[00:49] <cjwatson> fossfreedom: approved - let me know when you've done those minor tweaks and I can merge it for you
[00:49] <nacc> rbasak: dumb q, re: qemu failing to import orig, do you have git-buildpackage installed in that env?
=== juliank is now known as Guest55965
[05:59] <Mirv> acheronuk: 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 satisfied
[06:00] <Mirv> meanwhile, nothing seemingly happened in autopkgtest x86 queues overnight, so it's not really Qt dossing the infra, more like those linux uploads I guess :)
[08:52] <rbasak> nacc: good question, but yes it is. 0.7.2, on Xenial.
[09:10] <rbasak> juliank: 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] <ubottu> bug 1522675 in apt (Ubuntu) "Needless scary warning: Download is performed unsandboxed as root: _apt user not allowed" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1522675
[09:10] <rbasak> flashplugin-installer: processing...
[09:10] <rbasak> flashplugin-installer: downloading http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/adobe-flashplugin_20161213.1.orig.tar.gz
[09:10] <rbasak> Err:1 http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/adobe-flashplugin_20161213.1.orig.tar.gz
[09:10] <rbasak>   404  Not Found
[09:10] <rbasak> W: 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] <rbasak> E: Failed to fetch http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/adobe-flashplugin_20161213.1.orig.tar.gz  404  Not Found
[09:10] <rbasak> E: Download Failed
[09:10] <rbasak> juliank: AFAICT, that's a real failure, rather than a spurious error, no?
[09:11] <rbasak> Sorry, I should've pastebinned that. Longer than I thought.
[10:13] <fossfreedom> cjwatson: much appreciated.  Have revised and tested the ubiquity amendments - https://code.launchpad.net/~fossfreedom/ubiquity/fix_add_ubuntu_budgie_support
[14:27] <cjwatson> fossfreedom: thanks, uploaded
=== bdrung_ is now known as bdrung
=== bdrung_ is now known as bdrung
[17:33] <tomreyn> hey 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 wondering
[17:33] <tomreyn> whether you had a chance to work on it since?
[17:35] <tomreyn> uuh sorry, i think i mixed you up with mdeslaur there
[17:35] <tomreyn> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1574670
[17:35] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1574670 in update-manager (Ubuntu Xenial) "ubuntu-support-status returns inaccurate information" [Undecided,Confirmed]
=== JanC is now known as Guest36383
=== JanC_ is now known as JanC
[17:39] <tomreyn> since 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)?
=== shuduo_ is now known as shuduo
[18:46] <mdeslaur> tomreyn: assuming nothing breaks again before 18.04 comes out, yes
[18:47] <mdeslaur> tomreyn: actually, I believe it's the lts support field logic that is broken, so it needs to get fixed before 18.04 comes out
[18:47] <mdeslaur> tomreyn: I haven't had time to look into that yet, but will do soon
[18:54] <tomreyn> thanks, including for responding during the weekend. ;)
[19:14] <Bluefoxicy> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zram-config/+bug/1654777 this is intended for Ubuntu+1 so
[19:14] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1654777 in zram-config (Ubuntu) "zram-config control by maximum amount of RAM usage" [Undecided,New]
=== Bluefoxicy_ is now known as Bluefoxicy
[21:14] <valbr> is there someone here working for Canonical?
[21:35] <fossfreedom> quick 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?