[05:23] <pitti> coreycb: nova 2:12.0.0-0ubuntu1 consistently fails on ppc64el (http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/n/nova/wily/ppc64el/) now -- is that just bad luck due to the flaky test, or did something in the startup scripts change?
[05:23] <pitti> coreycb: this holds back the new nova and cinder
[05:23] <pitti> Good morning
[05:28] <pitti> jamesh: FYI, http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#mediascanner2 has been stuck in -proposed for 24 days already
[05:28] <pitti> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_output.txt
[05:28] <pitti> it apparently makes ubuntu-desktop-next, ubuntu-pocket-desktop, ubuntu-touch, unity-scope-mediascanner2 uninstallable
[05:29] <pitti> I suppose some cleanup is needed there -- mediascanner vs. mediascanner2?
[05:57] <tjaalton> hrm, every time I change back to my user I get a dialog that prompts the password (org.fdo.accounts.change-own-user-data).. why's that?
[05:57] <tjaalton> hitting cancel doesn't work
[05:58] <tjaalton> seems to be polkit-agent-helper-1
[06:00] <pitti> me too, I now get two screenlocks -- first the classic gnome-screensaver one (new and unwanted), then the lightdm one
[06:02] <tjaalton> also, configuring software-center ran unattended-upgrades shutdown in the middle of dist-upgrade, that was a bit inconvenient :)
[06:09] <Mirv> @pilot in
[06:42] <dholbach> good morning
[06:42] <pitti> hey dholbach, wie gehts? happy wily week!
[06:42] <dholbach> gut geht's - und dir?
[06:42] <dholbach> and the same to you all :)
[06:44] <pitti> prima, danke
[06:45] <pitti> let's let the werewolf howl :)
[06:46] <jamesh> pitti: sorry, was out getting lunch.  The hold up for mediascanner2 is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qtubuntu-media/+bug/1500859
[06:47] <pitti> uh, the fix has been stalled for 14 days?
[06:47] <pitti> well, if you don't need it for wily
[06:47] <pitti> jamesh: thanks for pointing out
[06:49] <jamesh> pitti: the short version is that qtubuntu-media has an explicit dependency on the libmediascanner-2.0-3 package despite not actually using that library anywhere.
[06:49] <jamesh> we realised that the the libmediascanner package hadn't been renamed as part of the gcc5 transition despite it having cxx11 symbols
[06:50] <jamesh> I missed this depenedency when putting together the landing.
[07:13] <jamesh> pitti: I made a followup comment on the bug.  The fix Jim mentions doesn't seem to have anything to do with it, which would be why mediascanner didn't get unblocked.
[08:53] <zzarr> Hello! I have the phablet-tools installed and still I get Unnamed
[08:53] <zzarr> upps, that's not the entire message
[08:54] <zzarr> "Are developer tools installed.. 0 ..developer tools are not installed." that's the message
[08:55] <zzarr> don't mind the "Unnamed" it was in my clipboard for some reason
[09:26] <seb128> bdmurray, do you know what's the issue with those retracing https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/ca548de54520eed2ecd28da2c3d9413dd37f8f18 https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/2ebfd81699a9dba286619318826c3c894a0475a4 https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/450b4926ce084cb9a2f76872612446fb0ed62084?
[10:35] <darkxst> seb128, they are probably retracing the ppa
[10:35] <darkxst> ppa's?
[10:36] <darkxst> possibly picking up ppa's without ddebs enabled
[10:55] <zzarr> does QBluetooth work in OTA-7?
[10:55] <zzarr> or is the apparmor rule not implemented yet?
[11:02] <Mirv> @pilot out
[11:02] <Mirv> zzarr: is there a bug open about that?
[11:05] <zzarr> Mirv, not that I know about, I don't think it would be considered a bug, it's just not implemented yet (if not in OTA-7)
[11:10] <Mirv> zzarr: apparmor policy changes would need a bug, a proposal and a check by security team. it won't happen by itself if there's not a bug about it, since there are a lot of apparmor denials happening and there's no process on checking all of those and doing something about those.
[11:11] <Mirv> zzarr: I believe https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor-easyprof-ubuntu is the correct package to file against
[11:11] <Mirv> mentioning at least how the apparmor problem is triggered and what does it look like
[11:12] <zzarr> I'll file a rapport if it's not fixed in the OTA-7 release which will be released today
[11:36] <seb128> darkxst, thanks for the suggestion, could be
[11:58] <LocutusOfBorg1> Unit193, can you please look at debian bug 802143?
[12:08] <Laibsch> wgrant, cjwatson, infinity: I'd like to revisit discussion http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2015/03/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t05:33 http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2015/03/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t11:42 AKA "allow bug-control team to accept or reject release pocket nominations in LP"
[12:09] <Laibsch> I'd hope it could be implemented soonish. Once the consensus is there (which I think it was half a year ago), it's more or less simply the flip of a bit in permissions.
[12:12] <Laibsch> While we are at it, would some kind soul please accept nomination for trusty for bug 1287424 and if possible even move along the SRU?
[12:12] <Laibsch> I already have other tickets for that software I'd like to get an SRU for eventually.
[12:13] <cjwatson> I've accepted the nomination
[12:13] <Laibsch> awesome. thank you, cjwatson
[12:13] <cjwatson> I think the next step in that discussion was:
 infinity: I don't think that there would be serious issues with letting bug supervisors add series tasks without going through nominations, now that task deletion exists.
[12:31] <cjwatson> Laibsch: I think it's something like http://paste.ubuntu.com/12860146/, but um.  May take a while to sort out all the details there.
[12:33] <Laibsch> Wow, actually quite involved! I thought it was simply to set a permission bit in an authentication database table and not this much code change.  Well, I hope it can land soon.
[12:34] <cjwatson> Laibsch: No, if you want to think of it this way it's more that several permission bits are currently conflated into one in an awkward way.
[12:35] <cjwatson> So you can see why it didn't happen straight away ...
[12:48] <doko> seb128, do you know the background why packagekit 0.9.x was pulled from proposed? I read https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/packagekit/+bug/1470655 but this doesn't have much background, and I can't find any in closed bug reports
[12:49] <seb128> doko, because it's abi/api incompatible with 0.8 and aptdaemon (and maybe others) needed to be ported and Riddell (who did the update) preferred to revert
[12:50] <seb128> doko, why?
[13:14] <doko> seb128, because I was bitten by it, with -proposed enabled. is there a plan to do the 1.0 update for 16.04?
[13:16] <seb128> doko, we are looking at doing it yes
[13:16] <seb128> doko, I made aptdaemon depends on packagekit (<< 0.9) that should have forced apt to tell you there is a problem to resolve
[13:16] <seb128> e.g remove aptdaemon or downgrade packagekit
[13:17] <seb128> also that's the kind of issues than proposed users might hit
[13:22] <jdstrand> Mirv: fyi, I wouldn't say there is no process. people need to file bugs. afaik, all the denials I'm aware of have bugs with comments on what needs to be done to fix them. some are policy adjustments, others are platform/sdk adjustments
[13:22] <jdstrand> and no one has mentioned anything about bluetooth yet
[13:22] <jdstrand> (to me at least-- in terms of policy)
[13:22] <jdstrand> so yes, please file a bug
[13:23] <jdstrand> (oh, and for bugs that need policy adjustments, I don't know of any that are open-- I definitely try to stay on top of those)
[13:23] <smoser> Odd_Bloke, did you get what you needed wrt uefi images ? just now looking at week-old backscrolls
[13:24] <smoser> fwiw: ppc64el boots with qemu-system-ppc64: https://gist.github.com/smoser/7a07d9f8929dc11b4ed9
[13:47] <Odd_Bloke> smoser: Yeah, I think I did; thanks for the pointer to that gist!
[13:49] <doko> seb128, Laney: I was looking into cross building openjdk-8/9, and seeing that the gnome stack isn't yet completely multi-arched. is this something we could look at for 16.04?
[13:50] <seb128> it would be good to have, unsure who would be interested to work on that though
[13:50] <Laney> feel free
[13:50] <Laney> via debian wherever possible
[13:52] <seb128> hum
[13:52] <seb128> who broke launchpad bugs duplicates? ;-)
[13:52]  * seb128 looks at wgrant and cjwatson
[13:52] <seb128> bug_id: got 'unicode', expected int: u'1507332'
[13:53] <seb128> when trying to mark a bug duplicate of another one
[13:53] <cjwatson> seb128: bug with an oops id please, I'll track it down
[13:53] <seb128> cjwatson, I don't get an oops
[13:54] <cjwatson> seb128: what exactly are you doing?
[13:54] <seb128> just that message in red
[13:54] <seb128> opening https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-system-log/+bug/1500806
[13:54] <seb128> click on "mark as duplicate" on the right
[13:54] <seb128> I get the popup dialog to enter a bug
[13:54] <cjwatson> oh
[13:54] <seb128> I write 1500806
[13:54] <seb128> and get the error I just copied in red
[13:55] <cjwatson> it's a regression from the fix for bug 581748
[13:55] <cjwatson> you can work around it by middle-clicking the "mark as duplicate" link so that you get the HTML form rather than the AJAX one
[13:55] <cjwatson> I'll see about an urgent fic
[13:55] <cjwatson> *fix
[13:57] <seb128> cjwatson, https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1507604
[13:57] <seb128> cjwatson, thanks
[13:57] <cjwatson> thanks
[14:16] <seb128> cyphermox, is bug #1507330 known?
[14:17] <cyphermox> seb128: now it is.
[14:17] <seb128> cyphermox, that's why I was pointing it ;-)
[14:18] <seb128> cyphermox, I fixed a similar bug in apturl on friday, had to move the height_request property from the textview to the srolledwindows
[14:18] <seb128> unsure what changed, I guess it's new GTK...
[14:18] <seb128> that one might be similar
[14:19] <cyphermox> if so, yuck
[14:21] <doko> Laney, mediascanner2 is still blocked on qtubuntu-media, LP: #1500859
[14:21] <Laney> see #ubuntu-touch
[14:22] <seb128> cyphermox, totally non tested/random try, but maybe http://paste.ubuntu.com/12861228/
[14:22] <seb128> cyphermox, if you know how to easy spawn the ubiquity UI to test
[14:23] <cyphermox> bleh
[14:23] <cyphermox> yeah, I know how
[14:23] <cyphermox> worth a try I guess
[14:23] <seb128> is there an easy way?
[14:23] <seb128> out of download an iso, boot it in live mode and test from there
[14:23] <cyphermox> yeah, I run an iso and change what I need
[14:23] <cyphermox> ah
[14:23] <seb128> lol
[14:23] <cyphermox> I usually always have the isos ready, downloaded
[14:23] <seb128> I'm downloading one
[14:24] <seb128> I can test the patch if you are busy on other things
[14:24] <seb128> just needs some 20 minutes or so
[14:25] <cyphermox> it's fine I already was preparing an upload, and already had a vm with ubiquity spun up on it
[14:25] <seb128> great
[14:27] <cyphermox> almost.
[14:27] <cyphermox> but not quite.
[14:31] <cyphermox> oh wait, I did the change wrong
[14:32] <cyphermox> yay
[14:32] <seb128> ?
[14:33] <cjwatson> seb128: I've asked for a rollback of the last LP deployment
[14:33] <seb128> cjwatson, thanks
[14:34] <cjwatson> Having trouble reproducing this in the test suite, but I can absolutely see it on qastaging :-/
[14:35] <cjwatson> And setting a breakpoint on the relevant bit of JS hangs firefox
[14:35] <seb128> cjwatson, is rolling back cheap? because the bug is easy to workaround so I guess if it's fixing today having it around for a few hours is not the end of the world
[14:35] <cjwatson> Awesome
[14:35] <cjwatson> seb128: Cheap enough and I'm not sure how long it will take me to fix
[14:35] <seb128> k
[14:36] <cjwatson> Since my first three attempts to reproduce in tests haven't gone anywhere yet
[15:36] <seb128> dpm, pitti, wgrant, do you know why https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/wily/+source/evolution/+imports is empty (out of the manual upload I just did)?
[15:36] <seb128> the .po should be imported no?
[15:37] <seb128> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/221324437/buildlog_ubuntu-wily-amd64.evolution_3.16.5-1ubuntu2_BUILDING.txt.gz has a translations tarball
[15:52] <cjwatson> seb128: https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/fix-bug-picker-search/+merge/274910 and singing the I-hate-JavaScript song.  Hopefully we can roll this out again tomorrow
[15:53] <seb128> cjwatson, nice, thanks for fixing it ;-)
[16:13] <kirkland> rbanffy: nice :-)
[16:13] <rbanffy> kirkland, ?
 In any case, byobu users who use mu font (all three of them, me included) will be happy to know I added a ⟫ in late May.
[16:15] <rbanffy> kirkland, :-)
[16:15] <apw> rsalveti, yo, just looking at your rtl8812au upload, there are a number of files in here without clear copyright information though your copyright claims they are GPLv2, do you have some suplementary information to that effect ?
[16:16] <hallyn_> xnox: did you see any problems in https://mentors.debian.net/packages/my ?
[16:16] <hallyn_> uh, https://mentors.debian.net/package/netcf
[16:16] <rsalveti> apw: I saw a few that were indeed missing, but minor headers and iirc (last time I check), those files were also in the upstream kernel (under another driver)
[16:17] <xnox> hallyn_: i did not but have run out of time to upload it.
[16:18] <xnox> hallyn_: i've set a reminder to do it tonight, when i am back home.
[16:18] <xnox> sorry about the delay.
[16:20] <rsalveti> apw: I can cross check again, but most of the ones that were missing are not even required by the build
[16:20] <rsalveti> so they can be removed
[16:20] <hallyn_> xnox: gotcha, thanks
[16:20] <rsalveti> just didn't remove because the tarball is directly from the vendor
[16:21] <apw> rsalveti, i'll see if i can confirm they are in the upstream kernel
[16:21] <rsalveti> the hal ones under OUTSRC-BTCoexist are probably not, and not used during the build
[16:21] <rsalveti> so I can upload without them
[16:22] <rsalveti> let me check again which files are actually used
[16:24] <apw> rsalveti, that is the sketchiest directory for use
[16:24] <apw> suew
[16:24] <apw> sure
[16:25] <rsalveti> apw: in this case (since it comes from the upstream tarball), should I upload a new orig tarball without them or just make a patch to remove them?
[16:25] <apw> rsalveti, we don't want them in the archive, so repacking +dfsg stylee seems appropriate
[16:26] <rsalveti> alright
[16:26] <bdmurray> seb128: I'll have a look at those crashs
[16:26] <seb128> bdmurray, thanks
[16:47] <gdfuego> I just filed a fun bug in Precise
[16:47] <gdfuego> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/psmisc/+bug/1507681
[17:07] <bdmurray> seb128: One of the retraces failed in the following way - http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/12863467/. So apport did not return a crash signature.
[17:30] <bdmurray> seb128: that's true for both the libunity crash and the trust-store crash. the missing debug symbol messages are incidental.
[17:32] <seb128> bdmurray, the one you pastebined has an useful stacktrace though
[17:32] <seb128> just missing the first symbol
[17:39] <bdmurray> seb128: I think the any missing symbol is cause for apport to return None for a crash signature.
[17:40] <seb128> bdmurray, oh, ok, do you know if that's by design or a bug?
[17:40] <kdub> my thinkpad (x201 tablet) is having a tough time booting with the daily live usb stick made with usb-creator-gtk... could this be a uefi problem maybe?
[17:42] <bdmurray> seb128: I think its by design - https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~apport-hackers/apport/trunk/view/head:/apport/report.py#L1233 "If StacktraceTop has unknown functions or the report lacks any of those fields, return None.
[17:43] <rsalveti> apw: should be all good now, let me know if you need any other info
[17:43] <seb128> bdmurray, I think the intend was to avoid having one function being a signature
[17:43] <seb128> but maybe pitti can confirm
[17:44] <seb128> it feels like in that case we could do better, because ?? followed by 4 detailed function is useful
[18:09] <bdmurray> seb128: I reported bug 1507711 about this.
[18:09] <seb128> bdmurray, thanks
[18:22] <infinity> seb128: Were you handling the component-mismatches promotions from your seeding, or shall I?  (I don't want to double-override).
[18:29] <seb128> infinity, I did it
[18:30] <infinity> seb128: Kay.  I'll wait for the publisher to catch up and look at the result.
[18:45] <slangasek> hrm.  I just got email from google saying that a recently used device logged in insecurely to my google account, and it points to my IP address. Is Online Accounts not up to speed with current login protocols?
[18:47] <ogra_> slangasek, you usually get that if you connect a device for the first time ...
[18:47] <ogra_> well, i do
[18:56]  * xnox gets that every time i login from an annonymous window. or e.g. logging out with one google account, to relogin with a different one.
[18:57] <slangasek> ogra_: it's not a new device, it's my existing laptop
[18:58] <slangasek> and I've never had his error before
[18:58] <ogra_> token expired ?
[20:42] <slangasek> pitti: http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/p/python3.4/trusty/ results regressed between .1 and .3, with no relevant code changes.  Same tests pass in package build.  Could this be related to the recent lxc profile questions?
[21:08] <Unit193> Heh, /var/lib/dpkg/info/keyboard-configuration.postinst: 1: /var/lib/dpkg/info/keyboard-configuration.postinst: udpkg: not found