#ubuntu-arb 2012-03-05
<wendar> I'd like to get that first lens pushed through
<wendar> any meta thoughts on the repo layout?
<wendar> should I send it to vote?
<wendar> sounds like mhall119 has a stack to push through once we settle on the layout for the merged repos
<wendar> mhall119: once we get through the list of Oneiric lenses, we can start on the Precise ones, have those lined up and ready to go before the Precise launch
<mhall119> wendar: already have a list :)
<mhall119> wendar: in fact, if you PM me your G+ email, I'll share the doc with you
<wendar> cool, will do
<wendar> mhall119: I'm assuming the music scopes are compatible with the default Music Lens
<mhall119> wendar: I'm assuming so, yes
<wendar> we can't do those with our merged repository strategy, will need to talk to the Music Lens developers on how they want to handle it
<wendar> if they're okay with it, I'd say we do one merged source package for the collection of music-related scopes
<wendar> the lens is a main package, which extras can depend on
<ajmitch> wendar: right, I think that's a good idea & the layout you proposed looks good
<stgraber> wendar: I'll "try" to have a look this afternoon, was planning on doing that over the weekend but ended up not being around much
<ajmitch> stgraber: you're not the only one :)
 * ajmitch is feeling a bit guilty about wendar doing all the work this month
<wendar> ajmitch: aw, it'll be someone else's turn next month :)
<ajmitch> wendar: unity-lens-graphicdesign is a native package? (version is 0.1)
<stgraber> yep, I think that makes sense considering it's a mix of multiple sources
<stgraber> and 0.1 should ensure it's going to be lower to whatever might end up in the archive at some point
<ajmitch> I'd have thought you'd want extras in the version at least
<ajmitch> something to match how versioning is done for the other packages
<ajmitch> if you really want, I believe you can have different versions for the binary package than the source package :)
<stgraber> yeah you can can but it's black magic at this point ;)
<ajmitch> true
<ajmitch> it warped my mind when I saw it being done
<stgraber> I guess 0.1~extra1~11.10 or similar could work (if dpkg doesn't explode telling us a nativ package shouldn't have such weird version number)
<ajmitch> I don't think it should complain
<ajmitch> I think dpkg even treats 0~0 as valid
<ajmitch> so for this lens & scope set, they're all by the same author at the moment?
<wendar> ajmitch: it's 0.1-0extras11.10.1~ppa1  in the PPA
<wendar> ajmitch: maybe I didn't push that change to the remote repo
<wendar> ajmitch: bzr builddeb refuses to accept extras version numbering
<wendar> ajmitch: so I've been doing development with native version numbers, and changing it at the end before I push to the ppa
<ajmitch> wendar: right, I should have checked the PPA as well, sorry :)
<wendar> so the final version will be 0.1-0extras11.10.1
<ajmitch> it probably refuses to accept the - in the version
<wendar> actually, what it complains about is combining "3.0 (native)" format with a non-native version
<ajmitch> it may be worth changing it from 0.1-0extras11.10.1 to 0.1~extras~11.10.1 as stgraber suggested, for native packages
<wendar> yeah, could be (worth the change to ~), but if we were going to change I'd rather change all over, so we don't have to explain two version number schemes to developers
<wendar> they can't get our current scheme right, so I hesitate to introduce any more complexity
<wendar> (or, to put it another way, since I'm the one setting the ARB versions anyway, it's not really a big deal to remember to use debuild for the final build with proper version numbers)
<wendar> or, maybe we can talk to the bzr-builddeb folks about an exception for version numbers that match "extras"
<wendar> ajmitch: oh, and yes, this lens and scopes are all by the same author, just originally developed as multiple separate packages
<wendar> ajmitch: so, in the future, we can just tell the author to develop their lenses that way to begin with (and get quickly to create lens/scopes that way too)
<ajmitch> wendar: ok
<wendar> oh, and on guallet, I changed the format from "3.0 (native)" to "3.0 (quilt)", but it seemed to cause the developer more grief than it was worth.
<wendar> "3.0 (native)" seems to be more approachable, more like the "my software is just a bundle" idea.
<ajmitch> so any patches are applied inline?
#ubuntu-arb 2012-03-06
<wendar> ajmitch: aye, patches inline, and submitted back to the developer.
<ajmitch> wendar: alright, will vote on it & +1 it soon :)
<cielak> ajmitch: may I ask how's going with reviewing harmonySEQ? :)
#ubuntu-arb 2012-03-07
<ajmitch> cielak: after much pain & suffering with fluidsynth, alsa & various pieces, I got it to make some sound
<ajmitch> I won't call it music ;)
<ajmitch> cielak: sorry that I've not spent much time on it, about the only thing I can find with the packaging is that the postinst & postrm may not be needed
<mhall119> wendar: ping
<wendar> mhall119: pong
<mhall119> wendar: looking at the arb ML, and there was a question about the versioning scheme for the graphic design lens, is that something the lens developer sets or something you guys will control in the package template?
<wendar> mhall119: the developer can set it, but we can too, so we'll just do that before it goes out the door
<wendar> mhall119: though, we've had packages shipping with purely native version numbers, so I'm inclined to publish this one under the current standard, and apply any changes in policy we agree on to future packages.
<mhall119> wendar: is this something I should document for developers submitting lenses/scopes?
<wendar> mhall119: yeah, we should create a brief wiki page for them with the whole repository layout
<wendar> mhall119: basically "what to expect when you submit a lens/scope"
<wendar> IIRC, quickly has a "package for arb" option
<wendar> so, hopefully we can just get it generating the right files and formats, and then the developers won't have to think about it
<mhall119> wendar: quickly has "submitubuntu" or something like that, but I think it needs some work
<wendar> mhall119: aye, it does need some work. One of the things on my list is to submit some patches
<wendar> interesting problem for the ARB: we do all our work on the current production release
<wendar> but, can only get changes for Quickly into the development release
<wendar> so, Quickly is always lagging behind
<mhall119> wendar: I thought we weren't going to need ARB packaging for lenses and scopes though
<mhall119> not from the developers that is
<wendar> not a huge deal, since we can manually fix up the packages after they're submitted
<wendar> mhall119: yeah, we'll do it all for them
<wendar> mhall119: the packaging is very simple
<mhall119> ok
<wendar> mhall119: but ideally, down the road, Quickly will do it for them (or some other tool)
<mhall119> thanks, I just wanted to make sure I understood ajmitch's concerns
<wendar> mhall119: aye, Ubuntu/Debian has two styles of version numbers
<wendar> mhall119: one for "packages with a tarball" and one for "packages without a tarball"
 * mhall119 is still trying to learn all of this
<wendar> mhall119: yeah, a lot of this is arcane knowledge
<wendar> mhall119: the real question with this version number thing is "do we protect developers from it?"
<wendar> mhall119: or "is it better to start teaching them arcana early?"
<mhall119> I'm of the "teach a man to fish" philosophy, personally
<mhall119> but some people don't want to be fisherman, they just want to buy fillets at the grocery store
<mhall119> and I think we should be flexible for those people too
 * cielak is away: Busy/Away
<wendar> mhall119: I agree :) (some people just want fillets, and we have room for them too)
 * ajmitch was mostly arguing for native versioning because the lenses & scopes are often not going to be by the same author, and the source package is put together by the ARB
<ajmitch> wendar: I hope I haven't held up the upload of the lens package, I don't want to do that
<wendar> ajmitch: nah, I'm busy on my astrophysics homework today
<wendar> ajmitch: but, if you're comfortable, I'll go ahead and upload it with the existing version number scheme tomorrow, and we can figure out variants later?
<wendar> ajmitch: we've got 3 positive votes, which is what's needed to go ahead
<wendar> though, I would like a quick double-check from stgraber specifically on the apparmor profile
<wendar> profiles (one for each lens and scope)
<ajmitch> wendar: sure, I'm fine with that
#ubuntu-arb 2012-03-08
<dpm> good morning all
<ajmitch> hi dpm
<dpm> hey ajmitch :)
#ubuntu-arb 2013-03-04
<coolbhavi> dpm, I have just added the arb planning blueprint
<coolbhavi> for this uds
<coolbhavi> whom to contact?
<dpm> for the appdev track, myself (pm'ing now)
#ubuntu-arb 2013-03-05
<PaoloRotolo> Hi all!
<ajmitch> hi
<cwayne> hi
#ubuntu-arb 2013-03-07
<ajmitch> PaoloRotolo: congratulations on membership
<PaoloRotolo> Thanks ajmitch :)
#ubuntu-arb 2013-03-08
<coolbhavi> hey dpm
<coolbhavi> hey highvoltage
<highvoltage> hey coolbhavi
<coolbhavi> highvoltage, the free app redirection bug that daniel reported to in an effort to control the arb queue seems to be fixed now
<coolbhavi> highvoltage, so now the question is to allow all the apps to get redirected or you think we can review say apps submitted after say some date?
<highvoltage> I don't think I understand
<highvoltage> could you point me to the bug, I'm not sure I'm familiar with the issue
<coolbhavi> highvoltage, here it goes https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/1124223
<highvoltage> coolbhavi: ah, great
<highvoltage> coolbhavi: not sure what the best way would be to approach it, what would happen with all the old submissions?
<highvoltage> or is the idea that we work through all the old ones while the submissions are on pause?
<coolbhavi> highvoltage, basically redirect all the old submissions and work through new ones
<highvoltage> ah I see
<highvoltage> doesn't sound bad
<highvoltage> I think any plan for progress is good at this stage so I'm all for it
<coolbhavi> keeping in view we dont have such sort of good image wrt app developers who submitted their apps at an earlier stage
<coolbhavi> and is still pending
<highvoltage> yeah
<highvoltage> I don't think there's a quick fix for that atm
<coolbhavi> +1
<coolbhavi> so what do you think would be the number possible for us to do app reviews
<coolbhavi> ?
<PaoloRotolo> Hi all!
#ubuntu-arb 2013-03-09
<PaoloRotolo> Hi all
