[05:20] <sarnold> infinity: normally we just review the packages we're actually shipping, or going to ship, but Vasant suggests reviewing upstream trees, and this time around I'm somewhat inclined to review the git trees. What do you think? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ppc64-diag/+bug/1417608/comments/7
[05:22] <infinity> sarnold: If the git trees represent something we can backport as HWE SRUs without too much hand-waving, then I think it's fine to review them (and ask for new upstream release tarballs to be cut when you're satisfied with the state)
[05:23] <infinity> sarnold: We're less than a month from the point release where we were hoping to ship all of this, so coming to some positive conclusion would be nice.
[05:23] <sarnold> evening infinity :) I didn't expect you to still be around.. thanks :)
[05:23] <infinity> sarnold: Am I ever not around?
[05:23] <sarnold> man time flies..
[05:23] <sarnold> infinity: well..
[05:23] <sarnold> infinity: good point.
[05:24] <infinity> sarnold: While not part of that bug, since they were grandfathered into main years ago, I suspect you'd find the same classes of bugs in librtas and powerpc-ibm-utils too, if you're feeling like being helpful to IBM upstream. :P
[05:25] <sarnold> infinity: oof. on the one hand it feels like a productive use of time.. on the other hand, I don't directly own IBM stock..
[05:26] <infinity> Heh.
[05:27] <infinity> sarnold: I feel guilty about what a burden this has been.  When I handed the MIR off to you because "oh look, root daemons", I had assumed it would be a "yeah, it looks alrightish, here's some nitpicks" review, not you educating them on modern C.
[05:28] <infinity> sarnold: OTOH, it's been productive.
[05:29] <sarnold> infinity: just between you and me, I think I'd rather be reading these than openstack packages.. heh.
[05:31] <infinity> sarnold: I don't think I'd know insecure (or secure) python if it hit me in the face.
[05:32] <infinity> sarnold: I mean, except for really obviously scary things like caching passwords or forking unescaped sadness to a shell (ie: the sort of evil that looks the same in any language).
[05:32] <sarnold> infinity: hehe, yeah, most of my python knowledge is a good dozen years out of date at this point too...
[07:07] <infinity> pitti: Can you commit the systemd delta from -1ubuntu1 to -1ubuntu3 back to Debian (obviously don't need the -1ubuntu3 changelog entry) for me?
[09:21] <hjd> Hi all. A new version of maven was just packaged in Debian, and I'm trying to get that into Wily. I have a couple of questions, but first some background: Yesterday it failed to build due to some missing dependencies, but I got some help poking two of them for a rebuild and the third eventually synced. With everything in place, I tried to build the package locally.
[09:23] <hjd> And it failed with the following error message http://paste.ubuntu.com/11860099/ :( However, I saw the following part "Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.2 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: The following artifacts could not be resolved: org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-compiler-api:jar:2.x" which indicated where the problem might lie. This is where it gets interesting.
[09:25] <hjd> https://packages.debian.org/sid/libmaven-compiler-plugin-java has a dependency on libplexus-compiler-java but is also a virtual package provided by libplexus-compiler-1.0-java.  Based on the name, the latter is presumably the 1.x jars, so I looked at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/plexus-compiler where the 2.x versions reside. After installing libplexus-compiler-java manually from -proposed the package built without any issues.
[09:27] <hjd> I don't remember if the build slaves have -proposed enabled, though they might. However, I wonder why https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/plexus-compiler hasn't migrated from -proposed to -release. It looks like it's been there for a while, and I don't see any obvious signs like a proposed-block bug. Is it part of a transition or something?
[09:34] <hjd> I was also slightly confused how resolving dependencies worked between libplexus-compiler-java and libplexus-compiler-1.0-java, but it looks like maven-compiler-plugin 3.2-4 (https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/m/maven-compiler-plugin/changelog-3.2-4) adds an explicit version number which only the former would satisfy, so I guess that'll sort things out.
[09:58] <pitti> infinity: thanks for sorting out ifnames in udev-udeb
[09:58] <pitti> teward: yes, every SRU needs a corresponding bug
[09:59] <pitti> infinity: I committed the delta a few minutes ago after seeing your bug
[11:20] <cjwatson> hjd: New uploads to Ubuntu always go into -proposed, and everything in -proposed is itself built against -proposed.  Upgrading plexus-compiler currently makes things uninstallable: see http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_output.txt and search for "Trying easy from autohinter: plexus-compiler"
[11:20] <cjwatson>     * amd64: antlr3-gunit-maven-plugin, antlr3-maven-plugin
[11:26] <infinity> pitti: Ta.
[11:29] <infinity> pitti: The initramfs bit was untested (as in, I didn't bother to reboot my laptop break=bottom and check what interfaces I had), but it seemed obviously correct.
[11:29] <infinity> pitti: The udeb bit is tested, though.
[11:30] <hjd> cjwatson: Thank you. I suspected something was blocking it, but I couldn't figure out what. *bookmarks link*
[11:32] <hjd> I suspect this boils down to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=791487
[11:33] <cjwatson> Looks likely.
[16:05] <hjd> Any systemd people who could take a look at bug 1448164? It looks like runit still believe it's using upstart on 15.04 and Wily.