[03:44] <jbicha> robert_ancell: hi
[03:44] <robert_ancell> jbicha, hi
[03:44] <jbicha> with LP: #1639507, I don't think that's reproducible on 17.04 so I think something was fixed in gnome-software 3.22.* but I haven't gone through to check
[03:45] <robert_ancell> jbicha, the fix I made was just to backport the appstream file. I think it wont actually fix the problem until it's been released and the appstream data for the archive is updated
[03:46] <robert_ancell> But I'm not sure, that's something that Laney knows better than me
[03:46] <jbicha> new appstream data is generated in xenial-proposed
[03:47] <jbicha> and hopefully the xenial-proposed appdata is preferred over xenial?
[03:48] <robert_ancell> oh, then I don't know :(
[03:49] <jbicha> robert_ancell: you saw LP: #1672424 right?
[03:50] <robert_ancell> no
[03:51] <jbicha> yeah, the bug title sounds like all those duplicates of that one bug so it's easy to miss
[03:51] <robert_ancell> jbicha, is this a regression?
[03:51] <jbicha> yes, see comment #5
[03:52] <jbicha> I didn't block this week's gnome-software SRU since this is an older regression
[03:53] <robert_ancell> jbicha, when did that version hit the archive? In Nov 2016?
[03:55] <robert_ancell> I'll have to look at it next week, looks like it's been in the wild like that for a while then
[03:55] <jbicha> yes, it looks like December 1 2016
[03:55] <jbicha> ok
[03:56] <jbicha> have a good weekend!
[03:57] <robert_ancell> bye!
[09:03] <willcooke> morning all
[09:03] <willcooke> Trevinho, hikiko - low gfx done today do we think?
[09:03]  * willcooke is going to keep nagging 
[09:03] <hikiko> good morning willcooke
[09:04] <hikiko> Trevinho, did a review yesterday and proposed a branch, I am doing the 1st fixes I haven't check his branch yet
[09:04] <willcooke> thanks
[09:05] <hikiko> willcooke, I'll ping you later when I have news :)
[09:05] <davmor2> Morning all
[09:57] <Sweetshark> moin all
[10:00] <willcooke> hey Sweetshark
[11:20] <Trevinho> hikiko: just merge my branch as it has fixes...
[11:20] <Trevinho> hikiko: there's something also coming for ucc
[11:53] <Sweetshark> jbicha: did I hear that right, you'd sponsor a libreoffice package if I do the moves via ubuntu-sponsors? Would that apply to a LibreOffice 5.3.1 update for zesty?
[12:05] <jbicha> subscribing ubuntu-sponsors is nice because it gets your bug on http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/ and there are people that do look at that for things to upload
[12:06] <jbicha> oh, seb128 isn't around? yeah I'll probably upload that for you
[12:08] <Sweetshark> jbicha: right. Im just sking because there isnt a bug for the update yet, so I would write one. Would skip that though, if we ignore it anyway though ...
[12:08] <Sweetshark> jbicha: /me goes writing that bug.
[12:10] <jbicha> I prefer the ubuntu-sponsors bug because more potential uploaders could see the request so you might get faster results
[12:30] <alexarnaud> Hello all !
[12:31] <alexarnaud> Trevinho, andyrock, didrocks: do you know the state of the color filter module into Compiz ? It could be really helpful for low-vision people.
[12:31] <alexarnaud> I've seen a work on it on LP : https://launchpad.net/compiz-colorfilter-plugin/0.9.5
[12:32] <Trevinho> alexarnaud: not really... It was outside our scope
[12:32] <alexarnaud> Trevinho: OK, no problem. I would be sure to note duplicate the work on ti.
[12:32] <alexarnaud> *it
[12:32] <alexarnaud> thanks
[14:25] <Sweetshark> jbicha: bug 1673790 should have everything needed and has ubuntu-sponsors subscribed. please let me know if anything is missing.
[14:36] <jbicha> Sweetshark: thanks! I'll look at it more a bit later
[14:48] <Sweetshark> jbicha: awesome, thx.
[15:23] <davmor2> I blame willcooke http://www.pcworld.com/article/3181289/security/adobe-reader-edge-safari-and-ubuntu-fall-during-first-day-at-pwn2own.html ;)
[15:40] <willcooke> I wonder what that bug is then
[15:41] <davmor2> willcooke: don't know just says ubuntu desktop so I instantly blame Laney but he's not here so it must of been your fault ;)
[15:41] <mdeslaur> it's a kernel bug, we don'tknow the details yet
[15:41] <jbicha> davmor2: I note that seb128 is conveniently absent today too ;)
[15:41] <willcooke> mdeslaur, thanks
[15:42] <davmor2> jbicha: yeah that just so willcooke definitely gets the blame :)
[15:42] <willcooke> I was just going through the root processes
[15:42] <mdeslaur> don't get me wrong, I still blame willcooke for the kernel bug :P
[15:42] <willcooke> :)) it's a fair cop
[15:42] <mdeslaur> hehehe
[15:42] <willcooke> man, I could be making serious coin with these kernel bugs I make :D
[15:42] <davmor2> willcooke: yeah by the rules of the games they have to provide full details of the hack
[15:43] <davmor2> willcooke: it is the exploit on ubuntu server through apache that peaked my interest
[15:43] <davmor2> $200,000
[15:43] <willcooke> yeah, although it says they haven't done it (yet)
[15:43] <Sweetshark> Im late to the party: But can we please just agree to blame systemd?
[15:45] <davmor2> Sweetshark: no it's definite willcooke fault it says Ubuntu Desktop ;)
[15:45]  * Sweetshark is just grumpy that he lost a bet to the tune of one bottle of single malt because systemd wasnt forked in the last two years ...
[15:45] <davmor2> Sweetshark: but yeah I think we can all shake our fists in the air and scream Lennart
[15:45] <mdeslaur> Sweetshark: what do you mean it wasn't forked? every single distro forks systemd
[15:49] <Sweetshark> mdeslaur: well, yeah. We didnt explicitly define "fork", but I think the implied expectation was that the fork becomes its own upstream (and governance etc.). I could try the "distros fork" argument, but it would seem like me cheating out of my obligations on the bet.
[15:49] <mdeslaur> Sweetshark: fair enough :)
[15:55] <willcooke> I'm taking off early to go and nurse my cold.  Ping on Telegram if anything is needed for that bug ^
[15:55] <willcooke> have a good weekend all
[16:16] <Trevinho> hikiko: I'm reworking the ucc plugin too, as there are some problems... Also I've noticed that by default just running ucc crashes the session when in guest
[19:28] <ricotz> jbicha, hi, do you have an eta for the libreoffice upload?
[19:29] <jbicha> ricotz: later today, why?
[19:30] <ricotz> jbicha, wanted to wait for the tarballs being available in the archive, this saves me some upload trouble
[19:31] <ricotz> ... for the backport builds
[19:31] <jbicha> ok, I'll ping you when they're accepted
[19:31] <ricotz> thanks
[19:32]  * ricotz hopes this would be within the next 4 hours
[19:32] <jbicha> yes, it should be
[19:33] <jbicha> it requires an impressive amount of bandwidth though :|
[19:33] <ricotz> yeah nearly 1G
[19:46] <ricotz> jbicha, I am going to just upload it, sorry for the noise
[19:53] <jbicha> ricotz: I'm uploading now
[20:02] <ricotz> jbicha, oh, pushed the first source package now
[20:07] <jbicha> I uploaded but LP hasn't sent me an accepted or rejected email yet
[20:16] <ricotz> this can take a bit sometimes
[20:18] <jbicha> maybe I should have waited for the first one to get accepted before pushing the 2nd one?
[20:20] <ricotz> I don't think so, they are processed, pushing the whole bunch works fine for ppas
[20:20] <ricotz> https://launchpad.net/~ricotz/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages
[23:07] <Sweetshark> (so Im really in the weekend already, but ...)
[23:08] <Sweetshark> jbicha: I got this mail: "The signer of this package has no upload rights to this distribution's primary archive.  Did you mean to upload to a PPA?" <- likely the cause they dont show up yet?
[23:09]  * Sweetshark goes back to lurking in the dark ....
[23:11] <jbicha> Sweetshark: thanks, I uploaded the wrong file
[23:12] <jbicha> and because the file I uploaded wasn't signed by me, I didn't get the email from LP