[00:03] asac, http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/plasma-mobile [00:03] asac, i just uploaded [00:04] rbelem: check the big warnings ;) [00:04] Warnings / Notices [00:04] those should definitly be fixed [00:05] for maintainer, maybe run update-maintainer [00:05] with some luck it does the right thing [00:06] e.g. adds current maintainer as XSBC-Original-Maintainer [00:06] asac, ok [00:06] and uses ubuntu-devel-discuss or something in Maintainer [00:06] also fix changelog bug number ;) [00:06] open a bug if you havent [00:06] asac, cool! [00:06] thanks asac [00:08] not sure, but is the copyright format really dep-5? [00:08] +Files: ./shell/mobcorona.cpp: LGPL (v2 or later) [00:08] + ./shell/mobcorona.h: LGPL (v2 or later) [00:08] + ./shell/plasmaapp.cpp: LGPL (v2 or later) [00:08] i think that should be more: [00:09] Files: ./shell/mobcorona.cpp, ./shell/mobcorona.h, ./shell/plasmaapp.cpp, [00:09] License: LGPL (v2 or later) [00:09] Copyright: ... [00:09] also it the entries are comma separated [00:09] so dont do 2007, Copyright ... [00:09] asac, can i use "Ubuntu MOTU Developers " in maintainer field? [00:09] rather (C) 2007 - Company X, (C) 2008 - Person B etc. [00:10] rbelem: we dont use that anymore [00:10] just Ubuntu Developers [00:10] asac, cool! [00:10] (as the MOTU/MAIN split will go away eventually) [00:11] i will copyright too [00:11] yes [00:12] persia warned me about that, but i did'n t pay attention :-( [00:13] dumped those comments to revu [00:13] heh [00:13] :-) [00:15] rbelem: any reason you have debhelper (>= 7.3.16~) and quilt (>= 0.46-7~) ? [00:15] e.g. those specific versions [00:15] if not, just drop that [00:15] asac, ok [00:15] e.g. (>= 7) ... and just quilt [00:16] rbelem: or why did you choose those? [00:16] i mean ... could be they are required for something like --with-kde [00:16] just wonder [00:16] asac, just added [00:16] if thats intentional [00:16] ah ok [00:16] ok ... if you didnt do that intentional then its probably like i said [00:16] ok [00:17] :-) [00:22] Um, we need those minimum versions of debhelper and quilt. [00:23] Earlier versions of quilt don't have --with quilt, and earlier versions of debhelper have a bug with --with kde and the version of pkg-kde-tools we're using. [00:23] persia: thas why i made that comment conditional [00:24] 01:16 < asac> ok ... if you didnt do that intentional then its probably like i said [00:24] -> intentional includes: persia told to use those versions ;) [00:24] Right. Just wanted to provide data :) [00:24] reminder: help linux by using older stuff ;) [00:25] Except the new stuff is extra cool :) [00:25] debhelper is not even fulfillable by karmic ;) [00:25] Plus, #kubuntu-devel told us to use --with kde which blocks karmic backports anyway. [00:26] yeah. i should out more there ;) [00:27] but probably the misery starts in #kde-devel [00:27] e.g. the upstream code most likely requires all the latest anyway ;) [00:27] s/out/hang out/ [00:28] Well, it depends, but yeah, there's usually requirements of some sort. [00:33] persia: did this lib-test ppa thing work out for you ? or do you need something there still? [00:33] probably -arm ;) [00:33] heh. :) [00:33] But doesn't matter. I'm set, just behind. [00:33] ok [00:33] Should be there before the meeting. [00:34] irc? [00:34] that would be great [00:53] asac, persia, i'm getting a launchpad error when submitting the bug :-( [00:54] rbelem: What sort of error? [00:54] try again [00:54] launchpad is sometimes instable [00:54] ;) [00:54] sometimes? [00:54] no comment [00:54] :-P [00:55] oops! Sorry, something just went wrong in Launchpad. Error ID: OOPS-1486F57 [00:55] https://lp-oops.canonical.com/oops.py/?oopsid=1486F57 [00:55] And we now end yet another episode of "asac plays it safe" as our hero has yet again escaped the temptations of fate :) [00:56] hehe [00:56] :-) [00:56] rbelem: Yeah, that's not very informative :) Maybe a timeout (those have been happening a lot). Sometimes you can get detailed explanations from #launchpad, but often it's not worth it unless you can't do it after several tries. [00:56] launchpad isnt that bad ... assume we would work with bugzilla, cvs and forums ;) [00:56] ehehe [00:56] or sourceforge ;) [00:56] Well, forums are active, and we used to use bugzilla ... [00:57] But I think, even in the beginning, we would have at least used svn, if any VCS. [00:58] do you know if launchpad will support git? [00:58] :-) [00:58] Not for at least some time, and it may not be activated at launchpad.net, even if implemented. [00:58] (this is a common question on #launchpad) [00:59] :-) [01:06] * rbelem kicks launchpad [01:07] damn! [01:08] i will try again in some hours [01:17] asac: (C) doesn't mean anything: one needs to use © or spell out "Copyright" [01:23] yes [01:23] but its ok ;) [01:24] i think often its used both [01:38] persia, http://paste.ubuntu.com/362296/ [01:39] persia, can you check if debian/copyright is ok? [01:39] :-) [01:41] the copyright still has comma to separte year from holder [01:41] but comma is used to split copyright blocks [01:43] ah ok :-) [01:45] hmm. seems you were right [01:45] asac, but in this link http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ [01:45] :-) [01:45] strange format [01:45] ehehehe [01:46] so copyright requires new lines for separating blocks it seems [01:46] * rbelem kicks launchpad again [01:46] yep [01:54] asac, do i need to bump version before upload to revu? [02:00] not sure. [02:00] i dont think so, but persia will know [02:03] i would probably just try same version [02:03] and see how that goes [02:16] asac, http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/plasma-mobile [02:16] asac, what can i do with the last warning? [02:19] rbelem: the licenes blocks need to have a reference to the full license [02:19] if they are in /usr/share/common-license you can say something like this: [02:20] "on an ubuntu/debian system, the GPL-2 license can be found in /usr/share/common/...." [02:20] e.g. appe nd that to each of the current license blocks [02:20] cool! [02:20] and the LP bug is probably in the changelog [02:20] :-) [02:21] so replace that number with a proper bug id in lp [02:21] or drop it [02:21] ok [02:22] For debian/copyright, it's often considered good it identify the current upstream (with Maintainer: in the first paragraph), in case anyone wants to contact them. [02:23] (otherwise people spam all the copyright holders) [02:32] persia, it still complaining about the copyright [02:32] asac, ^ [02:32] * persia checks [02:32] :-) [02:32] I'm just running a build now to also check the binary. [02:34] rbelem: What's complaining about copyright? [02:35] persia, The GNU General Public License is mentioned in debian/copyright but there seems to be no copy of it included in the source tarball, which is a requirement for it. (Note: The file may be there but have an uncommon name; please double-check before trusting this warning). [02:36] Oh, right. Given that upstream doesn't ship a tarball, just copy it in from /usr/share/common-licenses in get-orig-source [02:36] But tell upstream to stick a copy in the VCS for when they do make a tarball. [02:36] You'll need copies of both the GPL and LGPL (as will upstream). [02:37] persia, cool! :-) [02:37] persia, they should be in separated files? [02:37] Mind you, it's really supposed to come from upstream, but I think the intent is clear, and there isn't an upstream tarball anyway. [02:37] Yes. I'd probably stick them in files called GPL and LGPL, but practices vary. [02:39] something like LICENSE.GPL [02:39] ? [02:39] If you like. Doesn't really matter, as long as it's obvious to someone who gets the tarball. [02:39] Remember that it's perfectly possible to download a tarball from the archive without running (or using) Ubuntu, so there's a chance the user doesn't have a copy of the licenses. [02:39] cool [02:41] persia, i'm going to bed now [02:42] OK. I'll update get-orig-source for the licenses, and fix anything I find from the binary and upload to REVU again. [02:42] Sleep well. [02:42] persia, launchpad bug submit is not working, so i did not fill a bug [02:43] thanks persia [02:43] :-) [02:43] I'll try to file one later then. [02:44] s/fill/file :-D [02:44] ok [02:44] thank persia asac [02:45] * rbelem leaves [10:10] hmm. seems i cant log into my irc gateway :/ [10:10] anything important happened here? [10:22] Mostly joins/parts since you last posted [10:32] ok [13:24] persia, ping [13:24] Erm. [13:24] eheheh [13:25] persia, did you filed the bug? [13:25] s/filed/file/ [13:25] I didn't. I've been trying to sort out how plasma-mobile actually works (as opposed to just how it's packaged), and got distracted by a couple things over the course of the day. [13:25] * persia files a quick bug now [13:26] eheeh [13:26] Some of the messages that I'm seeing from lintian on the binary package aren't making much sense to me. [13:26] And I'm not sure about others (like whether we need symbols for stuff in /usr/lib/kde4) [13:27] persia, i think the same [13:27] Some of the stuff, like binary-without-manpage and copyright-should-refer-to-common-license-file-for-gpl are easy. [13:27] But I don't have the feeling this is a library. [13:28] And I'm not quite sure what we need to do to make sure the package understands that. [13:29] persia, what do you think is better to me pick to do? [13:30] persia, those changes to kdebase? [13:31] rbelem: Yeah, keep chasing kdm-mobile. [13:31] persia, cool! [13:31] I'll focus more on plasma-mobile, and see if I can come to a decision about a sane way to work around this. [13:31] bug #512319 [13:31] Launchpad bug 512319 in ubuntu "Please package plasma-mobile" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/512319 [13:31] cool! :-) [13:32] rbelem: What's your LP ID? [13:32] persia, rbelem [13:32] :-) [13:32] Bug triaged :) [13:33] thanks persia :-) === roobiew_ is now known as robbiew