[00:20]  * slangasek wonders why xcffib shows up as 'bad' on the ghc tracker instead of 'unknown'
[01:20] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: haskell-hackage-security [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.5.2.2-1build1] (no packageset)
[01:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted haskell-hackage-security [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [0.5.2.2-1build1]
[07:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted perl [amd64] (zesty-proposed) [5.24.1~rc3-3]
[07:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted perl [armhf] (zesty-proposed) [5.24.1~rc3-3]
[07:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted perl [powerpc] (zesty-proposed) [5.24.1~rc3-3]
[07:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted perl [s390x] (zesty-proposed) [5.24.1~rc3-3]
[07:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted perl [arm64] (zesty-proposed) [5.24.1~rc3-3]
[07:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted perl [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed) [5.24.1~rc3-3]
[07:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted perl [i386] (zesty-proposed) [5.24.1~rc3-3]
[08:33] <LocutusOfBorg> the perl fun will defer haskell a bit :)
[09:54] <ginggs> slangasek: do we still need a separate fftw3-mpi since archive re-org?
[13:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: owfs [i386] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1p4-1] (no packageset)
[13:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: owfs [ppc64el] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1p4-1] (no packageset)
[13:14] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: owfs [amd64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1p4-1] (no packageset)
[13:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: owfs [s390x] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1p4-1] (no packageset)
[13:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: owfs [arm64] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1p4-1] (no packageset)
[13:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: owfs [armhf] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1p4-1] (no packageset)
[13:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: owfs [powerpc] (zesty-proposed/universe) [3.1p4-1] (no packageset)
[15:55] <LocutusOfBorg> who is handling the perl transition?
[15:57] <LocutusOfBorg> Depends: perl (>= 5.24.1~rc3-3), perlapi-5.24.1, libc6 (>= 2.4)
[15:58] <LocutusOfBorg> is it possible to sync libsub-name-perl? this should make dh-haskell installable again
[16:17] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, it sounded like Laney was going to do it if noone else did
[16:45] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: haskell-pointed 5-1 build-depends haskell-kan-extensions (>= 5), which build-depends ghc (>= 8); looks like there's a reason these are in experimental
[16:49] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek, yes, they were a mistake, but they shouldn't block the transition
[16:49] <LocutusOfBorg> this is why I didn't ask to kick them out
[16:49] <LocutusOfBorg> but if you have the possibility, please do :)
[16:49] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: haskell-pointed shows on the transition tracker as 'uninstallable'; how would it not block?
[16:50] <slangasek> anyway, I've already reverted and uploaded a no-change rebuild of 4.2.0.2
[16:51] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek thanks, I'm not sure, maybe just a leaf package? but yeah, you were right
[16:51] <slangasek> right, so the leaf package would still have to be either removed or fixed
[16:51] <slangasek> (and it wasn't a leaf, reverse-depends shows haskell-vector-instances, fyi)
[16:51] <slangasek> anyway - sorted now
[16:53] <LocutusOfBorg> I have done probably some mistake when I did dak rm on coccia
[16:53] <LocutusOfBorg> BTW it would have been autosyncd anyway :)
[16:58] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek, I think haskell-aeson-extra and haskell-dice were rebuilt too early... can I rebuild?
[17:12] <LocutusOfBorg> nvm
[17:13] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: it would certainly not have autosynced from experimental
[17:17] <slangasek> pandoc rebuild currently blocked by licensecheck being uninstallable
[17:17] <slangasek> (perl transition related)
[17:17] <LocutusOfBorg> slangasek, such packages are in unstable
[17:17] <LocutusOfBorg> uploaded by mistake
[17:18] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: oh, you're right, haskell-pointed is in unstable
[17:18] <slangasek> the rest in still in experimental
[17:18] <LocutusOfBorg> I only syncd from unstable
[17:18] <LocutusOfBorg> so I syncd the mistake in ubuntu too :/
[17:18] <LocutusOfBorg> isn't pandoc blocked by emacs24 too?
[17:18] <slangasek> :-)
[17:19] <slangasek> not AFAICS
[17:19] <slangasek> if it is, that'll be ppc64el-only
[17:19] <LocutusOfBorg> sorry, you are right
[17:19] <LocutusOfBorg> s/pandoc/agda
[17:19] <LocutusOfBorg> sorry, but I'm trying to understand how to fix agda
[18:56] <tsimonq2> infinity, slangasek: 10:32:47 PM < pabs> where do I report bugs against the Ubuntu archive? (zesty should have Suite: devel instead of Suite: zesty)
[19:24] <slangasek> tsimonq2: I'm not aware that we have a place to file such bugs, but IMHO we ought to. infinity ?
[19:28] <infinity> Err, but that's not a bug.
[19:28] <infinity> If it were a but, it would be a launchpad bug, though.
[19:28] <infinity> s/but/bug/
[19:30] <infinity> slangasek: Unlike Debian's ftp.debian.org pseudopackage, we just file bugs where the code lies, and sub ubuntu-archive where appropriate (ie: bug on package and sub for a removal, bug on LP and sub for the archive being published wrong, etc)
[19:30] <infinity> tsimonq2: ^
[19:30] <infinity> But, I'll reiterate, that's not a bug. :P
[19:31] <tsimonq2> infinity: Ok, could you please tell pabs? ;)
[19:31] <slangasek> infinity: so for e.g. missing / inaccurate supported metadata, would you consider that LP?
[19:31] <infinity> slangasek: Yeah.
[19:31] <slangasek> ok
[19:31] <infinity> slangasek: Well.  That one's actually ubuntu-archive-publishing, which I don't know if we have a project for, but close enough.
[19:32] <infinity> (And thanks for the not-so-subtle reminder)
[19:32] <infinity> tsimonq2: I would if I knew where he asked.
[19:32] <tsimonq2> infinity: OFTC/#debian-ubuntu
[23:49] <slangasek> LocutusOfBorg: haskell-cryptonite/armhf looks to be holding up quite a lot (and revdeps will need to be rebuilt on armhf once fixed, I think)
[23:53] <tsimonq2> Hmm, I'm a bit confused. Do we do a full sync from Debian on packages without an Ubuntu delta at the beginning of a new development cycle?
[23:53] <tsimonq2> There's a few outdated packages that still haven't synced to Ubuntu, and checking the regular queues doesn't show anything.
[23:54] <tsimonq2> I could go crazy with requestsync but I would rather not if there's going to be a mass sync.
[23:54] <slangasek> tsimonq2: from the opening of the cycle to the DebianImportFreeze; though I'm not sure that autosyncing has been turned on yet for the cycle, it may have gotten starved out last week by a sprint
[23:54] <slangasek> well, there's no reason /not/ to requestsync, if it's something you need
[23:55] <tsimonq2> Well if it's going to happen within the next week or two, there's no rush.
[23:55] <tsimonq2> So I don't see a point in filing a bug.
[23:56] <tsimonq2> If only I was a MOTU... ;)
[23:57] <tsimonq2> slangasek: Any chance that could be turned on?
[23:57] <slangasek> yes, there is a chance
[23:57] <tsimonq2> :P
[23:59] <tsimonq2> slangasek: Let me rephrase that — do you have the ability to turn that on, and if that answer is yes, would you be able to?
[23:59] <slangasek> looks like the job is enabled
[23:59] <tsimonq2> Oh cool.
[23:59] <slangasek> either that or I'm reading https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewReleaseCycleProcess#Previous_release_plus_1_day wrong
[23:59] <slangasek> so if you see anything /not/ syncing, let us know and we'll debug
[23:59] <tsimonq2> slangasek: Anything specific queue I should watch then?
[23:59] <slangasek> they should go straight in