[04:41] <fabrice_sp> Hi. As a MOTU, I can upload to -proposed?
[04:47] <fabrice_sp> Argh, it seems so, and I didn't uploaded the right one :-/ Can some archive admin reject jmagick 6.2.6-0-4ubuntu2?
[04:47] <ScottK> Sure
[04:48] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: Done
[04:48] <fabrice_sp> thanks :-)
[04:48] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: You can upload, but you need a motu-sru ack before it gets accepted.
[04:50] <fabrice_sp> ok. I opened a bug report, like a 'normal' SRU, just in case, so it's ok. Should have looked at non installable packages before final freeze :-/
[04:50] <ScottK> We got a lot done in the last few days.
[04:52] <fabrice_sp> sure :-) I still remember the more than 1000 packages that FTBFS not so long ago. Down to 538 now, so not that bad
[04:57] <mdomsch> fabrice_sp, we got fedora 12 down to about 30 FTBFS
[04:58] <ScottK> mdomsch: Very impressive.
[04:58] <ScottK> I saw your blog post about that.
[04:58] <mdomsch> credit to debian for the concept
[05:02] <ScottK> mdomsch: One thing that's kind of interesting is if you look at http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/ftbfs/ you see 389 FTBFS in the archive, but if you look at http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~wgrant/rebuild-ftbfs-test/test-rebuild-20090909-karmic.html from a test rebuild, you find 585.
[05:03] <ScottK> So we have a lot of binaries that we could't build today if we needed to.  This worries me.
[05:16]  * fabrice_sp has a plane to catch. Bye!
[05:20] <micahg> ScottK: I found a request to package something I want in debian, but no one seems to be working on it, can/should I file a bug in LP and mark debian upstream bug and try to get the package in debian?
[05:20] <ScottK> micahg: Yes.
[05:20] <ScottK> Tag the Ubuntu bug 'needs-packaging'.
[05:22] <micahg> also, since I want to work on it, should I assign to myself?  I don't think I'll get to it for a couple months though
[05:23] <ScottK> Yes.
[05:23] <ScottK> Do keep in mind when Lucid feature freeze is.
[05:23] <micahg> ok
[05:25] <lifeless> I wouldn't assign it if you aren't going to touch it for months
[05:25] <lifeless> leave it unassigned until you start on it
[05:26] <lifeless> its more accurate
[05:26] <ScottK> True.
[05:26] <ScottK> Maybe a comment you intend to do it.
[05:27] <micahg> ok
[05:32] <porthose> micahg, you may want to check the BTS for an ITP bug to see if anyone in debian is working on it and if not open one :)
[07:05] <dholbach> good morning
[07:11] <SevenMachines> morning
[12:30] <ScottK> Anyone around that can change the topic?
[12:35] <dholbach> ScottK: can you tell me what you want in there?
[12:35] <ScottK> dholbach: Something about Karmic being frozen solid and work on SRUs.
[12:36] <dholbach> ScottK: better? :)
[12:36] <ScottK> Thanks.
[12:36] <ScottK> Yes
[12:36] <dholbach> alrightiy
[12:41] <Laney> can't we have -t?
[12:43] <aboudreault> Should a html demo be in /usr/share/doc/packageX/examples/ or in /usr/share/packageX/examples ?
[12:44]  * Laney cuddles jpds
[12:47] <Laney> aboudreault: use dh_installexamples
[12:48] <aboudreault> ha, and everything will be done automagically
[13:33] <aboudreault> Can we pu directly a tar.gz in the debian/ directory? or we have to uuencode it?
[13:37] <slytherin> aboudreault: why do you want to do that?
[13:38] <aboudreault> to add a demo in the doc package
[13:44] <slangasek> aboudreault: you don't really want to do that; the debian/ directory is going to be gzipped again to create a .diff.gz - you should include files individually instead
[13:44] <slangasek> (and if they're binary files, uuencode them, yes)
[13:46] <aboudreault> ok, just wanted to be sure that I needed to uuencode them. thx
[13:46] <ScottK> jdong or cody-somerville: Would one of you please ack Bug #462619
[13:53] <jdong> ScottK: you're acked
[13:53] <ScottK> jdong: Thanks.
[13:53] <jdong> sure thing
[13:55] <sebner> huhu bddebian
[13:55] <sebner> mighty ScottK ^^
[13:58] <bddebian> Heya gang
[13:58] <bddebian> Hi sebner
[13:59] <ScottK> sebner: If you never make a mistake, then you aren't doing much.
[14:00] <sebner> ScottK: oh, no. I wasn't talking about pyproj but about all the attention you got because of my mail (Of course the other -release guys deserve that too) :)
[14:00] <ScottK> sebner: Ah, OK.
[14:01] <ScottK> It was a lot since I was offline all day yesterday, so I got them all together in the evening.
[14:01] <sebner> hihi
[14:03] <slytherin> aboudreault: What kind of demos are you including?
[14:03] <aboudreault> a html demo for an application, cgi.
[14:04] <slytherin> aboudreault: then it is not a binary file, is it?
[14:05] <aboudreault> yes there are. the html demo needs data
[14:06] <slytherin> what kind of data? you mean images?
[14:06] <aboudreault> images + gis data
[14:15] <hyperair> sebner: nice coverup ;-)
[14:16] <sebner> hyperair: haha, it's windows .. :P
[14:16] <hyperair> xD
[14:17] <sebner> hyperair: I should avoid the ML now or else I'll get banned or a joke or something like that xD
[14:17] <hyperair> =p
[14:41] <aboudreault> so dh_compress will compress examples too.
[14:42] <Laney> yes
[14:42] <aboudreault> Do we always need to specify explicitly what we don't want compressed manually? Shouldn't dh_installexamples take care of that?
[14:42] <Laney> you can exclude files from compression though
[14:43] <aboudreault> Is that argument is legal? -Xexamples/demo1 ?
[14:44] <Laney> try it and see
[14:44] <Laney> maybe just demo1
[14:45] <aboudreault> k
[16:34] <joaopinto> why don't we have chromium on universe, stability concerns ?
[16:36] <ScottK> joaopinto: Bazillions of lines of dupilcated code.
[16:36] <ScottK> Chromium embedds a copy of every single library it uses.
[16:37] <joaopinto> that's a reject reason ?
[16:37] <joaopinto> we have several packages with their own zlib copies :)
[16:41] <Laney> it's a maintenance nightmare
[16:41] <ScottK> joaopinto: It depends.  It's a reject reason, but it's not an absolute.   We'd like to have those packages use system libraries when we can.
[16:42] <ScottK> chromium would be more than a million lines of duplicated code.  No way.
[16:43] <joaopinto> I am not sure how that improves security from an end user perspective, which will get it frm the ppa
[16:43] <cemc> o/ there is a clusterssh package, with some problems, see LP #429607. If I try the laster package from Karmic (which doesn't have that problem) can I backport it? how?
[16:44] <ScottK> PPA can easily be updated to a new release and if there are regressions, there are regressions.
[16:44] <aboudreault> If I have a html demo in /usr/share ... but it needs to be modified to work by the user.. what would be the approach ? I think the user is not supposed to modify the file there, right?
[16:45] <sistpoty|work> actually we do have chromium (src:chromium-bsu)
[16:48] <sebner> hihi sistpoty|work
[16:48] <sistpoty|work> hi sebner
[17:14] <ScottK> sistpoty|work: Different chromium (but I think you knew that)
[17:15] <sistpoty|work> ScottK: it is? I've thought of the game...
[17:15] <ScottK> I think we were talking about the web browser
[17:15] <ScottK> I was anyway
[17:16] <sebner> sistpoty|work just thinks about games :P
[17:16] <sistpoty|work> haha, didn't knew there is a web-browser called chromium *g*
[17:16] <sistpoty|work> didn't know even
[17:16] <sebner> xD
[17:23] <kees> ScottK: hah! just read your blog about the lost bag.  that _rocks_
[17:23] <kees> (well, not that it was lost, but that ubuntu rocks)  :)
[17:23] <ScottK> kees: United can't buy publicity like that.
[17:24] <kees> hehe
[17:24] <kees> did you have to ship it, or did United end up footing the bill for the return?
[17:24] <ScottK> We had to ship it.
[17:24]  * kees nods
[17:24] <ScottK> United said not their problem.
[17:24] <kees> and in their main hub, too.  sheesh
[17:25] <ScottK> Unlike the guy in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo&feature=player_embedded I wasn't going to spend 9 months calling and complaining.
[17:25] <kees> hehe
[17:26] <ScottK> It's been years since I was willing to fly them because they were always cancelling flights on me with no notice, so I figured I'd give them another chance.
[17:27] <kees> yeah, I've been pretty unimpressed with United.  that said, I haven't really had _good_ experiences with many US carriers.  Probably the most fun I've had has been with Southwest; their staff tend to be a lot of fun, even if the cabin is cramped.
[17:31] <ScottK> I'm a big fan of Southwest. Jet Blue is pretty good too.
[18:38] <cemc> is there a problem with keyserver.ubuntu.com? I'm trying to apt-key my PPA key and it's just sitting there
[18:38] <cemc> heh, never mind, it just moved
[19:11] <sebner> mok0: of course I said self-hugging :P
[19:55] <kees> ScottK: hrm, I've never done this in universe before, but I need to do an SRU of new upstream release (now in Debian) as the prior release totally fails due to new Perl library APIs.  Should I just wait for Lucid to open, sync, and then do an upload based on that?
[19:58] <jdong> *puts on SRU hat*
[19:59] <jdong> we should  SRU Karmic without waiting for Lucid IMO
[19:59] <jdong> I'm not sure how sync+SRU would work in this particular case; my gut feeling would just be to prepare a SRU versioned upload based on the new debian release
[20:01] <RainCT> isn't this (not waiting) what has always been done?
[20:01] <Laney> this is a difficult case with respect to versioning
[20:01] <jdong> RainCT: correct
[20:01] <jdong> RainCT: but in this case, the oddball part is sync-new-version-from-debian
[20:02] <Laney> what about a backports style version?
[20:02] <jdong> I think -1ubuntu0.1 would work just fine versioning.
[20:02] <jdong> that's not a huge concern
[20:02] <jdong> well
[20:02] <Laney> that's greater than -1
[20:02] <Laney> ~ubuntu0.1
[20:02] <jdong> are there no Ubuntu changes?
[20:03]  * jdong doesn't even know which package is in question :)
[20:03] <Laney> the rule is usually "don't forget about the next release", right?
[20:03] <Laney> and a straight (auto)sync would cover that
[20:03] <micahg> why not treat it like when we get a higher upstream but want to insure sync..-0ubuntu1?
[20:09] <soren> kees: You could SRU it into Karmic and ask for it to be pocket-copied to Lucid?
[20:11] <kees> soren: can we sync to karmic-updates directly?
[20:11] <soren> kees: Well... karmic-proposed, I suppose.
[20:12] <kees> ah
[20:12] <soren> kees: I don't see any technical reason why we couldn't other than perhaps the tools the AA's use to do it may not have an option for it.
[20:12]  * kees files a bug
[20:38] <ScottK> We'll want that for Lucid anyway.
[20:39] <ajmitch> I'm guessing it'll be a week or so until lucid is open for uploads?
[20:44] <JontheEchidna> generally a week or two, yeah
[20:46] <slangasek> shouldn't be an "or two", given that the toolchain is being kept conservative for LTS
[20:49] <ajmitch> I wasn't sure what "toolchain conservatively uploaded" meant - whether that meant it could be later, or just few changes
[20:49] <JontheEchidna> oh, that's nice to hear :)
[20:50] <ajmitch> I see that the LTS page states that we'll be syncing from debian testing this time round, rather than unstable
[21:42] <saml> what's motu?
[21:42] <saml> message of today?
[21:42] <saml> unicorn
[21:42] <jpds> !motu | saml
[21:42] <saml> motu has digital performer
[21:42] <saml> oh i see
[21:43] <dtchen> heh, not *that* Motu.
[22:07] <chunknuts> doesn't syncing from testing for the LTS (instead of unstable) mean that some of the packages in Karmic will be newer than some of the packages in Lucid?
[22:09] <soren> chunknuts: In those cases, we'll stick with what we've got.
[22:09] <micahg> is that policy final?
[22:10] <chunknuts> ahhhh i c -- smart move
[22:10] <chunknuts> no sense in going backwards
[22:10] <chunknuts> thanks soren!