cjwatsonfossfreedom: approved - let me know when you've done those minor tweaks and I can merge it for you00:49
naccrbasak: dumb q, re: qemu failing to import orig, do you have git-buildpackage installed in that env?00:49
=== juliank is now known as Guest55965
Mirvacheronuk: no, and actually there is not much point since it is not needed to land Qt 5.7.1 anyway - once Qt lands, it would automatically get built once dependencies are satisfied05:59
Mirvmeanwhile, nothing seemingly happened in autopkgtest x86 queues overnight, so it's not really Qt dossing the infra, more like those linux uploads I guess :)06:00
rbasaknacc: good question, but yes it is. 0.7.2, on Xenial.08:52
rbasakjuliank: so I just hit some variation of bug 1522675. But I can reproduce with "apt-get --reinstall flashplugin-installer" and that results in:09:10
ubottubug 1522675 in apt (Ubuntu) "Needless scary warning: Download is performed unsandboxed as root: _apt user not allowed" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/152267509:10
rbasakflashplugin-installer: processing...09:10
rbasakflashplugin-installer: downloading http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/adobe-flashplugin_20161213.1.orig.tar.gz09:10
rbasakErr:1 http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/adobe-flashplugin_20161213.1.orig.tar.gz09:10
rbasak  404  Not Found09:10
rbasakW: Can't drop privileges for downloading as file '/var/lib/update-notifier/package-data-downloads/partial/adobe-flashplugin_20161213.1.orig.tar.gz' couldn't be accessed by user '_apt'. - pkgAcquire::Run (13: Permission denied)09:10
rbasakE: Failed to fetch http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/adobe-flashplugin_20161213.1.orig.tar.gz  404  Not Found09:10
rbasakE: Download Failed09:10
rbasakjuliank: AFAICT, that's a real failure, rather than a spurious error, no?09:10
rbasakSorry, I should've pastebinned that. Longer than I thought.09:11
fossfreedomcjwatson: much appreciated.  Have revised and tested the ubiquity amendments - https://code.launchpad.net/~fossfreedom/ubiquity/fix_add_ubuntu_budgie_support10:13
cjwatsonfossfreedom: thanks, uploaded14:27
=== bdrung_ is now known as bdrung
=== bdrung_ is now known as bdrung
tomreynhey pitti. a couple months ago, we talked about the need for a utility which is able to precisely state which of your installed packages are supported / unsupported, or which support policy applies to them (if it can be determined) on > 12.04 LTS (since on 12.04 there is a legacy mechanism present for this purpose). back then, i think you said it was high (or not low) on your to do list (if everyday work allowed for it). i'm wondering17:33
tomreynwhether you had a chance to work on it since?17:33
tomreynuuh sorry, i think i mixed you up with mdeslaur there17:35
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1574670 in update-manager (Ubuntu Xenial) "ubuntu-support-status returns inaccurate information" [Undecided,Confirmed]17:35
=== JanC is now known as Guest36383
=== JanC_ is now known as JanC
tomreynsince it's marked 'fixed' in yakkety, where "the Supported field [..] is correct", should we expect that 18.04 will again be able to use the 'Äubuntu-support-status' utility, so that there will again be a way to realiably tell whether your system has only supported packages installed ( which IMHO isn't the case for the current LTS release)?17:39
=== shuduo_ is now known as shuduo
mdeslaurtomreyn: assuming nothing breaks again before 18.04 comes out, yes18:46
mdeslaurtomreyn: actually, I believe it's the lts support field logic that is broken, so it needs to get fixed before 18.04 comes out18:47
mdeslaurtomreyn: I haven't had time to look into that yet, but will do soon18:47
tomreynthanks, including for responding during the weekend. ;)18:54
Bluefoxicyhttps://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zram-config/+bug/1654777 this is intended for Ubuntu+1 so19:14
ubottuLaunchpad bug 1654777 in zram-config (Ubuntu) "zram-config control by maximum amount of RAM usage" [Undecided,New]19:14
=== Bluefoxicy_ is now known as Bluefoxicy
valbris there someone here working for Canonical?21:14
fossfreedomquick question all - our seeds for our meta package contains a blacklist file - despite blacklisting a package it still appears to be installed on our ISO.  Its not a dependency - just a recommendation.  Is the blacklist file in seeds ignored?21:35

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!