=== mezgani is now known as p3rror === nobawk|away is now known as nobawk [01:42] is there a problem with launchpad ppa right now? I uploaded a package using dput a few hours ago and still haven't gotten a message [01:42] usually it sends a message (accepted or denied) within a few minutes === nobawk is now known as nobawk|away [07:17] good morning [07:45] good morning [07:45] slytherin: Thought you had fetched it already, did some cleanup in my waste dump, sorry. :) [07:46] Rhonda: As i said, I was updating ISO images. And my internet connection is of limited speed. [07:47] I remember, I just didn't think about that when I cleaned up. %-) [07:49] dholbach: I was referring to bug 486450 the other day. It has been fixed for a while. Still it shows on sponsorship queue page. [07:49] Launchpad bug 486450 in gst-plugins-ugly-multiverse0.10 "Typo in package description: "This packages"" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/486450 [07:49] slytherin: alright, I'll take a look in a sec [08:19] Rhonda: Can you please republish the packages? I have time today so I can do basic testing. And I want to upgrade my PC to lucid soon. [08:24] slytherin: that's not a bug in the sponsoring overview [08:24] slytherin: the bug is closed, but the merge proposal ist still marked as "needs review" [08:24] oh [08:25] how to i solve that? [08:25] james_w can mark it "merged" ... if it is [08:28] slytherin: Yes, I'm currently uploading. :) [08:31] slytherin: http://deb.at/~rhonda/waste/2010-05-03-9GYi1r0kKWs/ [08:32] Rhonda: did you change version? These are backport packages, right? [08:32] These is the source from lucid built in a karmic environment. [08:32] Didn't change the version, no. [08:33] Or … wait. [08:33] No, didn't change the version. [08:33] Rhonda: The packages you published before has ~bpo** in version. That's why I asked. [08:33] Oh. [08:34] Then I handed you the wrong ones before anyway. Good that I got rid of them! [08:34] Those were built in a Debian lenny chroot. %-/ [08:34] :-) [08:34] So thanks a lot for asking! [08:34] I am downloading these packages right now. Will take at least 2 hours. [08:35] Enjoy ;) [08:38] persia: Is u-u-s team still relevant? Or should I let my membership expire? [08:39] Is there a faint of a posibility that wesnoth 1.8.1 might be accepted into lucid proposed instead of lucid backports? [08:40] Rhonda: Ideally you should cherry pick fixes from upstream. Also considering that 1.8.1 release add a new UI element it may not be acceptable as it is in -proposed. [08:44] slytherin: It doesn't add a "new" UI element, it adds back an _old_ UI element because the new one doesn't work properly. :) [08:45] Rhonda: hmm. In that case it might be acceptable. Still you should discuss before hand with someone from SRU team. [08:45] But sweet to know that you are tracking it, too. ;) [08:52] I keep checking project news every now and then. I am actually eager to check the new artwork in 1.8. [08:52] And of course new campaigns [09:13] slytherin: There is only one new campaign - but that one can even be played in multiplayer. ;) [09:37] dholbach: you should be able to mark it "Merged" as well, along with anyone else that can upload the package [09:43] james_w: I don't see an option to mark it as merged even though I have upload rights [09:44] there's no edit icon next to the status at the top? [09:44] nope [09:45] what's the URL? [09:45] https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~arky/ubuntu/lucid/gst-plugins-ugly-multiverse0.10/fix-486450/+merge/19013 [09:46] hmm [09:46] I have one, that's a bug then [09:47] slytherin: can you file a bug against launchpad-code please? [09:47] I have merged it now [09:48] james_w: wait, is it because the reviewer assigned is 'ubuntu branches'? [09:50] slytherin: that may have something to do with it, but you should still have the button [09:50] I will file a bug [09:50] thanks [09:50] james_w: Did you just mark it as merged? [09:51] IIRC the button was once there, but apparently vanished again [09:51] I did [09:57] james_w: I'm not member of ubuntu branches [09:57] james_w: maybe that's the reason why? [09:58] yes [09:58] but that's not supposed to be the way it works [09:59] I see [09:59] it's supposed to be that if you have upload rights you can change these things [09:59] and I fixed it a few weeks ago [10:00] but it seems to have broken again [10:12] Laney, directhex - fyi Docky 2.0.3 is released :-) [10:26] ricotz: How does it relate to the 2.1.0 think in the PPA? [10:26] s/think/thing/ [10:27] soren, 2.1 is the development/trunk branch which will end up in a 2.1.0 release with new features [10:28] 2.0 is feature frozen so it can meet a SRU [10:29] ricotz: I see. Is there a PPA with the stable one in it? [10:29] Not that the 2.1 one has been unstable, really. It works very well for me. [10:30] soren, no there is no stable ppa [10:30] The only problem I've had with Docky is that when I start a guest session, I have both the gnome panel at the bottom as well as docky. [10:30] ahow do you keep control over all sources, branches and tarballs you end up with because of various motu related activities? [10:30] kklimonda: Carefully. Very carefully. [10:31] ricotz: Alright. [10:31] soren: I can barely contain the mess in ~/code/ and prevent it from spreading it all over my home directory ;) [10:32] soren, there is nothing we can do about it, the panel needs to be removed somehow [10:33] ricotz: Yeah, not blaming you guys at all. I understand the problem. [10:34] RAOF, you are arround, perhaps you want to take this docky release update ;-) [11:27] Rhonda: Tested the backport. Played first 3 scenarios of 'Tale of Two Brothers'. [11:33] \o/ [11:33] slytherin: Can you please add it as comment to bug #570609 [11:33] Launchpad bug 570609 in karmic-backports "Please backport wesnoth-1.8 (1:1.8-3ubuntu1/universe)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/570609 [11:35] Rhonda: Done. [11:35] I will go ahead and install Lucid on my PC now. [11:37] So what's next? Should I mark it as confirmed? [11:39] I don't know how backports procedure work. It has been really long since I requested any. === nobawk|away is now known as nobawk [13:01] ScottK, persia: Shall I set bug #570609 to confirmed, or shall I rather try to get some more tester? [13:01] Launchpad bug 570609 in karmic-backports "Please backport wesnoth-1.8 (1:1.8-3ubuntu1/universe)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/570609 [13:02] The backup process in the wiki isn't too clear on that part, it's a bit fuzzy. [13:02] I'm not a backporter, but I usually see two testers beyond the requestor. [13:02] Alright, thanks for the response anyway. :) [13:04] where maverick is looking in Debian? testing or unstable? [13:05] ari-tczew: should be unstable, as should be lucid now [13:05] oh maybe not [13:05] micahg: lucid? LTS = work with testing [13:05] no, I was right, pull-debian-source pulls from unstable now in LUcid [13:06] micahg: but I mean about development cycle like autosync... I think that you know what I mean about [13:07] ari-tczew: dev for Lucid was with testing, now dev for Maverick on Lucid is with unstable [13:07] micahg: ok. btw. now is time to fix forever libjdic :> [13:08] ari-tczew: as soon as I finish porting about 30 other packages in Hardy/Jaunty :) [13:08] micahg: nice! good luck ;-) [13:15] james_w: is the debian importer off? [13:18] kklimonda: are you interested in merging transsmision? [13:19] ari-tczew: yes [13:19] nice [13:19] Laney: yeah, for at least a few more hours yet [13:20] ok then [13:20] should make it such that it only pauses one distro when there is a release [14:03] Laney, can i provide you a debdiff for docky? [14:10] ricotz: just saw your pm, what is it for? [14:12] Laney, it fixes bug 573294, bug 540688, bug 555562 and an installation problem on kubuntu [14:12] Launchpad bug 573294 in docky "Crash reading Crossover launcher" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/573294 [14:12] Launchpad bug 540688 in docky "banshee_control.py crashed with DBusException in call_blocking()" [Low,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/540688 [14:12] Launchpad bug 555562 in docky "crash accessing Gnome keyring in Lucid" [Critical,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/555562 [14:13] Laney, this should really go in [14:13] so you already have the diff? [14:13] Laney, it should be no backport [14:13] then what needs doing is the sru paperwork [14:13] !sru [14:13] Stable Release Update information is at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates [14:13] yes, i have [14:16] Laney, infact the whole 2.0.3.1 release could be considerd that way [14:16] i will attach my debdiff to a one of these bugs [14:18] please do the SRU stuff and then subscribe ubuntu-sru to one of the bugs [14:18] i'll sponsor it for you if they approve it [14:23] * Rhonda wants a usable git-bzr %-( [14:23] Rhonda: me to [14:24] usable how? [14:24] I've managed to use it before [14:24] Well, working and stuff. To be able to clone from bzr and push back. [14:24] oh, not pushing [14:24] but cloning worked [14:25] yea need both, e.g. i work on lots of debian stuff on alioth and github, and lots of ubuntu stuff on LP [14:25] and it would be great to use one rcs [14:25] yea i know there is bzr-git , but afaik you cant push with it [14:25] I just have ubuntu branches in git if there's the need [14:26] imbrandon: and bzr-git is the other way round, too. ;) [14:26] Rhonda: yea, git-* would be ideal imho [14:26] git-svn git-bzr etc [15:01] * imbrandon yawns [15:15] ScottK: prod [15:15] poke , all that good stuff [15:16] ScottK: i added a new task to LP bug 571986 , forgot that dapper ( server ) is still supported , not sure if you'll get an notification or not [15:16] Launchpad bug 571986 in karmic-backports "Please Backport apt-mirror 0.4.7-0ubuntu1 to to Hardy" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/571986 [15:21] hmm [15:22] imbrandon: Why is it in karmic-backports when it's wanted to get backported to Hardy? *puzzled* [15:23] Oh. Meta-backports-bug :) [15:31] Rhonda: yup ;) [15:31] * Rhonda blames ubottu for cofusing. [15:31] Rhonda: and actualy its backporting to dapper, the others are done ;) [15:31] confusing even, so much that I can't even type anymore. [15:31] lol [15:32] thats ok , i've switched my "dev" machine to squeeze over the weekend, talk about confused ;) [15:38] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuOpenWeek starting in 23m in #ubuntu-classroom [16:06] could someone open a task on karmic in bug 574262 ? I want to prepare a patch to fix it by sru. [16:06] Launchpad bug 574262 in gdm "Please backport to Karmic GDM fix for bug #463376" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/574262 [16:43] what's SRU? [16:43] !sru [16:43] Stable Release Update information is at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates [16:43] thanks === mathiaz_ is now known as mathiaz === nobawk is now known as nobawk|away [17:53] ScottK: ty [17:53] yw [17:53] ScottK: i dident realy think about it before but it fell under the "server" support [17:54] Right. Makes sense. Most people don't think much about Dapper anymore. [17:54] since its cli and ment to be run mostly on servers even if desktops "can" run it [17:54] yup [17:54] there probably isnt even any users of it in dapper still, but ya never know ;) [17:55] i think from here on out though i'm gonna try the SRU route, it might make more sense until 0.5 is released ( 0.4.X are bugfix releases ) [17:55] 0.X being new feature-sets [17:58] clean.sh being the next major function i need to "fix" e.g. it works but ummm not all that great and not how most would think it does , honestly suprised there isnt more/any bugs filed about it upstream/in debian/in ubuntu [17:59] * imbrandon goes back to making the ubuntuone music store work in debian [18:00] i sent a few packages to my ppa yesterday but got no confirmation and they don't appear in my ppa build queue... is there a problem with the build system right now? [18:00] stevecrozz: hrm, PPA's should still build, have you actualy checked the status on LP for the PPA , maybe the email went to spam/blackwhole [18:00] blackhole* [18:07] imbrandon: yeah, I don't see any updates here in LP [18:07] I used dput and it looked like it worked fine === dpm is now known as dpm-afk [18:10] stevecrozz: then it likely got silently rejected , i would try to reupload, if it was waiting on a buildd it would say so on LP [18:11] ok, I'll try again [18:13] imbrandon: I know there are still server users on Dapper. I've gotten Dapper specific clamav bugs in the not too distant past. [18:15] ahh [18:15] true i still get bugs from debian old-stable [18:15] lol === yofel_ is now known as yofel [18:40] hyperair: You recently commented on the package in revu. I didn't understand this line of yours:- Packaging appears to be licensed under GPL-3, rather than "GPL-3 or later." This can cause legality issues in the future. [18:40] bilalakhtar: it's what someone mentioned on IRC before. [18:41] bilalakhtar: your package is considered a "derivative work" of the upstream package. [18:41] hyperair: It means that I should change it to only GPL3? [18:41] you need to make it GPL-3+ [18:41] basically GPL version >= 3 [18:41] hyperair: in upstream or package? [18:41] in package. [18:41] upstream is GPL-3+ [18:41] package is GPL-3 [18:42] GPL states that you must license derivative works under the same version or greater of GPL. [18:42] so if upstream changes to GPL-4, your packaging is no longer usable. [18:42] it becomes illegal to use it [18:42] you'll have to repackage from scratch [18:43] hyperair: fine [18:43] hyperair: repackage for scratch ? or just change the license ? [18:43] hyperair: Why would one have to make it gpl3 or later and can't stick with gpl3 only? [18:43] is it a derivative? [18:43] i can't imagine that 3 and 3+ will be incompatible [18:43] packaging work is considered a derivative, is it not? [18:43] 3 and 3+ aren't incompatible [18:43] Because gpl3 only actually is a sub amount of gpl3 or later and thus compatible. [18:43] this is a theoretical case, where GPL-4 comes out, and upstream changes to GPL-4+ [18:43] The other way round is an issue. [18:43] Not this direction. [18:44] Yes, at _that_ point it might become incompatible. [18:44] yes, so this is providing for the future. [18:44] But only with incorporating future changes. [18:44] are you saying that we should just ignore the fact that GPL-4 might come out in the future and not plan ahead? [18:44] It won't render the current version invalid, neither now nor in the future. [18:44] meaning tht the packaging becomes useless once upstream switches to GPL-4? [18:44] won't it? [18:45] No, it won't. [18:45] why not? [18:45] Because it doesn't incorporate code now that is gpl4 (or later) [18:45] hyperair: I have uploaded the package with ALL the fixes to revu, should be available soon [18:46] Rhonda: that is now. [18:46] Rhonda: i'm talking about if/when upstream upgrades to GPL-4 [18:46] the packaging won't be able to be relicensed to GPL-4+ [18:46] hyperair: Me too. Even _then_ _this_ now created package can stay gpl3. [18:46] Rhonda: and the packaging won't be able to be ported forwards. [18:46] Why won't it be able to be relicensed? [18:47] because GPL-3 != GPL-3+? [18:47] Why do you think so? [18:47] "per license X" is not compatible to " per license X and >X" [18:47] Right. But the person who wrote it might still relicense it. [18:47] people die [18:47] per license X and >X includes an extra clause which you dropped [18:47] why would it necessarily be a problem anyway? [18:47] stuff with multiple licenses is combined all the time [18:48] The packaging isn't that voodoo magic anyway. [18:48] carstenh: The world dies too, slowly. [18:48] * hyperair facepalm [18:49] someone picking up the derivative work would not be able to re-distribute to a new license, violating the original license statement [18:49] And actually people like to stick to gpl2 only because of not being happy with some of the additions in gpl3. The same might happen with gpl4 too. [18:49] how about "let's just play safe" [18:49] So people might actually prefer to _actively_ decide themself wether they might want to transition with their code. [18:49] hyperair: check the new upload now on http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gnome-media-player [18:49] hyperair: Exactly. gpl3 only might be a "play safe" approach for some people. :) [18:49] Rhonda: the world will die only once because there is only one. all people die sometimes and additionnally some stop beeing reachable by mail even earlier [18:50] Rhonda: but upstream is GPL-3+ [18:50] hyperair: So? The packaging isn't magic, again. :) [18:50] Rhonda: meaning "let's throw away existing packaging and repackage because we didn't make accomodations for the future"? [18:51] hyperair: %:\n\tdh @$@@$ [18:51] … or such. [18:52] If the packager doesn't want to license their work under the terms of whatever oddity FSF thinks up next, they should be able to do so. [18:52] hyperair: Actually it's even better to suggest to put packaging under BSD or MIT and _not_ what upstream chooses. [18:52] hyperair: is the package ok? [18:52] That way it is possibl eto share packaging amongst different packages where upstream sources are incompatible with each other. [18:53] bilalakhtar: i'm not a computer. i take time to review things! given how fast these people are pinging me, it'll take even longer >_> [18:53] and yes, since we've got so many concerned MOTUs discussing this package, why don't you all also review it? [18:53] hyperair: GPL3+ might not be the best option neither, that's what I'm saying. [18:53] bilalakhtar: why is vlc suggested? [18:53] Yes, a fellow motu is asking for help, please help a fellow motu! [18:53] hyperair: Try running the app, you will come to know [18:54] bilalakhtar: why don't you tell me, since i'm lazy to run it. [18:54] hyperair: ok telling [18:54] hyperair: This app uses 3 engines for playing media (libvlc, xine-lib, gstreamer) [18:55] hyperair: the app allows you to select an engine for playing the particular file [18:55] bilalakhtar: not that this hinders uploading the package, but making packages lintian clean even when all checks are turned on doesn't hurd and makes sponsors happy (or sad because they are not able to find minor possible enhancements) [18:55] bilalakhtar: so why "vlc" and not just "libvlc"? [18:55] hihi, "doesn't hurd". Sweet typo. ;) [18:55] lol [18:55] hyperair: libvlc is NOT enough for playing videos in gnome-media-player, you need the x components of vlc also, which are (unluckily) found in vlc [18:56] :) [18:56] bilalakhtar: your watch file doesn't work. run 'uscan --dehs --no-download' to test [18:56] hyperair, carstenh: Sorry for the meta discussion, but I still believe that chosing explicitly _not_ GPL for the packaging work is the best option. [18:57] hyperair: with libvlc you can play audio files, but playing video files in vlc mode requires one to have vlc installed [18:57] hyperair: will check that out [18:57] * hyperair wonders what the dh_make copyright template is licensed under [18:57] Now my young one needs food === rgreening_ is now known as rgreening [18:58] hyperair: CAn you please help me with this? the current source tarball is located on http://launchpad.net/gnome-media-player/development/0.1.2/+download/gnome-media-player-0.1.2.tar.gz . How do I make a regex for it? [18:59] bilalakhtar: is there a page with a list of all tarballs? [18:59] hyperair: This project is registered on lp, so the page is https://launchpad.net/gnome-media-player/+download [19:02] Rhonda: everything more restrictive than mit, 2-clause bsd or our beloved former project leader's license is imho not a suitable license for debian/*, so we seem to agree :) (and GPLn-only is the worst free license one can choose) [19:02] bilalakhtar: https://launchpad.net/gnome-media-player/+download .*/gnome-media-player-([0-9.]+)\.tar\.gz [19:02] hyperair: thanks A LOT [19:02] =) [19:02] carstenh: Actually I'm thinking of suggesting the WTFPL as sole packaging license for the pkg-games team. [19:03] what's WTFPL? [19:03] hyperair: Shouldn't it be https://launchpad.net/gnome-media-player/+download/.*/gnome-media-player-([0-9.]+)\.tar\.gz [19:03] bilalakhtar: no, the space is needed. [19:03] hyperair: do whatever tf you want with the code [19:03] hyperair: I could tell you but then I might get kicked from the channel ;) [19:03] hyperair: fine [19:03] hyperair: do what the hell you want with it [19:03] Rhonda: just say it. we're very lenient people... [19:03] ...i think =p [19:04] bilalakhtar: see "man uscan" [19:04] hyperair: it's the What The F... Public License [19:04] hyperair: nah im pretty sure the F isnt allowed in here [19:04] actually not "hell" [19:04] hyperair: It has one statement: Do What The F... you want to do with it [19:04] bilalakhtar: when there's a space, it means that it's two arguments, i.e. first the page to look at, second, the regex to look for in the hrefs [19:04] hyperair: saw it, thanks [19:05] maco: the dots helped. [19:05] bilalakhtar: okay, i don't see any more issues with it. time for a test build. [19:05] hyperair: uploaded, waiting for revu to show it on the page [19:06] ok [19:06] * Rhonda actually wonders wether the license, as it uses profanity, is a violation of the Ubuntu CoC and such licensed stuff should get banned from ubuntu. ;) [19:06] Rhonda: you are right, debian/patches/* licensed under bsd 2-clause with upstream gpl would be suboptimal [19:06] * hyperair waits for his maverick cowbuilder to finish installing. [19:06] carstenh: Why so? [19:06] cowbuilder? [19:06] Rhonda: because the patches are derivative works... [19:06] Doesn't the bsd 2-clause permit relicensing? [19:06] Rhonda: upstream gpl. [19:07] Rhonda: those patches are not legal to be applied. [19:07] Ah, because of the context … [19:07] hyperair: Of course they are legal to be applied. [19:07] er [19:07] fine, the result of applying cannot be legally distributed [19:07] hyperair: They will get relicensed as per GPL and are allowed to get reliccensed as per their own license. [19:07] bilalakhtar: cowdancer with a pbuilder interface. [19:07] bilalakhtar: copy-on-write builder. [19:07] Of course it can be legally distributed. [19:08] Rhonda: one clause says "please include me in source" which would make (at least) one file in upstream licensed under gpl and bsd if upstream meges the patch [19:08] hy The patches _themself_ are because of the contained context a violation of the GPL if put under a different license. [19:08] _That's the issue. [19:08] * bilalakhtar prays to god to get the package inside with no more problems :) [19:09] Rhonda: i'm not cut out to be a lawyer [19:09] bilalakhtar: heheh it's looking bright. you just need one more advocate after me, if all goes well =p [19:09] hyperair: its up on revu [19:09] hmm, what happened to mk-sbuild-lv? [19:09] it was there in karmic and not in lucid [19:09] oh speaking of which i was supposed to try sbuild.. [19:09] :-) [19:10] Rhonda: neither bsd nor mit permit relicensing (if you define relicensing as removing the old license text and adding another one) [19:10] * hyperair groans. my .pbuilderrc was wrong and cowbuilder create failed! [19:10] retry.... [19:10] * bilalakhtar wishes he had the knowledge to use pbuilder so he could help hyperair [19:10] bilalakhtar: that won't work. [19:11] bilalakhtar: well you should test your packages in pbuilder/cowbuilder/sbuild first, before uploading to revu. [19:11] you mean you didn't? [19:11] and after building, you should still run lintian on the binary packages [19:11] fyi, mk-sbuild-lv became mk-sbuild [19:11] fabrice_sp: thanks [19:11] hyperair: oh, I built it using debuild (which runs lintian) and have tried many ppa uploads of it [19:12] bilalakhtar: and after that, the sponsor still has to pbuilder/cowbuilder it to make sure that the sponsor didn't bluff =p [19:12] bilalakhtar: well, learn to use pbuilder =p [19:12] bilalakhtar: it's not so hard, especially with pbuilder-dist around [19:13] good grief. this ayatana list is really active. [19:13] i look away for 20 minutes to do some review work, and next thing i know, i've got another 20 odd emails in my inbox! [19:13] but i just cleared 20 odd emails 20 minutes ago... [19:13] * hyperair weeps [19:13] hyperair: are warnings after running lintian on binary deb ok? [19:14] bilalakhtar: cowbuilder still creating.. [19:14] bilalakhtar: pardon my slow machine. [19:14] hyperair: fine, I am having a question. Is it fine to have lintian warnings? [19:15] no [19:15] It depends on the warning. [19:15] bilalakhtar: well, if you know what the lintian warning is, and you have a good reason for not fixing the warnings, then you should override. [19:15] bilalakhtar: see "man dh_lintian" [19:15] and mind, that's only *if* you know why the warning is there and have a good excuse (the excuse should be inserted as a comment into the lintian-override) [19:16] hyperair: omg I have a lintian E (error). Its FSSTND-dir-in-usr . What is it? It is not documented on lintian page [19:16] lintian-info -t FSSwhatever [19:17] lintian -i gives you extended informations [19:18] dir-in-usr.. judging from the tag name, do you have a new directory in /usr? [19:18] bilalakhtar: what does dpkg -C blah.deb say? [19:18] hyperair: Looks like its an upstream problem. Will fix it. [19:19] bilalakhtar: okay, what's the problem? out of curiosity. [19:19] seems to be a pedantic error? [19:19] hyperair: It DOES create a new directory in /usr [19:19] lol [19:20] why for? [19:20] hyperair: now I have to make the change in orig as well [19:20] bilalakhtar: release a new tarball and use that as your new .orig [19:20] naturally, you should also bump the version [19:20] the upstraem version i mean [19:20] add a .1 [19:20] or something like that [19:21] hyperair: This app was developed by Michael Lamothe, maker of me-tv, on Anjuta. Looks like the problem is with the Anjuta IDE [19:21] hyperair: is it important? [19:21] lemme seee.... once i get pbuilder working [19:27] hyperair: ok I think its fine now [19:27] hyperair: beginning to upload [19:29] hyperair: uploaded. should be available soon [19:32] hyperair: see it now. [19:41] bilalakhtar: did you change the tarball version? [19:42] hyperair: no [19:42] bilalakhtar: you should have. also did you fix the lintian warnings on the binaries? [19:44] W: gnome-media-player: extra-license-file usr/doc/gnome-media-player/COPYING [19:44] W: gnome-media-player: wrong-name-for-upstream-changelog usr/share/doc/gnome-media-player/ChangeLog [19:46] just a min [19:47] bilalakhtar: you are installing NEWS and README files via debian/docs, but both are empty [19:50] hi there [19:51] jcfp: Can I remove these files? [19:51] i need some advice regarding a kinda-resolved bug [19:51] i don't know how to proceed [19:52] hyperair: solving the warnings [19:52] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/207065 [19:52] Launchpad bug 207065 in compiz "Bad Compiz Bindings Bug" [Low,Triaged] [19:52] I've posted a working patch, [19:52] and today it was commited upstream [19:52] so the next release of compiz will include the fix [19:53] but as of the package in lucid repos, the bug is still there, and the patch is therefore still useful [19:53] how should this affect the status of the bug? [19:53] hyperair: do I need to put a debian/source/format ? [19:53] bilalakhtar: yes. [19:54] hyperair: ok [19:54] you should put "3.0 (quilt)" unless you have a reason to continue using the current format [19:55] hyperair: thanks [19:56] hyperair++ [19:56] it's a sebner! [19:56] hyperair: should I build-depend on quilt? [19:56] bilalakhtar: no. [19:57] bilalakhtar: the whole point of "3.0 (quilt)" is to not have to make any patch-system related changes to packaging [19:57]