[12:14] eta? [12:15] sabdfl announced it at Ubuntu Live but you may not have heard. [12:15] most of us couldn't afford to be there :) [12:15] Rinchen, LaserJock: nice, I'll happily look at that ;) [12:15] imbrandon, no eta yet. We've got the gang together to look at the approach on the 27th [12:15] imbrandon, so I suspect it'll be some time yet but we're all excited. [12:15] ;) [12:16] The good news is once we put the plan together you can, like all things now, track it on LP via the release cycles === ajmitch hopes that some of the spec wiki pages will be public as well [12:17] Rinchen: yeah, we could use some sanatized spec pages :-) [12:17] ajmitch, I'll look into that. I suspect the internals will be private for now but the API interface docs will be public and perhaps even have some sample code. [12:17] not like the ones the government puts out that are all black ;-) [12:18] Rinchen: that would help [12:18] then we could give some feedback on the API & what we need [12:18] hehe, as above I think for the API's, at this point in time, it'll be end user docs on how to use it. (There is the whole concept of how to secure the API's from abuse that needs to be investigated, etc.) [12:19] anyway, wanted to give you guys a heads up. [12:19] oh === chx [n=chx@drupal.org/user/9446/view] has left #ubuntu-motu ["Viva] [12:19] if you have any USE CASES or design ideas, please email them to me by next Friday [12:19] joey@canonical.com [12:20] I'll see they are added [12:20] for consideration of course [12:21] we can try [12:21] The more use cases we have the better the system will be === asantoni [n=alb@216.221.76.221] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:23] Rinchen: I'd suggest looking at the code of some of the apps that scrape the LP web interface. [12:23] anyway, LaserJock - I've asked the team to schedule your malone and soyuz MOTU bugs for 1.1.9 as well. [12:23] Rinchen: thanks [12:23] ScottK, if you have any, let me know. The only ones I have are the email processing kind. [12:23] ScottK, like ubuntustats [12:24] hehe, I've got one, but it's been kinda obsoleted [12:24] I don't recall. === asantoni is now known as asantoni_bbi15 [12:24] screen-scraper for +packagebugs [12:24] LaserJock, is it still in use? [12:25] kinda, I think it still runs [12:25] but it was more of a workaround [12:25] and the immediate issue got fixed [12:25] although there's more to do [12:25] well, running and being useful are two different things. :-) If the data is used by someone, like motu for example, then I'll have it considered. [12:26] well, sadly it's on the REVU server that went down [12:27] REVU was on the externally hosted servers I take it [12:27] yep [12:27] Yes. [12:27] hmpf === ScottK cannot help but note that REVU is also FOSS. [12:28] sistpoty: are we going to get the data from tiber back? [12:28] LaserJock: we could, if we wanted to. However after speaking with siretart today, I consider it a feature that the old packages are gon === CrummyGummy [n=CrummyGu@dsl-244-246-102.telkomadsl.co.za] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:29] sistpoty: well, I was thinking more our ~/ [12:29] well, I'll leave you guys to it. I just wanted to drop in to let you know about what I'm doing LaserJock. Feel free to ping me on #launchpad or pm me. [12:29] Have a good weekend. [12:29] sistpoty: I've got some bzr branches on tiber [12:29] LaserJock: nonetheless, you can ask Ng in #canonical-sysadmin (or elmo, he helped me tonight) if you're interested in a particular file/directory === Rinchen [n=joey@canonical/launchpad/pdpc.supporter.professional.rinchen] has left #ubuntu-motu ["Left] [12:29] 17:27:46 ScottK cannot help but note that REVU is also FOSS. [12:29] :D [12:30] I was wondering when someone was going to snapback with that [12:30] someone? I knew it'd be ScottK === LaserJock bites his tongue [12:30] I did my best to restrain myself. [12:30] When I said "cannot help", I meant it. [12:30] ajmitch: ya, I thought you maybe, and then I seen imbrandon give a winky smile, and even LaserJock [12:31] I figured it was coming, just didn't think it would take so long === ScottK gets paid to do system requirements for proprietary systems. It's not a hobby. [12:31] LaserJock: I am willing to bet the taste of blood in your mouth is horrible from biting your tongue :) [12:31] probably don't have a tongue anymore after biting it that hard :D [12:32] heh === ceros [n=user@c-76-111-84-156.hsd1.va.comcast.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:33] Fire away LaserJock. I get offended when proprietary system developers ask me to do their work for them for free. === asantoni_bbi15 is now known as asantoni [12:34] well, I don't want it to be taken wrong so I don't think I should say anything [12:34] ya [12:34] Hey folks. [12:35] is there an "Open source LP now" bug yet? [12:35] OK. Probably just as well. I'm certain I'm unduly hot under the collar right now. [12:35] Yes. [12:35] hehe [12:35] IIRC marked Medium/In Progress. === ivoks [n=ivoks@ubuntu/member/ivoks] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:35] haha [12:36] ScottK: well, my comments aren't for you, don't worry [12:36] OK [12:36] I recognize the effort that's gone into REVU, I really do [12:37] and I think it's served us well [12:37] nixternal: ther e is, just look at sabdfl's most active bugs ;) [12:37] but I don't think it's being FLOSS has really mattered one bit [12:37] the code is freely available and hardly ever worked on [12:37] I'd rather have code that gets worked on and is proprietary than FLOSS that just sits there [12:38] LaserJock: That's true, but a few people have submitted patches (the most recent being to keep uploaders from advocating their own packages). [12:38] REVU is largely satisfactory for what it does. [12:38] I agree [12:38] If there were more problems with it, then more patches would happen. [12:39] but my experience has been that it being FLOSS has helped us little [12:39] I prefer tools that the community has control over versus stuff that random strangers change on a whim. [12:39] sure [12:39] I do too [12:39] well, my opinion lately is pretty plain: if there's s.th. that works better, use that. However since there have been arguments for solutions that work worse in the past, I may have become a little bit stubborn [12:39] And that's pretty much how I view LP. [12:40] I just want to get the job done [12:40] hehe [12:40] if there are two equal apps to do that and one is FLOSS and the other isn't, I'd like us to prefer the FLOSS solution [12:40] I will tell you where it really matters for me. [12:41] but if one suits our needs better I'm not so concerned about it's freeness === jussi01 [n=jussi@dyn3-82-128-184-188.psoas.suomi.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:41] If someone in the community asked me to invest my time in figuring out how to make revu or devscripts work better for us, I'd do it. [12:41] REVU was working well for us long before LP was half-way usable [12:41] When an LP dev wants me to volunteer to design his system for him, I'm not going to. === beuno [n=beuno@44-111-231-201.fibertel.com.ar] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:41] He's paid to do that, and so he should. [12:42] that makes sense to me [12:42] ScottK: please find out how to make revu better :P [12:42] although providing bug reports and feedback is always nice, regardless [12:42] sistpoty: I just don't feel there's really much wrong with it on the outside (I'm sure from your comments today it's much different on the inside). [12:43] LaserJock: Bug reports sure. System design, no. [12:43] If LP is a service and I shouldn't worry, then it's up to the service provider to do the heavy lifting. [12:43] I'd love to just stop taking NEW packages, that'd solve the problem ;-) [12:44] ScottK: given that I still haven't managed to set it up there must be s.th. wrong (or I'm just not capable *g) [12:44] sistpoty: Yeah. That's the ugly on the inside part. [12:44] well, it doesn't build debs and provide a repo [12:44] That's true. [12:44] I think that might become an important thing for us to do [12:45] I hadn't thought about it that much [12:45] but we really don't do much other than look at the source package [12:45] And I don't doubt that we can make PPAs part of a good backend for that. [12:45] I also find the REVU frontpage kinda difficult unless I know what package I'm looking for [12:46] Personally, I also build them and unpack the .debs (ark is good for that) to make sure they aren't doing weird stuff. [12:46] sure [12:46] Agreed, but I don't think LP is a model of unuitiveness and orderliness either. [12:47] but I think we might want to get into a mode where we're asking a bit more if we *should* have the package in Universe not if we *can* [12:47] I guess the other thing is I think the LP U/I is getting worse not better. [12:47] Agreed, but that's different than the tools. === soothsayer [n=user@bas16-montreal02-1242357234.dsl.bell.ca] has left #ubuntu-motu ["ERC] [12:47] we create and awful lot of work for ourselves if we pump Universe full of crappy apps [12:48] ScottK: I'm not sure what's overly hard about treating a package review via a bug report [12:48] we're already filing bugs to ask for packages to be done === ScottK never looks at them. [12:49] why not just complete the circle in one bug [12:49] heh, we could create a new repo called "crappy" :D [12:49] Well this just rehashes the "we are trying to do stuff in two places and that sucks" arguement. [12:49] don't tell me that I'm fiddling with a revu setup for nothing :P [12:49] sistpoty: NO. You aren't [12:49] deb http://.../ubuntu main restricted universe multiverse crappy [12:49] hehe [12:49] nixternal: I was thinking of something like that today [12:49] hehe, but I'm close to despair right now *g* [12:50] heh, I was sadly just joking...I think the PPAs could do this for us, no? [12:50] Which is why I think we should quit doing the LP bug thing. If there happens to be a needs-packaging bug, fine, but not a requirement. [12:50] well, I understand not wanting to lock into something [12:51] imo limiting packages will be not the easiest thing. I guess starting out with some metrics of how packages in ubuntu have been cared for in the past, and optionally removing these might be suited beter [12:51] s/beter/better/ [12:51] but it gets really really confusing for people when we don't have a canonical system [12:51] Right. So we should stop trying to use LP for tracking packaging progress. [12:51] why? [12:51] Why did we start? [12:51] because wiki pages suck [12:52] filing a bug is more intuitive [12:52] like a feature request or a request ticket [12:52] they don't want to edit a wiki page [12:52] Sure. I think that's a fine way for a user to say "someone please do this". [12:52] right [12:53] LaserJock: do I get it right that you think it's bad (for the workflow) if not everthing is tied into LP? [12:53] That doesn't mean it needs to be tied into our "how we do this" process. [12:53] so if we already have a list of packages that are requested, why not go all the way? [12:53] sistpoty: I think where possible we should be consistent [12:54] LaserJock: yes, I think that of course also would be optimal, but we just won't get there... [12:54] well no [12:54] but it seems logical to me to use a bug report [12:54] just think of MoM, which is essential to ubuntu but by far no part of LP [12:55] I'd hardly call it essential, but yeah [12:55] LaserJock: How many packages have you packaged because someone filed a needs-packaging bug? [12:55] not a single one in Ubuntu :-) === ScottK neither. [12:55] is that they way it should be? I'm not so sure [12:55] Most packaging happens because the packager is interested in a package. === TheMuso notes that he done more sponsoring than anything else lately [12:55] but that's beside the point [12:55] No, it's not. [12:56] yes [12:56] it is [12:56] The point is that the needs-packaging bugs are almost entirely unrelated to what gets packaged. [12:56] well, if a bug report can provide the same (or better) features, it makes sense. However especially to give a possible reviewer an overview I find difficult [12:56] I'm not saying that I want everybody to be forced to only do needs-packaging bugs [12:56] what I'm saying is that is already a source of info for packaging NEW [12:56] LP is not currently the starting point for our process for getting something packaged in virtually all cases. [12:57] I'm also saying that Debian uses bugs [12:57] Sure. [12:57] many people are used to using bugs for these things [12:57] hello everyone [12:57] For "I want/am doing this package" [12:57] Not for here's what needs to be changed in the package. [12:57] LaserJock: no, debian uses mentors for reviewing, but bugs for tracking wnpp ;) [12:57] so I don't know why it's an illogical thing to do [12:57] gosh that's my stinking point === apachelogger_ [n=me@N880P003.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:58] but if you look at wnpp bugs they often discuss the progress of the package [12:58] hmmm, can I jump in? [12:58] Because LP is slow, painful to navigate, and I'd really rather not get stuck dealing with it more than I have to. [12:58] I would love to see LP+ubuntu-motu-mentors used [12:58] jussi01: Sure [12:58] LaserJock: sure, but it's imo orthogonal (which may be a design flaw though *g*) === pgquiles [n=pgquiles@118.Red-83-38-36.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [12:59] I think tying it up a bit more [12:59] Just from what I see, needs packaging bugs ar extremely useful to people like myself, who need a something to do/ideas [12:59] doing an ITP bug report (or taking over a needs-packging bugs) then following that report [12:59] adding in PPA for the actual package handling and bzr when people want to us VCS [01:00] it kinda seems like a logical thing [01:00] the elements are pretty much there [01:00] If I could navigate it quickly, intuitively, and reliably, I'd agree. [01:00] and having revu on top of this framework to allow easy reviewing :) [01:00] what I *don't* see is a good way to have an overview of it [01:00] The pieces are there. [01:00] ScottK: what is there to navigate? [01:00] you could do the whole thing without the web UI [01:01] sistpoty: sure, have REVU pull a list of needs-packaging bugs :) [01:01] ajmitch: I'm fiddling with revu processing incoming packages atm. :P [01:01] LaserJock: On revu, if I want the history of a package, I go to one page and it's all right there with debdiffs of mulitple versions of the same revision. [01:01] it would be helpful if packagers actually updated the bugs though, so many I come across are being packaged but nothing is mentioned on the bug === enyc was suprised to discover that Ubuntu Dapper6.06 has various previous mysql client lib (binary compatibilitiy etc.) versions in universe, but debian Etch4.0 does not.... === Fujitsu joins the conversation after reading the log. [01:02] ScottK: yes the debdiff thing is one of my "hmm, how do we do that" points [01:02] enyc: Etch was released almost a year later, so it's not surprising they're different... [01:02] Whereas, ubuntu has many things only in universe, when Debian Etch4.0 suports them in main... === doko_ [n=doko@dslb-088-073-106-055.pools.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:03] The one thing I miss out of the package page on revu is the ability to do a diff of the debian dir only. [01:03] LaserJock: I'm g uessing PPAs wouldn't allow the same version to be uploaded multiple times like REVU does. === Nightrose [n=lydia@port-87-234-149-196.dynamic.qsc.de] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:03] enyc: Erm, Etch doesn't have supported/unsupported as such. === jono__ [n=jono@88-107-67-156.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:03] TheMuso: It doesn't, though removal should be coming soon. [01:03] RIght. [01:03] Fujitsu: yes... not same as Ubuntu [01:03] Fujitsu: i know [01:04] Couldn't uploaders just bump the -0ubuntuX number for each upload? [01:04] mok0: Eeeeeek, no. [01:04] ~ppaX, please. [01:04] And cleaning the changelog before -0ubuntu1 is uploaded would be sane. [01:05] it would depend for me how many bumps it needed ;-) [01:05] but ~ppaX is the sane way to go [01:05] For some it's... quite a lot. [01:05] mok0: No. That'd end up with ubuntu42 being the first version in the archive. [01:05] Fujitsu: why? it was released to the public via ppa with that distinct version, wasn't it? [01:06] sistpoty: Not entirely sure we want an enormous number of changelog entries in the initial package, really. [01:06] ScottK: No, it would be -1ubuntu [01:06] Then it shouldn't have an Ubuntu revision at all. [01:06] Fixing trivial packaging mistakes and the like. [01:06] (same as a DD left in my changelog entries because he adopted my ubuntu package) [01:06] mok0: No, -0ubuntu [01:07] though that's really details :P [01:07] Fujitsu: Isn't first proper release 1ubuntu ? [01:07] In fact, now that I think of it, I think it would be good if PPA didn't allow revisions with ubuntu in the revision number. [01:07] mok0: No... [01:07] Aha, Soyuz Karma is targeted for 1.1.9.. I wonder how they'll do that. [01:07] damn, then I'll need to upload s.th. again, right? [01:07] Then we could use something like -0ubuntu0.1 ... etc [01:07] mok0: And you did it right on kssh. You had me scared for a minute that I missed that when I uploaded it. [01:08] ScottK: :-) [01:08] No, I think ppa shouldn't have ubuntu at all since it's not an ubuntu package. [01:08] -0ppa1 < -0ubuntu1.. I guess that'd work [01:08] I was just today thinking why the notes and package revisions done during mentoring shouldn't appear in changelog [01:09] mok0: I am not so sure I would like that. [01:09] mok0: because most of these are useless (e.g. package FTBFS) [01:09] It would leave a log for people to learn from [01:09] mok0: Those are available via the REVU comments if people want them. [01:09] ScottK: then we should use -0revu1 for anything on REVU [01:10] ajmitch: Except we aren't distributing binaries. [01:10] so? [01:10] we have built binaries in the past on REVU [01:10] I'd think -0ubuntu0ppa1 would work or something similar [01:10] ajmitch: but these weren't world-readable [01:10] LaserJock: that looks ugly [01:10] Also it's from a spot that's not part of the official infrastructure. [01:10] sistpoty: they sometimes were :) [01:11] ajmitch: There isn't an `ooh, clicky clicky give me binaries' button on REVU (there will be on LP soon) [01:11] but that was a bug :P [01:11] as the packages are built for Ubuntu and will eventually become 0ubuntu1 it seems a shame to ditch it === astro76 [n=james@unaffiliated/astro76] has joined #ubuntu-motu === ScottK worries in general about PPAs and the hord of bugs that are coming written against the crack version someone got from a PPA. [01:11] sistpoty: hehe, your "bug" is LPs feature ;-) [01:12] The thing is, if we have crazy versions, the packager doesn't learn about official versioning, and is likely to confuse them more. [01:12] s/is/its/ [01:12] And I think packagers get overwhelmed enough sometimes with what we ask of them. [01:15] I have to agree with TheMuso here... [01:15] btw, what is ppa? [01:15] TheMuso: if things are properly documented it's not quite so bad [01:15] Personal Package Archive. [01:16] LaserJock: For those who read docs, yes. [01:16] LaserJock: But I fear that many don't. [01:17] then they've got bigger problems [01:18] Do we have some stats on how many new packages get touched after initially uploaded? [01:19] I guess thats the big question isn't it. [01:19] Fujitsu: You mean NEW packages REVUed being touched/modified before going to the archive? === minghua [n=minghua@ubuntu/member/minghua] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:19] ScottK: I think he means once they are in the archive. [01:19] Ah. [01:19] that's s.th. I think is long overdue for motu-land. [01:20] TheMuso: Yes. [01:20] sistpoty: s.th? [01:20] Fujitsu: you mean packages that *aren't* just dumped into the archive? [01:20] ajmitch: That's probably a better question, yes. [01:21] TheMuso: statistics of ubuntu uploaded packages that are not maintained (vs. packages being maintained properly) [01:21] ah [01:21] I've just got the one new one, and that's now in Debian and properly maintained, but I'm quite sure that's the exception rather than the rule. === TheMuso has put through three new packages, two of which are now in main, and are also in Debian, and one which is only in Ubuntu, but I maintain it, and its almost dead upstream anyway. === ScottK tends all the packages he's uploaded. === ScottK has to go for dinner. See you later. === ajmitch has put a couple of new packages into ubuntu [01:22] Fujitsu: my assumption is that there is quite some crap (maybe even from apt-get.org imports), though I'd really see some hard figures to prove that [01:22] but they mostly go into debian [01:23] Actually, make that 4 through. The last one I also maintain. [01:23] And is not yet in Debian, and likely never will be anyway, due to what it is for. [01:24] .... did we previously import from apt-get.org? [01:24] Fujitsu: sadly yes [01:24] Fujitsu: a mandate from on high [01:24] Ewwww, that's why theere's so much crap. [01:24] not to sure if that's the only source... I guess some people loose interest likewise [01:24] Fujitsu: Agreed. [01:24] 615 source packages not in Debian is seriously uncool. [01:24] when the idea of universe having *everything* was encouraged [01:25] Fujitsu: where do you see that? lucas' mdt pages on people.debian.org? [01:25] http://people.ubuntu.org.au/~fujitsu/motuscience/versions/universe.html [01:26] That doesn't include main, AFAICR, so no language packs. [01:26] http://people.debian.org/~lucas/ubuntu-versions/unimultiverse-all.html [01:26] 750 on there [01:26] Mine might only be universe, I'll check. [01:26] stuff there that has probably been removed from debian [01:27] Mine has some really nasty removals support, so that could be it. [01:27] and it's missing stuff that's in debian experimental (like ironpython) === dharrigan [n=dharriga@82-71-62-76.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:29] so it's not as bad as 615, but still too many [01:30] compared to our active motus, yes [01:32] I think we either need to keep syncing existing things from apt-get.org, or kill them off... having them lieing dormant is pretty stupid. [01:32] heh [01:32] I like option 2 best. [01:32] I just dump crap into Universe and leave ;-p [01:32] TheMuso: Yeep. [01:33] IMO we only trust stuff from Debian, or that goes through us. [01:33] well [01:33] sheesh, revu won't accept my upload... if I ever find out who coded that ... *g* [01:33] this comes back to the big big question [01:34] What *is* Universe? [01:34] LaserJock: Something that needs to have a `dangerouscrap' component split out of it. [01:34] Mark and I think dholbach see it as more-or-less a large FLOSS playground [01:34] hence the apt-get.org stuff [01:35] and not really caring what goes in as long as it's packaging is ok [01:35] well, a playground doesn't necessarily mean to exclude non-maintained crap from it, which noone uses [01:35] But apt-get.org's packaging isn't necessarily OK. [01:35] I don't like the term playground. [01:35] well, the point with the non-maintained stuff is that it *could* be maintained [01:35] that we throw in as much FLOSS as we can in the hopes that somebody'll pick it up [01:36] wondering why we get so many bugs [01:36] it doesn't matter if *we* maintain it or if it really gets maintained at all [01:36] that's sort of one view [01:36] I'd like to have stuff in universe be able to be a bit maintained. [01:37] this is why I was thinking of nixternal's crappy repo [01:37] ;-) [01:37] LaserJock: I often wonder whether dholbach's view of universe is a little optimistic. [01:37] I was using the term PPA in my mind today [01:37] well, sorting out what is non-maintained might be a first step. that way we could at least make it clear that *you'll be on your own when installing this software* [01:37] I'd like to see a three-tier archive too, maybe not the "dangerouscrap" component name though. [01:37] sistpoty: Right. The `crap' component. [01:37] one of the things I was thinking [01:37] was maybe PPA offers us this oppritunity [01:38] so we can say "heah, go get it from a PPA, we don't want it in our repo" [01:38] sistpoty: sure, we could probably fit a few hundred packages into universe then :) [01:38] ajmitch: :P [01:38] heh [01:38] well, most of the packages are maintained by debian and are in a pretty good shape though :P === TheMuso prepares to do a fresh install of gutsy onto his mac mini. [01:38] we have roughly 4000 ubuntuX packages [01:39] (or rather because of that) [01:39] Do we track origin for synced packages? [01:39] no [01:39] Darn. [01:39] That would make sense. [01:39] there's really know metadata or whatever you'd call it [01:39] to know where a package comes from [01:39] s/know/no/ [01:39] I guess we could look at old -changes. [01:39] that's what upset me with the Maintainer spec [01:39] hm.. is there any place apart from debian to sync from? [01:40] sure [01:40] LaserJock: as in? [01:40] sistpoty: Yeah, marillat and apt-get.org have been done in the past. [01:40] apt-get.org, upstreams [01:40] wooo... scary === pgquiles_ [n=pgquiles@159.Red-81-39-192.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:40] it's not a sync like what we do for Debian [01:40] yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck [01:40] but that's where we're getting the packages [01:40] LaserJock: Yes it is, I believe. [01:40] Fujitsu: don't we have to upload them? === sistpoty always though the syncs are just normal uploads [01:41] the "syncs" [01:41] nope [01:41] they'll be able to sync from PPAs as well [01:41] nooooooooooo please tell me thats not true [01:42] TheMuso: yes it's true, and it's intended by design [01:42] IMO that's a good thing [01:42] LaserJock: yes [01:42] hrmf [01:42] I'd rather be able to look at something LP than sync from "wherever" [01:42] part of the design of PPA would be for us to more easily assess packages, I think [01:43] this means especially to be able to review changes between pockets and move from one pocket to another, preferred by a web-interface (e.g. -proposed to -updates= [01:43] Yeah, and we'd catch all the bad sync requests for such stuff. [01:43] from non-MOTUs. [01:43] well, processes wouldn't change, that I know of [01:45] right, but the "handle -proposed by motu-sru" would be affected, though there is only a legacy motu-sru left ;) [01:45] yeah [01:45] I'd eventually like it so if needed we can have MOTU admin Universe [01:46] LaserJock: That'd be nice... but I can't see us being allowed to NEW stuff. [01:46] well, I want the technical barriers out of the way [01:47] whether we're allowed (and eventually I don't see why not) is up to the TB [01:47] Yeah, not requiring pretty much root access on drescher would be neat. [01:47] well, how about being able to comment on the new queue by e.g. motu's [01:47] ? ? [01:48] hmmmmm [01:48] that way, e.g. TB could sort out easily who is doing good comments and then make her or him an admin for universe [01:48] That just duplicates rREV [01:49] Oops. REVU. [01:49] Fujitsu: no, revu hasn't got the feature (yet) that non-motus can comment on packages *g* [01:54] afaik it has, someone just needs to enable that on a per account basis [01:56] yes, but then the commenter can also advocate... [01:58] now if revu would only process my upload, I'd be almost happy *g* === jwendell [n=wendell@ubuntu/member/wendell] has joined #ubuntu-motu [01:58] grrrr [01:58] sistpoty: want me to help? :) === Fujitsu has only set REVU up the once, and it was aages ago. [01:59] ajmitch: sure... you got root@sparky? === sistpoty set it up a few times, but it got ever more complex *g* [01:59] yep [02:00] ajmitch: great... [02:00] you're setting it up on sparky? [02:00] where have you hidden things? [02:00] ajmitch: -> query, ok? [02:00] sure [02:01] LaserJock: yes, as an interim solution === TheMuso groans at the UbuntuStudio guys wanting to me put in hacks... i.e using dpkg-divert to divert files owned by another package, and manually adding to a pam config file... grrr [02:01] LaserJock: we're getting a faster box for it though, but we still need to assemble it [02:01] TheMuso: Bwahah. [02:02]