[01:03] <rachaelb> hi joshuahoover :)
[01:08] <CardinalFang> rachaelb, others are listening too.
[01:09] <rachaelb> hi cardinalfang
[01:09] <rachaelb> sorry - was writing an email
[01:09] <rachaelb> lol
[01:09] <rachaelb> i have an observation/bug for you
[01:10] <rachaelb> ive been subscribing to ubuntuone on principle
[01:10] <rachaelb> but last month my credit card wasnt debited when the account was up for renewal
[01:10] <CardinalFang> Er, okay.  We like bug reports.  We like you reporting them on launchpad.net more, but we'll take them here.
[01:10] <rachaelb> which is problem (a)
[01:10] <CardinalFang> Huh.
[01:11] <rachaelb> problem (b) i didnt get an email telling me this
[01:11] <rachaelb> problem (c) my account was therefore downgraded to the freebie 2g account
[01:11] <rachaelb> problem (d) (maybe) if id have had more than 2g of data would I have lost it?
[01:11] <CardinalFang> Er, don't invent problems with "d".  :)(
[01:12] <rachaelb> thought id better bring this to someones attention
[01:12] <CardinalFang> Yes indeed.
[01:12] <rachaelb> oh go one... let me invent problems... i love hypotheticals!
[01:13] <CardinalFang> I happen to have someone across from me right now.
[01:13] <rachaelb> lucky you!
[01:13] <rachaelb> is he good looking? single?? straight???
[01:14] <CardinalFang> ...  Sadly, we're both straight.
[01:14] <rachaelb> why sadly? works for me :)
[01:14] <rachaelb> anyway back to the subject in hand lol
[01:15] <CardinalFang> Okay, he says you should go to the one.u.c web page and find "account assistance" and tell us about the problem there, and the right people will see it.
[01:15] <rachaelb> okey-dokes no problem... i didnt think this was a launchpad kinda thing which is why i thought id raise the issue here
[01:16] <CardinalFang> (Several of us are on a development sprint, in the same city, so I would never get to yell at him directly.  It's your lucky day, rachaelb.)
[01:16] <CardinalFang> ^so^and normally
[01:17] <rachaelb> does "development sprint" involve the consumption of vast amounts of alcohol?
[01:17] <CardinalFang> Indeed it does.
[01:17] <rachaelb> :-D
[01:17] <rachaelb> dammmm.... im gonna become a full time geekette then!
[01:17] <CardinalFang> We're in Portland OR, too, which has excellent variation of beers.
[01:18] <rachaelb> Portland... you mean the place where people live when the cant afford california?
[01:18] <CardinalFang> I suppose.  I'm just visiting.
[01:18] <rachaelb> lol
[01:18] <rachaelb> very diplomatic
[01:19] <CardinalFang> I've only been in north-y california, so far.
[01:20] <rachaelb> ah-ha... youre a euro?
[01:20] <CardinalFang> Between San Francisco and Portland, I don't know I would pick SF over P anyway, independent of cost.
[01:20] <CardinalFang> No, Floridian.
[01:20] <rachaelb> fab
[01:21] <rachaelb> ok well i'll report things on the accounting page as requested... but ive gotta get to bed now cos its 1:20am here... thanks for the caht... see ya again soon :) and good look with the coding marathon
[01:22] <CardinalFang> Thanks.  From here, you'll benefit from arbitrary folder sync, soon.
[01:22] <rachaelb> gooood!
[01:22] <CardinalFang> G'night.
[01:22] <rachaelb> night x
[01:26] <duanedesign> jblount: your mention of preview ideas for one.ubuntu.com/files made me think og the preview implementation in gnome-activity-journal. I think they are headed in a good direction with their preview
[05:10] <tritium> I've had to add the same computer to my account 9 times since 10/31/09, including a few times in the past few days.  What's going on with ubuntu one?
[06:00] <duanedesign> tritium: there was an error that was found  serverside
[06:01] <duanedesign> it has been fixed (yesterday) and measures put in place to detect this kind of thing much faster in the future
[06:01] <duanedesign> also make sure you are running the newer client. ubuntuone-client 1.0.3 or better
[06:02] <duanedesign> tritium: you can check that by running in a Terminal: dpkg -l ubuntuone-client
[06:03] <duanedesign> tritium: if you need to update your client see: https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntuone-client/+faq/930
[06:04] <duanedesign> if you have any further issues please file a bug report in launchpad. Right0click the Ubuntu One applet and select 'Report a Problem'
[13:22] <duanedesign> hello rtgz
[13:22] <rtgz> duanedesign, hi!
[13:22] <duanedesign> :)
[13:23] <rtgz> ACK
[13:24] <duanedesign> rtgz: what was the statur of the Internal Error
[13:24] <rtgz> duanedesign, missing in action. Cannot reproduce anymore :(
[13:25] <duanedesign> ahh
[13:54] <duanedesign> if anyone is going to look at any bugs this morning a couple i was not able to move forward. bug 515071
[13:57] <rtgz> duanedesign, I believe this has to do something with file state watcher (inotify) fails to detect file additions. I had this reproduced once but could not figure the exact sequence to reproduce yet
[13:58] <rtgz> duanedesign, in order to detect this I made a script for bug #488232 - it may be helpful somehow...
[14:01] <duanedesign> rtgz: thank you
[14:51] <rtgz> In case I don't return till 5PM (10 minutes from now), here's my "report"
[14:51] <rtgz> DONE: Investigated tomboy sync problems in bug #501020. Some bug responses.
[14:51] <rtgz> TODO: Scan through recent bug reports and find ones that can be detected via log parsing, update diagnose script.
[14:51] <rtgz> BLOCK: none
[15:00] <jblount> Desktop+ MEETING BEGINS / MEETING STARTS / LETS PASTE OUR STATUS
[15:00] <jblount> Hi folks! To grab a slice of meeting pie please respond with "me". DONE / TODO / BLOCKED is the format.
[15:01] <jblount> me
[15:01] <teknico> me
[15:02] <beuno> me
[15:02] <vds> me
[15:03] <jblount> Nice, we'll let the others chime in when they can:
[15:03] <jblount> DONE: Got start pages functional, sent emails
[15:03] <jblount> TODO: Get start pages into translatable build system thing
[15:03] <jblount> BLOCKED: No sir
[15:03] <jblount> teknico: Go time!
[15:04] <teknico> DONE: more bug triage; one more branch to fix the phone setup web interface, with vds
[15:04] <teknico> TODO: finish fixing the phone setup web interface code; funambol project review; trip to Millbank
[15:04] <teknico> BLOCK: none
[15:04] <teknico> next: beuno
[15:04] <beuno> DONE: Nothing yet!
[15:04] <beuno> TODO: Finish verifying bug 375174 is fixed
[15:04] <beuno> BLOCKED: No
[15:04] <beuno> vds, go
[15:04] <vds> DONE: branch to fix problems with phone numbers on ready to be proposed
[15:04] <vds> so is the branch to update to the new json connector
[15:04] <vds> TODO: review call and sprint
[15:04] <vds> BLOCKED: nope
[15:04] <vds> EOM maybe?
[15:05] <jblount> Yeah, EOM. Anyone who wants to paste should feel free when they can :)
[15:10] <rodrigo_> oh, came late
[15:10] <rodrigo_> • DONE: oauthdesktop usage in music store widget. Bug triaging. Recently used contacts in contacts picker
[15:10] <rodrigo_> • TODO: Conflict resolver tool in pair tool. Make sandy's snowy test suite work with our server (http://git.gnome.org/cgit/snowy/tree/api/tests.py). Discuss with jdo and aquarius about oauth token per app, not per machine? Add jslint tests to check. Remove autosave code in notes web editor. U1 client adds back button to pages. U1 client interrogates library page to update download progress. geoip detection on server to forward to appro
[15:10] <rodrigo_> priate store
[15:10] <rodrigo_> • BLOCKED: no
[15:43] <rtgz> huh? bug #515336 - we are bundling our own verision of glib?
[16:05] <rodrigo_> rtgz, for jaunty, needed by libubuntuone, yeah
[16:05] <rodrigo_> rtgz, I'm waiting for a backtrace to see why it's happening, since it shouldn't, given glib is ABI compatible between karmic and jaunty
[16:07] <rtgz> rodrigo_, need to d/l jaunty ISO to try this...
[16:08] <rodrigo_> cool
[16:08] <rodrigo_> rtgz, please get a backtrace if possible, all the bug reporters haven't attached any
[16:47] <rtgz> rodrigo_, well... Erm... Guest gets kernel panic in KVM after 9.04 installation
[16:47] <rodrigo_> ugh
[17:05]  * rtgz is reinstalling 9.04 w/ regular IDE emulation, w/o virtio...
[19:57] <rtgz> what? upgraded my lucid install and it displayed the same progress bar in ascii below during boot as fedora... o_O
[20:03] <CardinalFang> rtgz, they're stirring that pot furiously.
[20:04] <rtgz> finally... I got fully updated jaunty installl... it took 3 hours for VM to download and install all packages...
[20:41] <rtgz> rodrigo_, reproduced
[20:52] <rtgz> rodrigo_, what info will be useful? there is a stack trace in the original bug report #515336, but looks that is w/o debug symbols
[20:54] <rtgz> rodrigo_, this does not happen with stock 2.20 glib but it does w/ the ppa one.
[21:05] <rtgz> rodrigo_, http://paste.ubuntu.com/368458/
[21:13] <rtgz> Okay, while I still have jaunty vm running, does anybody need to test anything?
[21:36] <rodrigo_> rtgz, hmm, I wonder if the karmic package has any patch that is missing
[21:37]  * rodrigo_ looks
[21:38] <rtgz> rodrigo_, hm and it is strange that the only failure it seems to be causing is nautilus.
[21:38] <rodrigo_> rtgz, yes, I guess some gvfs-related thing
[21:39] <rodrigo_> rtgz, hmm, I remember a bug in jaunty, iirc, about missing gvfs-backends package in default install
[21:39]  * rodrigo_ wonders if that's the cause
[21:40] <rodrigo_> well, no missing patches for sure, the jaunty package comes from karmic
[21:41] <rodrigo_> bug #515336
[21:42] <rodrigo_> rtgz, do you have gvfs-backends installed in the jaunty vm?
[21:43] <rtgz> rodrigo_, gvfs-ls computer:/// does not crash and lists CD-ROM Drive.drive and root.link
[21:44] <rtgz> rodrigo_, backends are installed
[21:47] <rodrigo_> hmm, I guess it needs a newer gvfs??
[21:50] <rodrigo_> rtgz, building a jaunty package of gvfs, can you try it as soon as it's built on my PPA?
[21:50] <rtgz> rodrigo_, sure
[21:50] <rodrigo_> rtgz, or even better, can you build it yourself on the jaunty vm?
[21:51] <rodrigo_> it's going to be quicker than waiting for the ppa
[21:51] <rtgz> rodrigo_, sure, tell me how and I will test :)
[21:51] <rtgz> rodrigo_, I mean tell me where to get the files :)
[21:54] <rodrigo_> https://edge.launchpad.net/~rodrigo-moya/+archive/ppa
[21:54] <rodrigo_> when it accepts it, which should be in a few mins
[21:56] <rodrigo_> I guess I can copy them somewhere else
[21:58] <rodrigo_> rtgz, http://www.gnome.org/~rodrigo/ <- get the 4 gvfs* files
[22:12] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libgudev-1.0-dev libgdu-dev (>= 0.4)
[22:12] <rodrigo_> ugh
[22:12] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, i believe there is no libgudev and libgdu in jaunty
[22:13] <rodrigo_> I can backport them, but would that add new dependencies??
[22:13]  * rodrigo_ tries
[22:14] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, Can't I simply remove the dependency to these libs?
[22:14] <rodrigo_> yes, I'm thinking that's going to be easier, but I need to remove the dependency on libubuntuone for u1-client
[22:14] <rodrigo_> jaunty is too old it seems :)
[22:17] <rtgz|jaunty> building w/o these libs; don't know what will be broken though :)
[22:27] <dobey> sigh
[22:28] <dobey> i'm going to delete the package in the jaunty ppa
[22:28] <dobey> beta ppa
[22:31] <rodrigo_> dobey, already deleted
[22:32] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, don't worry, I'm patching u1-client to not use libu1 if not available, so we'll build the jaunty packages without that
[22:34] <dobey> how do we fix broken users?
[22:35] <rodrigo_> they have to dowbgrade the glib version
[22:35] <dobey> how?
[22:36] <rodrigo_> apt-get
[22:36] <rodrigo_> unless you know a better way
[22:37] <dobey> no, i don't know how at all?
[22:38] <dobey> it doesn't have a "downgrade" command
[22:39] <rodrigo_> dpkg --force-downgrade file.deb iirc
[22:41] <dobey> so we just tell people "find the older version, and run this command" ?
[22:41] <rodrigo_> no, we'll find it for them :)
[22:42] <rodrigo_> do you know of a better solution?
[22:43] <dobey> not at the moment, but i want this to never happen again :)
[22:43] <rodrigo_> me too :)
[22:45] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, aptitude install package=version seems to be a better alternative to dpkg for regular users
[22:45] <rodrigo_> dobey, https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~rodrigo-moya/ubuntuone-client/conditional-libu1/+merge/18572
[22:45] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, ah, cool, indeed it's better
[22:46] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, so can you please get the versions of the glib, libsoup and webkit packages in jaunty, so that we send a mail with the exact commands?
[22:47] <rtgz|jaunty> ok, i give up building it, it requires more changes to the *.install files and it looks like a lot of functionality becomes missing
[22:47] <aquarius> other possible but maybe horrible way of doing it: duplicate the old jaunty package, bump its version number and nothing else, and stick it in our ppa?
[22:48] <rtgz|jaunty> libglib2.0-0=2.20.1-0ubuntu2.1
[22:48] <rodrigo_> aquarius, hmm, maybe, but that would lie about the version numbers, I'm ok with it though :-)
[22:48] <aquarius> ah, it can be ordinary-version-number_ubuntu5 or something? or an epoch?
[22:49] <rtgz|jaunty> libsoup2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3
[22:49] <rodrigo_> aquarius, I upgraded from 2.20 to 2.24
[22:49] <aquarius> add a 1: epoch/
[22:49] <aquarius> ?
[22:49] <aquarius> I don't know much about what's recommended in these situations. Who knows lots about packaging?
[22:49] <aquarius> colin watson was just in here, too, damn
[22:49] <rodrigo_> kenvandine! :-)
[22:49] <kenvandine> hey
[22:50] <aquarius> i'll chase colin
[22:50] <rodrigo_> kenvandine, any suggestion on what to do to make users downgrade packages?
[22:50] <kenvandine> make them downgrade?
[22:50] <rodrigo_> kenvandine, I submitted karmic versions of 3 packages to a jaunty ppa, and now we're back to the jaunty versions, so we want users that got the broken packages downgrade
[22:51] <kenvandine> ewww...
[22:51] <kenvandine> humm
[22:51] <rodrigo_> kenvandine, we were thinking about telling them to run aptitute install package=version
[22:51] <rtgz|jaunty> libwebkit-1.0-2 is not in jaunty, libwebkit-1.0-1=1.0.1-4ubuntu0.1
[22:51] <kenvandine> rodrigo_, if it was just a ppa, that might be the best
[22:51] <rodrigo_> but aquarius suggests just bumping the version in the jaunty packager to be newer
[22:51] <rodrigo_> kenvandine, running aptitude?
[22:52] <kenvandine> or apt-get
[22:52] <kenvandine> i think the syntax is the same for that
[22:52] <rtgz|jaunty> btw, there is also libsoup-gnome2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3
[22:52] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, so: aptitude install libglib2.0-0=2.20.1-0ubuntu2.1 libsoup2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3 libwebkit-1.0-1=1.0.1-4ubuntu0.1 libsoup-gnome2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3 ?
[22:52] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, let me try this :)
[22:53] <rodrigo_> ok
[22:53] <jcastro> apt-get install blah/jaunty?
[22:53] <kenvandine> right... what jcastro said
[22:53] <rodrigo_> oh, that's better I guess
[22:53] <jcastro> that's the right way to downgrade
[22:53] <jcastro> right
[22:54] <rodrigo_> so, apt-get install  libglib2.0-0/jaunty libsoup2.4-1/jaunty libwebkit-1.0-1/jaunty libsoup-gnome2.4-1/jaunty ?
[22:54] <cjwatson> rodrigo_: aquarius asks if you could give me the exact details of this versioning question
[22:54] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, ok, pasting:
 kenvandine, I submitted karmic versions of 3 packages to a jaunty ppa, and now we're back
 kenvandine, we were thinking about telling them to run aptitute install package=version
 kenvandine, I submitted karmic versions of 3 packages to a jaunty ppa, and now we're back to the jaunty versions, so we want users that got the broken packages downgrade
 but aquarius suggests just bumping the version in the jaunty packager to be newer
[22:55] <rodrigo_>  kenvandine, running aptitude?
[22:55] <cjwatson> right, can I have the exact versions?
[22:55] <rodrigo_> jcastro, suggests using apt-get install blah/jaunty
[22:55] <cjwatson> jcastro is wrong. :-)
[22:55] <rtgz|jaunty> hm
[22:55] <cjwatson> (I mean, yes, that works for one user, but I assume you want this to work for everyone)
[22:55] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, the jaunty versions or the karmic backported to jaunty versions?
[22:55] <cjwatson> rodrigo_: both
[22:55] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, yes, for everyone that upgraded
[22:55] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, this action has removed python-pam, python-openssl...
[22:55] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, ok
[22:56] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, jauinty -> libglib2.0-0=2.20.1-0ubuntu2.1 libsoup2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3 libwebkit-1.0-1=1.0.1-4ubuntu0.1 libsoup-gnome2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3
[22:56] <cjwatson> I agree with aquarius that just bumping the version is sane
[22:56] <cjwatson> you just have to be careful about the exact version you choose
[22:57] <cjwatson> rodrigo_: ok, and karmic?
[22:57] <rodrigo_> karmic backports -> libglib2.0-0=glib2.0_2.22.3-0ubuntu2-ppa1~jaunty libsoup2.4-1=libsoup2.4_2.28.1-2ubuntu1-ppa1~jaunty libwebkit-1.0-1= webkit_1.1.15.2-1ubuntu1~ppa1~jaunty libsoup-gnome2.4-1=libsoup2.4_2.28.1-2ubuntu1-ppa1~jaunty
[22:57] <jcastro> cjwatson: I'm glad you're around. :)
[22:57]  * jcastro whistles
[22:58] <cjwatson> so it'll be a bit of a pain due to the different upstream tarballs
[22:58] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, oh, really?
[22:58] <cjwatson> but basically you need it to be less than any future version in karmic (e.g. a security fix)
[22:58] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, it looks like it was not required by any other package, though. let me double check why that happens
[22:59] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, 2.22.3-0ubuntu2-ppa2~jaunty ? to be newer than the broken package but older than any karmic upgrade?
[22:59] <cjwatson> so I would be inclined to suggest (deep breath) the formula glib2.0 2.22.3-0ubuntu2-ppa1~jaunty+really2.20.1-0ubuntu2.1
[23:00] <rodrigo_> ah ok
[23:00] <cjwatson> this is technically wrong because the upstream version will be considered as "2.22.3-0ubuntu2-ppa1~jaunty+really2.20.1"
[23:00] <cjwatson> but your version numbers are already broken in this regard
[23:00] <cjwatson> let this be a lesson to you. :-)
[23:00] <rodrigo_> :)
[23:01] <rtgz|jaunty> + libglib2.0-data=2.20.1-0ubuntu2.1
[23:01] <cjwatson> consider each source package as a unit, normally
[23:01] <rtgz|jaunty> but it will be picked up by atptitude automatically
[23:01] <cjwatson> yes, use dpkg --compare-versions to confirm
[23:02] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, isn't it easier to get users to downgrade, just in case there are upgrades in jaunty that are not taken into account because of the newer version in the ppa?
[23:02] <dobey> users are going to have to downgrade
[23:02] <cjwatson> if you can get ALL your users to downgrade, absolutely reliably, then you can do that
[23:02] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, well, not sure how many upgraded, but there are just 3 bug reports, so I guess not that many
[23:02] <cjwatson> if you cannot state this with 100% certainty then you're going to have to suck up the version bump
[23:03] <cjwatson> and merge future changes from jaunty
[23:03] <cjwatson> there's nothing else for it
[23:03] <dobey> we can't do a version bump
[23:03] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, in that case, would "aptitude install libglib2.0-0=2.20.1-0ubuntu2.1 libsoup2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3 libwebkit-1.0-1=1.0.1-4ubuntu0.1 libsoup-gnome2.4-1=2.26.0-0ubuntu3 libglib2.0-data=2.20.1-0ubuntu2.1" work?
[23:03] <cjwatson> should do
[23:03] <rodrigo_> I guess we'll go for the downgrade way, and if there are many users, we'll do the version bump
[23:03] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, it does, at least for me. But all gvfs-related processes will need to be restarted as well
[23:04] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, yeah, right
[23:04] <cjwatson> has anyone ever built packages against this PPA?
[23:04] <cjwatson> I hope not :-)
[23:04] <dobey> only rodrigo
[23:05] <cjwatson> then you'll need to check everything built against that for incremented shlibdeps
[23:05] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, only the broken packages were built, and they are removed from the ppa now
[23:05] <cjwatson> right
[23:06] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, see my last comment in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/515336, is it ok?
[23:06] <cjwatson> if you decide to do the version bump, and you choose anything other than the formula above, please check with somebody on the foundations team :-)
[23:06] <dobey> but i also fixed this exact same bug > 12 months ago
[23:06] <cjwatson> it is very easy to paint yourself into a corner
[23:06] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, I'll ask you again if we have to do it :)
[23:07] <cjwatson> or in extreme cases to paint other teams into a corner too
[23:07] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, there is only one duplicate of that bug, wasn't there a 3rd bug?
[23:07] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, yeah, the version bump seems dangerous, for jaunty upgrades of those packages
[23:07] <cjwatson> the initial version bump was the dangerous bit
[23:07] <cjwatson> you're now in mitigation
[23:08] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, yeah, but then we'll have to keep an eye on updates, to update the package in the ppa, which we might miss
[23:08] <dobey> don't worry about the version bump
[23:08] <dobey> we can't do it
[23:08] <rodrigo_> so, let's see if we can solve the problem for now by having users downgrade
[23:08] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, yes, i have just performed the "upgrade", verified that bug is present, performed the downgrade, pkilled gvfs-* processes and started nautilus with computer:/// uri. It works
[23:08] <dobey> 2.20+43534343543543 is still < 2.22
[23:09] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, cool
[23:09] <dobey> the ONLY way to solve it with a version bump is to add an epoch, which we also can't do :)
[23:09] <cjwatson> NO NO NO
[23:09] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, i guess the bit about killing gvfs processes should be mentioned as well
[23:09] <cjwatson> do not even contemplate epochs
[23:09] <dobey> cjwatson: i'm not. i'm saying we can't and won't
[23:09] <cjwatson> and epochs are no better than the version bump form I suggested, anyway
[23:09] <dobey> cjwatson: if anyone does that ever, i will berate them :)
[23:10] <cjwatson> rodrigo_: right, my point is that by bumping the version in that PPA to start with, *that* was the thing that imposed this responsibility
[23:10] <rodrigo_> rtgz|jaunty, well, log out and back in should do it, right?
[23:10] <dobey> yes
[23:10] <cjwatson> if you see what I mean
[23:11] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, yes
[23:11] <dobey> there are two problems with the glib version that got uploaded
[23:11] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, well, yes...
[23:11] <rtgz|jaunty> rodrigo_, checking...
[23:11] <dobey> the appended string was wrong, and it was a major version update
[23:11] <cjwatson> right
[23:12] <dobey> so the only thing we can do is tell users to downgrade, really
[23:12] <rodrigo_> well, if we had backported gvfs, it would get fixed, but gvfs dependen on 2 new packages, so rtgz suggested to just not do more backporting
[23:13] <rodrigo_> which we owe him a beer for, if not I might have continued backporting like crazy :)
[23:13] <dobey> yeah, backporting glib level stuff is generally a bad idea
[23:13] <cjwatson> if you do, better to do so by means of a Debian-revision patch
[23:14] <cjwatson> it's easier to back things out then
[23:14] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, yeah, I thought it was ok, given glib has few deps, but didn't think about gvfs
[23:14] <cjwatson> few deps but a million reverse deps :-)
[23:15] <rodrigo_> well, it's api/abi compatible, that wasn't the problem
[23:15] <rtgz> rodrigo_, yes, gvfs processes die on logout, as it should be :)
[23:15] <dobey> yes it was the problem
[23:15] <rodrigo_> rtgz, cool, now let's just pray all users read the bug/mailing list
[23:15] <dobey> glib is not api/abi compatible
[23:15] <rodrigo_> dobey, it is
[23:15] <dobey> they say it is
[23:17] <rodrigo_> cjwatson, anyway, thanks for your help, I hope we can do the downgrade without hassle and not ask you again about the version bump :)
[23:17] <rtgz> rodrigo_, the bakporting might lead to bringing karmic to jaunty, which is,... well, not the original intended purpose
[23:17] <cjwatson> rodrigo_: *nod* no problem
[23:18] <rodrigo_> rtgz, yeah :)
[23:19] <rodrigo_> dobey, for the ppa packages, we need to do a release of u1-client, right?
[23:20] <dobey> for what?
[23:21] <rodrigo_> for building a u1-client without libu1
[23:21] <rtgz> rodrigo_, what was the original backport for?
[23:21] <rtgz> rodrigo_, i mean what should break when I downgrade the packages?
[23:22] <dobey> rodrigo_: we'll see
[23:22] <rodrigo_> rtgz, for webkit, needed by libu1, needed by libu1
[23:22] <rodrigo_> rtgz, I've submitted a branch for u1client to not use libu1 if not available, so for jaunty it should be ok
[23:22] <dobey> rodrigo_: i think i would rather just have a --disable-music-store in libu1
[23:23] <rodrigo_> dobey, I would rather have the contacts picker in u1-client source tree :)
[23:24] <rtgz> rodrigo_, erm... is music store already "there" ? I mean is there anything that uses libubuntuone in jaunty PPA ?
[23:24] <rodrigo_> rtgz, no, it's disabled
[23:24] <dobey> rodrigo_: i don't want a new library for every new feature we write that other people should be using too
[23:24] <rtgz> rodrigo_, ok, so it is seamless downgrade then
[23:24] <rodrigo_> rtgz, yes
[23:24] <dobey> rodrigo_: why didn't we put it in e-d-s?
[23:25] <rodrigo_> dobey, because it's specific to u1, at least for now
[23:25] <rodrigo_> I plan to propose it for e-d-s, once it's ready
[23:26] <rodrigo_> ok, enough for today, be back tomorrow
[23:28] <rtgz> okay, it is night here, so I am logging off. Thank you all, I am glad that this vm helped :)