[12:11] <teward> is Xenial going to be an LTS, or no?
[12:14] <cjwatson> teward: http://markshuttleworth.com/archives/1479 makes that clear
[12:15] <teward> cjwatson: haven't given it a full read yet, thanks
[12:15] <cjwatson> search for LTS
[13:33] <DanChapman> seb128: hey! np. :-)
[13:33] <DanChapman> oops wrong channel
[16:44] <cyphermox> slangasek: please reject efivar (I will remove the Breaks for efibootmgr), and efibootmgr, from the vivid queue
[16:48] <cyphermox> ^ or someone else who can review the vivid queue for SRUs :)
[16:58] <slangasek> cyphermox: done
[16:58] <cyphermox> thanks.
[17:26] <stgraber> micahg, Laney: ^ this lxc backports upload is a one-line packaging change implementing mvo's suggestion from bug 1512219
[17:26] <ubot2> bug 1512219 in apt "apt appears to be confused when installing a backport that version depends on other backports" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1512219
[17:26] <stgraber> won't fix the bug but will get us one step closer
[17:27] <stgraber> as 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 dependency
[17:28] <stgraber> it's only needed to keep everything bundled together properly in backports
[17:28] <Laney> stgraber: okay, I believe you (since I have left this to micahg)
[17:28]  * Laney accepts
[17:29] <Laney> once we get a diff, anyway
[17:39] <stgraber> Laney: thanks
[17:40] <Laney> np!
[17:40] <Laney> sorry you hit an apt bug
[18:05] <stgraber> FYI, I intend to rush a lxc SRU to wily as soon as I've confirmed that my workaround for bug 1512749 works
[18:05] <ubot2> bug 1512749 in network-manager "lxcbr0 dissappears on Ubuntu 15.10" [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1512749
[18:05] <stgraber> as this is basically breaking all new LXC installations and some upgrades too
[18:06] <stgraber> I 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 systems
[18:07] <stgraber> provided 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 systems
[18:08] <stgraber> robru: 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.
[18:09] <robru> stgraber: oh wow, excellent. yeah I'm on xenial, I can help test (after lunch) if you need
[18:10] <stgraber> new lxc should be in the release pocket within an hour or so, would be nice if you could confirm that upgrading doesn't break things
[18:14] <robru> stgraber: ok will do
[19:31] <Ian_Corne> Hello, I'mm looking for version 1.5.11 of ibus, any idea how to get this in ubuntu? :)
[19:31] <Ian_Corne> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-78860 it's to fix this issue :)
[20:08] <cyphermox> Ian_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 time
[20:08] <cyphermox> Ian_Corne: you could check if there is a bug to request the new vesion in Debian
[20:38] <teward> infinity: you wouldn't happen to be around would you?
[20:46] <cyphermox> teward: many people are at a sprint this week, multiple meetings plus UOS, would be best if you just ask your question I think :)
[21:21] <teward> cyphermox: 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] <teward> trying to hunt down whether it was actually handled or not, and whether I need to go smack someone doing bad triaging or not
[21:21] <teward> AFAICT there was no upload on the thing to mark it fix released
[21:21] <teward> and the person who made the change isn't SRU or Release or even developer
[21:21] <teward> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/electrum/+bug/1499094 is the relevant bug, and it's sat a while
[21:21] <ubot2> Launchpad 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_
[21:51] <cyphermox> no, it's just someone playing with the bugs
[21:52] <cyphermox> but the change isn't exactly incorrect either
[21:52] <cyphermox> (the package isn't in wily or xenial)
[22:05] <teward> cyphermox: you're actually two steps behind
[22:05] <teward> cyphermox: it's similar to the bitcoin retroactive "beat it into dummy state" changes
[22:05] <teward> there's a related blacklist removal bug that infinity handled on the same premise as the bitcoin package
[22:05] <teward> hence why i'm hunting down infinity
[22:05] <teward> because they're the one that set a retroactive 'dummy' state on the package was a potential option
[22:05] <teward> cyphermox: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/electrum/+bug/1481033  <-- related
[22:05] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1481033 in electrum "Please remove electrum from the archive" [Medium,Triaged]
[22:05] <teward> that's why it's not in Wily or Xenial
[22:05] <teward> autosync blacklist, removal during Wily
[22:05] <teward> cyphermox: should I reset the bug back to "New" and wait for SRU team?
[22:06] <cyphermox> no point, the fact that it's nominated for the two releases you want to deal with seems fine to me
[22:06] <cyphermox> of course, infinity or somebody else might well say otherwise ;P
[22:07] <mdeslaur> need to be approved for the two series before it will appear in the sponsors queue
[22:07]  * mdeslaur approves
[22:07] <cyphermox> yes
[22:13] <teward> cyphermox: :P
[22:13] <teward> mdeslaur: thank you for approving :)
[22:13]  * teward will wait :)
[23:48] <darkxst> cjwatson, 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.gz
[23:49] <darkxst> it built fine in debian
[23:51] <cjwatson> darkxst: unless doko says otherwise, that seems more likely to come down to toolchain differences.  have you compared binutils versions for example?
[23:52] <doko> cjwatson, darkxst: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/binutils/+bug/1511542 nor work around yet
[23:52] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1511542 in unity "[2.26 Regression] binutils assertion fail ../../bfd/elfnn-aarch64.c:4631" [High,In progress]