[04:56] <artfwo>  hi! would anybody like to re-review http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/scantailor - an interactive post-processing tool for scanned books (c++/qt/cmake/cdbs) :)
[05:16] <fabrice_sp> artfwo, you should ping nellery so that he checks the fix, and if he gives you the advocation, ping again vorian ;-)
[05:17] <fabrice_sp> you already have one advocation ;-)
[05:17] <artfwo> but it's gone, because I've reuploaded the package
[05:18] <artfwo> nellery, could you please re-check the fix for scantailor?
[05:19] <fabrice_sp> by the way, you alread had 2 advocations, and it got uploaded. What happened?
[05:19] <fabrice_sp> Got rejected by archive admin?
[05:19] <artfwo> well, it got rejected from the archive, because there was a CC-icon compiled into GPL binary
[05:20] <fabrice_sp> ahh  ok
[05:20] <artfwo> I have replaced it and the change was also accepted upstream
[05:20] <artfwo> so there should be no licensing issues anymore (I hope)
[05:23] <fabrice_sp> artfwo, as james_w` and nixternal_ already gave you an advocation, perhaps you could check with them if they are still willing to advocate the package
[05:24] <artfwo> oh, I thought it's not okay to ping you guys individually in such a case
[05:25] <fabrice_sp> well, if they already gave you an advocation, you can just ask them if they are  still willing to advocate it again. But as it was in march....
[05:26] <artfwo> james_w`, nixternal_ would you like to advocate http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/scantailor once again, hmm?
[05:32] <nellery> artfwo: I'll take a look again
[05:32] <artfwo> thanks!
[05:38] <nellery> artfwo: ah, found another missing copyright
[05:38] <artfwo> is there?
[05:38] <nellery> artfwo: in imageproc/GaussBlur.cpp
[05:39] <artfwo> oh
[05:39] <artfwo> it uses code from the gimp
[05:40] <AnAnt_> Hello, something wrong with packages.ubuntu.com ?
[05:40] <AnAnt_> also rmadison doesn't seem to work
[05:40] <mrooney> AnAnt_: I was just going to ask how to figure out which version of a package is in Karmic without it, it does seem to be down
[05:41] <AnAnt_> mrooney: there's a tool called rmadison
[05:41] <nellery> artfwo: and the google copyright is missing some years
[05:41] <AnAnt_> mrooney: rmadison <package name>
[05:41] <AnAnt_> mrooney: yet it doesn't seem to be working either
[05:42] <artfwo> nellery, is it okay, to just extend the copyright line to "2006-2008"?
[05:42] <nellery> mrooney: www.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/<packagename> should work
[05:42] <nellery> artfwo: I don't see a 2007
[05:43] <nellery> so I think 2006, 2008 would be better
[05:43] <artfwo> okay
[05:43] <AnAnt_> nellery: ah, thanks
[05:43] <nellery> artfwo: crash_reporter/google-breakpad/processor/scoped_ptr.h has a few missing
[05:44] <nellery> and that's all I found missing
[05:45] <artfwo> do you think, anything else besides copyright requires fixing?
[05:46] <nellery> artfwo: not that I can see
[05:46] <nellery> still need to test it out a bit
[05:50] <dholbach> good morning
[05:50] <mrooney> nellery: thanks :)
[05:50] <mrooney> dholbach: good morning!
[05:50] <dholbach> ih mrooney
[05:50] <nellery> hey dholbach!
[05:51] <dholbach> hiya nellery
[05:57] <fabrice_sp> Hey! Good morning dholbach :-)
[05:58] <dholbach> hey fabrice_sp
[06:02] <artfwo> nellery, do you mind re-reviewing scantailor? I have just reuploaded with an updated copyright
[06:02] <nellery> artfwo: yup
[06:08] <nellery> artfwo: looks good
[06:08] <nellery> ack from me
[06:09] <artfwo> thanks!
[06:09] <ScottK> nellery: One ack for a re-upload is enough.
[06:09] <nellery> ScottK: ok
[06:09] <nellery> artfwo: I'll upload it then
[06:10] <artfwo> can I track the status of the upload somehow?
[06:10] <nellery> artfwo: once it's uploaded you'll see it at http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+queue
[06:11] <artfwo> okay, will check it out then
[06:18] <ScottK> StevenK: Any feelings on if a 26.5MB package that is just a packaged PDF doc that's built as an arch any package is worth a reject from Binary New with a note "Please may arch all"?
[06:20] <lifeless> insanity is insane
[06:31] <nellery> artfwo: it's at https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+queue now
[06:33] <artfwo> wow, that was fast
[06:56] <StevenK> ScottK: Err, yeah, that needs to be killed.
[06:57] <ScottK> StevenK: It's  simplecommeubuntu.  Feel free to reject it or I will after I sleep.
[07:20] <doctormo> ScottK: are you saying there is a pdf which is 25MB in a package? shouldn't the source be in there instead if it really must be a package?
[07:22] <fabrice_sp> doctormo, ScottK is speaking about a binary package, not a source package
[07:30] <doctormo> I see
[07:51] <hyperair> who broke cups-pdf? it now prints blank pages!
[07:52] <hyperair> hmm cups-pdf didn't change recently, so it must have been one of its dependencies..
[07:53] <hyperair> or maybe it's cups itself.
[07:59] <hyperair> hmm https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ghostscript/+bug/410556
[12:32] <YokoZar> ScottK: mind if I poke you ~ the R packages a bit?
[12:33] <YokoZar> I'm curious if there's still any left to sync from Debian
[12:33]  * directhex recompiles YokoZar using ICC
[12:36] <apw> anyone know when the next motu council meeting should be?  the documentation variously says every 2 weeks and also specifies the 2nd friday and 4th friday, yet there was one last week and that is still marked as the 'next' one ... confusing
[12:49] <geser> apw: oh, good question, will ask the other MC members and update the page accordingly
[12:49] <apw> geser, thanks
[13:10] <ScottK> YokoZar: I think it's done. There were some in New it might be worth syncing if they get out in time.
[13:12] <YokoZar> directhex: sorry I generate valgrind errors unless you're using gcc
[13:12] <directhex> curses!
[13:13] <directhex> i built mono with icc once. benchmarks were about 10% faster, except for one test which was 700% slower
[13:20] <geser> apw: in theory the next MC meeting should be this Friday but if you planned to send an application you're late for this meeting. The meeting after that one is Thu, August 27th
[13:22] <apw> geser, think there is any chance of sneaking onto the friday one, gonna be away for the next one
[13:24] <apw> it would be hard for anyone to apply in time as the date wasn't clear till today
[13:24] <apw> and indeed as was demonstrated by the last one, you can't use the algorithm to predict it :/
[13:25] <geser> apw: the last one was made as the one before that did not happen
[13:27] <geser> as we usually want at least one week to have time to review an application it will be unlikely in time for this week (and I don't know yet if this friday will happen, waiting on answers)
[13:27] <apw> well the simple solution for me is to just list the dates i can do and they can tell me which works
[13:28] <apw> life is too short to try and second guess
[14:07] <apw> geser, do you know who moderates the email lists?
[14:07] <apw> (motu ones)
[14:10] <geser> the MC but only motu-council is moderated IIRC
[14:23] <apw> hrm perhaps i am stupdi
[14:25] <apw> geser, hrm, that is the one they ask you to email
[14:26] <Laney> apw: your mail got through
[14:26] <Laney> I don't think m-c is moderated
[14:26] <Laney> at least i've never seen a moderation mail when posting there
[14:26] <apw> it emailed me to say so :)
[14:26] <apw> but if its through i can go back to sleep
[14:27] <geser> Laney: it is: "Motu-council post from apw@canonical.com requires approval" but it also got moderated already
[14:27] <Laney> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2009-August/002177.html
[14:27] <Laney> you can check there
[14:28] <apw> sorry for the noise ...
[14:28] <Laney> maybe it's just unmoderated for subscribers
[14:28] <geser> that might be
[14:33] <Ng> --help
[14:39]  * Laney eyes Ng 
[14:39] <Ng> I failed at using irssi's help
[15:26]  * slytherin wonders why netbeans would crash thunderbird
[15:55] <ScottK> Apparently because it can.
[18:46] <stochastic> does anyone have time to REVU any of these packages: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/xwax       http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/a2jmidid      http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/xjadeo        http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/slv2        and it's not mine but I'd really like to see it get included: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/pyphat
[19:24] <doctormo> Where is the best place to talk about the deps when installing avahi?
[19:42] <RoAkSoAx> cjwatson, grub-installer does not unhide the menu if other operating systems are installed
[19:42] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: I thought I just fixed that today
[19:43] <RoAkSoAx> cjwatson, I just upgraded grub and it does boot directly into Ubuntu and I have windows vista on one machine installed, and in other machine windows XP
[19:43] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: if you upgraded grub, grub-installer is not involved
[19:43] <RoAkSoAx> and in both, it boots directly into UBuntu without unhiding the menu
[19:44] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: you need to do a bit of manual reconfiguration if you've been upgrading through karmic, I'm afraid. I'll post to ubuntu-devel-announce about it
[19:44] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: basically edit /etc/default/grub, comment out GRUB_HIDDEN_TIMEOUT, and set GRUB_TIMEOUT=10 (or whatever), then sudo update-grub
[19:45] <RoAkSoAx> cjwatson, ok will do. Though I just have to tell that before todays update it was working properly :)
[19:46] <cjwatson> yes, I'm aware of that. I couldn't think of a particularly reasonable way to do the upgrade automatically.
[19:46] <cjwatson> (why on earth are you reporting bugs on #ubuntu-motu, BTW?)
[19:46] <RoAkSoAx> cjwatson, I just wanted let you know, since you did the last update :S
[19:48] <RoAkSoAx> and thanks for the fix :)
[19:50] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: right, better to use the bug tracking system in future though please - anyway, the jaunty->karmic case is what's important, which is bug 386789 and I'll edit the bug to make that explicit
[20:04] <RoAkSoAx> cjwatson, btw I did not upgrade from jaunty, I just updated karmic. I've reported the bug here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/411584
[20:04] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: I understand that
[20:05] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: my statement is that I care much more about jaunty->karmic upgrades than about karmic->karmic upgrades
[20:05] <RoAkSoAx> cjwatson, oh I misunderstood then :)
[20:05] <cjwatson> RoAkSoAx: and if making the former behave correctly involves sacrificing the latter for the moment, I'll do that
[20:06] <RoAkSoAx> cjwatson, I understand. I just misunderstood :). Anyways, the bug is reported. Thanks again for the fix.
[20:41] <mrooney> Is there a way to search installed packages by install date? Like packages I installed since Friday?
[20:46] <ScottK> mrooney: For dates that recently /var/log/dpkg.log* should know.
[20:52] <garyvdm> Hi - I did a uscan, and then deleted that file it download. Now I'm getting this error: http://paste.ubuntu.com/251009/ How do I resolve this?
[20:53] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: remove the qbzr-1.13(.orig) directory
[20:53]  * garyvdm tries
[20:55] <garyvdm> Ampelbein: Thanks - that solve that problem. Now I'm getting another error, but let me try solve it my self first.
[21:14] <garyvdm> Ok - I updated bzr-builddeb. Now I get this error: http://paste.ubuntu.com/251025/
[21:14] <garyvdm> uscan in the parent dir works.
[21:16] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: there is no 0.13 tarball at the specified location.
[21:16] <Ampelbein> https://edge.launchpad.net/qbzr/+download has a 1.13 tarball though, is that it?
[21:17] <garyvdm> yes - and uscan had all ready successfully downloaded it.
[21:18] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: in your debian/changelog, the topmost entry must have the version 1.13 . can you confirm?
[21:18] <garyvdm> Yes . Give me a sec, and I will paste it.
[21:18] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: your uscan now looks for version 0.13 which doesn't exist.
[21:19] <garyvdm> Top of changelog: http://paste.ubuntu.com/251029/
[21:20] <garyvdm> Ampelbein: I ran uscan, and it downloaded 0.13
[21:21] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: no it didn't, see your previous paste http://paste.ubuntu.com/251009/ (last line)
[21:21] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: it tried downloading 1.13
[21:22] <garyvdm> Thats what I can understand. I got that error when I ran bzr bd, but not when I ran uscan.
[21:22] <garyvdm> *can't
[21:23] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: uscan looks for the latest upstream version, which is 1.13
[21:24] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: bzr bd looks at debian/changelog and looks for that version, in your case 0.13
[21:24] <garyvdm> oops
[21:24] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: and that version does not have a tarball for download
[21:25] <garyvdm> Ampelbein: 1.13 should be 0.13 - Silly me
[21:25] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: seems to be a release problem from the authors  of qbzr though. they claim it's 0.13 but the tarball is named 1.13
[21:25] <garyvdm> That would be my mistake.
[21:33] <garyvdm> Ampelbein: Thanks for the help. All working now :-)
[21:33] <Ampelbein> garyvdm: you're welcome.
[23:07] <jtimberman> Hello. How can I delete a package? I'd like a sync from Debian NEW rather than the package I uploaded to REVU? Package: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/merb
[23:08] <jtimberman> sync request is : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/411536
[23:09] <jtimberman> yes that.
[23:09] <RainCT> jtimberman: I've archived the package on REVU.
[23:09] <RainCT> jtimberman: has the pacakge already gone through NEW though?
[23:09] <hggdh> loic-m, things seem to have gone bad. I am sorry about that (got busy here), and I would like to keep on the discussion
[23:10] <jtimberman> RainCT: Its in NEW, which is backlogged.
[23:10] <jtimberman> so its not uploaded to any debian repos
[23:10] <loic-m> hggdh: yes, my head is a bit hurting atm though ;)
[23:11] <RainCT> jtimberman: I don't think we do syncs from the NEW queue
[23:11] <hggdh> later, loic-m  ;-) now it is not the time (and I have to pack and get to my hotel
[23:11] <loic-m> And my wife is looking at me reproachfully
[23:11] <hggdh> LOL
[23:11] <hggdh> we'll talk later
[23:11] <jtimberman> RainCT: Ah, I misunderstood.
[23:11] <loic-m> hggdh: I'll be AFK for 2 weeks, had to start today but will start 2morrow AFAIK if weather gets better ;)
[23:11] <hggdh> brb
[23:11] <loic-m> ping me in 2 weeks
[23:12] <loic-m> nitey nite
[23:12] <hggdh> loic-m, will do, thanks for the patience
[23:12] <directhex> NEW is write-only
[23:12] <loic-m> np
[23:35] <jtimberman> So I understand, for packages that are in only Debian NEW and not in a Debian APT repo: Should I open launchpad tickets as [needs-packaging], and upload the packages I'm working with to REVU?