[08:47] <tjaalton> I've staged new xserver and driver rebuilds on a ppa. should they be copied to proposed or just uploaded normally? now that we have -proposed migrations and whatnot, the risk of packages slipping in -updates prematurely seems slim
[09:33] <chrisccoulson> hi, could someone please approve yesterday's adobe-flashplugin updates (for all releases)
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted devhelp [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.92-0ubuntu1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted devhelp [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.92-0ubuntu1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted devhelp [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.92-0ubuntu1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted devhelp [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.92-0ubuntu1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New source: hsail-tools (zesty-proposed/primary) [0~20170314-1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted devhelp [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.92-0ubuntu1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted devhelp [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.92-0ubuntu1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted devhelp [i386] (zesty-proposed) [3.23.92-0ubuntu1]
[10:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted steam [i386] (zesty-proposed) [1:1.0.0.54+repack-2ubuntu3]
[10:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected genwqe-user [sync] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[10:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: rejected genwqe-user [sync] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[10:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-mate-artwork [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [17.04.2]
[10:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [sync] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[10:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-wallpapers [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [17.04.0-0ubuntu1]
[10:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hsail-tools [source] (zesty-proposed) [0~20170314-1]
[10:32] <jamespage> bdmurray: hello - covering for zul this week - have added a test case to bug 1567807 which was the second bug referenced in the changes for nova in xenial under bug 1668313
[10:32] <jamespage> bdmurray: to confirm that's fix released in zesty (included in final rc for Ocata) and is included in the yakkety update for newton already in proposed - commented on the bug to that effect.
[10:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-2] (no packageset)
[10:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [i386] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-2] (no packageset)
[10:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hsail-tools [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/none) [0~20170314-1] (no packageset)
[10:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [armhf] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-2] (no packageset)
[10:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-2] (no packageset)
[10:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [arm64] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-2] (no packageset)
[10:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [s390x] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-2] (no packageset)
[10:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hsail-tools [arm64] (zesty-proposed/none) [0~20170314-1] (no packageset)
[10:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hsail-tools [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [0~20170314-1] (no packageset)
[10:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: hsail-tools [armhf] (zesty-proposed/none) [0~20170314-1] (no packageset)
[10:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-2] (no packageset)
[10:43] <oSoMoN> can an AA please promote qtdeclarative5-ubuntu-ui-extras0.2 to main? its MIR has been approved (bug #1666556), and it’s blocking the migration of webbrowser-app from proposed
[10:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [arm64] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-3] (no packageset)
[10:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-3] (no packageset)
[10:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [amd64] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-3] (no packageset)
[10:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [armhf] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-3] (no packageset)
[10:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [i386] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-3] (no packageset)
[10:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [s390x] (zesty-proposed/none) [4.0.18-3] (no packageset)
[10:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: genwqe-user [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [4.0.18-3] (no packageset)
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[11:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [i386] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-2]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hsail-tools [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [0~20170314-1]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hsail-tools [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [0~20170314-1]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hsail-tools [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [0~20170314-1]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted genwqe-user [i386] (zesty-proposed) [4.0.18-3]
[11:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted hsail-tools [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [0~20170314-1]
[12:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fglrx-installer (trusty-proposed/restricted) [2:15.201.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1 => 2:15.201.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[12:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: fglrx-installer-updates (trusty-proposed/restricted) [2:15.201.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1 => 2:15.201.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)
[14:12] <braiam> Hi, I'm going to fill a bug against systemd so that units that use After=network-online.target start immediatly after ipv6 interfaces are UP, but these can't bind the address due DAD checks running. It is a good candidate for a SRU? Upstream report https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2037
[14:13] <jgrimm> rharper, ^^
[14:13] <braiam> Upstream doesn't specify exactly which patches fixes the issue, so some detective work is needed
[14:14] <rharper> surely networkd (or ubuntu networking) shouldn't reach network-oontline.target until networking is actually up
[14:15] <braiam> rharper: as explained in the bug, the interface is UP, but with a tentative flag, due DAD checks. See https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/beware_the_ipv6_dad_race_condition for details
[14:15] <rharper> braiam: yeah;  yet another delta between ifupdown (which does have dad timeouts and blocks until it's permament)
[14:17] <rharper> braiam: that's definitely something that we're interested in w.r.t getting systemd/networkd on par with ifupdown networking;
[14:20] <braiam> rharper: so, I use the template on the wiki for a SRU against systemd?
[14:21] <rharper> braiam: have you filed a bug in launchpad (you can refer to the upstream bug in there)?  that's task that can be assigned to find the commits needed to pull in whats needed to xenial systemd
[14:22] <rharper> the team will need to confirm if it's fixed in zesty (it appears to be given the info on the issue) and look at yakkety as well;
[14:22] <rharper> with a fix identified then we can create an SRU from template and include how to reproduce and confirm that it's fixed;  whomever collects the fixes will need to apply and generate debdiff for the various releases, etc.
[14:23] <braiam> no, I have the form filled, just waiting
[14:23] <rharper> the form is the last bit of accounting; it sounds like there's other work first (identifying which patches are needed, confirming fixed/broken in zesty, yakkety and xenial)
[14:23] <rharper> so we can start with a launchpad bug against systemd
[14:24] <braiam> ok, then I will submit the bug as I have it and paste the link here in case there's something to modify/add (which I'm sure there will be)
[14:24] <rharper> thanks!
[14:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libvirt (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.1.0-1ubuntu9.1 => 2.1.0-1ubuntu9.2] (ubuntu-server, virt) (sync)
[14:26] <oSoMoN> seb128, did you see my request to promote qtdeclarative5-ubuntu-ui-extras0.2 to main? could you let me know if anything is blocking? or maybe point me to another archive admin who would have time to look at it?
[14:29] <braiam> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1673092
[14:29] <tjaalton> could someone mark analitza tests ignored on i386?
[14:29] <tjaalton> keeps failing for some reason, blocks mesa
[14:32] <rharper> braiam: thanks again!
[14:33] <braiam> np
[14:52] <sil2100> slangasek: hey! Could you help out oSoMoN with promoting some packages to main? The MIR has been accepted and now he's just waiting for someone to do the 'thing': https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-ui-extras/+bug/1666556
[14:52] <sil2100> webbrowser-app is now blocked in -proposed on htis
[14:53] <oSoMoN> sil2100, thanks!
[14:54] <slangasek> sil2100, oSoMoN: looking
[14:56] <slangasek> sil2100, oSoMoN: done
[14:56] <sil2100> slangasek: thank you!
[14:58] <oSoMoN> slangasek, thanks!
[15:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xen (xenial-proposed/main) [4.6.0-1ubuntu4.3 => 4.6.5-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server, virt)
[15:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xen (yakkety-proposed/main) [4.7.0-0ubuntu2.1 => 4.7.2-0ubuntu1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server, virt)
[15:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xen (trusty-proposed/main) [4.4.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.9 => 4.4.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.10] (core, virt)
[15:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: 64 entries have been added or removed
[15:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fglrx-installer [source] (trusty-proposed) [2:15.201.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.1]
[15:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted fglrx-installer-updates [source] (trusty-proposed) [2:15.201.2-0ubuntu0.14.04.1]
[16:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nodejs (xenial-backports/universe) [4.2.6~dfsg-1ubuntu4.1 => 4.7.2~dfsg-1ubuntu3~16.04.0] (no packageset)
[16:07] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: nodejs (yakkety-backports/universe) [4.2.6~dfsg-1ubuntu5 => 4.7.2~dfsg-1ubuntu3~16.10.0] (no packageset)
[16:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ltt-control (yakkety-proposed/universe) [2.8.1-1 => 2.8.1-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[16:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ltt-control (xenial-proposed/universe) [2.7.1-2~fakesync1.1 => 2.7.1-2ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[16:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openvswitch (xenial-proposed/main) [2.5.0-0ubuntu1 => 2.5.2-0ubuntu0.16.04.1] (ubuntu-server) (sync)
[17:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted nova [source] (xenial-proposed) [2:13.1.3-0ubuntu1]
[17:28] <acheronuk> slangasek or other release team member about?
[17:29] <acheronuk> following up from tjaalton request earlier, could you please skip the bad analitza i386 test for mesa here http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#mesa
[17:31] <acheronuk> this is not a mesa issue. just a test fail on another issue that blocks mesa unnecessarily.
[17:34] <Laney> acheronuk: What happened to make it go from passing every time to failing every time?
[17:37] <slangasek> FAIL!  : CommandsTest::testCorrect(range(a,b)) Compared values are not the same
[17:37] <slangasek>    Actual   (last.toString()): "list { 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 }"
[17:37] <slangasek> that's... impressive?
[17:37] <slangasek>    Expected (result)         : "list { 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 }"
[17:38] <slangasek>    Loc: [/tmp/autopkgtest.Xt4fro/build.psW/analitza-16.12.3/analitza/tests/commandstest.cpp(422)]
[17:38] <acheronuk> Laney: santa 'fixed' the test!
[17:40] <slangasek> Laney, acheronuk: analitza/4:16.12.1-0ubuntu1 consistently fails with an abi-compliance-checker failure, which could be triggered by mesa or could be unrelated.  analitza/4:16.12.3-0ubuntu1 consistently fails with the above math test error
[17:41] <slangasek> I would like a clearer understanding of the zesty failure than "keeps failing for some reason" if I'm to ignore this error
[17:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: thermald (xenial-proposed/main) [1.5-2ubuntu2 => 1.5-2ubuntu3] (core)
[17:43] <Laney> slangasek: Looks to me like it's (partially) broken on i386, so suggest skiptest mesa rather than badtest analitza if you decide to skip it
[17:43] <Laney> but I would also like to see some real analysis :-)
[17:44] <acheronuk> slangasek: that abi compliance checker issue on 16.12.1 was just an issue with updated gcc-6
[17:44] <acheronuk> fixed by: https://git.launchpad.net/~kubuntu-packagers/kubuntu-packaging/+git/analitza/commit/?id=9dad53f96f7d0e3eb632d89c6d7664d030912bc3
[17:45] <slangasek> ok
[17:45] <slangasek> that's the info I needed, thanks
[17:46] <acheronuk> we will look at the analitza tests against itself in the meantime. santa/jose is talking to upstream I think
[17:46] <acheronuk> slangasek: thanks
[17:47] <chrisccoulson> infinity, slangasek, or any other AA - could you please approve the adobe-flashplugin/partner uploads from yesterday?
[17:48] <slangasek> chrisccoulson: looking
[17:48] <chrisccoulson> slangasek, thanks. It's for precise -> yakkety (zesty is already done)
[17:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (precise-proposed) [1:20170314.1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1]
[17:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (trusty-proposed) [1:20170314.1-0ubuntu0.14.04.1]
[17:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (xenial-proposed) [1:20170314.1-0ubuntu0.16.04.1]
[17:49] <Laney> slangasek: Uh, you badtested?
[17:49] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted adobe-flashplugin [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1:20170314.1-0ubuntu0.16.10.1]
[17:49] <slangasek> Laney: yes, because I'm satisfied with acheronuk's explanation that it is a bad test
[17:50] <Laney> I think he said that they fixed the acc test, not the testsuite one
[17:50] <acheronuk> Laney: that is correct
[17:50] <slangasek> Laney: I only badtested the zesty version, not zesty-proposed
[17:50] <acheronuk> not the same issue
[17:50] <Laney> alright
[17:50] <Laney> that makes sense, thx
[17:50] <Laney> well, assuming mesa is tested against that one
[17:50] <acheronuk> aha. ok
[17:50] <Laney> which is isn't :)
[17:51] <Laney> here: https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-zesty/zesty/i386/a/analitza/20170315_084946_fd302@/log.gz someone ran the test with all-proposed
[17:52] <slangasek> Laney: it happens that I already retriggered without all-proposed, so I guess it'll clear soon?
[17:52] <acheronuk> ummmmm. I re-did the tests against 'all-proposed' this morning, to reduce it down to the i386 fail
[17:53] <slangasek> ick, I really don't like all-proposed being used that way
[17:53] <slangasek> "some collection of packages in -proposed, some of which may or may not migrate, got the tests to pass"
[17:53] <Laney> Not sure that it will clear it
[17:54] <acheronuk> sorry if that confused things. testing against 16.12.1 in release will fail on the abi compliance check, as that was uploaded and migrated before the gcc-6 change
[17:57] <chrisccoulson> slangasek, thanks for approving those. Will you be around in a bit to move them from proposed?
[18:11] <slangasek> chrisccoulson: yes
[18:30] <tjaalton> slangasek: thanks for fixing analitza, now you'd still need to remove armhf binaries of openmw :) bug 1671129
[18:31] <slangasek> let's see
[18:32] <tjaalton> mesa got rid of libgles1 which is about to be removed upstream anyway, openmw tried to make armhf to work with gles1 but failed
[18:33] <tjaalton> also, while I'm here.. should xserver & driver rebuilds still be copied from a ppa or just rebuilt in -proposed?
[18:35] <slangasek> tjaalton: I don't understand why you're asking
[18:36] <tjaalton> back in the day they were built on a ppa and then copied to the archive
[18:36] <tjaalton> it's been long enough that I don't remember how it was done :P
[18:36] <tjaalton> last time
[18:36] <slangasek> there's no requirement from the archive side that you do it one way or the other
[18:36] <tjaalton> okay
[18:37] <tjaalton> I just thought if one is preferred over the other
[20:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: openvswitch (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.6.0-0ubuntu2 => 2.6.1-0ubuntu0.16.10.1] (ubuntu-server) (sync)
[20:55] <barry> slangasek: or other archive admin; can you please drop aptdaemon 1.1.1+bzr982-0ubuntu17 from zesty-proposed?  the bug it fixes is quite minor and the package isn't going to get promoted, so better to just drop it and i will close the bug as won't fix
[21:02] <slangasek> barry: are you confident that we're never going to upload another aptdaemon package? because otherwise that's a lego on the floor for the next person who tries to upload it and gets a reject message from LP for picking the wrong version number
[21:04] <barry> slangasek: i'm confident *i* will never upload another one :)  i can also update lp:aptdaemon to make it clear in the changelog that the next version should be used.  but yeah, if someone does an upload from apt-get source, it will break.  suggestions?  just let it linger in -proposed?
[21:04] <barry> (and it's an easy enough fix if they do; just bump the version number)
[21:05] <slangasek> barry: lp:aptdaemon... which is not listed in debian/control of the existing package, so why would the uploader look there? :/
[21:05] <slangasek> barry: yeah, I'm ok with it lingering in -proposed until we properly solve the dependencies on aptdaemon
[21:06] <barry> slangasek: yeah, i don't even remember how i stumbled on it
[21:06] <barry> slangasek: wfm
[21:20] <Ukikie> There seem to be a lot of dups for a "minor bug", fwiw.
[21:30] <tsimonq2> Some guy got mad in a bug report about the lack of an up-to-date Qupzilla in the archive
[21:30] <tsimonq2> infinity: Which reminds me, are you around to work on adding that PPA to that image?
[21:33] <infinity> tsimonq2: Not super available for that sort of fiddling right now, no. :/
[21:34] <infinity> tsimonq2: That said, if you have a PPA ready to go that I can have a look at, maybe I can JFDI.
[21:35] <infinity> tsimonq2: Upload rights on the PPA shouldn't include anyone who can't upload the same packages to the archive, ideally.  So we're not distributing images with free-for-all WHEE stuff in them.
[21:36] <tsimonq2> infinity: I have zero upload rights to the archive, but ideally once the work is done, I can get it in the archive once Zesty+1 opens for development, maybe then I'll apply for PPU.
[21:36] <tsimonq2> infinity: But as of now, I would be the only person with upload access that doesn't have access to the archive.
[21:36] <infinity> tsimonq2: So who sponsors your stuff generally?
[21:37] <tsimonq2> infinity: gilir if it's Lubuntu stuff. Otherwise a few different people.
[21:37] <infinity> tsimonq2: If one of your sponsors has upload rights to the PPA as well, and is willing to take responsiblity for whatever crack you put in there, I'll consider that close enough, given this is a "-next" image, not something we're shipping.
[21:38] <tsimonq2> infinity: What do you need, an email?
[21:38] <infinity> tsimonq2: ie: Just a verbal "yeah, Simon's okay, and I'll vouch for his uploads in that PPA" from gilir would work for me. :P
[21:38] <tsimonq2> infinity: Ok, I'll talk to him.
[21:38] <infinity> tsimonq2: Assuming, as you say, that you're the only non-archive-upload-rights person with access to said PPA.  Which PPA is it?
[21:41] <tsimonq2> infinity: ppa:lubuntu-next/stable - as you can probably tell it's a WIP, was going to upload a test package there just so the image building mechanism has the ability to add the PPA, but I'm not done yet. And that being said, I probably should have waited an hour before giving you a ping... :|
[21:43] <tsimonq2> infinity: But very soon, I'll make it so Lubuntu Next is a subteam of Lubuntu Developers (Lubuntu Developers has access but not vice versa) so gilir and anyone with Core Dev can upload to it, as a precautionary measure.
[21:46] <tsimonq2> infinity: Regardless, I just sent gilir a ping, he'll let you know when he gives the thumbs up.
[21:47] <infinity> tsimonq2: I don't think lubuntu-developers is a team with upload rights.
[21:47] <infinity> jmarsden sure doesn't seem to have any.
[21:47] <Ukikie> Oh?  Used to be MOTU.
[21:48] <tsimonq2> infinity: I am aware, but it just gives all people who are in that team now and in the future access to it.
[21:48] <infinity> Certainly isn't right now.
[21:49] <infinity> tsimonq2: Yes, and I'm telling you I explicitly don't want that. :P
[21:49] <tsimonq2> infinity: You don't want me to give ~lubuntu-dev access to it, only Julien?
[21:49] <wxl> @infinity: what if we created a vetting process for it? it's not like anyone can just join the team.
[21:49] <tsimonq2> wxl: But regardless we should talk to Julien about that other random person.
[21:49] <tsimonq2> I'm not sure they should be in there.
[21:50] <wxl> s/\(vetting\)/well-defined \1/
[21:50] <wxl> @tsimonq2: agreed
[21:50] <tsimonq2> wxl: I'll ping him about that as well.
[21:50] <infinity> How you handle the team is your own issue.  But we just finished discussing "If we build images from the PPA, the only people with upload rights to the PPA should be people with archive upload rights and, if gilir vouches for you, also you (Simon)".  So adding more people via a team is a no-go. :P
[21:51] <tsimonq2> infinity: Alright.
[21:52] <infinity> It's perhaps not insane for ~lubuntu-dev to become a DMB-owned team and define upload rights for a lubuntu PPU packageset, but that's not what it is today.
[21:53] <tsimonq2> infinity: I actually talked to gilir about that, he told me that it's a bit useless at the moment because he's the only active developer on that team, and since he is already a MOTU, that would be redundant. :P
[21:53] <infinity> He's not wrong.
[21:53] <tsimonq2> I don't think he is either.
[21:54] <tsimonq2> But yeah, that's for another day I think.
[21:54] <infinity> But if any lubuntu people decide to go for PPU instead of MOTU in the future, repurposing that team for that would be reasonable.
[21:54] <infinity> (But that would remove it from your control and put it in the DMB's control)
[21:54] <tsimonq2> Gotcha.
[21:55] <tsimonq2> But, I think at the moment it's fine how it is. The only other person who would be interested in having that access is me, and I plan on applying for MOTU, not limiting my access to PPU.
[21:56] <tsimonq2> infinity: But anyways, would you like me to invite MOTU, Core Dev, both, or neither to be a part of the team?
[21:56] <tsimonq2> As in, has upload rights to the PPA.
[21:57] <tsimonq2> "people with archive upload rights" - just curious if you're referring to any archive rights (so in this case it would be MOTU) or just people with access to all the things (Core Dev), infinity
[22:01] <infinity> tsimonq2: Technically, if building images from it, it *should* be core-dev, since you could do silly things like replace glibc in your PPA.  In reality, given it's a test/next image, NOT a shipping product, and I happen to know the people involved, I'm willing to extend some trust that you won't do silly things. :P
[22:02] <tsimonq2> infinity: Alright. If at any time you need/want access, I'll be happy to grant it. :)
[22:11] <tsimonq2> infinity: Since you are an indirect Lubuntu Developer, please reject the invitation to ~lubuntu-next on behalf of Lubuntu Developers, I pressed buttons before "infinity> tsimonq2: Yes, and I'm telling you I explicitly don't want that. :P"
[22:12] <tsimonq2> infinity: I mean, if you can.
[22:12] <tsimonq2> infinity: Otherwise I'll ask gilir
[22:43] <infinity> tsimonq2: You should be able to uninvite them, surely.
[22:44] <tsimonq2> infinity: I wish I could...
[22:44] <infinity> You're the team admin.
[22:44] <infinity> https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-next/+members
[22:44] <infinity> Should have an option to remove.
[22:44] <tsimonq2> infinity: There isn't one afaict
[22:45] <tsimonq2> infinity: http://imgur.com/xQJRRQ7
[22:46] <tsimonq2> infinity: This is on https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-next/+members#invited
[22:46] <tsimonq2> infinity: I can edit existing members, no invitations
[22:46] <tsimonq2> Unless I'm just not looking in the right place?