[03:31] <wgrant> yofel_: Soyuz doesn't do -dbgsyms itself yet -- it's handled by a non-Launchpad hack which I don't know the details of.
[03:31] <wgrant> yofel_: However, Soyuz will start handling them soon, and it works for backports.
[04:24] <AnAnt> Hello
[05:04] <superm1> wgrant, does that mean they'll be published in the regular archive too, and hence increasing the size of the packages.gz that gets downloaded?
[05:05] <wgrant> superm1: Only for PPAs.
[05:06] <wgrant> We have a separate archive for ddebs.
[05:06] <superm1> ah nice
[05:06] <wgrant> Well, will have, once I finish writing it.
[05:06] <superm1> that sounds good by me
[05:06] <ebroder> Ooh - ddebs are going into PPAs? That's awesome
[05:06] <wgrant> Yes.
[05:06] <wgrant> The PPA work is done, but we can't really safely turn it on until it works for the primary archive too.
[05:06] <ebroder> Rock on
[05:09] <wgrant> I did most of it a couple of weeks ago, and I will hopefully have the last couple of fixes done this cycle.
[08:21] <dholbach> good morning
[08:22] <Laney> Looking at that mail on -motu, does LyX still need the delta?
[08:22] <Laney> Merge changelog says "+    - debian/control: do not build latex-xft-fonts, it has its own
[08:22] <Laney> +      source package in main."
[08:23] <Laney> but that package got demoted to universe in Lucid
[08:29] <Laney> well I have to go away for the rest of the week now, but it would be nice if someone could look at this. I think that latex-xft-fonts can now be removed and then lyx synced. You could explain this to the guy on the mailing list and then ask him to file the sync FFe bug.
[08:29] <Laney> bye all!
[08:32] <bilalakhtar> I have a question. Package sbackup is maintained in Debian. But, a new version of the package is desperately needed. Is it OK to get the new upstream version directly into Ubuntu? (FFe needed) or should I get it into Debian (FFe should be needed for the merge)?
[08:32] <bilalakhtar> Desperately needed because of bug #550261
[08:33] <RAOF> bilalakhtar: By and large you should feel free to fix bugs in Ubuntu.
[08:33] <bilalakhtar> RAOF: The new upstream version fixes the bug, in reality
[08:34] <bilalakhtar> RAOF: An SRU is waiting in lucid-proposed as well.
[08:34] <RAOF> So, update the package & send that packaging up to Debian.
[08:34] <bilalakhtar> RAOF: update the package first in ubuntu?
[08:34] <bilalakhtar> ok
[08:35] <RAOF> Unless there's a particularly active Debian/Ubuntu collaboration team caring for sbackup (as the pkg-mono team cares for the -cil packages) there's no problem in uploading first for Ubuntu.
[08:39] <AnAnt> dholbach: hello
[08:40] <AnAnt> Laney: bye
[08:40] <dholbach> hey AnAnt
[08:40] <AnAnt> I don't understand that thing about latex-xft-fonts
[08:41] <AnAnt> why did Ubuntu have its own latex-xft-fonts package ?
[08:45] <AnAnt> ah, I got it
[08:48] <AnAnt> ok, how do I file a removal request for latex-xft-fonts
[08:56] <AnAnt> Laney: thanks for spotting it -> LP: #618547
[08:57]  * Laney hugs AnAnt 
[08:57] <Laney> → confirmed and subscribe the archive
[09:03] <AnAnt> Laney: are you sure you confirmed & subscribed archive to LP 618547 ?
[09:03] <Laney> no, I was saying that's what you need to do
[09:04] <AnAnt> ah, ok
[09:04] <AnAnt> what's archive ?
[09:04] <Laney> ubuntu-archive
[09:04] <AnAnt> ok
[09:04] <AnAnt> done
[09:05] <AnAnt> also sent an email about it
[09:05] <Laney> \o/
[10:24] <Adri2000> -:
[10:24] <Adri2000> oops, sorry
[12:04] <AnAnt> vish: Hello
[12:04] <AnAnt> vish: how can LP #613304 be fixed ?
[12:05] <AnAnt> vish: what icon does software center use ?
[12:07] <vish> AnAnt: hey.. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#Icon , looks to like the app does not have the icon in all sizes [i havent gone through the package though]
[12:07] <AnAnt> is it the icon used by .desktop file?
[12:10] <AnAnt> vish: what's the expected resolution ?
[12:12] <vish> AnAnt: it seems to be using 48px icons
[12:12] <AnAnt> ok, there are 48, 128 & 256 px
[12:13] <vish> AnAnt: hmm , yeah , was just checking the branch , might be app-install-data problem?
[12:14] <AnAnt> vish: yes, the .desktop file uses the 32px xpm icon, which is very ugly
[12:14] <vish> AnAnt: ah , there you go :)
[12:14] <AnAnt> ok, I will assign myself to it
[12:15] <AnAnt> vish: thanks for the heads up
[12:15] <vish> AnAnt: np , thanks for picking it up :)
[12:52] <AnAnt> vish: how can I test the SC fix ?
[12:55] <vish> AnAnt: not really sure , you could ask some of the SC hackers , they are hanging out in -desktop right now..
[16:04] <kaushal> hi
[16:04] <kaushal> can someone please guide me about https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2010-August/004541.html ?
[16:05] <tumbleweed> kaushal: looks like a bad postinst script
[16:06] <tumbleweed> kaushal: it should allow invoke-rc.d to fail
[16:06] <kaushal> tumbleweed, ok
[16:07] <tumbleweed> kaushal: you intend to fix it?
[16:07] <kaushal> so any suggestion ?
[16:10] <kaushal> tumbleweed, not sure i understand about  you intend to fix it?
[16:11] <tumbleweed> kaushal: I was asking why you were asking
[16:17] <kaushal> tumbleweed, if you can give me some clue please ?
[16:21] <Rhonda> kaushal: It is not clear what your question is. Do you want to fix the package, do you want to workaround so you can fix installation of the package for yourself, do you want to file a bugreport about it?
[16:36] <AnAnt> bdrung: what's top-posting ?
[16:37] <bdrung> AnAnt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
[16:38] <AnAnt> ah, thanks
[16:39] <kaushal> Rhonda, sorry was away
[16:39] <kaushal> when i install collectd using apt-get install collectd i get that error
[16:39] <kaushal> Starting statistics collection and monitoring daemon:
[16:39] <kaushal> collectdinvoke-rc.d: initscript collectd, action "start" failed.
[17:31] <bacon> hi, is it the good chanel to aska bout debian packaging?
[17:31] <tumbleweed> bacon: #ubuntu-packaging
[17:43] <bacon> tumbleweed: nobody's answering on this channel :/
[17:43] <bacon> it is like dead
[17:44] <bacon> tumbleweed: i tried before coming here
[17:45] <tumbleweed> bacon: aah, I've only heard other people recommend it. /me pops in there to help bacon
[17:59] <stalcup> bacon: yes, ask your question and someone will answer
[18:00] <micahg> stalcup: the user is being helped in -packaging now
[18:00] <bacon> stalcup: thanks anyway ;)
[18:00] <stalcup> eh? there is a packaging now?
[18:01] <micahg> stalcup: yeah, to consolidate PPA and non archive packaging help from #launchpad and this channel
[18:02] <AnAnt> is Stefan Potyra here ?
[18:03] <jpds> AnAnt: No.
[18:27] <ari-tczew> where can I check current UTC time?
[18:28] <jdong> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=utc+time
[18:28] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: http://everytimezone.com/
[18:28] <jdong> err not sourceid=chrome </shame>
[18:28] <micahg> ari-tczew: date -u
[18:28] <lfaraone> damn, that doesn't list UTC *headdes*
[18:28] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: what micahg said.
[18:28] <jdong> TZ=UTC date
[18:28] <jdong> that works too
[18:28] <jdong> the inverse is date -d "17:00 UTC" which converts it to local time
[18:28] <ari-tczew> jdong, lfaraone, micahg: thanks, I'm in UTC +0200
[18:29] <ari-tczew> +2 hours
[18:29] <lfaraone> micahg: did you see http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2010-August/002900.html by any chance? looks like somebody on the debian side has pyxpcom packaged separately
[18:29] <micahg> jdong: I wanted to ask you about the SRU process, I modified the procedure to say subscribe ubuntu-sru after upload, but that doesn't match your original email
[18:30] <micahg> lfaraone: yeah, he has an ITP for pyxpcom
[18:30] <jdong> micahg: well, feel free to subscribe SRU as soon as you have a patch ready, but don't wait on approval before uploading
[18:30] <lfaraone> micahg: I tested out his package, it worked at the very least with Browse.activity
[18:30] <micahg> jdong: but that was the understanding I got from the emails as a whole though
[18:30] <jdong> micahg: I usually go look at the upload queue to see what SRUs are waiting for approval
[18:30] <micahg> jdong: k, so maybe I should just revert my change to the procedure then
[18:31] <lfaraone> micahg: would that package possibly be usable as-is in Ubuuntu?
[18:31] <micahg> lfaraone: yes, I think so
[18:32] <micahg> jdong: should I revert this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates?action=diff&rev2=151&rev1=150
[18:32] <lfaraone> micahg: mk. I should ask if he needs a sponsor
[18:32] <ari-tczew> I need a sponsor for SRU right now :P
[18:32] <micahg> lfaraone: I don't think that's the issue, the package can't go in until squeeze is released
[18:32] <lfaraone> micahg: lies!
[18:32] <jdong> micahg: yeah, please revert that
[18:32] <micahg> jdong: k, sorry
[18:33] <jdong> micahg: if you want to clarify the procedure a bit, you can add that you don't need to wait for approval before uploading to -proposed
[18:33] <lfaraone> micahg: that's why god gave us the wonder known as experimental. (aka the "rc buggy" release)
[18:33] <jdong> micahg: no worries!
[18:33] <micahg> lfaraone: well, idk, can one upload a package to experimental if it's not in unstable
[18:33] <lfaraone> micahg: yep. sugar-0.90 is there right now.
[18:33]  * micahg wishes there was a revert button
[18:35] <jdong> haha we need more vandals to motivate that feature!
[18:36]  * micahg goes to hide in his vandal cave
[18:36] <micahg> jdong: better? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates?action=diff&rev2=152&rev1=150
[18:37] <jdong> micahg: yep. Note that on step 5, that email is already linked. Maybe move that statement down to step 5 so we dont' link to the same thing under 2 different names?
[18:37] <micahg> lfaraone: idk what he's waiting on then, maybe more feedback
[18:38] <lfaraone> micahg: fair enough, I replied saying "works great, let me know if you want a hand getting it in"
[18:38] <micahg> jdong: I don't see that
[18:39] <jdong> micahg: nvm I was looking at the wrong revision before
[18:39] <jdong> disregard that statement, what you've got looks good!
[18:39] <jdong> *gets more coffee*
[18:39] <micahg> lfaraone: I'd still like someone to make sure that it will be supported long term before we reinclude it
[18:39] <micahg> jdong: awesome :)
[18:39] <jdong> thank you
[18:40] <lfaraone> micahg: what sort of maintinence needs to be done? I'd imagine only bugfixes. (unless the stable API that pyxpcom uses will change....)
[18:40] <micahg> jdong: np
[18:41] <micahg> lfaraone: well, the xul APIs will change and unless pyxpcom will track those, we can't throw it in the archive since security support will end for xul192 long before the series is EOL
[18:41] <lfaraone> micahg: okay, so we  just update it to the next-upstream-version when needed, right?
[18:41] <micahg> lfaraone: well, last pyxpcom update was Feb 2010 which isn't a good sign
[18:42] <micahg> lfaraone: yeah, we'll probably throw the release after 4.0 into maverick
[18:42] <lfaraone> micahg: that just feels wrong to me.
[18:43] <lfaraone> (otoh, I'm not stepping up to support 3.6 either :)
[18:44] <micahg> lfaraone: we already upgraded hardy/jaunty/karmic to 3.6
[18:53] <kamal> bdrung: sorry for botching my FFe subscriber sequence there, and thanks for fixing it :-)
[18:53] <bdrung> yw
[20:26] <ScottK> crimsun_: Back in January you fixed Slicer so it would build.  Now it FTBFS with the current VTK in Maverick.  I was wondering if you might have a look at it.
[20:28] <micahg> ooh someone removed sparc from FTBFS page
[20:28] <ScottK> geser: ^^^
[20:29] <micahg> TB meeting about it isn't for another week
[20:29] <ScottK> The data isn't removed, just not displayed.
[20:29] <micahg> ah
[20:30] <ScottK> Worrying about sparc is pointless even if they don't kill it.  The port doesn't actually work.
[20:32]  * micahg was just commenting
[20:35] <geser> micahg: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+builds?build_text=&build_state=failed&arch_tag=sparc if you're still interested in them
[20:36] <micahg> geser: no, I have no test platform and am just waiting to see what the TB does, but thanks
[20:36]  * micahg was just surprised to see it gone already
[20:37] <geser> if ia64 gets dropped too the FTBFS page will get even shorter
[20:37] <micahg> yeah, I hope powerpc sticks around though since there are a lot of old machines that can use it
[21:56] <mdeslaur> tumbleweed: are you aware of bug #618787?
[21:57] <tumbleweed> mdeslaur: yay :) no I wasn't
[21:58] <mdeslaur> tumbleweed: mind if I assign the bug to you?
[21:58] <tumbleweed> go for it
[21:58] <mdeslaur> tumbleweed: cool, thanks
[21:58]  * tumbleweed grumbles about the size of that package (it'll take me an hour to do the upload)
[21:59] <mdeslaur> yeah, it's an awful awful package
[21:59] <ajmitch> it's an ugly package that will hopefully be removed one day
[21:59] <ajmitch> mdeslaur: I guess it causes all sorts of headacahes for the security team?
[22:00] <mdeslaur> ajmitch: when it comes to that package, we usually just put our fingers in our ears and sing loudly
[22:00] <ajmitch> oh dea r:)
[22:01] <micahg> bigon: thanks for merging gnome-sheel
[22:01] <micahg> *gnome-shell
[22:02] <mdeslaur> ajmitch: in all seriousness, it is a concern of ours
[22:04] <bigon> micahg: np
[22:17] <AnAnt> bdrung: shouldn't latex-xft-fonts be removed first before uploading lyx ? LP #618547
[22:18] <micahg> AnAnt: already uploaded :)
[22:18] <micahg> or ratehr sync'd
[22:18] <bdrung> AnAnt: no. the binary latex-xft-fonts package from lyx replaces latex-xft-fonts provided from latex-xft-fonts
[22:19] <bdrung> AnAnt: then the source package latex-xft-fonts will be found on NBS
[22:19] <AnAnt> aha, ok, so should 618547 be considered fixed ?
[22:19] <bdrung> bug #618547
[22:19] <bdrung> AnAnt: nope. the source package needs to be removed manually
[22:20] <AnAnt> ok