tewardis Xenial going to be an LTS, or no?12:11
cjwatsonteward: http://markshuttleworth.com/archives/1479 makes that clear12:14
tewardcjwatson: haven't given it a full read yet, thanks12:15
cjwatsonsearch for LTS12:15
DanChapmanseb128: hey! np. :-)13:33
DanChapmanoops wrong channel13:33
=== lool- is now known as lool
cyphermoxslangasek: please reject efivar (I will remove the Breaks for efibootmgr), and efibootmgr, from the vivid queue16:44
cyphermox^ or someone else who can review the vivid queue for SRUs :)16:48
slangasekcyphermox: done16:58
stgrabermicahg, Laney: ^ this lxc backports upload is a one-line packaging change implementing mvo's suggestion from bug 151221917:26
ubot2bug 1512219 in apt "apt appears to be confused when installing a backport that version depends on other backports" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/151221917:26
stgraberwon't fix the bug but will get us one step closer17:26
stgraberas with the other changes done to the backported version of lxc, this change will not be uploaded to the dev release as lxc can technically work fine with an older version of the dependency17:27
stgraberit's only needed to keep everything bundled together properly in backports17:28
Laneystgraber: okay, I believe you (since I have left this to micahg)17:28
* Laney accepts17:28
Laneyonce we get a diff, anyway17:29
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
stgraberLaney: thanks17:39
Laneysorry you hit an apt bug17:40
stgraberFYI, I intend to rush a lxc SRU to wily as soon as I've confirmed that my workaround for bug 1512749 works18:05
ubot2bug 1512749 in network-manager "lxcbr0 dissappears on Ubuntu 15.10" [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/151274918:05
stgraberas this is basically breaking all new LXC installations and some upgrades too18:05
stgraberI uploaded the workaronud to xenial, waiting for it to go through autopkgtest now and will then test the resulting binaries on a clean desktop and cloud install to confirm that the fix 1) works 2) doesn't somehow regress on non-NM systems18:06
stgraberprovided that it looks good, I'll upload the exact same thing as an SRU to wily and intend to wave the wait period once we have confirmation that the fix works for people currently affected and doesn't cause regression on non-NM systems18:07
stgraberrobru: FYI, that's most likely what you ran into yesterday. We received two other reports of that issue this morning and managed to track it down to a NetworkManager bug.18:08
robrustgraber: oh wow, excellent. yeah I'm on xenial, I can help test (after lunch) if you need18:09
stgrabernew lxc should be in the release pocket within an hour or so, would be nice if you could confirm that upgrading doesn't break things18:10
robrustgraber: ok will do18:14
Ian_CorneHello, I'mm looking for version 1.5.11 of ibus, any idea how to get this in ubuntu? :)19:31
Ian_Cornehttps://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-78860 it's to fix this issue :)19:31
cyphermoxIan_Corne: people eventually take the new upstream versions for packages, but things usually first go through Debian rather than directly in Ubuntu. It's up to individual maintainers to do this when they have the time20:08
cyphermoxIan_Corne: you could check if there is a bug to request the new vesion in Debian20:08
tewardinfinity: you wouldn't happen to be around would you?20:38
cyphermoxteward: many people are at a sprint this week, multiple meetings plus UOS, would be best if you just ask your question I think :)20:46
tewardcyphermox: well, tryin to reach infinity because they handled the blacklist/remove req. for electrum.  and it looks like someone went on a triaging spree and 'fix released' a related SRU to 'dummy' the existing package in Trusty, etc. because it's incompatible with later versions.21:21
tewardtrying to hunt down whether it was actually handled or not, and whether I need to go smack someone doing bad triaging or not21:21
tewardAFAICT there was no upload on the thing to mark it fix released21:21
tewardand the person who made the change isn't SRU or Release or even developer21:21
tewardhttps://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/electrum/+bug/1499094 is the relevant bug, and it's sat a while21:21
ubot2Launchpad bug 1499094 in electrum "Please replace electrum with 'dummy' package in the repositories for Trusty, Vivid" [Medium,Fix released]21:21
teward(but no reject or accept_21:21
cyphermoxno, it's just someone playing with the bugs21:51
cyphermoxbut the change isn't exactly incorrect either21:52
cyphermox(the package isn't in wily or xenial)21:52
tewardcyphermox: you're actually two steps behind22:05
tewardcyphermox: it's similar to the bitcoin retroactive "beat it into dummy state" changes22:05
tewardthere's a related blacklist removal bug that infinity handled on the same premise as the bitcoin package22:05
tewardhence why i'm hunting down infinity22:05
tewardbecause they're the one that set a retroactive 'dummy' state on the package was a potential option22:05
tewardcyphermox: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/electrum/+bug/1481033  <-- related22:05
ubot2Launchpad bug 1481033 in electrum "Please remove electrum from the archive" [Medium,Triaged]22:05
tewardthat's why it's not in Wily or Xenial22:05
tewardautosync blacklist, removal during Wily22:05
tewardcyphermox: should I reset the bug back to "New" and wait for SRU team?22:05
cyphermoxno point, the fact that it's nominated for the two releases you want to deal with seems fine to me22:06
cyphermoxof course, infinity or somebody else might well say otherwise ;P22:06
mdeslaurneed to be approved for the two series before it will appear in the sponsors queue22:07
* mdeslaur approves22:07
tewardcyphermox: :P22:13
tewardmdeslaur: thank you for approving :)22:13
* teward will wait :)22:13
darkxstcjwatson, could this be something related to the builders? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/webkit2gtk/2.10.3+dfsg1-1/+build/8195973/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-xenial-arm64.webkit2gtk_2.10.3%2Bdfsg1-1_BUILDING.txt.gz23:48
darkxstit built fine in debian23:49
cjwatsondarkxst: unless doko says otherwise, that seems more likely to come down to toolchain differences.  have you compared binutils versions for example?23:51
dokocjwatson, darkxst: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/1511542 nor work around yet23:52
ubot2Launchpad bug 1511542 in unity "[2.26 Regression] binutils assertion fail ../../bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c:4631" [High,In progress]23:52

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!