[17:03] <pyrite> I'd like to nominate LP: #1366280 for a trusty SRU
[17:09] <rbasak> pyrite: why is an SRU required for this bug?
[17:11] <teward> ^ my question
[17:11] <teward> (rbasak ninja'd me)
[18:15] <micahg> rbasak: the reason would be reduced dependencies for point releases
[20:11] <rbasak> micahg: what, for ISO size issues?
[20:11] <rbasak> That's fair I suppose, but somebody should say it in the bug.
[20:11] <micahg> just ISO clutter
[20:12] <micahg> I doubt 50k would break any ISO at this point
[20:13] <micahg> though, using the transitional package might make upgrades smoother, but I can see someone being frustrated that a metapackage depends on a transitional package
[20:13] <rbasak> micahg: isn't that a case for fixing it in the development release though, rather than in an SRU? It just doesn't seem SRU-worthy to me.
[20:14] <micahg> it's LTS
[20:14] <micahg> I can certainly understand it, don't know if I would approve it personally :)
[20:16] <rbasak> As I understand SRU policy, we only fix bugs that actually affect users. So I don't want to sponsor it or accept a Trusty nomination. But someone else can.