[00:00] Man we are nerds :-) === mruiz_away is now known as mruiz [00:04] mok0_: yep [00:04] good night [00:04] night [00:04] * jdong cries [00:05] * RainCT hugs jdong :P [00:05] Eclipse is telling me there's 2^32-1 possible constructors to java.Exception [00:05] guess that's a good excuse to use my own laptop and not these lab stations === wolfger__ is now known as wolfger [00:07] your laptop is 64-bit and will give you 2^64-1 possible constructors? [00:08] slangasek: perhaps :D. Because I don't see ANY Exception constructors that I like [00:32] LaserJock: mok0_: Still here. I was away, just read back. The previous version in gutsy backports was 1.1.8-2ubuntu2~gutsy1. The hardy version was 1.1.10-1ubuntu1. I should have named it 1.1.10-1ubuntu1-1~0ppa1? [00:32] steveire: yep [00:32] hmm [00:32] what package is this? [00:33] mok0_: that wouldn't have helped in this case [00:33] LaserJock: no? [00:33] libxine [00:34] sorry [00:34] 1.1.10-1ubuntu1~gutsy1~ppa1? [00:34] steveire 1.1.10-1~0ppa1 if you ported 1.1.10-1 from debian [00:35] it was from hardy. Same thing? [00:36] not if the convention for backports is what LaserJock said ^^^ [00:36] I have a thought [00:37] the Hardy version is not 1.1.10-1ubuntu1 [00:37] it's 1.1.10-1build1 [00:37] Ah, the Build distribution :-) [00:37] No, build1 is a no-change rebuild [00:38] so that means that the base version was 1.1.10-1 [00:38] steveire: does that make sense? [00:40] * Hobbsee wonders hwere the current policy on UVFe's are, including those of native packages [00:40] LaserJock: You''re right. The version is 1.1.10-1. So I should have done 1.1.10-1~gutsy1~ppa1? [00:40] So a rule for PPA owners could be: find the base version-release, append ~0ppaX to that [00:40] Oh right that one. [00:41] Why is it a bad thing to assume a backport will exist? [00:41] !uvfe [00:41] Sorry, I don't know anything about uvfe - try searching on http://ubotu.ubuntu-nl.org/factoids.cgi [00:41] !uvf [00:41] uvf is Upstream Version Freeze. For an exception, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess#head-9523bc4076ff011324d67cddc97969ec609618d6 [00:41] persia: ping? [00:41] steveire: I don't think it's bad [00:41] steveire: the problem is that you don't know if it's gonna be a -backport or not [00:42] if you did 1.1.10-1~gutsy1~ppa1 it implies that 1.1.10-1~gutsy1 exists [00:42] But you want to make sure (like you said, steveire) that IF it appears in the archives, that version will take presedence [00:43] LaserJock: right [00:43] LaserJock: Isn't the alternative going to be a version bump to a major release? so 1.1.10-1~hardy1. mok0_Exactly. [00:44] cool, thanks for the info. making a lot more sense now. [00:52] ScottK: ping [01:14] does anyone have any free time to look at a package on REVU? [01:18] neskiem: url? [01:18] http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?package=ttf-lg-aboriginal [01:19] neskiem: I am not a motu but I can take a quick look [01:20] mok0_: thanks [01:21] neskiem: is this package in debian? [01:22] mok0_: no it is not, but i would like it to be at some point [01:22] neskiem: ok [01:23] mok0_: i based it on the packaging from ttf-sil-gentium by Nicolas Spalinger [01:24] if it's not in debian it should be -0ubuntu1 [01:24] neskiem: good idea [01:25] neskiem: debian/changelog: like stdin said, release is -0ubuntu1 [01:26] neskiem: open a needs-packaging bug in LP, and close that bug number in the * initial release line [01:27] distribution: intrepid [01:28] that name is going to take some getting used to... [01:28] debian/control: get rid of the empty Pre-Depends: etc. [01:29] binary package, get rid of maintainer, priority, version, provides [01:30] and Uploaders [01:30] Use universe ! maintainer convention [01:30] ubotu, ! maintainer > neskiem [01:31] copyright: license is found in /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 [01:32] get rid of debian/docs [01:33] debian/rules: I don't think you need to delete debian/files [01:33] (in the clean rule) [01:33] what is debian/TODO??? [01:34] neskiem: I'll paste those comments in REVU for your reference. [01:34] mok0_: i think that was me thinking I would have stuff TODO eventually but I don't need it [01:34] neskiem: ok. (get rid of it :-)) [01:37] mok0_: thanks for the comments [01:37] neskiem: np [02:00] Heya gang === jelmer_ is now known as jelmer [02:14] bddebian: gang's asleep [02:15] mok0_: So I've noticed :-) [02:15] pretty boring around here if you ask me === superm1 is now known as tgm4883_ === tgm4883_ is now known as superm1 === keffie_jayx is now known as effie_jayx [02:59] * jetscreamer waves buhbye [03:16] I'm having troubles uploading to REVU, would somebody have time to help me? The file appears to upload correctly through dput, but nothing happens; I receive no email, and I see no uploaded file [03:19] hey guys [03:20] I've got a problem with the wine package in Hardy [03:20] it segfaults [03:20] on all EXE files I feed it. [03:20] toresbe: Known issue. Let me see if I can find the bug. [03:21] RAOF: cheers [03:22] You'd be looking at bug #191575, the second bug on Wine's bugpage :) [03:22] Launchpad bug 191575 in wine "wine segfaults on winecfg" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/191575 [03:23] ah yes, that thing. that's annoying [03:24] Hobbsee: Want something more annoying? I suggest trying bug 194214 :) [03:24] Launchpad bug 194214 in compiz "Keys get "stuck" down" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/194214 [03:25] yep, I'm reading it [03:25] How do I pin a certain package to a certain repository? [03:26] toresbe: I suggest reading the documentation for "aptitude forbid-version" :) [03:26] I'm talking about the preference settings in /etc/apt/preferences [03:26] (Add the Gutsy winehq repository; aptitude forbid-version wine=0.9.55-0ubuntu1) [03:27] fine, I'll use forbid-version. :) [03:27] thanks! [03:27] Has the advantage that aptitude *will* upgrade to a (hopefully) fixed version. === _czessi is now known as Czessi === bmk789_ is now known as bmk789 [04:28] debian bug #466956 [04:28] Debian bug 466956 in compiz-core "compiz-core: Program committed suicide" [Important,Open] http://bugs.debian.org/466956 [04:29] back [04:31] Hobbsee: Uuuum, WTH is that doing on the BTS? [04:35] RAOF: some guy on crack, already been told numerously not to do that [04:35] That sucks. [04:35] Also, unsupported kernel. [04:36] heh [04:37] Hobbsee, please restart build for https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/celestia/1.5.0-0ubuntu1 on hppa [04:39] LucidFox_: done [04:39] thanks! [04:39] you're welcom [04:39] e [04:47] mok1: Pong. === LucidFox_ is now known as LucidFox [04:54] Is there any reason at all for debreaper to be in Ubuntu? It seems to be simply a duplicate apport with the added bonus of reporting Ubuntu bugs on Debian's BTS. [04:56] RAOF: I just saw the description. Kill it, and ask for it to be blacklisted in the bug [05:00] Oh, someone has already filed that bug, but not followed through. [05:00] RAOF: Bug number? [05:01] bug 193662 [05:01] Launchpad bug 193662 in debreaper "RM: debreaper sends crashes running Ubuntu to Debian" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/193662 [05:02] Anyone know how to fix the Distribution.Simple does not export 'compilerPath' issues? [05:20] persia: I think the status of bug #191662 should be Fix released [05:20] Launchpad bug 191662 in ubuntume-gdm-themes "New package for ubuntume-gdm-themes" [Wishlist,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/191662 [06:42] What will happen if two versions of the same package are building at the same time for the same architecture? === boomer` is now known as boomer === calc_ is now known as calc [07:13] I gotta problem with my Gutsy Gibbon install, can someone help? [07:14] Support for Gutsy is in #ubuntu. [07:14] thanks [07:37] ajmitch: mapwow.com [07:37] ajmitch: *good* crack === calc__ is now known as calc === doko_ is now known as doko [08:12] Good morning! [08:42] good morning [08:42] anybody know how to remove files from a CVS tree that are not actual in the repo? [08:42] morning dholbach [08:42] hey LaserJock [08:49] grrr [08:50] man CVS just doesn't make sense [08:53] LaserJock: hm? you want to remove files from a CVS tree that are not in the repository? "rm"? :) [08:53] hrm === \sh_away is now known as \sh [09:04] <\sh> moins [09:48] what do I call a package of documentation intended for developers? [09:48] foo-doc-dev? [09:48] foo-dev-doc? [09:59] libfoo-doc? [10:01] siretart: but the main package is not libfoo, it is foo and is intended for end users [10:20] db-keen: foo-doc [10:21] slytherin: but I already have foo-doc [10:21] foodoc is the documentation for end users [10:21] db-keen: what does it contain? [10:21] What kind of documentation? [10:21] I'm trying to package additional documentation intended for developers [10:21] API docs, papers about program design, etc. [10:22] db-keen: Why do you think documentation for end users and developers need to be in separate packages? [10:23] I suppose they don't have to, but it seems like a reasonable split [10:23] foo, foo-dev, and foo-doc could all be in the same package [10:23] db-keen: or if you still want to have to packages how about foo-help for users and foo-doc for developers. [10:23] but it's a logical split between them [10:24] is foo-help a policy-compliant name? [10:24] I've always used foo-doc. [10:25] db-keen: I don't believe there is any policy about package names. gimp has a corresponding gimp-help. By the way which package are we talking about? [10:27] I had just assumed -doc was policy, being so standard [10:27] slytherin: one not in Ubuntu. I missed the Feature Freeze :( [10:28] Ok [10:31] db-keen: here is not much point in unnecessarily splitting arch:all packages, unless we are talking about several hundreds of MB of space savings [10:37] Hi. I have a package that needs reviewing/fixing/doing-properly. It's gnome-lirc-properties - a GUI for remote control configuration. Would someone like to take a look? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/192368 [10:37] Launchpad bug 192368 in ubuntu "Please add gnome-lirc-properties" [Wishlist,Confirmed] [11:03] Who the fsck is this Valyander, he's subscribed to every LP bug I've looked at? [11:06] What's a "native package"? [11:07] murrayc_: It's a package written especially for Ubuntu (Debian) [11:07] murrayc_: Few comments. 1. Your program expects that a file '/etc/lirc/hardware.conf' which I believe is part of lirc package, but your package doesn't have a dependency on lirc. 2. A .changelog.swp has made its way in debian directory, remove it [11:08] murrayc_: a native package is a package where all the source + the changes to make it build in debian/ubuntu are in one tarball [11:09] murrayc_: non-native packages use upstream's original tarball and call it _.orig.tar.gz [11:09] murrayc_: ping [11:09] So how would I avoid that? I just followed a how-to on ubuntu.com [11:09] tbf: Hi. [11:09] murrayc_: Few comments. 1. Your program expects that a file '/etc/lirc/hardware.conf' which I believe is part of lirc package, but your package doesn't have a dependency on lirc. 2. A .changelog.swp has made its way in debian directory, remove it [11:09] I wonder what that .changelog.swp is. [11:10] murrayc_: non-native packages use upstream's original tarball and call it _.orig.tar.gz [11:10] murrayc_: dch creates it when you're still editing it [11:10] murrayc_: vim's swapfile [11:10] murrayc_: It is created by vi [11:10] ah. [11:10] it's really strange that debuild packages hidden files [11:10] murrayc_: a native package is a package where all the source + the changes to make it build in debian/ubuntu are in one tarball [11:10] ...like swap files, or .git repos [11:10] murrayc_: another thing, your source package should be gnome-lirc-properties_0.1.0.orig.tar.gz and you should remove debian/ directory from it. [11:10] murrayc_: if you rename the upstream tarball, then add all the debian/ bits, then call debuild -S it will create a .diff.gz for you and it'll be non-native [11:11] murrayc_: be sure to use a version like - in debian/changelog too [11:11] murrayc_: as mok0_ said above: they are often used for stuff written specifically for Ubuntu (where there's no clear 'specifically released' upstream tarball) [11:11] That's odd. /debian is not in our upstream tarball: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnome-lirc-properties/0.1/ [11:12] murrayc_: if you rename the upstream tarball to gnome-lirc-properties_0.1.0.orig.tar.gz, then add the debian stuff, then rebuild the source package (debuild -S -sa) you should be fine [11:12] dholbach: And will it then be correct in future by just doing uupdate? [11:12] if the debian/watch file is set up properly it should, yes [11:12] dholbach: Thanks. I'll try that now. [11:12] rock on! [11:13] nice to see you guys here :) [11:13] dholbach: ahoi there ;) [11:13] hey hellboy195 [11:14] I like to avoid doing packaging usually. [11:14] It's like talking French. I can just about do it, but it's not pretty. [11:14] hehe :-) [11:15] dholbach: I'll format your native/non-native explanation and put it in UbuntuDevelopment/FAQ [11:16] mok0_: thanks a lot for that [11:24] What's the difference between /usr/share/pixmaps and /usr/bin/icons ? [11:31] db-keen: my ubuntu hasn't got a /usr/bin/icons. Normally there are the binaries of applications ,.. [11:31] whoops, I mean /usr/share/icons [11:31] oy [11:32] Hey [11:35] dholbach: So you mean, rename the upstream tarball to gnome-lirc-properties_0.1.0.orig.tar.gz, extract it, put the debian/ directory in that directory and th rebuild the source package (debuild -S -sa)?en [11:36] murrayc_: yes [11:36] Hobbsee: Not then [11:36] AnAnt: Please feel free to close your bugs manually if you forgot to close them in the changelog [11:37] LucidFox: The build with the higher version wins when the publisher runs [11:37] persia: ? [11:37] ScottK: i've found the answer [11:38] (09:41:25) Hobbsee: persia: ping? [11:38] (this is why I don't like to play virtual table tennis) [11:40] oh right. i thougth that was a strange pong [11:41] buenos dias a todo el mundo [11:42] Hola norsetto! [11:42] warp10: Hola el membro! [11:43] oy norsetto [11:43] * norsetto hopes it doesn't sound in Spanish as it does in Italian [11:43] norsetto: ROTFL [11:43] proppy: goede morgen mijnheer! [11:43] norsetto: I'm not german ! [11:43] norsetto: are you attending fosdem ? [11:43] proppy: yes, that was dutch ;-) [11:44] norsetto: ahah [11:44] proppy: nope, how are you btw, long time no see [11:44] are there motu attending FOSDEM ? [11:44] *or hopefull* [11:44] proppy: there is huats that I know [11:44] norsetto: nice thanks you [11:46] will ask him about that when he come by [11:47] proppy: he was in yesterday evening, I think he pops in pretty late usual [11:47] norsetto: thanks for the tip [11:50] norsetto: and you how are you, are you a successfull and beloved mentor ? :) [11:51] proppy: all my pupils are like you, so you can guess the answer ;-) [11:51] aouch :| [11:53] proppy: do you want by any chance to have a look at bug 194112? [11:53] Launchpad bug 194112 in no-ip "package is not upgraded on hardy upgrade" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/194112 [11:54] looking [11:58] grepping debian policy for virtual package howot [12:10] proppy: if you want to look for some examples just do an "apt-cache search dummy" [12:10] norsetto: thanks [12:10] proppy: the only thing of relevance in the policy (I think) is 7.5.2 [12:12] oups update-maintainer removed the maintainer field of control :( [12:15] Is there any document explaining how shlibs:Depends works? I got the build-dep for a package and didn't have all the right deps [12:17] Oh no hang on, that's not the build-depends ;) [12:19] * norsetto -> lunch [12:25] I attached a patch to bug 194112 [12:25] Launchpad bug 194112 in no-ip "package is not upgraded on hardy upgrade" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/194112 [12:25] feel free to review [12:25] norsetto: [12:49] hello [12:58] hi zul [13:00] dholbach, slytherin: I uploaded a new (hopefully now non-native) gnome-lirc-packages package. Could you look again, please?: [13:00] s/gnome-lirc-packages/gnome-lirc-properties [13:00] murrayc_: where? [13:01] sorry [13:01] https://launchpad.net/~openismus-team/+archive [13:01] murrayc_: sorry, I'm quite busy right now - I hope you don't mind if somebody else takes a look right now [13:01] ok. thanks. [13:04] murrayc_: What are all .ex files? I believe those are example files, right? I guess you won't need All of them. [13:05] slytherin: Such as ./debian/emacsen-install.ex? I have no idea what they are. [13:06] I'll remove them. [13:07] murrayc_: How did you create this package? [13:08] slytherin: With dh_make, using the cdbs option. Which seemed to be the kosher way to do things. [13:09] proppy: I think provides is not necessary anymore since there is a dummy-package now, so it should just be conflicts/replaces [13:09] murrayc_: Do you mind if I do the changes to your package and send you modified package? But I won't be able to do it right now, I will do it over weekend. [13:10] proppy: I'm not sure if we need to version the conflicts/replaces, can you perhaps test it? [13:10] slytherin: I would be immensely thankful if you did that. Could you add a note here saying that you plan to do that? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/192368 [13:10] Launchpad bug 192368 in ubuntu "Please add gnome-lirc-properties" [Wishlist,Confirmed] [13:10] murrayc_: There is no need to add a note, if someone else does it before me, even better. :-) [13:11] Unfortunately it's a bit rushed because we hope to get into hardy. The note would just be to let the others know that it's not going unnoticed. [13:12] Feel free to email me if I'm not online. Thanks. [13:13] norsetto: you're right [13:13] looking at Package: gaim-guifications' scontrol [13:13] murrayc_: I am not a developer, so it won't matter. :-) [13:14] it seems that it versions Replace and Conflict and do not add a Provide clause [13:14] slytherin: You are more clueful than me though. Thanks. [13:14] proppy: ok, and the version should be << X right? Where X is the version in gutsy in this case [13:16] proppy: hmmm, no, it should be <= then, otherwise it won't work [13:17] gaim-guification specify Conflicts: gaim-guifications (<< 2.14-2) [13:18] where 2.14-2 is the version where is transitional package was introduce [13:18] proppy: yes, iy should be (<< ${source:Version}) [13:19] proppy: the only problem is that this way the transitional package has to be manually removed, but I think we can't do it otherwise [13:20] but as the transitional package depends upun noip2 [13:20] and noip2 conflict with the transitional package [13:20] it will get removed right ? [13:25] proppy: not if we version the conflicts [13:26] how it's << and not <= [13:26] you're right [13:26] what about putting <= then ? [13:27] Hobbsee: I'm interested in your answer. [13:27] proppy: it won't work [13:27] proppy: apt will just say that there is an unresolvable conflict [13:27] norsetto: ok [13:28] proppy: which is one of the two things which happen in the bug as you can see [13:30] proppy: you can test it if you make a gutsy chroot with no-ip and dist-upgrade [13:31] norsetto: bug updated with a new debdiff [13:31] bug 194112 [13:31] Launchpad bug 194112 in no-ip "package is not upgraded on hardy upgrade" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/194112 [13:32] proppy: just a little typo, it should be noip2 not no-ip2 (in the dummy package description), otherwise looks good. If you test it is even better ... [13:33] norsetto: debootstraping gutsy [13:34] norsetto: nice sight (for the typo) [13:35] (btw the way there are .DS_Store files in the orig tarball) [13:35] proppy: remember that you need to add the new package to your local cache to have it picked when you dist-upgrade [13:35] proppy: no idea what they are, do you? [13:38] zul: howdy, you around? [13:38] dholbach: "... for requesting someone participation *cease* participation ..." :-) [13:38] of course [13:38] zul: I'm looking at Bug 194318 [13:38] Launchpad bug 194318 in php5 "strtotime doesn't support 64 bit timestamps" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/194318 [13:38] fixed in upstream PHP [13:38] norsetto: this is not my day *brown paper bag* [13:38] * nijaba just lurking around [13:38] * dholbach -> dogwalk [13:38] dholbach: hehehe [13:38] kirkland: yep you know where to find the patch? [13:38] norsetto: these are files autogenerated by macosx [13:39] dholbach: are you happy with bug 191905? [13:39] Launchpad bug 191905 in alexandria "[sync-request] Please sync alexandria 0.6.2 from the alexandria-team PPA" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/191905 [13:39] zul: snapshots here http://snaps.php.net/ [13:39] zul: i could dig the specific patch out of CVS [13:39] kirkland: yep however since its one patch I would get it from the php-cvs mailing list [13:39] would that be better than rebasing? [13:39] zul: gimme a minute, let me find it [13:39] norsetto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.DS_Store [13:39] kirkland: sure... [13:39] RainCT: i'm about to leave for a dogwalk and lunch now - can you ask somebody else to look at ti? [13:39] norsetto: I've never done that added a package to the local cache [13:39] it [13:40] zul: looks like it's a total of 3 small patches [13:40] zul: 1) http://marc.info/?l=php-cvs&m=120367364419375&w=2 [13:41] zul: 2) http://marc.info/?l=php-cvs&m=120367365119401&w=2 [13:41] norsetto: cp *.deb chroot/var/cache/apt ? [13:41] zul: 3) http://marc.info/?l=php-cvs&m=120367371119481&w=2 [13:41] kirkland: yep but those are different brances head/5.2/and 5.3 [13:42] dholbach: I'm asking you as you had some concerns about it.. But no hurry from my side (I'm not interested in the package) :) [13:42] norsetto: bug 194112 updated [13:42] Launchpad bug 194112 in no-ip "package is not upgraded on hardy upgrade" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/194112 [13:42] proppy: I'm afraid is a bit more difficult than that (not much though) [13:42] zul: oh, gotcha [13:42] kirkland: you should be fine with the 5.2 branch [13:42] zul: I see [13:42] zul: yep, okay [13:42] zul: so on my hardy machine, I "apt-get source php5" [13:43] correct [13:43] wget http://marc.info/?l=php-cvs&m=120367371119481&q=raw [13:44] zul: strike that wget [13:45] RainCT: just re-subscribe ubuntu-universe-sponsors [13:45] zul: actually, just add quotes, & got me ;-) [13:45] heh [13:46] norsetto: do you want me to attach the log of the test ? [13:46] kirkland: then apply the patch and make a diff [13:47] proppy: could be nice [13:47] zul: yep [13:47] zul: doing that now [13:47] coolio [13:47] so you have the patch? [13:47] norsetto: that's free when launching command from an emacs *shell :) [13:48] <\sh> has anyone tried to print on a dell 3110cn printer? I didn't find any reference for it on lp.org / cups.org [13:48] proppy: believe it or not I hardly know what emacs is too [13:49] Heya gang [13:50] norsetto: nice quote [13:50] bdebian: heya gang-ster [13:50] bddebian: heya gang-ster [13:50] Heh hi norsetto [13:51] zul: patch not applying cleanly, investigating [13:51] ok [13:52] proppy: this: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-basico.en.html#s-dpkg-scanpackages tells you how to make a local repo [13:52] norsetto: reproducing the upgrade failure now [13:54] zul: CVS id tag string doesn't match [13:54] zul: ours from 2007/07/20 [13:55] zul: theirs is against 2007/12/31 [13:55] ergh [13:55] I just edit the file manually since its only like 3 lines [13:55] zul: is it bad to cherry pick just the code we need? [13:55] no [13:56] norsetto: thanks for the link thought [13:57] zul: okay, so i jammed those 3 lines in [13:58] zul: what about the 1-liner comment from the developer who fixed this? [13:58] zul: I'd just as soon apply that to NEWS too [13:58] we will just mention that in the debian/changelog [13:58] zul: so leave out the NEWS line? [13:58] yep [13:59] zul: okay, u da boss [14:00] kirkland: ok so next mv the patch to the debian/patchs directory [14:00] zul: let me grab my notes for generating a debdiff [14:00] patches even [14:00] sure [14:00] norsetto: dist-upgrade failed with E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on tzdata [14:00] r [14:01] zul: go ahead with your instructions... move the patch to the debian/patches dir, name accordingly? [14:01] yep [14:01] add it to the series file that is there [14:01] proppy: ah! [14:01] number it toward the end? [14:01]