[10:44] <soren> 12.10 and 13.04 are still not on old-releases.ubuntu.com in spite of EOL announcements having been sent out. Is that intentional?
[11:08] <sil2100> cjwatson: hey! Do you have a moment for a packaging ACK? There is a new binary package in a pending release in CITrain
[11:09] <sil2100> cjwatson: the changes themselves seem to be ok, but I'm not entirely sure about those as well: https://ci-train.ubuntu.com/job/landing-017-2-publish/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/packaging_changes_signon-ui_0.17+14.10.20140612-0ubuntu1.diff <- here's the new binary pkg added
[11:09] <sil2100> cjwatson: and here's the related change in u-s-s-o-a: https://ci-train.ubuntu.com/job/landing-017-2-publish/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/packaging_changes_ubuntu-system-settings-online-accounts_0.4+14.10.20140612-0ubuntu1.diff
[11:16] <cjwatson> sil2100: Mostly looks OK, but I have two questions
[11:16]  * cjwatson checks before speaking
[11:17] <cjwatson> one question :)
[11:18] <sil2100> ;)
[11:18] <cjwatson> sil2100: This seems to lose several files that are currently in signon-ui - or do those vanish as part of the move to oxide?
[11:18] <cjwatson> /usr/lib/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/signon-ui/browser-process, /usr/bin/tst_inactivity_timer, /usr/share/applications/signon-ui-browser-process.desktop
[11:20] <sil2100> hmmm
[11:21] <sil2100> Right, I suppose those are removed on purpose with the switch, as if it was not planned the packages wouldn't build
[11:22] <cjwatson> They might build but not work
[11:22] <cjwatson> Are those binaries still built/present-in-source?
[11:22] <sil2100> cjwatson: well, we have --fail-missing so if they were originally 'built' from the source and not included, they would break package build
[11:22] <sil2100> So if they're not generated, I guess it's intentional, hm
[11:23] <sil2100> cjwatson: I can talk with the upstream guys if needed
[11:23] <sil2100> To make sure
[11:23]  * cjwatson goes to look at the silo
[11:24] <cjwatson> browser-process was intentionally removed
[11:26] <cjwatson> and not installing a unit test probably isn't a problem
[11:28] <cjwatson> ah, probably
[11:28] <cjwatson> -include($${TOP_SRC_DIR}/common-installs-config.pri)
[11:28] <cjwatson> sil2100: ~ubuntu-core-dev / ~ubuntu-archive ack
[11:29] <sil2100> Thanks! :) Yeah, I supposed it's intentional, that's usually why --fail-missing is our 'safe-keeper' here, as we make sure the upstream developers know what they want to ship
[11:30] <sil2100> But it's still best to double check anyway
[11:30] <cjwatson> right, --fail-missing is normally the right thing
[11:31] <sil2100> seb128: did you have a moment to do a NEW review of net-cpp by any chance? :)
[11:32] <seb128> sil2100, let me add that to my todolist, I can try having a look today
[11:32] <sil2100> Thanks!
[15:45] <rtg> infinity, could you approve Trusty linux-firmware 1.127.3 ? I've got some server guys waiting on it, and just discovered https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1327908 as well.
[15:47] <rtg> nm about bug 1327908, thats bogus.