[02:05] <wakandan> hi
[02:05] <wakandan> best way to learn is to do
[02:06] <wakandan> I'm picking up one sample package which is appamor to test it out how to packaging
[02:06] <wakandan> could anyone kindly guide me through?
[02:08] <micahg> wakandan: hmm, apparmor probably is not the best package to learn on
[02:08] <wakandan> uhm why?
[02:11] <micahg> wakandan: it's a fairly complicated package
[02:12] <wakandan> micahg: I heard of it, kind of a security package
[02:12] <micahg> wakandan: right, but if you're trying to learn packaging, you probably want to start with something easier
[02:12] <wakandan> micahg: right
[02:13] <wakandan> micahg: may be something from universe then?
[02:13] <wakandan> micahg: let's pick cil
[02:13] <wakandan> 0.07.00
[02:13] <wakandan> micahg: may be not too complicated then
[02:15] <micahg> wakandan: it's simpler
[02:15] <wakandan> ok let's start then
[09:55] <starf> well hello there
[10:49] <ari-tczew> gilir: do you planning merge lx* packages?
[11:02] <gilir> ari-tczew, please don't touch any lx* packages, I'm currently merging changes directly in Debian
[11:02] <ari-tczew> gilir: ok, thanks for response. what about ace-of-penguins? I saw that in Ubuntu is remaining one patch.
[11:08] <gilir> ari-tczew, there is one patch in the bug tracker that I need to test, but you can check if we can sync it (merge is useless for now)
[11:19] <ari-tczew> gilir: as I said, one patch is remaining: 10-include-imagelib.dpatch
[11:19] <ari-tczew> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/natty/ace-of-penguins/natty/revision/6#debian/patches/10-include-imagelib.dpatch
[11:33] <ari-tczew> gilir: I appreciate merge from Debian due to package has got some improvements and patches.
[12:13] <ari-tczew> gilir: I'm looking on bug 643336 as some changes are already exist in Debian, more convinced to merge
[12:15] <gilir> ari-tczew, why not just forwarding the remaining changes to debian and wait for a sync ?
[12:17] <ari-tczew> gilir: I've just prepared a debdiff for merge. to clarify a delta.
[12:39] <ari-tczew> gilir: ok, I've included patch for above bug. can I upload it?
[12:42] <gilir> ari-tczew, yes, thanks for the help :)
[12:42] <ari-tczew> gilir: you're welcome. thanks for free hand.
[12:43] <ari-tczew> gilir: do you want SRU this patch for spider?
[12:45] <ari-tczew> gilir: also, do you planning get in touch with maintainer for forward Ubuntu delta, or should I do it?
[12:48] <gilir> ari-tczew, not sure about the SRU, it's not a critical bug
[12:50] <gilir> ari-tczew, and you can go for the "forward to debian", it should be easier for you as you do the merge :)
[12:51] <ari-tczew> ok, I'll report 2 bugs @BTS
[14:54] <AlanBell> there is an upstream compiz git commit that I want to end up in Natty http://git.compiz.org/compiz/plugins/colorfilter/commit/?id=d385c10d93798c5d4221b8e535151492ab59c28f
[14:55] <AlanBell> to fix bug 599206
[14:55] <AlanBell> do I have to do any particular requests or Debian stuff to get this to happen, or will it just happen as part of the normal process?
[15:41] <ebroder> AlanBell: the x team hasn't landed the version of compiz they're planning to have in natty yet (the latest version was a substantial code change). i'd wait for a few more weeks at least and see if that fix lands on its own
[15:42] <AlanBell> thanks ebroder
[18:17] <simar> ari-tczew, hi
[18:17] <ari-tczew> hi simar
[18:18] <simar> ari-tczew, I was on travelling these days, so can;t catch up wid you. Could we fix another time now.?
[18:21] <ari-tczew> simar: I'm not sure. You affronted me. You could send apologizes.
[18:22] <simar> ari-tczew, o-(
[18:22] <ari-tczew> from objective hand I shouldn't talk with you
[18:22] <simar> ari-tczew, ok sorry ..
[18:23] <simar> ari-tczew, i thought to send you a message on fb but the place i was yeserday had never experianced an internet till now ..
[18:24] <simar> ari-tczew, I didn't mean that anyhow..
[18:25] <ari-tczew> simar: I don't trust in reason like 'I didn't have access to internet, I just have been kidnapped from home'
[18:28] <simar> ari-tczew, You don't know India, we don't have access to internet everywhere ... just in yours case ... what else can I do to make you believe??
[18:31] <ari-tczew> simar: dunno. just waiting for my good mood.
[18:32] <simar> ari-tczew, can i pm you?
[18:34] <ari-tczew> simar: if you have good reason, please let it be
[18:40] <ScottK> ari-tczew: Please don't assume people are being hostile without proof.
[18:42] <ari-tczew> ScottK: I don't delete him, just delay. Now he must wait.
[18:49] <iulian> o_O
[18:57] <ScottK> ari-tczew: OK, but "I don't trust in reason like ..." is not a very Ubuntu statement.
[19:11] <ari-tczew> ScottK: We have also our life.
[19:13] <iulian> That's an irrelevant comment.
[19:15] <iulian> The point here is that we should all respect the Ubuntu code of conduct.
[19:19] <ari-tczew> iulian: I won't make my person as loser. I felt that he despised my time.
[19:30] <ScottK> ari-tczew: I'm not saying you're obligated to help him further, but the way you communicated with him was not acceptable.  Rather than saying you didn't trust the reasons he gave you, if you'd just said you were left feeling like he didn't value the time you were investing in helping him, that would have been perfectly fine.
[19:30] <ScottK> ari-tczew: This isn't about what you are doing, but how you are communicating.
[19:31] <ari-tczew> ScottK: what's next?
[19:31] <ari-tczew> law court?
[19:32] <ScottK> ari-tczew: My recommendation would be to apologize to him for harsh language, communicate how you felt your time wasn't valued and ask him to let you know when he thinks he is able to participate in a way that values your time.
[19:32] <ScottK> Until he's ready to do that, you can work on other things.
[19:33]  * ScottK needs to go.  We can talk more later if you want.
[19:33] <hggdh> Guidance needed: on bug 663925 Adi asked me to take out the updated Maintainer, but this goes against the guidelines on the security page (and makes debuild unhappy). What should be done?
[19:34] <ari-tczew> hggdh: you mean Ari? o/
[19:35] <hggdh> ari-tczew: heh. I apologise... For whatever reason I was thinking of my grandfather
[19:36] <hggdh> ari-tczew: what should I do there?
[19:36] <Laney> hggdh: The change is right, but we don't document it in the changelog
[19:36] <ari-tczew> hggdh: did you try run: update-maintainer ?
[19:37] <hggdh> ari-tczew: no, I did not. Will do it now
[19:37] <ari-tczew> hggdh: cool, and as Laney wrote, don't describe it in debian/changelog
[19:37] <ari-tczew> always package changed in Ubuntu needs to run update-maintainer, so there is no reason to describing
[19:38] <hggdh> ari-tczew: Oh. I see it now. Again, I apologise, and will set it right
[19:38] <ari-tczew> no problem :)
[19:40] <ari-tczew> ScottK: I won't apologize anyone. I see no reason for that. And he has hanged on PM to apologize me. Don't worry. :]
[19:41] <paultag> ari-tczew, so you can't be wrong?
[19:41] <ari-tczew> paultag: I can. why not?
[19:41] <paultag> ari-tczew, Well, you said that you will not apologize to anyone.
[19:42] <ari-tczew> paultag: not in this case.
[19:42] <paultag> ari-tczew, then say in this case. Saying you won't apologize to anyone is really out of line
[19:43] <ari-tczew> paultag: OK, update: I won't apologize him in this case. I see no reason for that.
[19:43] <ari-tczew> paultag: now are you feel good?
[19:43] <paultag> ari-tczew, Yes, do you feel better for picking on someone over the internet?
[19:43] <paultag> I'm guessing so, because this is your free time :)
[19:45] <ari-tczew> paultag: Sorry, I Don't understand your question. (maybe due to language)
[19:45] <paultag> ari-tczew, It's OK. I'm going to get back to some of my work. It's not worth getting into :)
[19:45] <paultag> cheers
[19:46] <ari-tczew> regards
[19:50] <hggdh> ari-tczew: if you are willing, I just uploaded a new debdiff (and re-subscribed security sponsors)
[19:51] <ari-tczew> hggdh: sure, I can take a look also.
[19:51] <ScottK> ari-tczew: It was a suggestion, but I would suggest that you  consider what is the best thing to do from the point of what best builds community and connection.  Apologies don't make you weak (in fact I find refusing to do so a sign of weakness).
[19:51] <hggdh> thank you
[19:55] <Rhonda> ari-tczew: The reason for apologizing is written in the CoC that you signed. It's the "Be respectful" part. You can disagree, that's fine - but your tone is quite regularly perceived pretty harsh. Noone expects you to apologize for objecting to his reasoning. The apologize is though required for your style.
[19:55] <ari-tczew> ScottK: That's your opinion. Sometimes you should know and respect your value.
[19:55] <ScottK> ari-tczew: What Rhonda said.
[19:55] <ScottK> I'm not ordering you to do anything.  Just suggesting.
[19:59] <ari-tczew> hggdh: I'll process your patch in a couple of minutes. I have to finish one merge.
[20:01] <hggdh> ari-tczew: thank you. I am still to look at the Lucid version; should I open a new bug for that?
[20:01] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: Shortly writing: I don't recognize politics of love.
[20:02] <ScottK> ari-tczew: I think we are suggesting that's something you ought to work on.  It will make you a better technical contributor in the long run.
[20:03] <directhex> lest someone issue you with a Joerg Schilling award
[20:04] <ari-tczew> ScottK: make me technical contributor can only more free time.
[20:05] <ScottK> ari-tczew: No.  When you are better connected to the community, you will better integrate your efforts with the rest of the group and more will get done in the same time.
[20:06] <ari-tczew> ScottK: Sorry, as you said: I can disagree.
[20:06] <ScottK> Certainly.
[20:06]  * ari-tczew loves to be themselves.
[20:07] <Rhonda> ari-tczew: Now you are switching from one extreme to another. Noone said anything about love, respectful behavior is something that will help you in every aspect of your professional future, too.
[20:08] <ari-tczew> directhex: Balance in private life will be enough award for me.
[20:09] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: I don't apologize anyone who has wasted my time. It's so funny.
[20:10] <ari-tczew> This does not agree with the rules of logic.
[20:25] <bdrung> ari-tczew: you should apologize for your wording and not for wasting your time. it's always about the style and not the content.
[20:25] <bdrung> ari-tczew: it's possible to disagree politely.
[20:25] <ari-tczew> bdrung: No. Continuing this discussion makes no sense.
[20:29] <bdrung> ari-tczew: it happen way too often that your wording is disrespectful or offending. i see no improvement over time.
[20:31] <ari-tczew> bdrung: I see nothing bad in my words to simar.
[20:34] <ari-tczew> bdrung, Rhonda, ScottK: If you feel that my words are too harsh, you are too sensitive. I suggest to improve: be more hard, inflexible. It's helpful in real life.
[20:35] <ari-tczew> simar must know something about respect for other people time
[20:35] <iulian> Yay.
[20:35] <ari-tczew> Discipline is the key.
[20:36] <Rhonda> ari-tczew: Two bad doesn't make a good. Don't defend your seemingly ignorance of the CoC with other people's misbehavior.
[20:36] <Rhonda> And don't ask for something from others that you aren't willing to give yourself.
[20:37] <bdrung> ari-tczew: i am resistant, but other members of the community may be not. that's why the CoC says that we should be polite and not harsh.
[20:37] <mr_pouit> (I don't think you can plead ignorance of the CoC when it is signed by your gnupg key anyway…)
[20:38] <Rhonda> mr_pouit: I think you mean the unawareness meaning of ignorance. I rather meant the active meaning.
[20:39] <bdrung> Rhonda: what?
[20:39] <mr_pouit> yeah, I realized that ;)
[20:39] <directhex> i find an effective strategy is to simply not even attempt to collaborate with people whom i find i won't eb able to collaborate with. perhaps less gets done, but it's better for my wellbeing
[20:39] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: do you suggest, that we should disband?
[20:40] <Rhonda> disband what?
[20:40] <ari-tczew> from here, community
[20:41] <Rhonda> I'm pointing out that being part of the community entails respectful behavior to each other, and misbehavior of others is no justification for own misbehavior.
[20:42] <Rhonda> bdrung: Can you expand your what into something that helps me to understand your misunderstanding? :)
[20:42] <ari-tczew> I see nothing bad in my behavior. This discussion is pointless.
[20:43] <bdrung> Rhonda: what's the difference between the unawareness meaning of ignorance and the active meaning?
[20:43] <Rhonda> bdrung: active ignorance is knowingly. passive ignorance is unknowingly.
[20:44] <Rhonda> And from what I read ari is actively ignoring the coc on the grounds of other people's misbehavior.
[20:45] <ari-tczew> Rhonda, bdrung: Don't worry. simar won't do suicide.
[20:46] <mr_pouit> … but might stop contributing?
[20:46] <bdrung> ari-tczew: ^
[20:46] <andreserl> +1
[20:46] <ari-tczew> mr_pouit: who stop contributing? he or me?
[20:47] <bdrung> ari-tczew: he
[20:47] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew: because of what you said, the other person might stop contributing. Why? Becuase he might have felt attacked by you when you told him that he was wasting your time
[20:47] <ari-tczew> bdrung: No. He will got lessons from me.
[20:47] <ari-tczew> He was rebuked and from now on must be obeyed.
[20:48] <ari-tczew> andreserl = RoAkSoAx ?
[20:48] <bdrung> ari-tczew: feeling attacked is demotivating
[20:48]  * micahg sees very disturbing things on irclogs.u.c
[20:48] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew: andreserl = RoAkSoAx, yes!
[20:49] <bdrung> "He was rebuked and from now on must be obeyed." is another sentence that is not in unison with the CoC
[20:49] <bdrung> micahg: ?
[20:50] <RoAkSoAx> here's the point. We contribute in our own free time. We do it because we want to. This is NOT the army. If someone doesn't put that much time or effort as we do, that doesn't mean that we are entitled to tell that person that he is wasting our time!
[20:50] <ari-tczew> bdrung: Don't worry. He will work.
[20:50] <micahg> bdrung: I'm catching on up the various conversations, it's disturbing
[20:50] <bdrung> ari-tczew: that's not my point
[20:51]  * ari-tczew is feeling proud, being in the spotlight!
[20:51] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew: you should feel ashamed
[20:51] <Rhonda> ari-tczew: rebuking isn't in line with the CoC neither, and making others obey alike, are you aware of that?
[20:52] <ari-tczew> (sorry for sensitive people, that was a sarcasm)
[20:52] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew: this is not about sensitive people, this is about respecting other people. If you want respect from others, you should respect others as well
[20:52] <bdrung> ari-tczew: please don't use sarcasm on IRC
[20:52] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: I think that you're wasting time for me. The issue with simar is closed.
[20:52] <RoAkSoAx> and what you are doing is disrespecting us all
[20:53] <RoAkSoAx> all the Ubuntu community
[20:53] <Rhonda> ari-tczew: The issue with you though isn't
[20:53] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: so sad
[20:55] <Rhonda> This isn't about simar, this is about your behavior.
[20:56] <bdrung> and it's the third time in the last few days.
[20:57] <ari-tczew> bdrung: End of the world.
[20:57] <bdrung> ari-tczew: why end of the world?
[20:58] <ari-tczew> bdrung: All this discussion is farce. Dramatized.
[20:58] <directhex> bdrung: as in "oh, how dreadful that it's the third time in the last few days </sarcasm>"
[20:58] <ari-tczew> bdrung: rest of 2?
[20:59] <micahg> ari-tczew: the CoC is very important in Ubuntu, these developers are trying to help you here by explaining the issue and you appear to be making light of the situation
[21:00] <ari-tczew> ungrateful people
[21:00] <ari-tczew> let's open logs from this channel 30th Oct (yesterday)
[21:01] <ari-tczew> wakandan1 - how I dealt with him?
[21:02] <ari-tczew> please compare my done work with my "issues" (for me these things are not issues, just character which won't be changed - impossible)
[21:03] <ari-tczew> you're like a robots - life and working with procedures.
[21:03] <ari-tczew> please show me where I scared any new contributor
[21:03] <ari-tczew> I'm waiting 10 minutes
[21:04] <ari-tczew> even I'm +1 for unban Kmos who want to be better
[21:04] <bdrung> ari-tczew: the FTBFS of the torque source package
[21:04] <ari-tczew> bdrung: logs, logs!
[21:04] <ari-tczew> ...time is goint out
[21:05] <ari-tczew> going*
[21:06] <micahg> bdrung: this conversation? http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/10/30/%23ubuntu-motu.html#t17:44
[21:07] <ari-tczew> ^^ really? roflmao
[21:08] <ari-tczew> with coolbhavi we are great team
[21:08] <micahg> this is the one that really bothers me: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/10/31/%23ubuntu-motu.html#t18:21
[21:09] <ari-tczew> bdrung: hurry up.
[21:10] <bdrung> ari-tczew: i meant exactly that what micahg posted: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/10/30/%23ubuntu-motu.html#t17:44
[21:10] <ari-tczew> bdrung: OK. what was wrong?
[21:11] <bdrung> ari-tczew: you assumed that he didn't test if the package builds and blamed him for that.
[21:11] <bdrung> that's not polite (-> CoC)
[21:12] <Rhonda> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/10/30/%23ubuntu-motu.html#t16:33 is also rather interesting statement …
[21:13] <micahg> Rhonda: +1
[21:13] <ari-tczew> hahaha, keep in preparing proofs ;-D
[21:13] <micahg> double checking work is always a good idea
[21:13] <ari-tczew> I'm a thug
[21:13] <bdrung> micahg: to what are you referring?
[21:14] <micahg> bdrung: the response to Laney that Rhonda highlighted
[21:15] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: I think the issue is that sometimes you come off as rude, which causes people to not want to work with you, which hampers your effectiveness (since collaboration is key in Ubuntu) and can discourage new contributors.
[21:15] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: does that make sense?
[21:15] <ari-tczew> lfaraone: no, makes no sense.
[21:16] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: which, that you come across as rude, or that rudeness is a bad thing?
[21:21] <ari-tczew> lfaraone: Your discussion makes no sense.
[21:22]  * ari-tczew sees the topic on DMB meeting: Review again application ari-tczew!
[21:23] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: okay, I'm trying to figure out what confused you about what I said, so I can explain it better, so it'll make sense. :)
[21:24] <ari-tczew> lfaraone: do you want waste your valuable time on this pointless discussion?
[21:25] <bdrung> ari-tczew: it's pointless because you don't see the point.
[21:26] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: there's a point to it, if as Rhonda, micahg, bdrung, RoAkSoAx, ScottK, paultag and I assert, your behavior is poisonous.
[21:26] <ari-tczew> bdrung: dissidence
[21:28] <ari-tczew> I still don't have a proof, that contributor was sad due to me.
[21:28] <tonyyarusso> You're being told that slew of other people are upset due to you, so it doesn't much matter whether a particular one was or not.
[21:29] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: you have at least 7 people who have said that they found what was said upsetting.
[21:29] <bdrung> ari-tczew: that's not easy to prove. i don't write about it in the internet if someone upset me or attacked me (like some upstream did).
[21:29] <paultag> +1 lfaraone
[21:30] <paultag> Not that my opinion here matters
[21:30] <bdrung> ari-tczew: how to prove that someone who feels attacked disappears?
[21:31] <jpds> I do not think that this discussion is productive and relevant to this channel's interests.
[21:32] <bdrung> jpds: why? we try to tell ari-tczew that he ignores the CoC.
[21:33] <micahg> jpds: I guess the alternative is to drag him before a DMB meeting and testify, but I think we are all trying to avoid that
[21:35] <directhex> or to ignore the whole thing and go "well, that's just what he's like, far be it for us to tell him he's wrong"
[21:36] <lfaraone> directhex: the rationale as to why not to ignore it is that it's not just a person being themselves, it's that person representing the project to new contributors.
[21:37] <tonyyarusso> I think jpds meant more for this particular channel than the conversation as a whole - is there a more appropriate place to address this particular issue that would leave this channel open to development discussion?
[21:37] <ari-tczew> Let's take my upload access and ban me. I think that then Ubuntu will grow faster.
[21:38] <bdrung> ari-tczew: that's not the point
[21:38] <paultag> I'm just saying, this is the first time I've really talked in here -- I was thinking about helping the MOTU since I've not done too much to help you guys, and if such insulting behavior is allowed, I'm more apt to go to Debian and help that way, to avoid the whole mess
[21:38] <paultag> If I've not known better, it would have reflected on the whole of the community :(
[21:39] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: the goal is not to eliminate you, we want your help. but if your interactions in #ubuntu-motu causes other people to not want to work on Ubuntu, that's *not good*. that's why we have a Code of Conduct.
[21:39] <bdrung> tonyyarusso: discussing it with the Community Council might be a better place - The CC is responsible for the Code of Conduct.
[21:40] <tonyyarusso> bdrung: Right.  If a short discussion here were productive, great, but since obviously the parties involved aren't interested in reaching a conclusion here right now, that would be the next logical step I think.
[21:40] <ari-tczew> listen, ungrateful folks - you see only bad things (not bad for me, noticing)
[21:40] <ari-tczew> you don't see good things done by me
[21:41] <paultag> nor you, me
[21:41] <ari-tczew> so, please sh.. ...
[21:41] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: no, I think it's recognized that your contribution to Ubuntu is useful.
[21:41] <tonyyarusso> Good things do not excuse bad things - you don't get to build of a store of goodwill to pay out of when you mess up.  We are accountable for all actions, regardless of those that preceded them.
[21:41] <bdrung> ari-tczew: the good things doesn't need to be fixed. the bad one (CoC violation) needs to
[21:43] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew: people here is trying to help YOU, and then, you are still rude and tell everyone that are "Ungrateful" and that should "sh...." that's rudeness that goes against the CoC
[21:43] <ari-tczew> I don't need your help now. If I'll have problem, I'll ask.
[21:43] <ari-tczew> thanks for your matter
[21:44] <RoAkSoAx> ari-tczew: is not about if you are asking for help or not, it is about being respectful in a community where *we all* contribute and care about
[21:44] <paultag> That's like disregarding a CVE ari-tczew, your peers are telling you that you need help
[21:45] <ari-tczew> paultag: CVE?
[21:46] <RoAkSoAx> *we* as a whole we want a better community, and when *we* see that something might not be the *right* thing to do, *we* step up and try to help. This is why we are a Community!! And one of the strengths of Ubuntu, its "The Community"
[21:46] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: http://cve.mitre.org/ — "Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures", basically, a security bug report. but that's not important.
[21:47] <bdrung> and *we* obey the CoC
[21:47] <ari-tczew> lfaraone: o rly? I think what is CVE, trust me.
[21:47] <paultag> ari-tczew, a second ago you asked me what it was. lfaraone's just trying to help you with your terms
[21:47] <lfaraone> ari-tczew: … apologies, it wasn't clear you were familiar from your previous statement.
[21:48] <ari-tczew> paultag, lfaraone: I don't understand CVE in paultag's sentence.
[21:48] <ari-tczew> CVE is important term for me.
[21:48] <bdrung> ari-tczew: i think it's meant as an example
[21:48] <paultag> ari-tczew, it's like a project saying that they don't acknowledge a CVE, even though everyone else knows it's an issue. We're everyone else, you're the project.
[21:49] <ari-tczew> listen folks, I'm tired. please let me go.
[21:49] <micahg> maybe if ari-tczew sleeps on it, it'll help, that's a good idea
[21:49] <ari-tczew> no micahg, I have some work
[21:50] <ari-tczew> you keep me here
[21:50] <ari-tczew> hggdh is waiting
[21:51] <hggdh> ari-tczew: please do not worry about me. I can wait :-). I think what micahg meant was for all give it a time
[21:53] <ari-tczew> hey, I need your help now
[21:53] <ari-tczew> about change: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/natty/scim-chewing/natty/revision/7
[21:53] <ari-tczew> Make both these changes directly to the diff.gz since, otherwise, the clean target in debian/rules would delete the file before dpatch ran.
[21:53] <ari-tczew> but now package uses quilt. can I add these changes as a patch ?
[21:55] <micahg> ari-tczew: if they're still necessary, that's a really old revision
[21:57] <ari-tczew> bdrung: could you help me?
[21:57] <ari-tczew> That's a CoC. :)
[22:01] <ari-tczew> micahg: I think that we should keep these changes. Latest sponsor didn't have objections and Debian has added QA improvements.
[22:05] <micahg> ari-tczew: well, what I'm wondering is it's still needed, the second part of the diff is in Debian git (don't know about hte latest package), the first part isn't, but I think you should be able to use quilt normally instead of this hack used previously
[22:06] <micahg> hack == make changes to diff.gz
[22:06] <ari-tczew> micahg: yes, I think that as well
[22:08] <ari-tczew> micahg: could you show me where is applied in Debian git?
[22:09] <micahg> ari-tczew: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/scim-chewing.git;a=blob;f=scripts/remove-autotool.sh;h=2476868eef1262dea9aa378e8de79fc7cdefda47;hb=HEAD#l38
[22:10] <ari-tczew> micahg: you're wrong. look @ line 38 in link, which you gave
[22:11] <micahg> ari-tczew: ah, sorry, got my colors mixed up ;)
[22:11] <ari-tczew> mhm
[22:12] <micahg> ari-tczew: does it not work if that's dropped?
[22:13] <micahg> Debian's packages have to build too, so I'm wondering what the difference is that would makes ours not build
[22:13] <ari-tczew> micahg: I'll compare buildlogs with and without patch.
[22:20] <bdrung> ari-tczew: help on what?
[22:21] <ari-tczew> bdrung: above discussion about patches...
[22:22] <bdrung> ari-tczew: can you test if these changes are still required?
[22:23] <ari-tczew> bdrung: but how check it? IMO only by test build.
[22:23] <bdrung> ari-tczew: run debuild twice
[22:23] <bdrung> ari-tczew: on the debian package. only if it fails somehow, we need the patches
[22:24] <ari-tczew> bdrung: debuild - build source or binary?
[22:24] <bdrung> ari-tczew: the binary
[22:24] <ari-tczew> bdrung: pbuilder is good?
[22:24] <bdrung> building the binary twice shows clean target errors
[22:25] <bdrung> ari-tczew: you can use "pbuilder --twice"
[22:26] <ari-tczew> bdrung: heh, probably pbuilder-dist doesn't have --twice option
[22:27] <bdrung> ari-tczew: doesn't it pass the option to pbuilder?
[22:27] <ari-tczew> bdrung:  pbuilder-natty --twice scim-chewing_0.3.3-2ubuntu1.dsc  Error: «--twice» is not a recognized argument.
[22:27] <bdrung> ari-tczew: using debuild would be sufficient for testing the clean rule by building it twice
[22:28] <bdrung> ari-tczew: you forgot "build"?
[22:28] <ari-tczew> bdrung: alias pbuilder-natty='sudo pbuilder-dist natty'
[22:29] <bdrung> no "build" in the alias too
[22:29] <ari-tczew> bdrung: no necessary
[22:29] <bdrung> ari-tczew: please try it
[22:29] <ari-tczew> I always use this alias and it building fine
[22:30]  * micahg thought it was supposed to be symlinked
[22:30] <ari-tczew> bdrung: the same
[22:32] <bdrung> ari-tczew: can you try it with "--twice" at the end of the command?
[22:32] <ari-tczew> bdrung: running, but I'm not sure about this. Similiar case is with --logfile in normal pbuilder.
[22:35] <ari-tczew> bdrung: with patch: http://paste.ubuntu.com/523523/
[22:36] <bdrung> ari-tczew: it doesn't look like it was build twice
[22:40] <ari-tczew> bdrung: could you test it themselve? I can send you ready debdiff. I've pretty good explained debian/changelog.
[22:40] <bdrung> ok
[22:46] <ari-tczew> bdrung: check your inbox
[22:50] <bdrung> ari-tczew: i'll test if we can drop 02_fix-infinite-loop-on-the-build-daemons.patch
[22:51] <ari-tczew> bdrung: ok
[22:53] <bdrung> ari-tczew: debian/patches/30_configure-ac.patch leads to an autoreconf run which leads to changed files not restored on clean (e.g. config.h.in, configure, ...)
[22:54] <ari-tczew> bdrung: hmmm. what's next with this patch?
[22:59] <ari-tczew> hggdh: are you an author of this patch?
[22:59] <hggdh> ari-tczew: yes
[22:59] <hggdh> oops. Which patch?
[23:00] <bdrung> ari-tczew: we can drop 02_fix-infinite-loop-on-the-build-daemons.patch - it builds twice without it
[23:00] <bdrung> hggdh: 30_configure-ac.patch
[23:00] <hggdh> ari-tczew: no, I am not, sorry
[23:00] <ari-tczew> hggdh: so, please describe where did you find patch
[23:01] <bdrung> ari-tczew: i think the simplest way to get a clean clean target is with dh-autoreconf
[23:01]  * bdrung needs to go to bed now.
[23:02] <hggdh> ari-tczew: there is some sort of mixup here, I have nothing to do with this package
[23:02] <ari-tczew> thanks bdrung
[23:05] <ari-tczew> hggdh: some things needs fixing
[23:06] <hggdh> ari-tczew: no problem, please tell me what, and I will get back to it
[23:07] <ari-tczew> hggdh: in debian/patches/series: remove this blank line and put your patch there
[23:08] <hggdh> ari-tczew: roj. For the record, the blank line was added by quilt (I just quilt-added & quilt-refreshed)
[23:09] <ari-tczew> hggdh: in debian/changelog: s/(LP: 663925)/(LP: #663925)
[23:09] <ari-tczew> hggdh: so please do it manually
[23:09] <hggdh> ari-tczew: will do & resubmit. Thank you.
[23:09] <ari-tczew> hggdh: that's not all.
[23:09] <micahg> hggdh: how was a blank line added by quilt
[23:10] <hggdh> micahg: I frankly have no idea. As I said, I quilt add the file, edited the patch, and quilt-refreshed it
[23:10] <ari-tczew> hggdh: please add tag to patch: Bug-Ubuntu: https://launchpad.net/bugs/663925
[23:11] <hggdh> ari-tczew: this is a DEP-3 tag?
[23:11]  * micahg wonders where the extra space is
[23:12] <ari-tczew> hggdh: yes
[23:12] <ari-tczew> Bug-<Vendor> or Bug (optional)
[23:12] <hggdh> OK
[23:14] <ari-tczew> hggdh: and I'm not sure to comment in change. DEP3 tags are enough place to comment
[23:14] <micahg> ari-tczew: are you referring to the changelog?
[23:14] <ari-tczew> micahg: nope.
[23:15] <ari-tczew> to disable-dir-removal.patch
[23:16] <ari-tczew> hggdh: please also add tag Description
[23:16] <hggdh> ari-tczew: the comment was added based on the examples on the DEP-3 tags
[23:17] <micahg> hggdh: the comment is fine, you just need the Description tag with a short description above it
[23:17] <ari-tczew> micahg: hmm. nope.
[23:17] <hggdh> ari-tczew: OK. I understood that description and subject were equivalent
[23:17] <ari-tczew> hggdh: is right
[23:17] <ari-tczew> there is a Subject tag
[23:17] <micahg> oh...hmm..
[23:18] <ari-tczew> micahg: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
[23:18] <ari-tczew> micahg: field Sample DEP-3 compliant headers
[23:18] <micahg> ari-tczew: k, then dpkg should be patched
[23:18] <ari-tczew> micahg: dpkg?
[23:19] <micahg> ari-tczew: source format 3 by default takes changes made to source and create a DEP-3 formatted patch with sample headers, it has for Description a short description then a long description
[23:20] <ari-tczew> micahg: ehh.
[23:21] <ari-tczew> hggdh: ok I'm waiting for updated debdiff.
[23:22] <hggdh> ari-tczew: will update both (Lucid & Maverick) now
[23:22] <ari-tczew> fine
[23:22] <ari-tczew> hggdh: did you test your mixed patches?
[23:22] <hggdh> yes I did
[23:23] <micahg> ari-tczew: ah, ok, so either is ok, good
[23:23] <ari-tczew> please describe it while uploading a debdiff
[23:23] <hggdh> will do, thank you
[23:24] <ari-tczew> hggdh: is there any CVE for this bug?
[23:24] <hggdh> ari-tczew: none. This was published as a comment on the developer's site
[23:25] <hggdh> ari-tczew: the link is in the bug description