[15:57] <fernando> is right /etc/ca-certificates.conf deactive all entries by default?
[19:03] <bddebian> ruffleS: Then you are on your own unfortunately, we can't help you. Sorry.
[19:03] <norsetto> rufleS: well, any reason not to use the feisty package you have?
[19:04] <ruffleS> norsetto, 'cuz it doesn't work on gutsy, the kernel module won't load
[19:04] <Schnitz_> Hobbsee: thanks for the hint
[19:04] <ruffleS> bddebian, thanks anyway
[19:04] <ruffleS> i'll try to figure out something
[19:05] <bddebian> ruffleS: Did you ask around in #ubuntu?
[19:05] <ruffleS> not yet
[19:06] <norsetto> ruffleS: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/488
[19:07] <ruffleS> norsetto, yeah i've seen that already
[20:29] <YokoZar> SRUs are the "updates" repository right?
[20:30] <Kmos> YokoZar: yes
[20:31] <ScottK> YokoZar: Yes.  How's Wine looking?
[20:31] <YokoZar> ScottK: I found I'm missing a lib compiled in on 64 bit :(
[20:32] <YokoZar> So the 64 bit package is built without libxml support
[20:32] <YokoZar> I'm testing a rebuild with hand-linking it on my machine now.
[20:34] <sistpoty> hi folks
[20:34] <ScottK> YokoZar: We can push stuff to gutsy-proposed now so it gets out in gutsy-updates as quickly as possible.
[20:34] <ScottK> hi sistpoty
[20:35] <sistpoty> hi ScottK
[20:42] <norsetto> sistpoty: hi there
[20:42] <sistpoty> keescook: just stumbled over LP bug #64373. revu already contains code for this problem ;)
[20:42] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 64373 in launchpad "[wishlist] download gpg keyring for a team" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/64373
[20:43] <sistpoty> hi norsetto
[20:44] <norsetto> how is it scottk?
[20:46] <YokoZar> ScottK: can I move it up to Wine 0.9.47 then?
[20:47] <YokoZar> ScottK: or should I keep it at 0.9.46 and save the later versions for backports?
[20:48] <ScottK> Keep it at 0.9.46 and keep 0.9.47 for backports (We'll upload it to Hardy as soon as the repos open and then backport it).
[20:48] <geser> YokoZar: I don't know if wine has a special rule but new versions don't get included in -updates
[20:49] <ScottK> hey norsetto.  Trying to squash bugs in something I'm upstream for.
[20:49] <ScottK> The good news is I got a new user who's very "detail oriented".  The bad news is I got work to do.
[20:49] <norsetto> scottk: hehe
[20:53] <keescook> sistpoty: heh, cool.  :)
[20:53] <sistpoty> keescook: well, revu needs the keyring of ubuntu-universe-contributors to check if a source package should get accepted. I'm not sure how messy the code is though :P
[20:54] <keescook> yeah, I figure it just does a fetch from the keyserver.
[20:55] <sistpoty> keescook: iirc, yes... the revu-key script called with update is the entry point to follow what the current hacked up revu does ;)
[21:14] <ajmitch> good morning
[21:14] <bddebian> Heya ajmitch
[21:14] <geser> Hi ajmitch
[21:15] <sistpoty> hi ajmitch, bddebian and geser
[21:15] <pochu> hi ajmitch, bddebian, geser ans sistpoty :)
[21:15] <bddebian> Heya sistpoty
[21:15] <bddebian> and pochu
[21:15] <sistpoty> hi pochu
[21:15] <geser> Hi pochu
[21:18]  * ajmitch should not start off an avalanche of greetings
[21:24] <zul> hey ajmitch
[21:28] <sistpoty> yay, light bulb burned, fuse went out :(
[21:39] <jdong> sistpoty: does that mean ntfs-3g stopped working?
[21:39]  * jdong ducks
[21:40] <bddebian> heh
[21:40] <sistpoty> jdong: ntfs-3g? no... it meant rather that my gf's laptop was still on, while my box was off... the usual "damn, I did s.th. wrong when studying computer science" kind of feeling ;)
[21:41] <jdong> bddebian: I am the king of bad puns :)
[21:52] <sistpoty> lucas: seems like mdt is broken, or am I using the wrong url (your people.debian.org adress)?
[22:03] <Schnitz> how can i specify if a package is in multiverse or universe when i create it?
[22:04] <Schnitz> i've searched with google and the wiki and tried grep -ir universe/multiverse but couldn't find anything
[22:05] <sistpoty> Schnitz: usually it get's set by the archive admins based on the details specified in debian/copyright. but I guess you can give hints by setting the section field of control to multiverse/$section.
[22:05] <sistpoty> (though I'm only guessing here as this field can definitely be overrided by an archive admin
[22:05] <sistpoty> +)
[22:06] <Schnitz> okay i've packaged something and uploaded it to my ppa and now it doesn't build there because it requires a package from multiverse
[22:06] <Schnitz> i thought i could specify that somewhere when creating the source package...thanks for your hint
[22:08] <sistpoty> Schnitz: for ppa, I believe the control file I mentioned is responsible, though I'm not too sure there
[22:09] <sistpoty> Schnitz: you could ask in #launchpad though, or try searching the launchpad-user mailing list, as I'm sure this was discussed before
[22:09] <geser> Schnitz: when you need build-depends from universe add "universe/" to your section
[22:10] <geser> this should also work for multiverse but I don't know if ppa supports multiverse (see the ppa terms)
[22:14] <lamego> I think it does not
[22:14] <pochu> lamego: I think it does :)
[22:15] <pochu> From a discussion in #launchpad some days ago.
[22:15] <geser> is gutsy-proposed already available?
[22:16] <lamego> I am based on the welcome to launchpad doc, but, I did a quick reading at that time
[22:16] <lamego> welcome to PPA, I mean
[22:16] <sistpoty> pochu: but it would be a license violation to upload anything to the multiverse section to ppa then? seems like easy sueable targets for me :P
[22:18] <pochu> sistpoty: well, you can have a package which is GPL, but needs something from multiverse to build? Your package will still be GPL, just deppending on a library from multiverse?
[22:19] <lamego> if it the resulting binaries installation requires multiverse packages, I guess that could be a legal issue
[22:20] <sistpoty> pochu: I guess that's a corner case though... and actually I was kidding a little bit ;)
[22:21] <pochu> lamego: why? you are still able to distribute it, aren't you?
[22:21] <ScottK> We do have packages like that in the repository.  zekr for one if FOSS, but depends on stuff in multiverse, so is doomed to live there too.
[22:22] <lamego> pochu, if it drives an user to do something illegal, without warning him, I am doing something illegal, I guess
[22:22] <lamego> but well, I am not a lawyer :)
[22:22] <pochu> lamego: sorry, what's illegal there?
[22:22] <pochu> lamego: neither am I ;)
[22:23] <soren> hansin: If not, python-flup is probably the answer to your prayers.
[22:23] <ScottK> multiverse stuff is legally distributable, just has other restrictions on it.
[22:23] <lamego> there are multiverse packages, which do violate patents in some countries, correct ?
[22:23] <soren> What the..
[22:23] <pochu> lamego: well, I just said the use of multiverse/ is supported. Nothing else :)
[22:23] <pochu> lamego: and not always. Those are special cases, afaik.
[22:25] <lamego> pochu, right, but distributing those binaries depending on universe packages, without a proper warning may not be supported, for legal reasons
[22:25] <lamego> ops, multiverse
[22:26] <pochu> Dunno. But since you aren't shipping that package...
[22:26] <lamego> pochu, not always, but some, do, on some countries, at least they are tagged on the software sources as "Restricted by copyright or legal issues" ;)
[22:28] <lamego> "You agree to indemnify and hold Canonical Ltd, and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, partners, and employees, harmless from any alleged claim or"
[22:28] <lamego> I am not going to use PPAs :)
[22:29] <pochu> heh
[22:30] <ScottK> lamego: That's one thing we agree on.
[22:30] <ScottK> lamego: See Bug 137447
[22:30] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 137447 in soyuz "PPA Terms of Service one sided" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/137447
[22:32] <sistpoty> damn, I didn't want to start a holy war :P ... but anyways I'm off to bed now, gn8 everyone
[22:34] <lamego> I will go a bit further, I think Canonical should provide legal advice for those which may need to upload a software for which the legal status is unclear
[22:55] <norsetto> night all
[23:41] <Jazzva> I prepared two bugfixes in gnome-schedule. Both bugs are reported. Can I upload them as a single diff, or do I have to separte them?
[23:43] <TheMuso> Jazzva: Are they for the same package?
[23:45] <Jazzva> TheMuso: Yep. It's just that they're two distinct bugs. I suppose I could add two lines in changelogs with both LP bug numbers. I'm just not sure if that's the right way...
[23:50] <TheMuso> Jazzva: Yes, one diff with both bug fixes mentioned in the changelog is fine.
[23:50] <Jazzva> TheMuso: Thanks :)...
[23:51] <TheMuso> np
[23:51] <Jazzva> Another question: One of them has been fixed upstream, but the new version is still not in the repositories. Can I provide the bugfix that will fix the version in the repositories?
[23:52] <TheMuso> Yes I guess you could, but since its a gnome package, you may want to consult the desktop team about that.
[23:52] <Jazzva> TheMuso: Ok... thanks again :).
[23:52] <TheMuso> np
[23:53] <knix> When is eclipse goin gto be updated to 3.3?
[23:54] <ajmitch> knix: when hardy is being developed, it won't happen for gutsy
[23:54] <ajmitch> there may be a slim chance of it getting into gutsy-backports
[23:54] <knix> Yea I didn't expect it to happen in a day :P