[11:20] <psivaa> infinity: cjwatson: for the uninstallable packages listed in the report.html in precise  cdimage, reported bug #1206860 to account the smoke failure
[11:20] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1206860 in xf86-input-wacom-lts-raring (Ubuntu Precise) "xserver-xorg-input-all-lts-raring are unintstallable with precise alternate images" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1206860
[11:22] <infinity> psivaa: Already noted at http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/testing/precise-proposed_probs.html
[11:22] <cjwatson> Also e-mailed to us daily
[11:22] <cjwatson> Feel free to have a tracking bug if it helps you but we don't need one and it's quite plausible we'll forget to close it ...
[11:22] <psivaa> infinity: cjwatson: ack, i am doing the both :)
[11:22] <infinity> I'll remember in this case, cause I'm about to fix it.
[11:23] <cjwatson> (i.e. it's actually slightly worse for us to have a tracking bug than not, for things in the report)
[11:26] <psivaa> cjwatson: agreed, but without a tracking bug the smoke dashboard will be red with 0% pass rate with no bugs tagged
[14:56] <cjwatson> psivaa: Ideally there'd be some other way to log an explanation of what's happening
[14:59] <psivaa> cjwatson: yes, but on the other side we have a daily image that's not installable. so a bug can only accompany that imho :)
[15:00] <psivaa> if it's a known bug or not is a separate issue
[15:26] <rbasak> apache2-prefork-dev 2.2.22-6ubuntu5 appears to be in saucy, built from the apache2 source. How do binary packages get removed when they're no longer relevant?
[15:26] <rbasak> (apache2-dev 2.4.6-2ubuntu1 now replaces/provides apache2-prefork-dev and it's in saucy too)
[15:27] <xnox> rbasak: an Archive admin removes them by hand, following output from a report http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/nbs.html
[15:28] <xnox> rbasak: if ofcourse it's time to do it / safe to do.
[15:28] <rbasak> I see - thanks
[15:29] <rbasak> This is bug 1206114. I'm not sure if it's causing a problem, but it certainly complicates things a bit.
[15:29] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1206114 in apache2 (Ubuntu) "Package apache2-prefork-dev broken in Saucy" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1206114
[15:30] <rbasak> AFAICT, there is a solution, the build isn't picking it.
[15:30] <infinity> rbasak: If all those deps reported on the nbs report are actually || deps, we can remove the package.  I'll look.
[15:30] <infinity> rbasak: The build has no reason to pick the other option until the first is gone.
[15:30] <xnox> rbasak: nothing wrong with apache2 package, instead the reported should follow apache2.4 guidelines on how to port modules / extensions / webapps.
[15:31] <infinity> Sleep didn't work out for me anyway. :/
[15:31] <rbasak> :-/
[15:32] <infinity> rbasak: And, the first hit there is broken.  libapache2-authcookie-perl build-depends on apache2-prefork-dev, clearly still needs transitioning.
[15:33] <infinity> I imagine the rest are similar.
[15:34] <xnox> rbasak: nothing should build-dep on apache2-frefork-dev with apache2.4, as that will not work with new style packaging.
[15:34] <rbasak> I don't understand this fully. Why is a package that build-depends on something that is now a virtual package broken?
[15:34] <xnox> commented on the bug report.
[15:34] <cjwatson> There's a Provides, so only ones with versioned build-deps must be transitions
[15:34] <cjwatson> ed
[15:34] <rbasak> Thanks xnox
[15:34] <cjwatson> But when I last looked at that in NBS, there was at least one versioned build-dep still in place
[15:34] <infinity> rbasak: It's a real package too, until we remove it.
[15:34] <cjwatson> And Provides doesn't satisfy versioned relationships
[15:34] <rbasak> Ah
[15:35] <infinity> cjwatson: oh, I didn't realise apache2-dev now provided it.
[15:35] <infinity> That helps a little bit.
[15:35] <xnox> rbasak: i was trying to say, that even if apache2-dev would be installed i daubt the package would build anyway =)
[15:35] <rbasak> xnox: right, I got that part :)
[15:35] <xnox> =) ok.
[15:35] <rbasak> I was just confused by the build-dep breaking things
[15:36] <infinity> So, mod-mime-xattr has a versioned build-dep.
[15:36] <rbasak> Or more that the archive state broke the build-dep even though it looked OK to me. I didn't understand that provides couldn't provide it in this case.
[15:36] <cjwatson> The package in that bug will very likely need transitioning, certainly, so I'd be inclined to agree with that not being a valid bug in apache2 even though we should sort this out.
[15:37] <infinity> rbasak: Provides can't provide versioned build-deps (so mod-mime-xattr needs fixing), and while provides sure can provide apache2-prefork-dev, the real package (that's still in the archive) will be preferred.
[15:37] <cjwatson> No properly transitioned package is affected by this.
[15:37] <infinity> But odds are that everything on the NBS list needs transitioning to the new world order anyway.
[15:37] <infinity> Oh, as Colin said.
[15:38] <rbasak> I follow now. Thanks!
[18:06] <rbasak> xnox: could you respond to bug 1206114 please? I get the impression that: 1) removing the old binary won't help anyway, since he's using a versioned dependency; 2) we don't seek compatibility between release in this way, instead preferring to fix the packages; 3) if he wants that change, he should petition the Debian maintainer; but I'd prefer someone else to tell me that I'm being accurate.
[18:06] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 1206114 in apache2 (Ubuntu) "Package apache2-prefork-dev broken in Saucy" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1206114
[18:51] <infinity> rbasak: Done.  I may have been a bit harsh, but his tone rubbed me the wrong way. :/
[19:08] <doko> infinity, do you take care about the other binutils-gold issues too?
[19:10] <infinity> doko: I haven't started looking at reverse-build-conflicts yet (other than rebootstrapping fpc, which I already did, and fixing glibc), but that's next on my list.
[19:10] <infinity> doko: And I need to make yade no longer ftbfs for that one to be fixed.
[19:11] <infinity> Hopefully, the build-conflict list isn't terribly long.
[19:12] <infinity> doko: I know we're also carrying some deltas in some KDE packages to remove -fuse-ld=gold because it was previously not understood.  Now that we're carrying that patch to gcc, we can back those out, but I need to find them (not critical, though, they'll just keep building with bfd, which works fine).
[19:13] <doko> thanks. binutils-gold wasn't very helpful with cross builds either
[19:13] <infinity> doko: Were you planning on backporting the -fuse-ld patch to previous GCC versions too, or have it only work in >= 4.8?
[19:13] <doko> it should be there
[19:13] <infinity> Oh, cool.  I hadn't checked.
[19:14] <doko> but distro specific
[19:14] <infinity> Yeah, I know gcc-4.7 used to choke on the option, but RH carried the patch in their 4.7
[19:14] <infinity> Which is why I asked.
[19:20] <infinity> (saucy-amd64)root@cthulhu:~# zgrep '^Build-Conflicts:.*binutils-gold' /var/lib/apt/lists/*Sources | wc -l
[19:20] <infinity> 21
[19:20] <infinity> I guess that's not unmanageable.
[19:26] <infinity> doko: Erm, most of them are yours: http://paste.ubuntu.com/5933849/
[19:28] <rbasak> infinity: thanks
[19:29] <infinity> doko: gcc-4.8 being a false positive because it's wrong in -release but fixed in -proposed, but I suspect all the rest still need fixing.
[19:31] <infinity> And Laney's already fixed xpdf.
[19:33] <doko> yes, the cross packages are not a priority for now
[19:35] <infinity> Sure, just pointing out that other than a few stragglers (and I'm chasing them all down), the rest are GCC or based on GCC packaging.
[19:36] <infinity> But I'll make sure all the !gcc stuff is fixed.  The others will annoy you in the next rebuild test if you forget to fix them before then. ;)
[20:09] <sergiusens> Ursinha: hey, long time no talk! I have a launchpad question for you, why can't I link https://launchpad.net/phablet-image-info/i9100/+setbranch to https://code.launchpad.net/~i9100-image-dev/phablet-image-info/i9100
[20:11] <Ursinha> sergiusens, hey, let me see
[20:15] <Ursinha> sergiusens, wild guess: it seems that project isn't set to use codehosting in launchpad (which is weird because you have branches there hehe)
[20:15] <Ursinha> sergiusens, are you admin of that project?
[20:15] <sergiusens> Ursinha: dholbach is I think...
[20:16] <sergiusens> Ursinha: oh, I am admin
[20:27] <ogra_> sergiusens, haha
[20:27]  * ogra_ has a deja vu ... i had the same moment of surprise this morning
[20:30] <sergiusens> ogra_: wanted to do the same thing?
[20:30] <sergiusens> :-)
[20:30] <ogra_> heh, no, but discovered that we're all admins