[18:19] <hjd> Could someone take a look at bug 997743, especially the last comments? I am unsure whether this should be reopened or what should be done about it :)
[18:19] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 997743 in gradle (Ubuntu) "gradle depends on libtomcat6-java" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/997743
[18:21] <teward> hjd, the bug would have to be opened against the release affected
[18:21] <teward> hjd, closing it because it's already fixed in 13.10 (and Trusty) is fine
[18:22] <teward> hjd, I do partly disagree with your backport request, though, from 13.10 it'd have to also work on 12.10 before it could get to 12.04.  Unless they changed all the backport procedures since I requested a backport (which was a while ago)
[18:40] <hjd> teward: Ok, thanks.
[18:41] <hjd> teward: I used the standard replies for bugs fixed in later releases, and figured the changes would be too large for an SRU, but a backport might be possible.
[18:42] <hjd> teward: Any thoughts on whether I should mark libjetty-extra-java as also affected or whether that should be filed as a separate bug report?
[18:44] <teward> i wouldn't, unless it's the exact same bug.
[18:44] <teward> based on the bug here, I don't think they're the same bug
[18:44] <teward> (at least, not in my opinion)
[18:44] <teward> hjd, I'd suggest you also wait for otehrs' input on that, though
[18:50] <hjd> I see your point. One could argue the original bug is fixed, though due to the same problem further down in the stack the same error is still triggered. I wasn't sure what to decide though, so I thought I'd ask here. :)
[18:51] <penguin42> 12.10 is EoL in April though isn't it?
[18:52] <Ampelbein> Yes.
[18:53] <penguin42> IMHO it does make sense to backport something to 12.04 and doesn't really make much sense to backport something with ~2 months of life left
[18:54] <penguin42> (even if that's technically what is the procedure for it)
[18:57] <teward> penguin42, then we wait for EOL
[18:57] <teward> s/we/they/
[18:58] <penguin42> teward: But similarly it's silly to delay a fix for an arbitrary boundary
[18:59] <teward> penguin42, i think that's up to the backports team.
[18:59] <teward> not you or I
[18:59] <penguin42> agreed
[19:00] <penguin42> but it would still be silly
[19:00] <hjd> Speaking of releases and EOL, now that 13.04 is EOL what is the recommended upgrade path for users still on 12.10? (Just curious how that works out...)
[19:01] <teward> hjd, raring is still in the repos right now, they can upgrade to raring and then to saucy
[19:01] <teward> (i think that was by-design to facilitate upgrading, but I'd have to ask -release or the repository admins if that's the case)
[19:07] <hjd> Ah, ok.
[19:08] <hjd> Probably intentional since raring had a shorter support period than saucy.
=== Nafallo_ is now known as Nafallo
[21:53] <teward> i know i posted this in -motu, but still....
[21:53] <teward> can someone help me out with getting this bug ready for SRU by approving the nomination for Saucy?  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nginx/+bug/1264674
[21:53] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1264674 in nginx (Ubuntu) "nginx segfault when adding add_header in configuration" [Undecided,Fix released]
[21:53] <teward> (only saucy is affected by this, and it's fixed in Trusty, hence fix released already)
[21:54] <teward> as soon as it's got the Saucy nomination approved, I'll work on the debdiffs
[22:05] <chilicuil> teward: I can technically do it (I'm part of the ubuntu-bugcontrol group just as you) http://i.imgur.com/hVecuYv.png, why don't do it yourself?, only motu|core members should do it?
[22:05] <teward> chilicuil, um...
[22:05] <teward> i think you misunderstand
[22:05] <teward> bugcontrol can NOMINATE
[22:05] <teward> members of ubuntu drivers and certain dev teams can approve
[22:05] <teward> i need the approve, not the nominate
[22:05] <teward> (if you look at the bug I already nominated for Saucy)
[22:06] <teward> i think I could *maybe* bug someone on the security team to approve
[22:06] <chilicuil> oh yeah, now I see, thanks for the explanation =)
[22:06] <teward> but i don't like bothering them for non-security bugs
[22:24] <rbasak> teward: done (mentioning here mainly so others see it)
[22:25] <teward> rbasak, thank you kindly.  (you may also want to let -motu know you helped, since i asked there first)
[22:27] <teward> rbasak, i'll probably have a debdiff ready for that bug in a few hours, i'm in the middle of fighting my internet right now