[00:10] hi RAOF [00:10] rickspencer3: Good moring. [00:12] Morning guys [00:15] Hi TheMuso [00:15] hi robert_ancell good mornng [00:16] rickspencer3, hi [00:47] hey robert_ancell, just wanted to check in if my request about magicicada made sense, and if you saw anything during review that you wanted me to fix tonight? [00:53] statik, just saw email, haven't reviewed yet sorry [00:53] robert_ancell: cool, not trying to rush you just wanted to be responsive in case you wanted anything tweaked [01:01] statik, the name is a tongue twister :) [01:02] robert_ancell, it sure is! magic cicada or something like that [01:03] statik, you have a dupe depends line in the maverick package [01:04] * statik looks [01:05] robert_ancell: ah yeah, fixing now [01:06] only other thing is lintian complaining about the lack of manpage [01:07] robert_ancell: gimme 10', I will upload a new version that includes a man page [01:08] i should learn to better comply with policy that i disagree with :D [01:10] statik, heh, I'm in the same boat :) [01:11] TheMuso, where can I see the NEW queue? [01:13] http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+queue [01:13] robert_ancell: http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+queue I think [01:13] thanks [01:18] statik, following this process here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages. I've added the needs-packaging tag to the bug report (remember to link to it in the changelog) [01:20] robert_ancell: ah, launchpad must have broken the bug filing form, i used the filing link from the wiki that is supposed to add the tag automatically [01:20] robert_ancell, yep I've got that bug linked up from the changelog [01:20] statik, yeah, that's broken. I've filed a bug against LP about it [01:22] robert_ancell, the version up on REVU now has fixed the duplicate line in Depends: and includes a manpage (I have just test installed and proved that it works/displays correctly) [01:22] (uploaded about 8 minutes ago) [01:24] statik, hmm, I can comment on REVU, is there a way for me to +1 this or is the comment sufficient? (I've only used REVU once before) [01:29] robert_ancell: I don't think you actually have to use REVU, it was just a convenient spot for me to upload and I like how it does some independent lintian checks for me. If you are comfortable with the package I would think it's ok for you to upload directly and then I can archive the package on REVU. [01:31] statik, I can upload but my stuff still gets stuck in the new queue. I'll find someone today to review it from there [01:32] robert_ancell, thanks! i figured it would still need an archive admin to look at it in NEW [01:34] statik, where is the final version of the debian package? === oubiwann_ is now known as oubiwann [01:46] robert_ancell, I uploaded a new version to REVU a while ago, I can copy it somewhere else if it's easier [01:47] robert_ancell, http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/revu1-incoming/magicicada-1006080215/magicicada_0.1-0ubuntu1.dsc [01:48] robert_ancell: wait, that is not the right one [01:49] statik, push the debian dir to a bzr branch if that is easier [01:49] yeah, i'll do that now [01:51] robert_ancell, here you go lp:~statik/+junk/magicicada-packaging [01:54] statik, ok, uploaded [01:54] robert_ancell, thanks! === ajmitch_ is now known as ajmitch === TheMuso` is now known as TheMuso [06:43] Anyone feel like a bit of X sponsoring? [06:44] RAOF: lets see. [06:44] RAOF: no. [06:45] lifeless: Sure? It's just -intel, -ati, and -nouveau. And some of the input drivers. [06:45] :) [07:22] Good morning [07:25] Good morning pitti! [07:28] hey RAOF [07:58] Anyone available for some X sponsoring? [08:05] RAOF: what do you to get uploaded? [08:07] mvo: The drivers for the new xserver, basically. [08:08] RAOF: ok, I can sponsor them if you want, where is the location? [08:09] good morning [08:09] mvo: They're all available in pkg-xorg git. debcheckout will get you the repository, and you'll want the ubuntu branch. [08:10] mvo: If you'd prefer full source packages I can generate them and push them somewhere public. [08:12] RAOF: ok, I get nouveau first. should I use git-buildpackage or just debuild? [08:13] git-buildpackage for nouveau, because it'll generate the orig.tar.gz for you. debuild is fine for the others [08:13] ok [08:13] and there are updates for all of them? including more exotic ones like ivtv, mga etc [08:14] Some of them have already been sync'd. [08:14] The list is… [08:15] xserver-xorg-input-synaptics, xserver-xorg-video-intel, xserver-xorg-video-ati, xserver-xorg-video-cirrus, xserver-xorg-video-nouveau. [08:16] thanks === lifeless_ is now known as lifeless [08:31] hey there [08:35] salut seb128 === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [08:42] seb128: c'était bien le sport hier soir ? ;) [08:43] lut didrocks, oui [08:43] et toi bonne soirée ? [08:44] let's review unity stack in NEW now, I didn't manage to do it yesterday [08:44] seb128: ça c'est bien passé, oui, merci :) [08:45] seb128: you can finish your morning tasks first, but when you have a spare cycle, yeah, I don't mind if you can do it :) [08:45] didrocks, is there an order for those? [08:45] didrocks, I prefer to start with those [08:45] then I will do emails etc [08:45] seb128: not really, just "unity" should be the last [08:45] seb128: bamf new binary NEWing (the -doc package) [08:45] maybe a soft start :) [08:45] I'm on dee [08:45] doing bamf next [08:46] sweet [08:46] so the changes in the diff.gz I told you about, that's not an issue I just wanted to point it in case that's things to clean in the next upload [08:48] seb128: yeah, I'll try to see with unity guys if they can remove those from trunk too for next upload [08:48] so that we don't get it anymore in diff.gz [08:49] didrocks, ls /usr/lib/libdee.so.? [08:49] didrocks, ups, libdee* [08:49] seb128: starting my netbook which contains it installed [08:49] didrocks, ie how is named the library on disk? [08:49] ok thanks [08:50] I don't like much the -1.0-0 but I guess that's dx to blame [08:50] seb128: yeah, dx wants now to have it for every package but libunity [08:50] seb128: so soon, bamf will have it too [08:51] gnome-session: Depends: gnome-session-common (= 2.30.0-1ubuntu2) but it is not installable [08:51] so, it's libdee-1.0.so.0 [08:51] live fs builds fail with that for three days -- anyone knows what's up? [08:51] pitti, did anybody NEW it? [08:51] I don't know, I just saw the build error mail coming in [08:51] pitti, looking [08:52] it's not in NEW [08:52] pitti, I guess it has been NEWed to universe, checking [08:52] ah, that's it [08:52] pitti, ok, I promote it [08:52] I wasn't aware that it's a new packge [08:52] I'm on the box doing NEW anyway [08:52] seb128: cheers [08:53] pitti, Debian did rework it [08:54] they added a gnome-session-3 for gnome-shell [08:58] didrocks, why do you need to clean those .a and .la in the rules? [08:58] seb128: to avoid listing them in list-missing. I saw a lot of packages using that [08:58] didrocks, the .install include only .so.* [08:59] usually packages use that because they include a directory which has the .la in the .install [08:59] but ok, I've no strong opinion [08:59] dh_girepository -pgir1.0-dee-0.1 [08:59] you call that [08:59] but this binary is not built? [08:59] seb128: I can include to whole directory if that enables me keeping the rule :) but I prefer to only see really missing stuff [08:59] shouldn't you comment the dh_gir as well? [09:00] I guess it's not going to break the build though [09:00] seb128: well, I kept it as it will be fixed for next week release normally, this can be called without failing [09:00] didrocks, I'm just giving small notes, nothing of that is a blocker for new [09:00] seb128: so, I only commented the bare minimal [09:00] ok [09:00] Upstream Author(s): [09:00] in copyright [09:01] you are supposed to pick if it's a plural or not ;-) [09:01] <- very picking now ;-) [09:01] * seb128 hugs didrocks [09:01] * didrocks hugs seb128 back [09:01] didn't you say I was to picking? :-) [09:01] too* [09:01] ok, fixing that for next upload :p [09:02] with "very critical typo" ;) [09:02] lol [09:02] it's very minimal typo ;-) [09:03] I dislike the -dbg as well since we have -dbgsym builds but I guess it's useful for dx and njpatel? [09:03] seb128: right, same for others packages [09:03] it was a request for their daily build [09:03] seb128, yessir [09:03] I'm wondering if they should build debug packages by default in their ppa [09:03] it nostrip on the actual lib [09:03] rather than adding a -dbg [09:03] seb128: yeah, exporting NOSTRIP is good [09:04] but that's not a discussion for this upload round ;-) [09:04] nice idea [09:04] hey njpatel btw o/ [09:04] hey njpatel [09:04] didrocks, seb128: morning :) [09:04] didrocks, dee newed [09:05] * didrocks hugs seb128 (just 5 more hugs now ;)) [09:06] grr, can't push or dput anything to LP for the last 10 minutes [09:10] brb [09:11] didrocks, bamf accepted as well now [09:13] pitti, you got an sru ack for udisks from jdong [09:13] pitti, do you want me to sru accept it? [09:13] yay [09:13] seb128: if you have a minute, please do [09:13] pitti, ok, doing [09:13] die, floppies, die! [09:14] * pitti hugs seb128, merci [09:14] * seb128 hugs pitti [09:14] seb128: thanks :) [09:15] pitti: maybe one plan is to create a big electromagnetic field… oh wait, that will break a lot of other things too :) [09:17] but at least we would stop getting bug reports, since everyone is busy with building and ordering new hardware :) [09:18] hehe, sure, that's a good move so :) [09:24] didrocks, [09:24] Description: Miscellaneous functions for Unity - debug files [09:24] This package contains files that are needed to build applications. [09:24] oupss, fixing this [09:24] didrocks, you want to update the description for next upload [09:24] seb128: yeah, I'll, thanks [09:24] np [09:25] didrocks, thanks for the e-d-s sru btw [09:25] seb128: you're welcome :) [09:27] morning [09:27] lut huats [09:27] good morning huats [09:27] o/ seb128 didrocks [09:42] didrocks, libunity-misc newed [09:42] seb128: thanks, preparing the changes, tagging the revision and pushing to ~unity-team [09:52] didrocks, indicator-datetime has 6 autogenerated files changed in the diff.gz [09:52] seb128: ask ted, he's making it. I just merged and fixed some typo :) I'll notice him for next upload [09:52] ok [09:52] I can tell him when he's there [09:55] didrocks, I'm not sure the GPL3 or newer is correct as well [09:55] but I will check with ted [09:56] seb128: that's maybe me, but yeah, checking with upstream will be the best way to get it :) [10:07] at hospital, wife having baby [10:12] best wishes ccheney [10:12] ccheney: ooh, good luck! [10:12] ccheney, good luck [10:12] pitti, do you have some free slot? [10:12] pitti, I would appreciate somebody else looking to unity-asset-pool in NEW [10:12] seb128: two other pings in the pipeline, will do in a bit [10:12] pitti, I'm not very comfortable with new sources with binaries and create licenses [10:13] creative [10:13] thanks guys [10:13] pitti, ok, no hurry [10:13] good morning everyone [10:14] ara - i got the langpacks in to the PPA last night [10:14] chrisccoulson, OK, I will send the call for testing now to translators and I will follow up with the old call in ubuntu-dev and ubuntu-qa [10:16] hey chrisccoulson [10:16] chrisccoulson, any news about the new version? [10:16] hey seb128 [10:16] there's no news yet [10:16] chrisccoulson, did they publish or delay yet? [10:16] ok [10:17] hola ara, morning. So you are going to CC translators, or do you want me to do a separate call? [10:18] hey ara, dpm [10:18] hola dpm, I think that you can send the call I prepared at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/Firefox3.6.4Upgrade [10:18] how are you today? [10:19] dpm, to translators, and I will follow up in u-qa a u-dev [10:19] morning seb128 [10:19] seb128, hey seb [10:19] ara, ok, sounds like a plan, thanks! [10:26] didrocks, [10:26] ddpkg-source: info: upstream files that have been modified: [10:26] unity-0.2.6/HACKING [10:26] just for info [10:27] seb128: yeah, I guess this is from the same issue of file which is upstreamed and not in tarball, so merge-upstream will make it appear and add it to the tarball [10:27] right, i'm going to be running fedora on my laptop for a bit for some firefox debugging [10:27] bbiab [10:27] seb128: when I will have some spare cycle, I will put all of that on a list and see with people to fix this [10:27] didrocks, right it's only details [10:27] well, I like clean package :) [10:28] njpatel, you failed unity! [10:29] didrocks, ^ [10:29] unity-place.c: LGPL (v3.0) [10:29] didrocks, njpatel: you need the LGPL text in the tarball and in the .c listed in the debian copyright [10:29] hum? didn't we add it. it rings a bell to me [10:30] didrocks, also copyright says LGPL [10:30] where COPYING says GPL [10:30] and all the sources but this one are under GPL3 [10:30] oh, so we need a COPYING.LGPL [10:30] njpatel, yes [10:31] hum, I sucked, I've changed that part yesterday as there were no licence and copied LGPL instead of GPL :/ [10:31] njpatel: dummy release? [10:31] can something under the GPL have LGPL sources? [10:31] seb128, didrocks: actually libunity probably should all be LGPL [10:32] seb128, didrocks: Let me roll a new tarball with this fixed :) [10:32] njpatel: ok, then, I will update the debian/copyright [10:32] didrocks, njpatel: I'm rejecting unity [10:32] seb128: sure :) [10:33] seb128, that hurts, but yeah :) [10:34] * didrocks begins the MIR copy and past tour [10:37] urg [10:37] didrocks, njpatel: libunity-misc is distributed under what license? [10:37] I think I accepted it where I shouldn't have [10:38] seb128: there are some LGPL 2, 3 and GPL 3 IIRC, let me check [10:38] seb128, it's a mixture, but I think mostly lgplv2 [10:38] didrocks, njpatel: right but the tarball should be shipped under one license no? [10:39] seb128, erm, I dunno. I thought you can have multiple-licenses in one tarball [10:39] don't now too much about the copyright stuff, but having multiple COPYING.* isn't correct? [10:40] right [10:40] but I think the tarball needs one license for redistribution [10:40] since it has GPL and LGPL sources it should be under the GPL I think [10:41] asac, pitti: ^ can you clarify please? ;-) [10:41] even if they produce different binaries, some part under GPL and others in LGPL? [10:41] licensing is a mess :-) [10:41] ah, that makes sense [10:42] so, yeah, gpl [10:42] asac, pitti: context being https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libunity-misc/0.1.1-0ubuntu1 [10:42] I'm not sure how much the COPYING being correct is needed there [10:43] ie if the COPYING should be GPL [10:43] 6 lb 9 oz [10:43] and then you should have .LGPL2 and LGPL3 [10:43] got a question for someone for canonical [10:43] *in canonical [10:43] hi artir [10:43] bbl [10:43] hi [10:44] didrocks, rolling a unity 0.2.7 with fixed copyright for libunity [10:45] njpatel: thanks [10:46] kamstrup, both approved :) [10:46] sweet! [10:47] seb128: didrocks: you can have multiple licenses in one tarball and also explicitly ship it under a multi license COPYING file [10:47] however, they ned to be compatible [10:47] didrocks, https://edge.launchpad.net/unity/0.2/0.2.6 [10:47] so if there is LGPL 2 only code combined with GPL3 only (or later) code in a "non-library" relation, then it would be bad [10:50] asac, what do you call "non-library"? [10:50] asac, can the source have COPYING COPYING.GPL etc [10:50] asac, does it need to specify somewhere a license for the tarball or just for each source? [10:52] njpatel: shouldn't it be 0.2.8? (or .7?) rebasing on the same tarball isn't fun with merge-upstream [10:52] didrocks, 0.2.8 is for this weeks' release [10:53] didrocks, this is just a point release with some fixes, hence just a 0.2.7 [10:53] didrocks, license updates landed in libunity [10:53] njpatel: ok, because you posted 0.2.6 link :) [10:53] ah, right, I didn't create a new 'release', as the milestone is old, sorry :) [10:54] njpatel: no pb, rev 313 is the tip? (not tag) [10:54] yeah [10:55] njpatel: ok, I'll test it as there are a ot of incoming changes from last release :) [10:56] didrocks, yeah, I mean if you could just use the tarball and not trunk, that would be good [10:56] didrocks, as trunk has moved a bit [10:56] njpatel: not sure how merge-upstream behave if I don't use the trunk for once, I prefer to test with it, in any case next release will be in two days… [10:57] yeah, makes sense [11:00] njpatel: didrocks: how about adding .symbols files to clutter? ... want us to do that? [11:01] asac: sure, that would be great [11:01] asac: can do it this week [11:01] (probably today or tomorrow) [11:02] asac, could you review https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libunity-misc/0.1.1-0ubuntu1 and let me know if there is anything that should be changed in the licenses? [11:03] on a call .. .will ccheck in a bit [11:04] seb128: testing unity 0.2.7 before pushing the fixed version [11:04] asac, thanks [11:04] didrocks, ok! [11:05] seb128: re [11:05] pitti, hey [11:05] seb128: still want me to have a look at u-asset-pool? [11:05] pitti, yes please if you have a free slot [11:05] multiple licenses is actually quite common [11:06] pitti, right, I'm just never sure if one should be set for the tarball [11:06] ie tarball being GPL with sources under GPL and LGPL [11:06] or if mixed sources without distribution license is fine as well [11:06] seb128: the tarball does have a COPYING, though? [11:06] right [11:07] it has a COPYING COPYING.LGPL and COPYING.GPL [11:07] where COPYING has the LGPL3 license [11:07] seb128: unity-asset-pool? I only see one COPYING there [11:07] but it has sources under GPL [11:07] pitti, https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libunity-misc/0.1.1-0ubuntu1 [11:07] pitti, https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libunity-misc/0.1.1-0ubuntu1 [11:07] ups [11:07] so which one do you want me to look at then? [11:07] pitti, that's the one with the multi license [11:07] pitti, u-asset-pool is the one I pinged you about first since I've no clue about creative licenses [11:08] pitti, u-asset-pool please [11:08] ok, doing that first [11:08] pitti, I already accepted the other one but I wanted to clarify with somebody who knows if the COPYING needs to be GPL in this case [11:08] * didrocks needs to reboot, new kernel isn't great and hangs too much [11:08] seb128: in general, the tarball should ship all licenses it can be distributed under [11:09] seb128: if all sources are under GPL, then it shouldn't ship LGPL indeed [11:09] the individual files should still say which license they fall under, of course, but an extra license sounds confusing [11:10] I don't think it makes it unredistributable or anything like that, thuogh [11:10] seb128: u-a-p > main or universe? [11:11] seb128: it's the standard CC-BY-SA 3.0 plus trademark license that all our artwork has now, FYI [11:11] pitti, main if you can, didrocks has a serie of mirs for those [11:11] pitti, ok, I though it was ok but I wanted somebody to confirm it, thanks! [11:11] looks fine, accepted [11:12] pitti: thanks a lot :) [11:12] ok, back, retrying building unity [11:15] pitti, so back to https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libunity-misc/0.1.1-0ubuntu1 [11:15] pitti, sorry for not being clear [11:16] pitti, it has LGPL2 LGPL3 and GPL2 sources [11:16] pitti, which is fine [11:16] pitti, but the COPYING is LGPL3 [11:16] it also has COPYING.GPL and COPYING.LGPL2 [11:16] so it has the license texts [11:16] I was just wondering if COPYING should be GPL [11:17] i.e if it determines the redistribution license [11:17] because you can't ship GPL sources under the LGPL [11:17] pitti, not sure I'm clear [11:21] seb128: pushed last unity with fixed copyright [11:21] didrocks, uploaded you mean? [11:22] seb128: yeah [11:27] seb128: no, but you can ship LGPL sources under GPL? [11:27] seb128: I don't think that there's a notion of a "default" license, just because it's called "COPYING" [11:27] traditionally COPYING is GPL, so that's a little weird [11:28] but I don't feel we need to debate those little details unless/until someone actually complains :) [11:29] pitti, ok thanks, I was just checking [11:30] pitti, right you can ship source which are LGPL under the GPL, I was just checking if the COPYING had to be GPL [11:31] I don't know for sure, either [11:31] let's say that if nobody complain that's fine [11:31] but as long as the file headers are correct, it should be clear, just taking a while to figure out [11:31] upstream is dx anyway so we clarify if somebody complains one day [11:32] I heard upstream is a fierce and nitpicking license fascist guy who will sue us to death! [11:32] lol [11:33] didrocks, ok, so lot of LGPL sources now [11:33] didrocks, but still not COPYING.LGPL [11:33] njpatel: ?? ^^ [11:33] didrocks, njpatel: it's another fail! [11:33] didrocks, you didn't check before uploading? [11:33] seb128: I've checked licencecheck -r *, not the content of the tarball, I must admit [11:33] ok [11:33] so rejecting [11:33] you need a COPYING.LPGL [11:34] LGPL [11:34] seb128: maybe a good check to add to licencecheck, btw? [11:34] or the lgpl license somewhere [11:34] didrocks, could be [11:34] seb128: it's in upstream trunk, maybe not in tarball [11:34] didrocks, so maybe redo a tarball with it added locally [11:35] seb128: yeah, I think it's not in the dist target [11:35] seb128: so last time, I checked in the packaging branch and get caught by a difference with the tarball [11:35] this time I checked trunk, and get caught by a difference with the tarball [11:35] get njpatel to fix in trunk [11:35] next time, I'll check ONLY the tarball :) [11:35] and repack the 0.2.7 tarball with the license for the upload [11:36] seb128: I can fix it, not a big eal [11:36] no need to get another upstream version I guess [11:36] 0.2.7.1? :) [11:36] that would work as well [11:36] I was just suggesting to stop bothering njpatel ;-) [11:37] yeah, let me fix the Makefile.am for now and propose a merge upstream [11:38] trying with merge-upstream to redo a 0.2.7, let's see what happens :) [11:39] seb128, didrocks: for got to add to EXTRA_DIST [11:39] forgot* [11:40] njpatel: yeah, I've added it, do you care if I push in trunk or do you want to merge? [11:40] didrocks, please just push :) [12:05] seb128: unity 0.2.7 pushed with a shiny COPYING.LGPL and a new .pc file [12:06] * duanedesign waves at didrocks [12:06] hey duanedesign, how are you? [12:06] :) good [12:08] didrocks: looking forward to couchdb replication getting turned back on. [12:08] duanedesign: on maverick, you mean? :) [12:11] didrocks: Ubuntu One CouchDB replication has been disabled as they ramp up the servers to deal with all the increased traffic from the Lucid release === DrPepperKid is now known as MacSlow|lunch [12:11] duanedesign: oh ok, I didn't follow that. I hope they can deal with this quickly. But in any case, that's a good news, that means people are using it :) [12:13] didrocks: the sync speed has improved a bunch in the last couple day [12:14] duanedesign: great, I had to reset totally my tomboy file yesterday (it was broken for months not being able to synchronize) and I noticed that it was syncing very fast [12:16] didrocks: yes i had to take a break from bug triage on the ubuntuone-client package. It was hard to debug issues with problems server side. Now I am playing catch up [12:19] duanedesign: sure, and then, once the speed issue will be resolved, I guess you will have less dup about complains and stuff like that :) [12:19] duanedesign: oh, btw, FYI: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneConf/Testing [12:19]