[17:00] <mdeslaur> hi
[17:02] <mdeslaur> slangasek, kees, stgraber: hi!
[17:03] <slangasek> mdeslaur: hello!
[17:03] <slangasek> who's chairing?
[17:03] <mdeslaur> I am
[17:03] <slangasek> cool
[17:05]  * slangasek leans his chair back
[17:05] <mdeslaur> #startmeeting
[17:05] <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Feb 28 17:03:37 2017 UTC.  The chair is mdeslaur. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[17:05] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[17:05]  * stgraber waves
[17:05] <mdeslaur> [topic] Apologies
[17:05] <mdeslaur> No apologies
[17:05]  * mdeslaur looks around for infinity
[17:05] <kees> hola
[17:05] <mdeslaur> [topic] Action review
[17:05] <mdeslaur> hrm
[17:05] <mdeslaur> hi infinity
[17:05] <infinity> Oh hai.
[17:05] <infinity> Are you already in progress?
[17:05] <mdeslaur> yep
[17:05] <mdeslaur> we're at the action review, you've arrived just in time :)
[17:05]  * infinity sits quietly in the corner.
[17:05] <mdeslaur> infinity to follow up with maas SRU exception
[17:05] <mdeslaur> infinity: what's the status on your action items?
[17:05] <infinity> Defer on MAAS, defer (but working on this week) seed/maint-check.
[17:06] <mdeslaur> ack
[17:06] <mdeslaur> slangasek: how about yours?
[17:06] <slangasek> defer :/
[17:06] <mdeslaur> ack
[17:06] <mdeslaur> doko has an agenda item about a freeze exception for python2.6 and openjdk-9
[17:07] <doko> that should be 3.6
[17:08] <mdeslaur> doko: I'm a bit confused by the request...you want a freeze exception for zesty?
[17:08] <mdeslaur> or do you want to upload what's in zesty to xenial and yakkety?
[17:08] <doko> no, I want standing exceptions for python3.6 and openjdk-9 in xenial and yakkety
[17:08] <doko> yes, exactly
[17:09] <infinity> "Not used by any package builds" as in, there aren't any python3.6 extensions built in the archive?
[17:09] <doko> correct. the only one I plan to do is python3-stdlib-extensions, just adding the tk and gdbm extensions from the standard lib for 3.6
[17:10] <doko> this will be a space penalty of about 100k for 3.5 users
[17:10] <infinity> This probably technically belongs more to the SRU team to ACK/NACK, but if there are no rdeps in the archive to worry about *and* no regressions in upstream tests, it's likely fine.
[17:11] <mdeslaur> the new SRU process should handle updating to new versions
[17:11] <doko> I'm fine to follow that one as well. just thought to get approval for the updates here
[17:12] <infinity> Well, a couple of the people here are also there. :P
[17:12] <infinity> And with that other hat on, I'm fine with it, so long as upstream tests don't regress.
[17:12] <slangasek> yes, given that the TB previously punted these things to the SRU team as a whole, from my side the preferred process now is: 1) create a wiki page detailing the exception, 2) get the SRU team to review it
[17:13] <doko> well, xenial has pre-releases ... so until the upload of the first upstream release, these could regress
[17:13] <slangasek> sample exception wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SnapcraftUpdates
[17:14] <infinity> doko: I get your point, but it also seems like it would be poor form for an upstream test to regress between a pre-release and the final version. :P
[17:14] <doko> well, then call it snapshots ... these are not even pre-releases ...
[17:14] <infinity> (upstream BEHAVIOURs could change, and I acknowledge that's an issue, but not a huge one for non-default versions)
[17:15] <doko> but let's see for the first run of the tests ...
[17:15] <infinity> Upstream behaviours changing or not, though, I'm inclined to agree that an LTS should ship a proper upstream release, not a snapshot of who-knows-what.
[17:15]  * slangasek nods
[17:17] <mdeslaur> ok, next topic?
[17:17] <infinity> [Add new agenda items above this line - include your name]
[17:17] <infinity> Could be contentious.
[17:17] <mdeslaur> hehe
[17:17] <mdeslaur> [topic] Mailing list archive
[17:18] <mdeslaur> rbasak asked on the list if the SRU team can accept NEW packages in stable releases
[17:18] <infinity> Oh, yeah.  I didn't see that until just now.
[17:19] <infinity> Notwithstanding Mark's attempt to take a 90 degree turn there, the answer is "it has to be an AA because permissions".
[17:19] <infinity> Which I'd highlight rbasak on, but he's not in here.
[17:19] <mdeslaur> I agree with sabdfl's response as a general recommendation, but there are a few packages there that are required in the archive
[17:20] <kees> that's been fine in the psst, for some things
[17:20]  * slangasek nods
[17:20] <mdeslaur> infinity: so there is a permissions issue there?
[17:21] <infinity> mdeslaur: Yeah, you just plain can't manipulate the NEW queue without ~ubuntu-archive.
[17:21] <infinity> Quite intentionally.
[17:21] <mdeslaur> ok, so I guess that answers the question
[17:23] <mdeslaur> infinity: can you tell rbasak?
[17:23] <mdeslaur> oh, you already are
[17:24] <mdeslaur> ok, next topic
[17:24] <mdeslaur> [topic] Community bugs
[17:24] <mdeslaur> no open bugs
[17:24] <mdeslaur> [topic] AOB
[17:24] <mdeslaur> anybody have anything else they would like to discuss?
[17:24]  * tsimonq2 waves
[17:24] <tsimonq2> Just a quick thing.
[17:24] <tsimonq2> Hey TB, I just wanted to shoot a quick question your way. You may have heard that Lubuntu is thinking about and working on moving to LXQt. Is this something that requires review and acceptance by the TB once we have something to work with, or can we just continue as is? We had a team member that dragged his feet on it and stopped progress, but I'm heading the subproject now, so anything the TB h
[17:25] <tsimonq2> ad to say on it before might be outdated.
[17:26] <mdeslaur> Is the move controversial where the TB needs to get involved?
[17:26] <infinity> We don't need to be involved.  Framework changes happen.
[17:26] <infinity> See KDE's move to plasma, etc.
[17:26] <tsimonq2> Not necessarily, but it's essentially an overhaul of the whole DE.
[17:26] <tsimonq2> Like, moving underlying framework.
[17:26] <tsimonq2> infinity: Ok, that makes sense.
[17:27] <slangasek> yeah, I don't think there's any sort of charter statement w/ the TB that defines Lubuntu must be "this" :)
[17:27] <tsimonq2> Ok that's cool :)
[17:27] <slangasek> if you said "we're going to make Lubuntu's metapackage a clone of Kubuntu's", I would go "um"
[17:27] <tsimonq2> Yeah :P
[17:27] <slangasek> but technologies change
[17:28] <tsimonq2> Alright, fair enough. :)
[17:28] <tsimonq2> Thanks for your time. :) o/
[17:28] <mdeslaur> tsimonq2: thanks!
[17:28] <mdeslaur> Anybody have anything else they would like to discuss?
[17:29] <infinity> tsimonq2: Massive bonus points if you can eliminate --no-follow-recommends while you're at it.
[17:29] <infinity> tsimonq2: It's a huge pain in the butt.
[17:29] <tsimonq2> infinity: Where is this? :P
[17:29] <stgraber> mdeslaur: I don't
[17:29] <infinity> tsimonq2: Your seeds don't follow recommends.  You're the only flavour that doesn't now.  We can discuss out of band another time.
[17:30] <mdeslaur> [topic] Next chair
[17:30] <mdeslaur> slangasek with stgraber as backup
[17:30] <slangasek> ack
[17:30] <mdeslaur> that's all folks!
[17:30] <mdeslaur> #endmeeting
[17:30] <meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Feb 28 17:30:34 2017 UTC.
[17:30] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2017/ubuntu-meeting-2.2017-02-28-17.03.moin.txt
[17:30]  * infinity read that as "slangasek with stgraber as backpack", which was quite the mental image.
[17:30] <mdeslaur> thanks everyone
[17:30] <mdeslaur> infinity: lol :)
[17:31] <slangasek> heh
[17:31] <kees> *wave* thanks!
[17:31] <stgraber> thanks!