=== infinity_ is now known as infinity [05:31] 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. === LordOfTime is now known as TheLordOfTime === JanC_ is now known as JanC [21:13] anyone able to answer a question I have about gcc-4.7 (in raring)? [21:13] (since -packaging went inactive and never actually replied to my general question about its build deps) [21:14] 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] I guess it was bootstrapped from a version which did not need libx32 [21:46] TheLordOfTime: The first build probably came from a previous GCC version [21:47] 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] 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] the chicken house comes first, otherwise a fox will eat the chickens and your eggs. [21:49] lol [21:50] 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] AlanBell: i like that answer. [21:50] TheLordOfTime: why backporting gcc-4.7 when it's provided in the toolchain-ppa? === txwikinger is now known as txwikinger2 === txwikinger2 is now known as txwikinger [21:51] TheLordOfTime: Not really interested :) [21:51] xnox, ask the OP of the question, not me, personally i'm fine with the gcc that's in precise already :P [21:51] TheLordOfTime: The toolchain is out of scope for the official backports projects anyway ... [21:51] i was asking myself that same question, xnox, though.. [21:52] I'm entirely uninterested in supporting people trying to build newer toolchains; it's a rathole [21:52] 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] xnox, yeah, i'll just answer their question saying "It can't be done" and that'll be the end of it [21:53] TheLordOfTime: where is the question on askubuntu? [21:53] * TheLordOfTime grabs a link [21:53] TheLordOfTime: it's better to ask them "why would you want to do that?" [21:53] xnox, http://askubuntu.com/questions/368606/launchpad-missing-build-dependencies-even-though-dependency-should-be-contained [22:02] TheLordOfTime: replied. [22:03] xnox, saw it, upvoted it too === SWAT_ is now known as SWAT [22:53] xnox: Heya, got a sec to look at https://code.launchpad.net/~unit193/ubiquity/debian-menu/+merge/192615 ? [22:55] Unit193: looks good. [22:55] Unit193: i have verify current ubiquity upload on the image, and then will do another round of merges/fixes in ubiquity [22:55] xnox: Sounds good.