=== rvba` is now known as rvba
=== doko_ is now known as doko
[10:05] <Noskcaj> Could someone please explain why anjuta hasn't migrated?
[10:07] <cjwatson>     * i386: anjuta-extras, gnome-devel
[10:07] <Laney> The following packages have unmet dependencies. anjuta-extras : Depends: anjuta (< 2:3.11) but 2:3.12.0-1 is to be installed
[10:08] <cjwatson> Or in plain English, anjuta-extras needs to be rebuilt against the new anjuta; no idea if that requires source changes or not
[10:11] <Noskcaj> thanks cjwatson
[10:36] <Noskcaj> I think it reeds RM, i'll ask the pkg-gnome guys
[10:36] <Noskcaj> *needs
[11:03] <shadeslayer> could someone move kde SC 4.13.3 from trusty-proposed to trusty-updates?
=== LocutusOfBorg1 is now known as locutusborg
[11:03] <shadeslayer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kde4libs/+bug/1349296
[11:03] <ubot93> Launchpad bug 1349296 in kubuntu-meta "SRU tracking bug for KDE SC 4.13.3" [Undecided,Fix committed]
[11:06] <mlankhorst> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server-lts-trusty/2%3A1.15.1-0ubuntu2~precise2/+publishinghistory
[11:06] <mlankhorst> seems the copy in -proposed still exists?
[11:07] <cjwatson> Normal
[11:07] <cjwatson> Shows up for cleanup on http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
[11:07] <mlankhorst> ah
[11:07] <cjwatson> Will be fixed if I ever get round to finishing my move-package LP branch
[11:07] <cjwatson> Removed now
[11:08] <cjwatson> shadeslayer: seems to still be at only 6 days aged per pending-sru
[11:08] <shadeslayer> oh ok
[11:08]  * shadeslayer thought it was at the 7th day today
[11:09] <cjwatson> might roll over later today I guess, haven't checked
=== locutusborg is now known as LocutusOfBorg1
[12:10] <rtg> can an AA please approve the Utopic linux binaries ?
[12:11] <cjwatson> rtg: doing
[12:11] <rtg> cjwatson, thanks
[13:08] <apw> i assume the reason that publishing seems sluggish is it has been haskeld
[13:08] <cjwatson> I wouldn't expect so; that's only in -proposed
[13:09] <apw> britney looks to be running much less often than i was expecting, if i am reading the logs right, i thought it was per publisher run
[13:09] <cjwatson> the most recent one apparently took a while to publish a libav security update
[13:10] <apw> ahh, where is my instant gratification, where; /me goes find some patience
[13:10] <cjwatson> apw: there is some slowness but it actually appears to be due to libass
[13:10] <cjwatson> guess I should chase that down ...
[13:10] <apw> :) that brightened my day
[13:13]  * cjwatson adds a transition tracker config for it
=== retoad is now known as retoaded
[15:23] <bdmurray> infinity: its monday so I'm going to flip the lts upgrade switch okay?
[15:24] <doko> ScottK, are you the one to overwrite the cantor autopkg test?
[15:31] <infinity> bdmurray: If you're aware of no new reasons not to (I'm not), let's do it!
[15:32] <infinity> bdmurray: I'm sure we'll get a nice crash spike and new bugs once you flip the switch, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. :P
[15:32] <jamespage> arges, if you have some time all of 2014.1.2 is now in the trusty proposed review queue - bug 1354159
[15:32] <ubot93> bug 1354159 in nova "[SRU] icehouse 2014.1.2 point release" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1354159
[15:44] <bdmurray> infinity: there is this version of the release upgrader still in -proposed for trusty ... https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-release-upgrader/1:0.220.3
[15:45] <infinity> bdmurray: Do we need that?  103 days without verification isn't comforting.
[15:55] <bdmurray> infinity: well, the problems it fixes in the error tracker, but a couple look like people would encounter them
[15:56] <infinity> bdmurray: Well, if you want to dig deeper into all those bugs and why they're unverified and/or failed, be my guest. :/
[16:01] <ScottK> doko: Yes.  Want me to drop it?
[16:01] <ScottK> Actually, I did already.
[16:31] <bdmurray> infinity: I've looked around some more at that version of the release upgrader and think they are mostly corner cases
[16:33] <infinity> bdmurray: Mmkay.  Would still be good to get mvo on looking at the verification failures and helping decide what to do with it, since it's not doing us any good in proposed, but I don't think we should block on it.
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
[21:07] <doko> ScottK, http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html  I want you to fix the autopkg test
[21:09] <ScottK> doko: The problem is that the maxima backend test has never worked.
[21:09] <doko> ScottK, well, then re-add the unblock
[21:09] <ScottK> OK.
[21:10] <doko> or remove the autopkg test
[21:11] <ScottK> doko: Done.