[00:00] gpolo: unfortunately, there's a component stumbling block: tk8.5 is in universe, while python-stdlib-extensions is in main, and a main source package can't build-depend on a binary package in universe. So, it may be worth investigating whether you can get the tk8.5 and dependencies promoted to main. [00:00] i see [00:01] thanks crimsun ;) [00:10] * norsetto --> sleep [00:12] * RoAkSoAx hi y'all === tacone is now known as serenella [01:32] Does the new launchpad logo remind anyone else of a spider's web? [01:33] ScottK: it does now :/ [01:33] It does seem to fit LP's purpose? [01:35] ScottK: 'Will you walk into my parlor?' said the Spider to the Fly [01:35] Something like that. [01:42] hi guys... Could someone remove a bug from the U-U-S queue, please ? === nenolod is now known as happinessturtle [02:26] Heya gang [04:08] pochu: when you request that reportbug-ng be removed, could you do the same for reportbug (citing bugs 228183 and 36186)? [04:08] Launchpad bug 228183 in reportbug "Please remove broken reportbug from Ubuntu" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/228183 [04:08] Launchpad bug 36186 in reportbug "Trivial and non-trivial enhancements for bugreport" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/36186 [05:56] I just got an upstream author comment on a bug about why their latest release isnt in gutsy [05:56] which freezes in the schedule were relevant to MOTU? [05:57] Beta? [05:58] final? [05:58] damn you UDS! [06:00] april 23rd =/ [06:11] on bug #184996, does anyone want to write a good, encouraging answer? [06:11] Launchpad bug 184996 in xournal "Annotation tools are broken in hardy" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/184996 [06:21] andrew_sayers: mutter. please fix it, instead of removing it. a whole lot of us use it to file bugs in debian. [06:22] andrew_sayers: make it report bugs correctly to ubuntu. [06:22] pwnguin: feature freeze. [06:22] pwnguin: which includes an upstream version freeze. [06:22] i thought universe was seperate [06:23] Have a look https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/reportbug-ng/+bug/175508 - in short, what would correct bug reporting look like? LP doesn't support anything useful. [06:23] Launchpad bug 175508 in reportbug-ng "Please remove reportbug-ng from Intrepid" [High,Triaged] [06:23] im reading the bug again now [06:24] i think the basics is we fixed the wacom-tools problem that made that bug a problem [06:24] pwnguin: it should be the same. [06:25] i recall reading an email about some freeze not applying to universe [06:25] pwnguin: the final freezes, not requiring a release-targetted bug. [06:25] it only requires a ffe [06:26] well upstream released on march 28th [06:27] after the beta release =/ [06:27] and feature freeze =/ [06:27] Hobbsee: (I'm assuming that you want both reportbug and -ng to stay) [06:31] andrew_sayers: no, actually. [06:31] andrew_sayers: -ng can go. [06:32] the standard reportbug goes to ubuntu by default, although it would be nice if people got given an error dialog, and told to use apport instead. [06:32] it's useful for reporting to debian, though [06:32] Well, it goes to ubuntu-users. Do those bugs actually get into the system then? [06:34] i doubt it. [06:35] so, fix that section, rather than killing the entire package. [06:38] Why is it that people have to log in to report bugs, anyway? [06:39] (in LP) [06:42] andrew_sayers: anti spam [06:43] Hrumph. [06:43] not to mention that the bug reporter needs to stay on the line [06:43] drive by bug reports are almost worthless [06:43] * andrew_sayers has philosophical problems with this approach [06:44] What about sending reports to ubuntu-motu instead? [06:45] to paraphrase linus torvalds, often the person who finds the bug is different than the person who understands it, who is also different from the person who can fix it. [06:45] At least then it might annoy someone into doing something about it. [06:45] bug trackers like bugzilla and LP are designed to bring these minds together [06:45] Yeah, I just don't like speedbumps, especially with bugreports. [06:47] the thing is, you might need the guy who found the bug to retest [06:47] if he walks away, now what? [06:47] bug reporters dont subscribe to ubuntu-motu [06:47] Similarly, if he walks away rather than log in, you gain nothing. [06:47] they'll never find that thread [06:48] Thinking of and remembering a password, deciding to hand over personal information, etc. is a decent-sized obstacle when you're doing something where you'll be lucky to get gratification from it for months. [06:49] But they won't find the thread on #ubuntu-users either? [06:49] dont we have cookies for this? [06:49] Er, the ubuntu-users ML. [06:49] and openID consuming? [06:49] Only for people that have filed a bug before. [06:50] andrew_sayers: no point sending it to -motu, everyone would just unsubscribe. [06:51] Hobbsee: you mean actual MOTUs would unsubscribe from the list? [06:51] likely. [06:51] andrew_sayers: do a straw poll about how many ubuntu developers are subscribed to -devel-discuss. [06:51] is that info not public? [06:51] andrew_sayers: they're volunteers, don't get paid, and so will ignore / unsubscribe from any list with a low s/n ratio. [06:51] Then does sending it to -users cause users to unsubscribe? [06:51] pwnguin: it probably is [06:52] i certainly agree it should be changed from sending to -users [06:52] but please, fix it so it sends to launchpad, not to some developer mailing list. [06:53] hmm [06:53] (which is why hardly anyone replies to -devel-discuss who is actually a developer, let alone a paid one, incidently. [06:53] ) [06:54] you should see the kernel team [06:54] i don't deal in kernels :) [06:54] While we're on the topic, would I get shouted at for bringing ideas to the -devel list that are, well, somewhat developed? [06:54] all it ever is "pull request" [06:55] andrew_sayers: don't think so - you will get moderated though, and the moderation queue is going thru very slowly. [06:55] andrew_sayers: depends if you're actually wanting to implement them, or hoping someone else will [06:55] Hmm, okay. I'll stick it on the back of my queue :) === asac_ is now known as asac [06:55] I'll probably do it myself, although I may now have to learn Python to do it :s [06:55] * Hobbsee dealt with 700 spam form there a few days ago. [06:56] Crazy idea: you do hear about people who say "I'd like to help but I'm not a dev". Would they be up for doing some simple triaging of a -bugs ML? [06:56] some will [06:56] there already is a BTS [06:57] others, when you give them the idea of doing actual work, will just run away. [06:57] Yeah, I've been on both ends of that request at times. [06:58] a lot go "ooh, developers. FIX MY BUG NOW, ELSE I'LL LEAVE" [06:58] pwnguin: when you say there's already a BTS, you mean LP? [06:58] or go "because iv'e $done this for you, you should fix all my pet bugs right now" [06:58] andrew_sayers: at the time, i meant debian bts [06:58] And sadly, they tend break that promise. [06:58] pwnguin: ah, okay. [06:59] but it applies to LP as well I guess [07:00] if you have an objection to LP, im afraid it's rather central to the distribution they founded [07:00] Well, my central objection is philosophical, so I don't expect it to go anywhere. I'm getting rather attached to the idea of a -bugs list though. [07:01] a BTS can do things a simple ML cannot do easily [07:01] Ah right, I'm not being clear. [07:01] translate -bugs mail into LP reports? [07:01] My idea is things get sent to a list, then subscribers upgrade to LP. [07:03] and then they subscribe someone not in LP to the bug? [07:04] I suppose so. [07:04] we can't just leave the reporter out of the loop -- they hold a critical piece of the puzzle, and often triage involves asking questions [07:06] True. -bugs subscribers would have to have some guidelines about throwing away bugs that don't have anyone willing to answer questions. [07:09] oh heres a good reason for LP over a basic ML [07:09] dupe suggestion [07:10] Oh, I completely agree that an ML is no use for *managing* bugs. [07:10] then what are you doing with this ML? [07:11] appeasing people who feel adverse about signing up for another account / password but are fine with using a regular email account? [07:11] I'm saying bugs get reported through an ML then upgraded to LP by volunteers (who I am assuming will exist). [07:11] Plus giving somewhere for reportbug to send things to. [07:13] If it were just the former, I wouldn't bother - it's quite a long way down my list of things that would be different if I ruled the world ;) [07:14] may i ask, what is offensive about accounts that isn't solved by openID consumption? [07:14] Not everyone has OpenID. [07:15] im not sure about that ;) [07:15] everyone on the planet seems to be opening up openID provision [07:16] TBH, I'm not really sure how OpenID works. If you got an ID when you installed Ubuntu and it was integrated with reportbug, that would be fine. [07:16] andrew_sayers: i think fundamentally, reportbug is a debian BTS tool, and Ubuntu by design doesn't use BTS =/ [07:17] andrew_sayers: launchpad exports openID [07:17] andrew_sayers: if everyone who installed ubuntu got an open id.... [07:17] err, LP account [07:18] andrew_sayers: trouble is, it doesn't consume openID as far as i can recall [07:19] Incidentally, to what degree are you asking about the principle of asking for ID when reporting bugs, as opposed to the specifics of it in Ubuntu? [07:20] hmm. this gets tricky in general. is email ID? [07:21] I'm just asking so I know how to frame my response :) [07:21] My general issue isn't with ID, it's with speedbumps. [07:22] Filing a bug should involve clicking on "file a bug", then typing your bug in. Anything more than that and you start to lose signal. [07:23] dont we already have more bugs than we can handle? [07:23] Personally, I prefer not to lose any signal no matter how much noise I keep with it, but that's where the debate starts to become philosophical. [07:24] Probably, yes. And I'm not volunteering to make my way practical, which is another reason I wouldn't bother if it was just that. [07:24] Hobbsee: how would you feel about the package being renamed to something like report-debian-bug? I suspect part of the problem is the authoritative-sounding name? [07:24] if you have more noise you MUST have some way of dealing with it [07:25] "add more people" is probably not the right answer when we already losing the people:bugs war [07:26] pwnguin: unless you can draft people that weren't previously in the war - hence getting users in to do some basic triage. [07:27] we dont do that now? [07:29] If I were a user that wanted to pitch in, where would I go to start triaging bugs that need more info/don't know which package they're targeted at/etc.? [07:29] #ubuntu-bugs? [07:29] anything categorized "new"? [07:31] 50 percent of ubuntu bugs are in the new state. i kinda wish someone would publish reports on how many have comments etc [07:31] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage [07:32] until there's evidence that triage isn't the bottleneck, i think pumping in more signal before that won't help =/ [07:33] also, im not sure its a good thing that that "untriaged" list is sorted LIFO [07:36] If we're seriously talking about ways of getting more people to do bug triage, is there any value in being able to subscribe to, say, all untriaged bugs more than 7 days old? [07:37] i assume subscribe is not an LP specific term used here [07:38] Not when I use it, no. [07:38] well, there's general fairness [07:38] obviously at 8 thousand reports you may be looking at some stale data [07:40] I'm thinking that you'd only get notified when there's activity - you don't subscribe then get 8,000 messages in your inbox. [07:40] Subscribing to all untriaged bugs over N days old would let people that wanted to chip in pick up the slack for any reports that were viable but not being attended to. [07:41] (Again I'm assuming there's a well of untapped talent) [07:42] im confused here, are we talking about the current triage process? [07:42] How about I lay out what I think I'm saying? [07:42] the problem with untriaged bugs is generally that they're not getting any activity [07:43] (Which probably bears little relation to what I'm actually saying) [07:44] The problem with the specific case of reportbug is that there's nowhere useful for bugs to be sent, because reportbug doesn't require you to log in, but the only useful place in Ubuntu does require that. [07:44] That problem could be solved either by having some place to report bugs that doesn't require a login, or by rot-13ing the package name, so people don't see it unless they know what they're looking for. [07:45] or it could be solved by replacing it with something that does log in. apport would be relevant code there [07:46] * rockstar votes for rot13 twice, for double the encryption [07:46] If you want reportbug removed from Ubuntu, feel free to tempt Hobbsee's wrath again :p [07:48] I'm still not sure what the best place is for Ubuntu bugs reported with reportbug, but since reporting bugs to Ubuntu with reportbug is a bug in itself, I think it should go to the maintainer (ubuntu-motu). [07:48] im reasonably certain that debian is the only upstream for reportbug and they wouldn't accept patches for making it LP friendly [07:49] why not? [07:49] Fundamentally, I don't think you can make RB play nice with LP - one is designed for anonymous bug reports, the other not. [07:50] what is the problem with introducing a commandline option --ubuntu or something and make it send it to the LP, instead of the debian BTS? [07:50] white: because BTS is email oriented and LP is http? [07:50] unless im missing something [07:50] doesn't LP accept emails? [07:51] that depends [07:51] officially it only accepts signed email [07:51] unofficially, it stopped checking that a year ago and nobody noticed [07:51] what is a normal user doing, who just wants to report "a" bug in ubuntu, without starting to become a developer?> [07:51] but im not sure that you can report a new bug via email [07:53] white: right now, you need a username/password (or OpenID) to report a bug. [07:53] does LP accept open ID? [07:53] I thought you said it did? [07:53] Okay, maybe not. [07:53] You can perform pretty much any action to LP bugs via email. [07:54] file new? [07:54] Unsigned email is accepted (for comments), but only signed email can modify existing bugs or file new ones. [07:54] Of course. [07:54] See requestsync. [07:54] wgrant: Signed - does there have to be a trust path? [07:55] andrew_sayers: No. It just has to be a key associated with a Launchpad account. [07:55] which deafeats his bug [07:55] andrews dies of speedbump poisoning [07:55] * andrew_sayers was so close [07:56] wgrant: what happens if there's no signature/an unknown key? Do they get an explanation? [07:56] andrew_sayers: I forget. I think they do, though. [07:57] What's the address? I'll bounce a message at it and see. [07:57] new@bugs.launchpad.net for a new bug, or somebugnumber@bugs.launchpad.net [07:58] What is the quickest way to convert a file with CR+LF line ends to just LF? [07:58] dos2unix? [07:59] pwnguin> thanks! [08:00] this is nessecary knowledge to grade OS projects gained after semesters of students writing UNIX code in Visual Studio [08:01] pwnguin: Don't you need a knife for that/them? [08:01] scars might last forever, but the pain is only temporary [08:02] failing grades on the other hand, never stop hurting ;) [08:02] Heheh. [08:05] pwnguin: on the issue of principle - I think that speedbumps are wrong. The fact that I don't have a practical solution for maximising signal without overwhelming devs with noise is secondary. [08:05] pwnguin: compare this to someone saying that they think killing is wrong, but accept that war is sometimes inevitable. I'm well aware of the limitations of my good intentions :) [08:05] i think declaring something a speedbump is silly. either its important or it is not [08:06] Well, having a mechanism to contact a submitter is important. Asking them for that information is a speedbump. [08:06] (for example) [08:09] An alternative mechanism would be to accept unsigned e-mail bugs, but bounce back a "was this you?" like when you subscribe to an ML. That would let you subscribe an address to a bug without a password etc. [08:10] isnt that also a speedbump? [08:10] Yes, but less so. [08:11] a) it doesn't occur until after you've submitted your bug - by that time you're no longer looking for the box to vent at. [08:12] b) it's just clicking a link and a button to get information about one specific bug. That's psychologically very different to creating an account on a website that will last until the end of time and bother you every time you think about passwords. [08:14] heh, they'll know forever that the_prodler couldnt get sftp working from gftp [08:15] Yeah, but given that the_prodler is centre of his universe, he assumes that everyone will be googling for that the moment he types it in. [08:17] On the issue of triaging practice - I have a suspicion that there are users out there willing to give some time but who don't think they can do anything useful. [08:17] If I'm right, they could be put to work triaging, if you could design an UI that talked to that sort of person. As always, I have plenty of ideas about what it would look like, most of which rubbish :) [08:18] the thing is [08:18] this happenes from time to time and they DO get pointed at triage [08:19] As in, someone says on a users ML, "I'd like to help out", and people point them over there? [08:19] How does that usually work out? [08:19] i donno -- i dont triage ;) [08:19] :p [08:22] Anyway, those are my issues - to recap, I definitely think reportbug should be renamed, and also that it should go to ubuntu-motu, with a big warning saying "the fact that this goes here is a bug"... [08:23] I'd quite like to see an anonymous e-mail-based reporting mechanism, perhaps involving subscribing to specific bugs without a password. If that happened, I'd suggest reportbug should use it, but I'm not holding my breath. [08:23] there will always be a record that the_prodler@hotmail.com .. etc but whatever [08:24] Yeah, okay - anonymous is the wrong word. Do you see the psychological difference by the way? [08:25] actually, i think some people are more concerned about publishing their email address than a pseudonym [08:25] Can people get my e-mail address out of LP? [08:26] andrew_sayers> not by default [08:26] if you have a public key published, probably, but that's not the sort of thing anonymous fly by reporters would do [08:26] Phew. For a moment there, I thought everyone was going to find out I didn't like reportbug :) [08:27] im pretty sure debian BTS publishes though by default [08:28] Yeah, I went through a handful of Debian-related addresses before I realised they don't believe in stripping addresses. [08:29] mostly, i think this counts as sweating the small stuff. in terms of fixing bugs, missing a few reports because of new account anxiety is a speed bump placed before a gigantic mountain of untriaged bugs [08:30] To some extent - this goes back to "killing is wrong but wars happen" thing. [08:31] To be fair, I've been very impressed by speediness of Ubuntu bug turnarounds compared to Debian, and once you know that's what you're getting, it's well worth the hassle in my opinion. [08:33] Actually, going back to reportbug for a minute - is there any way that reportbug could download LP bugs? [08:34] If not, reporting bugs to Ubuntu makes even less sense, because there's no way to check for dupes. [08:34] not that anyone follows it [08:35] look at how many dupes xulrunner / sqllite have [08:37] What would be a better name for reportbug? [08:37] debian-bug? [08:38] the package or binary? [08:38] Package. [08:38] did you do a rdep on that? [08:39] No, how do I do that? [08:39] or were you intending to move the current reportbug and provide a different package? [08:39] apt-cache rdepends reportbug [08:40] That sounds like a bug in itself. [08:40] what? [08:40] Why would apt-cache depend on a package that's useless in Ubuntu? [08:40] heh [08:40] no [08:40] that's how you do an rdepends [08:40] Oh, ah :) [08:41] Anyway, I'm trying to think of a name for the package that won't (a) fool half-asleep ex-Debian users like me, and (b) won't suggest "this is how you report bugs" to people trolling the repositories. [08:43] But preferably not actually rot-13ing it. [08:43] how about you make it clear in the description that its for reporting bugs to debian? [08:44] anyways, if you ignore the speedbump for the moment, im not sure all that's nessecary [08:44] Personally, I still use reportbug, but only for reporting Debian bugs [08:46] pwnguin: the package name isn't a speedbump - it's a cause of bugs. [08:48] How about this though... [08:48] im just saying, if you accept that they have gpg keys and lp accounts, report bug might not need to leave to work [08:49] the gpg key part is probably not true [08:49] Yeah - people with all that are already using LP. [08:50] How about we e-mail ubuntu-motu and ask if they mind a noise level of 1 bug report/month from reportbug, then change the address it uses from #ubuntu-users to #ubuntu-motu... [08:51] with a big warning in each message, pointing to a standing bug that says "change the package name/have extra hand-holding/do something if the noise rate goes above 1 bug/month". [08:52] you should probably write a clear statement of the problem, and then propose that fix [08:53] ubuntu-motu already gets some bugmail from the maintainer field [08:53] All right, better log in to LP then. Now where did I put my birth certificate... [08:54] you know, there's cookies and such [08:55] that lesson this pain [08:55] lessen even [08:56] It's the account creation thing I really don't like, not signing in so much. [08:57] ideally, openID is good enough to fix that at some bright point in the future [08:58] Yeah, true. [08:59] I'm well aware that I'm tilting at windmills with some of this stuff. [09:01] current practice seems to be to request bugmail directed at motu go to LP, manually [09:49] Anyone here familiar with writing module-assistant rules? [10:00] Ummm, when will we get the: "This user is only for the REVU service. contact root on problems." fixed? [10:00] its very annoying... [10:06] wb pochu =) [10:13] pwnguin: I've now written the bug up at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/reportbug/+bug/231316 - I'd appreciate it if you had a look over it at some point, but I'm going to bed, so no hurry :) [10:13] Launchpad bug 231316 in reportbug "Bugs should be sent to ubuntu-motu for a trial period" [Undecided,New] [10:22] pochu: /me waves. FF RC1 \o/ [11:45] \sh: is it also raining in germany? [11:50] heya [12:03] <\sh> sebner:yes in south germany it's raining === _neversfelde is now known as neversfelde [12:43] LucidFox: ping [12:44] bobbo> yes? [12:44] LucidFox: sorry, worked out what i was going to ask you :) [12:44] ah [12:45] bobbo> When I tried to upload -7ubuntu1, it said it was already uploaded to Feisty [12:45] turned out -7ubuntu1 was removed and then replaced with-7 [12:45] which is beyond weird [12:45] ok, uploading a debdiff with -ubuntu2 now [12:45] thanks [12:48] LucidFox: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/14571798/checky.debdiff [12:49] yes, I saw that [12:49] bobbo> Uploaded [12:50] LucidFox: thanks :D [12:52] bobbo> in the future, please include the bug being fixed in the changelog, like this: (LP: #184084) [12:52] this way, it will be automatically closed for that package [12:52] LucidFox: ah yeah, sorry, this is my first upload in a while so im a bit rusty [12:57] * Hobbsee smacks andrew_sayers [12:57] * Hobbsee subscribed motu to the bug, to be sure of getting lots of opinions, on the same sort of thing [13:04] Hobbsee: bug 231236 seems to be a SRU problem from bug 229922, which was moved to -updates too early. Can you please take a look? [13:04] Launchpad bug 231236 in totem-pl-parser "libtotem-plparser10 Will not install." [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/231236 [13:04] Launchpad bug 229922 in totem-pl-parser "2.22.3 stable update" [Wishlist,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/229922 [13:05] albert23: i'm not on the -sru team.... [13:05] albert23: that's in main. I suggest you ask in #ubuntu-desktop [13:05] Hobbsee: you are mentioned in the sru procedure for regressions [13:06] LucidFox: checky just FTBFS; http://launchpadlibrarian.net/14571972/buildlog_ubuntu-intrepid-i386.checky_2.5-7ubuntu2_CHROOTWAIT.txt.gz [13:07] bobbo> that's not checky's fault [13:07] Erk, that's really really bad. [13:07] buildds have been faulty lately [13:07] albert23: really? where? [13:08] Hobbsee: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates [13:08] LucidFox: so what happens with the update now? [13:08] Hobbsee: under procedure bullet 6 [13:08] bobbo> The build will be restarted when the servers are fixed, that's all [13:09] LucidFox: ah ok, cool :) [13:10] Hobbsee: Aren't you ubuntu-release, so > motu-sru? [13:11] albert23: that applies to main SRU's, it looks like. [13:11] wgrant: yes, technically, I, or other release managers, could override it [13:11] In the event of a regression, immediately notify the [WWW] Ubuntu Technical Board via email, and ask for help on #ubuntu-devel in making urgent contact with a member of the Board or the SRU team: state the problem, the bug number, and ping "slangasek, Riddell, Hobbsee, pitti, mdz, Keybuk, cjwatson, keescook, jdstrand, BenC, dendrobates, davidm". For SRU in universe/multiverse, contact the [WWW] Universe SRU Team team or ask for help on # [13:11] ubuntu-motu instead. [13:11] Hobbsee: Yes, and totem-pl-parser is in main [13:11] ah [13:14] Whats up? [13:15] albert23: grrrr. [13:17] Hobbsee: I am not sure it is serious enough to make a lot of noise. A held update would not be very serious, but comment 11 seems more important. And I think it might even affect Gutsy->Hardy updates, which would be bad. [13:17] It will break Gutsy->Hardy upgrades. [13:17] albert23: how did it get into -updats? [13:17] Riddell: by mistake [13:17] Though probably before the upgrade actually properly starts. [13:18] I guess pitti didn't check that the rbuild-depends hadn't changed :( [13:18] albert23: this has happened before. [13:19] There is an SRU for evolution-data-server pending, which would fix this, bug 228107 [13:19] Launchpad bug 228107 in evolution-data-server "evolution crashed when connecting to groupwise" [Medium,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/228107 [13:19] albert23: that will get hit on any update. [13:19] Riddell: can you get it fixed please? [13:20] albert23: is there a fix for this totem-pl-parser issue? [13:20] Hobbsee: got any proposals on how? [13:20] Riddel: bug 228107 seems to provide these dependencies (but I did not check if it wold cause new dependency issues) [13:20] Riddell: shove the 2 rdepends into hardy-updates too. [13:21] Launchpad bug 228107 in evolution-data-server "evolution crashed when connecting to groupwise" [Medium,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/228107 [13:21] Riddell: shlibs, when building for -proposed, has picked up the newer dep versions. [13:21] * Hobbsee has listed them in the bug. [13:21] You could shove the rdepends in, or remove the new one that won't install, as nobody can have it installed. [13:21] Hobbsee: kopete sucks, I rebuild pidgin against perl 5.10 at my own ;P [13:21] sebner: haha. [13:21] sebner: well, for an irc client... [13:22] * Riddell reloads and finds Hobbsee's comment [13:22] Hobbsee: I also removed konversation. I also rebuilded xchat against perl 5.10 ^^ [13:22] bah. [13:22] GNOME/GTK ftw!!! xD [13:27] hmm, pitti is in a session for the next half hour, I'd rather check with him before moving that evolution-data-server update [13:30] if someone wants to confirm that e-d-s bug it would be handy :) [13:33] Riddel: I wanted to do that, but you will need groupwise to do it right [13:33] mm, right [13:52] Riddell: FWIW I just tested the update with -proposed enabled. Only libedataserver and libcamel were pulled from -proposed, which looks good to me. [13:52] thanks === azeem__ is now known as azeem === Zic_ is now known as Zic [14:10] hi, what's the commandline to build all kernels in a batch (out of the kernel.git) like the buildbot does? [14:31] albert23, Hobbsee: seb has re-uploaded to -updates so it'll recompile against the right versions [14:31] Riddell: cool :) [14:32] Riddell, Hobbsee: thanks for taking care of it [14:46] hi all, I'd like to make a package for the mldonkey-server gui named "sancho" [14:46] do you know who I should contact ? I'm qiute new to this [15:15] anybody to help me making a .deb from a package ? [15:15] grimko, from a package? [15:16] I mean a software sorry [15:16] its only a few files [15:16] grimko, well. I don't have much experience with that. But I already make a package [15:17] I'm working on it. I don't know the rules yet but I can give you a url that help you to do it [15:17] no pb for that, the idea is to see if it's really interesting to put it in universe or whatever when its done [15:18] its called "sancho" maybe you know it, its a gui for mldonkey-server, much better than mlgui indeed [15:18] grimko, http://showmedo.com/videos/video?name=linuxJensMakingDeb&fromSeriesID=37 [15:19] I hope this video help you [15:19] I'll have a look thx [15:19] np === thekorn is now known as thekorn_96 === thekorn_96 is now known as thekorn === whs is now known as willwill [16:14] huhu norsetto [16:14] sebner [16:43] A lot of the Wiki material on Ubuntu development needs to be rewritten to incorporate the role of the new Ubuntu Contributor team. Any plans for doing that? [16:43] feel free to spearhead them. [16:44] crimsun: I thought it would be good to have some kind of general discussion first [16:44] sure, what plans do you have in mind? [16:45] crimsun: Well, for example, is it now such that UC is a step on the way to MOTU? [16:45] yes, it is a recognised step on that path. [16:46] If so, the documentation should reflect that MOTU is "a contributor with upload rights" [16:46] agreed. [16:46] ... and the next level would be a core developer === fta2 is now known as fta [16:46] who is "a motu with upload rights to main" [16:47] (and more) [16:48] generally concur. If you mention specific components for core-dev, then it's best to mention specific components for motu, too. [16:48] What do we call the class of people who are not Ubuntu Contributors? Ubunteros? [16:49] crimsun: you mean like, sound, printing, ... [16:49] people who aren't UCs include people without LP accounts and people known as Ubunteros. [16:50] crimsun: In the context of the wiki, I don't think it makes sense to consider people w/o an LP account [16:50] mok0: no, "MOTU is a contributor with upload privileges to the universe and multiverse components" vice "core-dev is a contributor with upload privileges to the main, restricted, universe, and multiverse components" [16:51] precise wording is not set in stone, of course, just the component distinction. [16:51] crimsun: so in principle, you could graduate from UC->core-dev? [16:51] mok0: I do not know, but currently I don't believe that's possible. [16:52] UC->MOTU->core [16:52] crimsun: ok, that's what I thought (it didn't come across I guess) [16:53]