[12:16] jbHey folks. [12:16] ugh [12:16] hey folks [12:16] Hey TheMuso. [12:17] TheMuso: Could I convince you to change the license on the packaging for the ubuntustudio-* stuff? The packages look great, but I'm concerned about GPL vs. CC-BY-SA. Is this a copy of GPL packaging, or is it yours? === cypher1_ [n=cypher1@c-69-249-127-102.hsd1.nj.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:19] persia: Its not my call. I am a member of the team, and have been asked to state the deal with the licensing on their behalf. I am noexpert, so take it up with them please. If anything, I am with you on this one. [12:20] TheMuso: I ask you because you hold copyright on the packaging for the last two packages a reviewed :) [12:20] Well I'd have to have another look. Which ones are they? [12:20] c [12:20] ugh [12:20] But I didn't choose the license. [12:20] Its just because I did packaging work on them. [12:20] No actual artistic work. [12:21] TheMuso: Right. It's only the packaging license that bothers me. I'll get you a list in a moment. [12:23] TheMuso: My apologies. Apparently it's only one for you: ubuntustudio-screensaver (http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=5764). [12:23] Well I haven't even really looked that one over, but I did have a hand in the packaging. [12:24] TheMuso: It looks great to me except for " The Debian packaging is (C) 2007, Luke Yelavich and is licensed under the GPL, see above." on CC-BY-SA content. [12:25] So what should it be? [12:26] hey TheMuso [12:26] Hey ajmitch. [12:26] TheMuso: Almost anything else. I'd recommend CC-BY-SA for maximum compatibility, but PubDom, X11, or BSD would all also be compatible. [12:26] ok [12:26] gah I hate licenses. [12:26] Always does my head in. [12:27] TheMuso: Thanks :) [12:29] persia: So I can get a better understanding, how is GPL and the CC-BY-SA incompatible? [12:31] TheMuso: It has something to do with the attribution. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses and http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html for opinions by people who actually understand licensing (I just search the web, and have a set of rules of thumb). [12:31] Right. [12:31] Well how then do the ubuntustudio guys think that the other artwork packages have similar compatible licenses? [12:32] TheMuso: They followed the example of ubuntu-artwork :( [12:32] Right. [12:32] SO how does ubuntu-artwork get in? [12:33] TheMuso: More generally, _MMA_ and I agreed yesterday that the licensing should probably be fixed, rather than propagate the bug. [12:33] TheMuso: I'm not sure - it looks like a bug to me. [12:34] Right. [12:34] So its just the debian packaging thats conflicting with GPL correct? [12:35] TheMuso: Rather the debian packaging is GPL, so the combined work of the binary package cannot be distributed for upstream CC-BY-SA. [12:35] Right === TheMuso ponders whether he should just completely fix up screensaver, and re-upload to REVU. === TheMuso doesn't want to tread on toes. [12:35] Yet Toby Smithe hasn't been around alot. [12:36] TheMuso: I think that's easiest, as otherwise we need to document your approval of changing the license somehow. [12:36] persia: Whats easiest? [12:37] ***TheMuso ponders whether he should just completely fix up screensaver, and re-upload to REVU. [12:37] <_MMA_> persia: Wait. So you mean to say we need to change the license on the contents and not the package? [12:37] ah [12:37] _MMA_: either works, but changing the packaging license is likely easier. [12:38] <_MMA_> Yes. We cant change the contents. [12:38] <_MMA_> TheMuso: The screensaver should just be whatever the Ubuntu one is right? [12:38] _MMA_: I don't know. === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:39] <_MMA_> ok [12:39] I am no license expert. [12:39] <_MMA_> Well I was saying we just copy that one. [12:39] <_MMA_> I thought thats what we did anyway. [12:40] _MMA_: As far as I know, that is what you did. I'm just picky about licenses (having had too many archive-admin rejects from things I advocated). [12:41] I only read the IRC discussion and didn't check the packages, but I am going to jump in anyway: [12:42] I believe the Ubuntu stance is that cc-by-sa is okay to enter archive [12:42] but I agree with persia that cc-by-sa package with packaging licensed to GPL is definitely a no-go [12:42] minghua: Absolutely. There's no problem with CC-BY-SA, just mixing with GPL is not OK. [12:43] <_MMA_> persia: I see. We'll probably uncover another bug. ;) [12:43] <_MMA_> (darn router) [12:44] persia: BTW I just commented a REVU package to use the same license as upstream for packaging :-) [12:44] minghua: That's my general recommendation, although I don't have any objections to compatible licenses (e.g. CC-BY-SA content with BSD packaging). === TheMuso ponders which way to go for screensaver === sacater [n=sacater@ubuntu/member/colchester-lug.sacater] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:45] and notes he doesn't have a lot of time before he has to go. [12:46] persia: my case was LGPL upstream and GPL packaging. I think it's ok, but I would prefer simple situations. [12:46] TheMuso: May as well go CC-BY-SA: it's the easiest choice, and makes debian/copyright nice and short. [12:46] persia: ubuntustudio-default-settings is a bit of a hack, and I wish that wasn't uploaded, as I would rather do that myself. [12:46] It's not like you're going to lose anything by changing you packaging from GPL to LGPL [12:46] minghua: Yeah. That falls under "recommendation" rather than "advocation block" for me. [12:46] I need to fix a few things in it that are against sanity. [12:46] TheMuso: Archive it and do it differently :) [12:47] persia: Definitely. I put it to "things should be fixed" section. [12:47] persia: Yep ok. [12:47] Just don't have time today and won't be able to for the next week. [12:47] TheMuso: Maybe leave a comment then. Toby might be around, and can have a go. [12:47] who uploaded it? [12:48] I don't remember doing so. [12:48] TheMuso: Toby [12:48] ah [12:48] thought so [12:50] TheMuso: On the other hand, that one doesn't have any licensing issues :) [12:50] persia: I know, as I created it from the ground up. [12:54] anyway, time to go start getting ready. [12:54] TheMuso: have a good trip. [12:55] persia: Thanks. === doko_ [n=doko@dslb-088-073-089-076.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === rgl_ [n=Rui@84.90.10.107] has joined #ubuntu-motu === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Arrogance [n=aks@ottawa-hs-64-26-167-154.d-ip.magma.ca] has joined #ubuntu-motu === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu === DktrKranz [n=Luca@ubuntu/member/dktrkranz] has joined #ubuntu-motu === persia [n=persia@ubuntu/member/persia] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:57] Is it bad if i uploaded a Multiverse package change to REVU? [01:59] peanutb: Probably not. Is it a new upstream version? [01:59] upstream? [01:59] I just made a small change to include the logo for acidrip. [01:59] peanutb: To ask differently, is the change an upgrade, or just a patch? [02:00] persia, just a patch [02:01] peanutb: REVU isn't really the right place for patches. You'll get a faster response by attaching a debdiff to the bug. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing for some instructions (under "Preparing New Revisions"). [02:02] peanutb: Also, which package? I'd like to archive the REVU upload. [02:03] ok. I didnt really read that. The debdiff is on the bug. Its called acidrip [02:04] Thanks for helping a stupid person such as me with this. [02:05] peanutb: No problem :) I'm archiving the REVU upload now. Please request sponsorship with ubuntu-universe-sponsors for this. [02:05] ok thanks again [02:11] we prepared a spec to provide some php5 packages which are no longer included in php5 package in main: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/php5-universe [02:11] we would like to propose this brand new package before feature freeze [02:12] the mail sent to -devel-discuss about checksums is interesting [02:12] is it worth presenting it to some MOTU Meeting? [02:13] I don't think you need to present it at a meeting. The spec looks straightforward (not that I know much about PHP5 packaging). I suspect you just need REVU and uploading. [02:14] it's on REVU ready for review [02:14] but last word should be pitti's [02:15] anyway, we will be happy to start fixing packaging mistakes [02:15] DktrKranz: so the "we have a separate php-interbase source" in php5 changelog is wrong? [02:15] minghua, yes [02:16] (as of today) [02:16] we had in feisty [02:16] but it is no longer the case [02:16] see package-removals. [02:16] DktrKranz: why is it dropped? [02:17] http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/removals.txt [02:17] obsolete source package [02:17] it was uploaded but never kept synced with php5 [02:18] so it was dropped [02:18] in gutsy [02:18] I see [02:18] php5-interbase was never uploaded IIRC [02:18] php5-imap and php5-mcrypt did [02:19] php5-interbase is in the removal list, so it should have been uploaded at least some time [02:19] probably yes, I don't remember correctly [02:20] they never reached gutsy, though [02:20] and there are several packages requiring them [02:21] so we should take it into consideration === etank [n=etank@ubuntu/member/etank] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:21] (or at least I think so) [02:22] DktrKranz: is the merging strategy agreed on? [02:22] regardless the situation, I don't see much point discuss this in a MOTU meeting [02:22] if the php5 main maintainer (I assume pitti) approves, and there are enough manpower to keep it in sync with Debian php5 source, I don't see any controversy [02:22] the major point is: how can we manage sync with php5 in main? === persia thinks the issue is really only the resources to keep it up to date === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:23] DktrKranz: I don't think a little skew is an issue. if you have a dedicated team, and someone uploads new versions within a couple days, it should be OK. [02:23] we can arrange it [02:24] it's not a problem [02:24] there are only few files to look at [02:24] yeah, as long as there is a promise to keep things in sync for each alpha/beta release, I would say it's okay [02:24] temporary version mismatch always happen [02:25] we need to coordinate with php5 maintainers in order to avoid a double php5-* if some universe depends will be dropped or promoted [02:26] DktrKranz: it would be nice if you can clarify the status of the php5-{interbase,imap,mcrypt} packages in gutsy on the spec, though === siti [n=siti@clix-jaquesmartin-nz.cpe.clix.net.nz] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:26] minghua, could you explain that? === RoninX341 [n=etank@ubuntu/member/etank] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:27] DktrKranz: The question I asked about php5-interbase earlier. I should be able to find answers on the spec IMO. [02:28] Hi, are there any tools (I am thinking of making one) that integrates a sane distributed source code management (git etc) with the debian packaging. I ask this because my experience of creating debian packages is truly awful, especially modifying patches. [02:28] I'm going to add that ASAP [02:29] siti: You might be interested in svn-buildpackage and bzr-buildpackage [02:29] persia: cheers [02:29] there is gtk-buildpackage IIRC [02:29] git-buildpackage* [02:30] ok [02:30] Wow. apt-cache search buildpackage shows support for quite a few VCSs. [02:30] minghua: yes, but it's not in ubuntu :( [02:31] siti: even not in gutsy? [02:31] I will have a play on the bzr one and see if it's similar to what I was thinking :) [02:31] I will have a look on gutsy, one sec [02:31] siti: It's new in gutsy. [02:31] ok [02:31] although I doubt those *-buildpackage things are exactly intended for the usage siti described [02:32] (I have only looked at svn-buildpackage, though) [02:32] minghua: yeah you're right, these just build from git/bzr/* source code [02:33] siti: I may have misunderstood then. What are you seeking to do? [02:33] well, if you could have a look at http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=5701 for a first review, we can begin fixing package [02:33] what I am after is something that manages the debian/* the source code, automatic cleaning (no stupid writing rules), maintaining patches to the source code, allowing for bumping with good merging/conflict resolution [02:33] sorry I haven't expalined it to well, but do you see what I mean? [02:34] have you guys played with dpatch-edit-patch and wanted to kill it? [02:35] siti: and you want to keep track of the git repo of upstream, right? === minghua uses dpatch-edit-patch and is mostly happy with it [02:35] i've found dpatch-edit-patch quite handy [02:35] siti: Ah. *-buildpackage allows VCS of debian/, CDBS automates a lot of the rule-writing, I actually like dpatch for maintaining patches, although some people report quilt to be better, and you might want to look at DaD for automated merging (although there are still bugs). [02:36] well, optionally would be nice, if the package does not use git then the tool could grab a new version manually === phlaegel [n=phlaegel@S01060016b619a773.ok.shawcable.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:36] I've heard quilt is better, too. [02:37] quilt is nice too, after you get your head around the stack idea ;) [02:37] well just a simple flaw in debian-edit-patch is: I am creating a patch, I edit some of source code, and I want to test it, if I try and test it the patch is screwed [02:37] how so? [02:37] siti: Generally, packaging is encouraged of upstream releases (uscan helps automate this), but see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/CommonPackagingMistakes/ChangingTheOrigTarball for an example get-orig-source: rule that can help automate grabbing new VCS snapshots. [02:37] because by me building I made some generated files [02:38] you are using dpatch wrong === peanutb [n=paulb@phns1.gotdns.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:38] how am I mean to use it then? [02:38] generate a patch, then run "debian/rules patch", then test [02:39] don't test/build/whatever in the dpatch generated temporary tree [02:39] what about all the **** packages that die after a second build? [02:39] Generally, I generate a patch, build a source package, and test build the source package. [02:39] siti: Those are bugs. [02:40] which packages die after a second build? [02:40] file bugs and they'll be fixed [02:40] lol [02:40] (most likely there is already a bug filed in Debian) [02:40] why is there no automated testing of the double build problem? [02:41] siti: No, really. There's a couple people trying to fix that for every Debian package, and if you find any new packages with the problem, it would be a great help to make sure they are reported. [02:41] there is, currently, in Debian [02:41] that's why I asked which packages those are [02:41] well we could make those people obsolete and free to work on decent things ;) [02:41] xkeyboard-config for one [02:41] iirc gksu/libgksu [02:42] I don't see Debian bugs on either gksu or libgksu [02:43] xkeyboard-config is http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=424112 [02:44] Debian bug 424112 in xkeyboard-config "xkeyboard-config: FTBFS if built twice in a row" [Important,Open] [02:44] seriously, if I get my idea in action, I think maintaining debian packages will be twice as easy ;) [02:45] problem is no one would move to it knowing the slow debian devs ;) [02:46] siti: I don't know what you idea is, and I honestly don't see how your VCS based build system question is related to the "fails to build twice in a row" bugs [02:46] you could automate cleaning by using a VCS [02:47] siti: What if you have local changes that you haven't yet published, and want to test? [02:47] that's where a DVCS shines :D [02:47] then instead of publishing source packages, you need to publish a VCS repo [02:48] not necessarily a bad idea, but I don't see it happening soon [02:48] well it's a bit different for a DVCS, and an export function to the old format would be good, although the generated patches might be strange [02:48] i'm pretty sure i've heard this idea before, not that i understand it fully, but i can't remember where from [02:49] AndyP: maybe in your head, because it's such a good idea ;) [02:49] If the implementation is there, I think many people will be interested. [02:50] yeah, hopefully it's not to hard to make [02:50] and one cool advantage is upstream can just cherry pick :) === cypherbios [n=cypher@ubuntu/member/cypherbios] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:50] I want to point out though, such an system can never be enforced, at least not in Debian [02:51] especially considering there are so many VCS floating around [02:51] those rebels :p [02:52] siti: FYI there are quite a few DDs in this channel. [02:52] yeah, I am just joking with them [02:52] (and I am a Debian package maintainer, not DD though) === persia points at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/no-more-source-packages [02:52] persia: thanks [02:54] actually I think a lot of us in here are debian package maintainers === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu [02:55] minghua, I edited a bit the spec [02:56] persia: bah, you beat me to it :) [02:57] DktrKranz: That clarified all my questions, thanks. [02:57] thanks to you :) === minghua doesn't really like the "no more source packages" idea === persia rather likes source packages. [02:58] minghua: have you used a DVCS? [02:58] siti: not really. [02:59] the current package model reminds me of projects that email each other the source code ;) [02:59] ie: it's very difficult :p [02:59] I have bzr installed and did a branch once. I use svk regularly. But mainly my experience is on svn. [02:59] ok [02:59] i'd like to try the idea just to see what it's like, but i have my reservations [02:59] siti: well, the current model predates most DVCS, so you can't really blame that [03:00] yeah I wasn't blaming them, just saying new stuff is out that's better ;) [03:00] the current model perhaps even predates widespread use of email now that I think about it [03:00] siti: It's somewhat like emailing patches, but there shouldn't be that many pending changes to a package (if it's broken, fix it). Most of the interesting effects you get with DVCS are more interesting for the upstream code. [03:00] siti: that's why I am saying if implementation is there, people will be interested [03:00] minghua: No. Debian is post emailed patches. [03:02] persia: I said "widespread" :-P [03:03] although I admit source packages is not a thing end-user should worry about, so widespread email usage is probably irrelevant [03:03] but the end user is a developer in a lot of cases [03:03] ;) [03:05] not really. especially for ubuntu [03:05] devs are the vocal minority [03:05] :D === persia thinks this depends on the definition of "a lot". The number may be thousands, but it is still less than a tenth of a percent of users. [03:05] a lot of ubuntu users even consider "rebuild a source package" an impossible task, and prefer to download binary packages from untrusted internet sites [03:06] which is really something I frown upon === persia wonders why apt-get --build install isn't more popular [03:07] $graphical_apt_frontend doesn't support it, perhaps [03:07] persia: perhaps because the default installation doesn't have a deb-src line in sources.list? :-) [03:07] AndyP: Yep. That's probably it. Hmm. That'd be an interesting feature. [03:07] :) [03:08] minghua: I think that's a side effect of AndyP's note - my memory is that default Debian did include deb-src (although I last installed Debian afresh for potato, so I could very well be wrong). [03:08] persia: They don't for sarge and etch, I'm sure. [03:09] There is a commented off line, though. [03:09] minghua: Makes sense. [03:10] also, apt-get --build install is not particularly a small task if you don't have build-essential and various -dev package installed [03:11] minghua: True. Also, the dependencies can interfere with the current system if it's not done in a chroot. [03:11] persia: I am curious. Any examples? [03:11] minghua: Still, it's better than apt-get.org :) [03:12] minghua: "interfere" was perhaps too strong a word. Rather, install extra unwanted software, perhaps generating extra menu items that are confusing. [03:13] well, considering even automatix is praised a lot somewhere else, I'll refrain from complaining about apt-get.org, and just accept that I don't understand the users [03:13] persia: yeah, extra menu items is annoying [03:13] that's probably my main reason for not installing KDE [03:14] (and less download for upgrade, I think) [03:14] More specifically, `dpkg --get-selections > my.selections && apt-get build-dep foo && apt-get --build install foo && sed /foo/d < my.selections | dpkg --set-selections` isn't guaranteed not to leave a footprint. [03:17] I think dpkg --set-selctions doesn't do the actual removal of the packages? [03:18] anyway, that line is too hard for me to digest [03:19] minghua: No, you're right. One needs to follow up with something to actually process the removals. [03:20] persia: and why did you removed foo from my.selections? [03:21] minghua: The whole point was to install foo. Thinking about it, I probably wanted to add foo, rather than deleting it. [03:21] :-) [03:22] and you probably want to consider reinstalling foo as well [03:22] minghua: Why? Unless I put it in a repo, won't I not get the local copy? [03:23] Alternately, skip the install: have apt do only the build, and use gdebi for the install. [03:24] no, I mean if I already have foo installed, but it's broken (say, obsolete dependency) and can be fixed by a rebuild [03:24] minghua: Right. So, I rebuilt it locally, and installed the local copy. Why reinstall? [03:25] Or do you mean apt-get --build --reinstall install foo? [03:25] but your old and new "dpkg --get-selections" list will both include foo [03:25] and you don't want to have two "foo" lines there [03:26] that's all I meant by "you probably want to consider..." [03:26] minghua: Ah. In that case, since the version didn't change (no changelog update), it won't cause any issues to just leave my.selections alone. I was thinking of the case where foo was uninstallable for some reason, and the user really wanted it. [03:26] persia: I don't really know what "apt-get --build install" do, though [03:27] minghua: It downloads the source, calls dpkg-buildpackage, and installs the result. [03:27] yes, yes. I am just pointing out another user case for rebuilding a pristine source package [03:28] Right. Now, if only there weren't so many drawbacks regarding implications to the rest of the system of having all the build-deps installed, I'd think we were close to a spec for a graphical rebuild tool :) [03:28] persia: in that case, you also want to add "apt-get install build-essential" in your long line :-P [03:29] minghua: Doesn't apt-get build-dep foo do that as well? Hmmm.... [03:29] I don't think so === Pici [n=pcmacman@unaffiliated/pici] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Hobbsee [n=Hobbsee@ubuntu/member/hobbsee] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:30] persia: in any case, such a tool as we just discussed will be of limited use, as most end-users want an updated/changed source package to build anyway [03:31] minghua: Yeah. There's lots of reasons why such a tool is only for limited use. Aside from updates, and system consistency, one needs to consider the support headaches of that many custom builds. [03:31] I was looking at www.getdeb.net and was surprised that such effort will attract so many users and developers [03:32] yeah, if we have such a tool, it really should change the package version number [03:33] Copyright Canonical? Interesting. While www.apt-get.org seemed a reasonable response to the opacity of Debian processes (especially during the long DAM freeze), I would think that Ubuntu's processes were open enough that it wouldn't be necessary. [03:34] (it = getdeb) [03:35] well, that's why I say I was surprised [03:36] It seems to me that site is just a pretty site that publish all REVU uploads [03:36] eh? getdeb isn't copyright canonical [03:36] Flannel: Yes it is (in part). See the bottom of the front page. [03:36] and my cynical side thinks it probably is [03:36] persia: no. Read the line again. === cynics [n=cynics@123.116.99.76] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:37] 2007 Joo Pinto - GetDeb - www.getdeb.net [03:37] 2007 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd. [03:37] Flannel: If there's no Canonical input, " 2007 Canonical Ltd. " either represents an assignment or a misattribution. [03:38] well, the trademarks are ubuntu's i suspect [03:38] persia: I believe that's a "Ubuntu and Canonical are C Canonical" [03:38] [03:38] it's certainly ambiguous [03:38] Right. But he's not up on the legalities, apparently. [03:38] http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=getdeb&tld=net [03:39] maybe they took some website design? [03:39] Flannel: Ah. That's not quite accurate. I suspect "Ubuntu and Canonical are trademarks of Canonical Ltd." would mean that. [03:39] it's certainly not owned by C === IanC26 [n=IanC26@2002:cb36:1c67:4:216:6fff:fe39:ff6e] has joined #ubuntu-motu === vbabiy [n=vbabiy@pool-71-164-85-238.albyny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [03:53] getdeb.net is owned by a guy on my LoCo Team [03:54] gouki: Ah. You might mention the copyright attribution then. It may not be correct (although this does not represent legal advice). [03:54] persia: yeah, sure thing. I'll talk to him ASAP! === Q-FUNK [n=q-funk@dsl-hkibras1-ff55c300-121.dhcp.inet.fi] has joined #ubuntu-motu === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu === chillywilly [n=danielb@CPE-72-133-223-147.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu === persia [n=persia@ubuntu/member/persia] has joined #ubuntu-motu === javierder [n=javier@41-108-235-201.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #ubuntu-motu === bluefoxicy [n=bluefox@c-68-33-112-13.hsd1.md.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === effie_jayx [n=valles@ubuntu/member/effie-jayx] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Toadstoo1 [n=jcorbier@cl-266.bru-01.be.sixxs.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu === chillywilly [n=danielb@CPE-72-133-223-147.wi.res.rr.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu === minghua [n=minghua@ubuntu/member/minghua] has joined #ubuntu-motu === ceros [n=user@c-76-111-84-156.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [04:53] Sorry for the delay. Any comments on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-06-30 before I officially publish? === rraphink [i=raphink@ubuntu/member/raphink] has joined #ubuntu-motu === jussi01 [n=jussi@dyn3-82-128-187-102.psoas.suomi.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === RedKrieg [n=RedKrieg@ip68-230-209-186.rd.hr.cox.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === SlimG [n=slimg@84.205.58.245] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === ajmitch wonders if freenode is breaking again [05:04] It might just be a persistent client. === txwikinger [n=txwiking@sblug/member/txwikinger] has joined #ubuntu-motu === txwikinger [n=txwiking@82-46-136-83.cable.ubr01.smal.blueyonder.co.uk] has joined #ubuntu-motu [05:04] well there were several people that dropped offline with excess flood [05:05] Right. But only one seems to be continually bouncing. [05:05] yep [05:06] So, in the absence of criticism, I'm publishing the minutes. === luisbg [n=d33p@105.145.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #ubuntu-motu === micahcowan [n=micah@ubuntu/member/micahcowan] has joined #ubuntu-motu === reggaemanu_ [n=manu@ARennes-257-1-84-180.w86-199.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Burgundavia [n=corey@ubuntu/member/burgundavia] has joined #ubuntu-motu [05:28] can I interest any MOTU is writing up a short bit on the MOTU meeting for the UWN? [05:30] Burgundavia: Can you give me an example of a previous writeup? [05:30] this would be the first [05:30] Burgundavia: OK. What size? What tone? (I'm happy to draft something, but I don't know what I'd be writing). [05:31] the key bits would be mention where you need help, what the community can do [05:32] Burgundavia: OK. So, for the recent meeting, a short paragraph covering decisions and a highlight of the upcoming events (as listed in Daniel's mail)? [05:32] basically, yep [05:39] Burgundavia: Something like http://paste.ubuntu-nl.org/27901/ ? [05:40] (with line breaks) :) [05:41] persia: looks good, but I would add bits about how people can help you [05:41] remember, this is part of an outreach tool [05:41] Hmm... I'm not so strong with community outreach. Anyone else? [05:42] You could say: The MOTU team is looking for help with BLAH, BLAH AND BLAH. A great way to get involved is at the upcoming Hug Day at .... [05:43] Burgundavia: At issue is more that I don't have good replacements for BLAH, BLAH, and BLAH, aside from bug triage and bug patches. [05:44] what about the clamav stuff? [05:44] Burgundavia: It certainly needs resources, but those working on it need a repository to which to upload. Depending on how PPA works, it might not be so bad (this is under investigation). [05:45] ok [05:47] Burgundavia: I think the key bits are really the HUG Day and the Q&A sessions - most REVU users will be happy to have a REVU day, but more submissions to REVU doesn't necessarily help. [05:48] cool, ok === man-di_ [n=mkoch@dyndsl-080-228-199-035.ewe-ip-backbone.de] has joined #ubuntu-motu [05:56] REVU apparently doesn't need outreach [05:57] outreach only makes the queue longer, I suppose :-) [05:58] Burgundavia: do you think the ordinary reader of UWN knows what MOTU is? [05:58] absolutely [05:59] minghua: Depends on how you look at it. The existence of getdeb makes me think REVU needs outreach, but I don't think we're currently staffed to handle increased volume. [06:00] persia: True. But I am also thinking that getdeb may have its place [06:00] I am not very optimistic about the package qualities on getdeb [06:01] minghua: Really? Wouldn't backports + more REVU be a cleaner solution? That way the packages should be better quality, and users should be happier. [06:01] persia: the key is _more_ REVU === persia notes that the backports team backlog is also large enough [06:01] there are some things that cannot go int eh archives [06:01] so far I don't see a clear solution to get more reviewing power [06:01] getdeb has some questionably legal stuff [06:01] s/power/manpower/ [06:02] Burgundavia: Some, but a lot of it is legal (or could be with a couple emails), but just shiny. [06:02] yeah, the top downloads seem most in the "released yesterday" category [06:02] it looks like getdeb sucks a lot of people away [06:03] minghua: The recent revised MOTU process should get more people, and I'm hoping REVU2 will provide better workflow. I believe part of the problem with REVU is that it's hard to know what you've already done. [06:04] persia: maybe, I always think that REVU, or on a tangent topic, Debian, is not very good at attracting people to join and help is the high technical standard [06:05] persia: that of course is from my limited, and most likely not typical, experience [06:06] I've seem quite a few cases that people simply consider "reviewing all the license headers in source" and "run lintian/linda and fix the errors and warnings" an annoyance [06:06] minghua: Regarding Debian, I think part of that is that the process is fairly opaque - it's really hard to know how to get involved. Regarding REVU, I think that a better workflow with faster responses would help: most of the contributors I've seen have been happy with the comments, so long as they come with a bit of explanation. [06:06] s/seem/seen/ [06:07] minghua: Yep. There's lots of that. Perhaps a more collaborative REVU - people propose packages, and others work on them until it's good. [06:07] persia: as I said, perhaps different experience [06:08] I don't know. I also feel the real problem is that for a certain package, the people who are really interested in it and capable of packaging is relatively few [06:08] input method packages are a very good example [06:08] which is most of my experience coming from [06:09] minghua: Really? With the exception of system infrastructure (like IMEs), I suspect that most packages could be intially constructed by a motivated user with a bit of knowledge, and made good with the help of someone more familiar with debian packaging. [06:10] take the package I reviewed today as example, it's a science related package. It has sit in REVU for quite a while, went though a few review cycles, but still plenty of lintian warnings. [06:10] For infrastructural things - it's rather different: there's too many things that can go wrong (like my intention to write a quick patch to make scim & anthy work for french locales :)) [06:11] persia: Science related stuff is another example. Maybe I am always interested in the "minority market" packages. :-) [06:11] Were the lintian errors mentioned in previous reviews? [06:11] most of the stuff packaged is the latest crack or games [06:11] no, it FTBFS in the first review [06:11] Burgundavia: Games are good, crack needs review. [06:12] minghua: For Science packages, is there anything special that can go wrong easily? I would think the only domain-specific issue would be non-free data. [06:13] persia: oh, for science stuff, the sticky point is that many upstreams are not very competent programmers themselves [06:13] Ah. So there ends up being a lot of work just to get the build system working, 64-bit clean, etc.? [06:14] so you are more likely to see hand-made makefiles, not aware of the 64bit issue, don't know how to properly build a shared library, those kind of stuff [06:15] Right. Frustrating that, and not something easily addressed by MOTU (even with infinite MOTUs working on packages). [06:15] ScottK: The licensecheck bug is due to Feisty, and doesn't affect Gutsy. === iceman__ [n=iceman@cable-87-244-153-189.upc.chello.be] has joined #ubuntu-motu [06:17] persia: Yeah. I am just saying: I am willing to do REVU review work, and I think I am competent enough on packaging, but there is simply no package that I'm interested. [06:17] minghua: Ah. I've only reviewed one package so far in which I'm actually interested. For me, it's just part of the responsibilities of being listed as a reviewer. [06:17] And when I find one, sometimes the packaging work is poor, and frustrates me. [06:18] persia: That's why I am not in motu-reviewers team. :-P [06:18] I have been feeling I don't really need to be an MOTU for quite some time. [06:20] I haven't reviewed or sponsored packages since probably mid-feisty, most of my universe packages are direct sync from Debian, and I have good relationship with many MOTUs that I can easily ask for a sponsor upload. === gouki_ [n=gouki@ubuntu/member/gouki] has joined #ubuntu-motu === zen-afk [i=zenrox@pool-71-115-210-186.spknwa.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === jmg [n=cartel@shinobi.thoughtcrime.org.nz] has joined #ubuntu-motu [07:01] hey all [07:01] way to loud in here [07:01] howdy jmg === superm1 [n=superm1@ubuntu/member/superm1] has joined #ubuntu-motu [07:07] whoa, source for restricted modules is massive === jsgotangco [n=jsg123@ubuntu/member/jsgotangco] has joined #ubuntu-motu === jmg -> beer === persia [n=persia@ubuntu/member/persia] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Monk-e [n=guido-xu@c529dd229.cable.wanadoo.nl] has joined #ubuntu-motu === joacim_ [n=joacim@084202208038.customer.alfanett.no] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Simon80 [n=Simon80@CPE00e098558963-CM000a7363ecf6.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu === zenrox [i=zenrox@pool-71-115-210-186.spknwa.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === ScottK-palm [n=upirc@125.sub-75-195-140.myvzw.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu === ScottK-palm [n=upirc@125.sub-75-195-140.myvzw.com] has left #ubuntu-motu [] === fraco [n=fraco@213.219.164.208.adsl.dyn.edpnet.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === anibal [n=anibal@debian/developer/anibal] has joined #ubuntu-motu === jgamio [n=jgamio@190.72.53.158] has joined #ubuntu-motu === allee [n=ach@dialin-212-144-128-023.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === bersace [n=bersace@did75-13-82-243-217-90.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Nightrose [n=lydia@port-87-234-150-228.dynamic.qsc.de] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Prezu [i=patryk@dug.net.pl] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Monk-e [n=guido-xu@c529dd229.cable.wanadoo.nl] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Prezu [i=patryk@dug.net.pl] has joined #ubuntu-motu === Prezu [i=patryk@dug.net.pl] has joined #ubuntu-motu === thoreauputic [i=peter@ubuntu/member/thoreauputic] has joined #ubuntu-motu === thoreauputic [i=peter@ubuntu/member/thoreauputic] has left #ubuntu-motu [] [09:03] where is the debian/rules file for linux-source-2.6.22? [09:07] jmg: apt-get source linux-source-2.6.22 === DarkMageZ [n=richard@220.233.101.238] has joined #ubuntu-motu === rgl [n=Rui@84.90.10.107] has joined #ubuntu-motu === porthose [n=chatzill@24-119-100-168.cpe.cableone.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [09:35] sigh [09:35] seems like the sound problems I was having was directly due to rhythmbox === RAOF [n=chris@123-243-65-41.tpgi.com.au] has joined #ubuntu-motu === RAOF [n=chris@123-243-65-41.tpgi.com.au] has joined #ubuntu-motu [09:44] ajmitch, extra sound distortion? [09:44] StevenK: Thanks for the debuild fix and working through the checklicense question. === ivoks [n=ivoks@89-172-20-239.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has joined #ubuntu-motu === thekorn [n=thekorn@a89-182-92-242.net-htp.de] has joined #ubuntu-motu === hjmf [n=hjmf@150.Red-83-44-175.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [09:49] DarkMageZ: yes [09:49] and it was irritating [09:49] ugh [09:50] I was playing around with the main volume controls, didn't think to look for the little volume icon in rb [09:50] wait [09:50] far too many volume controls [09:50] fsck [09:50] hey ajmitch, how are you? [09:50] far too much work to get gutsy kernel on this box, but i really need it :/ [09:50] ajmitch: Remember, this allows you to degrade your sound as much as you want :) If you only had one control, you'd be stuck with the maximum available bitrates. === blackskad [n=blackska@d54C4A53D.access.telenet.be] has joined #ubuntu-motu [09:52] hey highvoltage [09:52] persia: yeah, helpful [09:53] so tempting to just order a new monitor === Hobbsee [n=Hobbsee@ubuntu/member/hobbsee] has joined #ubuntu-motu === ajmitch hugs Hobbsee [09:57] hey all === Hobbsee hugs ajmitch back :) [10:00] Hobbsee: what's up? [10:00] O bug #117282, thou all destroying yet unconquering whale, from hells heart i stab at thee. [10:00] Launchpad bug 117282 in linux-source-2.6.20 "2gb SD card not usable" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/117282 [10:00] ajmitch: w.r.t? [10:00] Hobbsee: life, the universe & everything [10:01]