[00:13] <doko> xnox, do you already have an updated boost-defaults package?
[00:14] <xnox> doko: not yet, working on it. i didn't do a -defaults update yet before =)
[00:14] <xnox> doko: where would you want it uploaded?
[00:19] <doko> xnox, ubuntu-toolchain-r/test ppa (but you can't upload there)
[00:20] <xnox> doko: i'll give .changes url.
[00:57] <xnox> doko: http://people.canonical.com/~xnox/repo/boost-defaults_1.53.0.0ubuntu1.dsc
[00:57] <xnox> changes are near by as well.
[00:57] <xnox> http://people.canonical.com/~xnox/repo/boost-defaults_1.53.0.0ubuntu1_source.changes
[00:57] <xnox> i think it's correct & includes newly added modules, et al.
[03:15] <ScottK> xnox: Please let's not update boost-defaults.
[03:16] <ScottK> xnox: Don't you think changing the default boost version is some that ought not be done after feature freeze without some discussion, particularly when we picked at the START of the release cycle what boost we would use?
[03:18] <ScottK> xnox: Also, if you're introducing 1.53, please take care to get rid of 1.50 at the same time.  We don't want more boost in the archive than we can help.
[03:23] <infinity> ScottK: He's changing the boost defaults in the toolchain archive for the opening of 13.10.
[03:24] <ScottK> infinity: changes says Distribution: raring
[03:24] <infinity> Yes, because there's no Distribution: s-series yes.
[03:24] <infinity> The toolchain PPA is all built against raring, but will be used to open the next release.
[03:25] <ScottK> Also, that still should have some discussion as historically getting ahead of Debian on boost is fraught with pain.
[03:25] <ScottK> Chasing version numbers is not a good reason to change.
[03:26] <infinity> I won't disagree with those statements.
[03:26] <infinity> xnox: Is there a valid reason for wanting to skip ahead of Debian with boost-defaults, or is it just shiny new versionitis?
[03:27] <ScottK> I am considerably less panicked now that I know it's for S though.
[10:33] <xnox> infinity: ScottK: doko, boost debian maintainers and I are discussing this. Indeed we are currently proposing a rebuild against boost1.53 and patches to debian & do it for s-series. Boost1.53 is in unstable already and the plan is to start boost transition as soon as new debian opens.
[10:36] <xnox> infinity: it's shiny, new, non-borked C++11 which we need/want across the board in time for gcc-4.8 (with improved C++11 is due soonish http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-03/msg00036.html )
[10:36] <ubot2> gcc.gnu.org bug 2013 in c++ "g++ 2.96: typedefs + namespaces + inheritance == problem" [Normal,Resolved: fixed]
[10:36] <xnox> ubot2: that was unhelpful =)
[10:36] <ubot2> xnox: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent :)
[10:36] <xnox> ta
[15:26] <infinity> xnox: Fair enough.
[18:04] <Daviey> bdmurray: hey, there is a 3rd (!) upload for ubuntu-geoip.. Would you mind taking a look at it?
[18:14] <bdmurray> Daviey: sure
[18:53] <xnox> infinity: please remove boost1.50 from raring, as we have 1.53 instead.
[18:53] <xnox> bug 1158458
[18:53] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1158458 in boost1.50 (Ubuntu) "[RM] please remove boost1.50 from raring" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1158458
[18:54] <infinity> xnox: Has no rdeps?
[18:54] <infinity> I guess I can look for myself.
[18:54] <xnox> infinity: i couldn't find any....
[19:31] <xnox> infinity: maybe remove these two as well? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/guile-1.6/+bug/1154491
[19:31] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1154491 in guile-db "Please remove guile-1.6 from the archive" [Low,Confirmed]
[21:02] <dobey> hopefully the uploads i just managed to squeeze in aren't rejected :)
[21:24] <xnox> i think at FF we did something like 1.5h of grace time =)
[21:24] <dobey> yay