[03:11] <ScottK> slangasek: Accepted (workspace).  Thank you.
[05:08] <slangasek> ScottK: yay \o/
[05:09] <ScottK> samba4 is working out too.  It goes on the binary New stack for Monday's archive admin ....
[05:09] <slangasek> I'll hopefully get to that yet tonight
[05:11] <ScottK> apt-cache unmet|grep -c Depends
[05:11] <ScottK> 205
[05:11] <ScottK> Some work there too for the next few weeks.
[05:11]  * slangasek nods
[05:16] <sistpoty> did the binary package removal thingy happen already?
[05:17] <slangasek> sistpoty: I was trying to get debtags-edit sorted out first, and it's being stubborn
[05:18] <ScottK> FYI, since the Launchpad rollout yesterday, packages are not automatically coming off of depwait.  They need a manual push.
[05:19] <wgrant> s/yesterday/Wednesday/
[05:19] <slangasek> ScottK: has that bug been reported?
[05:19] <wgrant> Yes, a CP is pending.
[05:19] <slangasek> oh, wgrant knows - same thing :-P
[05:19] <ScottK> Yep
[05:20] <slangasek> that explains the strangeness of me having to nudge packages along
[05:21] <wgrant> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/553068
[05:21] <ubottu> Ubuntu bug 553068 in soyuz "buildd-retry-depwait.py crashing" [High,In progress]
[05:23] <sistpoty> ok, thanks, I guess 230 unmet deps isn't too good then :/
[05:24] <slangasek> how many go away when we remove the unbuildable binaries?
[05:25] <ScottK> Not sure if that makes it more or less.  We'll see.
[05:25] <slangasek> right, so lucas has reported a FTBFS bug against debtags-edit in Debian too
[05:26] <ScottK> slangasek: Please try and document what you're doing so when I suggest we do this every cycle at UDS, you won't have to cringe and wish you had.
[05:26] <slangasek> and the reason it build-depends on g++-4.2 is because of an Ubuntu delta; the bug was fixed differently in Debian, and now there's a fresh FTBFS
[05:26] <slangasek> ScottK: the email included pointers to and/or copies of all the scripts used :)
[05:27] <slangasek> I documented it so I wouldn't have to remember how to do it a week later, let alone a cycle ;)
[05:28] <ScottK> ;-)
[05:35] <slangasek> right, so, debtags-edit is orphaned in Debian; gonna do a QA upload and fakesync
[05:36] <sistpoty> is ries already back up?
[05:36] <slangasek> yes
[05:36] <sistpoty> oh, nice, thanks!
[05:36] <slangasek> but backlogged so badly that it's not feasible to wait until I can do a real sync
[05:37] <wgrant> Yay, my inbox might stop filling up.
[05:40] <ScottK> slangasek: Would you please look at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=566270 and give me a preference between putting the offending package back or removing the rdpends (which are currently uninstallable)?
[05:40] <ubottu> Debian bug 566270 in ftp.debian.org "RM: libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl/unstable -- RoQA; License problems" [Normal,Open]
[05:41] <ScottK> Odd it's open, since it was removed from Unstable.
[05:41] <ScottK> and StevenK, of course, chopped it right out of Ubuntu.
[05:43] <ScottK> Based on the comment from the original author in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=563519 I'd be inclined to put it back.
[05:43] <ubottu> Debian bug 563519 in libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl "libclass-dbi-loader-relationship-perl: missing copyright and license" [Serious,Fixed]
[05:50] <slangasek> ScottK: oh, geez; yes, please put it back
[05:50] <ScottK> slangasek: It's still in Testing, can you sync it from there.
[05:50] <slangasek> "can't independently verify the license in debian/copyright by looking at the upstream sources" - not a bug
[05:51] <slangasek> will I be able to sync it, or will I get a "version previously seen" from LP?
[05:51] <ScottK> You will.
[05:51] <ScottK> (get the previously seen)
[05:51] <ScottK> I'll upload it.
[05:51] <slangasek> ok
[05:52] <ScottK> Would you remove it from the sync blacklist please.
[05:52] <wgrant> I really should fix copy-package.py to let you revive binaries.
[05:52] <wgrant> It's perfectly possible for other archives through the web UI. Just not through the console for the primary archive.
[05:57] <slangasek> ScottK: it's not in the sync blacklist (removals generally don't end up there) - did you want it added /to/ the blacklist (to prevent it from showing up on the removal list)?
[06:00] <slangasek> taking a smidge longer than expected to fix up debtags-edit, because I'm fixing up the Vcs-* settings while I'm uploading - given that the package is orphaned and I can't commit to the target repo
[06:02] <ScottK> Hmmm.  Probably should be added.
[06:05] <slangasek> done
[06:10] <ScottK> Uploaded.
[06:14] <sistpoty> ok, unless I made another silly mistake as with mclibs, libgfortran2 -> libgfortran3 should be done.
[06:14] <slangasek> \o/
[06:29] <ScottK> To balance the karma, I found another package that needs removing.
[07:04] <ScottK> Found another premature removal, but fortunately it has a new version, so I just filed a sync bug.
[07:04] <ScottK> Good night.
[07:09] <slangasek> 'night!
=== highvolt1ge is now known as highvoltage
[23:01] <ScottK> slangasek: Could we perhaps have plymouth-theme-ubuntu-logo seeded somewhere that all derivatives don't end up with it seeded?