[00:14] <ajmitch> grr @ LP branches of packages in sid not being updated still
[00:19] <imbrandon> ajmitch: how often do they sync ? or supose to ?
[00:20] <cpscotti> Hello all, little problem here; what is the procedure to "update" a broken package which is already on Lucid,
[00:20] <ajmitch> imbrandon: it's apparantly due to a debian bug that the LP mirror of debian isn't updating properly
[00:21] <imbrandon> cpscotti | !sru
[00:21] <imbrandon> !sru
[00:21] <imbrandon> there ya go
[00:21] <imbrandon> :)
[00:21] <cpscotti> oh
[00:21] <cpscotti> thanks!
[13:07] <Laney> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-m-universe-qa
[13:07] <Laney> make it so if you want to come :)
[13:36] <bilalakhtar> People, is contributing 10 packages to debian enough to make a person an Ubuntu member?
[13:37] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: No. Contributing 10 packages to Ubuntu would be enough though. :)
[13:38] <Rhonda> Ubuntu procedures are a fair bit different than Debian's. Just think of the Debian BTS vs. Ubuntu's launchpad and you get the idea.
[13:38] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: bump! And there are people on this channel who say its better to contribute to debian and sabdfl himself says "one of the ways to contribute to ubuntu is to contribute to debian"
[13:39] <azeem> you asked a very specific question abotu becoming an Ubuntu member
[13:39] <Rhonda> And that's right. :)
[13:40] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: It's of course better to contribute to Debian because that is a benefit for Ubuntu without any effort on Ubuntu's side. :)
[13:40] <Rhonda> … and additionally also a benefit for Debian because the changes aren't only in one of the two.
[13:40] <bilalakhtar> Then what should I put up to the membership board as a point to say in becoming an ubuntu member?
[13:41] <Rhonda> It's putting the effort on the better suited place.
[13:42] <Rhonda> I think it's quite similar with Debian, along the lines of triaging bugs in launchpad, taking a look at sync requests and check wether some ubuntu changes are still needed or can get pushed to Debian or even further upstream.
[13:43] <Rhonda> Maybe https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubuntu/ForDebianDevelopers is a good entry point for you, bilalakhtar
[13:44] <Laney> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#Ubuntu%20Contributing%20Developers
[13:44] <Laney> also
[13:45] <bilalakhtar> I know how to package for debian (thats not what I am asking). You should better understand my point.....
[13:45] <bilalakhtar> The biggest contribution I can make to Ubuntu is packaging
[13:45] <Rhonda> The link wasn't about packaging. :)
[13:46] <Rhonda> But even in Debian packaging isn't the sole part of what a DD does, and shouldn't even be the major part. It's about keeping contact with upstream and being a proxy between the users and upstream for received bugreports.
[13:47] <bilalakhtar> And folks on this channel say that its better to contribute to Debian than Ubuntu
[13:47] <Rhonda> Which is right in the sense of packaging. :)
[13:47] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: I agree. But should I tell the membership boards that my contribution to ubuntu is "packaging for debian" ?
[13:49] <BlackZ> bilalakhtar: contribute again and then apply for motu instead
[13:49] <bilalakhtar> BlackZ: so people can become ubuntu motus by contributing to debian?
[13:49] <BlackZ> bilalakhtar: include your work in debian would be great, just this
[13:50] <ChogyDan> bilalakhtar: I don
[13:50] <ChogyDan> bilalakhtar: I don't really know, but I think you can maintain the package in ubuntu as well, ie, test to make sure it works
[13:51] <bilalakhtar> ChogyDan: Of course I would do testing on ubuntu, but the problem is, most of the packages in debian repos can work without any modification in ubuntu. only 1 in 15 packages has a problem
[13:51] <BlackZ> but if you want contribute just to ubuntu, I think there's no problem - BTW, if you will contribute to debian too your work will be considered
[13:51] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: Why do you want to apply to membership boards anyway, if your contribution to ubuntu is "packaging for debian"? Just for the status? I think that's the wrong approach. You should apply when you feel you need special privileges for special jobs, not just to have it.
[13:52] <Rhonda> So if you are self-aware of such a specific task I would think that that should be the main part of your application, not your packaging for Debian work, because for that you don't need ubuntu membership. :)
[13:53] <BlackZ> bilalakhtar: if you aren't familiar with all MOTU tasks, wait again a while, we are setting up the mentoring reception program
[13:53] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: fine, will think of it after some more packages have gone in !
[13:53] <bilalakhtar> BlackZ: what is that?
[13:53] <BlackZ> bilalakhtar: it's an help program for new contributors
[13:54] <bilalakhtar> BlackZ: ohk
[13:54] <BlackZ> bilalakhtar: this doesn't mean that you can't read the MOTU documentation - the MOTU team is a good point to start for new contributors ;)
[13:54] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: Actually I'm in the same boat. I am thinking about applying for ubuntu membership - but I don't see the actual need for _why_ I would need it so I rather do the bit I do with poking persia and sebner (and others) from time to time. :)
[13:55] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: You package mostly for ubuntu or debian?
[13:55] <sebner> Rhonda: ubuntu-sponsors queue ftw! we are not your sponsoring bitches :P
[13:55] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: http://deb.at/Qgerfried+fuchs - go figure. :P
[13:55] <Rhonda> sebner: Oh yes you are. I signed your key to make you my … erm, did you just use a swear word in here! :)
[13:56] <astraljava> Oooh!! CoC violation!!! ALERT ALERT!
[13:56] <astraljava> :D
[13:56] <bilalakhtar> !coc | sebner
[13:56] <nigelbabu> lol
[13:57] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: Your first contribution! Well done! :P
[13:57] <sebner> pfffffff
[13:57] <bilalakhtar> lol
[13:57] <sebner> bilalakhtar: lowers your chances *that* much that I'll sponsor you :P
[13:58] <Rhonda> heh
[13:58] <nigelbabu> sebner: lol
[13:58] <bilalakhtar> lol
[14:00] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: are you a dd?
[14:01] <nigelbabu> bilalakhtar: yes I believe
[14:02] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: Did you take a look at the URL I gave you? :)
[14:03] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: yeah, but closed it, after seeing so many packages
[14:05] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: you bug sebner and persia for ubuntu packaging and are a dd yourself. am i right?
[14:06] <Rhonda> Yes, but usually I just drop the LP bug number in here without specifically hilighting someone.
[14:07] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: e.g. for LP #576287
[14:08] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: what does "Sync request ACKed" mean?
[14:08] <carstenh> bilalakhtar: you asked me the same question and disappeared before I read it.  we are both dds.
[14:08]  * carstenh cuddles his advocate :)
[14:09] <Rhonda> carstenh: Who was that?
[14:09] <Rhonda> … not me, was it?
[14:10]  * bilalakhtar is surrounded by experienced DDs
[14:10] <carstenh> Rhonda: you might regret to have advocaded me, but you did ;)
[14:10] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: ACK as in acknowledge. So it got approved/accepted. sebner looked at it and noticed that the ubuntu diff wasn't needed anymore. Such reports are only needed when there is a ubuntu diff and that is obsoleted.
[14:10] <Rhonda> carstenh: I regret to have advocated someone else, definitely not you. :)
[14:10] <sebner> Rhonda: well, they are even with no diff after DIF
[14:11] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: Who is that "Someone else" ?>
[14:11] <Rhonda> … which I had to figure out in my mind, Debian Import Freeze. See, bilalakhtar, all new acronyms for DDs. :)
[14:12] <bilalakhtar> I alreasy know about DebianImportFreeze
[14:12] <bilalakhtar> *already
[14:13] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: I should have avoided that comment and it's not something that needs to go around. I prefer people to make up their own minds about others instead of listening too much to other people's complaints.
[14:13] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: ohk, thanks for the info till now, will resume debianization
[14:14]  * bilalakhtar extracts his sid chroot
[14:14] <Rhonda> Just a final regular disclaimer note: This is my personal experience and opinion and I don't claim that it's the only true one or even a right one.
[14:15] <carstenh> Rhonda: btw. I recently found out how to colorize text in dialog, seems like a nice gimmick to differ orphaned packages from packages that are only orphaned because recommends/suggests are ignored
[14:15] <Rhonda> … or not selected ones in deborphan!
[14:16] <Rhonda> erm, editkeep I mean
[14:16]  * bilalakhtar notices that mentors.debian.net is not accepting any more packages, much to his horror
[14:17] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: What for do you need mentors if you are a DD?
[14:17]  * hyperair thinks bilalakhtar is misunderstanding the term DD
[14:17] <carstenh> Rhonda: the selection happens whilst you run editkeep, so this would be confusing (or I don't understand what you mean by selected)
[14:18] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: lol. You thought I am a DD?
[14:18]  * bilalakhtar thinks hyperair is confused
[14:18] <Rhonda> carstenh: Hmm. The indicator between * and section as sole indicator is a bit too weak for me. Also I would like to have in the interface the posibility to hide the one or the other list.
[14:19] <hyperair> er maybe i am
[14:20] <Rhonda> bilalakhtar: Didn't you say so before or did I puzzle that somehow? Anyway, if you have a webserver on your own to dump the packages too that's as good as mentors.d.n.
[14:21] <bilalakhtar> Rhonda: I never said I am a dd. I am just a mentor. I will have to upload the package to a server I have for my website expatsinksa.com
[14:21] <hyperair> mentee....
[14:38] <Rhonda> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership/RegionalBoards/EMEA seems to be outdated, 4th of may is gone. I guess 1st of June will be next meeting?
[15:18] <lfaraone> Would including the 10.04 CD in the unetbootin dropdown list be suitable for SRU in Lucid?
[15:22] <jdong> lfaraone: honestly I'd bite if the debdiff isn't too bad
[15:24] <Laney> jdong: My good man, do you have a minute to offer an SRU opinion?
[15:24]  * Laney scrambles for the changelog
[15:25] <Laney> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/docky/current/changelog ← that upstream release, it's mostly serious bugfixes… what do you think?
[15:26] <Laney> s/mostly/all/
[15:27] <joaopinto> aren't SRU expected to be motivated by LP reported bugs :) ?
[15:27] <joaopinto> SRUs
[15:27] <Laney> I don't see why they should be
[15:27] <Laney> if we find out about a serious bug before a user does...
[15:28] <joaopinto> where is the bug tracked, the test case, and the feedback that it fixed the problem on that case ?
[15:28] <Laney> I am asking if it is alright in principle
[15:28] <Laney> the paperwork follows
[15:29] <lfaraone> jdong: okay. would it be suitable to also SRU the change to karmic, jaunty?
[15:31] <joaopinto> Laney, do you consider paperwork validating a fix ? :)
[15:31] <Laney> what?
[15:31] <Laney> I think you are hampering me when there is nothing to hamper
[15:31] <joaopinto> I am playing devil's advocate :P
[15:31] <jdong> joaopinto: if it's a serious bug I do not mind a preemptive SRU
[15:31] <Laney> well I never proposed to circumvent the process
[15:32] <jdong> joaopinto: but it is annoying with some packages when people start cherry picking little fixes every week from git :)
[15:32] <joaopinto> jdong, without having a test case and resolution evidence :P ?
[15:32] <Laney> nobody is proposing that!
[15:32] <jdong> lfaraone: well lets see a debdiff. it's either a backport or SRU
[15:32] <jdong> joaopinto: no you have to file a SRU bug with required information
[15:33] <ari-tczew> !sru
[15:33] <jdong> of course I won't ask for a test case for reproducing a race condition ;)
[15:33] <Laney> I want to know if it's ok to SRU the new upstream release
[15:33] <Laney> backporting the commits would be tiresome
[15:34] <jdong> Laney: eh that is kind of borderline. got a debdiff?
[15:34] <slytherin> Laney: I did SRU for new upstream bug fix release in karmic. I could map only few upstream bugfixes to LP ones. The package was evolution-mapi.
[15:34] <Laney> slytherin: did you have to produce a test case for each bug?
[15:34] <Laney> that would also be tiresome ;)
[15:35] <jdong> Laney: gnome stuff has magical exception powers too
[15:35] <slytherin> Laney: Only for the LP bugs.
[15:35] <jdong> ;)
[15:35] <Laney> jdong: it's not a gnome module :(
[15:35] <joaopinto> so you are using a trust-upstream release policy :P
[15:35] <slytherin> jdong: AFAIK, evolution-mapi is not yet official gnome module.
[15:35] <jdong> but if it isn't a big hairy debdiff I'll believe you that docky crashes ;)
[15:35] <Laney> grr
[15:35] <jdong> joaopinto: absolutely not. the changes are inspected
[15:36] <joaopinto> jdong, but not runtime tested :)
[15:37] <jdong> joaopinto: it still goes through SRU verification
[15:37] <joaopinto> I mean trust from a stability perspective, not from security
[15:37] <Laney> we get a lot of patches from upstream
[15:37] <jdong> I meant changes are inspected from a stability perspective as well
[15:37] <jdong> I don't mean look for new upstream Trojans
[15:37] <jdong> *glares at Vuze*
[15:38] <Laney> http://pastebin.com/GBLzjwZQ
[15:40] <jdong> Laney: jeeeeeez! how about a backport? :)
[15:40] <Laney> don't just look at the size of your scrollbar
[15:40] <Rhonda> how about approving the wesnoth-1.8 backport!
[15:40]  * Rhonda hides for jumping on the backport mentioning trigger.
[15:40] <jdong> Laney: that's what she said
[15:41] <Laney> I don't see that 2.0.2-1ubuntu0.1 which is really 2.0.3.1 benefits anyone
[15:41] <ricotz> Laney, need any help ;-)
[15:41] <Laney> ricotz: help argue that we want this!
[15:41] <jdong> Rhonda: sorry, busy exams and such right now :( wanna email me the bug number?
[15:43] <jdong> Laney: I said backport..... 2.0.3.1~lucid1
[15:43] <Laney> oh I thought you meant backport the commits
[15:43] <jdong> for a SRU there is no precedence for such a big debdiff
[15:43] <jdong> but stuffing the new upstream ver in *-backports is totally fine
[15:44] <Laney> I don't think we want to leave crashers and mem leaks in lucid for 3 years
[15:44] <ricotz> jdong, there are serious bugfixes with detroys the user expierence, a backport is not the right way
[15:44] <Rhonda> jdong: bug #570609 - if I really should mail you need to hand me a mail address, or is it jdong@ubuntu.com? :)
[15:45] <jdong> Rhonda: I'm AFK ish right now so yeah, mail
[15:46] <sebner> jdong: mind looking at a SRU?
[15:46] <jdong> ricotz: I'm not going to advocate a 3000 line debdiff with some bug fixes, sorry
[15:47] <jdong> the two options I see, either backport the entire release or cherry pick bug fixes for SRU
[15:47] <Rhonda> Also I would think that we should get wesnoth 1.8.1 upstream release into lucid-updates and not lucid-backports because it's a bugfix release that fixes a major usability issue in the multiplayer lobby. The new upstream version also has additional translation updates, but I guess those aren't an issue to require to backport the old lobby back in only as a seperate patch?
[15:47] <jdong> sebner: bug number?
[15:47] <sebner> jdong: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bareftp/+bug/568840
[15:48] <Laney> it's only 3000 lines due to line changes in the translations
[15:48] <Laney> I really think that shouldn't be a problem :(
[15:48] <ricotz> jdong, ok, cherry picking would result in a nearly 2.0.3.1 release, so taking the whole tarball is more consistent, the difference between 2.0.2 and 2.0.3.1 are only bugfixes + translations
[15:50] <Laney> bah
[15:51] <jdong> ricotz: can you filter out the translation noise? unless you want to try directly convincing the archive admins, the SRU team has no precedence to approve such a large debdiff
[15:51] <jdong> or are the line numbers relevant to the translation system?
[15:53] <jdong> sebner: ok, your pokemon patch is approved ;)
[15:53] <sebner> jdong: thanks :D
[15:53] <ricotz> jdong, they are not relevant, but updating translations is a benefit for the user experience
[15:53] <sebner> jdong: gonna catch 'em all :D
[15:53] <jdong> :)
[15:54] <jdong> ricotz: you can try a second opinion from pitti who has seniority over me. if he accepts your line of reasoning I won't object
[15:54] <Laney> does it update the translations?
[15:54] <Laney> it just looks like it changes the line numbers
[15:55] <ari-tczew> !time
[15:55] <jdong> that's mostly what I saw it doing
[15:55] <pabelanger> What would be my next step about getting some packaging reviewed?  I successfully creating packaging and have it in my PPA (https://launchpad.net/~pabelanger/+archive/ubuntu-asterisk)
[15:55] <Laney> I'm trying to argue that the size of the diff shouldn't matter
[15:55] <Laney> more the magnitude of the actual changes
[15:55] <ricotz> Laney, there are updates included
[15:55] <jdong> I mean... when I have a moment in the next week, I'll take a look at the upstream repo
[15:55] <slytherin> pabelanger: upload the package to revu
[15:55] <jdong> but the size of the diff certainly is correlated with the invasiveness of the changes
[15:56] <ricotz> jdong, is pitti arround here sometime?
[15:56] <ari-tczew> what is the time now? 4 minues left to 15:00 UTC?
[15:56] <jdong> ricotz: go into #ubuntu-devel
[15:56] <pabelanger> slytherin: thanks
[15:57] <ricotz> jdong, ok
[15:58] <slytherin> pabelanger: What is the package about by the way?
[15:59] <pabelanger> slytherin: importing asterisk-sound files (en, fr, es), then update the asterisk package to reference them.
[16:00] <slytherin> pabelanger: and does this have to be done in separate package?
[16:02] <pabelanger> slytherin: Each upstream tarball include the same sound files, just recorded in different formats (gsm, g722, g729, sln16, etc).  So I have created separate packaging for them.
[16:03] <slytherin> pabelanger: Why aren't these files available in official asterisk packages?
[16:06] <pabelanger> slytherin: 2 types (asterisk-sounds-en-gsm and asterisk-moh-wav) are packaged into the asterisk package, they should be removed since they have there own separate versions.  The asterisk Makefile allows you to dynamically download them at build time, which does not work well for ubuntu packaging (if I understand right).
[16:06] <pabelanger> slytherin: Other formats never made it into Ubuntu
[16:07] <slytherin> Ok.
[16:07] <slytherin> pabelanger: I would name the package something other than ubuntu-asterisk. It is not as if the data is ubuntu specific.
[16:08] <pabelanger> slytherin: Agree, I just named my branch that.  Each package follows the naming syntax of the actual tarball (IE: asterisk-core-sounds-en-gsm).
[16:09] <slytherin> pabelanger: Ok.
[16:12] <pabelanger> Can packages from a PPA be moved directly into REV?
[16:14] <lfaraone> jdong: re unetbootin, diff at http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~lfaraone/ubuntu/lucid/unetbootin/10.04-in-dropdown/revision/16
[16:18]  * Rhonda sighs at last comment in LP #260290 - …
[16:38] <lfaraone> dholbach: for bug 567265, should I prepare a SRU for it?
[16:38] <dholbach> lfaraone: as you like it
[16:45] <joaopinto> Laney, from a quantitative appreciation the size  the diff is proportional to the risk of introducing regressions
[16:46] <joaopinto> qualitative appreciation of the changes is more arguable :)
[16:49] <nigelbabu> lfaraone: for that subscription, we could have a script or something written
[16:49]  * nigelbabu explores possibility
[16:49] <Laney> I am arguing for pragmatics rather than generalities
[16:49] <lfaraone> nigelbabu: you mean a scripted action in the UI?
[16:50] <nigelbabu> lfaraone: no, someone of python script that inputs the launchpad id and subscribes that person to everything that he/she packages
[16:50] <joaopinto> Laney, the SRU policy is general :)
[16:50] <nigelbabu> at least for now, but we could have osmething like that on the UI
[16:51] <lfaraone> nigelbabu: mk. yeah, if it uses the API, it should be easy to put into the UI eventually, right?
[16:51] <nigelbabu> I think so.  Best thing is to ask something who knows the ins and outs of launchpad api
[16:52] <Laney> The policy needs to be flexible
[16:52] <Laney> (and it is)
[16:52] <Laney> (we've had confirmation)
[17:15] <pabelanger> in debian/watch file, how can I reference the package name, is there a variable?
[17:17] <BlackZ> pabelanger: packagename-(.*)\.ext example: packagename-(.*)\.tar\.gz
[17:18] <pabelanger> BlackZ: what if I didn't want to hardcode 'packagename', is there an existing variable exported for it?
[17:18] <jcfp> pabelanger: there isn't afaik
[17:19] <pabelanger> jcfp: roger.  Thanks
[17:19] <slytherin> pabelanger: why do you need to use a variable?
[17:19] <BlackZ> pabelanger: nope, there isn't
[17:20] <pabelanger> slytherin: I have about 50 packages to update and create watch files for.  I wanted to see if I could make something more generic
[17:21] <slytherin> pabelanger: Not possible.
[17:21] <pabelanger> slytherin: no problem
[17:26] <carstenh> pabelanger: man uscan /PACKAGE
[17:27] <mypapit> man uscan?
[17:27] <carstenh> isn't uscan the tool that handels watch files?
[17:27] <carstenh>  /PACKAGE is short for search for the string PACKAGE
[17:34]  * abogani waves
[17:35] <abogani> I would want  request an SRU for linux-rt package but I have a problem if I want update this package I should introduce 418 commit most of them provided by Stable Kernel Release Linux Team (that is from 2.6.31.6 to 2.6.31.12). Write a SRU justification documento seems impossible. What is the best way to proceed?
[17:37] <nigelbabu> abogani: kernel stuff?
[17:37] <abogani> nigelbabu: Exactly.
[17:38] <abogani> imbrandon: ping
[17:38] <nigelbabu> abogani: can ask in #ubuntu-kernel? They tend to be the experts in stuff related to kernel
[17:38] <nigelbabu> um, he's most likely sleeping btw (its late night for him I believe)
[17:38] <abogani> nigelbabu: They respond me than linux-rt is an universe package so it should handled by MOTUers. :-)
[17:39] <nigelbabu> ahhh
[17:39] <nigelbabu> abogani: have you filed a bug for this?
[17:40] <nigelbabu> and is this fix in maverick yet?
[17:41] <abogani> nigelbabu: No I don't filled bugs yet. Not fixed in Maverick yet.
[17:41] <nigelbabu> SRU docs says that it needs to be fixed in stable release first
[17:41]  * nigelbabu is not sure if there are exceptions
[17:42] <imbrandon> abogani: pong
[17:43] <abogani> imbrandon: Read your backlog, please.
[17:44] <abogani> nigelbabu: I suppose that you meant *development* release first...
[17:44] <nigelbabu> abogani: err, yes
[17:44]  * nigelbabu is tired, long day
[17:45]  * abogani understand well
[17:48]  * abogani start to think than maintain an kernel package in a decent manner in Universe is impossible...
[17:56] <Laney> abogani: you should speak to the kernel team about how they go about their updates
[17:56] <Laney> I hope we can be flexible enough not to block you
[17:56]  * Laney feels an urge to join the sru team
[18:09] <abogani> Laney: My pains started at Intrepid time when rt kernel was moved from linux package (so under Ubuntu Kernel Team responsibilities) as standalone package to universe ( sounder MOTU responsibilities). :-(
[18:17] <pabelanger> Daviey: ping
[18:26] <imbrandon> abogani: re: linux-rt,  if you can send me the commit log via email, and what information you have
[18:26] <imbrandon> and where i can find the new build at ( and exact version ) , i'll check it over this evening
[18:26] <imbrandon> abogani: imbrandon@ubuntu.com
[18:32] <abogani> imbrandon: List of commits: http://paste.ubuntu.com/431795/, Upstream git tree: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mingo/linux-2.6-sched-devel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/rt/2.6.31. Actual tag v2.6.31.6-rt19. Tag than I would want upload is v2.6.31.12-rt21
[18:52] <arand> Would anyone mind sponsoring Bug #526849 to proposed?
[19:00] <imbrandon> abogani: great, make sure and send it to me via email too so i dont forget tonight , and i'll get it asap uploaded
[19:51] <BlackZ> someone has the time for review/advocate some package on REVU?
[20:00] <pabelanger> I was looking for sponsorship for #578051
[20:01] <pabelanger> bug #578051
[21:10]  * lfaraone dances about becoming a MOTU
[21:11] <Laney> oh the DMB happened, eh?
[21:11] <Laney> nice one!
[21:32] <POX> not that I contributed much here, but I will not contribute anymore until Python maintenance will be moved back to Debian
[21:34] <Laney> erm
[21:34] <Laney> what's that about?
[21:34] <ajmitch> POX doesn't like stuff being done in ubuntu before debian
[21:35] <Laney> is that a reasonable concern?
[21:35] <Laney> I don't know much about python packaging
[21:35] <ajmitch> well, check when python 2.6 was uploaded to ubuntu, and to sid
[21:36] <ajmitch> there's that, and apparantly some of the transition around that wasn't done well in ubuntu
[21:38] <jcfp> not to mention the complaints about the maintainer of python in debian...
[21:39] <Laney> i'll stay out of this one ;)
[21:39] <jcfp> join the club :p
[21:40] <ajmitch> it's a wise choice :)
[21:43] <BlackZ> lfaraone: congrats!
[21:50] <crimsun> it seems petty to allow vendettas to obstruct technical progress.
[21:51] <ajmitch> context is provided in the thread about debconf 2010 on debian-python
[22:09] <lfaraone> For SRUs, do we need ubuntu-sru approval before uploading to proposed?
[22:11] <crimsun> lfaraone: as MOTU, no, just upload
[22:11] <ajmitch> archive admins will approve it once ubuntu-sru gives the go-ahead, I think
[22:11] <geser> huh, did I miss the newest episode in the python story or what was it just about?
[22:11] <lfaraone> crimsun: okay. does the bug need to be accepted for fixing in that release, even?
[22:12] <crimsun> lfaraone: if by "accepted" you mean nominated for release X, yes, but you can do that as MOTU
[22:12] <lfaraone> nevermind, I just realized I can target things myself.
[22:12] <ajmitch> geser: nothing really new
[22:12] <lfaraone> :)
[22:14] <lfaraone> crimsun: but I cannot target it to Hardy?
[22:15] <DktrKranz> geser: it's only some mails from someone blaming without knowing the full story behind, and people tend to become frustrated
[22:16] <crimsun> lfaraone: are you using the nominate for release X?
[22:16] <lfaraone> crimsun: Yes.
[22:17] <crimsun> lfaraone: which bug?
[22:17] <lfaraone> crimsun: bug 578841
[22:20] <DktrKranz> lfaraone: it's probably because it wasn't in hardy
[22:21] <lfaraone> DktrKranz: ah, that'd explain it :)
[22:21] <DktrKranz> congrats, btw :)
[22:21] <ajmitch> looks like it was added in jaunty, might be backportable
[22:22] <lfaraone> ajmitch: I'm considering it, but first I want to push my SRU through first :)
[22:22] <crimsun> I accepted it anyhow
[22:27]  * ajmitch can't believe how long this fsck is taking 
[22:28] <lfaraone> Irssi 0.8.14 (20090728) - http://irssi.org/
[22:29]  * lfaraone oopses.
[22:32] <arand_> ajmitch: Bug #571707 ?
[22:33] <ajmitch> it's not stalling as far asI can see
[22:33] <ajmitch> since the % is slowly going up
[22:33] <arand_> ajmitch: One percent per minute?
[22:33] <ajmitch> just ticked over to 89% as I wrote that, but it's taken a long time
[22:34] <ajmitch> yeah, quite possibly
[22:34] <crimsun> nice, bug spam from 4-digit LP bug #s
[22:34] <arand_> ajmitch: arrowkey out to VT, if it's this bug that will speed it up slightly
[22:34] <ajmitch> so I've managed to hit this bug?
[22:34] <arand_> ajmitch: possibly.
[22:35] <ajmitch> how slightly? :)
[22:35] <arand_> ajmitch: In my case 1minute vs 1 hour :)
[22:35] <ajmitch> and yes, the slowdown starts at about 75% or so
[22:36]  * ajmitch might have to install some updates once this boots then
[22:37] <arand_> they're in -proposed currently, so hopefully they should come through soonish, bu then again, uds is a bit of a clog :)
[22:37] <ajmitch> I have no problem with grabbing from -proposed, I need to test packages from there anyway
[22:43] <ajmitch> arand: so I guess it'll move past 90% one day? :)
[22:44] <arand_> ajmitch: Tomorrows about an hour for me... it will probably be today, I think.
[22:44] <ajmitch> hehe
[22:44] <ajmitch> it's a good thing I'm not needing to use the laptop right this minute
[22:46] <arand_> But switching over to the non-graphic VT (just arrowkey), tends to get it going a bit quicker, unless you do want to revel in the mess of the bug :)
[22:50] <ajmitch> it really doesn't seem to speed it up noticeably
[22:52] <arand_> hmm, well for me it would take a rather non-variable 100s after switching over, wheas if I left it in plymouth well, about an hour or so..
[22:52] <ajmitch> interesting
[22:53] <ajmitch> fwiw, it did just get through the last few % on the VT
[22:53] <ajmitch> I'll install mountall from -proposed now, and can now work on getting other packages ready for SRU upload
[22:54] <arand_> ajmitch: Yea, though if you switch there, and then back, it will be horribly stuck again, just since graphical plymouth deals with the spammed fsck messages (I think it is) so much worse.
[23:25] <lfaraone> If I am uploading to lucid-proposed, should I "bzr push lp:ubuntu/lucid/unetbootin", or should it be "bzr push lp:ubuntu/lucid-proposed/unetbootin"? the latter appears not to exist.
[23:29] <ajmitch> I believe it'll be to the lucid branch
[23:29] <ajmitch> since -proposed & updates are separate pockets in the same series, I think
[23:30] <ajmitch> someone can correct my terminology :)