[01:08] <EzraR-m> persia: are you around?
[02:12] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: poke
[02:12] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: bug 603831
[09:34] <joaopinto> is REVU actively used lately ?
[11:04] <AnAnt> Hello, I need help with an apport script, I want to get the value of a config variable, so I did this:
[11:04] <AnAnt>     SLModemdDevice = command_output(['sh', '-c', '[ ! -r /etc/default/sl-modem-daemon ] || (. /etc/default/sl-modem-daemon ; echo $SLMODEMD_DEVICE)'])
[11:04] <AnAnt> is that correct ?
[11:06] <AnAnt> also, is there a way to test some apport functions directly in a python shell ? I tried , import apport ; command_output('ls') ; but that gave the following error:
[11:06] <AnAnt> NameError: name 'command_output' is not defined
[11:06] <geser> when you use "import apport" then you need "apport.command_output('ls')"
[11:07] <geser> or use "from apport import *" then "command_output('ls')" works
[11:11] <tumbleweed> (although command_output is in apport.hookutils not apport)
[11:37] <AnAnt> ah, ok
[11:42] <AnAnt> thanks
[13:40] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: ping
[13:41] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: hi, is LP: #414247 good to go?
[13:42] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: do you mean bug 414247 ?
[13:42] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: yes
[13:42] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: I'm not sure to coolbhavi package. Some things are not included.
[13:51] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: could you look at bug 602450 ?
[13:52] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: my question on that is should I look at it or unsubscribe sponsors?
[13:53] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: hmm, not yet. I'd like to see a feedback from sponsor, who is expierenced with python packages.
[13:54] <tumbleweed> in that case I'll look. If there's anything I know about, it's python
[13:55] <tumbleweed> xattr sync looks good
[14:07] <joaopinto> anyone with experience with ruby apps packaging ?
[14:08] <joaopinto> this app Makefile is using /usr/local/lib/site_ruby for a ruby module (or whatever it's called), I have no idea on the expected place for ruby
[14:21] <ari-tczew> joaopinto: look for motu ruby on launchpad
[14:21] <joaopinto> ok, tks
[14:22] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: btw you took on kadu right
[14:22] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: it doesnt need a merge :P
[14:26] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: I didn't look at kadu yet.
[14:26] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: doesnt need merging.. not from what i interpreted
[14:28] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: why?
[14:28] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: well,we the ubuntu package has a added dep,and debian doesnt ship with that dep
[14:29] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: so ubuntu should ship that dep.
[14:29] <ari-tczew> so it;s needs merging
[14:29] <ari-tczew> it;s due to new kde IIRC - that said debfx
[14:30] <Laney> you should rather understand why and whether we need to keep it
[14:30] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: uh wait,youve got it the wrong way :P
[14:30] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: we *do* ship that dep
[14:30] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: debian *doesnt*
[14:30] <evilshadeslayer> build dep
[14:31] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: so why you want to drop it?
[14:31] <evilshadeslayer> i dont want to drop it...
[14:31] <evilshadeslayer> thats why it doesnt need a merge
[14:35] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: I don't understand you.
[14:35] <evilshadeslayer> i dont understand my self sometimes:P
[14:35] <ari-tczew> QtWebKit is no longer part of libqt4-dev so all packages using it need to build-depend on libqt4-webkit-dev.
[14:36] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: do you mind if i took a look at kadu?
[14:37] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: I think that we should ship that B-D.
[14:37] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: ok lemme look a it,and ill get back :)
[14:46] <Laney> would be nice if that changelog had more detail
[14:55] <ScottK> What ari-tczew said about QtWebKit is exactly correct.  We're using a newer version of Qt than Debian, so we need to add this, whereas they don't.
[17:36] <ari-tczew> kadu ftbfs: error: 'fchmod' was not declared in this scope :(
[17:43] <coolbhavi> ari-tczew, include #include <sys/stat.h> in the ftb file
[17:44] <ari-tczew> coolbhavi: already exist
[17:44] <coolbhavi> or check if the header if already included is properly linking on to the compiler
[17:45] <ari-tczew> coolbhavi: how can I check it?
[17:53] <coolbhavi> ari-tczew, maybe something like this: gcc -include /path/to/directory/containing/header_name/header_name.h -o myoutputfile myoutputfile.c and you can compile and check again
[17:54] <ari-tczew> coolbhavi: you are doing a lot work for Ubuntu. I encourage you to present here more frequently. In team we can do more and more.
[17:54] <coolbhavi> ari-tczew, sure!
[17:55] <evilshadeslayer> :P
[17:55] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: yeah i got involved with rbot.. seems debian released a new package
[17:56] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: what is rbot?
[17:56] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: one sec
[17:56] <evilshadeslayer> !info rbot
[17:56] <ari-tczew> aha
[17:56] <evilshadeslayer> ^^ for eg
[17:56] <evilshadeslayer> evilbot: hi
[17:56] <evilbot> howdy, evilshadeslayer!
[17:57] <ari-tczew> o_O
[17:57] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: hmm?
[17:58] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: nothing ;p don't care
[17:58] <evilshadeslayer> :P
[17:59] <evilshadeslayer> the current version doesnt work in ubuntu
[17:59] <evilshadeslayer> was fixed in latest release
[17:59] <coolbhavi> evilshadeslayer, rbot ftb'd on my PPA due to missing rake and some modules
[17:59] <evilshadeslayer> coolbhavi: yeah im fixing those :P
[18:00] <coolbhavi> :P
[18:00] <evilshadeslayer> idk how but it doesnt ftbfs in debian
[18:00] <coolbhavi> evilshadeslayer, build environments are different
[18:00] <evilshadeslayer> yeah
[18:01] <evilshadeslayer> probably build deps get pulled in properly there
[18:01] <coolbhavi> hmm
[18:16] <evilshadeslayer> coolbhavi: rbot fixed :)
[18:16] <evilshadeslayer> just going through patches
[18:17] <coolbhavi> evilshadeslayer, It required module tweaking and b-d on rake I guess :)
[18:17] <evilshadeslayer> coolbhavi: had to add a few more build deps
[18:17] <evilshadeslayer> coolbhavi: rake, rubygems, libgettext-ruby1.8
[18:18] <coolbhavi> evilshadeslayer, thats what i meant i think :)
[18:18] <evilshadeslayer> yeah .. was just telling you which ones i added ;)
[18:19] <coolbhavi> rock on :)
[18:21] <evilshadeslayer> yeah.. will have to drop patches
[18:21] <coolbhavi> :)
[18:28] <ari-tczew> coolbhavi: am I correct with following command? gcc -include /usr/include/sys/stat.h -o main main.cpp
[18:28] <coolbhavi> ari-tczew, try out on trial and error mate you ll stick!
[18:30] <ari-tczew> coolbhavi: only errors in output ...
[18:30] <coolbhavi> ari-tczew, try linking with ftb file
[18:30] <coolbhavi> and see
[18:31] <coolbhavi> if the header is included on recompilation
[18:36] <ari-tczew> I don't understand. No idea how to fix it.
[19:04] <ari-tczew> if package doesn't have a patchsystem and I'm preparing a merge, can I patch files directly?
[19:04] <tumbleweed> yes
[19:06] <evilshadeslayer> the patch will appear in diff.gz..
[19:29] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: I thought that if you'll join MOTU, then you'll doing less, but I see that you're active. I'm glad. thanks!
[19:29] <Roran> hmm
[19:29] <Roran> anyone up for a merge?
[19:29] <Roran> https://edge.launchpad.net/~rohangarg/+archive/experimental/+packages << merge from there.. after it builds
[19:31] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: yeah I thought I'd do less too. Dunno what happened :P
[19:32]  * evilshadeslayer looks at tumbleweed
[19:33] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: what do you think about upgrade libsmbios?
[19:34] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: yes, it's borken and needs to be fixed. I saw the merge bug, looks like it needs work
[19:34] <tumbleweed> I have an SRU patch for when we have maverick sorted out
[19:35] <evilshadeslayer> ok rbot built and needs love
[19:38] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: you don't like the review queue? :)
[19:38] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: i can upload to revu for merges too? :)
[19:38] <evilshadeslayer> sweet :D
[19:38] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer:
[19:38] <tumbleweed> no, I meant ubuntu-sponsors
[19:38] <evilshadeslayer> oh
[19:38] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: revu is for new packages
[19:38] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: yeah
[19:39] <ari-tczew> tag: needs-packaging
[19:39] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: thats why i was surprised :P
[19:39] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: uh.. well.. sure.. ill file a bug
[19:39] <ari-tczew> evilshadeslayer: can't you use a 1 nickname?
[19:40] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: ah.. i was registering a nick for the bot :P
[19:40] <kees> ScottK: around?  I'd like to try to figure out why we're seeing different results with drkonqi.  :P
[19:40] <evilshadeslayer> but all of them were taken :P
[19:40] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: if you have not the upload rights you have *always* to file a merge bug
[19:40] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: yes.. im filing it
[19:41] <kees> ScottK: ah, nm, I installed rekonq and see what you're seeing now.  seems like it's different from kate somehow.
[19:42] <tumbleweed> hi BlackZ: haven't seen much from you on the review queue recently
[19:42] <BlackZ> tumbleweed: I'm busy with exams, however I'm working on some merges now
[19:43] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: can i point to the PPA instead of attaching a debdiff?
[19:43] <tumbleweed> BlackZ: good :)
[19:44] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: no, please post the diffs, it makes life easier for the reviewer
[19:44] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: ok..
[19:44] <ari-tczew> or use bazaar
[19:44] <tumbleweed> yeah, that too (although I still find the diff workflow faster)
[19:45] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: it would be better to attach a debdiff in the bug as a patch: 1. this will indicate the sponsors there's a patch; 2. the work of the sponsors will be facilitated
[19:45] <evilshadeslayer> ok
[19:47] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: also, according to our policy for the merges, you have to attach two debdiffs to the bug report (if you just attach the debdiff of versiondebian -> versiomerged that's not a big deal)
[19:48] <tumbleweed> yes, the ubuntu -> ubuntu diff can be massive. If it's more than a few screenfulls, nobody will read it anyway
[19:48] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: im attaching diff of our current ubuntu packaging and new ubuntu packaging,since this is a new upstream release
[19:50] <ari-tczew> I miss for archive admins :(
[19:50] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: if you're doing a version-upgrade the debdiff aren't suitable
[19:50] <evilshadeslayer> i know ;)
[19:50] <BlackZ> since they can be too big (of size)
[19:50] <ari-tczew> MoM would looks cleaner after ACKed syncs
[19:50] <evilshadeslayer> yeah i pasted a 5 MB debdiff once
[19:51] <BlackZ> you could use your PPA (if you have one) for that
[19:51] <tumbleweed> or a branch
[19:51] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: is this something debian doesn't have? or something debian is lagging behind in?
[19:52] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: whut?
[19:52] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: why are we getting a new version, not syncing from debian?
[19:52] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: were merging from debian since a sync would not work,we need extra deps to make the package not FTBFS
[19:53] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: in that case, you post a diff between the current debian version and your fixes
[19:53] <tumbleweed> that diff should be small
[19:53] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: so it's not a version upgrade
[19:53] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: if that fixes a bug, it's a bug fix ;)
[19:54] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: ok.. that would mean just the changelog,control and rules files
[19:54] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: well
[19:54] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: idk if it fixes any bugs :P
[19:54] <evilshadeslayer> but it will make rbot work :P
[19:55] <tumbleweed> let my pot on my bot developer hat and say "use ibid" :)
[19:55] <evilshadeslayer> ibid ?? :P
[19:55] <tumbleweed> launchpad.net/ibid (it's in the repos)
[19:56] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: i like my ruby bot :P
[19:56] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: if it's a bug, report a bug and attach your debdiff
[19:57] <BlackZ> then subscribe ubuntu-sponsors and wait
[19:57] <evilshadeslayer> kewl
[19:57]  * evilshadeslayer has to upload kdegames after this
[20:00] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: tumbleweed so i just post the changes i did to debian packaging right?
[20:01] <evilshadeslayer> in the bug report
[20:01] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: as a debdiff
[20:01] <evilshadeslayer> ok
[20:04] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: if that's the first modify in ubuntu for the package, yes
[20:04] <BlackZ> otherwise you have to modify the *currently* ubuntu package for include your modify
[20:05] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: that will make the debdiff huge
[20:05] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: why? if that will happen, just do a clean to the debdiff
[20:06] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: because debian has a new version and packaging has changed alot
[20:06] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: I don't understand: are you doing a merge?
[20:07] <evilshadeslayer> yes
[20:07] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: ah, then yes: just do as you said (remember to flag it as a patch)
[20:07] <evilshadeslayer> ok
[20:08] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: obviously it must be a debdiff
[20:09] <evilshadeslayer> yeah ok :)
[20:18] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: http://pastebin.com/jLWK7aRN << i get that in the debdiff,but i didnt modify that
[20:18] <evilshadeslayer> i think  its the doing of debuild -S -sa
[20:19] <evilshadeslayer> due to that it makes a file debian-changes-0.9.15+post20100705+gitb3aa806-1ubuntu1 in debian/patches  http://pastebin.com/VwyDt1zU
[20:19] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: does the package use quilt 3.0 ?
[20:19] <evilshadeslayer> yes
[20:20] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: so is there a patch in debian/patches auto-generated during the build?
[20:20] <evilshadeslayer> yes
[20:21] <evilshadeslayer> http://pastebin.com/VwyDt1zU << thats the one
[20:23] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: you should check what's happened there; maybe the problem is a patch
[20:23] <tumbleweed> most likely it's an issue with clean not cleaning up enough
[20:24] <BlackZ> evilshadeslayer: ever if you didn't modified nothing outside the debian directory
[20:24] <BlackZ> tumbleweed: yeah
[20:24] <evilshadeslayer> hmm
[20:24] <evilshadeslayer> BlackZ: since i was not sure,i pulled clean debian sources again and modified the stuff again
[20:25] <evilshadeslayer> but it still created the patch
[20:29] <evilshadeslayer> uh wait
[20:29] <evilshadeslayer> doh... debian ships that patch
[20:30] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: it's still a bug
[20:30] <evilshadeslayer> so how do we fix it?
[20:30]  * tumbleweed has a look
[20:30] <evilshadeslayer> maybe debian did want to modify that file?
[20:32] <ari-tczew> can I run 2 builds both on pbuilder?
[20:32] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: afaik no
[20:33] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: if you have two different base tarballs then yes
[20:33] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: they used to have a line in their clean rule to remove that file, but it's gone
[20:33] <ari-tczew> I want to build two differents packages, so differents tarballs and .dsc
[20:33] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: 		mv debian/rbot/usr/share/rbot/plugins/$${PL}.rb debian/rbot/usr/share/rbot/plugins/$${PL}.rb.disabled; \
[20:34] <evilshadeslayer> ari-tczew: base tarball of pbuilder :P
[20:34] <evilshadeslayer> uh wait
[20:34] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: no, rm -f lib/rbot/pkgconfig.rb
[20:34] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: where does it clean that file in debian/rules?
[20:35] <evilshadeslayer> uh.. no such stuff here
[20:35] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: "used to"
[20:35] <evilshadeslayer> ohh
[20:35] <evilshadeslayer> right
[20:35] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: so they delibrately removed it?
[20:35] <tumbleweed> looks like it was an accident
[20:36] <tumbleweed> they forgot to B-D on rake, too (and possibly other things)
[20:42] <evilshadeslayer> yeah
[20:43] <evilshadeslayer> so i add that to clean right
[20:43] <tumbleweed> yip
[20:43] <evilshadeslayer> uh waut
[20:43] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: see debian/clean
[20:44] <evilshadeslayer> whats that file?
[20:44] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: oh I missed that. man dh_clean
[20:44] <evilshadeslayer> :P
[20:44] <evilshadeslayer> right
[20:44] <tumbleweed> only problem is that dh_clean gets called before this file is created
[20:44] <evilshadeslayer> then were missing dh_clean
[20:45] <tumbleweed> no, cdbs calls dh_clean for you
[20:45] <evilshadeslayer> hmm
[20:45] <evilshadeslayer> oh ok
[20:47] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: so we still have to add that command manuall in clean: ?
[20:47] <evilshadeslayer> *manually
[20:50] <tumbleweed> yes, so we might as well delete debian/clean
[20:50] <evilshadeslayer> ok
[20:53] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: i can remove the patch as well then right?
[20:54] <evilshadeslayer> the debian series patch that is auto generated
[20:54] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: yes
[20:54] <evilshadeslayer> ok
[20:55] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: http://pastebin.com/kEpkj0fp
[20:55] <evilshadeslayer> im attaching that
[20:55] <tumbleweed> I thought you were going to delete that debian-xxx patch?
[20:55] <evilshadeslayer> i did
[20:56] <tumbleweed> did you?
[20:56] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: debdiff of debian package with new ubuntu package
[20:56] <evilshadeslayer> not old ubuntu package and new ubuntu package :)
[20:56] <tumbleweed> oh i see it was in the debian source too. nm
[20:57] <evilshadeslayer> :)
[20:58] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: to make your reviewer's life easier, you can remove the debian-changes-0.9.15+post20100705+gitb3aa806-1 section of the debdiff
[20:58] <tumbleweed> it'll get deleted when the reviewer bulids the ubuntu source package
[20:58] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: ah ok :)
[20:58] <tumbleweed> please forward that patch to debian
[20:58] <tumbleweed> (but don't send them our changelog or maintainer-changes
[20:58] <evilshadeslayer> hehe :P
[20:59] <evilshadeslayer> of course not
[20:59] <tumbleweed> err, what was I saying, it won' tget deleted
[20:59] <evilshadeslayer> first lemme upload with the correct stuff to ubuntu and will forward later
[21:00] <tumbleweed> (with source format 1, it would get deleted, but with 3, because it's a quilt patch it has to be manually deleted)
[21:10] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: ok,i cant remove the debian-changes stuff from debdiff,since ill be posting this debdiff as is and ask the reviewer to apply it to current debian packaging
[21:11] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: I can't understand that
[21:11] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: ill ask the reviewer to download the debian package and apply this debdiff on top of it
[21:11] <evilshadeslayer> so,i cant remove the debian-changes stuff
[21:11] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: that's the normal way merges are handled, yes
[21:12] <tumbleweed> no, don't remove that, I was wrong (as I said)
[21:12] <evilshadeslayer> ok :P
[21:13] <evilshadeslayer> bug 604102
[21:14] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: ^^
[21:14] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: did you forward th epatch to debian?
[21:14] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: im going to
[21:14] <evilshadeslayer> but just in a few secs
[21:14] <tumbleweed> please link to the bug when you do
[21:14] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: ok,should i mail it to them or upload it somewhere?
[21:15] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian
[21:16] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: btw merge bugs are normally titled with this format: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Merging#File a merge bug
[21:17] <evilshadeslayer> oh
[21:17] <tumbleweed> and you need to subscribe ubuntu-sponsors if you want it to show up in the sponsorship queue
[21:21] <evilshadeslayer> done
[21:21] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-universe-sponsors ??
[21:21] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: no, just ubuntu-sponsors
[21:22] <evilshadeslayer> ah ok
[21:22] <tumbleweed> universe and main sponsors were merged into one
[21:22] <evilshadeslayer> done
[21:23] <tumbleweed> great. Now we'll give debian a few days to pick up your fix, otherwise we go with your merge
[21:23] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: :P
[21:30] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: btw i cant find a build log on that page
[21:30] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: which page?
[21:31] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rbot.html
[21:31] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: that's because it's an arch all package. It was built on the maintainer's PC
[21:31] <evilshadeslayer> -.-
[21:32] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: he just uploaded the .deb?
[21:32] <tumbleweed> debian does binary uploads for one arch, and the buildd farm builds the rest (if necessary)
[21:32] <tumbleweed> yes
[21:32] <evilshadeslayer> ....
[21:32] <tumbleweed> yes, he really should have tested in pbuilder :)
[21:33] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: i could not imagine debian could be this lazy/callous :P
[21:33] <evilshadeslayer> oh also, should i add my self to debian changelog as well?
[21:33] <evilshadeslayer> documenting the changes
[21:34] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: no, don't touch the changelog
[21:34] <evilshadeslayer> uh alright
[21:39] <joaopinto> uh, Debian accepts direct .deb uploads ?
[21:49] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: uh.. i used reportbug .. but .. it sent the mail and all... but i didnt get a chance to attach a patch :P
[21:50] <evilshadeslayer> i didnt even get a bug number
[21:50] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: you'll be e-mailed th ebug number
[21:50] <tumbleweed> then you can attach the patch
[21:50] <evilshadeslayer> oh ok
[21:50] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: btw submittodebian makes it all easier
[21:50] <evilshadeslayer> hmm
[21:50] <evilshadeslayer> well the page said to use reportbug :P
[21:51] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: submittodebian is a wrapper around reportbug
[21:51] <evilshadeslayer> hmm didnt see that
[21:59] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588657
[21:59] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: i just send a mail to the specified bug address with the patch?
[22:01] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: yes, but while you are there, let's do a few more things
[22:01] <evilshadeslayer> uh ok
[22:02] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: what needs to be done?
[22:02] <tumbleweed> ok, so, you filed the bug as important, but you can actually raise it to serious
[22:03] <evilshadeslayer> ok,how?
[22:03] <tumbleweed> you should also add the tag "patch"
[22:03] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: i have no idea how to do this :P
[22:04] <tumbleweed> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
[22:05] <tumbleweed> cc your email to control@bugs.debian.org, and start it with this http://paste.ubuntu.com/461747/
[22:07] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: just that part of pastebin in the body?
[22:09] <tumbleweed> evilshadeslayer: yes, the bug control server follows instructions in the mail body. It'll stop when it gets to thanks.
[22:09] <evilshadeslayer> ok
[22:09] <tumbleweed> oh, if you want to mark the bug as coming from debian, you can add this in too:
[22:09] <tumbleweed> user ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
[22:09] <tumbleweed> usertag 588657 + origin-ubuntu maverick
[22:09] <evilshadeslayer> anything in subject? apart from " Patch for rbot "
[22:09] <tumbleweed> ...coming from ubuntu, I mean
[22:09] <tumbleweed> fine
[22:09] <evilshadeslayer> :)
[22:10] <evilshadeslayer> sent :D
[22:14] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: hmm.. somethings wrong.. where do i add the upstream url again?
[22:14] <evilshadeslayer> to LP bugs
[22:14] <tumbleweed> "also affects distribution"
[22:15] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: and i put the bug link right?
[22:15] <tumbleweed> yes
[22:15] <evilshadeslayer> doesnt work :(
[22:16] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: you try
[22:16] <tumbleweed> you chose Debian as the distribution?
[22:18] <evilshadeslayer> wait
[22:18] <evilshadeslayer> tumbleweed: done :D
[22:18] <evilshadeslayer> now i wait :P