[02:28] <callmepk> good morning
[02:30] <duflu> Morning callmepk 
[02:30] <callmepk> Morning duflu 
[05:48] <chraso> hi guys
=== guiverc2 is now known as guiverc
[05:51] <chraso> hey guys! How do I remove my previous profile(or just clear my desktop preferences)? I have installed Lubuntu to "/" partition with formatting and have retained "/home" partition and have created the same username as before.
[05:58] <duflu> chraso, you can remove most of your settings with: dconf reset -f /
[05:59] <duflu> Although some apps use files instead, mostly ~/.config/
[06:00] <chraso> i'm getting problem with the lubuntu interface mostly
[06:00] <duflu> I don't know what Lubuntu uses but the above two locations will cover most things
[06:00] <chraso>  i'm having a dropdown menu at login screen showing Lubuntu, LXQt Desktop & Openbox as choices. Should i continue with Lubuntu or choose LXQt? currently my login session is Lubuntu and i'm unable to add program shortcuts to Quick Launch panel and neither can add bookmarks to the pcmanfm
[06:01] <duflu> Not sure. I wonder if there's a separate channel for that?
[06:02] <duflu> chraso, try channels #lubuntu or #lxde
[06:03] <duflu> This one is more for Gnome
[06:03] <chraso> i try mostly on lubuntu channel, and it's mostly dead.
[06:03] <duflu> Well, most of the developers are sleeping at this time of day.
[06:04] <chraso> oh ok
[06:05] <chraso> just ran the dconf reset -f /
[06:05] <chraso> will reboot now and relogin and rejoin here
[06:07] <seb128> goood morning desktopers
[06:10] <duflu> Morning seb128 
[06:10] <seb128> hey duflu, happy friday! how are you?
[06:11] <duflu> seb128, going OK, other than most of my weekend seems to have been cancelled or about to be. But we are about to receive a cyclone around Sunday. You?
[06:11] <seb128> oh :(
[06:11] <seb128> I'm good thanks
[06:12] <duflu> It shouldn't even be a category 1 by the time it gets down here
[06:55] <didrocks> good morning
[07:01] <duflu> Hi didrocks 
[07:03] <didrocks> hey duflu 
[07:37] <duflu> Handy. gnome-shell-extension-prefs actually tells you the errors why (Ubuntu) extensions don't work with gnome-shell 3.37
[07:42] <seb128> the cycle started and they already changed things in a way that breaks extensions? :(
[07:49] <duflu> seb128, yes indeed. I was about to say that
[07:50] <duflu> For both ubuntu-dock and desktop-icons
[08:44] <seb128> duflu, technically 'doesn't work under 3.37' is invalid as an Ubuntu report since we don't package 3.37 yet
[08:45] <seb128> (and usually the new stack is prepared as one locked updates so we don't really a bug for tracking the fact that extensions need to be updated)
[08:45] <duflu> seb128, it's not a proper project. I have no choice but to use an Ubuntu bug
[08:45] <duflu> There's nowhere else
[08:46] <duflu> Unless I confirm the same is true for upstream dashtodock
[08:47] <seb128> k, fair enough, still I think we/Marco/upstream dashtodock know and assume the code needs updating every cycle to catch up with GNOME upstream changes
[08:48] <duflu> seb128, yeah I just wanted to notify people early this time instead of waiting till later in the cycle
[08:48] <seb128> but I guess it doesn't hurt to have a bug around restating it
[08:48] <seb128> right
[08:48] <seb128> though it probably makes sense to do it later rather than soon
[08:49] <seb128> if upstream shell changes again, best to do one porting
[08:49] <seb128> that do intermediate work that might be deprecated
[08:51] <duflu> You're assuming the API breaks regularly. I don't know how regular it is
[08:53] <seb128> I'm not assuming everything
[08:53] <seb128> I'm just saying that by doing earlier we risk doing work that is temporary and needs to be redone
[08:53] <seb128> everything->anything
[08:54] <duflu> seb128, I wouldn't advocate leaving all redesigns to late in the cycle
[08:55] <duflu> As a bonus, being forced to use 3.36 instead of 3.37 has just shown me one of my blocking issues seems to be a recent regression in 3.37
[08:55] <duflu> interesting
[08:56] <seb128> I guess there is value to test 3.37 earlier
[08:56] <seb128> but priority atm should still be on 3.36 and to stabilize the LTS
[08:57] <seb128> we should get the nvidia, scaling, rotation, dash creating problems for folder, flickers, etc worked out first
[08:59] <duflu> I am working on a 3.36 bug. But it needs to be developed against 3.37 like everything else
[08:59] <duflu> Also the Nvidia scaling issues are blocked waiting for Marco to fix a couple of common (non-Nvidia) bugs
[08:59] <duflu> As detailed in Trello
[09:00] <seb128> that's still ongoing?
[09:00] <seb128> Trevinho, ^ what's the status
[09:00] <duflu> Yeah, we fixed some bugs, not all
[09:00] <duflu> https://trello.com/c/oY9NYoDp
[09:01] <duflu> Though at 5pm on a Friday I really don't want to go into it
[09:02] <seb128> right, sorry if my comment went the wrong way, I didn't mean that you are doing anything wrong
[09:02] <seb128> I just don't want Marco to get distracted/derailled from the things he works on atm
[09:03] <seb128> once he's done with the scaling problems and maybe the current dock issues then he's free to look at 3.37 compatibility
[09:06] <seb128> Trevinho, duflu, oh, also I don't know if you saw but the gnome-shell 3.36.2 SRU was stopped due to regression being detected in the error tracker, that needs to be sorted out
[09:06] <seb128> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/phased-updates.html
[09:06] <duflu> Boo
[09:07] <duflu> seb128, it's showing as in updates
[09:07] <seb128> one error is not new, it has reports from .1 on the table so just need to Brian's email to see to clear it
[09:07] <seb128> it is
[09:07] <seb128> but phasing is something implemented in update-manager
[09:08] <seb128> it will give the update to n% of the users
[09:08] <seb128> that's to get incremental testing and be able to limit damage if there is a regression detected
[09:09] <seb128> in that case if you look on the page, it started with giving it to 10% and was set back to 0% now due to the regressions detected
[09:09] <seb128> the algorythm is buggy/suboptimal
[09:09] <duflu> seb128, one of the errors is what I proposed a fix to Salsa yesterday for
[09:09] <seb128> that's the xcb one right?
[09:09] <seb128> that's not a regression and shouldn't block the SRU
[09:09] <duflu> Correct
[09:10] <seb128> it's just the code logic is 'if no report with the version just before and then a report from the SRU then it might be a regression"
[09:10] <duflu> seb128, but localization of the assertion string makes it look like a new bug
[09:10] <seb128> well, https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/d0b522b2800fadad804175817218d4a81fa27ea4
[09:10] <seb128> it had reports from previous version
[09:10] <duflu> And I can't make a bug for it due to bugs in errors.ubuntu.com
[09:10] <duflu> Which also has a bug
[09:10] <seb128> just not from the previous SRU that wasn't look in updates
[09:10] <seb128> anyway, https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/ed05979081de9b66eac4a9eaa25e51fac88e43a3 seems it had no report before
[09:11] <seb128> so that needs investigation
[09:11] <duflu> Yeah looking
[09:12] <seb128> wasn't look -> wasn't long
[09:12] <seb128> anyway, the upload get emails about those issues so I guess Trevinho should be aware
[09:13] <duflu> seb128, the remaining issue is bug 1877760
[09:13] <ubot5> bug 1877760 in gnome-shell (Ubuntu) "gnome-shell crashed with SIGSEGV in __strncmp_avx2() from g_str_has_prefix() from _st_theme_node_ensure_background() from st_theme_node_paint_equal" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1877760
[09:13] <duflu> which sounds like it might already be fixed in 3.36.3
[09:14] <seb128> was it a regression in .2?
[09:14] <seb128> if so we probably need another SRU
[09:15] <duflu> seb128, don't know but the other one seems to be specific to dash-to-panel
[09:15] <duflu> though the fix is in gnome-shell
[09:15] <seb128> duflu, anyway, don't worry about it on a friday evening
[09:15] <seb128> that's probably for next week and for Trevinho
[09:17] <duflu> seb128, I have been triaging those regularly. I think the fix in 3.36.3 covers both
[09:17] <seb128> thanks
[09:18] <seb128> .3 is due next week, we can probably wait for that
[09:21] <duflu> Ha. I may yet have to fix that bug in the errors.ubuntu.com website to reduce some of the confusion
[09:21] <duflu> Maybe not
[09:23] <seb128> tjaalton, thanks for the SRU review, could you review also network-manager/focal as it's trivial (fixing the path to iptables which breaks hotspot on systems without usrmerge) and maybe gnome-shell-extension-desktop-icons if you have some extra cycles?
[09:24] <seb128> libproxy and gnome-logs also are some trivial patches updates if you really feel like doing SRU reviews :)
[09:24] <seb128> but they are not important so don't consider those as nagging material
[09:25] <tjaalton> seb128: sure
[09:26] <seb128> thx
[09:28] <tjaalton> seb128: network-manager is already in proposed, should that get moved to updates first?
[09:28] <tjaalton> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/1733321
[09:28] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1733321 in network-manager (Ubuntu Focal) "network-manager ADT tests fail with on ppc64el with artful/linux 4.13.0.17.18" [Medium,Fix committed]
[09:29] <tjaalton> though it's friday so that would need to wait for next week
[09:41]  * duflu runs away to the weekend, before anything else goes wrong
[09:57] <seb128> tjaalton, it was marked block-proposed since it's only autopkgtest fixes and isn't needed for users
[09:58] <seb128> so I think it's fine to accept the new one over the existing SRU
[10:17] <tjaalton> okay
[10:49] <Trevinho> seb128: hey, as per dufu comments, non-nvidia bugs aren't something I've been able to reproduce so far, I remember I saw them in the early ages of the patch (like 3 cycles ago), not sure if I dind't take in account some changes in the latest iterations, but nothing pointed me there.
[10:50] <Trevinho> so, mostly not be able to reproduce or find the culprit so far :(
[11:01] <Trevinho> as per the things blocking g-s in proposed, I've triaged the one we've an upstream fix for, not sure we can handle https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/d0b522b2800fadad804175817218d4a81fa27ea4 instead, nor it seems particularly new
[11:02] <Trevinho> looking better though
[11:02] <Trevinho> ah, indeed we've it
[11:03] <Trevinho> uff it's actually https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1877075 but I can't create an error for that -_-
[11:03] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1877075 in mutter (Ubuntu Groovy) "gnome-shell crashed at xcb_io.c:260: poll_for_event: Assertion `!xcb_xlib_threads_sequence_lost'' failed" [High,In progress]
[11:03] <Trevinho> i.e. a bug from e.u.c (it fails for some reason)
[13:31] <seb128> Trevinho, hey, right, that's what duflu said earlier, that one should be fixed with  and isn't a regression, the other one does sound like a new issue in  though, at least e.u.c shows only reports from that version (but maybe it existed and it fails to match them or the signature changed?)
[13:31] <Trevinho> seb128: no, it's a regression
[13:31] <seb128> Trevinho, in any case duflu suggested that the issues were fixed with  so another week and we do another SRU round I guess?
[13:31] <Trevinho> I've marked upstream fixes for that
[13:32] <Trevinho> yeah, I can prepare it now but not sure if waiting a bit longer for more reports?
[13:34] <seb128> Trevinho, we will not get a SRU approved on a friday/long w.e so I think that can wait next week now
[13:59] <ricotz> hello desktopers :)
[13:59] <ricotz> seb128, hi :), I hope this still on your list - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vala/+bug/1874127
[13:59] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1874127 in vala (Ubuntu Bionic) "[SRU] Update to vala 0.40.23 in bionic" [Low,New]
[14:04] <seb128> ricotz, hey, https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=vala 
[14:04] <seb128> sorry, I should have updated the bug
[14:05] <ricotz> seb128, I see, yeah, I assume some comment in the bug and subscribing ubuntu-release
[14:05] <seb128> subscribing is not needed since they work from the upload queue
[14:05] <seb128> but I should have commented, sorry about that, done now :-)
[14:05] <ricotz> ah ok, then dropping ubuntu-sponsors ;)
[14:06] <seb128> right, done now
[14:06] <ricotz> seb128, thank you
[14:06] <seb128> yw!
[17:16] <hellsworth> ricotz: 6.4.4 looks fine to me but the arm builds fail. the first amd64 and armf builds failed because of builder failure (with no log, even though it took 9 & 18 hours to fail)
[17:16] <hellsworth> are your arm builds of libreoffice 6.4.4 failing?
[17:17] <ricotz> hellsworth, look are prereleases ppa
[17:17] <ricotz> at
[17:19] <hellsworth> right hmm ok thanks
[17:20] <ricotz> hellsworth, good, I will be back later or tomorrow
[17:20] <hellsworth> ok thanks!
[19:09] <tsimonq2> Laney, et. al: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/aeea7148d5f3ea18f449cbb05bde8d982e6698ff \o/
[19:37] <tsimonq2> Debian bug 961294 submitted too.
[19:37] <ubot5> Debian bug 961294 in debian-policy "Allow derivatives to define parent project fields" [Normal,Open] http://bugs.debian.org/961294