[03:48] <micahg> RAOF: smuxi probably should've been versioned -0ubuntu1 since we're ahead of Debian
[03:49] <ajmitch> blame the debian maintainer, he's upstream & prepared the smuxi upload :)
[03:49] <RAOF> Bah, you're right. I didn't check his versioning.
[03:50] <ajmitch> this is probably one case where you can get away with it
[03:50] <micahg> ajmitch: that's not the first Debian maintainer to do stuff like that :)
[03:51] <ajmitch> micahg: no, it's not, but at least there shouldn't be a conflicting .orig.tar.gz, just a misleading version
[03:53] <micahg> ajmitch: hopefully :-/, sometimes people get confused on which is the upstream version (see blueman)
[03:53] <ajmitch> ubuntu & debian branches are in the same git repository for smuxi, at least
[03:54] <micahg> that would be a plus :)
[07:30] <dholbach> good morning
[07:53] <iulian> Morning dholbach.
[07:53] <dholbach> hey iulian
[09:55] <Laney> haha
[09:55] <Laney> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-q-debian
[10:27] <xnox> everyone vote for bzr-builddeb https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Popularity_of_bzr-builddeb_and_dh-make/
[10:48] <tumbleweed> Laney: I am still intending to my action item there before UDS
[10:48] <tumbleweed> Ubuntu: filled with good intentions...
[18:14] <micahg> YokoZar: poke about wine and gcc-4.5 :)
[18:14] <YokoZar> micahg: do you still want that done for Quantal?
[18:14] <micahg> if possible :)
[18:14] <YokoZar> If so I'll do it this weekend then, sure.
[18:15] <micahg> until Tuesday we can take it for sure, after that, depends
[18:15] <YokoZar> micahg: was the whole archive built without gcc-4.5 at this point?
[18:16] <micahg> YokoZar: well, wine is the only package with an explicit dependency left
[18:16] <YokoZar> micahg: I'm worried about binary packages that were built with an older GCC if we dont' ship that
[18:16] <micahg> it's buildable without it
[18:17] <micahg> the gcc libraries should be BC compatible
[18:17] <YokoZar> We don't currently use the binaries produced by the test archive rebuilds though
[18:17] <micahg> *backwards comaptible
[18:17] <YokoZar> Yes but that's not quite the same thing
[18:17] <micahg> if there was an ABI break with gcc, we'd probably hear about it pretty quickly
[18:17] <YokoZar> Like maybe a package builds with newer GCC but behaves differently.  And our current binary was built with GCC-4.5 and then we remove GCC-4.5 from archive, so no one could build the current binary
[18:18] <micahg> yes, but in that case, most likely, the current binary wasn't built on this series
[18:19] <YokoZar> micahg: gcc-4.7 was made default right at the start of quantal dev then, yes?
[18:19] <micahg> yes
[18:19] <micahg> and 4.6 in precise
[19:39] <MCR1> astraljava: Hi :) You are a packager ?