[01:13] <lfaraone|really> Hm. I tried building http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/revu1-incoming/sushi-1002112221/sushi_1.1.1-0ubuntu1.dsc from source, but I get a bunch of errors related to waf unpacking itself and adding .pyc files. I assume I should remove these files in rules?
[01:16] <Linux000> lfaraone|really: You are trying to build that package, right?
[02:12] <MTecknology> Is it possible to use a ppa on a debian system?
[02:12] <MTecknology> if you just add the apt line?
[02:26] <lfaraone|really> Linux000: yes.
[02:26] <lfaraone|really> MTecknology: yes.
[02:27] <MTecknology> lfaraone|really: thanks
[02:36] <ScottK> Doesn't necessarily mean you'll get packages that work.
[02:36] <ScottK> Binary compatibility between Ubuntu and Debian is not even a design goal for Ubuntu, let alone something one can rely on.
[02:37] <ScottK> Depending on what they package is, it may or may not work.
[02:58] <lfaraone|really> ScottK: but, it is however "possible" :)
[02:58] <ScottK> lfaraone|really: Certainly.
[03:00] <ScottK> Lots of things are possible that aren't a good idea.  I wasn't meaning to disagree with you.
[06:32] <MTeck-ricer> what do I need to be able to install grub on no-multilib?>
[06:35] <MTeck-ricer> oh.. grub-static
[06:42] <MTeck-ricer> wrong chan too...
[07:48] <pmcenery> Does anyone know at which point in the Debian package upload process a sync request can be submitted? I.e. after it has passed new?
[08:59] <duanedesign> working on a FFe, building the new upstream source I am getting  two(2) warnings.  http://paste.ubuntu.com/401850/
[10:49] <ari-tczew> Permission denied (publickey). bzr: ERROR: Connection closed: Unexpected end of message. Please check connectivity and permissions, and report a bug if problems persist.
[10:49] <ari-tczew> how can I fix it?
[10:50] <geser> are you using the same SSH key as stored in your LP profile?
[10:53] <ari-tczew> how can check it?
[10:57] <geser> are you using an ssh-agent and does ssh-add -l list your key?
[10:58] <ari-tczew> I'm not using ssh-agent
[10:58] <ari-tczew> $ ssh-add -l Could not open a connection to your authentication agent.
[10:59] <geser> no problem
[10:59] <ari-tczew> geser: huh?
[10:59] <geser> then you probably have a file ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub (or similar) (it's some time since I used a real SSH-key)
[11:01] <ari-tczew> geser: in ~/.ssh exist only file known_hosts
[11:02] <geser> ok, do you have a SSH key?
[11:03] <geser> did you generate one with ssh-keygen in the past?
[11:03] <ari-tczew> geser: I have created key a long time ago and it exist in my LP page, but I created second key 10 minutes ago
[11:04] <ari-tczew> I'm confused about it all, I don't understand these procedures and make me crazy
[11:05] <geser> if you add this second SSH key to LP (as it's a different one), your bzr problem should go away
[11:07] <ari-tczew> geser: I found these 2 files .pub, do I need to move correct .pub file anywhere?
[11:08] <ari-tczew> can I use 1st key if I found .pub file?
[11:08] <geser> a SSH key is similar to a GPG key, it consists of a public part (those in the .pub file) and a private part (usually similar named but without .pub)
[11:10] <geser> if you put the contents of the .pub file into ~/.ssh/authorized_keys (or add it to your LP profile), you can use the private part of the key for authentication when access the other server
[11:11] <ari-tczew> geser: I have added key on LP
[11:12] <ari-tczew> problem is not fixed!
[11:12] <geser> :(
[11:13] <ari-tczew> geser: I think about clear all ssh keys from my system and try to create since zero
[11:13] <ari-tczew> and clear from LP
[11:14] <geser> if this doesn't help too, try getting help from #launchpad as I'm out of ideas
[11:19] <ari-tczew> what's the f_cking system this bzr!
[11:21] <pmcenery> superm1: just installed latest updates and still crashed. See bug #549459.
[11:23] <pmcenery> superm1: I initially tried without libdvdcss2 installed, and thought this may be the reason for the crash, so I have added it, but doesnt make any diff.
[11:38] <AnAnt> Hello, can someone review/sponsor http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=8017 , it has been granted an FFe in LP #543679
[13:14] <ari-tczew> I have created branch on my LP page, I sent new revision, but bzr leave debian/patches/ directory, what happens?
[13:22] <geser> was debian/patches already in the branch or did you add it?
[13:27] <ari-tczew> geser: I did add directory /debian/patches and file.patch in /debian/patches
[13:28] <geser> did you also "bzr add debian/patches/file.patch"? because bzr only track those files it knows about to track
[13:29] <ari-tczew> geser: nope, I'll try do it
[13:30] <ari-tczew> why LP-Branches shows my ssh-key login instead my e-mail ?
[13:32] <ari-tczew> geser: please take a look @ https://code.launchpad.net/~ari-tczew/+junk/weechat
[13:33] <ari-tczew> e.g. your revision has been called to your LP account, but my revision doesn't call to my LP account
[13:51] <ari-tczew> ...
[14:04] <ari-tczew> bdrung: ping
[14:05] <bdrung> ari-tczew: pong
[14:05] <geser> ari-tczew: what does "bzr whoami" return for you?
[14:06] <ari-tczew> the same as LP-Branches
[14:06] <ari-tczew> how can I change whoami?
[14:09] <geser> with 'bzr whoami "Artur Rona <your@email>' (see bzr help whoami)
[14:10] <ari-tczew> bdrung: ok, nevermind
[14:10] <ari-tczew> geser, thanks!
[14:43] <ari-tczew> if I want to give a patch to fix bug instead debdiff, is enough link to my branch?
[14:44] <nigelb> ari-tczew: is the package maintained in bzr?
[14:44] <ari-tczew> nigelb: maintained?
[14:45] <ari-tczew> package has got registered branch in ubuntu, if you mean about it
[14:45] <nigelb> ari-tczew: aha, then link to branch and request merge
[14:46] <ari-tczew> thanks
[14:52] <ari-tczew> which patchsystem require debian/patches/series file?
[14:52] <nigelb> quilt usually
[14:53] <ari-tczew> in debian/rules: include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/simple-patchsys.mk is enough?
[14:53] <nigelb> ouch, that doesn't look like quilt
[14:53] <nigelb> do a what-patch inside the source folder
[14:53] <nigelb> it should be cdbs
[14:54] <ari-tczew> yea, cdbs
[14:54] <ari-tczew> so if  I'll got "quilt" by what-patch I need to create series file, right?
[14:55] <nigelb> check in control file if the source format is 3.0?
[14:55] <nigelb> if so, how cdbs and 3.0 works together is a mystery to me.  maybe someone else can help
[14:56] <ari-tczew> this is not 3.0 source format
[14:56] <nigelb> in that case do you need a series file?
[14:56] <ari-tczew> I am only asking when do I need add series file...
[14:56] <ari-tczew> I got cdbs, so not
[14:57] <nigelb> ah, I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) series is file is only when using quilt pactching system or source format 3.0 (quilt)
[14:58] <ari-tczew> thanks
[15:07] <ari-tczew> why I can not create branch like /package/karmic ?
[15:07] <ari-tczew> only /package-karmic
[15:10] <geser> ari-tczew: as you seem to try to gain experience with bzr and package branches, have you read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation?
[15:11] <geser> I found it quite useful when I experimented with package branches
[15:24] <paissad> what do you usually use to make a patch ? .... quilt command  or patch command ?
[15:25] <paissad> i have created 2 patches files & i put them in debian/patches/
[15:25] <ari-tczew> paissad: do you have 2 patches or 2 patched files?
[15:26] <paissad> ari-tczew, i created to diff files & i put them in debian/patches
[15:26] <paissad> i did --> diff -u file.orig file > file.diff
[15:26] <paissad> i put file.diff into debian/patches
[15:26] <paissad> i did the same operation for the other file
[15:27] <nigelb> um, that wont work
[15:27] <nigelb> paissad, do you know what patch system is being used?
[15:27] <nigelb> (just type what-patch inside the source directory
[15:28] <paissad> nigelb, patch system ? ... don't know what you mean ... i want to modify 2 files from upstream source ... i thought that i just have to create a diff file & apply it during call from debian/rules
[15:28] <paissad> wrong ?
[15:29] <nigelb> you want to fix a bug right?
[15:29] <nigelb> and you've got the lucid source?
[15:30] <paissad> nigelb, it's no a bug ... actually upstream source developper put it's log file in /tmp ... but i modified the source so that the log file is saved in /var/log/$prog_name.log
[15:31] <nigelb> paissad, you're trying to fix that for lucid, i.e., get the changes into Ubuntu.  am I right?
[15:31] <paissad> yes
[15:32] <nigelb> if you can follow the ubuntu/debian development process and generate a debdiff you can get into lucid easily
[15:32] <nigelb> so, first, what does the 2 patches do?
[15:33] <nigelb> since we're quite late into the lucid cycle depending on what it does you might need a feature free exception.  If it fixes, a bug, not needed.
[15:33] <paissad> i think it's to complicated to create a debdiff ... & i think you misunderstand me !
[15:33] <paissad> i have to apply the diff before running debuild
[15:33] <paissad> :)
[15:33] <nigelb> yes, I know
[15:34] <nigelb> but what I wanted to know was whether you wanted to generate a debdiff or just supply the patches so someone can do it for you
[16:22] <jbicha> I'm trying to request a FFE/sync request for gramps, could someone guide me through what I need to do? bug 549045
[16:23] <RainCT> hey jcastro :)
[16:23] <jcastro> howdy
[16:23] <nigelb> jbicha, provide and build log and install log too
[16:33] <iulian> jbicha: See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess.
[16:48] <psusi> blast.... gcc doesn't have itoa?  what was the standard alternative to it? I can't seem to remember
[16:52] <superm1> pmcenery, cool, well hopefully the apport retracer will be able to help us get to the bottom of it, thanks for filing the bug
[17:23] <jbicha> ok, I uploaded a build & install log, anything else I should do before subscribing ubuntu-release ?
[17:25] <ari-tczew> jbicha: test package
[17:26] <jbicha> ari-tczew: what do you mean?
[17:27] <ari-tczew> so you did install, then open a program and test all functions
[17:29] <ScottK> Or even some?
[17:39] <ejat> if we got make: *** [patch-stamp] Error 1 .. where should we take a look ?
[17:39] <ari-tczew> patch is wrong
[17:39] <ejat> ari-tczew: yeah .. but how to trace ..
[17:40] <ejat> inside the patch file
[17:40] <ari-tczew> is there a .hunk file?
[17:40] <ejat> no
[17:40] <ari-tczew> did you patch manually or did you get patch from internet?
[17:41] <ejat> from the net
[17:41] <ari-tczew> so you should did patch (diff command) between 2 folders
[17:41] <ari-tczew> manually
[17:42] <ari-tczew> then you have full control on changes which will be in patch
[17:44] <ari-tczew> s/did/do a
[17:45] <jbicha> ari-tczew: I don't really use gramps so I don't know what to test, everything I've tested works, presumably upstream & Debian are testing also
[17:46] <ari-tczew> jbicha: heh, so go ahead and subscribe ubuntu-release maybe you will got ACK
[17:46] <jbicha> thanks
[17:49] <ari-tczew> jbicha: you should add information about new features, because this is a new upstream release
[18:14] <ejat> ari-tczew: how to create .dpatch ?
[18:15] <ari-tczew> create a normal .patch then convert do dpatch
[18:17] <sistpoty> or use dpatch-edit-patch <nameofpatch>, that will get you a shell where you can modify what you like. The result will end up in <nameofpatch>
[18:21] <ejat> sistpoty: http://paste.ubuntu.com/402518/
[18:21] <ejat> but no shell
[18:23] <ejat> ari-tczew: using dpatch patch-template to convert ?
[18:26] <ari-tczew> I'm using an author's script based on this: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/index.php?view=use_dpatch look @ field "2. Convert a patch"
[18:27]  * ejat opening .. 
[18:29] <ejat> diff -u source-tree-original/the-file source-tree-new/the-file ?
[18:30] <sistpoty> ejat: you don't get a shell with that? (using dpatch-edit-patch in the top source directory)?
[18:30] <ejat> yeah ..
[18:30] <ejat> just end like that
[18:30] <sistpoty> ejat: haven't stumbled on this yet, sorry
[18:30] <ejat> im using terminator .. is a issue?
[18:31] <ejat> it will switch to new shell or what ?
[18:31] <sistpoty> ejat: shouldn't be an issue
[18:31] <sistpoty> ejat: yes, it will just start a new shell session in the new directory
[18:31] <sistpoty> ejat: don't confuse shell session with shell window though
[18:33] <ejat> sistpoty: owh ok .. got it ..
[18:35] <ejat> what should i edit in the new shell ?
[18:35] <sistpoty> ejat: whatever file you want to modify... the result lands in the patch
[18:35] <sistpoty> ejat: for example you could patch -p0 < somepatch, or use $SENSIBLE_EDITOR somefile and do changes
[18:44] <ejat> ari-tczew: thanks .. its work
[18:44] <ari-tczew> np
[19:15]  * sistpoty tries to remind slangasek as soft as possible about delegates for ubuntu-release
[19:45] <ari-tczew> can someone check whether I did correct link to my bazaar branch with patch? bug 342790
[19:48] <geser> looks good, it's listed at "Related branches" in that bug
[19:53] <ari-tczew> geser: is my branch correct patched and ready to upload?
[20:01] <geser> ari-tczew: looks good, but I don't how strict the template for security changelog entries is to follow (your changelog entry misses a description how the bug got fixed)
[20:01] <geser> see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update%20the%20packaging for the template and some examples
[20:02] <geser> btw: that page mentions to update the Maintainer for >= feisty
[20:03] <ari-tczew> geser: right! this is an answer for my question! I need to reupload a branch
[20:03] <geser> everything else looks ok (but my last security update is long time ago)
[20:04] <ari-tczew> in response to changelog: I never add in changelog how bug has been fixed
[20:06] <geser> for normal uploads me neither, but security uploads might be special (I just looked at the wiki page)
[20:06] <geser> as said I don't know how strictly the security template is to follow
[20:06] <ari-tczew> security sponsors never poked me about it
[20:07] <jdstrand> ari-tczew: I ack'd your patch-- my comment was for future securit updates. you don't need to do anything else this time around (I've already uploaded it to the security queue)
[20:08] <ari-tczew> jdstrand: ah OK, what about debian/changelog - is it correct?
[20:08] <jdstrand> ari-tczew: it was ok, but we like more info usually.
[20:08] <ari-tczew> ok
[20:09] <thedeeno> Hey everyone, can someone clue me in on how to request a package be updated? guake is at v0.4.1 but I'm only seeing 0.4.0 in apt. Debian repo's are at 0.4.1
[20:10] <thedeeno> Unfortunately , i'm to nuby to figure out how to install this myself atm. (getting there :))
[20:14] <Laney> there's nothing wrong with being more verbose in your changelogs :)
[20:15] <Laney> I absolutely encourage it
[20:17] <sistpoty> jdstrand: btw thanks for taking care of moin! :)
[20:18] <sistpoty> thedeeno: what is guake? a game?
[20:19] <sistpoty> ah, ok it isn't :(
[20:24] <thedeeno> sistpoty: haha, nope. It's a console wrapper.
[20:24] <thedeeno> hmm, so no thoughts on how to tell someone about this thing that needs updating?
[20:25] <sistpoty> thedeeno: just saw it, otherwise I'd have requested an ffe myself... !FFe
[20:25] <sistpoty> !FFe
[20:25] <sistpoty> ^ there you go
[20:45] <RoAkSoAx> sistpoty, bug #407722 is ready if you want to take a look at in again before I upload it. It builds in both pbuilder, ppa, and Im about to see if it installs and runs correctly
[20:45] <RoAkSoAx> though 1.1 is from unstable rather than testing
[20:53] <sistpoty> RoAkSoAx: did you test the new version?
[20:54] <sistpoty> RoAkSoAx: -1 to -1.1 is fine for me, I've looked at that patch already
[20:57] <RoAkSoAx> sistpoty, yeah I just tested, builds, installs, runs
[20:57] <RoAkSoAx> installs the -dev files
[20:57] <sistpoty> RoAkSoAx: great, can you add that to the bug report please? I'm happy to give an ack then
[21:00] <RoAkSoAx> sistpoty, done, just updated the bug description
[21:00] <sistpoty> RoAkSoAx: thanks!
[21:01] <RoAkSoAx> :)
[21:02] <sistpoty> RoAkSoAx: feel free to upload
[21:03] <RoAkSoAx> sistpoty, thank you :)
[21:03] <sistpoty> RoAkSoAx: thank you for working on it in the first place :)
[21:04] <RoAkSoAx> sistpoty, i just love doing it :)
[21:04] <sistpoty> heh
[21:07] <RoAkSoAx> :)
[21:40]  * sistpoty goes to bed... gn8 everyone
[21:43] <paissad> guys, i create a package_name.templates & package.config, po/POTFILES.in .... in the $package.template file, i have the Description field in 2 langage already (english & french )...  what must i do to create the po/templates.pot
[21:43] <paissad> i did debconf-updatepo ..... but i got this
[21:43] <paissad> None of the files in POTFILES.in contain strings marked for translation.
[21:44] <paissad> here is the content of my POTFILES.in --> [type: gettext/rfc822deb] pms-linux.templates
[21:45] <paissad> here is the content of pms-linux.templates --> http://pastebin.com/0xNDy7LK
[21:57] <thedeeno> hey guys I'm trying to figure out how to ask one of the package maintainers to update a package to a new version
[21:58] <thedeeno> but I'm kinda lost on how to do so. sistpoty showed be FFE but I think this is for an actual package maintainer
[21:58] <sebner> thedeeno: most packages in Ubuntu don't have a specific maintainer
[21:59] <thedeeno> ok, that makes sense. Well the package in question is guake. The karmic version is 0.4.0 - v0.4.1 fixes a transparency issue.
[22:00] <thedeeno> it's apart of the 'universe' repo
[22:00] <thedeeno> how do I get that repo updated?
[22:00] <thedeeno> debian has the package @ 0.4.1 - i'm pretty new (just recently switched from windows - *gasp*). So bear with me :)
[22:01] <sebner> thedeeno: urgh, updating a package in a stable release is not that eady
[22:01] <sebner> *easy
[22:01] <sebner> !SRU | thedeeno
[22:24] <thedeeno> sebner: I guess it makes sense that it's not that easy. Is there a Karmic 'testing' repo?
[22:24] <thedeeno> I expect that would be easy to change - if there is such a thing
[22:33] <ScottK> Proposed SRUs get uploaded to karmic-proposed for verification.
[22:34] <ari-tczew> I'm just waiting for my SRUs review...
[22:37] <RoAkSoAx> ScottK, and how long does that take?
[22:37] <ScottK> RoAkSoAx: It's in the StableReleaseUpdates wiki page
[22:40] <RoAkSoAx> ScottK, so once the SRU has been acked, I need to add the tag: verification-needed and then just wait for the upload?
[22:41] <ScottK> RoAkSoAx: No, the archive admin adds that tag when they accept the upload.  Once you use the normal sponsorship process to get it uploaded.  ubuntu-sru ack can come before or after, but the archive admins won't accept it until that happens.
[22:42] <ari-tczew> ScottK: how long is waiting for SRU ACK?
[22:42] <ScottK> Depends on how busy they are.  It varies.
[22:44] <RoAkSoAx> ScottK, For example, I already have had the SRU acks like a month ago... after that, did I need to subscribe to archive-admins or wait for someone in the SRU team to upload it to proposed and then they will subscribe to archive admins?
[22:48] <ScottK> RoAkSoAx: You needed to subscribe the sponsor team.
[22:51] <RoAkSoAx> i see :) that;s why i was wondering what was missing xD
[22:53] <RoAkSoAx> ScottK, so if packages are in universe, I can upload them directly once the sru has been acked?
[22:53] <ScottK> RoAkSoAx: Yes
[22:54] <ari-tczew> ScottK: IMO ~ubuntu-sru is very messed and unmaintained
[22:54] <ari-tczew> 497  bugs related!
[22:55] <ScottK> It seems to ebb and flow a bit.
[22:55] <ari-tczew> 'ebb' ?
[22:55] <jdong> why is the number of bugs a measure of the messyness of the team?
[22:56] <ari-tczew> because ubuntu-sru should has related to bugs which waiting for review, ACK etc
[22:57] <jdong> that's not the case.
[22:57] <jdong> a lot of the "related" bugs are ones that the SRU process has completed but baltix has a random task open or something.
[22:57] <ari-tczew> so sometimes someone from ubuntu-sru should clean up the list
[22:58] <jdong> well, I can either spend my free hour or two per week reviewing and ACKing as many SRU requests as I can from my bugmail directory, or do housekeeping on launchpad. which would you prefer? :)
[23:01] <ari-tczew> I want the SRU requests were dealt with quickly response like from ubuntu-universe-sponsors in development cycle
[23:02] <ari-tczew> "Ubuntu is a complete Linux-based operating system, freely available with both community and professional support."
[23:02] <ari-tczew> WANNA SEE "professional support"
[23:03] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew, I think you are confusing that sentence. Professional Support means "paid support" (those who buy support from Canonical)
[23:04] <jdong> most SRUs that I come across and ACK are no more than a week or two old.
[23:04] <jdong> the exception being the more complex SRU's or ones with not-so-great debdiffs attached
[23:05] <ari-tczew> RoAkSoAx: I'm contributing to Ubuntu, so this is my paid
[23:05] <azeem_> my paid?
[23:06] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew, right, but what I'm trying to say is that "professional support" is referring to that Canonical provides paid support services for those who want to acquire them
[23:06] <ari-tczew> don't care about it
[23:07] <jdong> you were the one that brought it up in an incorrect context, and RoAkSoAx was correcting your misconception.
[23:07] <ari-tczew> jdong - you told week, max. 2, ok, I'm couting
[23:07] <jdong> ... ok, thanks for that helpful attitude
[23:07] <jdong> you know, that really makes me so much more excited about using my rare bits of free time to work on Ubuntu.
[23:08] <jdong> I better not eat dinner right now to empty my launchpad folder because you're counting.
[23:09] <ari-tczew> you can eat dinner, I don't prevent you :)
[23:10] <jdong> ari-tczew: but yes, if a SRU for you is taking too long in your opinion to get reviewed, feel free to ping me in here or directly email me about it.
[23:11] <ari-tczew> jdong: sure, 14 days... ;-)
[23:13] <paissad> is there a way to create a template for po/templates.pot ?
[23:13] <paissad> so that i use to begin the translation ...
[23:13] <ari-tczew> jdong: if ~500 bugs is not problem for you to review waiting SRU requests, how do you dig queue?
[23:14] <jdong> not sure I understand
[23:14] <jdong> btw, for your bug 421684, please add a SRU bug description
[23:14] <jdong> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure
[23:20] <ari-tczew> jdong: I'm very nuisance, right?
[23:21] <jdong> no, I didn't say that
[23:21] <ari-tczew> :)
[23:21] <jdong> rest assured that as one of the guys that spends time processing SRU's, I'm not 100% happy with my speed either
[23:23] <psusi> does patch ever explain WHY the damn hunk failed to apply?
[23:24] <azeem_> not sure patch would know why
[23:25] <ari-tczew> propably changes were applied previously or you have not-refreshed patch
[23:25] <psusi> no, I mean WHY is it saying it failed?  it looks like it should apply perfectly fine to me
[23:25] <psusi> context is right, I fixed the line number....
[23:26] <psusi> not what the underlying cause is, why is patch pissed off
[23:26] <azeem_> psusi: sorry, but I believe patch on this more than you
[23:26] <psusi> that's why I'm asking if there's a way to get it to explain itself
[23:26] <psusi> "hunk failed" is not a useful diagnostic
[23:27] <ari-tczew> I point on applied previously
[23:27] <azeem_> maybe some spurious whitespace change
[23:28] <psusi> no, it has not been applied
[23:28] <psusi> the context looks like it matches, the lines it wants to remove are there...
[23:29] <ari-tczew> jdong: have you got a script which says what's the bugs are waiting for SRU review? like dholbach sponsoring
[23:29] <jdong> ari-tczew: no, I keep manual track of that through my inbox
[23:37] <ari-tczew> jdong: you give an ACK, so do I need to subscribe sponsors?
[23:42] <RoAkSoAx> persia, can I be readded to u-u-s please  :)??
[23:46] <RoAkSoAx> bdrung, could you please also unsubscribe keepalived from u-u-s?? thanks :)
[23:47] <bdrung> RoAkSoAx: i can't - i am only member of u-s now
[23:48] <ari-tczew> bdrung: so what's news in your competition now?
[23:49] <RoAkSoAx> bdrung, oh ok.. np then :)
[23:49] <bdrung> ari-tczew: rephrase your question please.
[23:49] <bdrung> RoAkSoAx: find a member of the dying u-u-s group!
[23:50] <RoAkSoAx> bdrung, yeah will do though but it is not such a big of a deal :)
[23:50] <ari-tczew> bdrung: okay, another: what's the different between u-u-s and u-s?
[23:50] <bdrung> RoAkSoAx: bug dholbach
[23:51] <bdrung> ari-tczew: u-u-s and u-m-s were merged into u-s. u-u-s and u-m-s are deprecated now
[23:51] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew, u-m-s and u-u-s are gonna die, and we'll keep a single sponsorship group u-s due to archives changes
[23:52] <bdrung> u-u-s and u-m-s are members of u-s. Therefore members of u-u-s and u-m-s can edit u-s subscriptions, but not the other way around
[23:52] <ari-tczew> bdrung: so have you got access to upload for main now?
[23:53] <bdrung> ari-tczew: yes ( http://overbenny.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/ubuntu-core-developer/ ), but that's independent of the u-s merge
[23:55] <ari-tczew> ouh, nice bdrung!
[23:55] <ari-tczew> I hope that merge 2 sponsors time will be good for clear bug-related list
[23:56] <paissad> is there a way to create a template for po/templates.pot ?
[23:58] <bdrung> ari-tczew: it will be hard to get the u-s list clear