[07:35] <RikMills> rbasak: hi, is there any progress on fixing systemd -> udisk2 post install failure in armhf lxd autopkgtest runners? now seeing this impact tests on latest KDE framewworks
[07:35] <RikMills> rbalint ^^^ I mean!
[09:48] <rbalint> RikMills, i'm bisecting the regressions and will upload a package in much better shape today/tomorrow
[10:12] <RikMills> rbalint: thank you
[12:27] <ricotz> doko, hi, are there built gcc-7 packages which are working on there own? it seems packages from ubuntu-toolchain-r/test are relying on later uploads
[12:27] <ricotz> ah sorry, for 16.04/Xenial
[13:46] <doko> ricotz: no, but you edit debian/rules.defs and regenerate the control file
[13:49] <ricotz> doko, I assume with_common_libs and with_common_pkgs are the important vars in this case?
[13:49] <doko> yes
[13:50] <doko> ricotz: but why would you need that?
[13:51] <ricotz> doko, I am trying to build libreoffice (6.3 requires gcc 7) on xenial
[13:52] <ricotz> and avoid interferences with newer commons libs
[13:53] <ricotz> or is there still a chance that xenial will receive such a toolchain update?
[13:53] <ricotz> like bionic getting gcc-8
[13:56] <doko> no, bionic was already released with gcc-8
[13:58] <ricotz> hmm I see
[14:49] <GunnarHj> Hi mapreri, did you see my latest mail last night?
[15:02] <mapreri> GunnarHj: I did, but I'm caught up in something else today
[15:02] <mapreri> so it's there, in my inbox
[15:10] <GunnarHj> mapreri: Ok, good. Let's talk when you have a minute.
[15:20] <mapreri> I have a minute right now, but not much more
[15:20] <mapreri> GunnarHj: i.e., bring your query ;)
[15:22] <GunnarHj> mapreri: Not much of a query, really. Just hoping that you'll find the time to upload the backports based on current eoan. The reasoning is in the mail.
[15:23] <mapreri> GunnarHj: aye, I think I will.  Maybe tonight or tomorrow.
[15:23] <GunnarHj> mapreri: Sounds great! See ya.
[15:23] <mapreri> o/
[15:29] <juliank> Laney: That black thing looks really interesting, I'm about to run it on python-apt
[15:29] <juliank> It's a shame there's no git-black which only formats the hunks you are changing
[15:30] <juliank> (Like clang-format does for C(++); what we use in apt to progressively fix formatting)
[15:36] <Laney> juliank: why you highlight me?
[15:36] <Laney> but thanks for pointing me to it, TIL :P
[15:36] <juliank> Laney: Wasn't it you who pointed me to it?
[15:36] <Laney> nope
[15:36] <juliank> then it was ahasenack?
[15:37]  * juliank is confused
[15:37] <ahasenack> what did I break?
[15:37]  * ahasenack reads
[15:37] <Laney> haha
[15:37] <juliank> _someone_ mentioned black to me at debconf in hacklab
[15:38] <doko> tsimonq2: please could you change all the kde-l10n-* packages to b-d on python3 instead of python?
[15:38] <juliank> but who?
[16:03] <connor_k> I tidied up a package's debian/patches/ directory and added a few other patches to resolve build issues. However, creating a debdiff from the *.dsc files that resulted from `debuild -S -d` is only creating a debdiff that sees my changes to the changelog, but none of my other patches. The only notable difference from my usual workflow that produces "correct" debdiffs is that I renamed some of the patches in debian/patches
[16:03] <connor_k> and updated the series file accordingly. Does anyone have a suggestion for where I could begin troubleshooting this?
[16:25] <rbasak> connor_k: did you make sure that quilt was fully popped before changing the patches in debian/patches/ and the series file?
[16:26] <rbasak> I'm not quite sure how not doing so would give you exactly the behaviour you describe, but if you didn't do that then you'd certainly end up in trouble.
[16:31] <connor_k> rbasak, aha! Thank you! I "started over" after backing up my changelog and debian/patches directory, did a quilt pop -a, and copied in my backed up changes and the debdiff certainly looks more correct
[16:31] <connor_k> thank you very much :-)
[16:31] <rbasak> connor_k: you're welcome!
[17:09] <bdmurray> rafaeldtinoco: Could you answer rbasak in bug 1810857?
[17:10] <rafaeldtinoco> bdmurray: sure
[19:01] <vorlon> infinity, stgraber, kees: TB meeting?
[19:14] <mapreri> GunnarHj: looks like I also had to add -backports to the package, I didn't realize u.U
[19:17] <GunnarHj> mapreri: Do you mean the first line in d/changelog? In that case I follow you.
[19:38] <GunnarHj> mapreri: Ok, I see that it's in both the -proposed and -backports new queues. Then we have spread our bets, so to say. ;)
[19:39] <GunnarHj> mapreri: Anyway, thanks! That will be easy to sort out.
[19:41] <GunnarHj> bdmurray: Do you have time to remove a couple of uploads which ended up in the wrong pocket?
[19:56] <bdmurray> GunnarHj: Depending on what you mean, I'm not an AA.
[20:01] <GunnarHj> bdmurray: Ah, I thought you were. It's ibus-avro, which was just uploaded to the xenial/bionic/disco new queues. It's intended for the -backports pocket, but was first uploaded by mistake to -proposed too. So if you have the necessary access, it would be great if you could delete them from -proposed.
[20:01] <seb128> GunnarHj, I can do that
[20:01] <GunnarHj> seb128: Ah, nice!
[20:03] <seb128> GunnarHj, mapreri, bdmurray, done
[20:03] <GunnarHj> seb128: Thanks!
[20:06] <mapreri> seb128: well, you rejected everything :D
[20:06] <mapreri> guess I'll re-upload the -bpo ones
[20:07] <GunnarHj> I think seb128 needs some sleep. :)
[20:08] <mapreri> alright, back afk! o/
[20:09] <seb128> GunnarHj, mapreri, sorry, I didn't know backport was in the same queue, I though those were 2 buggy uploads
[20:09] <seb128> I see it's reupload so we should be good :)
[20:10] <GunnarHj> seb128, mapreri: Right, now all is as it should be. Thanks!4
[23:39] <tsimonq2> doko: Don't quote me on this, but those are KDE 4 and should be nuked anyway.
[23:40]  * sarnold runs to wikiquote
[23:44] <Unit193> sarnold: Why there when you can just remove them with 'tsimonq2 says these can be removed'?
[23:44] <sarnold> Unit193: so it can be mirrored everywhere!
[23:46] <tsimonq2> XD
[23:46] <Unit193> Might as well send something to ubuntu-devel-discuss while we're at it.
[23:49] <tsimonq2> My personal opinion is that we should have nuked all of Qt 4 anyway cycles ago.
[23:56] <Unit193> But that kills so much stuff!
[23:57] <Unit193> Like...Uh...Synergy?
[23:59] <tsimonq2> Bah. :P
[23:59] <Unit193> I'm kidding, barrier is a good replacement.