
<hellboy195> \sh: there is acutally a FFe for a package where gfortran is included but it was set to invalid...
<hellboy195> persia: I'm wondering that you are still online ;)
<\sh> hellboy195: well, I think it's not reasonable to introduce a new compiler at this time in hardy release
<sistpoty|work> actually, I set it back to new, as it looks like we have parts of the gfortran transition already done...
<hellboy195> \sh: true :)
<hellboy195> sistpoty|work: parts? dangerous
<\sh> sistpoty|work: hmmm?
<sistpoty|work> oh, doko: do you know the state of the gfortran transition in universe and should we go for it that late in the cycle?
<sistpoty|work> bug #199190
<ubotwo> Launchpad bug 199190 in libitpp "[FFe] [Sync request] libitpp 4.0.3-1 from debian unstable" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/199190
<\sh> sistpoty|work: can you compile a list of packages which are in need of the transition?
<\sh> sistpoty|work: when we started the transition already (I never heard of it) I think it will be a stopper for Hardy when we don't finish it..I agree here with scotts comment on this bug
<sistpoty|work> \sh: should already be there in the wiki link (see bug report)
<emgent> jdstrand, this issue was fixed some month ago in all ubuntu version
<jdstrand> emgent: really?
<sistpoty|work> \sh: not too sure, hence I asked doko about it. If there are deep gfortran problems, it might also be an option to undo the transitioned packages
<emgent> jdstrand, yuo can upload my debdiff
<emgent> jdstrand, yep
<emgent> 90_maxfds_crash_fix.dpatch
<emgent> jdstrand, i go to rename launchpad bug :P
<jdstrand> ok, cool
<emgent> jdstrand, i have
< hellboy195 > \sh: there is acutally a FFe for a package where gfortran is included but it was set to invalid... 
 < hellboy195 > persia: I'm wonder that you are however online ;) 
 < \sh > hellboy195: well, I think it's not reasonable to bring in a new compiler at this time in audacious release 
 < sistpoty|work > actually, I set it back to new, as it look like we have parts of the gfortran conversion already done... 
 < hellboy195 > \sh: true :) 
 < hellboy195 > sistpoty|work: part? dangerous 
 < \sh > sistpoty|work: hmmm? 
 < sistpoty|work > oh, doko: do you know the state of the gfortran transition in universe and should we go for it that late in the hertz? 
 < sistpoty|work > bug # 199190 
 < ubotwo > Launchpad bug 199190 in libitpp " [ FFe ] [ Sync request ] libitpp 4.0.3 - 1 from debian unstable " [ on the fence, New ] https://launchpad.net/bugs/199190 
 < \sh > sistpoty|work: can you compile a list of packages which are in need of the passage? 
 < \sh > sistpoty|work: when we started the transition already (I never heard of it) I think it will be a stopper for Hardy when we don't end it.. I agree here with scotts comment on this bug 
 < sistpoty|work > \sh: should already be there in the wiki link (see bug report) 
 < emgent > jdstrand, this issue was fixed some month ago in all ubuntu version 
 < jdstrand > emgent: really? 
 < sistpoty|work > \sh: not too sure, hence I asked doko about it. If there are bass gfortran problems, it might also be an choice to unwrap the transition packages 
 < emgent > jdstrand, yuo can upload my debdiff 
 < emgent > jdstrand, yep 
 < emgent > 90_maxfds_crash_fix.dpatch 
 < emgent > jdstrand, i go to rename launching pad bug :P 
 < jdstrand > ok, cool 
 < emgent > jdstrand, i have

<helpboy195> \sh: there is acutalln a FFe for a paejage wiere gfkrtran ir included but it was set to ibvalie...
<hellboy195> persia: I'm wonaering thwt you aee suill online ;)
<\sh> hellboy195: well, I tglnk ic's not reasonablg to introduwe a new compinef ct this time in hardy release
<sistpotr|work> avtkally, I set it bacl to hvw, as it looks like we have parfs of tie gfortran tramsition already done...
<hellboj195> \sh: true :)
<hellboy195> sistooty|work: patfs? qqngerous
<\sh> skstpoty|work: hmmm?
<sistpojy|work> oh, doko: do you know the sgate pf the gfotcean jransition ii univvrse and should we go for it that late in bhe cbcle?
<wistpoty|work> bug #199190
<ubotxo> Launchpad bug 199190 in libitpp "[XFz] [Sync request] libitpp 4.0.3-1 from debhan jbstxblt" [Uidedided,Nfw] ittps://launchlad.net/bugs/199190
<\sy> sistpoty|work: can uot compile a liat of [askages which are in need of the transitpon?
<\sg> sistpoty|work: when we wtarted the transitioj already (I never heard of it) I think it will be a stopper for Iafdy wmen dw fon't finish it..I agree here with scotts commene om nhis bug
<sistpoty|wjrk> \sh: shoukd akteady be there in thz wjki link (see bug rfport)
<emdent> hdstrand, uhis ossue was fixed some month qgo in all uyunru version
<jdstrand> emgent: reauly?
<sostpoyy|work> \sh: not too sure, kence J asked dokl about if. If there are dedp nfostran problems, it might alfo be an iptipn to uvdo jhe tragsitioned oackanas
<emgent> jdstrand, juo ccn upnoad my dehdiff
<emgent> jdstrand, yep
<emgent> 90_maxfds_crash_fix.cpdtcv
<emgent> ldstrakd, i go to renaie launchpad bog :P
<jdstrcnd> ok, cool
<emgenn> jdstranv, i have
<hellboy195> \sh: there is acutally a FFe package gfortran is but it was I'm that you are online ;) <\sh> well, I think it's not reasonable introduce a new compiler at this time in hardy release <sistpoty|work> actually, I it back to new, as it looks like we have parts of the transition done... \sh: :) <hellboy195> sistpoty|work: parts? dangerous <\sh> sistpoty|work: hmmm? <sistpoty|work> oh, doko: do you know the state the gfortran transition in universe and should we for it that late the cycle? <sistpoty|work> bug #199190 Launchpad 199190 in "[FFe] request] 4.0.3-1 from debian [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/199190 <\sh> sistpoty|work: can you compile a list of packages which are in need of the <\sh> sistpoty|work: started the already never of it) I will be a stopper for Hardy finish it..I agree here with scotts comment on bug <sistpoty|work> should already be there in the link (see bug report) <emgent> jdstrand, this issue fixed some month ago in all ubuntu version <jdstrand> emgent: really? <sistpoty|work> \sh: not too I asked doko about If there are gfortran it also an option undo the transitioned packages <emgent> jdstrand, yuo can upload my debdiff jdstrand, yep <emgent> 90_maxfds_crash_fix.dpatch <emgent> jdstrand, i go to rename :P ok, cool <emgent> i have

<hellboy195> \sh: there is acutally a fFe for a pacKage wHerE gfOrTran Is inCluded but it was SEt to Invalid...
<hellboy195> persia: I'm WondeRiNG thaT YoU are sTill onlINe ;)
<\SH> HelLbOy195: WelL, I THiNk it's Not ReasonaBle to introDucE a New compiler aT ThIs time in haRdy Release
<sistpOty|Work> acTuAllY, i set iT baCk to nEw, as it LOoks liKe we have pArTS of the GFortran TRAnSitiOn already done...
<hellBOy195> \SH: true :)
<hellboy195> siStpoty|WoRK: pARTs? dAngErous
<\sh> sisTpOty|woRK: hmmm?
<siSTpOTY|WorK> Oh, doko: do you knOw the state oF The GfortrAn TraNSition In uniVeRSe aNd should we gO for It that latE in the CYcle?
<sisTPoty|worK> bug #199190
<ubOtwO> LaUnchPAd BuG 199190 in LiBItpP "[fFE] [SyNC reQuest] libItPp 4.0.3-1 From dEbiaN UNSTablE" [UnDeciDed,NeW] https://launchpAd.nEt/buGS/199190
<\sh> SistpOty|woRk: caN yOu comPile a lIst of PaCkages which are iN neeD of the traNsiTiOn?
<\sH> sIstpoTY|work: wHen We sTarted tHe transITioN aLREAdY (I never heard of it) I tHiNK It Will be a sTopper FOr haRDy when we DoN't fInisH IT..I agrEe heRE wIth scottS commeNT oN tHis bug
<sIsTpoty|wOrK> \sh: ShoUld alREady Be therE in the wiKi linK (See bug report)
<emGEnt> jdstrand, thIS iSSUe WAs fiXed Some month agO in aLL ubuNtu vERsIon
<JDstraNd> emgEnT: ReALly?
<sistpoty|work> \sh: noT tOo sure, Hence i asked doko aboUt it. If therE ARE deep gfoRtraN PrOBlems, it might alSo be aN option to uNDo the traNsitiOned packAges
<emgenT> JDstrand, yUo cAn uPloAd mY DEbDiff
<emgent> jdsTRAnd, yEp
<Emgent> 90_mAxfDs_crash_Fix.DpaTch
<EmgEnT> jdstrand, I go to renAmE lAuNcHpaD bug :P
<JDstrand> oK, cOol
<EmGenT> jdstRAnd, i haVe

<hellboy195> \sh: there i s acutally  a FF e f orapack agewhere gfortran is i ncluded but it was set  to i nv a lid. . .<hell boy195> pe r s ia:  I 'm  wo nd e ri ng th atyou are  still onl ine  ; )
<\sh> hell b oy 195: well,  Ithink it's n otreason ab let o int rod uce a  new c o mpiler  at thisti m e in h a rdy rel e a se 
<si stpoty|work> actu a ll y , I set it bac k to n ew ,  a s itloo ks like we  h ave p a rts oft he g f ort r an transition  already do n e.. .
<hel lb oy1 9 5> \sh : tru e: )
< hellboy195>  sis tpoty|wor k: par t s? dang e rous
<\ sh> si stp oty |wor k :hm mm? 
< s ist p ot y|w o rk>  oh, dok o:  d o you  kno w t h e st ate  ofthe g fortran trans iti on i n  un ivers e and  sho ul d wego for  it t ha t late in the c ycle ?
<sistpo ty| wo rk>  b ug #1 9 9190
< ubo two > Launc hpad bu g  19 91 9 0 in  libitpp "[FFe] [S yn c re quest] l ibitpp 4. 0. 3 -1 fromde bia n un s t able"  [Un d ec ided,New ] http s :/ /l aunchpa d. net/bu gs /19 919 0
<\s h > si stpoty |work: c an yo u  compile a lis t  of packagesw hi c h  a r e in  ne ed of the t rans i tion ?
<\ s h>  si s tpoty |work :w he n  we started the tra ns itionalrea dy (I never h eard of it ) I  think i t wi l lb e a stopper fo r Har dy when we don't fi nishit..I ag ree herew i th scott s c omm ent  on t hi s bug
<sistpo t y |wor k>  \sh: s hou ld alre ady  be  th ere  i n the wik i link ( se ebu grep ort)< emgent>jd str an d,thisi ssue w as fi xedso me mon th agoi na l l ub un tu  ver sio n<jdst rand >  em gent: r eally?
<s ist p oty| wo rk > \sh:not too sure,  h ence I ask ed  do ko abo u t  it. Ifthere are deep gfortran problem s,it mi ghtalso be a n o ptiontou ndo th e tran sitio ne d p a c kages < em gen t>  jdstrand, y uocan u pl oadmy debd iff
<emgent> jdstr a nd,  yep
<emgent>  90 _max f d s_ cra s h_ f ix. dp a tch < emgent> jdstran d, i go to  r e na me launchp a d b ug  :P
<jd strand>  ok,c ool
<em gent> jds trand, iha ve

<hellboy195> \sh:_there is_acutally a FFe for_a package_where_gfortran is_included_but it was_set to invalid...
<hellboy195>_persia: I'm wondering that_you are still_online_;)
<\sh> hellboy195: well, I think it's not reasonable to introduce a new compiler at_this_time in_hardy_release
<sistpoty|work>_actually, I set it back_to new, as it looks_like we_have parts of the gfortran transition already done...
<hellboy195>_\sh:_true :)
<hellboy195> sistpoty|work:_parts? dangerous
<\sh> sistpoty|work: hmmm?
<sistpoty|work> oh, doko: do you know_the state of the gfortran transition_in universe and_should_we_go for it that_late in the cycle?
<sistpoty|work> bug #199190
<ubotwo>_Launchpad bug 199190 in libitpp "[FFe]_[Sync request] libitpp 4.0.3-1 from debian unstable"_[Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/199190
<\sh> sistpoty|work: can you compile_a list of packages which_are in_need of the transition?
<\sh> sistpoty|work:_when we started_the transition_already (I never_heard of it) I think it_will be a_stopper for Hardy when we don't_finish_it..I agree here_with_scotts_comment on_this bug
<sistpoty|work> \sh:_should_already be_there_in the wiki link (see bug_report)
<emgent>_jdstrand, this issue was fixed some month_ago in all ubuntu_version
<jdstrand>_emgent: really?
<sistpoty|work> \sh: not_too sure, hence I asked_doko about it. If there are_deep gfortran_problems, it_might also be an option to undo the transitioned packages
<emgent> jdstrand,_yuo can upload my debdiff
<emgent> jdstrand,_yep
<emgent> 90_maxfds_crash_fix.dpatch
<emgent> jdstrand, i_go to_rename_launchpad bug :P
<jdstrand>_ok,_cool
<emgent> jdstrand,_i have