[01:07] <shadeslayer> i cant seem to be able to install a sid pbuilder on kubuntu :S
[01:27] <directhex> new sid builders are sometimes broken
[01:27] <directhex> sid's like that
[02:02] <maxwellian> Is the Ubuntu Applications menu built up from .desktop files in /usr/share/applications?  I'm on Xubuntu, and I have a different menu, but I'm working on a menu-related bug for Ubuntu.
[02:03] <wgrant> maxwellian: Yes, it uses .desktop files too.
[02:03] <maxwellian> wgrant: So what are the .menu files for?
[02:04] <wgrant> maxwellian: The Debian menu, which is used by some other WMs.
[02:04] <wgrant> But KDE, GNOME and XFCE all use freedesktop.org .desktop file standard.
[02:04] <wgrant> And not .menu files.
[02:05] <maxwellian> wgrant: Okay, that makes a lot more sense now.  Thanks!
[02:06]  * maxwellian wishes Google would index dot-files rather than just stripping the punctuation
[02:07] <wgrant> Yes :(
[02:07] <maxwellian> wgrant: In that case, does it make sense to send a patch to Debian which adds the .desktop file?  Ideally they would put it in their package so we could all benefit, but if it's not used by Debian, would they include it?
[02:08] <wgrant> maxwellian: Debian does use .desktop files.
[02:08] <wgrant> But some of the WMs don't.
[02:08] <wgrant> maxwellian: Better yet, send it upstream.
[02:08] <wgrant> So all distributions benefit.
[02:08] <wgrant> And neither us nor Debian have to maintain the delta forever.
[02:12] <maxwellian> wgrant: Right, well I'll send the patch to both Debian and upstream then.  Not sure if upstream would know what to do with it, but if Debian takes it then we can just sync the package from them next time.
[03:49] <bbordwell> Hello, I am a bug triager and I am not very familiar with the SRU process. Is there anything else that should be done to this bug to get the SRU team to look at it?
[03:49] <bbordwell> https://bugs.launchpad.net/gdebi/+bug/591470
[04:28] <jdong> heh. the goto usage in the openvpn SRU. :)
[04:36] <ScottL> jdong, could you answer a question about doing an SRU for ardour (#581786)
[04:36] <ScottL> #581786
[04:37] <ScottL> crap  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntustudio/+bug/581786
[04:37] <ScottL> i cannot nominate the 10.04 LTS version as an SRU candidate
[04:37] <ScottL> i can nominate lots of others and the trunk series, should i just nominate the trunk and make mention in the SRU that it's for the 10.04 series?
[04:39] <lfaraone> jdong: I saw your comment on bug 601219, and I already uploaded to the queue earlier yesterday.
[04:40] <micahg> ScottL: try this link to nominate for lucid: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/581786
[04:40] <ScottL> i will micahg , thank you
[04:42] <ScottL> eh, micahg, it gives me an 'lost something?' page when i try to nominate from the link :(
[04:42] <ScottL> can i start a new bug for this?
[04:43] <micahg> ScottL: you should probably file a bug against malone for that
[04:43] <micahg> ScottL: here: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ardour/+bug/581786
[04:44] <ScottL> micahg, success!  many thanks
[04:45] <micahg> ScottL: np, LP just needed package/distro context
[07:32] <bilalakhtar> Please see bug #606610
[13:04] <shadeslayer> TheMuso: poke
[13:04] <shadeslayer> can you join #ubuntu-packaging if your around
[18:14] <ScottL> can someone help me with uploading to release-proposed on an SRU ? https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ardour/+bug/581786
[18:17] <nigelb> ScottL: as per new policy, you should subscribe sponsors
[18:35] <ScottL> nigelb, ubuntu sponsors team?
[18:36] <nigelb> yes
[18:39] <ScottL> nigelb, done
[18:40] <ScottL> nigelb,  i am nervous about timing since this is for 10.04.01, am i to wait until sponsors contacts me or is there an irc channel i can talk to sponsors?
[18:42] <nigelb> sru can be done any time
[18:42] <nigelb> also of note, canonical employees are in prague at a platform "rally"
[18:44] <nigelb> but sponsors include a lot of community members and they'll get to it soon :)
[18:44] <nigelb> you can try asking here tomorrow
[18:48] <ScottL> nigelb, capital!  thank you very much
[18:49] <nigelb> ScottL: heh, what I can I say, I'm lazy ;)
[18:54] <fabrice_sp> ScottK, what tests did you in Lucid?
[18:55] <fabrice_sp> sorry, bad ping
[18:55] <fabrice_sp> ScottL,
[18:56] <ScottL> fabrice_sp, yes, i tested it locally in lucid
[18:57] <fabrice_sp> it has to be a new instalation, if I understand correctly the bug report
[18:59] <ScottL> fabrice_sp, that is correct
[18:59] <ScottL> i created another lucid install on a new partition to test it
[18:59] <fabrice_sp> ok. I'll try to reproduce it, and your patch fix it also here, I'll upload to -proposed
[18:59] <fabrice_sp> deleting the ardour directory in the home is also correct, no?
[19:01] <ScottL> yes fabrice_sp
[19:02] <ScottL> fabrice_sp, as per the bug
[19:03] <fabrice_sp> ok. Sorry for asking, then :-) (I am doing several things at the same time)
[19:04] <ScottL> fabrice_sp, oh, no...i wasn't chastising, i just wanted to make sure you knew the right directory!  sorry 'bout that
[19:05]  * fabrice_sp is installing ardour in a lucid chroot
[19:05] <fabrice_sp> np :-)
[19:05] <ScottL> i'm multitasking (heh, i just told the other person the same) and profusely apologize for the misrepresentation
[19:07] <fabrice_sp> don't worry ;-)
[19:08] <fabrice_sp> argh: it has to be a VM..
[19:16] <ScottL> fabrice_sp, i'll be in and out with the kids today, i'll keep checking irc throughout the day through
[19:29] <ScottL> fabrice_sp, this is my first SRU, i hope i'm doing everything correctly ;)
[19:30]  * shadeslayer wants a SRU too
[19:35] <shadeslayer> fabrice_sp: poke
[19:40] <shadeslayer> if someone can SRU bug 565376
[19:41] <shadeslayer> it even has a debdiff ;)
[20:18] <fabrice_sp> ScottL, all my vms are maverick ones. Sorry: I won't be able to upload your sru
[21:07] <crimsun_> ScottL: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/ardour/+bug/581786/comments/10
[21:37] <micahg> if I click retry on 1 arch, does it retry all of them?
[21:38] <crimsun_> I've always had to iterate through all the desired arches
[21:39] <micahg> crimsun_: ok, thanks
[21:44] <ScottL> crimsun_, looking at comment
[21:45] <ScottL> crimsun_, does that mean it's uploaded for the SRU?
[21:46] <crimsun_> ScottL: did you receive a "waiting for approval" e-mail?
[21:46] <crimsun_> ScottL: i.e., you should have
[21:47] <crimsun_> ScottL: to answer your original question: yes, I uploaded it
[21:49] <ScottL> crimsun_, i haven't checked email yet, i shall however
[21:50] <ScottL> crimsun_, also apparently i didn't include changelog update, i shall do that in the future as well
[21:50] <ScottL> crimsun_, thanks!  :)
[21:53] <crimsun_> yw
[21:53] <ubutuser> hello
[21:54] <ubutuser> someone know how can i see all packages in one category using apt via command line?
[22:25] <geser> micahg: but there is a script that can give-back a package on all arch (or a subset if desired)
[22:29] <micahg> geser: I just wanted to give back on one arch to made sure it works
[22:29] <geser> it can do it too, if you don't want to use the web ui or have to repeat it for several packages
[22:30] <micahg> geser: k, is that in archive-tools?
[22:30] <geser> ubuntu-build from u-d-t
[22:30] <micahg> geser: k, thanks
[22:31] <geser> it has an old interface which only accepts one package and a new one (--batch) which accepts several packages
[23:14] <lfaraone> Does ~ubuntu-sru have the ability to approve SRU uploads, or is that part of the Archive Admin team?
[23:17] <geser> IIRC only AA
[23:17] <ScottK> If by approve, you mean accept into the archive, it's archive admin.
[23:17] <ScottK> Except for jdong, I think all ubuntu-sru members are archive admins.
[23:17] <ScottK> (or at least among the active ones)
[23:30] <devfil> ScottK, no
[23:31] <devfil> I'm not
[23:45] <RoAkSoAx> ScottK: Can you do me a favor? Could you please sync bug #605955 :)