[12:05] <tjaalton> infinity: I've started pushing lts-xenial stuff to the queue, libdrm first and llvm-3.8 will be next
[13:11] <tjaalton> infinity: so should we bump libxrandr to 1.5.0 in trusty?
[13:29] <tjaalton> other deps needed too, x11proto-core and x11proto-randr of course
[14:46] <infinity> tjaalton: -ENOTENOUGHINFO
[14:46] <infinity> tjaalton: Why would we need a newer xrandr?
[14:48] <yofel> regarding kde-l10n in xenial unapproved, scarlett got the version wrong, but as these are just translations the packaging version doesn't matter that much, so would those be ok to be accepted anyway?
[14:48] <yofel> If not it would be nice if someone could reject them so we can upload another set
[14:52] <tjaalton> infinity: xserver
[14:52] <tjaalton> 1.18
[14:52] <tjaalton> and llvm-3.8 doesn't build
[14:53] <tjaalton> some files missing, weird
[15:08] <apw> yofel, you can just upload over the top as the version in the queue does not count
[15:09] <yofel> apw: oh, so the last upload always overwrites what's in unapproved?
[15:10] <apw> yofel, strictly both will end up in the queue, and if you go that route we can reject the older wrong one
[15:10] <yofel> aaaah, right. Good idea, thanks
[15:12] <apw> yofel, my personal oppinion is if its easy to fix the version so it is right, there is less confusion to be had there, but i have no idea how much work that is
[17:30] <tjaalton> infinity: llvm-3.8 fails to build on arm64 because of an "internal compiler error".. others seem happy now
[19:03] <infinity> tjaalton: Fun.
[20:52] <bdmurray> infinity: Is there a point release schedule for 16.04 yet?
[21:28] <infinity> bdmurray: Yes.
[23:11]  * lamont belives that switching from python2 to python3 is SRU-worthy, yes?
[23:11] <lamont> (specifically bind9/xenial)
[23:11] <lamont> (from the "IT DEPENDS ON WHAT!@!!" department)
[23:14] <Kamilion> ?
[23:14] <Kamilion> my interest is piqued and I do not know of this issue. Tell me more.
[23:15] <lamont> bind9utils et al Depend: python, python-argparse
[23:15] <lamont> because of oh yeah, they do
[23:15] <Kamilion> and works fine with python3, python3-argparse?
[23:15] <lamont> no python3-argparse, it was part of python stdlib by 2.7
[23:16] <Kamilion> thought that was optparse
[23:16]  * Kamilion shrugs, I'm often wrong though. :D
[23:16] <lamont> seems to like python3 just fine, I'm doing a test build, and then looking at uypstream history, but they seem to believe in python3
[23:16] <lamont> --with-python=python3
[23:16] <Kamilion> ah, optparse was the old 2, argparse is the new stdlib hotness. gotcha.
[23:20] <Kamilion> seems to pass the quick eyeball-sanity test for me, being a pythony-person, but I took a look at https://source.isc.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi/?p=bind9.git;a=shortlog and see a few python2/3 related patches as of 3-4 days ago.
[23:21] <lamont>     [v9_10] minor python3 portability fix
[23:22] <lamont> I'm gonna go with "yep, they believe in python3"
[23:24] <Kamilion> https://source.isc.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=bind9.git;a=commitdiff;h=470af54b4ec7ab38ad10a5bd22a0a20664838c99;hp=304d16f08fd7373dd61a43561fe6400ddda3f46f
[23:24] <Kamilion> yeah, looks very minor
[23:29] <Kamilion> considering it's not really too hard to write python that works in 2.7 and 3.3-3.5 if you're careful about insisting on unicode everywhere and using the u'' and .format constructs
[23:30] <Kamilion> maybe it was 3.2 that brought u'' back, I don't recall. I do know that 3.0 and 3.1 lacked it.
[23:51] <cjwatson> Kamilion: don't even need .format
[23:52] <Kamilion> I don't like the % syntax personally
[23:52] <cjwatson> I mildly prefer it but whatever; python3 is happy with either
[23:52] <cjwatson> 3.3 was the one that reintroduced u'' - https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.3.html
[23:52] <Kamilion> yep. u'this is {}'.format(thing) works really well for me.
[23:53] <Kamilion> thing can even be ascii, and it does the right thing.
[23:53] <cjwatson> yep.  ditto %
[23:54] <lamont> I'll be tossing -10 at sid, and then -8ubuntu2 at xenial-proposed "sometime after yakkety has -10"