[13:46] <yofel> erm, how come e-c-m was moved to core?
[13:48] <yofel> Laney: thanks (didn't see your message over the weekend). I wonder why the bot didn't report any packageset changes, but looking at the ACL it does seem to have done what I wanted.
[13:48] <ogra_> whats e-c-m and which of the 100 "core" images do you mean ?
[13:49] <yofel> [queuebot] Packageset: Removed extra-cmake-modules from kubuntu in xenial
[13:49] <yofel> [queuebot] Packageset: Added extra-cmake-modules to core in xenial
[13:49] <ogra_> (snappy ... or infinity's minimal ubuntu-core ...  etc )
[13:49] <ogra_> ah, not sure what core in this context is then ... that name is so overloaded
[13:50] <Laney> You think "Packageset:" is not clear?
[13:50] <ogra_> the initial question didnt say "packageset" sorry
[13:51] <Laney> yofel: Probably some build dependency
[13:51] <ogra_> (and it is still to overloaded )
[13:52] <yofel> Laney: most likely, yeah. What's the appropriate way to get it back? We maintain ECM, so that's a bit of a hindrance.
[16:58] <cking> hey, can somebody help me with getting https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/+bug/1491729/ SRU'd? it's a little bit time sensitive
[17:00] <infinity> cking: Get apw or rtg or arges to review/sponsor an upload for you, and I'll review it in the queue.
[17:01] <cking> infinity, yup, ack
[17:01] <infinity> cking: Interestingly, the lack of dependency/ordering is why we made the nvidia modules all live in a single package.
[17:02] <infinity> cking: That would have also been an acceptable solution here, perhaps.
[17:02] <infinity> cking: Not that I mind dkms being extended to be less crap either, if it's testable and well-tested.
[17:02] <cking> infinity, whatever we do to DKMS, ultimately I'd like to see less of it being used
[17:03] <infinity> cking: Yeah.  We still need to address the elephant in the room that is enforced module sigs.  We've certainly wasted a lot of hot air on proposed solutions, but I think we still need to decide on a path forward.
[17:04]  * cking nods
[17:04] <arges> cking: looking
[17:32] <cking> infinity, arges has uploaded it for me
[17:35] <infinity> cking: Ta.  I'm running out to the doctor, but I'll look before EOD.
[17:35] <cking> infinity, thanks :-)
[17:35] <infinity> cking: If I fail to, smack me when you start tomorrow. :P
[17:35] <cking> slap perhaps, smack no
[17:36] <infinity> cking: Tomayto, tomahto.
[17:39] <cking> heh
[18:09] <lamont> infinity: I just uploaded bcache-tools_1.0.7-1~12.04.1 for precise-proposed.  pls to bless (1449099)
[18:57] <teward> how long is the xenial proposed migration to non-proposed state for autosyncs?
[18:58] <cjwatson> teward: auto-syncs aren't special for this.
[18:58] <cjwatson> teward: The whole process just runs as frequently as it can without treading on itself.
[18:58] <teward> ok
[22:02] <bdmurray> arges: Could tell me why your sru-review change is needed? If there are two versions of a package in the queue I usually just reject one, then review the other.