[05:31] <Noskcaj10> Has anyone got the time to go through the sponsorship queue? i've got a heap of packages waiting, plus a number of other people.
[21:13] <TheLordOfTime> anyone able to answer a question I have about gcc-4.7 (in raring)?
[21:13] <TheLordOfTime> (since -packaging went inactive and never actually replied to my general question about its build deps)
[21:14] <TheLordOfTime> the question is how it is able to build-depend on a package that is built from gcc-4.7, because i find it curious that the package has to build before its build-dep is satisfied.
[21:22] <jtaylor> I guess it was bootstrapped from a version which did not need libx32
[21:46] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: The first build probably came from a previous GCC version
[21:47] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: We do have the ability to bootstrap things manually if necessary; circular build-dependencies are a reality at some level, you can't build the archive out of thin air
[21:48] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson, true, the question came because of an Ask Ubuntu post I was reading up on, someone wants to backport gcc-4.7 in a PPA to precise, but it fails because E:MissingBuildDependency, but the build dependency is created out of gcc-4.7 source, so it was a little confusing for me, sorta like "which came first the chicken or the egg"
[21:48] <AlanBell> the chicken house comes first, otherwise a fox will eat the chickens and your eggs.
[21:49] <TheLordOfTime> lol
[21:50] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson, i can foresee this being a problem for backporters, i assume that because you can bootstrap things by hand it works in the archive, but trying to backport something with circular build-deps will be problematic for PPA users and such?
[21:50] <xnox> AlanBell: i like that answer.
[21:50] <xnox> TheLordOfTime: why backporting gcc-4.7 when it's provided in the toolchain-ppa?
[21:51] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: Not really interested :)
[21:51] <TheLordOfTime> xnox, ask the OP of the question, not me, personally i'm fine with the gcc that's in precise already :P
[21:51] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: The toolchain is out of scope for the official backports projects anyway ...
[21:51] <TheLordOfTime> i was asking myself that same question, xnox, though..
[21:52] <cjwatson> I'm entirely uninterested in supporting people trying to build newer toolchains; it's a rathole
[21:52] <xnox> TheLordOfTime: if you want to learn about bootstrapping, google / wikipedia about it. Or just in general look up compiler articles on wikipedia aka "how to build the compiler without a compiler" and things like that.
[21:53] <TheLordOfTime> xnox, yeah, i'll just answer their question saying "It can't be done" and that'll be the end of it
[21:53] <xnox> TheLordOfTime: where is the question on askubuntu?
[21:53]  * TheLordOfTime grabs a link
[21:53] <xnox> TheLordOfTime: it's better to ask them "why would you want to do that?"
[21:53] <TheLordOfTime> xnox, http://askubuntu.com/questions/368606/launchpad-missing-build-dependencies-even-though-dependency-should-be-contained
[22:02] <xnox> TheLordOfTime: replied.
[22:03] <TheLordOfTime> xnox, saw it, upvoted it too
[22:53] <Unit193> xnox: Heya, got a sec to look at https://code.launchpad.net/~unit193/ubiquity/debian-menu/+merge/192615 ?
[22:55] <xnox> Unit193: looks good.
[22:55] <xnox> Unit193: i have verify current ubiquity upload on the image, and then will do another round of merges/fixes in ubiquity
[22:55] <Unit193> xnox: Sounds good.