[00:02] shouldn't it be backported to precise LTS too? [00:02] don't know how to add an Affects line [00:04] gg0: as a normal user you can't, if you tell me what's affected I'll nominate it for those series' of Ubuntu, but you have to confirm that those versions are affected [00:06] ok [00:23] teward: ok i confirm that both #1266088 and #1266089 affect all releases since precise _included_ (all prerm and postinst scripts in question have same md5checksum) [00:36] gg0: nominated both bugs for P, Q, R, S, and T. it wouldn't hurt to mark that you tested the bugs and found that all those releases are affected by it [00:40] done [00:48] about bug #1253468, it's harder [00:48] bug 1253468 in gnash (Ubuntu Saucy) "gnash: youtube play with ffmpeg media handler broken on wheezy" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1253468 [00:50] gg0: as i said you have to test each version of the software there to determine whether it's affected, Q, R, S, and T are listed as affected, but I suspect xnox did that, they may know something you and I don't. [00:52] i'm doing that from chroots. and it behaves a bit differently than debian ones [00:55] i mean that it seems affected on all included P but when i workaround it as described in bug description i can't see any video, everything black, though movie seems stating because progress bar moves [00:56] plus, on P seems even gstreamer handler is broken, would need further debug [00:58] btw easy to test and workaround if you take a look at bug description [00:58] i'd like to know how it behaves on your ubuntu machine [01:01] well mine's 12.04 so probably the same :P [01:02] give it a try, it doesn't bite [01:03] nah, too busy dealing with spambots in other channels [01:03] exactly what i meant, machine that hosts chroots [01:07] gg0: this is why I like CLI output - http://paste.ubuntu.com/6806038/ [01:08] gg0: however, the workaround they propose does work in 12.04 [01:08] but this isn't a chroot test :P [01:08] * teward doesn't test bugs in chroots, he tests in VMs normally :P [01:08] fortunately my computer is 12.04 so i don't need a VM :) [01:09] might be i had a temporary network problem [01:10] nice [01:11] but i don't think you also have a Q R S T machine :p [01:11] that's what the VMs are for :P [01:11] * teward has a Q, R, S, and T VM [01:11] s/a Q/Q/ [01:11] s/VM/VMs/ [01:11] good. time to fire them up and test it again them :) [01:12] s/them/then/ [01:14] no need, Triaged usually means confirmed / ready for work on it :p [01:14] btw test in question worked great on debian chroots on a debian machine, just such black screen on ubuntu chroots [01:15] * teward shrugs [01:15] I'll leave our comments for xnox, they'll probably see them when they unlurk and be able to provide additional comments [01:16] * teward tends to his sbuild chroots which're still failing [01:19] builds cannot fail, patch is tiny and all changes are ifdef'ed depending on libav versions [01:20] well, "builds" can fail [01:20] which is why part of SRUing is build testing [01:20] either in a PPA or in sbuild or pbuilder [01:20] but apparently I broke my sbuild chroots [01:20] again [01:20] s [01:20] so i'm just gonna nuke em and rebuild them from scratch [01:20] and NOT modify them :P [01:20] *builds with patch in question [01:21] gg0: i'm too thorough a triager, i ALWAYS build-test :P [01:21] downside is it takes almost an hour to build in sbuild on my system, but meh [01:23] gg0: I'd rather not intrude on xnox's assigned bugs, though, outside of testing, so you can suggest things all you want, I'm still going to wait for xnox :) [01:24] i don't think it did anything else than what he wrote/we can see [01:24] s/it/he/ [01:25] * teward shrugs, and goes back to rebuilding schroots [01:25] ok thanks for now [01:26] we'll see whemever he'll come back from vacation in a couple of months :p [01:26] *whenever [01:33] anyway #1266088 and #1266089 are not assigned, you wouldn't hijack anything [01:33] thanks for yout time [01:33] bbl === j_f-f_ is now known as j_f-f [08:03] good morning [09:54] teward: gg0: please fix bugs assigned to me =) [09:54] that would be lovely === Zic is now known as Guest310 [15:46] he'll split his salary with you if you do === Guest310 is now known as Zic === and`_ is now known as and` === debfx_ is now known as debfx [17:35] xnox: ack. i'll prep debdiffs. [17:36] can someone approve the precise nomination on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnash/+bug/1253468 ? [17:36] Ubuntu bug 1253468 in gnash (Ubuntu Saucy) "gnash: youtube play with ffmpeg media handler broken on wheezy" [Low,Triaged] [17:36] (since xnox said we can all fix his bugs) [17:37] TheLordOfTime: that's easy, nomination approved. [17:37] xnox: thanks :) [17:38] xnox: this is gonna be a long day for my sbuild chroots, though, I always test-build before putting debdiffs up :P [17:38] and that took about an hour to build for saucy [17:45] xnox: been a little bit since I did an SRU, I target it for RELEASE-proposed right? [17:46] nevermind, question answered [17:47] TheLordOfTime: you can just target: RELEASE these days, it gets auto-redirected. [17:50] xnox: ah, the SRU guidelines suggest to target RELEASE-proposed and i already did that on the changelogs for quantal, raring, and saucy [17:51] xnox: i take it that even though it's autoredirected targeted debdiffs for RELEASE-proposed are still accepted? [17:51] yeah, either is fine. [17:51] also, one question, should each of these get a .1 at the end of the version, or a whole number bump at the end? I ask that because the procedures say: [17:51] "he version number does not conflict with any later and future version in other Ubuntu releases (the security policy document has a well-working scheme which can be used for SRUs.)" [17:51] s/he/the/ [17:52] and because a number bump in quantal will conflict with raring, and raring will conflict with saucy [17:52] if you follow the link to the security doc it has an algorithm you can follow [17:52] or is that irrelevant in each individual release? [17:52] or at any rate a pretty comprehensive list of examples [17:52] cjwatson: that suggests the .1 to the end of the version number (dch also does that, adds the .1) [17:53] cjwatson: i've provided debdiffs with .1 at the end of version numbers as dch and that guide had said, and it's been changed to a full number bump, but I assume that'll be corrected before it's uploaded [17:53] (if such corrections are needed) [17:53] .1 would be correct here, as you say a straight increment would conflict [17:55] right [17:55] cjwatson: a straight increment on precise wouldn't conflict, though, the base version is higher than precise in later releases [17:56] but i'll just do whatever dch does :P [17:56] sponsors can change it if necessary later :) [18:05] xnox: cjwatson: can either of you assist me in figuring out why sbuild failed here? I can see it says its because of a dependent package not going to be installed, but that's kinda an ambiguous error. http://paste.ubuntu.com/6809646/ [18:09] (that failure looks to be in precise) [18:19] TheLordOfTime: sorry, buried in grub [18:19] cjwatson: no problem. [18:20] one of these weeks I will actually nail down enough regressions to be able to put this in trusty with a clear conscience ... === TheLordOfTime is now known as teward [18:53] teward: You don't seem to have precise-updates enabled in your sbuild chroot [18:54] teward: Maybe that screws up the dependencies [19:06] Ampelbein: probably, i'll update the chrotos [19:06] chroots* [19:09] Ampelbein: um... question, how does one go enabling precise-updates in the sbuild chroot [19:09] * teward hasn't fussed with the chroots much yet [19:10] teward: I always login to the source chroot and add to /etc/apt/sources.list [19:10] I don't know if there is an easier way. [19:11] * teward shrugs [19:11] Ampelbein: i'll do that for the source chroots then [19:13] good news is the others all build without incident :P [19:28] Ampelbein: looks like that resolved the apt failure, lets see if it builds [19:42] Ampelbein: yeah, adding in precise-updates has resolved the initial issue I was having, the build's going now. (it's a LONG build though >.>) [20:04] well, now that that builds, all's good. now i wait for a sponsor to see it. :) [22:08] teward: thanks [22:09] what about bug #1266088 and bug #1266089? [22:09] bug 1266088 in gnash (Ubuntu) "Please fix alternatives system" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1266088 [22:09] bug 1266089 in lightspark (Ubuntu) "Please fix alternatives system" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1266089 [22:13] * gg0 should then invent something otherwise he'd be out of bugs to nag about