[00:00] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: ok, I think I have a debdiff.  Should I follow the sponsorship page next?
[00:01] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: yes. It's easy. just subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to your filed bug.
[00:01] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: ok, will do, thanks
[00:04] <matttbe> Hello!
[00:04] <matttbe> We're looking for a sponsorship in order to accept a few modifications about Cairo-Dock project in Ubuntu Maverick
[00:05] <matttbe> It's a bugs fixed version: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cairo-dock/+bug/653702
[00:05] <matttbe> Is it possible to have some help? :)
[00:05] <matttbe> Everything should be ok (two branches are ready and they can be merged into lp:ubuntu/cairo-dock and lp:ubuntu/cairo-dock-plug-ins) :)
[00:06] <ari-tczew> matttbe: it's a new upstream release?
[00:08] <matttbe> ari-tczew: yes it is
[00:08] <ari-tczew> matttbe: are there any new features?
[00:08] <ari-tczew> like important UI/API changes
[00:08] <matttbe> Of course not ;)
[00:08] <matttbe> it's just a bugs-fixed version (from 2.2.0~2 => 2.2.0~4)
[00:08] <ari-tczew> matttbe: what tested have you done
[00:09] <ari-tczew> ?
[00:09] <matttbe> ari-tczew: this version is available from our repository and our ppa
[00:09] <ari-tczew> matttbe: I don't have time for testing it.
[00:10] <matttbe> no but it seems that this version fixes all bugs that we have listed
[00:11] <ari-tczew> matttbe: words do not give a guarantee of stability
[00:11] <matttbe> ari-tczew: and it fixes this bug (Importance: high) https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/cairo-dock-plug-ins/+bug/653336
[00:12] <matttbe> ari-tczew: of course :)
[00:12] <matttbe> but yes this version has been tested by a lot of people :)
[00:13] <ari-tczew> matttbe: 8	-set (VERSION "2.2.0-0rc1")
[00:13] <ari-tczew> hmmm it seems to, that we have current rc version?
[00:13] <matttbe> ari-tczew: yes, it seems the branch has not been updated
[00:14] <ari-tczew> matttbe: that's right. cairo-dock exist on http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/
[00:14] <ari-tczew> matttbe: please subscribe ubuntu-sponsors then
[00:15] <matttbe> oh, so it's not ubuntu-release? :)
[00:16] <ari-tczew> matttbe: ubuntu-release is for review for ACK. your package is bug-fix release, not necessary to get an ACK from ubuntu-release, because cairo-dock is in universe.
[00:16] <micahg> ari-tczew: actually, because it's in universe and unseeded
[00:16] <matttbe> oh yes, sorry
[00:20] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: where do you have filed bug?
[00:20] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: sorry, I haven't filed one yet.  I was waiting for it to build in ppa
[00:21] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: you can use locally pbuilder.
[00:26] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: well, I built it locally in a hacky manner, some sort of debuild -i -b command.  and it seemed to be working
[00:26] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: Im working on bug 654906
[00:37] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: your debdiff not looks good.
[00:37] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: :)
[00:37] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: if you want to process sponsorship, please don't include ~ppa in versioning. just 0ubuntu2 is enough
[00:39] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: and you should add a patch. I think that you've changed the source code directly.
[00:39] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: yeah, I don't really know anything about debdiffs, or sponsorship
[00:39] <ChogyDan> yeah
[00:39] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/PatchSystems
[01:04] <ChogyDan> ari-tczew: ok, so I think I edited the patch ok.  I got it to work with the edit-patch command.  But now, when I debuild -S, it complains that the patch is already applied, which is true
[01:08] <ChogyDan> anyway, I gota go get some dinner.  Ill take a second look later
[01:12] <ari-tczew> ChogyDan: I must go to bed, maybe tumbleweed will help in future.
[07:30] <dholbach> good morning
[12:30] <Rhonda> I'm reading the font license and am a bit puzzled with term 2 about the font name. It both requires strong "must" statements for either having to carry the name, or for having to rename it, based on "substantially changes" which is far from clear and could cause serious troubles for people changing the font and not knowing wether it's considered substantially by the terms of the license or not.
[12:30] <vish> sladen: ^^
[12:32] <sladen> Rhonda: 'Substantial Changes' is defined further up the licence;  see the http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html
[12:34] <Rhonda> sladen: Ah, missed that. Still sounds a bit fuzzy, to be honest. What if one changes a single character? Would that be considered already substantially? Especially if it's an uncommon character?
[12:34] <sladen> Rhonda: however, that is the first-shot at an interim licence, and feedback is greatly welcomed
[12:34] <Rhonda> Feel free to consider this as feedback that I see this term parts as being a can of worms for those that think about changes. :)
[12:34] <sladen> Rhonda: that's the point isn't it;  you can decide and if somebody disagrees, you go to court to find out
[12:35] <Rhonda> That's not the way licenses work.
[12:35] <Rhonda> Especially not when it carries out a "you must change the name to this if you do that, or you must change the name to that if you do something else".
[12:35] <sladen> Could you file it on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-licence/+filebug
[12:35] <Rhonda> The must requirement has to be clear.
[12:36] <Rhonda>  Ubuntu Font Licence  does not use Launchpad as its bug tracker.
[12:36] <Rhonda> sladen: That link doesn't work. ;)
[12:38] <sladen> Rhonda: hold, I've poked Mark to config bugs on there
[12:38] <Rhonda> Sweet, nice greetings. ;)
[12:41] <sladen> Rhonda: your wish is sabdfl's command:  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-licence
[12:41] <Rhonda> heh :)
[12:42] <sladen> Rhonda: (bearing in mind that I did not write the UFL, and that it originates in the OFL and those suggested by the SFLC (the same people who authored GPLv3)
[12:42] <sladen> Rhonda: ...those changes suggested...
[12:42] <Rhonda> I don't blame anyone here, that's not my intention, so no need to defend. :)
[12:44] <sladen> Rhonda: "Substially Changed" is (like a lot of legal terms) defined on whether your average Jo or Mary on the street could tell the difference
[12:44] <sladen> Rhonda: (average Jos and Marys being the same people who sit on jury panels)
[12:46] <Rhonda> sladen: average Joe and Mary could live in a complete different country and are exposed to different subsets of the font only.
[12:46] <sladen> Rhonda: it hopefully discourages asking a lawyer what it means, because if you Aunt Tilly can tell the difference, it probably is "Substantially Changed"
[12:47] <Rhonda> Including like adding glyphs for characters that aren't included yet. Such moves could be aswell be considered substantial.
[12:47] <sladen> Rhonda: yup, internationalisation /is important/ (which is why "Propagate" is used---it's basically the same language as the GPLv3)
[12:47] <Rhonda> Even (or especially?) if they are done in the spirit of the font.
[12:48] <sladen> Rhonda: did you, out of interest, have a script in mind for adding?
[12:48] <sladen> Rhonda: (this is a UFF thing, rather than a UFL thing, I appreciate)
[12:52] <Rhonda> sladen: No, but wesnoth started to discuss adopting it and thus I took a look at the license to find this part that I consider troublesome to go with and thus would like to have clearified before suggesting either way.
[12:53] <Rhonda> That will have to get postponed until asian glyphs are in the font anyway, but rather safe than sorry. :)
[12:53] <Rhonda> sladen: alright, bug #655096 has it for now. Thanks for listening. :)
[12:55] <bdrung> anyone here who have time for working on fixing FTBFSes (bug #654635)?
[12:56] <bdrung> i don't have enough time to work on these.
[13:04] <sladen> Rhonda: "Asian scripts" is a lot, any in particular?  Thai, Davengari, Chinese, ...?
[13:04] <sladen> Rhonda: it would help to know where to focus
[13:05] <Rhonda> sladen: Then languages listed in http://gettext.wesnoth.org/ ;)
[13:05] <Rhonda> Japanese for a start, and zh_CN
[13:12] <sladen> Rhonda: okay, zh_CN will take a while (47,000 characters, or which 4,000-5,000 are needed)
[13:13] <Rhonda> sladen: Right. Maybe we could extract the ones needed by wesnoth from out po files? :P
[13:18] <sladen> Rhonda: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+filebug?field.tags=ttf-expansion&field.title=Please%20support
[13:18] <sladen> Rhonda: what would be a good starting point, yes
[13:18] <sladen> Rhonda: that would be
[13:18] <sladen> Rhonda: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+filebug?field.tags=uff-expansion&field.title=Please%20support
[13:25] <Rhonda> :)
[13:34] <Rhonda> sladen: I guess I won't really drop a Please Support for the regular european latin languages, right? :)
[13:38] <sladen> Rhonda: only if a character isn't supported for a particular script!
[13:38] <Rhonda> Is there an easy way to check for that?
[13:38] <sladen> Rhonda: the idea is to bring up a particular script at a time;  some of these will need just one, or two glyphs adding to support them
[13:39] <Rhonda> Right. German has me thinks 7 additional characters.
[13:40] <sladen> Rhonda: I guess what I should (automatically) publish is a simple output listing of what codepoints are covered (there are !1,243 I think so far)
[13:40] <Rhonda> Sweet. :)
[13:40] <sladen> Rhonda: what you could do is develop a script that outputs the characters used in those wosnoth translations
[13:41] <sladen> Rhonda: a list of all the (unicode) codepoints used;  and which for which languages
[13:41] <sladen> Rhonda: as I suspect that the translations are a pretty good corpus for "real world use"
[13:44] <Rhonda> sladen: I'm as far as msgcat --no-wrap ja.po | grep ^msgstr | cut -d\" -f2-| sed -e's/"$//'|sed -e 's/./&\n/g'|sort|uniq -c|sort -n
[13:45]  * Rhonda runs and hides. ;)
[13:45] <Rhonda> You even get it weighted by use. ;)
[13:47] <sladen> Rhonda: perfect ---> into the bug report, so it doesn't get lost!
[14:13] <Adri2000> if any archive admin around has a minute available, there's a filezilla lucid sru waiting in the queue; it's just a rebuild for the wxwidgets2.8 ABI change issue
[14:31] <sladen> Rhonda: would you object to splitting those up into ja/zh/ko separately.  Each of those individually is larger than what is already there---and I don't want to scare people off
[14:40] <Rhonda> Hmm, sure, shouldn't be a big issue. Just wanted to avoid people calling it duplicates because there is not big of a technical difference here.
[14:40] <Rhonda> Can I postpone that for tomorrow though?
[16:26] <AlanBell> sladen: do you know if the font will be put on font.ubuntu.com in an embeddable @fontface form?
[18:23] <sladen> AlanBell: yes, will do, I was waiting until the 0.69 was done (which got done at 02h this morning)... if you could file a bug, noting which exact other formats are needed, I can script it
[19:16] <AlanBell> sladen: will do, thanks
[19:19] <sladen> AlanBell: eg. which of EOT, SVG, ...  and which packages/PPAs have the convertors in them
[19:20] <AlanBell> I will check, but I thought it just needs the ttf files but not in a zip archive
[19:22] <AlanBell> maybe it does need EOT for Internet Explorer and OTF for real browsers
[19:49] <sladen> AlanBell: if you think it's that simple, you're in for a shock :)
[19:54] <AlanBell> it is that simple
[19:55] <AlanBell> supporting EOT is relatively trivial, but not neccessarily a good idea. Regular font linking just needs the .ttf files hosted
[19:57] <AlanBell> and make sure the web server is sending the right mimetype
[20:12] <sladen> AlanBell: what's the \ at the end for, and why it's only on some?
[20:12] <AlanBell> no idea, because I copied, pasted and edited
[20:13] <sladen> mmhmmm
[20:13] <sladen> FWIW  http://fonttest.design.canonical.com/stylesheets/fonts.css  is what fonttest is using
[20:14] <AlanBell> oh wow, it is already there then
[20:14] <sladen> no, it's not
[20:14] <sladen> that's fonttest
[20:14] <AlanBell> ah yes
[20:14] <sladen> which serves person-specific LP-authenicated fonts (Beta testing)
[20:15] <AlanBell> src:local('☺')
[20:17] <AlanBell> so http://fonttest.design.canonical.com/fonts/Ubuntu-R.ttf is a 403 error unless you are logged in, in which case it cheerfully serves it up
[20:19] <AlanBell> hmm, so a woff file is a ttf in a somewhat optimised compressed format
[23:09] <directhex> is it too late to fix an ARM FTBFS in universe?
[23:09] <micahg> directhex: if it's unseeded, no
[23:10] <directhex> cool
[23:10] <micahg> directhex: if it's seeded, you need a release team ACK
[23:12] <directhex> oh, i should include a Closes: stanza