[00:24] <kenvandine> can someone help me figure out why unity-scope-click is stuck in proposed?
[00:24] <kenvandine> it's not on http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_output.txt
[00:30] <jbicha> kenvandine: did you see http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html
[00:30] <kenvandine> no... grrr
[00:30] <kenvandine> can someone delete the ppc binary?
[00:31] <kenvandine> it deps on something that won't build on ppc
[00:31] <kenvandine> so we dropped ppc for the scope too
[00:31] <jbicha> (it has to "pass" excuses before showing up on output)
[00:32] <kenvandine> humm, seb128 said it was on output earlier and told me to drop ppc
[00:32] <kenvandine> oh, i guess it was there before for a different reason
[00:32] <kenvandine> depwait
[00:45] <infinity> kenvandine: Done.
[00:45] <kenvandine> infinity, awesome, thanks!
[00:46] <infinity> kenvandine: I'm a bit irked by all the arch: specifying going on in these stacks.  Having dep-waits forever would be more pleasant.
[00:46] <infinity> kenvandine: This will be a mess to undo when qt5 is fixed on ppc (or x32, or arm64, or...)
[00:47] <kenvandine> indeed
[00:47] <kenvandine> :/
[10:09] <siretart> infinity: I think we are long overdue for the libav9 transition. and I think we already were for raring. The last time I asked the response was we do not want to have another libav transition ahead of debian, though. and I guess you already noticed the debian transition bug.
[10:09] <siretart> ari-tczew: ^^
[10:15] <Noskcaj> I also support updating libav9. It's current versioning is very confusing
[10:54] <dupondje> seems like modprobe is broken somehow :(
[11:02] <infinity> siretart: Well, if we're fairly sure the Debian transition will start "soon", perhaps this week is a good time to start on Ubuntu.  Would be nice to clear up the one or two packages that are still broken, though.
[11:06] <infinity> dupondje: kmod hasn't changed in months.  Could be potentially some toolchain change between the -3 and -4 kernel builds that blew something up.  Rebuilding the previous kernel on a current saucy might show this.
[11:08] <dupondje> hmz
[11:08] <dupondje> to hot for a rebuild today :P
[11:08] <dupondje> daily kernels are build with same toolchain ?
[11:09] <dupondje> cause current daily works fine
[11:11] <infinity> No idea how the dailies are built, to be honest.
[11:12] <infinity> And it could just be a cosmic ray one-time miscompilation too.  A rebuild of the current kernel could be enlightening.
[11:13] <dupondje> let me rebuild it :)
[11:20] <infinity> dupondje: It could also be something as simple/silly as depmod having failed to run, but I would expect much more spectacular failure then. :P
[12:33] <siretart> infinity: well, debian is in kind of a "transition jam" state, and it is very hard to predict when the transition starts. I could be tomorrow, or in 3 months
[13:17] <dupondje> infinity: rebuild of -4 failed, still broken
[13:17] <infinity> dupondje: Kay.  So, a rebuild of -3 to see if it breaks would be useful, perhaps.
[13:18] <dupondje> doing no :)
[13:18] <dupondje> now*
[19:41] <ari-tczew> which way is better to do a merge? bzr or normal debdiff?
[19:44] <jbicha> ari-tczew: generally I prefer to use packaging-only bzr branches as more or less described at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Bzr
[19:45] <jbicha> I had too many problems in the past running 'bzr mu' in the past with full bzr branches
[19:56] <ari-tczew> jbicha: so for you better to sponsoring is debdiff than bzr branch?
[20:00] <jbicha> ari-tczew: well I can build a debdiff from a bzr merge but I find a diff of just the debian/ directory to be the easiest to read and review
[20:02] <ari-tczew> ok