[04:58] <rlo> ok
[05:09] <fabrice_sp> Hi. I have to do a SRU to rebuild a package in Lucid that has no revision for ubuntu yet. I was going to use build0.1 as version extension, but the security wiki page recommends using ubuntu1. My concern is that this package may not be automatically synced if I use ubuntu1, whereas no changes has been done in Ubuntu. Any opinion?
[05:10] <lifeless> uhm
[05:10] <lifeless> an SRU isn't the right tool for a simple rebuild
[05:10] <maco> though i think build is the right syntax
[05:10] <lifeless> right
[05:15] <fabrice_sp> if a SRU is not the right tool, how should I request a rebuild of a package in Lucid? I have to bump the version so that people get the latest rebult package, so it has to go throught the -proposed queue. Or am I wrong?
[05:15] <lifeless> I'd check with the sru team
[05:15] <fabrice_sp> ok
[05:16] <fabrice_sp> fyi, it's for bug 571461
[05:16] <lifeless> I'm pretty sure that rebuilds haven't been considered in the SRU process
[05:16] <fabrice_sp> and I can confirm that a rebuild fixes it
[05:17] <fabrice_sp> jdong, any opinion on that ?
[05:30] <jdong> *looks up*
[05:30] <jdong> lifeless / fabrice_sp: We've done rebuilds as a part of the SRU process before.
[05:30] <jdong> I don't have any numbers off the top of my head.
[05:31] <lifeless> jdong: how are they named
[05:31] <fabrice_sp> ok. and about the version scheme? ubuntu0.1 or build0.1?
[05:31] <jdong> I prefer standard SRU X.Y versions
[05:31] <fabrice_sp> so ubuntu0.1. ok
[05:31] <jdong> but just remark that it's a no source change rebuild to pick up _____
[05:31] <fabrice_sp> yeah: this is what I've put in my changelog entry
[05:32]  * jdong just commented
[05:32] <fabrice_sp> will change the version number, and I'll upload it
[05:32] <fabrice_sp> ohh: cool
[05:33] <fabrice_sp> thanks!
[05:34] <jdong> sure thing!
[05:34] <jdong> and I'll take this chance to catch up on the rest of the SRU queue too :)
[05:34] <jdong> just started work at evil empire and am figuring out my sleep and work schedule on this coast
[05:35] <fabrice_sp> :-)
[07:32] <arand> In Bug #588519 I've mnaged to "fix" a FTBFS by just replacing "ld -E -shared" with "gcc -shared" in the configure(.ac), Is this a sane change? Should it be done in debian/rules instead? This only broke on i386 and powerpc, would this change affect the other archs (which doesn't fail) in a negative way?
[07:38] <dholbach> good morning
[08:26] <iulian> Hiya Daniel.
[09:32] <BlackZ> could someone sponsor bug #554823 ? thanks
[10:25] <AnAnt> Hello, can I do source-only uploads to upload.ubuntu.com ?
[10:31] <maxb> AnAnt: AFAIK you can *ONLY* do source-only uploads to there
[10:32] <AnAnt> ok
[10:32] <AnAnt> thanks
[10:39] <Rhonda> I would like to know what I can do to get bug 570609 moved further along.
[11:59] <Rhonda> Is there anything I could do about "https://launchpad.net/~wesnoth-unstable" - I consider it highly distracting and misleading, especially there was no contact made about it with anyone involved in wesnoth?
[12:31] <arand> In Bug #588519 I've mnaged to "fix" a FTBFS by just replacing "ld -E -shared" with "gcc -shared" in the configure(.ac), Is this a sane change? Should it be done in debian/rules instead? This only broke on i386 and powerpc, would this change affect the other archs (which doesn't fail) in a negative way?
[12:38] <Laney> Rhonda: You could ping a backporter
[12:38] <Laney> and about that team, I don't think so, short of negotiating with them
[12:42] <Rhonda> jdong, ScottK, siretart? :)
[12:47] <Laney> (please approve my pinta backport at the same time ;)
[12:55] <Rhonda> Laney: (copycat) :P
[12:55] <sebner> Laney: great lucid has debsrc3 support, hmm? ^_^
[12:56] <sebner> Rhonda: now going with a backport? :)
[12:56] <Rhonda> sebner: For karmic I don't see any other chance.
[12:56] <Rhonda> That's a completely different area/topic.
[12:57] <sebner> Rhonda: pff, karmic is oooold. lucid lts ftw!
[12:57] <Rhonda> Users still use karmic and do request packages.
[12:57] <sebner> Rhonda: users don't know what's best for them :P
[12:58] <siretart> Rhonda: yes?
[12:59] <Rhonda> sebner: "most users choose convenience over security, and that's reflected in the choice of the current default" - you mean like that?
[13:00] <Rhonda> sebner: … even upstream doesn't know what's best for them in that case, mind you.
[13:00] <sebner> heh
[13:00] <Rhonda> siretart: You are listed in the backporter team, may I interest you in bug 570609
[13:02] <Rhonda> … when launchpad is behaving again. ;)
[13:06] <siretart> yeah, looks indeed good to me so far, but I'm currently in the middle of something else :(
[13:09] <Rhonda> siretart: Sure, no rush. :)
[13:09] <netshine> hey all :-0
[13:17] <dupondje> netshine: you can start with checking merges.
[13:17] <dupondje> check if they can be synced / merged
[13:17] <netshine> i was thought to think with new packing.
[13:18] <netshine> to find some need to be pack and work on it.
[13:20] <azeem> netshine: AIUI, fixing/working on current packages which need help is preferred to packaging new stuff
[13:22] <netshine> azeem, i really dont know about what you talking about , sry ;-(
[13:23] <azeem> never mind, then
[13:23] <netshine> im new in all of this:-0
[13:30] <dupondje> netshine: this means we don't really need new packages, but we need current packages in ubuntu patched
[13:30] <dupondje> like bugfixing, updates, merges etc
[13:31] <netshine> oh
[13:31] <netshine> dupondje, do you mean the fixing the current packages is more priority?
[13:32] <dupondje> yes
[13:33] <netshine> oh,
[13:33] <dupondje> most software is packaged anyway.
[13:33] <netshine> ill start working and learning it right now, tnx for advice.
[13:36] <ScottK> Rhonda: LP id down for maintenance right now.  I'll be glad to look at the backport when it's up if siretart can't.
[13:37] <Laney> it's back up now
[13:38] <ScottK> oh..
[13:40] <siretart> ScottK: please do
[13:41] <BlackZ> why am I getting W: apt-p2p source: missing-debian-source-format ? I have created the debian/source/format file with 3.0 (quilt)
[13:42] <ScottK> Rhonda: I approved it.  Now it needs to wait for an archive admin with shell access to process the actual backport.
[13:48] <BlackZ> nevermind, fixed
[13:57] <Rhonda> ScottK: cheers!
[14:47] <effie_jayx> ls
[14:47] <jpds> Desktop examples.desktop Pictures
[14:48] <effie_jayx> lol
[14:48] <geser> nothing interesting :(
[14:49]  * sebner is sure jpds hides the interesting stuff :P
[15:03] <Rhonda> What does the added tag story-better-bug-notification in a LP bug usually mean?
[15:03] <Rhonda> Or are the LP bug tags a freeform?
[15:03] <effie_jayx> Ampelbei-: ping?
[15:04] <slytherin> Rhonda: yes they are free form.
[15:06] <Rhonda> slytherin: I see, thanks.
[15:18] <arand> In Bug #588519 I've mnaged to "fix" a FTBFS by just replacing "ld -E -shared" with "gcc -shared" in the configure(.ac), Is this a sane change? Should it be done in debian/rules instead? This only broke on i386 and powerpc, would this change affect the other archs (which doesn't fail) in a negative way?
[15:20] <arand> geser: picked it up after you mentioned yesterday, you got any opinions on it?
[15:28] <geser> arand: I saw it, but I don't know enough about linking to judge if dropping the -E from the ld call is acceptable or not
[15:28] <netshine> hey all, iam new here, and i bugsquad accept my request to be a member,
[15:28] <netshine> what now?
[15:28] <netshine> i am reading the wiki, and its little bit "mess" (for me)
[15:30] <dupondje> netshine: what you want to do exactly ? :)
[15:31] <netshine> join ubuntu as a motu, and for that i was reading that i need to do some contribute action.
[15:32] <netshine> and , i am more the fine with it, and really like to help., and as you say before, fixing current packages it in better priority from create a new one
[15:32] <netshine> so i would like to help in Preparing Patches.
[15:32] <netshine> i hope i clear enough :-\
[15:41] <netshine> :-?
[15:41] <dupondje> netshine: find a bug, find out whats broken, and make a patch ?
[15:42] <netshine> ok, how can i find a bug, that first
[15:42] <netshine> ?
[15:43] <dupondje> launchpad.net, its FULL of it
[15:43] <netshine> im there.
[15:45] <BlackZ> arand: an hint: don't confirm your own bugs
[15:46] <lfaraone> For some reason, python-sugar-toolkit-0.88 is supposed to have a bunch of files installed ( see http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/i386/python-sugar-toolkit-0.88/filelist ), but when I install it in  VM dpkg -L gives me a much smaller list: http://sprunge.us/IVIB
[15:51] <BlackZ> lfaraone: hmm... that's strange
[15:52] <lfaraone> BlackZ: yep. there was a bug in debian about other problems with python-sugar-toolkit's files being misinstalled, but it was closed as unreproducable. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=576270
[15:53] <lfaraone> ( ubottu lies, the bug is marked "Done")
[15:57] <BlackZ> lfaraone: I can't reproduce it - lucid 64bit
[15:57] <BlackZ> it works, for me
[15:57] <lfaraone> BlackZ: huh...
[15:58] <BlackZ> lfaraone: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/443394/
[15:59] <lfaraone> BlackZ: tell me what happens when you do "python -c 'from sugar import env'".
[15:59] <BlackZ> nothing
[16:00] <BlackZ> no-output command
[16:00] <lfaraone> BlackZ: right, so it works. that produces a traceback for me, and for the user in the bug I referencd.
[16:09] <arand> BlackZ: Well, I figured since geser had already pointed it out before, and that the failed build is pretty obvious since it's on LP, and the same error cropped up whe I tried it. I figured it justified.
[16:09] <BlackZ> arand: sure but let confirm it from others
[16:49] <johndescs> who
[17:06]  * hyperair wonders if there's any motu-sru folk around who is willing to take a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/banshee/+bug/585761 
[17:07] <hyperair> and the accompanying podsleuth SRU.
[18:18] <dupondje> seems there is some lagg on accepting sync's :)
[18:20] <hyperair> where?
[18:20] <dupondje> got some sync requests open .. that havent been acked yet
[18:23] <hyperair> i asked, where?
[18:28] <dupondje> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fxload/+bug/587824
[18:28] <dupondje> rest seems to be main packages :)
[18:28] <sebner> dupondje: merge != sync ;)
[18:33] <RunePhilosof> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed contain a proposal for the apt preferences file
[18:34] <RunePhilosof> however, with the suggestion of 990 to security and 900 to updates, doesn't that mean that you won't get any regular updates to packages that has been updated through security
[18:36] <RunePhilosof> furthermore, having security and updates to higher than 500 also means that packages from ppas that also appear in updates or security won't get installed from the ppas.
[18:37] <RunePhilosof> Unless I interpreted apt_preferences wrong :)
[18:39] <RunePhilosof> Shouldn't the apt preferences suggestion only contain the proposed at pin 400, and not the others. Since that wiki page only concerns enabling proposed and shouldn't set other stuff that someone finds better than the default.
[21:04] <vish> hrm , seems we are have a bug day clash!
[21:04] <vish> kernel and compiz are both on the same day :s
[21:05] <vish> oops , wrong tab ! :/
[23:46] <askhl_> Hi.  I'm trying to release an update to a python program I have in a ppa.  One of the users has trouble.  It appears he has files in python2.5/site-packages, python2.6/dist-packages *and* /usr/share/pyshared.  On my system, everything is in pyshared.  What could cause this, and how should I solve it?
[23:50] <RunePhilosof> How do I execute step four in the sru procedure? Upload the fixed package to release-proposed? Is it dput lp:ubuntu/lucid-proposed/packagename ?
[23:53] <arand> RunePhilosof: I think it's dput ubuntu:lucid-proposed rather, but you need uplod right for it.
[23:54] <arand> RunePhilosof: If you don't have that, you need to wait for someone to sponsor it who has.
[23:54] <RunePhilosof> right.
[23:54] <Laney> No, you just upload it to upload.ubuntu.com. The target release is determined from the changesfile (which comes from the changelog)
[23:54] <Laney> but if you don't have upload rights then you need sponsoring indeed
[23:55] <RunePhilosof> ok
[23:55] <arand> Ah, right, so with the normal dput.cf it would simply be "dput ubuntu"?
[23:55] <Laney> right
[23:57] <wgrant> You can use 'dput lp:ubuntu/lucid-proposed' to override the changelog (same with PPAs), but it's discouraged.