[05:41] <wxl> bdmurray: well, now that i'm not behind a firewall, update-bug works fine. i'll debug this further but it seems to me the basis for the problem lies in launchpadlib itself.
[15:32] <bdmurray> wxl: ah, that's good to hear
[16:16] <giaco> Hi, I filled an SRU request for soundconverter. I'd like to know if I have something more to do to make it known to Ubuntu developers
[16:19] <wxl> giaco: well it's certainly not at the point where it is ready for verification http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
[16:20]  * wxl warns that he is kind of new at SRUs too
[16:20] <wxl> giaco: link?
[16:20] <giaco> here is the link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/soundconverter/+bug/1421331
[16:22] <rbasak> giaco: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[16:22] <wxl> giaco: iif i grok this correctly, the status should be fix released, based on the fact the bug is actually fixed in development https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[16:22] <rbasak> "the use of a new mp3 encoder" doesn't sound like it qualifies for an SRU to me.
[16:23] <wxl> hm didn't try the update too
[16:23] <rbasak> giaco: follow https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure like wxl said, but check that what you're proposing does qualify.
[16:23] <wxl> that's a bit concerning
[16:24] <rbasak> giaco: if it does, explain in the bug in terms of the SRU requirements, attach your proposed debdiffs to the bug, and subscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors, following each step listed the procedure.
[16:24] <giaco> it should be fixed in development version, i didn't tried vivid, I could check it
[16:25] <wxl> giaco: it seems wise to ensure that it DOES fix the problem. you may be able to better identify regression potential that way.
[16:25] <rbasak> It's valid to have a bug that essentially says "please SRU all bugfixes in 2.1.5 back to Trusty", in which case if Vivid already has 2.1.5 then it's fine to mark it as Fix Released and request a Trusty task.
[16:25] <rbasak> But all changes to Trusty do have to meet SRU criteria.
[16:26] <teward> rbasak: at a glance the bug looks non-SRUable in its state
[16:26] <rbasak> Right.
[16:26] <rbasak> 16:22 <rbasak> "the use of a new mp3 encoder" doesn't sound like it qualifies for an SRU to me.
[16:27] <wxl> yeah i don't think that qualifies as "have an obviously safe patch" :)
[16:29] <rbasak> That's not to say that other bugs cannot be fixed though.
[16:29] <teward> agreed with rbasak
[16:29] <teward> rbasak: should we comment that it goes against the SRU criterion?
[16:30] <teward> and why?
[16:30] <teward> (on the bug)
[16:30] <rbasak> But the focus on Trusty must be to avoid regressing existing users. That's presumably why the users are using Trusty and not Vivid anyway.
[16:30] <rbasak> teward: please do - thanks!
[16:30] <teward> rbasak: general summary: Version bumps go against SRU.  releasing the 'new version' introduces extreme regression potential
[16:31] <teward> ... bugfixes on an individual case by case can be included, but not a general version bump
[16:31] <rbasak> teward: that's not necessarily true. If the version bumps only fix bumps, that's acceptable.
[16:31] <teward> rbasak: in this case, i mean
[16:31] <rbasak> Only fix bugs.
[16:31] <rbasak> Yes
[16:31] <teward> rbasak: i mean tiwth regard to this bug :)
[16:31] <rbasak> Agreed
[16:31] <teward> rbasak: permission to "Incomplete" the bug as well?
[16:32] <rbasak> Sounds reasonable
[16:32]  * teward double checks everything today
[16:32] <wxl> hey want to do some lubuntu triage while you're at it, teward? ;)
[16:41] <teward> rbasak: http://paste.ubuntu.com/10206977/ if you want to review before i submit
[16:41] <teward> and i'd like you to >.>
[16:41] <teward> i'm not 100% today :P
[16:43] <rbasak> teward: I think that comes across as a bit strong. I don't know the package. I just want to say that more justification and consideration is needed, rather than an absolute "rbasak says no".
[16:44] <rbasak> It _looks_ like it doesn't meet SRU criteria, but I don't have all the information.
[16:45] <teward> ack.
[16:46] <teward> rbasak: i'm tired, so i come off stronger, alas that's my nature, i'mma steal your statements here that more justification and consideration is needed, as well as much more testing because of the feature changes
[16:46] <rbasak> teward: that's fine, don't worry about it.
[16:47] <teward> http://paste.ubuntu.com/10207049/ any better?
[16:48] <teward> rbasak: i'm sitting in class watching Dr. Strangelove for cold war 'history' for the 700th time - i need something to do other than watching a movie i've already watched a couple hundred times :P
[16:48]  * teward yawns
[16:49] <rbasak> teward: that's much better. Maybe refer to the wiki page and ask the reporter for further justification against the policy there?
[16:49] <teward> indeed.
[16:49] <rbasak> You had that in the previous version :)
[16:50] <giaco> I understand your points, in fact I was undecided wether to fill the request or not. Unfortunately the fix for that bug is in 2.1.5.
[16:51] <rbasak> giaco: you can always backport fixes, if you can find or develop patches for them.
[16:51] <giaco> And I don't know ho to backport only that fix to 2.0.4
[16:51] <teward> rbasak: http://paste.ubuntu.com/10207089/  <-- this one
[16:51] <rbasak> Oh, OK
[16:51] <rbasak> teward: looks great
[16:51] <teward> rbasak: i expand a little saying "until further justification, consideration, and testing have been done.:
[16:51] <teward> ack
[16:51] <teward> posting
[16:51] <teward> done
[16:52]  * teward beats his head against the command line
[16:52] <rbasak> If you want me to be really pedantic, then criterion is the singular, and there are multiple SRU criteria. But that doesn't matter in getting the point across, and I only just noticed :)
[16:53] <teward> rbasak: i don't think that's necessary, the point is made either way
[16:53] <teward> "some of the SRU criteria" would be even better, but already posted
[16:53] <teward> the point is made either way
[16:53] <rbasak> Yeah it doesn't matter
[16:53] <teward> ... i hate packaging sometimes
[16:53]  * teward is trying to package ZNC 1.6 with the 1.4 packaging, plus changes, and things are asploding >.<
[17:00] <giaco> If I try the new version in a vivid live and find that the bug is fixed and the new encoder does not introduces regression, would it be useful? At least could the updated package be included in Backports repo?
[17:00] <rbasak> Yes - backports should be fine.
[17:01] <rbasak> If you're not aware of it, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports documents the steps you need to take for a backport.
[17:01] <teward> ^ that
[17:10] <giaco> Thank, i'll give it a read and maybe ask the developer if he can backport the patch to 2.0.4
[23:45] <Darkover> Hello, I have "BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at           (null)" in syslog, screen not responding, but ssh is accessible.
[23:53] <Darkover> Is this right place to ask about it?
[23:59] <Logan> !support | Darkover