[00:01] <rodrigo_> now I'm going to sleep, so good night all
[00:02] <robert_ancell> rodrigo_, later
[01:16] <lamalex> Horizontal scrolling isn't working on my thinkpad, it worked in 10.04. I enabled it in mouse prefs. Should I file as an X bug?
[01:20] <RAOF> Probably.
[01:29] <lamalex> I think it might be https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-input-synaptics/+bug/661445
[01:29] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 661445 in xserver-xorg-input-synaptics (Ubuntu) "Horizontal scroll doesn't work in maverick in SynPS/2 Synaptics Touchpad (affects: 2) (heat: 14)" [Low,Confirmed]
[01:30] <lamalex> but I'm not sure how to tell what kind of touchpad I have
[01:30] <lamalex> dont see anything in lsusb or lspci
[01:31] <Sir_Konrad> lamalex, I'm pretty sure you have a Synaptics PS/2... A lot of Thinkpads do.
[01:38] <Sarvatt> lamalex: does synclient HorizEdgeScroll=1 enable it?
[01:40] <lamalex> lol now I can't find anything that needs to scroll horizontally :P
[01:41] <lamalex> Sir_Konrad, nope
[01:42] <Sir_Konrad> lamalex, you don't have a Synaptic one?
[01:45] <ajmitch> lamalex: I think /var/log/Xorg.0.log will show which touchpad type it is
[01:45] <ajmitch> not sure if there's a better way to see or now
[01:45] <ajmitch> s/now/not/
[09:06] <dpm> good morning pitti, I've added an action for you on http://is.gd/gEArp to update the text description on the langpacks PPA once we've got the schedule on the wiki and on the calendar - I just want to check you're ok with it
[09:07] <seb128> dpm, hey
[09:07] <dpm> heya seb128
[09:07] <seb128> dpm, he's in Boston for plumbers this week so probably sleeping
[09:07] <seb128> just for information
[09:07] <seb128> dpm, how are you? had a nice trip back?
[09:07] <dpm> aah, thanks seb128, yeah, now I remember he mentioned it. Thanks for the heads up
[09:08] <dpm> seb128, fine, thanks :) - but got caught by the infamous ubuflu, no doubt helped by the air conditioning in Orlando and in the plane
[09:09] <seb128> :-(
[09:09] <dpm> seb128, and you? Had a nice trip back and a nice Bank Holiday on Monday?
[09:10] <seb128> yes, and I managed to go back on local time after a night
[09:10] <seb128> without the ubuflu
[09:10] <dpm> nice :)
[09:10] <seb128> I can't complain this time ;-)
[09:10] <dpm> :)
[09:22] <huats> morning
[09:49] <seb128> lut huats
[09:49] <seb128> didrocks, is the new evo still on your to review list?
[09:49] <seb128> huats, ca va ?
[09:49] <didrocks> seb128: yes it is, there were still some issues with cyphermox latest proposal and he is fixing them
[09:50] <seb128> ok
[09:50] <seb128> I was reviewing versions and wondering if that one was still being worked
[09:50] <didrocks> yes, it's still, no worry on it, I'm following :)
[09:51] <seb128> ok
[09:55] <huats> seb128, I am fine thanks !
[09:55] <huats> appart from the fact that my office has been robbed last week...
[09:55] <huats> you ?
[09:56] <huats> (I have read that you avoided the ubuflu :) )
[09:58] <seb128> I'm fine thanks
[09:58] <seb128> yeah didrocks told me about your office
[09:58] <seb128> sorry about that
[09:59] <huats> seb128, thanks
[10:00] <huats> it is a bit annoying because it takes me a lot of time
[10:00] <huats> and quite some money...
[10:03] <huats> today the most annoying thing is that I haven't a spare PC to build... (and since I am doing a lot of squashfs it slow a lot my every day computer...)
[10:03] <huats> and since I have my credit card stollen...I can't order another one yet :(
[10:05]  * didrocks hugs huats
[10:05] <didrocks> :/
[10:06] <didrocks> did you get a lot of money, apart from ubuntu-fr's one?
[10:06] <huats> didrocks, nope
[10:06] <huats> nothing...
[10:07] <huats> just the ubuntu-fr one,  (that for the record I'll pay back myself...)
[10:07] <huats> didrocks, they took my passport, a credit card, my netbook and my build computer + the monitor :(
[10:08] <didrocks> huats: well, as said on the ML, don't worry, focus first on having your paper, cards and a computer to work
[10:08] <huats> didrocks, I will :)
[10:15] <bilalakhtar> mvo: Hello there! Free?
[10:46] <seb128> bilalakhtar, did you send that gtk patch upstream as well?
[10:46] <seb128> bilalakhtar, could you add the bug number on launchpad?
[11:05] <bilalakhtar> seb128: okay, doing that now
[11:05] <bilalakhtar> sorry for the delay, I was having lunch
[11:05] <bilalakhtar> forgot to put myself on /away
[11:06] <seb128> no worry
[11:11] <bilalakhtar> seb128: done
[11:38] <bilalakhtar> rodrigo_: Congrats on becoming a member of ~ubuntu-desktop
[11:38] <bilalakhtar> !
[11:38] <rodrigo_> thanks bilalakhtar
[11:38]  * bilalakhtar would apply soon, when seb128 would find him fit for the job
[11:39] <seb128> well ubuntu-desktop gives mainly access to things on the default desktop, you didn't worked on those much yet
[11:39] <bilalakhtar> papercuts?
[11:40] <seb128> keep contributing and do some updates this cycle
[11:40] <bilalakhtar> yup
[11:40] <bilalakhtar> will update when GTK3 gets into Ubutnu
[11:40] <bilalakhtar> *ubuntu
[11:40] <seb128> well you don't really need commit access to papercuts
[11:40] <seb128> but yeah, keep contributing and we will see ;-)
[11:40] <seb128> rodrigo got it mainly because he needs upload rights to the gtk3 ppa
[11:40] <bilalakhtar> ah
[11:41] <bilalakhtar> what do you mean by : You don't need commit access for papercuts?
[11:41] <bilalakhtar> ah, okay, I got what you meant
[11:44] <seb128> well you don't have upload rights for those components anyway
[11:44] <seb128> so having commit access wouldn't give you much
[11:44] <seb128> you would still need a sponsor
[11:47] <Laney> ubuntu desktop would give upload though no?
[11:47] <seb128> not the launchpad team
[11:47] <Laney> thought it did
[11:48] <Laney> Archive Upload Rights for ubuntu-desktop: archive 'primary', package set 'ubuntu-desktop' in natty
[11:48] <seb128> if it does I didn't know about it
[11:48] <seb128> hum, ok
[11:48] <Laney> I thought that was the main point of the team
[11:48] <seb128> we need to be careful who we add then
[11:48] <bilalakhtar> I think Laney is right
[11:49] <seb128> well the point is to have access to the vcs
[11:49] <bilalakhtar> I also thought that ~u-d gives access to the package set
[11:49] <seb128> I though somebody add to ack the upload rights as well for upload
[11:49] <Laney> in parallel to being able to upload, yeah
[11:49] <seb128> time to eat
[11:49] <seb128> bbl
[11:49] <bilalakhtar> bye, seb128
[11:50] <didrocks> reboot bbiab
[12:44] <rodrigo_> seb128, ok, libcanberra built now (had to patch it to build with GTK3)
[12:44] <seb128> rodrigo_, did you push your work somewhere?
[12:45] <rodrigo_> seb128, pushing now
[12:48] <rodrigo_> seb128, lp:~rodrigo-moya/ubuntu/maverick/libcanberra/ubuntugtk3
[12:48] <rodrigo_> seb128, should I push to the PPA, or wait for your review?
[12:50] <seb128> rodrigo_, wait
[12:50] <seb128> I will review it now
[12:50] <rodrigo_> ok
[12:57] <mvo> bilalakhtar: hey, sorry for the reply - now I have time :)
[12:57] <mvo> bilalakhtar: for the late reply
[12:57] <seb128> hey mvo
[12:57] <seb128> how are you?
[12:57] <bilalakhtar> mvo: no problem, How are you?
[12:58] <mvo> bilalakhtar: good, thanks!
[12:58] <mvo> bilalakhtar: a bit tired (jetlag)
[12:58] <mvo> seb128: hi!
[12:58] <bilalakhtar> mvo: then, rest a bit
[12:59] <bilalakhtar> mvo: I was asking about what would be the right time before u-m would say 'System may be up to date. Press the check button to check for available software updates' after an apt-get update. I am talking about bug #35009
[12:59] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 35009 in update-manager (Ubuntu) (and 2 other projects) "Says "System is up to date" when package lists not updated (affects: 7) (dups: 6) (heat: 102)" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/35009
[12:59] <bilalakhtar> A week should be enough
[12:59] <bilalakhtar> (IMHO)
[13:00] <pitti> dpm: of course, thanks
[13:00] <pitti> Good morning
[13:01] <seb128> hey pitti
[13:01] <dpm> hey pitti, thank you :)
[13:01]  * pitti -> sessions, &
[13:01] <mvo> bilalakhtar: let me have a look
[13:01] <didrocks> good morning pitti
[13:02] <mvo> bilalakhtar: from first glance the diff looks fine, I will merge now
[13:03] <bilalakhtar> mvo: you went as far as merging the branch!
[13:03] <bilalakhtar> What I asked was different
[13:03] <bilalakhtar> Since you just came from UDS I thought to not get you to sponsor right away
[13:03] <bilalakhtar> I was just asking whether 1 week would be the right time
[13:04] <bilalakhtar> though IMHO the branch is good, but its your wish
[13:07] <mvo> bilalakhtar: I think one week is fine
[13:07] <mvo> bilalakhtar: do you think its too long?
[13:07] <bilalakhtar> mvo: could be, but for stable Ubuntu releases it should be fine
[13:08] <bilalakhtar> And, I know many new users who don't like the idea of updating their systems more often than once a week
[13:10] <mvo> bilalakhtar: *nod*
[13:10] <bilalakhtar> mvo: so, I have to go now, sorry. BTW, you may be tired, so rest. I am in no hurry to get my changes in the archive
[13:10] <bilalakhtar> or in the trunk
[13:11] <bilalakhtar> so, merge whenever you have time
[13:11] <bilalakhtar> bye!
[13:11] <mvo> thanks bilalakhtar!
[13:12] <bilalakhtar> You're welcome
[13:15]  * rodrigo_ -> lunch
[13:24] <cyphermox> hmm... unity feels weird with two screens... I need to switch to the window on the second screen then head back to the first for the menus and then back to the second ...
[13:25] <didrocks> bug already filed FYI :)
[13:26] <cyphermox> ah, sweet
[13:26] <cyphermox> do you know the #?
[13:27] <cyphermox> I feel like extending or adding a top panel would probably be sufficient to get the right "feeling", unless it's just letting apps have their own menus if they aren't displayed on the first screen :P
[13:28] <didrocks> hum chromium is completely crazy when searching in the bar or use shortcut… will switch back to firefox soon…
[13:29] <didrocks> cyphermox: there are already a lot of discussion on it, but you can look for it (I already spent too much time on finding duplicates a day :))
[13:29] <didrocks> cyphermox: this kind of discussion should be on the ayatana ML I think
[13:29] <cyphermox> didrocks, ok.
[14:00] <nessita> hello humans! may I have a sponsorship for https://code.launchpad.net/~nataliabidart/ubuntu/maverick/ubuntu-sso-client/ubuntu-sso-client-1.0.6/+merge/39964 ?
[14:07] <seb128> nessita, hey robot
[14:07] <seb128> nessita, ok, can do that for you ;-)
[14:08] <nessita> seb128: awesome! and I was playing the monster role (too much disney world in me still)
[14:08] <seb128> nessita, ;-)
[14:10] <seb128> mterry, hey
[14:11] <jcastro> charlie-tca: if you have time we could use a hand confirming that this fix works: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tomboy/+bug/627744
[14:11] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 627744 in tomboy (Ubuntu Natty) (and 5 other projects) "Tomboy note names are blank in the Application Indicator fallback menu (affects: 14) (dups: 2) (heat: 151)" [High,Fix committed]
[14:12] <mterry> seb128, hello!
[14:12] <kenvandine> thx jcastro, charlie-tca
[14:12] <seb128> mterry, how are you?
[14:12] <seb128> mterry, not going to plumbers?
[14:12] <seb128> key kenvandine
[14:12] <kenvandine> hey seb128
[14:12] <mterry> seb128, good.  no, I've gone before, but it's too much kernel, not enough userspace for me
[14:12] <seb128> kenvandine, the x264 fix is still on my list so don't worry about it by maverick sru are frozen for linaro
[14:13] <seb128> mterry, ok
[14:13] <kenvandine> ah, ok
[14:13] <kenvandine> thx seb128
[14:13] <seb128> mterry, could you peer review lp:~rodrigo-moya/ubuntu/maverick/libcanberra/ubuntugtk3
[14:13] <seb128> mterry, I will review gtk in a bit ;-)
[14:13] <seb128> got busy with other things until now
[14:14] <mterry> seb128, sure
[14:14] <seb128> mterry, thanks
[14:28] <seb128> didrocks, you got bugs
[14:29] <seb128> I've just sent 2 evo bugs your way
[14:29] <seb128> calendar not respecting week days and timelines
[14:29] <seb128> it seems to be due to your une backports
[14:29] <seb128> I've rebuilt with 89* and 91* and it works fine
[14:29] <didrocks> seb128: please, can I have a puppy face as a notification when you say "you got bugs"? :)
[14:30] <seb128> didrocks, lol
[14:30] <didrocks> seb128: ok, let's have a look :)
[14:30] <didrocks> seb128 | I've rebuilt with 89* and 91* and it works fine
[14:30] <didrocks> -> you mean, "without"
[14:31] <seb128> yes
[14:31] <seb128> I just wanted to drop the express patch first
[14:31] <seb128> but it made other ones fail
[14:32] <didrocks> hum, I see that will be a joy to do, maybe not for today but will give it a look later
[14:34] <seb128> didrocks, no hurry, it's just that we got quite some duplicates and it's Ubuntu specific
[14:34] <seb128> so we should try to fix it
[14:35] <didrocks> seb128: btw, when you point to upstream bug report, do you look at bug reports "fixed" or at commits?
[14:35] <seb128> didrocks, you mean?
[14:35] <seb128> when I point who?
[14:36] <didrocks> seb128: like in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/649543/comments/12
[14:36] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 649543 in evolution (Ubuntu Maverick) (and 2 other projects) ""work week" preferences do nothing - no effect (affects: 29) (dups: 7) (heat: 158)" [Low,Triaged]
[14:36] <didrocks> seb128: you look for bug report closed in bugzilla?
[14:37] <seb128> usually yes
[14:37] <seb128> but in this case I did type calendar on the git log
[14:37] <didrocks> ok :)
[14:37] <seb128> on git.gnome.org
[14:38] <seb128> that's because the guy who tested said it works in other distros
[14:38] <seb128> so I figured it has been fixed in git during the 2.32 cycle
[14:38] <nessita> mvo: ping
[14:47] <nessita> mvo: when you come back: hello! so, I've read your comment on bug #624065, and I have no so good news. We (desktop+) have no time allocated in the roadmap for that feature :-/ I will try to squeeze a fix before natty release, but if you want/can provide a patch we'll love you and you'll get your func in place :-)
[14:47] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 624065 in ubuntu-sso-client (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "Detect revoked SSO tokens (affects: 2) (heat: 12)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/624065
[14:48] <didrocks> seb128: that patch is already in the tarball and not reverted by evo express, I will have a deeper look then
[14:48] <seb128> didrocks, ok, I found that patch before having finishing my build
[14:49] <seb128> it was a first guess before I figured the backport patch was the issue
[14:49] <didrocks> not a joy as a lot of items have been renamed in the express branch, so a signal should be missing
[14:49] <seb128> didrocks, did that code land in 2.32?
[14:50] <didrocks> seb128: yeah, but it has changed a lot since
[14:50] <seb128> didrocks, you might be able to find something in the diff between those
[14:50] <seb128> hum, ok
[14:50] <seb128> didrocks, or try watching the git you used for the backport, they might have fixed it there?
[14:51] <didrocks> seb128: already done :) and no activity since june
[14:51] <seb128> :-(
[14:52] <didrocks> I'll try first to remove the express tweak in calendar
[14:52] <seb128> didrocks, enjoy the debugging then ;-)
[14:53] <didrocks> seb128: well… yes :-)
[14:57] <mvo> nessita: thanks, I will see what I can do, should not be too much work actually
[14:57] <nessita> mvo: yeah, specially if you use the current code as example
[14:57] <nessita> I mean, as guideline :-)
[15:00] <jcastro> didrocks: do we ship upnp support in rhythmbox in 10.10 and earlier?
[15:01] <jcastro> I am wondering if feature parity means "banshee needs to support upnp" or "banshee needs to support upnp with what's on the CD and don't add anything else"
[15:01] <didrocks> jcastro: not by default in 10.10, it's a separate package
[15:01] <jcastro> ok so something in universe is fine?
[15:01] <didrocks> jcastro: it was before lucid IIRC
[15:01] <didrocks> yeah
[15:02] <seb128> jcastro, yes
[15:02] <seb128> the upnp code is shipped with rb but we install it in a different binary
[15:02] <seb128> which is not installed by default because it depends on coherence
[15:09] <seb128> mterry, did you push your gtk3 with gir somewhere?
[15:09] <mterry> seb128, yeah, lp:~mterry/+junk/ubuntugtk3
[15:09] <seb128> thanks
[15:12] <seb128> mterry, --enable-introspection=yes seems wrong in configure_flags
[15:12] <seb128> shouldn't it be to =no
[15:12] <seb128> then =yes for the shared flavor
[15:12] <seb128> you have it to =yes in shared_configure_flags
[15:12] <mterry> seb128, I wasn't sure about that.  I knew we wanted it for shared.  But wasn't sure about normal
[15:13] <seb128> seems it will be exercising some non standard build configuration
[15:13] <seb128> like gir in the static build
[15:13] <seb128> I think we should do it only for the shared flavor
[15:13] <seb128> would it only to reduce build time
[15:14] <mterry> k, easy to change
[15:14] <seb128> yeah
[15:16] <seb128> mterry, ok, seems ready for me otherwise, I'm doing a testbuild there to check as well
[15:19] <seb128> why the heck is bzr bd failing to download tarballs
[15:20] <seb128> or rather seems to be downloading for a while and then says tarball not found
[15:20] <mterry> seb128, uscan can't find the gtk3 tarballs
[15:20] <mterry> not sure why
[15:20] <seb128> is that the watch issue you fixed in some other sources?
[15:20] <seb128> ([\d\.])+[02468]
[15:20] <seb128> to  ([\d\.]+[02468])
[15:21] <mterry> seb128, maybe..?   yeah...  i think that all wants to be in the parens
[15:21] <mterry> seb128, oh also, that line only checks for stable releases
[15:21] <seb128> that's a valid point ;-)
[15:21] <seb128> wget -nv -T10 -t3 -O ../tarballs/gtk+3.0_2.91.3.orig.tar.gz http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gtk+/2.91/gtk+-2.91.3.tar.gz
[15:21] <seb128> I've that in my log
[15:22] <seb128> so it seems it does figure the right location
[15:22] <didrocks> ../tarballs exists?
[15:22] <seb128> no
[15:22] <seb128> # create tarball dir
[15:22] <seb128> mkdir -p ../tarballs
[15:22] <seb128> wget -nv -T10 -t3 -O ../tarballs/gtk+3.0_2.91.3.orig.tar.gz http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gtk+/2.91/gtk+-2.91.3.tar.gz
[15:22] <seb128> in fact
[15:22] <seb128> in the log
[15:23] <seb128> still seems to be a fail
[15:24] <seb128> it's using /usr/share/gnome-pkg-tools/1/rules/gnome-get-source.mk
[15:24] <seb128> not the watch
[15:26] <mterry> ah
[15:27] <mterry> rodrigo_, I'm looking at your canberra gtk3 branch
[15:27] <rodrigo_> mterry, ok
[15:27] <mterry> rodrigo_, you bumped compat to 7, but need to bump debhelper to >= 7 too then
[15:27] <rodrigo_> mterry, ah, ok, let me change it
[15:27] <seb128> why do you bump the compat?
[15:28] <mterry> rodrigo_, you switched from cdbs to quilt?  Surprised me that you would prefer that.  I think desktop packages are mostly on quilt
[15:28] <mterry> seb128, good point, I didn't see any changes that needed it
[15:28] <rodrigo_> ok, coming back to 5, not sure why I did
[15:28]  * mterry shudders at cdbs patches
[15:29] <mterry> rodrigo_, you dropped the gtk2 module's dbg package.  was that intentional?
[15:29] <rodrigo_> mterry, hmm, well, I prefer the cdbs patches, but I'm ok with switching to quilt if tha'ts better
[15:29] <rodrigo_> mterry, hmm, did I?
[15:29] <seb128> rodrigo_, we sort of standardized on quilt after a while
[15:29] <seb128> with edit-patch nowadays it's ok
[15:30] <rodrigo_> wasn't intentional, no, so re-adding it now
[15:30] <seb128> edit-patch understands quilt
[15:30]  * seb128 hugs mvo
[15:30] <mterry> :)
[15:30] <mterry> rodrigo_, you overrode DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_ALL in debian/rules.  Did you mean +=?
[15:30] <chrisccoulson> oh, i've not used edit-patch yet
[15:30] <chrisccoulson> i just use quilt directly ;)
[15:30]  * mterry hugs quilt
[15:30]  * chrisccoulson hugs quilt too
[15:30] <chrisccoulson> :)
[15:30] <rodrigo_> mterry, yes
[15:30] <seb128> chrisccoulson, edit-patch is useful when you need things like running autoreconf or so
[15:31] <seb128> it avoids having to quilt add things
[15:31] <mterry> rodrigo_, and this is minor, but gtk3-dev has a different required version of gtk3 than the build-depends.  Probably not intentional?
[15:31] <mterry> seb128, oh, didn't know that, cool.  But as we discussed, I also hate autoreconf patches.  Go dh-autoreconf!
[15:31] <seb128> yeah ;-)
[15:32] <seb128> I still hate quilt for having to export QUILT_PATCHES
[15:32] <seb128> or to have to quilt add things you modify
[15:32] <seb128> I often forget the quilt add and edit the file
[15:32] <seb128> then I need to trash my work and start again
[15:32] <nessita> seb128: any news with the upload? if you haven't sponsored yet, I'd like to remove the proposal and make a new one
[15:32] <seb128> nessita, you can do a new one, I got sidetracked in the gtk review
[15:33] <seb128> nessita, you are next
[15:33] <mterry> seb128, I just hold down undo for a while, quilt add, then hold down redo.  :)
[15:33] <nessita> seb128: great! I'll remove the current one, so ignore until further notice
[15:33] <mterry> rodrigo_, so besides the gtk3-dev version, one last thing about debian/rules
[15:33] <seb128> mterry, ;-)
[15:34] <mterry> rodrigo_, did you really want to update dh_makeshlibs -V args to 0.26 from 0.24?
[15:34] <mterry> I get the /usr/lib/canberra-0.26 one, but the -V args, I'm not as sure about
[15:34] <seb128> rodrigo_, as a rules we usually try to not do changes over debian for packages come from there when not required
[15:34] <mterry> I believe that sets the required version of libcanberra for any reverse depends
[15:34] <didrocks> argh, I have to create a pbuilder for maverick. How come I don't have one?
[15:34] <seb128> like changing the patch system or bumping the compat version
[15:34] <seb128> come -> coming
[15:35] <seb128> mterry, rodrigo_: right the shlibs defines the current api version
[15:35] <seb128> ie the version anything building against the lib will depends on
[15:35] <seb128> urg
[15:35] <seb128> we scared him away? ;-)
[15:35] <mterry> seb128, right.  I'm not sure off the top of my head if 0.26 broke API
[15:36] <mterry> heh
[15:38] <mterry> seb128, rodrigo_, hrm, the API docs don't indicate anything even changed in 0.24, so probably don't need the bump to 0.26
[15:38] <seb128> I'm doing a 0.26 build to check
[15:38] <mterry> seb128, how do you check doing a build?
[15:38] <rodrigo_> mterry, that's the version there was in the ubuntu-desktop branch
[15:38] <rodrigo_> seb128, mterry: although I think 0.24 is not ready to build with GTK3
[15:38] <seb128> mterry, I still have 0.25 installed
[15:38] <mterry> rodrigo_, no, I mean as an argument to dh_makeshlibs -V
[15:39] <rodrigo_> mterry, ah
[15:39] <mterry> rodrigo_, in debian/rules, the -V argument specifies the last time the package broke API and reverse-depends need to depend on that version or greater
[15:39] <mterry> rodrigo_, you bumped that from 0.24 to 0.26, but probably didn't need to
[15:39] <seb128> mterry, I've small script which nm -D the installed version and the build one
[15:39] <seb128> and diff the lists
[15:39] <mterry> seb128 is checking
[15:40] <seb128> mterry, check-symbols in ubuntu-dev-tools does something similar
[15:40] <mterry> seb128, fancy.  isn't that what .symbols is for?
[15:40] <seb128> using the deb for each version rather than a build dir
[15:41] <seb128> mterry, right, I had mine years before .symbols though :p
[15:41] <mterry> rodrigo_, oh, speaking of, you need a debian/libcanberra-gtk3-0.symbols file
[15:41] <seb128> it still comes handy for things not using .symbols
[15:41] <rodrigo_> mterry, ok
[15:41] <seb128> which I just nothing libcanberra do
[15:41] <seb128> nothing -> noticed
[15:41] <seb128> why do we still have DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_libcanberra0 calls?
[15:42] <seb128> the .symbols should be enough
[15:42] <mterry> seb128, oh really, dh_makeshlibs does that from symbols?  clever
[15:42] <rodrigo_> so, I can remove those lines then?
[15:42] <mterry> brb
[15:42] <seb128> rodrigo_, you can remove the -V
[15:43] <rodrigo_> ok
[15:43] <seb128> you might want to keep the -- -c<n>
[15:43] <seb128> that tells the build to stop if symbols are missing
[15:43] <rodrigo_> and leave the -- -c4?
[15:43] <rodrigo_> ok
[15:43] <seb128> yes
[15:46] <mterry> rodrigo_, that's all I had.  :)  if those are fixed, seems good, pending seb128's OK
[15:46] <rodrigo_> mterry, ok, building now, will push in a minute
[15:47] <seb128> mterry, <mterry> seb128, oh really, dh_makeshlibs does that from symbols?  clever
[15:47] <seb128> mterry, what is "that"?
[15:51] <mterry> seb128, I guess "that" is what dh_makeshlibs is supposed to do -- determine minimum requirements of packages.  :)  I just never thought about where it got the info from
[15:52] <seb128> mterry, ah ;-)
[15:52] <seb128> yeah it lists all the symbols used
[15:52] <seb128> read the version for those in the .symbols
[15:52] <seb128> and use that
[15:54] <rodrigo_> mterry, pushed
[15:54] <ricotz> hi, what is the reason for "debian/patches/01-build-with-gtk3.patch" in libcanberra, isnt it better to use the official 0.26 tarball?
[15:54] <rodrigo_> ricotz, are we not using the official one?
[15:54] <rodrigo_> ricotz, I got that fix from git
[15:54] <ricotz> 0.26 includes this patch
[15:55] <rodrigo_> not the one we have, it seems
[15:55] <ricotz> http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/libcanberra/libcanberra-0.26.tar.gz
[15:55] <seb128> rodrigo_, your source seems to be 0.25
[15:55] <seb128> according to the configure
[15:55] <rodrigo_> hmm
[15:56] <rodrigo_> it is indeed, got confused by the previous entry in debian/changelog
[15:56] <seb128> where did you get the checkout from?
[15:56] <rodrigo_> ubuntu-desktop branch
[15:56] <seb128> I guess that's debian dir only though?
[15:57] <rodrigo_> hmm
[15:57] <seb128> we way we usually work there is debian dir only and tarball is automagically downloaded and used
[15:58] <rodrigo_> yes, but the branch I have is indeed ~ubuntu-desktop/libcanberra/ubuntu
[15:58] <rodrigo_> that's the correct one, right?
[15:58] <seb128> oh you are right it's full source
[15:58] <seb128> I bet robert_ancell got confused by the format
[15:58] <seb128> we usually use debian only format
[15:59] <rodrigo_> ok, so I bzr merge-upstream from the official tarball, or are you fixing the branch?
[15:59] <seb128> rodrigo_, so yeah, you are right, robert screwed it
[15:59] <seb128> rodrigo_, you need to merge-upstream
[15:59] <rodrigo_> ok
[15:59] <seb128> having 2 workflows is confusing
[15:59] <seb128> that's sort of what with discussed last week
[16:00] <seb128> mterry, rodrigo_: do you know if there is some documentation on the full source way to update?
[16:00] <seb128> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Bzr
[16:00] <seb128> equivalent to that but with merge-upstream
[16:00] <mterry> seb128, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/
[16:00] <mterry> rodrigo_, ^
[16:00] <rodrigo_> ok
[16:01] <seb128> mterry, thanks
[16:01] <seb128> hum
[16:01] <seb128> I wondering if we should switch to that
[16:01] <seb128> at least for things which don't take days to download ;-)
[16:02] <mterry> seb128, we can just ship gnome release sources to team members on a dvd  :)
[16:03] <seb128> lol
[16:03] <bilalakhtar> seb128: bzr merge-upstream works with debian folder only branches?
[16:03] <seb128> no
[16:04] <seb128> debian only uses tarballs
[16:09] <rodrigo_> hmm -> Unable to find the tag for the previous upstream release, 0.25...
[16:09] <rodrigo_> if I tag the branch, it still fails
[16:10]  * kenvandine upgrades to natty... 
[16:10] <seb128> one other reason I don't like full source in bzr :p
[16:10] <seb128> you always have issues like that
[16:10] <seb128> where debian only is very low demanding
[16:10] <seb128> rodrigo_, james_w or didrocks or others might know
[16:11] <rodrigo_> yeah, I prefer debian only too
[16:11] <didrocks> when upstream uses bzr, merge-upstream is the best :)
[16:11] <kenvandine> it is definately much faster to push and pull
[16:11] <didrocks> rodrigo_: what do you try with mu?
[16:12] <rodrigo_> didrocks, merge-upstream libcanberra 0.26 on the ~ubuntu-desktop/libcanberra/ubuntu branch
[16:13] <rodrigo_> didrocks, it says 'unable to find the upstream-0.25 tag'
[16:13] <seb128> I guess the vcs in not on merge-upstream format
[16:13] <didrocks> rodrigo_: yeah, if nobody used it before, you should tag it manually
[16:14] <rodrigo_> ok, so bzr tag upstream-0.25 ?
[16:14] <didrocks> rodrigo_: yeah, look what commit you should add to it
[16:14] <didrocks> weird, you have in latest commit "New upstream release" with no upstream file changed…
[16:15] <seb128> didrocks, because robert_ancell used it as a debian only vcs
[16:15] <didrocks> seb128: not sure how it handles with file in the bzr tree :)
[16:15] <seb128> he doesn't
[16:15] <seb128> I doubt he is running into those often
[16:15] <rodrigo_> adding the tag fails also, in a different way though
[16:15] <seb128> I've to admit I don't really know how to deal with those either when upstream is not in bzr
[16:16] <rodrigo_> wouldn't it be easier to move that ubuntu.-desktop branch to debiabn-only again?
[16:16] <seb128> check with TheMuso
[16:16] <seb128> he's the one whoc was working on it until now
[16:16] <rodrigo_> TheMuso, ^
[16:16] <seb128> so he might have an opinion
[16:17] <seb128> rodrigo_, what error do you get after tagging?
[16:18] <rodrigo_> it says 0.26-ubuntu1 is less than 0.26-0ubuntu1~maverick~ppa1, but I'm doing this on a clean branch, without my changes, so not sure where it gets that from
[16:18] <rodrigo_> ah
[16:19] <seb128> yeah you might need to merge-upstream on the current version
[16:19] <seb128> then to apply your changes
[16:21] <rodrigo_> it removes the debian dir, when doing merge-upstream
[16:21] <didrocks> that's what it's doing on first merge-upstream
[16:21] <didrocks> you have to revert the first time
[16:21] <rodrigo_> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/525150/
[16:25] <didrocks> rodrigo_: bzr revert debian/
[16:25] <tedg> bryceh, Have you played any with the GTG branch that adds an LP backend?
[16:25] <didrocks> rodrigo_: dch -v<blabla<
[16:25] <rodrigo_> didrocks, ok
[16:25] <didrocks> rodrigo_: only the first merge-upstream known and filed bug :)
[16:33] <rodrigo_> ok, I think I got it, it's building correctly now -> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~rodrigo-moya/ubuntu/maverick/libcanberra/ubuntugtk3
[16:33] <rodrigo_> mterry, seb128: do I do a merge proposal so that the diff is easier to look at?
[16:34] <mterry> rodrigo_, yeah, that is easier
[16:34] <rodrigo_> ok
[16:34] <seb128> the merge proposal diff are different from standard diffs?
[16:35] <rodrigo_> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~rodrigo-moya/ubuntu/maverick/libcanberra/ubuntugtk3/+merge/39990
[16:35] <rodrigo_> seb128, oh, no, it's just it's easier to look at, rather than seeing the revisions on my branch
[16:38] <rodrigo_> of course, my merge proposal includes all the upstream changes :(
[16:39] <rodrigo_> yeah, my diff is completely borked, seems the upstream tarball includes a debian dir
[16:39] <ricotz> rodrigo_, oh, is the drop of the sound-theme patch intended?
[16:40] <rodrigo_> no
[16:40] <ricotz> ok, so then it is missing
[16:41] <rodrigo_> ricotz, the diff is borked, it shows every file as being removed and added
[16:41] <seb128> rodrigo_, easier to review those by bzr diffing the debian dir between revisions
[16:41] <rodrigo_> yes
[16:41] <rodrigo_> I'll pastebin that, and remove the merge proposal
[16:41] <seb128> don't bother
[16:42] <seb128> we can do it locally
[16:42] <rodrigo_> ah, ok
[16:52] <didrocks> ahah, take that evolution! :)
[16:52] <seb128> didrocks, you got it?
[16:53] <didrocks> seb128: yeah, both bugs was the same cause :)
[16:53] <seb128> lacking an update?
[16:54] <didrocks> seb128: not really, the editor really changed the gconf key, but as the restruction of evolution is half finished in 2.30 and the express branch was relying on it, there were no parent listening to the change.
[16:54] <seb128> oh ok
[16:54] <didrocks> I had to minimize the change to add the part for listening the gconf key again as well adapting it with previous structure :)
[16:59] <bryceh> tedg, a while ago, not recently
[17:03] <tedg> bryceh, Was it reasonable stable, or should I avoid looking? :)
[17:05] <bryceh> tedg, avoid
[17:36] <rodrigo_> seb128, mterry, did you review my branch?
[17:37] <mterry> rodrigo_, oh no, I didn't.  didn't know you had gone back and actually requested a merge
[17:38] <rodrigo_> mterry, my branch is a bit borked, so I guess for a merge I'd need a cleaner one, but just need review to upload the package to the gnome3 ppa
[17:38] <rodrigo_> mterry, but no hurry, just wanted to know if there was something else wrong
[17:38] <mterry> Oh I see, you fixed the whole 0.25/0.26 thing
[17:38] <rodrigo_> yes
[17:40] <mterry> OK, looking now
[17:40] <pitti> seb128: do you think you can review/approve https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/performance-desktop-n-install-footprint this week?
[17:40] <seb128> pitti, yes
[17:40] <seb128> pitti, how is plumber?
[17:41] <seb128> pitti, I will review the spec in a bit or tomorrow morning
[17:42] <pitti> seb128: in one word: "enlightening" :) in fact there's quite some bits to discuss on our side, I'll follow up next week
[17:42] <pitti> seb128: cheers
[17:42] <pitti> seb128: sohuldn't take much work, you were in the session and there shouldn't be much surprise
[17:42] <seb128> right
[17:42] <seb128> pitti, lot of stack changes coming from plumbers?
[17:43] <pitti> seb128: one word: systemd :)
[17:44] <seb128> lol
[17:46] <mterry> rodrigo_, what happened in the 're-add debian directory' commit?  It makes bzr diff really hard to understand (every file is removed & added instead of being changed)
[17:46] <mterry> as well as losing bzr history for those files
[17:46] <rodrigo_> mterry, yeah, merge-upstream removed the dir so re-added it
[17:47] <mterry> rodrigo_, it deleted the debian/ directory? odd
[17:47] <rodrigo_> yes
[17:48] <mterry> rodrigo_, you can get it back by doing 'bzr revert debian' instead of re-adding them, though I'm not sure why it deleted it
[17:48] <rodrigo_> I think it's because the upstream tarball has a debian/ dir, let me check
[17:48] <rodrigo_> no, it doesn't
[17:49] <rodrigo_> so yeah, not sure why it did, I guess it got confused by the branch not having had a merge-upstream before
[17:49] <rodrigo_> I think we should fix the ubuntu-desktop branch to not have the source in it, shouldn't we?
[17:50] <mterry> rodrigo_, well...  there are two schools of thought on that, and I'm not sure where canberra falls (normal distro stuff is full-source, most desktop-team stuff has historically been debian-only)
[17:50] <rodrigo_> yeah
[17:50] <rodrigo_> I'll try fixing my branch for a better merge proposal
[17:51] <mterry> rodrigo_, thanks, the bzr history is important
[17:51] <rodrigo_> yeah
[17:52] <TheMuso> rodrigo_: Also be aware that there are unreleased changes in debian libcanberra git.
[17:52] <TheMuso> That we will likely need for GTK3.
[17:53] <seb128> why?
[17:53] <seb128> what sort of changes?
[17:53] <seb128> rodrigo_ got a gtk3 build without those
[17:54] <TheMuso> Gtk3 support was added, thast pretty much it.
[17:55] <rodrigo_> yeah, it builds the gtk3 module correctly
[17:55] <rodrigo_> mterry, forget my previous branch, removing it and submitting a new one
[18:00] <rodrigo_> mterry, https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~rodrigo-moya/ubuntu/maverick/libcanberra/ubuntugtk3/+merge/39997 <- now it's ok
[18:01] <mterry> :)
[18:01]  * mterry looks
[18:03] <mterry> rodrigo_, I bet you thought this would be easier!  :)
[18:03] <rodrigo_> yeah, the previous branch's diff was completely messed up
[18:04] <seb128> 420	+ * debian/patches/01-build-with-gtk3.patch:
[18:04] <seb128> 421	+ - Add patch to make it build with GTK3
[18:04] <seb128> rodrigo_, ^ to clean?
[18:05] <rodrigo_> yeah
[18:05]  * rodrigo_ cleans
[18:05] <rodrigo_> pushed
[18:07] <mterry> rodrigo_, what's the src/sound-theme-spec.c about?  That was upstream?
[18:07] <rodrigo_> mterry, yes
[18:07] <rodrigo_> mterry, I just merge-upstream and then did changes in debian/
[18:07] <mterry> rodrigo_, weird.  I wonder how that affects us.  Also,  -gtk3-dev still depends on a different version of gtk3 than the Build-Depends
[18:08] <seb128> rodrigo_, you should document the rules changes in the changelog as well
[18:08] <rodrigo_> mterry, it's just a .spec file, not built it seems
[18:08] <rodrigo_> ah, sorry, it's a C file
[18:08] <mterry> rodrigo_, so what's the deal with the header files like libcanberra.h?  There's just one copy and whether you're building with gtk2 or gtk3, you use the same header?
[18:09] <rodrigo_> ok, fixing the -gtk3-dev
[18:09] <rodrigo_> mterry, seems so, you select which one to link to
[18:10] <mterry> rodrigo_, then gtk3-dev should probably depend on gtk-dev to pull in libcanberra-gtk.h
[18:10] <seb128> that seems suboptimal
[18:10] <mterry> rodrigo_, also, this isn't your fault, but /usr/bin/canberra-gtk-play should really not be in a library package
[18:11] <mterry> not worth fixing now though
[18:11] <seb128> sjoerd said he was interested to get the canberra update in debian
[18:11] <seb128> I will point him to the ppa version one uploaded
[18:11] <seb128> so we can sort with debian what to do for those
[18:11] <seb128> just to make sure we don't divert
[18:13] <rodrigo_> seb128, mterry, ok, pushed last 2 fixes
[18:13] <didrocks> ok, sport and dinner, see you tomorrow!
[18:13] <rodrigo_> bye didrocks
[18:13] <seb128> didrocks, have fun
[18:13] <didrocks> rodrigo_: seb128: enjoy your evening :)
[18:13] <rodrigo_> didrocks, you too :)
[18:15] <rodrigo_> seb128, so, what other libs do we need in the PPA? gtk-engines-3? what others?
[18:15] <mterry> rodrigo_, I think at-spi needs to ship a gtk3 module as well as gtk2 one
[18:16] <rodrigo_> right
[18:16] <rodrigo_> what about gtksourceview?
[18:16] <mterry> rodrigo_, did you do the gtk3-dev depends on gtk-dev change?
[18:16] <rodrigo_> do we want it in the PPA, or just when we package gedit?
[18:16] <rodrigo_> mterry, hmm, no
[18:17] <rodrigo_> mterry, shall I?
[18:17] <mterry> rodrigo_, I agree with seb128 that it's suboptimal, but we need some way to ship libcanberra-gtk.h when gtk3-dev is used.  We could split it into a common-dev package, or we could ship two copies of the header with namespaces...  or we could have one depend on the other
[18:18] <seb128> depends for now
[18:18] <seb128> we will not get ride of the gtk2 version in the next weeks
[18:18] <rodrigo_> can we have 1 file in 2 subpackages?
[18:18] <seb128> we can upload for now and sort that with debian
[18:18] <mterry> rodrigo_, only if they conflict&replace each other
[18:18] <seb128> sjoerd said he would review your work for debian in the next days
[18:18] <rodrigo_> ah, ok
[18:18] <rodrigo_> so, do I add the dependency then?
[18:22] <seb128> rodrigo_, yes for now
[18:22] <rodrigo_> ok
[18:22] <seb128> until we sort a better way
 seb128: in my local trial version i've got a libcanberra-gtk-common-dev, but that seems a bit suboptimal as well
[18:22] <seb128>  seb128: (with the vapi and the .h)
[18:25] <rodrigo_> ok, pushed
[18:25] <seb128> sjoerd tried on that
[18:25] <seb128> rodrigo_, ok
[18:25] <seb128> if mterry is happy with the current version feel free to upload to the ppa
[18:25] <seb128> I will drop an email to sjoerd about your current work
[18:25] <rodrigo_> ok
[18:26] <seb128> so he can review and comment later on
[18:26] <seb128> I will Cc you on the email
[18:26] <rodrigo_> ok
[18:26] <seb128> rodrigo_, thanks for working on that ;-)
[18:26] <rodrigo_> you're welcome :)
[18:26] <seb128> rodrigo_, is there still anything we lack to build g-c-c after that?
[18:26] <mterry> rodrigo_, yeah, seems great!  push to the ppa and thanks
[18:26] <rodrigo_> mterry, ok
[18:26] <seb128> do we need that libsocial?
[18:26] <seb128> is somebody working on packaging it?
[18:26] <rodrigo_> seb128, I think not, but I'll try later on
[18:27] <rodrigo_> right, libsocial
[18:27] <rodrigo_> I'll look at packaging that
[18:27] <seb128> ok
[18:28] <seb128> rodrigo_, mterry: you guys have enough tasks to keep busy?
[18:28] <rodrigo_> seb128, I do, yes
[18:28] <rodrigo_> seb128, but if you want me to work on something, just tell me
[18:28] <mterry> seb128, I have stuff to work on, but I can take something
[18:28] <seb128> no, I'm just trying to make sure people don't waste time because they don't know what to do
[18:29] <seb128> rodrigo_, mterry: ok, great, so just keep on your current tasks ;-)
[18:30] <seb128> rodrigo_, btw you might want to hang on  oftc #debian-gnome
[18:30] <rodrigo_> ah, ok
[18:30] <seb128> we might have some of the gtk3 update discussions there with the debian guys over the cycle
[18:31] <seb128> it's usually very low activity
[18:31] <seb128> but being there is useful for such discussions
[18:31] <rodrigo_> here on freenode?
[18:31] <seb128> no, on oftc
[18:31] <seb128> irc.oftc.net
[18:31] <seb128> that's the irc debian is using
[18:32] <seb128> (yeah, yet another server to connect)
[18:33] <rodrigo_> :)
[18:33] <rodrigo_> ok, I'm in, but I'm leavbing now for some fresh air, so later all!
[18:35] <seb128> rodrigo_, have fun, see you tomorrow
[19:54] <kenvandine> tedg, i made some changes to the ubuntu-geoip package lp:~ubuntu-desktop/ubuntu-geoip/ubuntu
[19:54] <kenvandine> added description, bumped standards and set the desktop team as the package maintainer
[19:56] <tedg> kenvandine, Cool, I'll merge those.
[19:56]  * tedg is good at stealing other's work :)
[19:56] <kenvandine> i'll look for a sponsor soon, hacking up a test in python to make sure it behaves well without much installed :)
[20:00] <seb128> kenvandine, it's about time you run for motu rights
[20:00] <seb128> ;-)
[20:03] <kenvandine> seb128, yeah.. i know :)
[20:03] <kenvandine> i just need to ask for endorsements and get on the agenda for the next meeting
[20:03] <kenvandine> i keep forgetting about it
[20:03] <kenvandine> i guess that is the problem when most packages i touch i have upload rights for :)
[20:04] <seb128> we can fix that if you want ;-)
[20:04] <kenvandine> haha
[20:04] <kenvandine> although the other day i thought it would be fun to go do some sponsoring and help clean up the queue
[20:04] <kenvandine> but of course i couldn't :/
[20:05] <seb128> see
[20:05] <Laney> universe queue is pretty clean these days
[20:05] <Laney> you want main rights for that :P
[20:05] <seb128> you need motu first then you can get there ;-)
[20:05] <kenvandine> seb128, nope... dholbach told me to go ahead and ask for core-dev
[20:05] <seb128> better
[20:05] <seb128> go for it ;-)
[20:06] <seb128> so you can clean the sponsoring queue!
[20:06] <seb128> there is no way you will get out of your sponsoring duties :p
[20:06] <kenvandine> i'll make sure i am on the agenda for the next meeting
[20:06] <kenvandine> :)
[20:06] <seb128> thanks
[20:06] <dobey> has anyone here built natty packages in a ppa?
[20:06] <seb128> dobey, quite some people did that
[20:07] <seb128> we have a bunch of desktop ones
[20:07] <dobey> ok
[20:07] <seb128> why?
[20:07] <dobey> i guess it's just the source recipe builder stuff on launchpad that's not working for it
[20:08] <dobey> i get chroot errors when trying to build source recipes on lp for it
[20:08] <seb128> I guess you should ask the launchpad guys
[20:08] <seb128> works fine for normal uploads
[20:09] <dobey> yeah, that's why i asked if normal ppa uploads worked ok. :)
[20:10] <dobey> i'll bug the lp guys, thanks
[20:20] <cyphermox> guh, just finally made evolution-exchange 2.32 agree to compile on natty :)
[20:57] <kenvandine> tedg, so with geoclue, is should be able to set my accuracy and allowed resources and it will figure out the provider to use?
[20:58]  * kenvandine was looking at a plugin for GTG and they iterate over all the available providers and decide which to use
[20:58] <kenvandine> which seems silly to me
[20:58] <tedg> kenvandine, Yup.  I haven't tested that though.
[20:58] <tedg> kenvandine, The master client should be able to choose one for you.
[20:58] <kenvandine> ok
[20:58] <kenvandine> i actually think there is a bug in python-geoclue
[20:58] <kenvandine> which i have a fix for
[20:58] <tedg> kenvandine, You can look in indicator-datetime for how I do it.
[20:58] <kenvandine> but need to look at it with fresh eyes later :)
[21:39] <rodrigo_> kenvandine, any idea why I get this:
[21:39] <rodrigo_> Unable to find libcanberra_0.26.orig.tar.gz in upload or distribution.
[21:39] <rodrigo_> Files specified in DSC are broken or missing, skipping package unpack verification.
[21:39] <rodrigo_> when submitting from a source package branch?
[21:39] <rodrigo_> it seems it doesn't upload the tar.gz, why?
[21:40] <kenvandine> is the libcanberra_0.26.orig.tar.gz in the dir?
[21:40] <rodrigo_> yes
[21:51] <cyphermox> rodrigo_, is it a *ubuntu1 revision?
[21:52] <rodrigo_> hmm, no, it's 2
[21:52] <cyphermox> you might want to debuild -S -sa if it's for a PPA
[21:52] <rodrigo_> ok
[21:52] <cyphermox> (or the 'bzr bd -S -- -sa' equivalent)
[21:53]  * cyphermox -> eod
[21:54] <rodrigo_> right, that did it, it's uploading the tar.gz now
[21:56] <rodrigo_> hey robert_ancell
[21:56] <robert_ancell> rodrigo_, hey
[21:57] <robert_ancell> rodrigo_, hey
[22:11] <kklimonda_> rodrigo_: I like your host ;)
[22:11] <sarvatt> http://etherpad.osuosl.org/lpc2010-desktop  -- desktop discussions from today at plumbers, the death to distributions talk (aka gnome os) was especially interesting
[22:11] <kklimonda_> sarvatt: are the discussions and presentations recorded?
[22:12] <sarvatt> I dont believe so outside of the awesome non crashy gobby replacement etherpad notes
[22:13] <kklimonda_> bummer - topics that are being discussed on the plumber conference are really interesting :/
[22:28] <sarvatt> gnome 4.0 = the one distro to rule them all basically (pretty easy to guess what it would be based on)
[22:31] <kklimonda_> sarvatt: how are they planning to do that? it
[22:31] <kklimonda_> it's one thing to say that gnome is going to be the os itself, it's another thing to convince enough people of it.