[08:06] <mlankhorst> why is all of *-lts-trusty still in -proposed?
[08:21] <apw> that block of updates is (i believe) prerequisite for the EOL messaging for lts backports
[08:24] <mlankhorst> yeah
[11:06] <mlankhorst> cjwatson: ? :P
[11:07] <mlankhorst> could you promote those packages please? urgently needed now
[11:09] <cjwatson> er, let me see
[11:14] <cjwatson> mlankhorst: OK, promoting now, hopefully I got them all
[11:29] <mvo> is there a chance that someone looks at the preicse-proposed uploads for update-manager/update-notifier? its important for the HardwareEnablement
[11:34] <mlankhorst> thanks
[12:04] <mlankhorst> cjwatson: looks good, i think you missed libdrm from saucy though (for updating from precise to saucy)
[12:08] <cjwatson> You didn't tell me about that :)
[12:09] <cjwatson> Copied now
[12:09] <mlankhorst> ty
[12:20] <Laney> I forgot -v in the first one of those
[12:50] <cjwatson> w/g 24
[12:50] <cjwatson> sorry
[12:52] <shadeslayer> cjwatson: would be awesome if you could reply to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2014-June/002925.html
[12:52] <shadeslayer> so we can move forward with the ISO stuff
[14:24] <Laney> Would somebody please see what they think of Gunnar's licensing claims in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1314402 ?
[14:25] <rbasak> Laney: I did wonder about that. It seems to be quite common to me that upstream don't have their ducks in a row and then want to fix the licence when distributions want it - not just for this project.
[14:26] <rbasak> So I wondered to what level Debian ftpmasters or Ubuntu needs it. Sufficient for upstream just to claim it, or should distributions be auditing upstream changes to make sure that all previous contributors accept a licence change (or disambiguation if no previous licence was explicit)
[14:26] <ogasawara> When someone has a chance, could we get update-notifier and update-manager approved in the queue for Precise?
[14:27] <ogasawara> mvo and I would appreciate it so that we can begin advanced HWE stack EOL notifications
[14:27] <Laney> rbasak: Yes it's definitely fairly common that upstream hasn't thought through / understood licensing stuff until one of the distros comes along.
[14:27] <Laney> It's one of the values that distros bring
[14:28] <rbasak> Definitely. But if there's previous ambiguity, and upstream fixes it on request, then should distributions require an audit on that change to make sure that the licence change was authorised by all copyright holders?
[14:29] <rbasak> Because if so, then some upstreams may forever be in limbo.
[14:30] <rbasak> And if that becomes the majority of unpackaged new software, then that's a problem.
[14:30] <Laney> We trust what they say
[14:30] <Laney> In this case we know some more about the history though
[14:39] <LocutusOfBorg1> argh
[14:39] <LocutusOfBorg1> flex depends from cm-super-minimal
[14:39] <LocutusOfBorg1> and cm-super-minimal is in universe
[14:39] <LocutusOfBorg1> :(
[14:40] <LocutusOfBorg1> won't build on i386
[14:40] <Laney> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cm-super/+bug/1328509
[14:40] <Laney> It can be promoted
[14:41] <infinity> Laney: Promoting.
[14:41] <Laney> Ta
[14:43] <LocutusOfBorg1> thanks
[15:22] <LocutusOfBorg1> infinity, will this build be automatically restarted? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flex/2.5.39-8/+build/6118522
[15:24] <infinity> Yes.
[16:35] <LocutusOfBorg1> thanks infinity now it is built ;)