Started logging meeting in #ubuntu-meeting
[10:00:54] <skaet_> To make the meetings be a bit more efficient, :) , would like us to follow the convention like some other teams are using ".." on separate line when you've finished typing. If someone wants to comment on the last point, please "o/", so we know to wait. Anyone object to trying this?
[10:01:29] <pitti> sounds fine
[10:01:32] <skaet_> :)
[10:01:40] <jdstrand> sure
[10:01:53] * pitti suppresses the question whether left-handed smileys will work as well
[10:01:54] <skaet_> cool, then moving along...
[10:01:55] <jdstrand> (as in, sure, sounds good)
[10:02:25] <skaet_> There's an agenda in the usual place. Will post the link later.
[10:02:53] <skaet_> Would like to quickly go through some new business, then go into the round table.
[10:03:03] <skaet_> We're looking at changing date for release candidate to be on Tuesday 19th April (instead of April 21st). Reason for this is that Good Friday is April 22, and Easter Monday is April 24th. By shifting 2 days earlier, it will give us the week to test out the candidate properly. Any objections/concerns?
[10:03:05] <skaet_> ..
[10:03:30] <pitti> +1
[10:03:47] <charlie-tca> +1
[10:03:48] <ScottK> \o
[10:03:57] <marjo> +1
[10:04:00] <skaet_> ScottK?
[10:04:05] <ScottK> I'm here now
[10:04:09] * ogra_ac too
[10:04:24] <skaet_> ok, thought that meant you had a comment ;)
[10:04:43] <skaet_> [ACTION] skaet to update schedule for Release Candiate
[10:04:48] <ScottK> I do think it'd be useful to resolve the question of if our Release Candidate is really a Release Candidate or not.
[10:05:09] <ScottK> Clearly the last several cycles it has not been treated as such.
[10:05:42] <skaet_> ScottK, agreed. Will kick that discussion off last week (its in the agenda as a pending action item for me )
[10:06:06] <skaet_> just wanted people to know that the date will be shifting if we keep to the traditional approach.
[10:06:14] <pitti> for 10.10 it was really more like a beta2
[10:06:23] <pitti> since we had 4 days more than usual
[10:06:40] <cjwatson> it's always been more like a final beta, and perhaps we should name it as such
[10:06:57] <cjwatson> there has not been a single cycle in my memory when it's been a true candidate
[10:07:01] <marjo> cjwatson: +1
[10:07:12] <marjo> cjwatson: to reflect reality
[10:07:34] * skaet_ observes that discussion is happening now, so will see if she can avoid a long email thread ;)...
[10:08:09] <ScottK> cjwatson: I agree with renaming.
[10:08:22] <skaet_> cjwatson, pitti, ScottK - if you're feeling like that, I'm cool with renaming, and moving it up.
[10:08:35] <cjwatson> I think those two actions are independent, FWIW
[10:08:36] <apw> will that mean it needs a new milestone ?
[10:08:47] <apw> as right now we only have a beta milestone
[10:08:58] <ogra_ac> for LP and workitems
[10:09:02] <ogra_ac> it likely does
[10:09:11] <cjwatson> historically the feeling was that if you were targeting release rather than release candidate you were Doing It Wrong
[10:09:22] <cjwatson> I think that still holds even for beta-2 or whatever, TBH
[10:09:28] <skaet_> apw, yeah, I'm thinking we might. Ok, will look at a beta 2 earlier, and then moving rc candidate to just before.
[10:09:38] <cjwatson> but I don't really mind adding a new milestone ...
[10:10:21] <skaet_> ok, will put a proposal out to email in this direction, and then we can revisit at next meeting.
[10:10:22] <skaet_> ..
[10:10:38] <skaet_> Other topic that's come up this week is Python 2.7 - what will be the transition plan?
[10:11:12] <pitti> I guess there are some remaining rebuilds to do before we can switch over for it to be the default version?
[10:11:49] <ScottK> AIUI the plan has been to get the rebuilds we can do before switching the default and then see where we are in the schedule and switch if it's not too late.
[10:12:07] <doko> I was waiting for the archive being unfrozen
[10:12:30] <skaet_> doko, thanks. it was only soft frozen.
[10:12:31] <ScottK> For rebuilds or switching the default?
[10:12:48] <doko> no, the plan is to do the rebuilds, then to switch the default, and then fix the outstanding breakage
[10:13:14] <ScottK> I'd prefer an "assess the breakage" step between doing the rebuilds and switch the default.
[10:13:31] <ScottK> Based on lucas' rebuild test, I suspect it won't be too bad though.
[10:14:17] <pitti> do you have some tricky grepping of Contents.gz to see which packages ship stuff for 2.6, but not 2.7?
[10:14:49] <ScottK> I don't. I've just been uploading rebuilds as I hit problems that needed it.
[10:15:00] <doko> if you can do that with reasonable effort, please do. I do not want to spend too much time with this. and we will have 2.7 as the default in natty, so we have to do the fixes anyway
[10:15:27] <skaet_> we've put out the armel port, so I'm not aware of anything else stopping going forward as doko and ScottK outline at this point. anyone else have concerns?
[10:15:42] <cjwatson> none from me; can I restart autosyncs?
[10:15:48] <ScottK> I have the concern that we aren't proposing the same thing.
[10:16:19] <cjwatson> oh, sorry, "none from me" meant "regarding going forward on rather than continuing to freeze" ...
[10:16:42] <doko> but you'r not proposing anything which leads us forward, and you don't say how *you* want to achieve the 2.7 goal
[10:17:15] <skaet_> Scott, I took the "plan" to be a merge of your ideas - as doko outlined, with an assess the breakage step inserted.
[10:17:39] <ScottK> skaet_: doko doesn't agree to that. He wants to just switch regardless of how prepared the archive is.
[10:17:52] <ScottK> He can do that and he's welcome to fix it then.
[10:19:26] <doko> barry did the rebuild tests, so we know that we can expect few failures. and yes, I'd rather spend time fixing remaining issues, than spending time on over-pedantic qa during alpha time
[10:20:07] <skaet_> how about we do all the rebuilds this week, and see where we are next week at this meeting?
[10:20:19] <pitti> FWIW, since we already had a test PPA, I agree with doko; the longer we have 2.7 the default, the better we can test it
[10:20:34] <pitti> and we could always switch back to 2.6 as the last resort
[10:20:42] <pitti> (this is just where /usr/bin/python symlinks to, right?)
[10:20:52] <marjo> pitti: +1 for backup plan
[10:21:06] <doko> skaet_: I'd like to have most of 2.7 fixed before the holidays. just waiting one more week gives us just two weeks to address these issues
[10:21:15] <doko> pitti: yes
[10:21:53] <jdstrand> for the little it is worth, I would tend to agree with pitti and doko
[10:22:04] * skaet_ is seeing concensus building...
[10:22:08] <doko> and I'll write up an announcement before doing the default change
[10:22:16] <ScottK> pitti: If we'd switched when doko wanted it would have broken obscure things like debconf.
[10:22:31] <cjwatson> FWIW, hardly anything uses
[10:22:41] <ScottK> I think it would be nice to actually minimize the breakage and not just jump off a cliff.
[10:22:41] <ScottK> OK
[10:22:51] <cjwatson> that actually *is* fairly obscure (with the exception of the installer but it could have been worked around if need be)
[10:22:52] <skaet_> doko, ok, if you send out the announce that would be good.
[10:22:56] <doko> and no, debconf wouldn't even be built because of component-mismatches ...
[10:23:25] <cjwatson> skaet_: unfortunately, I think this is majority rather than consensus
[10:23:38] <skaet_> cjwatson, you're right
[10:23:40] <skaet_> :)
[10:23:53] <skaet_> ok, we need to move forward.
[10:24:37] <skaet_> lets go with the rebuilds, if nothing catastrophic, doko sends out anounce, then we make it the default... and start fixing.
[10:24:39] <skaet_> ..
[10:24:53] <doko> thanks
[10:25:08] <skaet_> New Topic: QA team update - marjo
[10:25:33] <marjo> = Natty Alpha1 Test Report - December 3rd, 2010 =
[10:25:33] <marjo>
[10:25:33] <marjo> === Test Coverage ===
[10:25:33] <marjo> * Image Coverage: 43/47 = 91.49 %
[10:25:33] <marjo> * Mandatory Testcase Coverage: 133/163 = 81.60 %
[10:25:34] <marjo> * Optional Testcase Coverage: 12/40 = 30.00 %
[10:25:36] <marjo> === Test Failure Analysis ===
[10:25:38] <marjo> * 36 Test Failures
[10:25:40] <marjo> * Failure Rate 36/145 = 24.83 %
[10:25:42] <marjo> == Bugs summary ==
[10:25:46] <marjo> === Summary of Unfixed Issues ===
[10:25:48] <marjo> 30 bugs unfixed
[10:25:50] <marjo> * Critical - 1
[10:25:52] <marjo> * High - 7
[10:25:54] <marjo> * Medium - 4
[10:25:56] <marjo> * Low - 3
[10:25:58] <marjo> * Undecided - 15
[10:26:00] <marjo> === Critical ===
[10:26:02] <marjo> * LP: #669496 - natty fails ec2 boot on i386 or t1.micro - Confirmed - Critical
[10:26:04] <marjo> === High ===
[10:26:06] <marjo> * LP: #684036 - Installation stalls after keyboard selection - New - High
[10:26:08] <marjo> * LP: #684304 - cciss module does not identify resources - New - High
[10:26:10] <marjo> * LP: #683367 - apport fails to create crash file during upgrade to 11.04 - New - High
[10:26:12] <marjo> * LP: #650703 - oem-config-prepare works, but oem-config fails to start after reboot - Confirmed - High
[10:26:17] <marjo> * LP: #684060 - separated menus: no keyboard shortcuts for menus - Triaged - High
[10:26:19] <marjo> * LP: #683700 - tasksel 'Virtualisation Host' fails to install - Triaged - High
[10:26:21] <marjo> * LP: #683775 - Natty Alpha 1, i915 has blank screen after boot - In Progress - High
[10:26:23] <marjo> thx to jibel for the report
[10:26:42] <marjo> QA Dashboard
[10:26:42] <marjo>
[10:26:58] <marjo> QA Dashboard now includes automated server test results
[10:27:09] <marjo> thx to hggdh & bdmurray for that
[10:27:16] <marjo> any questions?
[10:27:21] <marjo> otherwise
[10:27:23] <marjo> ..
[10:27:26] <skaet_> :)
[10:27:47] <skaet_> thanks marjo - looking forward to going through then new dashboard.
[10:28:03] <marjo> skaet: as usual, please provide feedback on format & usefulness
[10:28:05] <victorp> the dashboard seems to point to old hw cert results
[10:28:28] <cjwatson> I'm confused by
[10:28:34] <cjwatson> it has date finished yesterday
[10:28:43] <cjwatson> if you follow the links, the logs are dated September
[10:28:56] <marjo> victorp: is this no longer correct?
[10:29:02] <cjwatson> mvo: ^-
[10:29:49] <fader_> marjo: I am no longer updating that as I have changed teams... I believe ara is creating these reports now, but I don't know where they are located
[10:30:11] <victorp> marjo - sorry fader is no longer in hw cert
[10:30:12] <marjo> fader_ ok, will follow up w/ ara; thx
[10:30:27] <victorp> at the moment we are using
[10:30:42] <fader_> I will update my "current" page to reflect this and provide a link to ara's page
[10:30:42] <marjo> victorp: ack; will change accordingly
[10:30:46] <victorp> but trying to get a generic account so it doesnt matter who does the test :)
[10:30:48] <skaet_> also, before we move on just wanted to say thank you to everyone who pitched in and helped with testing the alpha1. excellent job!
[10:30:56] <marjo> victorp: great idea; thx
[10:30:58] <victorp> marjo - I will ping you once that is done
[10:31:16] <skaet_> ... and on that note, let's move on to victorp
[10:31:29] <victorp> yes? :)
[10:31:31] <skaet_> New Topic: Hardware Certification team update -victorp
[10:31:46] <victorp> [LINK]
[10:32:00] <victorp> we finally got testing going for clients
[10:32:17] * skaet_ \o/
[10:32:20] <victorp> the test failures in the link are due to script problems
[10:32:28] <victorp> not due to image issues
[10:32:42] <victorp> unfortunately we did not get any results from servers
[10:32:57] <victorp> lab issues, we are working to resolve this asap
[10:33:08] <victorp> we will now start running this test weekly
[10:33:23] <victorp> skaet - that is about it
[10:33:37] <skaet_> thanks victorp
[10:33:38] <skaet_> ..
[10:33:46] <victorp> once we have the test running we will look into adding unity testing and boot metrics
[10:33:49] * skaet_ looks around for questions?
[10:34:18] <skaet_> cool - looking forward to seeing them.
[10:34:29] <skaet_> New Topic: Security team update - jdstrand
[10:34:49] <jdstrand> hi
[10:34:53] <skaet_> :)
[10:34:55] <jdstrand> [LINK]
[10:34:56] <jdstrand> [LINK]
[10:35:03] <jdstrand> We have one milestoned bug: LP: #667815. Kees filed it and is working on it.
[10:35:15] <jdstrand> Not a lot to report due to the Thanksgiving vacations most of our team had. Beyond that, we've been focusing primarily on USNs.
[10:35:22] <jdstrand> ..
[10:35:34] <skaet_> thanks! questions?
[10:35:42] <jdstrand> I actually have one :)
[10:35:49] <jdstrand> oh
[10:35:50] <jdstrand> o/
[10:35:52] <skaet_> :)
[10:35:53] <jdstrand> sorry if I missed it, but did cjwaton get an answer for turning on autosync?
[10:36:31] <cjwatson> I interpreted the answer as yes
[10:36:32] <skaet_> I was assuming we'd be turning it on now.
[10:36:36] <cjwatson> it's running noww
[10:36:39] <skaet_> :)
[10:36:44] <jdstrand> ok
[10:37:04] <skaet_> New Topic: Kernel team update - apw
[10:37:09] <apw> o/
[10:37:19] <apw> Overall status is reported at the first link below. Burn down for the release milestone is at the second link below. Burndown for the cycle is at the third link:
[10:37:19] <apw> [LINK]
[10:37:19] <apw> [LINK]
[10:37:19] <apw> [LINK]
[10:37:30] <apw> natty-alpha-1 is now officially over, we achieved most of the coding items for the kernel but a number of ancillary and documentation tasks have been pushed out to natty-alpha-2. Those pushed out are listed with background on the overall status above (first link).
[10:37:35] <apw> Of the bugs called out on the agenda: little progress has been made on the first; the second is possibly related to the grub2 changes and testing is required there; the third it seem the i386 issues are likely a corrupt image with the t1.micro issues being real on both amd64 and i386; little progress has occured on the remainder; the last bug is really not a kernel issue either.
[10:37:41] <apw> The main distro kernel is now rebased forward to mainline v2.6.37-rc3 and uploaded. A bnx2 firmware issue affecting a number of Dell servers triggered a kernel respin just after the natty-alpha-1 freeze. A further upload rebasing to v2.6.37-rc4 is pending the release of the milestone freeze. Some testing of Linaro ARM kernels has been ongoing and the current feeling is that the kernels do have most of what is needed, some gap analysis is still need
[10:37:41] <apw> ed for the configuration.
[10:37:44] <apw> ..
[10:38:04] <skaet_> thanks apw!
[10:38:08] <skaet_> questions?
[10:38:33] <skaet_> New Topic: Foundations team update - cjwatson
[10:38:39] <cjwatson> just to be clear: the grub2 change you mention was the one we agreed to do at UDS in the awareness that that would expose kernel problems
[10:38:48] <cjwatson> (for people unfamiliar with that project)
[10:38:58] <cjwatson> This week was quite quiet with the exception of alpha-1. Interesting bits and pieces:
[10:39:01] <cjwatson> - installer autotest framework no longer blocked on IS, should be ready for action soon
[10:39:03] <apw> cjwatson, yes, that is correct, fallout from a pre-approved change
[10:39:04] <cjwatson> - working through various python2.7 build failures
[10:39:05] <cjwatson> - interesting news from grub upstream: experimental reverse-engineered btrfs support. this is unfortunately not based on our work which had been stalled on licensing issues, which is a shame, but it's good to see something that seems like a resolution anyway
[10:39:10] <cjwatson> - some progress on software-center startup performance (now with data,
[10:39:14] <cjwatson> The work items graph ( is trending downwards at an acceptable rate, though it remains to be seen how much the holidays get in the way.
[10:39:18] <cjwatson> I don't have much else to report right now.
[10:39:20] <cjwatson> Questions?
[10:39:20] <cjwatson> ..
[10:39:33] <skaet_> o/
[10:39:41] <cjwatson> aye
[10:39:43] <mvo> cjwatson: auto-upgrade-tester> hrm, hrm, the current symlink is broken , i fix that
[10:39:44] <skaet_> any help needed on the licensing issue?
[10:41:12] <cjwatson> skaet_: we tried to move it forward several times (it relied on approval from two other big companies) and got nods and smiles but little actual paperwork. at this point I suspect that letting upstream go ahead with their reverse-engineered version (not that we could stop them!) is the best answer. there's still things we can help with
[10:41:43] <skaet_> cjwatson, ok, thanks.
[10:42:04] * skaet_ looks around?
[10:42:13] <skaet_> ..moving on
[10:42:26] <doko> one thing about component-mismatches
[10:42:53] <skaet_> ?
[10:43:07] <doko> would it be possible if every team looks at these and cares about resolving them for alphas and betas?
[10:43:18] <doko> they usually tend to accumulate
[10:43:48] <cjwatson> it would definitely help if it wasn't just us. are people confused about what's needed?
[10:44:08] * ogra_ac thinks right before milestones the teams are busy getting milestones ready
[10:44:14] <doko> not confused, just not looking
[10:44:20] <ogra_ac> i would rather propose to do it after a milestone
[10:44:28] * skaet_ nods
[10:44:35] <doko> people tend to forget after a milestone
[10:44:45] <ogra_ac> make it a fixed task
[10:44:54] <cjwatson> ogra_ac: even that would be better than the current situation
[10:45:05] <cjwatson> I don't actually care much when people decide to do it
[10:45:09] <skaet_> I can add it to the list and remind in these meetings?
[10:45:13] <ogra_ac> ++
[10:45:22] <cjwatson> doko: not looking> it's difficult to tell because we have no throughput log, only a snapshot of current state
[10:45:23] <doko> sounds good
[10:45:33] <skaet_> okie moving on...
[10:45:35] <cjwatson> I know that a lot of stuff stays on the list but I don't really get to see what moves off it
[10:46:27] * skaet_ seems like this should be another sort of report, will add to ponder list...
[10:46:44] <skaet_> New Topic: Server team update - robbiew
[10:47:10] * skaet_ looks around for robbiew or someone from server, since robbiew's traveling..
[10:47:42] <skaet_> Daviey?
[10:48:06] <skaet_> .. hmm, ok, will move on and see if someone shows up later.
[10:48:17] <skaet_> New Topic: Desktop team update - pitti
[10:48:23] <pitti> As usual, detailled report including RC bug status is at
[10:48:25] <pitti> [LINK]
[10:48:29] <pitti> Blueprint drafting: All done, except for two stragglers which our team doesn't work on (see wiki)
[10:48:36] <pitti> Development status:
[10:48:38] <pitti> - Alpha-1 work items were almost all done; 4 stragglers, moved to alpha-2.
[10:48:40] <pitti> - Netbook CD now merged into Desktop (except on ARM), unity vs. classic detection is in place.
[10:48:42] <pitti> - There are currently a lot of compiz crashes, these are being worked on.
[10:48:58] <pitti> CD space savings:
[10:49:00] <pitti> - Need more package rebuilds to reduce changelogs and PNG files
[10:49:02] <pitti> - There has not been much movement on the perl-base-only discussion; if it doesn't make further progress by the end of the year, we will drop this goal and instead just try to get rid of some separately packaged Perl modules.
[10:49:04] <pitti> - Once we rebuild OO.o, we'll drop another ~ 9 MB due to dropping the NBS libicu42 and changelogs.
[10:49:06] <pitti> - We need to get rid of Python 2.6 on the CDs.
[10:49:08] <pitti> ..
[10:49:11] <pitti> (sorry, the python one has already been discussed)
[10:50:01] <skaet_> thanks pitti! questions?
[10:50:44] <skaet_> .. ok, onward down the agenda.
[10:50:56] <skaet_> New Topic: Ubuntu One Team
[10:50:59] <robbiew> o/
[10:51:19] <skaet_> hi robbiew :)
[10:51:31] <robbiew> in a meeting but I can give a quick Server Team update
[10:51:41] <skaet_> yes please
[10:52:32] <robbiew>
[10:52:57] <robbiew> so this is a "final" list of 11.04 committments
[10:53:31] <robbiew> there are a few undetermined blueprints
[10:53:35] <robbiew> where we are waiting on some input
[10:53:59] <robbiew> if anyone has comments/questions...send me email ;)
[10:54:02] <robbiew>
[10:54:14] <skaet_> ..
[10:54:20] <robbiew> ..
[10:54:24] <skaet_> thanks robbiew :)
[10:54:43] * skaet_ looks around for anyone from Ubuntu One team?
[10:54:56] <joshuahoover> skaet_: me (sorry)
[10:55:02] <joshuahoover> [LINK]
[10:55:09] <joshuahoover> details on where we're at with blueprints and releases is in the link above
[10:55:15] <joshuahoover> we have a rather important bug to fix with couchdb not working in natty right now, bug #682866
[10:55:17] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 682866 in couchdb (Ubuntu Natty) "CouchDatabase() call hangs" [High,Confirmed]
[10:55:25] <joshuahoover> that bug, in addition to couchdb not working, is preventing us from getting our new packages for desktopcouch in...thisfred is working (with a number of people) on getting the bug fixed asap
[10:55:44] <joshuahoover> the other thing to note is we're behind in our work to get u1 events in zeitgeist...we thought we'd have this done this week for alpha1 but it's been a bit more work than we originally estimated...we think we'll have it done the end of next week
[10:55:50] <joshuahoover> ..
[10:55:58] <skaet_> thanks joshuahoover. :) questions?
[10:56:24] <skaet_> New Topic: Kubuntu Team update - Riddell
[10:56:33] <Riddell> hi
[10:56:40] <Riddell> * Alpha 1 out, no major problems
[10:56:40] <Riddell> * GCC should be fixed for ARM, Qt build now ongoing
[10:56:40] <Riddell> * KDE Platform 4.6 beta 1 is in (minus KDE PIM which we are being more cautious about)
[10:56:43] <Riddell> * KDE Platform beta 2 due to packagers yesterday, due for release next week
[10:56:46] <Riddell> * hal removed from kubuntu seeds and CDs. Testing ongoing.
[10:56:49] <Riddell> * Bug #684703 "Generated symbols different on different archs with gcc-4.5" causing annoyance
[10:56:52] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 684703 in gcc-4.5 (Ubuntu Natty) "Generated symbols different on different archs with gcc-4.5" [High,New]
[10:57:24] * pitti yays about Khalsectomy
[10:57:31] <ogra_ac> heh
[10:57:50] <Riddell> upstream have been moaning lots about the lack of any docs for the replacements
[10:58:00] <Riddell> but then it's not like hal had any documetation
[10:58:12] <pitti> what specifically? udisks, upower, and udev have quite decent docs, I think
[10:58:21] <Riddell> yes those
[10:59:16] <doko> Riddell: a reduced testcase would be much appreciated
[11:00:46] <skaet_> ?
[11:00:55] <skaet_> ..?
[11:01:02] <Riddell> I can play around with libraries, but I don't have any methodical way of making one
[11:01:12] <Riddell> skaet_: doko is talking about the symbols bug
[11:01:33] <skaet_> Riddell, thanks.
[11:02:01] <skaet_> was wondering if you had any other updates, or we should move on?
[11:02:07] <Riddell> I'm done
[11:02:10] <skaet_> ..
[11:02:19] <skaet_> thanks Riddell :)
[11:02:32] <skaet_> New Topic: Desktop Experience Team Update
[11:02:54] * skaet_ looks around?
[11:03:07] <ogra_ac> no experience today :)
[11:03:14] <skaet_> New Topic: ARM team update - ogra
[11:03:20] <ogra_ac> thats me !!!
[11:03:21] <ogra_ac> ;)
[11:03:23] <ogra_ac> Full Status at
[11:03:23] <ogra_ac> ..
[11:03:23] <ogra_ac> - Team worked towards alpha 1 release, one massive blocker bug was holding us up here
[11:03:23] <ogra_ac> - OMAP4 daily images build again, we had to drop some apps that build dep on QT for making the meta installable
[11:03:24] <ogra_ac> - OMAP3 kernel from linaro was tested with our image and looks good, we now wait for security and support commitment from kernel team for 18 months (a spec of the kernel team exists for this)
[11:03:24] <skaet_> :)
[11:03:27] <ogra_ac> - There are still some open SRU bugs left
[11:03:29] <ogra_ac> - The gcc fix for the QT FTBFS apparently went in unnoticed before alpha 1, QT should build now which should soon start to clean out the KDE FTBFS
[11:03:32] <ogra_ac> - Bug 683683 is the above mentioned bug that blocked A1, it turned out to be an issue with building busybox with the -marm flag, worries are big that -marm with new gcc might be busted, we need to research other -marm using packages here
[11:03:37] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 683683 in gcc-4.5 (Ubuntu Natty) "run-init on omap3, omap4 in natty dies if busybox is built with -marm" [Undecided,New]
[11:03:38] <ogra_ac> ..
[11:03:40] <ogra_ac> Image Status
[11:03:42] <ogra_ac> ..
[11:03:44] <ogra_ac> - Alpha 1 went out belated today
[11:03:46] <ogra_ac> ..
[11:03:48] <ogra_ac> Work Items
[11:03:50] <ogra_ac> ..
[11:03:52] <ogra_ac> - Entire
[11:03:54] <ogra_ac> - Next Milestone
[11:03:57] <ogra_ac> ..
[11:03:59] <ogra_ac> Bugs
[11:04:01] <ogra_ac> ..
[11:04:03] <ogra_ac> Serious: bug 683683
[11:04:26] <ogra_ac> on a sidenote i'm on vacation til end of the year, rsalveti will take my part in this meeting until i return
[11:04:38] <skaet_> ack.
[11:05:14] <ogra_ac> thats it from me
[11:05:17] * skaet_ wishes ogra_ac a good vacation. :)
[11:05:24] <ogra_ac> :)
[11:05:28] <skaet_> thanks ogra_ac! questions?
[11:05:57] <skaet_> New Topic: MOTU team update - ScottK
[11:06:34] <ScottK> On the phone. Please come back to me
[11:06:49] <skaet_> ok ScottK
[11:07:00] <skaet_> New Topic: Linaro update - JamieBennett
[11:07:37] <skaet_> .. hmm no JamieBennett either...
[11:07:55] <skaet_> ok then open floor time
[11:08:24] <skaet_> New Topic: Other questions, comments, etc?
[11:09:42] <skaet_> hmm,
[11:10:04] <skaet_> looks like we're pretty much at the end of the meeting, except for ScottK's input then.
[11:10:08] <pitti> nothing pressing right after an alpha
[11:10:18] <skaet_> heh, indeed.
[11:10:28] <skaet_> except the python 2.7 transition ;)
[11:11:21] <skaet_> ok, so not to waste folk's time, I'll add into the minutes any updates from ScottK after the meeting
[11:11:21] <pitti> skaet_: buildds will be busy with that over the weekend :)
[11:11:32] <cjwatson> I'm hunting around for people who object to decommissioning the ps3 port
[11:11:45] <skaet_> cjwatson - I don't!
[11:11:47] <cjwatson> does anyone have comments to make on that?
[11:12:08] <pitti> we could send an announcement similar to the ia64/sparc one?
[11:12:13] <doko> heh, I just updated to maverick last month
[11:12:16] <pitti> (not that I'd particularly care about the ps3 port)
[11:12:30] <cjwatson> doko: your ps3?
[11:12:34] <doko> yes
[11:12:51] <ogra_ac> play games on it !
[11:13:02] <ogra_ac> stop using it for work
[11:13:02] <cjwatson> ok ... do you have comments on decommissioning the port? I assume that upgrades would still work, I'm just talking about continuing to build installer images
[11:13:18] <cjwatson> which is a fairly significant drain on resources for hardware with a vendor actively hostile to running Linux on it
[11:13:24] <charlie-tca> cjohnston, no objection from here
[11:13:30] <skaet_> decomission away, from my perspective... after a nice announcement. ;)
[11:13:35] <cjwatson> (upgrades> since it's the same architecture after all)
[11:13:55] <doko> can we move this offline/to next week?
[11:13:58] <cjwatson> sure
[11:13:59] <skaet_> yup.
[11:14:01] <charlie-tca> cjwatson, no objection (sorry, cjohnston )
[11:14:04] <cjwatson> I've put it off long enough anyway
[11:14:19] <skaet_> Thanks marjo, victorp,jdstrand, apw, cjwatson, pitti, doko, robbiew, joshuahoover, ogra_ac, ScottK, charlie-tca
[11:14:22] <didrocks> david has a dropping freenode connection
[11:14:23] <skaet_> #endmeeting
Meeting ended.