=== Class7_ is now known as Class7
[07:26] <didrocks> good morning
[07:34] <duflu> Hi didrocks
[07:35] <didrocks> hey duflu
=== pstolowski|afk is now known as pstolowski
[08:36] <oSoMoN> good morning desktoppers
[08:42] <duflu> Hi oSoMoN
[08:42] <oSoMoN> hey duflu
[08:58] <willcooke> morning
[09:02] <Laney> :-o!!!
[09:02] <willcooke> morning Laney
[09:04] <seb128> good morning desktopers
[09:04] <Laney> hey willcooke, what's up? good holiday?
[09:04] <Laney> hey seb128
[09:05] <seb128> hey willcooke, Laney, how is the u.k?
[09:06] <Laney> still here, no tanks on the streets just yet
[09:07] <Laney> how are you? good weekend?
[09:09] <seb128> yeah, a bit busy prospecting for buying some furnitures but also relaxing, it also feels like winter now, brrrrr
[09:09] <duflu> Morning willcooke, Laney, seb128
[09:10] <duflu> seb128, if there's a deb in disco that works perfectly as an SRU for cosmic, how would you propose that?
[09:12] <seb128> duflu, you need a bug with the SRU info (impact/test case/regression potential) and point to the disco version/the launchpad debdiff
[09:12] <seb128> if the diff has no "side changes" just reuploading with a ~18.10 version or such should be enough
[09:13] <duflu> seb128, well, there are other bugfix changes. It's a bugfix only release. Does that matter?
[09:13] <duflu> (gjs 1.54.2)
[09:13] <seb128> if it's a GNOME point update it's fine, those have special rules that it's ok to do the version update
[09:13] <seb128> still need a SRU like bug
[09:14] <duflu> seb128, so the only requirement is that the version string is unique to cosmic?
[09:14] <duflu> different to disco
[09:15] <seb128> right, lower to disco, also that it has a SRU bug number reference in its changelog
[09:16] <duflu> OK. I'm guessing lower means 1.54.2-0...
[09:21] <seb128> duflu, versioning recommendations are documented on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update_the_packaging
[09:21] <seb128> so yeah that would be a -0ubuntu0.18.10.1 version
[09:27] <Laney> there's a gjs 1.54.3 by the way
[09:27] <Laney> I was just building that
[09:32] <duflu> Laney, I know but pushing cosmic ahead of disco isn't allowed, or useful in this case
[09:33] <Laney> it won't be ahead in a few minutes :-)
[09:33] <duflu> Oh
[09:34] <duflu> Hmm
[10:56] <Laney> really annoying
[10:57] <Laney> I've got empty window 19 and window 45
[10:57] <Laney> apparently forgot to save whatever channel I used to have in there
[10:57] <Laney> long uptime problems
=== jdstrand_ is now known as jdstrand
[14:22] <andyrock> Laney: do I need an SRU to backport this to cosmic? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mozjs60/+bug/1796238
[14:22] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1796238 in gjs (Ubuntu Cosmic) "[regression] mozjs60 crashes with SIGSEGV on gnome-shell exit, in GetPropertyOperation() from Interpret() from js::RunScript()" [Medium,In progress]
[15:02] <Laney> andyrock: if it's in the upstream release, not explicitly
[15:03] <andyrock> Laney: yeah it's the upstream release
[15:03] <andyrock> who should I ask to sync it?
[15:03] <Laney> it should be converted to an SRU bug yes, but the test case can just say it's covered by https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/GNOME and doesn't need to be tested specifically
[15:06] <Laney> it is synced to disco, still needs uploading to cosmic though
[15:06] <Laney> duflu mentioned that earlier so I would check with him that he didn't start working on that
[15:10] <andyrock> well I just need to convert the bug, so no big deal
[15:11] <Laney> yeh, someone does need to prepare & upload though
[15:39]  * Laney fixes things to build with --std=c11, thanks nautilus
[17:10] <andyrock> seb128: what's the correct link here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-initial-setup/+bug/1789925
[17:10] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1789925 in gnome-initial-setup (Ubuntu Bionic) "Link to Ubuntu Report legal notice points at the wrong page" [High,Fix committed]
[17:10] <andyrock> seb128: the test case says "https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/systems-information-notice" but I'm getting https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/data-privacy
[17:11] <Laney> the one in the test case is right
[17:11] <andyrock> so the package is broken
[17:12] <Laney> that would be surprising looking at the diff
[17:12] <andyrock> I'm checking bionic
[17:12] <Laney> double checked the version?
[17:12] <andyrock> disco and cosmic are not relevant considering that livepatch is not supported
[17:13] <andyrock> I did apt source ...
[17:13] <andyrock> and in the changelog it says: gnome-initial-setup (3.28.0-2ubuntu6.16.04.4) bionic; urgency=medium
[17:14] <Laney> I'd use apt policy to see which version is installed
[17:14] <Laney> but I only looked at cosmic indeed
[17:15] <andyrock> here: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/396483675/gnome-initial-setup_3.28.0-2ubuntu6.16.04.3_3.28.0-2ubuntu6.16.04.4.diff.gz
[17:15] <andyrock> https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/Cxp0lC3c/
[17:16] <Laney>                                "https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/dataprivacy",
[17:16] <Laney> looks buggy
[17:16] <andyrock> I'm checking here: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-desktop/ubuntu/+source/gnome-initial-setup/+git/gnome-initial-setup/+ref/ubuntu/bionic
=== pstolowski is now known as pstolowski|afk
[17:17] <andyrock> I'm a little bit confused
[17:21] <Laney> me too
[17:22] <Laney> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jTFGs5CNt2/
[17:22] <Laney> isn't that right?
[17:25] <willcooke> Livepatch page should point to: https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/dataprivacy
[17:25] <willcooke> Ubuntu Report should point to: https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/terms-and-policies/systems-information-notice
[17:25] <willcooke> via: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-initial-setup/+bug/1789925/comments/5
[17:25] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1789925 in gnome-initial-setup (Ubuntu Bionic) "Link to Ubuntu Report legal notice points at the wrong page" [High,Fix committed]
[17:25] <Laney> that's what that pastebin shows no?
[17:25] <willcooke> so testcase is wrong
[17:26] <willcooke> I will fix the test case, one sec
[17:26] <Laney> oh ok it should say ubuntu report page
[17:27] <willcooke> test case fixed
[17:27] <willcooke> sorry for the confusion, seb and I tripped over that one
[17:27] <willcooke> I've updated my bionic proposed machine today, so I will do a round of verification tomorrow
[17:31] <Laney> disco looks bad though
[17:31] <Laney> thought we had code to get that from /etc/os-release :(
[17:33] <jbicha> seb128: could you look into subscribing the bugs team to libcue & libsf ? LP: #1770871, LP: #1770874
[17:33] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1770871 in libcue (Ubuntu) "[MIR] libcue" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1770871
[17:33] <ubot5> Launchpad bug 1770874 in libgsf (Ubuntu) "[MIR] libgsf" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1770874
[17:35] <jbicha> Laney: os-release ultimately points to https://www.ubuntu.com/legal/data-privacy It looks like neither of those privacy policies link to the other
[17:36] <Laney> ok, not sure what you're getting at
[17:36] <Laney> we used to read os-release and now it hardcodes the url that's in there
[17:39] <jbicha> I don't know what I'm getting at either
[17:40] <andyrock> so that patch removed the code to read from /etc/os-release to read from an hard-coded link
[17:40] <andyrock> I'm still confused
[17:41] <Laney> I think it should be hardcoded in the ubuntu-report page and use os-release in livepatch
[17:41] <Laney> it looks to me like the livepatch page has bionic hardcoded right and cosmic/disco hardcoded wrong
[17:42] <Laney> I would fix it in disco, not like it matters for cosmic since you don't get the page there anyway
[17:42] <Laney> imho anyway
[17:42] <andyrock> k makes sense now
[17:42] <Laney> where "fix" means "go back to using os-release" (again imho)
[17:43] <Laney> (but I'm not sure why it was deleted, maybe an accident?)
[17:44] <andyrock> mmm it looks like it never read from /etc/os-release
[17:44] <andyrock> it was always hardcoded in livepatch page
[17:45] <Laney> ah
[17:45] <andyrock> I can prepare a patch
[17:45] <Laney> that was only in the report page?
[17:45] <andyrock> yeah report page was reading from /etc/os-release
[17:46] <andyrock> I can prepare a patch to read it from /etc/os-release in disco
[17:46] <Laney> cool
[17:46] <andyrock> and later we can SRU it
[17:46] <Laney> it looks like it has the functions to do that already
[17:46] <Laney> get_item()
[17:46] <Laney> so patch should be quite easy
[17:46] <andyrock> in a different page
[17:47] <andyrock> maybe we can move the all code in a shared file too
[17:47] <andyrock> but we should not block the current deb in bionic-proposed as it is "correct"
[17:47] <Laney> its there
[17:48] <Laney> you already use os-release for the is_lts() thing
[17:48] <andyrock> mmm where?
[17:49] <andyrock> ah right
[17:49] <andyrock> kk nice
[17:49] <andyrock> I'll mark it as verification-done and prepare the upload to disco
[17:49] <Laney> https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-desktop/ubuntu/+source/gnome-initial-setup/tree/debian/patches/0001-Add-Ubuntu-mode-with-special-pages.patch#n2135
[17:51] <Laney> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/MJnFyGjcvz/
[17:51]  * Laney has been failing a lot today
[17:51] <Laney> it's fun, you can replay those backwards and it's like an epic journey of failure
[17:52] <andyrock> k so the bug is confusing because it says in the title "Ubuntu Report" but in the test case it says "livepatch"
[17:52] <andyrock> I'll make it less ambigous
[17:52] <Laney> yeah typo/thinko I think
[17:52] <Laney> willcooke just said he fixed it
[17:53] <Laney> doesn't seem to be though ;-)
[17:53] <andyrock> I'm chaning it
[17:53] <andyrock> *changing
[17:55] <willcooke> sorry was eating, back now
[17:55] <willcooke> are we all sorted?
[17:55] <andyrock> yep
[17:55] <willcooke> thank you!
[17:55] <andyrock> and verified that it works
[18:39] <andyrock> Laney: can you create an ubuntu/cosmic branch in gnome-control-center ?
[18:54] <willcooke> night all
[19:30] <seb128> andyrock, Laney, was the SRU good or buggy at the end?
[21:03] <andyrock> seb128: the SRU was good
[21:03] <andyrock> I marked it as verified
[21:03] <andyrock> but it still makes sense to read it from /etc/os-release (in livepatch not in ubuntu report)
[21:04] <andyrock> it's low priority considering that disco will not have livepatch support
[21:04] <andyrock> but it's better to merge it otherwise we'll forgot :)
[21:04] <andyrock> said that it's EOD for me :)