[11:28] <cjwatson> Could somebody have a look at python-libnacl and pymacaroons in xenial-proposed NEW for me, please?
[13:25] <Laney> bah, thought that worked for channel notices
[13:25] <Laney> stgraber: ^-
[13:51] <stgraber> Laney: looking
[13:51] <stgraber> Laney: why the +b though, just kicking it would have been enough
[13:51] <stgraber> Laney: now I've got to unban it and restart it again
[13:52] <Laney> I thought that +b was enough to mute it
[13:52] <Laney> should have removed it when that didn't work
[13:52] <Laney> soz
[13:52] <stgraber> nah, +b only applies at join time I think
[13:53] <Laney> I think it applies to real messages
[13:53] <Laney> at least on some ircds it does
[13:54] <Laney> testy mctestface
[13:55] <cyphermox> nah, b just means you can't get back in
[13:56] <cyphermox> you want +q
[13:56] <cyphermox> (to mute someone)
[14:01] <Laney> :)
[14:02] <Laney> Depends what other modes are in effect; by default +b stops you from speaking but it's overridden by various things
[14:02]  * Laney just wasted time checking
[17:06] <apw> stgraber, Laney ^
[17:09] <stgraber> gah
[17:10] <stgraber> it's lplib blowing up by the looks of it but I'm not sure why exactly
[17:11] <stgraber> restarted with added logging, so if it happens again I should be able to track exactly what's making it unhappy
[17:11] <stgraber> that bit of code hasn't changed in over a year, so my guess is that there's something slightly different on LP which is confusing it
[18:55] <slangasek> hmm. why was cgmanager demoted in yakkety?
[18:58]  * slangasek undoes the demotion
[19:04] <seb128> would be nice to have launchpad records of who is doing those
[19:07] <slangasek> certainly would
[19:08] <slangasek> would also be nice to know why a package is being demoted in contradiction with component-mismatches
[19:10] <slangasek> And did something change recently to put the ubuntu-touch seed in main?  It's good to have that fixed, but I remember there actually being quite a bit more delta of ubuntu-touch packages not yet in main than what I'm seeing now
[19:11] <seb128> there is probably quite a stack still
[19:12] <slangasek> seb128: not according to http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches
[19:12] <seb128> weird
[19:12] <slangasek> so I wonder if someone has batch-promoted things
[19:13] <seb128> http://paste.ubuntu.com/16735785/ is the list of packages used by the unity8 desktop session (not including recommends) that needs to be promoted
[19:13] <slangasek> hmm
[19:13] <seb128> the touch seed for sure needs a good part of those
[19:13] <seb128> that list is from friday
[19:18] <slangasek> ok, so I'm not sure why ubuntu-app-launch is in main at all then; unless c-m is just confused because it /is/ in main, and therefore thinking gir1.2-ubuntu-app-launch-2 is a reason to keep it in main?  (Because Extra-Include: gir1.2-*)
[19:28] <seb128> slangasek, I promoted u-a-l earlier because indicator-datetime depends on its lib and that was blocking the libical transition, and u-a-l was in main in wily
[19:28] <slangasek> ah
[19:29] <seb128> seems that has worked, libical migrated ;-)
[19:29] <seb128> though I'm not sure I understand your comment, is that on the demotion list?
[19:30] <slangasek> makes perfect sense, but somehow 'reverse-depends' and 'seeded-in-ubuntu' aren't telling me this... guess it's a timing issue
[19:30] <slangasek> seb128: no, the other binaries were in the promotion list and I couldn't figure out why
[19:30] <seb128> k
[19:30] <seb128> I just promoted the binary that was needed
[19:30] <slangasek> now it makes sense, but it's still an MIR issue because ubuntu-app-launch has new dependencies since the last time it was in main
[19:31] <seb128> oh :-/
[19:31] <seb128> which ones?
[19:31] <slangasek> ust, liburcu, libertine
[19:31] <seb128> sorry I overlooked that
[19:33] <slangasek> so this probably breaks image builds until it's resolved?
[19:33] <seb128> :-/
[19:34] <seb128> so britney just look at direct depends?
[19:34] <seb128> indicator-datetime was not installable because of libubuntu-app-launcher missing
[19:34] <seb128> but promoting it unblocked the transition even if it's un-installable in main
[19:35] <slangasek> yes, britney probably doesn't try to figure out recursive installability in main, just whether the direct deps are satisfied
[19:35] <slangasek> xnox: ^^ is that true?
[19:35] <seb128> well, those eventually needed to be MIRed, so we just need to push people to file those requests now
[19:35] <seb128> sorry about that
[19:37] <slangasek> ust, liburcu were previously in main also, so we can repromote
[19:37] <slangasek> libertine is new, I think
[19:37] <slangasek> I'll do the repromotion of ust,liburcu
[19:42] <seb128> thanks
[19:42] <seb128> tedg, ^ can you MIR the new depends?
[19:43] <tedg> Ah, sure, I may harass people to do them for me :-)
[19:47] <tedg> So reading the back log? Do I need a MIR for UAL?
[19:47] <tedg> It was next on my TODO, but if I can avoid that one, I'd be happy :-)
[19:52] <slangasek> tedg: only for libertine; with some urgency because the desktop image now has unsatisfiable-in-main deps
[19:55] <tedg> slangasek: Yeah, talking with ChrisTownsend about it now
[19:55] <tedg> slangasek: We have a question about splitting up a package between main and universe
[19:55] <tedg> slangasek: Libertine has a module it builds that has a lot of chroot deps that is a Suggests in the end for the main package.
[19:55] <tedg> slangasek: Can the source be in main and a binary in universe?
[19:56] <tedg> (one of the binaries)
[19:59] <doko> tedg, yes
[20:00] <ChrisTownsend> Ok, afaict, only python3-libertine-chroot has dependencies in universe all other binary packages have dependencies in main.
[20:04] <ChrisTownsend> doko: Do I make a note in the MIR for libertine that python3-libertine-chroot will stay in universe and all other binary packages are eligible for main?
[20:04] <slangasek> tedg, ChrisTownsend: no need to mention it at all; http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches already directs us to DTRT
[20:04] <slangasek> (and shows that python3-libertine-chroot is not a candidate for promotion)
[20:04] <ChrisTownsend> slangasek: Ah, cool, ok
[20:17] <ginggs> infinity (or anyone else), what can be done about LP: #1562480 ?  Can fpc powerpc be removed in xenial and yakkety?  it is not installable anyway
[20:18] <ChrisTownsend> slangasek: tedg: I believe this is what is needed: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libertine/+bug/1588050
[20:19] <tedg> Thanks ChrisTownsend !
[20:19] <ChrisTownsend> tedg: You're welcome