[15:30] <apw> 15m warning: we will be reviewing rtg's upload right request in 15m.
[15:45]  * apw calls the meeting to order ...
[15:45] <apw> We are meeting today to review rtg's (https://launchpad.net/~timg-tpi) request for upload rights for the Ubuntu kernels: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TimGardner/KernelUploadRightsApplication
[15:45] <esembee> o/
[15:45] <apw> o/
[15:45] <xnox> \o
[15:45] <rtg> o/
[15:46] <arighi> o/
[15:47] <rtg> does anyone else have issues with web.libre.chat disconnecting once in awhile ?
[15:47] <esembee> not using that
[15:47] <apw> not noticed that when using it from weechat direct.
[15:47] <esembee> but hexchat has different issues
[15:48] <kms> o/
[15:48] <imay> o/
[15:48] <apw> Ok, lets get started. rtg, could you introduce yourself.
[15:49] <rtg> Hi, I have been with Canonical off and on for 15 years. This is my second stint. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TimGardner/KernelUploadRightsApplication fora brief intro.
[15:50] <apw> Sponsors ... what say you ...
[15:50] <klebers> o/
[15:50] <esembee> Well yeah, what I wrote. more or less :)
[15:51] <esembee> To summarize I think there is no reason speaking against
[15:51] <kms> I've reviewed much of Tim's work and believe he is past ready for receiving upload rights. I'm +1
[15:52] <klebers> I have been reviewing rtg's kernels for several months and found no real issues lately, so I believe he's ready to start uploading kernel directly
[15:52] <apw> I've seen a number of his kernels second hand (at sru review) and have seen nothing of concern.
[15:53] <apw> Any other commentary vbefore we vote?
[15:53] <apw> going thrice (or something)
[15:54] <apw> Ok, lets vote. Votes for rtg to be added to ubuntu-kernel-uploaders:
[15:54] <apw> +1
[15:54] <esembee> +1
[15:54] <mhcerri> +1
[15:54] <kms> +1
[15:54] <imay> +1
[15:54] <apw> +1 (kamal by proxy)
[15:54] <klebers> +1
[15:54] <arighi> +1
[15:55] <xnox> +1 (no idea if i am part of the quorum or not)
[15:56] <apw> ok ... under our rules that is sufficient +'s and no -ve's; so rtg is approved.
[15:56] <apw> rtg, welcome to the team,
[15:57] <rtg> thanks
[15:57]  * apw gives apw the job of updating permissions and announcing same.
[15:57] <apw> thanks all!
[15:57] <kms> \o/
[15:57] <kms> congrats @rtg!
[15:58] <arighi> rtg, congrats!
[15:58] <klebers> congrats, rtg !
[15:59] <esembee> congrats rtg 
[17:19] <sub526> Hi all, How to specify a build directory(make O=<your build dir) while building ubuntu kernel via "LANG=C fakeroot debian/rules binary-headers binary-generic binary-perarch" (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel)
[17:48] <sub526> Is there any other channel\group to reach on ubuntu kernel developers?
[18:09] <sub526> check-config: FAIL (- != n): CONFIG_KCOV policy<{'amd64': 'n', 'arm64': 'n', 'armhf': 'n', 'ppc64el': 'n', 's390x': 'n'}> check-config: 10456/10457 checks passed -- exit 1 - how to resolve it?
[18:10] <xnox> sub526:  we do not support arbitrary build dirs, so cannot do that.
[18:11] <xnox> sub526: update annotations file => clearly some config got changed that doesn't even offer KCOV to you anymore, which is unexpected.
[18:11] <xnox> (annotation says that the option must be offered, and should be turned off, rather than be non-exitant due to i.e. some other options being turned off)
[18:21] <sub526> xnox: thanks for the reply.  What's wrong from https://pastebin.com/hPeNcwa5? I noticed "ERROR: 2 config-check failures detected"
[18:29] <xnox> sub526:  exactly what it says.....
[18:29] <xnox> that CONFIG_KCOV is "-" (does not exist) instead of "n" (deselected)
[18:30] <xnox> sub526:  either your environment missing build-dependencies; or your other config changes causing KCOV to not be offered.
[18:30] <xnox> sub526:  figure out the requirements for KCOV to be offered such that it would be correclty "n", or update annotations file expectation to change that option from "n" to "-".
[18:31] <xnox> sub526:  i'm not sure how else to help you, given i have now explained the same issue to you twice =/
[18:33] <sub526> xnox: I commented CONFIG_KCOV in annotations file and able to start the build process. Later i will try as you suggested i.e. changing the option from "n" to "-"
[18:34] <sub526> xnox: CONFIG_KCOV                                     policy<{'amd64': 'n', 'arm64': 'n', 'armhf': 'n', 'ppc64el': 'n', 's390x': 'n'}>, do i need to change the option from "n" to "-" for the all archs, or only for my system architecture(amd64)?
[19:25] <xnox> depends how many arches you build the kernel for