[00:01] <tsimonq2> rbasak, bdmurray: Could I please get a second set of eyes here? bug 1804513
[00:01] <ubottu> bug 1804513 in Mixxx "Cosmic: Mixxx 2.1.3 is not stable with Qt5" [Critical,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1804513
[00:02] <tsimonq2> I'm unsure on the justification for the update, so I thought I'd check.
[00:06] <wxl> the 2.1.x packages (not really qt5 compatible) have qt5 depends, so totally shot. the only way to make those usable is to change those to qt4 depends.
[00:06] <wxl> the other option is to just use 2.2.x and qt5.
[00:07] <wxl> sorry, i perked up when i saw mixxx. i haven't used it in a while, but that's lovely software.
[00:22] <tsimonq2> Yeah, that's why I'm deferring to the SRU team. :)
[00:39] <sarnold> does bug 1822024 need a FFE? I'm not sure what the next step for this bug ought to be, any advice welcomed :)
[00:39] <ubottu> bug 1822024 in flatpak (Ubuntu) "Sync flatpak 1.2.3-2 (universe) from Debian unstable (main) for CVE-2019-10063" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1822024
[03:05] <mwhudson> does anyone happen to know how fuse filesytems get automounted?
[03:07] <sarnold> I could imagine some via /etc/fstab, some via systemd units, maybe some via udisks2? maybe some via filemanager things?
[03:09] <mwhudson> yeah i think it's udisks2
[03:09] <mwhudson> sarnold: https://github.com/storaged-project/udisks/blob/udisks-2.8.2/src/udiskslinuxfilesystem.c#L224-L243 <- lovely
[03:11] <sarnold> umsdos.. well known, eh? :)
[03:11] <sarnold> does linux still support that? :)
[03:13] <sarnold> $ git grep umsdos
[03:13] <sarnold> Documentation/ioctl/ioctl-number.txt:0x04       D2-DC   linux/umsdos_fs.h       Dead since 2.6.11, but don't reuse these.
[03:14] <mwhudson> nice
[03:18] <mwhudson> hmm actually i'm not sure that's the thing that causes the mounting to happen
[03:18] <mwhudson> that might just be the presense of mount.ntfs and mount.exfat
=== cpaelzer__ is now known as cpaelzer
[09:39] <rbasak> tsimonq2: if it's really broken for all users then a major version bump would be acceptable on the basis that it would certainly make it less broken with no regression risk.
[09:39] <rbasak> tsimonq2: however I don't see any such justification in that bug or in the linked bugs.
[09:40] <rbasak> tsimonq2: AFAICT, the reason seems to be "we don't like it and don't want to support it"
[09:40] <rbasak> tsimonq2: rather than any set of actually reported bugs that are causing a problem for existing users
=== fginther is now known as fginther`
=== ricab is now known as ricab|lunch
=== ricab|lunch is now known as ricab
[14:46] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, general question... I see gcc is defining __FILE__ macro with the full path, do you know a way (with pre-defined macro) to have only the filename? looks like this feature is missing in gcc... am I correct?
[15:40] <tsimonq2> rbasak: Yeah, that was my feeling, but I was borderline on it and wanted to confirm.
[15:40] <tsimonq2> Thanks.
[15:42] <rbasak> tsimonq2: yw. I commented on the bug but am struggling there now I think.
[15:43] <rbasak> The reporter seems to be presupposing the answer, and seems to conflate his opinion and support policy with an SRU justification.
[15:44] <rbasak> "How is the user impacted?" -> "bypassed all quality checks" etc.
[15:44] <tsimonq2> Yeah.
[15:44] <tsimonq2> I'll get in touch with Sebastinas, who pointed me at this bug.
[15:45] <rbasak> Thanks!
[15:45] <tsimonq2> Thank *you* :)
[15:45] <rbasak> I think I'll refrain from posting again. I don't think I can be constructive any further.
[15:45] <tsimonq2> Fair enough.
[15:46] <rbasak> tsimonq2: if you can sort the bug out with an SRU justification though, I'll happily look again
[15:46] <tsimonq2> Sounds good.
[15:46] <rbasak> I'm confident you understand what is needed :)
[15:48] <tsimonq2> Yeah, I'll re-review with his changes in mind.
[15:50] <tsimonq2> My goal with these is to be understanding; I understand that upstream just wants to see their package made right, and I want to help them reach that goal, but we also have policy
[15:52] <rbasak> Thanks.
[15:52] <rbasak> It seems likely that our policy won't prevent him from fixing things up.
[15:52] <tsimonq2> I agree.
[15:53] <rbasak> But AFAICT it's only really possible if he understands our policy and works with us to demonstrate that he's meeting it, and that's what I'm not being successful with in the bug I don't think.
[15:53] <rbasak> Or someone who understands SRU policy needs to dive in deep and do the work.
[15:56] <tsimonq2> My goal at this point is going to be to ask more precise questions. Where I think I'm going to draw the line on this one is actually drafting the SRU paperwork; he has justification, we just need to answer the right questions here.
[16:36] <rbasak> tsimonq2: on the Mixx bug: it's also behaviour changes, not just new bugs introduced.
[16:37] <tsimonq2> rbasak: Right; I did allude to that when I said my point was to ask him to verbosely state that information.
[16:37] <rbasak> tsimonq2: example: a user is all ready for a performance, runs an update, and then can't proceed with the performance due to UI changes.
[16:37] <tsimonq2> Right.
[16:38] <rbasak> OK - let's see what he comes back with.
[16:39] <tsimonq2> Sounds good.
[18:45] <sarnold> 99% [59 Sources store 0 B]
[18:45] <sarnold> awww. somehow the two thousand-something PB/s part didn't get copied. :(
[18:46] <tsimonq2> Woah :D
[18:47] <sarnold> it never lasts long :)
[18:47] <sarnold> though somehow I doubt that's because I was actually getting petabytes per second transfer :)
[18:51] <tsimonq2> haha
[18:51] <tsimonq2> Are LAN speeds even that fast?
[18:52] <sarnold> the fastest I've heard of is 200gb/s.
[18:52] <sarnold> I think I've seen 400gb/s on slidedecks before but that may still be in the future :)
[19:29] <Unit193> sarnold: If you have a clock that slips a little, if you wait long enough between syncs you can fire off ntp during apt update/upgrade and it'll give you that same result (even better when the clock goes back to before when you started. :D )
[19:29] <sarnold> Unit193: hahaha
[19:30] <Unit193> Taking negative years to apt update is fantastic.
[19:52] <ahasenack> any idea why I cannot add "bionic" and "cosmic" series to the samba task in this bug? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/1778322
[19:52] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1778322 in samba (Ubuntu) "gvfs-smb-browse can't browse samba/smb tree" [High,In progress]
[19:52] <ahasenack> those values don't show up
=== fginther` is now known as fginther
[21:21] <tribaal> Hi all! I just upgraded to the Dingo beta, and everything was absolutely smooth and is going great. Thanks a lot for all the hard work! That is all :P
[21:32] <valorie> tribaal: no problems?
[21:32] <valorie> I did my travel laptop and it was zero problems
[21:32] <valorie> this one I'm typing on is next
[21:37] <tribaal> valorie: exactly, not a single problem.
[21:40] <valorie> excellent
[21:40] <valorie> I hope for the same with this lappy