[11:42] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: I think recent dpkg-source have been fixed to ignore most bzr/git stuff they failed to ignore in the past
[11:43] <mdz> lool: ah, we haven't merged dpkg yet in gutsy
[11:43] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) tko: debian/ in upstream VCS is fine, but it's painful in tarballs
[11:43] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: Then you have a good motivation to do so :)
[11:46] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: Are you recommending the use of native packages because it makes it easier to build/upload stuff from bzr checkouts?
[11:47] <mdz> lool: yep
[11:47] <mdz> lool: combined with the fact that there are no upstream tarball releases
[11:52] <tko> would there be much benefit from us doing real tarball releases?
[11:54] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) tko: Speaking for Debian, which is currently *not* packaging hildon, there certainly would be benefit for other distros
[12:01] <tko> right. annoying that being both upstream maintainer and packager doing so means extra work :-/
[12:16] <mdz> lool: do you know of any reason why Debian could not adopt Ubuntu's packages verbatim?
[12:17] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: Some developers have complained about the changelog entries, and they usually need some checks to meet Debian standards
[12:17] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: Check libhildon, it has a couple of lintian errors
[12:18] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) The copyright file is mostly clean, but Debian ftpmasters would require a download URL
[12:18] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) etc;
[12:18] <mdz> lool: I haven't seen tollef's new package, but with the old hildon-libs one, the only issue was the lack of descriptions
[12:18] <mdz> which we have a plan to clean up later, not blocking entry into the archive for that
[12:18] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) debhelper build-dep is >= 4 while debian/compat says 5
[12:19] <mdz> lool: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-maemo-packaging-cleanup
[12:19] <mdz> I added incorrect debhelper deps to the list; please feel free to add other problems you find
[12:20] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: Thanks, didn't know about this spec
[12:22] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: Coincidentally, I wondered this morning on #debian-devel-french whether anybody would be interesting about having hildon packages in Debian, and mentionned some use cases
[12:23] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) It seems no awake french DD has particular interest on the packages though
[12:23] <mdz> if anyone has such an interest, please point them to bzr
[12:23] <mdz> so that we can stay in sync
[12:24] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: I will; any shared source repository for packages is always a good idea
[12:28] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) mdz: Is this MaemoPackagingCleanup supposed to happen on upstream debian/ or only in Ubuntu's bzr?
[12:28] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) Do some people here already commit on the upstream debian/?
[12:29] <mdz> all of our work will go into bzr
[12:29] <mdz> if it can be merged from there to upstream, that would be good
[12:30] <mdz> or if upstream would prefer to remove the packaging from svn and let that part happen in bzr, that's also ok
[12:30] <mdz> but we definitely want it to be decentralized
[12:31] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) (I understand that we want the changes to end up in the bzr, but I was wondering whether we could do them "upstream" in the SVN, and merge that in bzr from the upstream branch)
[12:34] <mdz> lool: the point of using bzr is that anyone can create a branch and we can easily merge between them
[12:37] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) Sure, I understand how Debian could create a debian branch and benefit from sharing the same repository; it's just that "upstream" is currently using SVN which makes me wonder whether changing debian/ in bzr is the best way to go -- but indeed, would they use bzr, they would have an easy time pulling the fixes :-)
[12:44] <mdz> lool: we require the ability to grant commit access, including the packaging, to ubuntu mobile developers
[01:10] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) Ah, dpkg-source -i doesn't work on native packages
[01:11] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) Needs -I.bzr instead
[02:39] <webjames> Hello
[02:39] <webjames> is this the only information at the moment: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileAndEmbedded
[02:41] <webjames> will is have sms, and dialing using gsm?
[03:13] <mdz> Mithrandir: hi
[04:51] <Mithrandir> mdz: hiya
[04:52] <mdz> Mithrandir: checking in to see how the hildon packaging is going
[04:52] <Mithrandir> webjames: that would depend on the people distributing hardware.  We are currently working on the software stack and I am not aware of GSM capabilities of any of the current target platforms.
[04:53] <Mithrandir> mdz: it's a public holiday in Norway so I'm not really here.
[04:53] <mdz> Mithrandir: oh, norway too?
[04:53] <Mithrandir> yes.  Doubly so, both Ascension day and constitution day.
[04:54] <Mithrandir> so lots of people out in the streets with classical clothes on and such.
[04:56] <mdz> what fun
[04:56] <mdz> Mithrandir: let's catch up tomorrow then
[04:57] <Mithrandir> sounds good.
[04:57] <Mithrandir> have you seen any guide to what bits should be packaged first yet?
[05:52] <mdz> Mithrandir: no response to my inquiries,  suspect it may be a holiday in finland as well
[06:36] <ferulo> yup, it's holiday here
[07:33] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) Concerning the descriptions: I found out that Maemo has a nicely documented trademark policy, but it might be a bit painful to use this name in the source packages; there are plenty of rules to follow, such as using the  (TM) symbol, or avoiding "based on maemo" in favor of "incorporating maemo"; so I recommend avoiding "maemo" altogether, except perhaps for the Homepage link
[07:33] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) Links to TM policies: http://maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2007-May/010234.html
[07:42] <adilson> lool: I've being looking at this a few days ago but, according to mdz, this should not be a problem as we are refering to maemo itself, not naming anything after it.
[07:44] (lool/#ubuntu-mobile) I suppose it would be fair use; I wondered about it for a Debian "pkg-maemo" project