[00:07] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: yeah, should probably be fixed - it breaks the Maintainer link for many packages. I've thought about doing something about it too (without ever actually doing anything)
[00:08] <ari-tczew> thanks tumbleweed for support
[00:11] <ScottK> ari-tczew: You don't need support.  You just need to go get it fixed.  As in #launchpad.
[00:11] <ScottK> As/Ask
[00:13] <ari-tczew> ScottK: Asked.
[00:27] <ari-tczew> ScottK: could you take a look on a patch related to python? patch requires python 2.6. should do I change it to 2.7?
[00:27] <ari-tczew> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/natty/ntfs-config/natty/annotate/head%3A/debian/patches/python24-remove.patch
[00:27]  * ScottK looks
[00:28] <ScottK> ari-tczew: What problem is this solving?
[00:28] <ari-tczew> ScottK: revision says: Don't explicitely depend on a versioned python interpreter.
[00:28] <ari-tczew> no bug reported for this one
[00:28] <ari-tczew> and added by doko
[00:31] <ari-tczew> ScottK: during review PTS/BTS I found an information about change: debian/rules: add export PYTHON=/usr/bin/python
[00:31] <ari-tczew> is it a workaround for above patch?
[00:32] <ScottK> The change you linked me to is from http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/natty/ntfs-config/natty/revision/9
[00:33] <ScottK> The don't explicitly depend on ... change doko did was rev 11.
[00:34] <ScottK> So I'm a little confused what your question is.
[00:35] <ScottK> Guessing, I think you'd want 2.6 and 2.7 in there, but that's a guess.  If you don't understand it, either test and experiment until you do or leave it for someone else.
[00:36] <ari-tczew> ScottK: I'm pretty sure that we can drop this patch. Debian has implemented some changes for it.
[00:36] <ari-tczew> ScottK: Right, patch was added in revision 7 without explanation by Riddell, then twice updated.
[00:36] <ScottK> ari-tczew: I'd be sure.  People get grumpy if ntfs-config is broken.
[00:37] <ari-tczew> ScottK: so I'm asking you for be sure: lookin' on Debian bug 589015 they have fixed it
[00:38] <ari-tczew> they have added "export PYTHON=/usr/bin/python" in debian/rules
[00:38] <ScottK> ari-tczew: I'm busy with other stuff at the moment.  You need to consider that Debian has 2.5 and 2.6 and we will have 2.6 and 2.7 when you look at it.
[00:38] <ScottK> That might do it.
[00:38] <ScottK> I'm just not in a position to investigate
[00:39] <ari-tczew> ScottK: I'll build debian package on natty. I'll test it. if it works, can we sync?
[00:39] <ScottK> ari-tczew: I don't know and don't have enough time to find out for sure, but that sounds reasonable.
[00:40] <ari-tczew> ok
[00:45] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: looks good for syncing to me (wonders why I'm still awake...)
[00:45] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: what is your timezone in UTC?
[00:46] <tumbleweed> UTC+2
[00:47] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: the same as mine! when do you wake up?
[00:47] <tumbleweed> depends when I go to sleep :P
[00:49] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: ah! got it now
[00:49] <ari-tczew> how can I use requestsync for universe as I'm MOTU?
[00:50] <micahg> ari-tczew: should be no different than anyone else, if you use --lp, it won't subscribed -sponsors and should just marked confirmed
[00:51] <ari-tczew> micahg: just not working as you wrote :/
[00:51] <ari-tczew> it subscribing sponsors
[00:51] <micahg> with --lp?
[00:51] <ScottK> ari-tczew: With the email version it will ask you if you have upload rights for Universe.  Say yes.
[00:52] <ScottK> micahg: pyxpcom is FTBFS and looks like it might benefit from someone who understand Mozilla stuff.  Would you please have a look at it.
[00:52] <ari-tczew> micahg: alias reqsync='requestsync --lp -s -d unstable'
[00:52] <micahg> ScottK: I think we're blacklisting it, but I"ll look into it, thanks
[00:52] <ScottK> micahg: Not successfully.
[00:53] <ScottK> ;-)
[00:53] <micahg> oops, meant we'll be blacklisting it :)
[00:53] <micahg> ari-tczew: -s forces sponsorship (i.e. subscribe sponsors)
[00:55]  * ari-tczew is testing without -s...
[00:55] <micahg> ari-tczew: also, -d unstable is default for non-LTS
[00:55] <ari-tczew> micahg: natty is non-LTS right?
[00:55] <maco> ari-tczew: right
[00:56] <ari-tczew> so also can I remove it from alias?
[00:57] <ScottK> ari-tczew: Now that you have that figured out, http://launchpadlibrarian.net/58061073/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-i386.gdcm_2.0.16-2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz could use some linking help if you're looking for something that needs doing.
[00:59] <ari-tczew> ScottK: curiosity question: do you need this FTBFS fixed for something?
[00:59] <ScottK> ari-tczew: No.  Just noticed it was of a relatively trackable class of FTBFS (linking failures) and thought you might be up for fixing it.
[01:00] <ari-tczew> ScottK: That's right, but I'm guessing about move this operation to FeatureFreeze stage.
[01:00] <ScottK> ari-tczew: Linker failures are unlikely to go away on their own.
[01:00] <ari-tczew> before FeatureFreeze get changes from Debian as more as possible
[01:01] <ScottK> It's certainly up to you to decide what your work is.
[01:01]  * micahg notes there's 3.5 months until FF
[01:01] <ari-tczew> ScottK: tomorrow I can look
[01:01] <ScottK> Great.
[01:01] <ari-tczew> micahg: a lot or a little?
[01:02] <ari-tczew> from your POV
[01:03] <ari-tczew> ScottK, tumbleweed: ntfs-config from Debian works fine. I'm going to sync it.
[01:03] <ari-tczew> do I need to give an explanation of sync if I'm MOTU?
[01:03] <ari-tczew> (requestsync use)
[01:04] <micahg> ari-tczew: a lot, and yes, you need to give an explanation for the archive-admins
[01:04]  * micahg would think at least
[01:05] <ari-tczew> I just saw fresh ScottK's sync bug and he gave explanation.
[01:06] <ScottK> ari-tczew: That was an easy one because Debian did the exact same change we did.  For this one, it's a different fix, so needs a bit more explaination.
[01:07] <ari-tczew> when I decided to remove package in universe, is enough to subscribe ubuntu-archive?
[01:07] <micahg> ari-tczew: no, there should be an explanation for the AAs to include in the removal log
[01:08] <ari-tczew> micahg: of course. I just mean whether any ACKs  are necessary.
[01:08] <micahg> ari-tczew: no, if you have upload rights you can request removal
[01:09] <ari-tczew> hmm, why people use ntfs-config with sudo? I don't understand bug 663318
[01:10] <micahg> ari-tczew: some people think you have to run a lot of things with sudo that you don't have to
[01:11] <ari-tczew> micahg: how do you would triage this bug?
[01:12] <micahg> ari-tczew: well, if it's never meant to be run with sudo, it should warn on that and exit (would be wishlist then), if it's normally supposed to be run as the user, but can be run as sudo, there are 2 issues here, 1.  should warn, 2. shouldn't fail when run with sudo
[01:13]  * micahg doesn't know anything about ntfs-config though
[01:13] <micahg> those are general triaging suggestions
[01:14] <micahg> ari-tczew: my guess is there might be a duplicate as hal's been deprecated
[01:15] <ari-tczew> micahg: hmm. I'm thinking about upload ntfs-config and please users to test package without sudo.
[01:15] <micahg> ari-tczew: well, if you're not sure about the usage, I would suggest further research or getting in touch with the Debian maintainer
[01:16] <micahg> ari-tczew: you could also try YokoZar who maintains the wine stack in Ubuntu
[01:17] <ari-tczew> micahg: why wine? it's ntfs-config
[01:17] <micahg> ari-tczew: possible indirect knowledge
[01:25] <ScottK> Also HAL is removed from Gnome, but KDE still uses it.
[01:26] <ari-tczew> ScottK: so I dunno how triage these bugs :/
[01:27] <ari-tczew> ntfs-config works very well on my ubuntu
[01:27] <ScottK> OK.  I'd discuss it with people in #ubuntu-bugs
[01:34] <micahg> ari-tczew: debian 573348
[01:35] <ari-tczew> micahg: I saw it. and I said, works fine for me,
[01:35] <ari-tczew> micahg: I'd get it applied in Debian first.
[01:36] <ari-tczew> micahg: I'd prepare a NMU, but if I'm not affected...
[01:36] <micahg> ari-tczew: sure, but you can at least link the bugs and mark our bug triaged
[01:37] <micahg> ari-tczew: there's already a possible patch in that bug
[01:37] <ari-tczew> micahg: [02:36] <ari-tczew> micahg: I'd prepare a NMU, but if I'm not affected...
[01:38] <micahg> ari-tczew: well, the answer is to probably move away from HAL
[01:39] <micahg> ari-tczew: about you not being affected, I'm not sure, you could always upload a fix to a PPA for someone to test
[01:39] <ari-tczew> micahg: sounds reasonable
[01:39] <micahg> ari-tczew: if you're running GNOME, you might be HAL free as ScottK pointed out
[01:40] <ari-tczew> micahg: so, users with KDE are affected?
[01:40] <micahg> ari-tczew: no, they probably wouldn't be, since they'd have hal installed
[01:40] <ScottK> Could be other destkop environments too.
[01:40] <micahg> ari-tczew: do you have hal installed
[01:40] <micahg> Xfce still has HAL as well until we get to 4.8
[01:41] <micahg> ari-tczew: if you have the hal package installed, you wouldn'
[01:41] <micahg> t get this error
[01:42] <ari-tczew> micahg: I have installed
[01:44] <ari-tczew> does anybody know what means comment on MoM "USA" ?
[01:47] <ari-tczew> could someone add a comment on https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe-manual.html ? instead add comment, page redirects me to universe.html
[03:23] <shane4ubuntu> ok, I'm trying to repackage a python app, it builds fine, however when I try to upload it to a ppa, it says mixed uploads not allowed, so asked the dev says, remove all the .py (that is the source) I did that, and recompiled, and stills says it is mixed???
[03:23] <shane4ubuntu> any ideas, thoughts or pointers would be appreciated.
[03:31] <ScottK> shane4ubuntu: You should probably seek help in #ubuntu-packaging.
[03:31] <shane4ubuntu> ScottK, ok, thanks!
[11:43] <bdrung> micahg: you can code perl?
[11:52] <xteejx> I have fixed bug 671222 - it's in main, how do I get the fix looked at?
[11:55] <xteejx> Do I subscribe ubuntu-sponsors ??
[12:00] <geser> xteejx: yes
[12:00] <xteejx> geser: ok thanks :)
[12:02] <geser> xteejx: I assume mvo will look at it during the next week
[12:02] <xteejx> cool
[14:27] <ari-tczew> ScottK: I can't fix FTBFS on gdcm, which you pointed me to do it yesterday. Sorry.
[14:28]  * ari-tczew is off to switch into XP,
[15:28] <psusi> can anyone tell me why bzr is apparently not using stacked branches?  I branched from lp:ubuntu/parted, made one tiny change, and tried to push to lp:~psusi/ubuntu/natty/parted/my-fix and it seems to be uploading the entire repo history
[15:34] <psusi> ohh... ok, it apparently just wanted a --stacked... I don't remember having to do that before to get a stacked push.. hrm...
[15:35] <ebroder> psusi: I was taking a look at your lvm2 merge last night. You know that all of the undocumented patches come from Debian, not us, right?
[15:36] <ebroder> I think it might be better to do a proper merge from Debian before trying to incorporate a new upstream. In particular, the Debian maintainer dropped one or two of the patches since the last time we merged
[15:36] <psusi> he did?  hrm..
[15:37] <ebroder> In any case, I don't think it's a good idea to drop patches from the Debian packaging just because they don't appear to do anything to you
[15:38] <psusi> yea, I also need to talk to keybuck about open-readonly.patch too but I've not seen him on
[15:38] <psusi> it seems I didn't quite merge it correctly because I get warnings about read only vs read write opens when running it
[15:38] <psusi> but it still seems to work fine
[15:38] <ebroder> I believe that patch is still relevant. It's needed because we add OPTIONS+="match" to the udev file
[15:39] <ebroder> Err, +="watch"
[15:39] <psusi> well, it's also because I couldn't get them to apply and without any documentation, could not figure out what they were supposed to and fix it
[15:39] <psusi> so that was the best I could do
[15:39] <psusi> which patch is this?
[15:40] <ebroder> I'm not sure it's encoded in a quilt patch, but it's our only change to...debian/tree/dmsetup/lib/udev/rules.d/60-dont-remember-what-it-ends-with.rules :)
[15:40] <psusi> ohh... I shouldn't have touched that then
[15:40] <psusi> all I did was manually fix up patches or comment them out of the series file
[15:41] <ebroder> with something as sensitive as lvm2, that...doesn't really seem like a good plan
[15:41] <ebroder> Anyway, the merge from Debian appears to be more straightforward, although bzr generated a bunch of bogus conflicts when I tried it
[15:43] <psusi> I'm really excited about this new lvm.. I tried upgrading to natty again last night then an lvconvert and a reboot and I'm back in maverick...
[15:50] <kklimonda_> ScottK: I can fix gdcm later (as in "in few hours"), the fix should be pretty straightforward
[15:56] <psusi> isn't there supposed to be a bzr branch somewhere that is an auto import from debian?
[15:56] <ebroder> lp:debian/<source package>
[16:00] <psusi> doesn't seem to exist...
[16:01] <ebroder> uh, i branched it last night
[16:01] <psusi> nevermind... typoed
[16:02] <psusi> ahh and there is one for sid
[16:04] <psusi> ohh, and they finally went to 2.02.72... only 2 revs behind
[16:06]  * psusi beats the debian maintainer for not putting a single line of documentation in his patches
[16:07] <ebroder> he's not actually at 2.02.72 - he just cherry-picked the change
[16:08] <psusi> wait... so his idea of "import upstream version 2.02.72" is to cherry pick a single change, not update to the new upstream release?
[16:08] <ebroder> look at the version numbers in the changelog
[16:09] <ebroder> "New upstream version." is the typical phrasing for the latter
[16:09]  * psusi facepalms
[16:35] <SpamapS> hrm, I got a weird error when submitting a package for PPA build..
[16:35] <SpamapS> dpkg-deb: building package `mongodb' in `../mongodb_1.2.2-1ubuntu1.1~ppa0_amd64.deb'.
[16:35] <SpamapS> tar: ./usr/bin/mongo: file changed as we read it
[16:36] <SpamapS> ./usr/bin/mongo is a symlink
[16:36] <SpamapS> when building in my local schroot I don't get this problem
[16:36] <SpamapS> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/58762750/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-amd64.mongodb_1:1.2.2-1ubuntu1.1~ppa0_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[16:37] <SpamapS> anybody ever see this issue? It doesn't quite make sense to me.. I'm wondering if it is parallel builds or something else weird.
[16:43] <micahg> SpamapS: tar was updated in lucid...
[16:50] <SpamapS> micahg: like, recently?
[16:50] <micahg> SpamapS: no, 5 weeks ago
[17:52] <micahg> Do we do SRUs for outdated descriptions?
[18:02] <ScottK> kklimonda_: Excellent.
[18:03] <ScottK> micahg: No.
[18:07] <micahg> ScottK: k, thanks
[20:36] <ha2fb> Alright guys I have a question regarding Download Accelerator Plus installation through WINE. If someone could help me it would be greatly appreciated!
[20:37] <ScottK> ha2fb: Support is in #ubuntu.
[20:37] <ha2fb> sorry Scott, thanks.
[20:38] <ScottK> No problem.