[06:41] <dholbach> good morning
[10:29] <dholbach> does anybody of you know if the "classpath exception to the GPL2" is OK?
[10:29] <dholbach> http://launchpad.net/bugs/253066 for more information
[10:41] <Juli_> dholbach:  actually it was fix for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libnb-javaparser-java/+bug/201354
[10:43] <dholbach> Juli_: right... I just wanted to get opinions on the added license text itself
[10:43] <dholbach> I'm just checking the rest of the package update
[10:48] <Juli_> I'm not expert in the license but  if you have any other questions regarding this update, please, ask. I'm responsible for this package now
[10:49] <dholbach> ok... it seems it's all good regarding the license
[10:50] <dholbach> Juli_: uploading it
[10:51] <Juli_> thanks
[10:52] <Juli_> it is right on time:) it lightens the work for persia
[10:52] <dholbach> there's a lot of hectic in the sponsoring queue right now :)
[10:52] <dholbach> with feature freeze coming up tomorrow
[10:54] <Juli_> yes I really know as I try to get some help for about several weeks:(
[10:55] <dholbach> I can imagine :-/
[10:55] <dholbach> we're slowly catching up
[10:57] <Juli_> These all is about NetBeans 6.0.1 -> NetBeans 6.1 upgrade... many updates and even new packages
[10:58] <Juli_> but thank you a lot for taking a look at javaparser:)
[11:02] <dholbach> Juli_: which other updates are on the list?
[11:02] <Juli_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/netbeans/+bug/253016
[11:03] <Juli_> and 2 new packages on REVU
[11:03] <dholbach> OK... so what next needs to happen is the review of the two packages on REVU?
[11:03] <Juli_> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=libnb-platform-java
[11:04] <Juli_> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=libjna-java
[11:04] <Juli_> actually libjna-java on REVU already has one advocate
[11:05] <Juli_> situation with platform is worse
[11:05] <Juli_> if you could take a look at it It would be great!
[11:08] <dholbach> hum.... there's libnb-platform8-java and libnb-platform-java
[11:08] <Juli_> yes
[11:08] <Juli_> libnb-platform8-java  is old package I don't know how to delete it from REVU
[11:08] <dholbach> ok... will archive it
[11:08] <dholbach> gracias :)
[11:09] <Juli_> :))) Italian?
[11:10] <dholbach> no, I'm from Germany :)
[11:11] <Juli_> :) nice country!
[11:11] <dholbach> where are you from? :)
[11:12] <Juli_> oh... Russia
[11:13] <dholbach> is libnb-resolver-java important too?
[11:13] <Juli_> actually no
[11:13] <dholbach> ok
[11:13] <Juli_> we have to cancel it
[11:13] <Juli_> as it is a fork of libxml-commons-resolver1.1-java
[11:13] <dholbach> shall I archive it for now?
[11:14] <Juli_> yes, please:)
[11:14] <dholbach> thanks, done
[11:14] <Juli_> thanks!
[11:14] <dholbach> I'll check out jna now
[11:15] <Juli_> I'm looking forward to see you comments:)
[11:27] <dholbach> it seems that the clean target misses quite a lot of files that are created during the build
[11:27] <dholbach> it's not terribly urgent, but would be nice if it was fixed
[11:28] <Juli_> hmmm... there are listed in debian/clean I believe
[11:28] <dholbach> http://paste.ubuntu.com/30875
[11:28] <dholbach> err
[11:28] <dholbach> http://paste.ubuntu.com/40875
[11:29] <dholbach> if you use pbuilder, you can test it by running    sudo pbuilder build --twice something.dsc
[11:30] <Juli_> hmm, I'll see
[11:31] <dholbach> right now I'm looking for blockers - if we can fix this one in one of the next uploads, that's fine too
[11:33] <Juli_> hm... build folder should be deleted in clean target...
[11:33] <Juli_> strange... but I'll fix anyway
[11:41] <dholbach> Juli_: apart from that jna looks good to me
[11:43] <dholbach> Juli_: if you want to fix it now, I'll ask geser to give the new upload an ACK again
[11:43] <Juli_> what is it ACK?
[11:44] <dholbach> ACK is his "OK" - "advocating" in this case
[11:44] <dholbach> short for "acknowledge"
[11:44] <Juli_> aaa.. thanks
[11:45] <dholbach> I'll have a look at platform in the meantime
[11:45] <Juli_> ok.. I'll try to fix jna now
[11:45] <dholbach> great
[12:03] <Juli_> I've deleted debian/clean and transfered rm -rf into rules/clean. I believe this should fix the problem
[12:04] <dholbach> Juli_: I'll check it out
[12:06] <Juli_> Thanks! and I have to spend more time learning debhelper 7 and debian/clean ... I've never used it before... so can't understand what the problem it was
[12:07] <dholbach> hm... debian/rules doesn't look like debhelper 7
[12:07] <dholbach> it's using CDBS, isn't it?
[12:11] <Juli_> yes
[12:14] <geser> dholbach, Juli_: what needs a new ACK from me?
[12:14] <dholbach> geser: libjna-java in REVU
[12:14] <dholbach> Juli_ just did an update to fix the twice-building
[12:14]  * dholbach is just double-checking it
[12:19] <Juli_> dholbach: as I understand cdbs just automates debhelper use... so advantages(as usage of debian/clean file) of debhelper 7 should be noticeable
[12:23] <dholbach> right... I was referring to the new  dh  command introduced with debhelper 7
[12:26] <dholbach> the new package still doesn't clean up correctly
[12:26] <Juli_> the same build folder is not cleaned?
[12:27] <dholbach> Juli_: can you try leaving in dh_clean and adding a  rm -rf $(DEB_SRCDIR)/build  too?
[12:27] <dholbach> in the clean target
[12:29] <Juli_> yes of course... but build.xml clean should actually do this...I'll check it out later.. now I'll add what you say into clean target
[12:29]  * dholbach is no expert when it comes to ant - sorry
[12:30] <Juli_> ant just delete a folder... I don't understand... anyway we have no time for this now:(
[12:31] <dholbach> Juli_: that should make it build twice in a row
[12:31]  * dholbach just tested
[12:35] <Juli_> done.
[12:37] <Juli_> dholbach: thank you for testing! I'll recover my pbuilder base tarball... it is dead from yesterday:( so I can't use pbuilder build
[12:37] <dholbach> Juli_: did you upload it to REVU already?
[12:37] <dholbach> hmm ... might take a bit to show up on the web page...
[12:38] <Juli_> yes..
[12:38] <Juli_> several seconds/minutes usually:)
[12:40] <dholbach> ok... testing :)
[12:47] <dholbach> geser: I advocated the current libjna-java upload, so if you could ACK it again, that'd be nice
[12:47]  * dholbach goes to grab some lunch
[12:47] <dholbach> see you later!
[12:50] <Juli_> Bon appetit!
[12:50] <geser> dholbach: Advocated (but didn't do the upload yet).
[12:52] <Juli_> geser: Thank you again:)
[14:36] <Koon> geser: i've a couple of Java library dependencies fixes posted on bug 256096, waiting for a sponsor
[14:36] <Koon> geser: would you have some time to sponsor them ?
[14:37] <geser> Koon: not before friday
[14:37] <Koon> geser: no problem, I have someone else taht should be able to do it -- thanks anyway
[14:44] <persia> Koon: If they aren't Feature-Freeze blocking, it's probably best to wait until Friday, just because there's *heaps* of FF-blocking stuff that needs to get in beforehand.
[14:46] <Koon> persia: ok. It's more an alpha5 target.
[14:46] <persia> Koon: That's what I thought from the description above, and it gives us another week.
[14:47] <persia> One thing that might be of benefit for Java, if you have time, is to look for anything with a newer upstream in Debian: it ought make security support significantly easier if Intrepid and Lenny ship with the same version of the packages.
[14:48] <persia> http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/multidistrotools/ has a few lists, although the language-specific ones (python, ruby, Java) are currently broken.
[15:19] <dholbach> geser: did you manage to upload jna?
[15:19] <dholbach> geser: if not, I can do it now
[15:19] <dholbach> what about libnb-platform?
[15:19] <geser> dholbach: please do
[15:21] <dholbach> hi robilad
[15:21] <robilad> hi dholbach!
[15:22] <dholbach> robilad: a shame there's no Java packaging session at Ubuntu Developer Week
[15:23] <robilad> i won't have time unfortunately - right in the middle of finishing stuff off before I head out for two weeks.
[15:23] <dholbach> Juli_, geser: jna uploaded
[15:23] <dholbach> now the archive admins will have to review it
[15:24] <Juli_> thank you! do archive admins review updates as well? or only new packages?
[15:25] <geser> Juli_: only new source and new binary packages
[15:25] <dholbach> NEW packages and they need to do prodding if there are new binary packages
[15:25] <dholbach> but new source packages get extra scrutiny
[15:25] <dholbach> and the queue might be a bit longer right now
[15:27] <Juli_> should they review new staff before FF for package to get into Intrepid? or your upload is enough?
[15:28] <Juli_> I just worry about inclusion into Intrepid:)
[15:32] <dholbach> upload should be good enough
[15:33] <Juli_>  that is great! Thanks
[15:37] <Juli_> dholbach: i missed your question about libnb-platform... actually it is a new upstream for libnb-platform7-java which is already exist... but source name is changed
[15:38] <dholbach> Juli_: aha!
[15:38] <dholbach> that should make reviewing easier
[15:38] <dholbach> are we safe to drop the old one in intrepid once it is built?
[15:38] <dholbach> errr accepted and all that
[15:39] <Juli_> actually there may be users who still need platform7... but there are no packages which depends on it excepting netbeans(6.0.1)
[15:40] <dholbach> will the old netbeans work with the new nb-platform?
[15:40] <Juli_> no
[15:40] <dholbach> OK... I'll review the package in a bit
[15:40] <Juli_> but I hope to see new netbeans in Intrepid
[15:41] <Juli_> dholbach: thanks!
[16:17] <dholbach> Juli_: sent comments for nb-platform
[16:19] <Juli_> dholbach: thanks for comments! do you mean copyrights for upstream?
[16:20] <dholbach> I did a diff between the old packaging and the new one
[16:20] <dholbach> and you changed the copyright year in debian/copyright from 2007 to 2008
[16:20] <dholbach> when lots of .java source files have 1997-2008 in their header
[16:21] <Juli_> yes... I thing old copyright was also not good... it should be 1997-2008 as you say
[16:21] <Juli_> I'll correct
[16:22] <dholbach> alright
[16:23] <Juli_> about libnb-platform8-devel-java and Conflicts with platform7-devel-java
[16:23] <dholbach> regarding the conflicts/replaces: both devel-java packages contain files with the same name
[16:23] <dholbach> so they're bound to clash
[16:24] <dholbach> the other packages are fine because all files have platform7 or platform8 in the file / directory name
[16:24] <Juli_> actually they both install staff at the same folder
[16:24] <dholbach> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html
[16:24] <dholbach> Juli_: can you install both devel-java packages at the same time?
[16:26] <Juli_> actually yes... i just thinking about if I really need them both simultaneously
[16:26] <Juli_> give me a second
[16:26] <dholbach> let me try that too
[16:27] <dholbach> I get a clash when I try to install both
[16:27] <dholbach> this could well happen to people who upgrade from one netbeans version to the other
[16:28] <dholbach> we need to make sure they're not installed at the same time and that the upgrade is properly dealt with
[16:28] <dholbach> oh... the same for java-doc
[16:28] <dholbach> oh... the same for platform{7,8}-java-doc
[16:28] <Juli_> yes i see
[16:30] <persia> Juli_: dholbach: Plan is to drop the old platform: there's nothing else depending on it in the archives, and users are expecting several API/ABI changes with a new release anyway.  We can't expect proper security support from upstream for 18 months on the older package.
[16:30] <persia> (well, we can kinda, but it may be awkward)
[16:31] <dholbach> persia: right... still there needs to be a conflicts/replaces
[16:31] <persia> Indeed :)
[16:31] <persia> dholbach: Thanks for helping with Java review :)
[16:32] <dholbach> somebody needs to give a second ACK on nb-platform later
[16:32] <dholbach> but given that we have the package in the archive already makes the review a bit more straightforward
[16:32] <Juli_> I'll upload new copyrights:)
[16:33] <Juli_> and may it it is better to set up Conflicts/replaces anyway?
[16:33] <dholbach> definitely
[16:33] <Juli_> ok...I'll do now
[16:33] <dholbach> we can't have the package installation failing because two packages want to claim the same file
[16:38] <Juli_> dholbach: one question I can't understand... can user use Inrepid packages and Hardy packages simultaneously?
[16:39] <dholbach> Juli_: as soon the new nb-platform is ACKed, approved by the archive admins and built on the build daemons, we have the following situation:
[16:39] <dholbach> two source packages each building 3 binary packages
[16:39] <dholbach> and users having the old netbeans with old nb-platform (7) installed
[16:40] <Juli_> yes
[16:40] <dholbach> as soon as they upgrade to the new netbeans that will pull in the new nb-platform (8), right?
[16:40] <Juli_> yes
[16:40] <dholbach> right... that's the point where it clashes
[16:40] <dholbach> the packages need to tell dpkg: "no way, I'm not going to be installable with package XYZ"
[16:40] <dholbach> that's why we need the conflicts / replaces
[16:41] <Juli_> hmmm... i thought replaces is for this
[16:41] <geser> Juli_: if someone updates from hardy to intrepid, nothing deletes old packages from a system (even if they aren't anymore in the archive). The only exception are Conflicts specified in new packages.
[16:42] <Juli_> I can upgrade package with Replace only, without Conflicts... the result is both of them are supposed to be installed
[16:42] <geser> Juli_: Replace only tells dpkg that a package can overwrite files from an other package (e.g. a file which from one package to an other)
[16:43] <Juli_> geser:  yes I understand
[16:45] <persia> Juli_: We specifically don't want to permit both of them to be installed, as the older package will not receive support, and the user will be left with a mess.  Much better to Conflict:
[16:46] <Juli_> persia: I agree, yes, but there will be a problem if user will try to install netbeans 6.0.1 (old one) having netbeans 6.1(new) packages in cache
[16:46] <Juli_> if it is impossible, than no problem
[16:47] <persia> Juli_: Right, but that oughtn't happen because we'll only have one "netbeans" package in the archive.  That's why I advocated not having the version numbers in the package names.
[16:48] <Juli_> persia:  but I can configure my /etc/apt/sources to use hardy and intrepid simultaneously
[16:48] <persia> Juli_: That's not supported :)
[16:49] <Juli_> persia: so, no questions any more! thanks for clarification!
[16:59] <Juli_> it takes so long time for package to appear on web after upload:(
[17:01] <Juli_> dholbach: fixed:) Thank you for keenness of observation
[17:07] <Juli_> dholbach: and sorry for doubts I just wanted to understand everything for future
[17:08] <dholbach> Juli_: no problem... better be safe and ask 5 times if you need to - I'm happy to help where I can :)
[17:08] <Juli_> dholbach: you really help:)
[17:18] <dholbach> Juli_: checking it ou
[17:18] <dholbach> out
[17:29] <dholbach> Juli_: that looks much better :-)
[17:30]  * dholbach gives his +1
[17:30] <dholbach> if anybody else can give their +1, we can get it uploaded :-)
[17:30] <Juli_> dholbach: thanks a lot!
[17:44] <dholbach> ok my friends... I'm going to call it a day now
[17:44] <dholbach> see you all tomorrow!
[17:47] <Juli_> Good bye dholbach:)
[17:54] <dholbach> cody-somerville or geser: do you think one of you could check out libnb-platform-java on REVU before FF?
[17:55] <dholbach> (as I said before it's an update of an existing source packages)
[17:55] <dholbach> thanks in advance - see you tomorrow :)
[19:33] <vbabiy> Does any one have any why I am getting this with Java 5 update 12 on ubuntu http://paste2.org/p/66504