[00:14] <andol> Any chance one might get some attention to the SRU bug #562067? Should be fairly straightforward, as it is only about a rebuild?
[00:15] <micahg> andol: have you ready the SRU procedures?
[00:16] <micahg> andol: you just need to subscribe -sponsors so it gets uploaded :)
[00:17] <andol> micahg: Yes, I have read them, but obviously not closely enough :)
[00:18] <micahg> andol: yeah, the -sru team prefers to review in upload queue now (I added a link for this today)
[00:22] <bdrung> andol: is it fixed in maverick?
[00:22] <andol> Ok, thanks
[00:23] <bdrung> andol: is it fixed in maverick?
[00:24] <andol> bdrung: I don't know, once I originally worked at that bug there really wasn't any Maverick, and now I don't have any  Maverick availible. Yet probably something I should look into.
[00:24] <andol> (that is, any desktop maverick)
[00:24] <bdrung> andol: first step is to fix the development release and then backport the fix
[00:25] <andol> bdrung: Have you looked at the bug?
[00:25]  * micahg forgot about that :-/
[00:25] <bdrung> andol: quick look
[00:26] <andol> bdrung: package copied directly from Debian, built against wrong qt library. The fix is merely a rebuild. Not entirely sure how a backport is applicable is such a situation?
[00:26]  * bdrung notes down that  micahg doesn't know anythings about Ubuntu. *joking*
[00:26] <micahg> bdrung: :)
[00:27] <micahg> andol: BTW, maverick has newer versions of both libraries
[00:27] <bdrung> andol: just make sure that it works in maverick
[00:28] <bdrung> it's too late. i launched sponsor-patch in the interactive shell of sponsor-patch
[00:28] <andol> bdrung: Yeah, now I should definetly do that. But what should I have been doing when I originally looked at the bug? Assuming a package completly unuable without a rebuild? Wait for there to be a Maverick availible I could work on?
[00:28] <micahg> andol: I think you should reread the SRU docs, your test case needs to be in teh description as well
[00:30] <andol> ok
[00:30] <micahg> bdrung: most likely invalid against maverick
[00:30] <bdrung> andol: in the time where the next devel release is not open for upload, just work on the stable one
[00:30] <bdrung> micahg: assumes that too, but checking twice is better than being wrong
[00:31] <micahg> bdrung: yep :)
[00:36] <micahg> andol: right after the dev release opens, they'll pocket copy any fixes from -proposed/-updates to the devel release
[00:37] <andol> ok
[00:39] <bdrung> andol: uploaded
[00:44] <andol> bdrung: Thanks
[00:44] <andol> (But what about maverick first?)
[00:46] <micahg> SpamapS: sorry, I haven't been able to solve the issue I've had with the build yet
[00:47] <bdrung> andol: i assume that maverick is not affected and assume that you will test it. the ubuntu-sru team needs some time to approve the upload
[00:48] <jdong> and oh boy, tonight I should process the queue
[00:48] <jdong> been a hectic 2 weeks of preparing to move back to school
[00:50] <andol> bdrung: Fair enough, t hanks
[00:50] <andol> s/ //
[00:51] <bdrung> andol: "Fairenough, t hanks"? ;)
[00:54] <andol> bdrung: I am afraid I am to tired to come up with a witty response to that :) Hence I am off to bed.
[00:55] <bdrung> andol: s/<sleep time>//
[00:56] <andol> Ok, now I am just confused...
[01:04] <SpamapS> micahg: weird
[01:07] <micahg> SpamapS: are you in a rush to get this in?
[01:08] <micahg> SpamapS: if not, I"ll try to find someone who knows scons to help me with it next wekeends
[01:10] <lifeless> gl ;)
[01:10] <micahg> lifeless: I didn't say where I'd look ;)
[01:19] <bdrung> andol: just a joke: just drop your sleep time ;)
[01:19]  * bdrung should go to bed.
[02:46] <bdrung> 10 universe sponsor request remaining \o/
[02:47]  * micahg has one of them but doesn't understand scons
[03:13] <ScottK> micahg: You and pretty much everyone else.
[03:23] <bdrung> ScottK: scons is better than waf ;)
[03:24] <ScottK> Yes, but that's not saying much.
[03:25] <ScottK> Although I understand the theory of waf isn't so bad as the developer's inability to grasp the concept of releases.
[03:25] <ScottK> Of course scons is good in theory too (I even know of people that like it)
[03:28]  * ajmitch has heard of projects actually using scons & not falling over in a screaming heap
[03:28] <ajmitch> I'm not sure if the same can be said of autohell
[03:36]  * ScottK looks at http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/NBS/libstdc++6-4.1-dev and thinks of YokoZar....
[03:36] <ajmitch> people still want wine1.0?
[03:37] <ajmitch> ah, I see 1.2 on the top of the list
[05:09] <lfaraone> dyfet: find the source of the ftbfs bug 617026?
[06:47] <YokoZar> ScottK: I take it there's a transition I need to do there yes?
[07:57] <dholbach> good morning
[09:05] <ripps> Does anybody know why debhelper spits this out when ever I use bzr-buildpackage to make a source package? http://pastebin.com/VhDyTrMD
[09:05] <ripps> It looks like dh_clean is trying to remove a file that doesn't exist and fails
[10:37] <bilalakhtar> bdrung: present?
[10:38] <bilalakhtar> leave it ^^
[10:39] <bdrung> bilalakhtar: yes
[10:39] <bilalakhtar> bdrung: the other day, in a talk with kenvandine, they said that moving to quilt is not necessary
[10:40] <bilalakhtar> s/they/he/g
[10:40] <bilalakhtar> bdrung: he and the desktop team is happy with cdbs+simple-patchsys
[10:40] <bdrung> bilalakhtar: not necessary, but nice to have
[10:41] <bilalakhtar> bdrung: just telling you, since you asked me to tell the conclusion of the discussion
[10:41] <bdrung> bilalakhtar: ok, thanks
[11:39] <Riddell> bdrung: on bug 462193 you say "uploaded chilicuil's debdiff" but I don't see anything by a "chilicuil"
[11:39] <Riddell> can you make clear which debdiff got uploaded?
[11:43] <bdrung> Riddell: done
[11:43] <bdrung> Riddell: he has changed his displayed name after giving my comment. :)
[11:45] <Riddell> how confusing
[11:52] <bdrung> Riddell: next time i will attach the uploaded patch if it's changed
[11:54] <Riddell> bdrung: what about the other issues on that bug?
[11:55] <bdrung> Riddell: testcase: install and "ls /"
[11:56] <Riddell> no use on irc, needs to be on the bug :)
[11:57] <bdrung> Riddell: the patch supplier should provide this information.
[11:57] <bdrung> Riddell: some went wrong with bug #607788 - it's mobile-broadband-provider-info and not gcj-4.4
[11:58] <Riddell> whoops
[13:09] <Rhonda> Riddell: \o/ :)
[13:09]  * Riddell feels the love
[13:14] <Riddell> geser: bug 524938 seems to have been randomly reopened by someone who isn't in any teams, I've no idea how they are able to do that, but maybe you could comment on it
[14:21] <kaushal> hi
[14:23] <kaushal> is there a way to get apache 2.2.15 on lucid ?
[14:25] <kaushal> i did rmadison apache2
[14:27] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: FFe isn't needed ; no new feature is being added
[14:27] <kaushal> i get apache2 | 2.2.16-1ubuntu1 |      maverick | source, amd64, i386
[14:27] <tumbleweed> bilalakhtar: then you should say so in the bug
[14:27] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: I copied the changelog
[14:28] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: that should be enough, since that is what the others have done
[14:29] <tumbleweed> bilalakhtar: if you add a sentance saying you know we are in FF, but you don't think this needs an exception because of $WHATEVER then it's clearer
[14:30] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: I thought that would be obvious, since I am posting changelog.
[14:30] <bilalakhtar> Whatever
[14:30] <tumbleweed> otherwise it just looks like you are totally unaware
[14:31] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: fine, will take care of that in later merges
[14:31] <tumbleweed> bilalakhtar: thanks
[14:34] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: BTW, how are the merges?
[14:34] <tumbleweed> bilalakhtar: I didn't look
[14:34] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: If you are free, could you please look?
[14:35] <tumbleweed> bilalakhtar: not now, but yes. Please resubscribe sponsors if necessary
[14:35] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: that is done
[14:36] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: Thanks for the comment btw!
[14:36]  * bilalakhtar brb
[15:09] <ScottK> YokoZar: Yes.
[15:20] <Omahn> I'm trying to fix a bug and I'm following the directions to create a branch for the change. All goes well until I try to build my package with bzr builddeb, that fails when it's unable to find one of my new files. But, debuild -i -I builds the package fine. What am I missing?..
[15:21] <james_w> Omahn: did you "bzr add" the new file?
[15:22] <Omahn> james_w: Ah, no. I just assumed the 'debcommit' would pull in all changes. I guess not? :)
[15:22] <tumbleweed> debcommit wraps around "$vcs commit"
[15:23] <Omahn> tumbleweed: That makes sense now. doh.
[15:25] <nigelb> Not doing "bzr add" is a famous gotcha of vcs packaging.
[15:25] <nigelb> I remember james_w asking me the same thing.
[15:25]  * Omahn nods
[15:36] <AnAnt> what's the tool to check validation of .desktop files ?
[15:36] <Omahn> Thanks everyone, all worked perfectly this time and I've successfully pushed my first branch up to LP. Yippe. :-)
[15:37] <AnAnt> ah, desktop-file-validate
[15:43] <AnAnt> could someone comment on LP #619073 ?
[18:35] <micahg> is it appropriate to tell people on the -motu list if they ask about a PPA to go talk to the PPA maintainer?
[18:38] <jdong> that sounds correct to me
[18:38] <micahg> jdong: k, thanks
[19:46] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: ping
[19:47] <ari-tczew> jdong: ping on bug 617614
[19:49] <micahg> ari-tczew: what's the issue?
[19:49] <micahg> ari-tczew: it's already in -proposed and just needs to wait 7 days now
[19:49] <ari-tczew> micahg: package tested - OK and it can go to release
[19:50] <micahg> ari-tczew: no, there's a 7 day waiting period unless it's urgent
[19:50] <ari-tczew> aha, heh ;]
[19:50] <micahg> ari-tczew: also, archive admins are the ones who move things from -proposed to -updates
[19:52] <andreserl> ScottK, ping
[20:19] <ari-tczew> where is sistpoty? he always come back with Feature Freeze.
[20:19] <micahg> ari-tczew: he's around, just subscribe ubuntu-release if you need something, he responds pretty quickly
[20:21] <ari-tczew> micahg: I'll do, because I plan to prepate a one patch. and second case is more private :P
[20:40] <Rhonda> I received a build error for openarena on powerpc - and am not too sure that it's openarena's fault.
[20:40] <Rhonda> It doesn't seem to be able to install even the build-depends.
[20:41] <Rhonda> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openarena/0.8.5-3 has the log linked (the buildlog link itself is way too long to paste :))
[20:59] <iulian> ari-tczew: I have some spare time to look at some FFes.  Do you have something for me?  If not I'll just randomly pick some from the queue.
[21:00] <ari-tczew> iulian: not now. feel free to use queue.
[21:00] <ari-tczew> thanks for the offer
[21:04] <iulian> Alrighty.