[06:54] humphreybc: just saw your post on the planet, made me fall off my chair laughing :) [06:54] nisshh: lolwut [06:55] humphreybc: the post on Planet Ubuntu about the new Application Review Process [06:55] or whatever its called [06:55] yeah, howcome you laughed though? [06:55] humphreybc: the last sentence :) [06:56] lol [06:58] humphreybc: apparently, on the flipside, it is easier to get your app put in the repos for the NEXT version of ubuntu, and then BACKPORTED to all the rest, which is stupid [06:59] ha [06:59] that is what is happening with my app anyway [07:06] nisshh: not sure, why you are complaining.. if you want to have you app out , you always have ppa! just add a ppa and be done with it! so why is it so essential that you want it in the official repo? do you realize that there arent many hands to review and upload such new app? [07:08] vish: PPA's are a nightmare [07:08] nisshh: while it is understandable about humphreybc's huffin-n-puffin , but what he doesnt seem to have analyzed the root cause of the problem [07:09] humphreybc: yes packaging is not easy [07:09] humphreybc: but what you are not looking at is, you are insisting that the short staffed MOTU/review peeps have to package your apps within the limited time [07:10] vish: i dont really badly want my app in the repos, but i do dislike the fact that a lot of apps now prefer PPA's over the repos so i now have a billion PPA's aded [07:10] added* [07:10] vish: maybe they should stop packaging shit like pornview and focus on decent apps [07:11] vish: plus, my app is already in a PPA, but the repos would be way more convenient [07:11] humphreybc: agreed.. but that package is from debian , not from ubuntu? have you seen where the package is from? ;) [07:11] vish: I don't care where it's from and regular end-users won't either [07:11] humphreybc: ubuntu syncs repos from debian.. so adding exception for pornview is not really easy [07:11] the fact is: it's there. [07:11] humphreybc: exactly, plus what about all the apps that havent been updated in more than 2 years [07:12] humphreybc: well, how do you think it should be solved? [07:12] humphreybc: i dont think you have tried to look into the packaging side of ubuntu :) [07:12] vish: I don't know enough about packaging and repositories to comment. From an end user perspective, I want quality apps, not crap. [07:12] Whatever needs to happen to make that a reality, should be done sooner rather than later. [07:13] * nisshh agrees [07:13] humphreybc: thats why i said i do understand the "huffin-n-puffin" but there is a problem , which is not Ubuntu [07:14] you really cant have the problem solved if no one is working on fixing the root cause [07:15] (instead everyone is off working on ubuntu one and windicators...) [07:15] humphreybc: who is working on windicators? [07:15] ;) [07:16] humphreybc: everyone has different areas of specialities , the ones working on U1 might not know about packaging.. [07:16] and vice-versa [07:16] humphreybc: dont even get me started on windicators [07:17] humphreybc: while you are able to generate these opinion pieces, it would be better, if you can try to get more people involved.. look into the cause find whats the problem, and tell the world these areas need help [07:17] humphreybc: else, the problem wont be solved any time soon :( [07:19] vish: actually, that is a good point, but because of the evident gap between users and devs for ubuntu, how are we going to get these sorts of changes accepted into ubuntu? [07:19] nisshh: hmm, which changes? [07:20] vish: well, big changes like how apps get accepted into Ubuntu and the state of some of the apps in the repos [07:20] you get those people who dont like drastic change' [07:21] or *sudden* change [07:21] i dont think there is *that* problem of people being adamant [07:21] I think you'll just see even more companies hosting their own repos for addition [07:21] its a myth ;) [07:22] pleia2: companies do that? [07:22] nisshh: google chrome ? ;) [07:22] nisshh: virtualbox and google are big examples [07:22] but plenty others do [07:22] vish: what about google chrome? [07:22] +of [07:22] yep [07:22] pleia2: ah i see what you mean yes [07:22] nisshh: how do you think google chrome gets updated? :) [07:23] vish: oh yea, but i use chromium, dont like chrome :) [07:23] nisshh: well you are using the ppa there too ;) [07:23] vish: yes, i know, but its a launchpad PPA [07:24] chrome is google hosted [07:24] nisshh: virtual box, dropbox [07:24] ok, ok, lol i get the point [07:24] yep.. when an app developer knows a bit of packaging they start to host their own ppa [07:24] either lp or somewhere [07:25] nisshh: the problem as always is there aernt enough people involved [07:25] vish: yes, but the problem i have with PPA's is that i have to add SO MANY each time i do a fresh install its rediculous [07:25] yea [07:25] it's still easier than installing an .exe and keeping it up to date :) [07:26] pleia2: yes, i agree :) [07:26] nisshh: the reason the app review process is a bit stricter is, if it were more flexible, it adds more burden on the existing people [07:26] PPA's are convenient but the repos are better [07:26] adding more burden, which is not fair.. if there were more packagers , then the process will surely be more flexible [07:26] repos will always have the updating policy restraint, it simply doesn't work for every type of app (one of the reasons I'm delighted that backports.org is now official in debian) [07:26] vish: well, i agree with some of the points about that, but some of them are silly [07:27] delighted - golly, I can't speak english tonight [07:27] nisshh: everything there is just because of fewer hands ;) [07:27] i see [07:27] get more peeps involved! you get more fun! [07:28] yea [07:41] * humphreybc is playing trumpet for the first time in 2 years [07:41] * pleia2 covers ears [07:41] * nisshh hides [07:41] humphreybc: i play guitar :) [07:41] and my cousin plays drums :) [07:42] i play trumpet, drums and guitar, and I can sing too :P [07:42] might make a one man band :P [07:43] humphreybc: you can sing!!! [07:43] lol [07:43] humphreybc: dint hear you during the all stars event.. ;) [07:43] good morning! [07:44] humphreybc: oh, dude, can you upload some vids of you playing guitar to your youtube channel sometime? [07:44] be awesome! [07:45] vish: didn't like their music :P [07:45] nisshh: at some point maybe [07:45] lol! [07:46] humphreybc: cool :) [07:51] this is what i'm playing atm [07:51] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxcleNexvz0 [07:51] * nisshh looks [07:52] humphreybc: i dont like jazz much :| [08:13] nisshh: you're missing out :P [08:14] humphreybc: meh, im a rock fan :) http://www.last.fm/user/nisshh <-- thats not even half my music collection [08:15] not even 20% of it actually [11:44] * popey files bug 644260 if anyone is interested [11:44] Launchpad bug 644260 in ubuntu "Please package ubuntu-manual" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/644260 [11:48] i believe this was attempted before [11:48] I asked ben and he didnt have a bug [11:49] said it wasn't a bug, so didnt think he needed one, and didnt know the process [11:49] did someone else? [11:49] dutchie: what was the problem earlier? [11:49] i think the problem we had before was ben wanted it to appear on the desktop, which is sort of hard [11:49] not to mention not the "done thing" [11:49] dutchie: yeah getting it on desktop, thats not simple.. [11:49] thats not what my bug is about [11:49] first things first, get it in the repo [11:50] _then_ worry about getting it anywhere near the cd [11:50] :) [11:50] googling "ubuntu-manual needs-packaging launchpad bug" didnt reveal any existing bugs [11:50] popey: yeah, but ben wanted installing the package to make the manual appear on the desktop [11:50] yeah, what he wants and what happens in the real world are some distance apart [11:51] hehh [11:51] lets get the focus on the bug to get it in the repo first [11:51] if anyone can come up with a nice script to get the current release of the manual in the current locale that would be _awesome_ [11:51] popey: i think you missed what dutchie was trying to say, or maybe dutchie dint know what ben actually wanted [11:51] i think i was just unclear [11:51] what did I miss? [11:52] ben's world: apt-get install ubuntu-manual -> ubuntu-manual.pdf appears on desktop [11:52] real world: package installs don't touch ~ [11:52] right [11:52] i totally got that, didnt miss it at all [11:52] but [11:53] and /usr/share/doc/ubuntu-manual/ubuntu-manual.pdf is kind of hard to find [11:53] a pre-requisite for any of that is to put it in the repo - a pdf or script or whatever [11:53] dutchie: why cant a link be done during install? [11:53] this shit doesn't just magically appear in the repo or even on the desktop [11:53] obviously not [11:53] technically speaking, i'm happy to do the package [11:53] i'm just trying to work out the best way to present the manual [11:54] again, dont worry about that [11:54] please [11:54] stick to the bug which is "get it in the repo" [11:54] there will also be problems with latex versions [11:54] forget all about putting an icon on the desktop, thats a separate bug which can only really be addressed once its in the repo [11:54] right! [11:54] * dutchie investigates doing a ump-downloader [11:54] \o/ [11:54] * popey hugs dutchie [11:55] godbyk/daker: ping [11:55] i reckon it will be about 15 lines of python [11:59] how much of that comments? [11:59] :) [12:00] so far i have 4 lines of comment and no lines of code :) [12:00] heh [12:02] popey: could you mark that bug as in progress and assign it to me then? [12:04] dutchie: usually the people doing the progress do that.. i dont think popey has the privs right now.. assign is only allowed for bug supervisors [12:04] argh [12:04] i'll do it later then [12:05] :) [12:07] is there "source" for the pdf? [12:07] latex [12:07] see lp:ubuntu-manual [12:08] ah cool [12:58] hmm [12:58] i need an option to specify language, but i have already used -l for listing known releases [13:10] http://launchpad.net/ump-downloader [13:11] hi [13:11] sorry i was unable to attend the meeting [13:11] we were moving to a new house [13:12] dutchie, nice, having a look at the code now [13:14] dutchie, dont forget you will need to account for the printer friendly version too [13:14] nisshh: see the --print option [13:15] *facepalm* [13:15] perhaps a little more feedback would be useful [13:15] :) [13:15] it just seems to hang while it download [13:15] s [13:16] i dunno [13:16] iv never written python code that does something like this [13:18] might be easiest just to run wget [13:44] why not put it in the .deb? [13:45] just concerned about someone installing the package on 10/10/10 and getting the manual as of then, if it is updated after that how do they get updates? [13:46] the manual needs a bleeding edge version of latex to build [13:46] this is a pain [13:46] ah, that is a pain [13:46] why? [13:47] ask godbyk [13:49] godbyk: so the manual needs a version of latex newer than that which is in Maverick? [13:50] would be good to get it built from source on the build infrastructure especially as it is buildable [13:50] not like it is an OOo document or something that is printed to a pdf, this builds with make [14:01] dutchie: ping [14:01] oh, and pings to popey as well :) [14:02] :) [14:02] popey: Thanks for filing that bug on getting u-m into Ubuntu, what do you think about it? [14:02] oh, ^^ is incomplete [14:03] What do you think about it, since getting it into maverick won't be good enough [14:03] i filed it because I chatted to ben, and he wanted it on the cd, i said first step was to get it in the repo, and indeed first step of that is to file a bug [14:03] he was unaware of this [14:03] hmm [14:03] so i offered to do it for him [14:03] and I can upload to universe [14:03] which is indeed the first place a new package should go to [14:03] popey: ^^ [14:03] indeed [14:03] then it should be MIRed [14:04] then a review should be requested with the ubuntu-desktop team for including it in the CD [14:04] And [14:04] all this is NOT going to happen for maverick [14:04] I think if the package gets into universe, that is the most that can happen [14:05] one step at a time [14:05] none of that will happen until it's packaged :) [14:06] dutchie: You are preparing a recipe, but that won't give a package good enough to enter the repos [14:06] popey: ^^ is true [14:06] bilalakhtar: ok [14:06] still gives me a chance to get it buildign [14:06] dutchie: recipe builds are known to be having lintian errors, so its adviced to stay away from it [14:07] dutchie: yup [14:07] well, what do we aim for? [14:07] well, i have a python script [14:07] that sort-of works [14:07] The PDF could be installed in /usr/share/doc/ubuntu-manual, and what after that? A link in menu or desktop? [14:07] bilalakhtar: the bug is what it is.. "just getting it packaged" ;) [14:07] vish: Deign guys needed! [14:07] *design [14:08] vish: But that is tagged needs-packaging [14:08] and hence it means [14:08] bilalakhtar: first package.. then linking everything else we can worry later.. [14:08] 'Get this thing into Ubuntu' [14:08] vish: But what would the package do? [14:08] Copy a file into /usr/share/doc/*, fine, but after that? [14:08] http://launchpad.net/ump-downloader is what I have so far [14:09] it will install in the doc folder.. then we can file bug later to get a link in desktop [14:09] bilalakhtar: ^ [14:09] hmm [14:09] i would not focus on what we do after its in the repo [14:09] * bilalakhtar looks at dutchie 's branch [14:09] the first step is 'get it into the repo [14:10] bilalakhtar: exactly what popey said, he filed the bug.. ;) [14:10] I don't get the point in doing this [14:10] We should be very much clear with the first point [14:10] and if I follow what vish is suggesting [14:10] we would need 2 FFes [14:11] one for the new package [14:11] other for the link addition, whenever it takes place [14:11] the problem with building the manual is that it requires bleeding edge latex [14:11] Shouldn't we upload a pre-built manual? the pdf itself, right? [14:11] But that would mean the package would enter multiverse and not universe [14:12] another problem is we don't have one of those yet :) [14:12] there isn't just one manual [14:12] there's a pdf per lang [14:12] in both on-screen and print versions [14:13] okay, so does maverick have latest latex? [14:13] not sure [14:13] it doesn't have what's needed, no [14:13] bilalakhtar: i'm not suggesting that we focus on the link to desktop.. i said we can think about that later, once this packaging is done .. ;) [14:13] i haven't actually tested it, but i don't think it does [14:13] hmm [14:13] okay, fine, I go with vish's idea [14:14] dutchie: What do you aim to do, then? pre-built manual or manual source? [14:14] i couldn't see a way round the latex issue [14:14] so i thought pre-built was the only way really [14:15] hmm [14:15] there is a precident [14:15] I would need more suggestions from the motu team about this [14:15] popey: wrong spelling [14:15] http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=diveintopython [14:15] bilalakhtar: chill [14:16] hmm, i thought that came as a pdf [14:16] clearly not, its html [14:16] my bad [14:16] can the manual be built as html and not pdf? [14:17] ben is not around :( Any experienced member of the u-m team? [14:17] AFAIK its a 'NO' [14:17] no, it can't [14:17] it's been on the todo list for a while iirc, but this is godbyk's area [14:18] that would probably require latex again anyway [14:19] of course, silly me [14:21] what version of latex does it need? [14:22] The Ubuntu Manual requires TeX Live 2009. The version of TeX Live in the Ubuntu 9.10 repositories is 2007. In Lucid, there are packages for TeX Live 2009, but they are not new enough. You must use the upstream version of TeX Live 2009 to compile the manual successfully. [14:22] off http://ubuntu-manual.org/getinvolved/editors [14:23] hopefully godbyk will appear and be able to answer these technical questions properly [14:26] Lucid had texlive 2009-7 and Maverick has 2009-10 [14:29] 217MB of downloads, lets see if it will build on that [14:30] if not then we check that a suitable version is in Debian for the sync to Natty [14:30] or fix the latex source of the manual to not depend on such a recent texlive [15:09] ! LaTeX Error: File `xifthen.sty' not found. [15:09] AlanBell: Error: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent :) [15:09] meh silly bot [15:10] I installed texlive and texlive-xetex [15:10] getting that error about xifthen.sty - any ideas? [15:14] looks like it is in texlive-latex-extra [15:16] criky another 210MB of stuff [15:16] be with you all in just a few minutes. [15:16] making my way through my email inbox. [15:16] AlanBell: i do not have that package installed [15:16] but then i just used the script on the site to setup the environment [15:16] downloading the upstream texlive? [15:17] yeah [15:17] which was not ideal [15:17] sub-optimal [15:17] I want to see if it will build against dependencies in Maverick [15:17] i tried that i think [15:17] maybe not [15:18] i just did what i was told :) [15:18] * AlanBell never does that [15:18] :D [15:20] texlive-latex-extra depends on texlive-latex-extra-doc which is 193MB of documentation for it [15:20] that's a bit crap [15:21] not a Recommends? [15:21] I did apt-get install texlive-latex-extra [15:21] try with --no-install-recommends [15:22] not stopping it now! [15:22] okay. back now. [15:22] so fill me in. [15:22] (I could read the backlog, but it'll take me a few minutes.) [15:22] godbyk: i filed a bug to get u-m in the repo [15:22] AlanBell: it will have cached the downloads [15:22] popey: right. saw that. [15:22] as the first step towards world domination [15:22] dutchie: you are right, it is a recommends [15:23] dutchie: partial downloads? [15:23] the guys are working on making it build, so it can be built on launchpad [15:23] aha. [15:23] AlanBell: if it hasnt finished downloading, just ctrl+c it [15:23] it wont harm it [15:23] Do we get any feedback from Launchpad as to what's failing? [15:23] we havent tried [15:23] okay. [15:23] i suspect we know that its missing newer texlive packages [15:24] however [15:24] a good test is just getting it built locally using stock maverick packages [15:24] (for some reason I went to type mandrake then) [15:24] seems sensible. [15:24] which is what AlanBell is doing now [15:24] so now, you are up to speed godbyk :) [15:24] anything I can do to help? [15:25] the other option [15:25] it build to html [15:25] (I don't have mandrake^Wmaverick installed yet.) [15:25] you can be on call to fix build errors [15:25] which could then be packaged [15:25] 'kay. [15:25] godbyk: do you think it will build against texlive 2009-10? [15:25] rather than having launchpad build a pdf [15:25] godbyk: whats the status of the manual being built to html? [15:25] popey: I think think building to html will work -- at least not without a ton of extra effort. [15:25] that doesn't parse quite right [15:26] you think it could be made to with lots of work? [15:26] popey: well, the usually tools for tex -> html apparently choke on the stuff we're doing because they don't understand unicode. [15:26] ok [15:26] the only reason we thought about html build was because there is already a book in the repo which is in html format [15:26] dive into python [15:26] so there is a prescident [15:26] ah, gotcha. [15:26] but thats just an alternate option [15:26] popey: precedent ;) [15:26] shush [15:26] (and thanks) [15:27] the other, other, other option was for you guys to build / host it, and just package a script that wgets the right version for your release/lang [15:27] but thats a touch icky [15:27] i have done that [15:27] ah, great [15:27] would be 'preferable' to have it build on lp [15:27] IMHO [15:27] yep [15:27] ok, so _now_ you're up to speed [15:28] I think the wget script would be the easiest of those options, frankly. [15:28] but yeah, it'd be great if we could get it to build on lp [15:28] it is, because i have already done it [15:28] godbyk: http://launchpad.net/ump-downloader [15:29] so where are we on the 'let's get it to build on lp' attempt? [15:29] we're at the "let's get it to build on AlanBell's computer" stage [15:30] dutchie: I love the map at the top of your python script. looks like a deranged monkey threw spaghetti at the wall and you traced the pieces and coded it up. [15:31] godbyk: is that a compliment? [15:31] dutchie: I'll let you know. :) [15:33] ccicons.sty needed now [15:34] AlanBell: They *still* haven't packaged ccicons? [15:34] i suppose it can't be *that* hard to package ourselves... [15:34] not looking good [15:35] lemme look at it. I may have a trick that'll work. [15:35] (though it'll definitely be ugly) [15:35] hmm.. [15:36] actually it'll be a real PITA.. since the ccicons package uses a ccicons font, that complicates things. [15:37] * popey can't help thinking this would have been a fun thing to do maybe 6 months ago :) [15:37] popey: heh.. not even then! [15:37] well I don't think we are realistically targeting Maverick at this stage [15:37] it'd be fun if the texlive packages would be updated occasionally. [15:38] no, i dont think so either [15:38] a ppa would be good [15:38] so it can easily be added to software center/re [15:39] godbyk: so we need to do a packaging request bug for ccicons then I guess [15:40] AlanBell: among others, yeah. [15:40] I'd get missing packages in a ppa for now [15:40] mind you, bug filing could still be done [15:40] It looks like there are other PDFs that have been packaged. I don't know if they're all generated with LP or not. http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?searchon=contents&keywords=pdf&mode=&suite=lucid&arch=any [15:41] AlanBell: run 'texdoc fontspec' does that open up a pdf? [15:41] I know that that PDF wasn't compiled via LP, at least. [15:45] it does open a PDF [15:46] AlanBell: so there's some precedent for including PDFs not built via LP. [15:46] well yes, but it nearly builds so lets make it build [15:46] which will help it on the way to getting into main [15:46] and on the CD [15:48] quick and dirty would be to put the PDF in a .deb doing the downloader script is also a bit icky [15:48] +2 [15:49] popey gets no votes! :-) [15:49] if getting it to build means fixing broken stuff in the texlive packaging then that is fantastic [15:49] story of my life [15:50] AlanBell: Right. Well, if you want to give it a shot. Go here: http://ctan.org/pkg/ccicons. Download those files and follow the instructions in the README to install them. [15:51] FWIW, TeX Live 2010 was released last week. [15:52] does the debian maintainer know that? [15:52] hasn't been uploaded yet [15:52] still 2009-10 in sid [15:54]