55] <tseliot> stgraber: right, thanks
[14:01] <rtg> stgraber, do you have time to promote Saucy linux from -proposed ?
[14:02] <cjwatson> That isn't a manual task
[14:02] <cjwatson> Except in that it needs some problem resolved
[14:02] <stgraber> let me check what we're missing, is that just d-i?
[14:02] <rtg> stgraber, it might be, but I'm not sure.
[14:03] <cjwatson> d-i's missing (Adam was going to do it today, I thought), and I think it's also mysteriously hung up on an autopkgtest
[14:03]  * cjwatson fires up the VPN
[14:03] <stgraber> hmm, indeed, stuck on autopkgtest
[14:03] <cjwatson> Spuriously - I think I'll force it
[14:03] <rtg> cjwatson, it is a major transition from 3.10 to 3.11
[14:04] <cjwatson> I know
[14:04] <cjwatson> But proposed-migration doesn't care about that :)
[14:05] <cjwatson> I'll sort out d-i
[14:07] <stgraber> cjwatson: will you also do the seed changes?
[14:08] <cjwatson> Yes
[14:08] <ScottK> It looks like there's a mess around linphone/sipwitch that needs ucommon ported to a newer GNUtls (not done upstream yet).
[14:08] <ScottK> Way beyond me to sort out.
[14:16] <jbicha> we can clear up the linphone situation by removing ucommon 6 from Debian since it may take a while for the Debian maintainer to get around to fixing http://bugs.debian.org/716855
[14:16] <ubot2`> Debian bug 716855 in libucommon-dev "libucomon-dev: Dependency on libgnutls28-dev makes sflphone unbuildable" [Important,Open]
[14:16] <jbicha> *remove ucommon from -proposed and then rebuild sipwitch
[14:16] <ScottK> Except ucommon doesn't build with libgnutls-dev
[14:17] <ScottK> Oh.
[14:17]  * ScottK tries.
[14:18] <jbicha> I've so far been unsuccessful at convincing the Debian maintainer that it's a big problem
[14:19] <ScottK> Lovely.
[14:29] <ScottK> jbicha: The current sipwitch in proposed doesn't build with the older ucommon.  So I think both have to go.  Trying that now.
[14:30] <ScottK> Nope.  That fails on the newer libexosip.
[14:32] <jbicha> ScottK: oh :(
[14:32] <ScottK> I think the whole lot needs to go.
[14:33] <jbicha> if we cared enough, we could add a ucommon5 source package...
[14:37] <ScottK> No, I don't think that would do it.
[14:38] <ScottK> sipwitch depends ucommon >= 6
[14:48] <jbicha> ScottK: I mean have both ucommon and ucommon5 so that packages could build with whichever one they need...but I didn't test that either
[15:26] <ScottK> Cleared out.
[15:54] <ScottK> Doesn't seem to have made anything worse.
[16:01] <infinity> rtg: Yeahp, I'll get it shoved along after my morning meeting.
[16:02] <rtg> infinity, too late, cjwatson already gave it the nudge it needed
[16:03] <infinity> rtg: Oh.  So he did.
[16:04] <rtg> infinity, he updated d-i, and I just received emails that all have been promoted
[16:05]  * infinity nods.
[16:05] <rtg> now, I'm gonna upload -rc5.
[16:05] <infinity> I just twiddled the seeds to match, since I didn't get to mucking with making that all work automagically over the weekend.
[16:11] <cjwatson> ta, I had it uncommitted for when it landed