[12:46] <ari-tczew> hi. we are already in UserInterfaceFreeze. can I upload a new upstream bug-fix only release without FFe?
[12:56] <bluesabre> greetings sponsors, would somebody like to upload light-locker-1.2.1 to trusty?
[12:57] <bluesabre> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-locker/+bug/1293100
[12:57] <bluesabre> This release addresses a security concern, if light-locker is not currently running when light-locker-command "locks" the screen, the user is sent to vt8 without their session protected
[12:58] <bluesabre> this does not send to a new VT if light-locker is not running, instead producing a message that it is not running (similar to how xscreensaver behaves)
[12:58] <bluesabre> please let me know if there are any questions :)
[16:49] <Riddell> mardy: hopeful sunday ping?
[18:31] <juliank> bdmurray: python-apt can be synced now again, let us avoid the diff, even if its small (sync request: bug 1293193)
[18:31] <juliank> There are really no other changes apart from merging the Ubuntu changes.
[18:34] <juliank> It's not the most useful sync currently, but it should help (if no other changes will be done), to get automatic syncs then after trusty release.
[18:35] <Laney> juliank: I can do that - or is there some reason you asked bdmurray directly?
[18:35] <juliank> Laney: Fine with me. I just told him, because he did the last two uploads.
[18:36] <Laney> fair
[18:43] <infinity> juliank: Iz done.
[18:44] <juliank> infinity: thanks, cool.
[18:45] <Laney> Weird, I just said I was doing it
[18:46] <Laney> Anyway, good
[18:46] <infinity> Laney: Oh, I read that how you wrote it "I can do that".  And then went and looked, and you hadn't, so assume you meant that you can, not that you were going to. :P
[18:47] <Laney> Yeah, I was test building and the making a cup of tea :P
[18:47] <Laney> No matter
[18:47] <infinity> Ahh, I didn't test build.  If it's FTBFS, then so would the previous version have been if rebuilt, so buggy either way.
[19:57] <juliank> Is there a project on launchpad about Ubuntu mirrors where I can reassign bug 1027905 to=
[19:57] <juliank> ?
[20:12] <highvoltage> ue/win 12
[20:17] <infinity> juliank: That's not necessarily a bug at all, if the .ar servers have been deemed to not be able to handle the load or something.
[20:18] <juliank> infinity: Maybe, but it's most definitely not a python-apt bug. So I just reassigned it to Ubuntu (without a package) for now.
[20:18] <infinity> juliank: But #ubuntu-mirrors is probably the right place to redirect it to.
[20:19] <infinity> juliank: Not sure if there's an approriate LP project, but they'd know.
[21:09] <Thedemon007> ubuntu have secuity issues in chromium-browser ?? version ubuntu 32.0.1700.107 debian: 32.0.1700.123 http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/c/chromium-browser/chromium-browser_32.0.1700.123-1~deb7u1_changelog
[21:10] <Thedemon007> The changelog of ubuntu does not show much information. Chromium.org say linux	stable 33.0.1750.152
[21:22] <petersaints> hi guys. I'm having a problem with the Network Manager. It gets the correct IPv6 adresses for my /64 prefix (a MAC based one and another through IPv6 privacy extensions). They show up on ifconfig but they do not show up on "nm-tool" output (the information is also missing from the GUI). I have a feeling that this was working ok up until a few days ago, so I'm not sure if there was some update that broke this. Anyone has an idea about
[21:22] <petersaints> this issue? I was searching for bugs on launchpad and the most similar think I could get was this old and Invalid bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/375088
[21:23] <petersaints> Also, if I set the address manually it sows up just ok.
[21:24] <petersaints> I forgot to mention that I'm running Trusty ;)