=== meetingology` is now known as meetingology
=== ZarroBoogs is now known as Pici
=== dreamon_ is now known as dreamon
=== hikiko is now known as hikiko|ln
=== hikiko|ln is now known as hikiko
[13:23] <psusi> where do you assign a bug that is caused not in a package, but in the way the iso was built?
[13:26] <rbasak> psusi: against the package that builds the iso I guess. That's ubiquity for the (Unity) desktop installer, not sure about flavours.
[13:26] <rbasak> I'm not sure if it's ubiquity actually, but it's a start. Can always be reassigned later.
[13:27] <rbasak> There's also live-build.
[13:35] <psusi> rbasak: that's the thing... ubiquity doesn't build the iso... it's just the installer so it doesn't seem like the right place for the bug, especially since it is only in how the lubuntu iso was built
[18:46] <asciiwolf> hello
[18:48] <asciiwolf> would it be possible to backport a small (but important) patch for one package to Xenial?
[18:51] <rbasak> asciiwolf: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[18:51] <asciiwolf> Here's a SRU bugreport for it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/playonlinux/+bug/1574805 - it includes the patch and a debdiff
[18:51] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 1574805 in playonlinux (Ubuntu) "[SRU] GNOME Software catalog entry missing for PlayOnLinux in Ubuntu 16.04" [Medium,Confirmed]
[18:52] <asciiwolf> What else I have to do? Thanks.
[18:53] <rbasak> asciiwolf: have you read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure ?
[18:53] <rbasak> That's an itemised list of what you have to do.
[18:54] <asciiwolf> Yes, I did. But it is still not clear to me what else I have to do.
[18:57] <rbasak> That's all you have to do (and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Verification after the package lands in the proposed pocket)
[18:57] <rbasak> Which of those steps have you not completed?
[19:03] <asciiwolf> Well, to be honest, I'm not sure what I have to complete. Some of the points looks to be for package maintainers/developers or members of the SRU team, not for regular bugreporters like me... Or am I wrong?
[19:05] <asciiwolf> I have completed the first three points from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure + since the bug is already fixed in Yakkety, I have added a debdiff
[19:05] <asciiwolf> Now I'm trying to complete the fourth point - "Ask the Ubuntu bug control team to nominate the bug for the appropriate Ubuntu release(s)/series"
[19:06] <rbasak> You can do that by asking on this channel. Which Ubuntu releases? Just Xenial?
[19:07] <rbasak> What about step 1? The development task is not marked "Fix Released"
[19:07] <asciiwolf> yes
[19:07] <rbasak> OK, Xenial task added.
[19:07] <asciiwolf> well, that's probably my mistake... it was marked as fix released, but I changed it to "Confirmed" because it wasn't fixed in Xenial :-)
[19:08] <asciiwolf> so, my bad, sorry...
[19:08] <asciiwolf> thanks
[19:08] <rbasak> Refresh the bug - you'll see two lines now. One tracks the development release (currently Zesty) and the other Xenial now.
[19:08] <asciiwolf> I see
[19:09] <asciiwolf> I don't see the Zesty one though, just Xenial
[19:09] <teward> asciiwolf: the non-series'd one is the Development release (Zesty)
[19:09] <rbasak> The Zesty one isn't explicitly named. It's the top one against "playonlinux (Ubuntu)". You can change that one to Fix Released yourself (assumign it is)
[19:09] <teward> ^ that
[19:10] <asciiwolf> ah :-)
[19:10] <asciiwolf> done, changed it to fix released
[19:11] <rbasak> Step 2 looks done - the bug report is public.
[19:11] <rbasak> Step 3 is needed - the bug is missing a "[Regression Potential]" section.
[19:11] <rbasak> Step 4 I just did for you.
[19:12] <asciiwolf> ah, I didn't add the regression potential section because during my testing, I haven't found any potential regressions...
[19:14] <asciiwolf> I have added the regression potential section
[19:18] <rbasak> You can't really say "None". See the explanation in the procedure.
[19:19] <rbasak> For step 5, can you attach a debdiff suitable for Xenial? I don't see one in the bug. See the details in step 5.
[19:22] <asciiwolf> what's wrong with the one in the bugreport? "yakkety" in the changelog section?
[19:23] <asciiwolf> or something else?
[19:23] <rbasak> Yes, but also that the version number is already taken (by Yakkety)
[19:24] <rbasak> Also, it should have your name, not someone else's.
[19:25] <rbasak> (and then thanking yourself also would not make sense :-)
[19:32] <asciiwolf> Ah, I didn't make the yakkety package so I didn't want to give myself any credit for it :-) So where should my name be? Maintainer?
[19:34] <asciiwolf> (sorry for such stupid questions, this is my first SRU...)
[19:44] <rbasak> No not maintainer, just the tagline in the new entry in debian/changelog
[19:44] <asciiwolf> ah, ok :-)
[19:44] <rbasak> Asking questions is absolutely fine, as long as it's clear what you're asking. Thank you for helping us make Ubuntu better!
[19:58] <asciiwolf> :-)
[20:00] <asciiwolf> regarding the version number, I'm thinking about 4.2.10-2ubuntu2 but I'm not sure if it's okay since it's higher than the version number in yakkety (4.2.10-2ubuntu1)
[20:00] <teward> asciiwolf: if it's higher than the version number in yakkety you should do .1
[20:00] <teward> actually
[20:00] <teward> asciiwolf: mind looping me in on the specific bug please?
[20:00] <teward> so I have a basis to look at (rbasak is ahead of me here heheh)
[20:01] <asciiwolf> teward, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/playonlinux/+bug/1574805
[20:01] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 1574805 in One Hundred Papercuts "[SRU] GNOME Software catalog entry missing for PlayOnLinux in Ubuntu 16.04" [Medium,Confirmed]
[20:02] <teward> 4.2.10-2ubuntu0.1 might work, since it's higher than Xenial but less than Yakkety.
[20:03] <asciiwolf> ok, thanks!
[20:04] <asciiwolf> by the way, is it safe to drop the "desktopfile-add-comment" patch... I think it's not needed since it's an empty file (the PlayOnLinux desktop file is patched directly in the debdiff)
[20:25] <teward> rbasak: ^
[20:27] <wxl> that versioning is strange. would we normally use ubuntu+1?
[20:28] <teward> wxl: A xenial SRU needs to have a version less than that in Yakkety but higher than that in Xenial
[20:28] <wxl> right. that part makes sense
[20:28] <teward> if they're prepping for a Xenial fix, and the Xenial package is 4.2.10-2 and the Yakkety has 4.2.10-2ubuntu1, then Xenial can become 4.2.10-2ubuntu0.1
[20:28]  * teward gives wxl the version chart for the bug at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/playonlinux
[20:29] <wxl> but if yakkety was 4.2.10-2ubuntu2, then we would use 4.2.10-2ubuntu1?
[20:29] <teward> wxl: but yakkety is -2ubuntu1
[20:29] <teward> not -2ubuntu2
[20:29] <wxl> teward: i'm talking hypotheticals, here, bub
[20:29]  * wxl files a bug against teward. more coffee needed.
[20:30] <teward> wxl: usually helps to say 'hypothetically speaking..." :P
[20:30] <teward> at this hour dinner would help more
[20:30] <wxl> teward: btw "if" often implies such a thing XD
[21:34] <asciiwolf> rbasak, I have uploaded a new debdiff and edited the Regression Potential section... Please, let me know, if everything is ok. Thanks :-)