[02:07] <ScottK> kklimonda: It's proper for you to be the XSBC-Original-Maintainer in this case.
[02:08] <ScottK> (since you're packaging it)
[07:35] <dholbach> good morning!
[07:36]  * lan3y waves
[07:36] <lan3y> ooer
[07:36] <dholbach> hey lan3y
[07:43]  * Laney wriggles... that's better!
[07:43] <Rhonda> good morgon
[07:44] <Laney> guten vogon
[10:05] <ari-tczew> BlackZ: ping
[10:07] <BlackZ> ari-tczew: pong
[10:08] <ari-tczew> BlackZ: I just saw your Core-Dev application. Why did you write "(may be a little late)" ?
[10:10] <BlackZ> ari-tczew: because I may be at the meeting at 12:10 UTC for example
[10:11] <ari-tczew> BlackZ: dunno what is clear for other folks. for me it's not clear - It looks just like you should apply to Core-Dev earlier.
[10:14] <BlackZ> ari-tczew: clarified
[10:15] <ari-tczew> BlackZ: now is good
[15:25] <spotter> hey guys, there's a pretty major bug in a simple package (hebcal) that ubuntu pulls from my debian package, so a new release was made, any chance ubuntu can include it in -updates?
[15:26] <ebroder> !sru | spotter
[15:26] <ebroder> spotter: that's the process for getting stuff into -updates
[15:27] <spotter> the Q is, what does high impact mean?
[15:27] <ScottK> spotter: We'd need a bug with a test case for verification and a minimal diff.  With that, yes.
[15:27] <spotter> high impact to ubuntu, but high impact to package?
[15:27] <ScottK> spotter: To the package.
[15:27] <spotter> i.e. this is a lo impact package w/ a high impact bug to it (calculates wrong day for a fast day)
[15:28] <ScottK> spotter: That sounds like high impact to me.
[15:28] <ScottK> Because the only people it would affect would really care.
[15:28] <ScottK> I have to go, but if no one else helps you through the process, I should be available ~this time tomorrow to help.
[15:28] <ScottK> spotter: ^^^
[15:29] <spotter> ok, will work on it later, right now have to get back to work
[15:58] <xteejx> Afternoon all! :)
[15:59] <xteejx> How do I go about getting a new package into Ubuntu?
[16:00] <kklimonda> xteejx: you prepare it, upload to revu and look for sponsors
[16:00] <kklimonda> !revu | xteejx
[16:00] <xteejx> kklimonda: Does it matter if it doesn't go into Debian?
[16:00] <xteejx> Or will they take it automatically?
[16:00] <kklimonda> xteejx: no, but it should be your final goal.
[16:01] <kklimonda> nope, getting it into debian is a separate process
[16:01] <geser> xteejx: Debian is preferred as REVU is lacking reviewers and you can wait very long for a review, you might be faster getting it into Debian and sync it Ubuntu
[16:02] <xteejx> Hmm, that makes sense
[16:02] <xteejx> I'm pretty OK with doing my first package, it's just the rules file I'm already confused with
[16:03] <xteejx> The rest is pretty explanatory on the Debian New Maintainers Guide
[16:03] <RainCT> xteejx: in many cases you should be able to use debhelper 7 and not have to worry about debian/rules at all
[16:03] <xteejx> RainCT: Well the package uses the usual configure, make, make install
[16:04] <xteejx> I guess it would be the template one right?
[16:04] <xteejx> dh: $@ or whatever it is
[16:04] <RainCT> xteejx: right,  %: dh $@  iirc
[16:05] <xteejx> What about the difference between Ubu/Deb, can I build it locally (Ubuntu)?
[16:05] <geser> xteejx: if you have specific problems, you can ask in #ubuntu-packaging (or here)
[16:05] <xteejx> i.e make the package up and pbuilder it?
[16:05] <xteejx> Oh ok :) Brilliant!!
[16:06] <geser> xteejx: using a Debian sid pbuilder
[16:06] <xteejx> No prob, I know how to work pbuilder what with FTBFS fixes and the like :)
[16:07] <micahg> \sh: did you get my email about the ZF PPA versioning?
[16:10] <\sh> micahg: yepp
[16:10] <\sh> micahg: go ahead
[16:18] <micahg> geser: is there any process for me being added to MOTU or do I just need to ask?
[16:21] <geser> micahg: usually the person who chairs does it
[16:22] <micahg> geser: ah, ok, i'll wait then
[16:23] <geser> micahg: done
[16:24] <micahg> geser: thanks :)
[16:36] <bilalakhtar> micahg: Welcome to MOTU!
[16:36] <dholbach> micahg, congratulations
[16:43] <micahg> dholbach: thanks
[17:26] <achiang> hello, i submitted a fix for bug #672887 yesterday, simultaneously with an entry in debian BTS: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602880
[17:27] <achiang> the ubuntu sponsor uploaded my package already; shortly thereafter, the DD uploaded a fix too
[17:27] <achiang> so, i learned a lesson: maybe if i submit a debian patch, i should wait a day or two before subscribing ubuntu-sponsors
[17:27] <achiang> ... to give the DD time to react
[17:28] <achiang> in the meantime, what's the best way to proceed with this package? it's fixed, yes, but should i request a merge too?
[17:29] <geser> achiang: is your fix the only change in the Debian package and the same as in the Ubuntu package?
[17:30] <achiang> geser: no, i notice the DD added an additional fix to his package [please read the debian bug for details]
[17:32] <geser> IMHO it's not worth to sync right now. the other update doesn't benefit Ubuntu. But you could keep an eye on this package and sync (as the Ubuntu delta is completely included in the Debian package) it on the next occasion
[17:34] <achiang> geser: does that sync happen automatically at some point? or is it a manual process? also, shouldn't it properly be called a merge, since the Ubuntu version and Debian version are now forked?
[17:36] <cjwatson> if the result is making the Ubuntu package a verbatim copy of the Debian package, we call that a sync
[17:36] <cjwatson> a merge is when there are still outstanding changes
[17:36] <cjwatson> (on the Ubuntu sided)
[17:36] <cjwatson> *side
[17:36] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: hello, did you see my requests to MoM?
[17:36] <achiang> ah, got it, thanks
[17:36] <cjwatson> since there are currently outstanding Ubuntu changes, it will require a manual request to sync
[17:36] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: yes
[17:38] <ari-tczew> cjwatson:  could you look on bug 667792 what happens with this sync?
[17:38]  * cjwatson looks slightly despairingly at the stack of another half a dozen things he's currently doing ...
[17:38] <achiang> cjwatson: so, for any package foo, if the version string is XubuntuY (meaning, outstanding Ubuntu changes), that will always require a manual sync, no matter where we are in the release cyccle?
[17:38] <cjwatson> achiang: yes
[17:39] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: looks successful.  tell me what the problem is, don't make me guess?
[17:40] <cjwatson> (and it's not listed on merges.ubuntu.com anywhere)
[17:40] <achiang> cjwatson: ok, thank you. now that i understand it will cause extra work, i will be slower to pull the trigger on filing Ubuntu bugs, and work harder to get fixes into Debian first. any good guidelines on how long it is appropriate to wait for a DD to respond before requesting an Ubuntu upload?
[17:40] <cjwatson> achiang: not really, judgement call
[17:40] <cjwatson> achiang: build relationships with Debian maintainers and it will be easier to guess
[17:40] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: ah, comment on package op-panel is wrong. you can look that it's driving to oinkmaster request
[17:40] <cjwatson> hard to put numbers on human factors
[17:41] <achiang> cjwatson: good advice, thank you.
[17:41] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: well, just delete the comment then
[17:41] <cjwatson> or figure out what it should say and fix it
[17:41] <ari-tczew> done 1 minute ago
[17:59] <kklimonda> cjwatson: btw, in sync we loose all our entries in the changelog, and houldn't changelog reflect all uploads (in this case to Ubuntu)?
[18:02] <cjwatson> kklimonda: we do.  it's a price worth paying.
[18:02] <cjwatson> (we discussed this way back at the start of Ubuntu)
[18:03] <SpamapS> beside that, they're not "lost".. they're still in whatever release they got uploaded in. :)
[18:03] <cjwatson> launchpad knows all
[19:51] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: 2 packages were removed from universe. does MoM will clean them?
[19:59] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: names?
[19:59] <ari-tczew> kklimonda: sponsoring overview says that you've upload access for all ubuntu ;d
[19:59] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: I should imagine so in general, though
[19:59] <cjwatson> (please only ask me if there is a definite problem)
[20:01] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: I just only ask whether MoM is going to remove removed packages from the list. do you want remove these packages manually?
[20:01] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: silo , xserver-xorg-video-sunleo ; emacs22
[20:01] <ari-tczew> (universe)
[20:02] <micahg> ari-tczew: they're still showing up in the madison db
[20:05] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: I don't want to touch anything manually
[20:05] <cjwatson> the silo and xserver-xorg-video-sunleo *source packages* shouldn't be removed - I had this discussion with you just the other day
[20:05] <cjwatson> there's no point removing source packages to correspond to which architectures we currently build - it's nothing but busy-work
[20:06] <cjwatson> somebody should either do trivial merges for those or sync them or something
[20:06] <cjwatson> oh, wait, somebody removed silo and xserver-xorg-video-sunleo against my express instructions?
[20:06] <cjwatson> bah
[20:07] <micahg> cjwatson: Riddell had no way to know as it wasn't documented in the bug
[20:08] <cjwatson> I know Riddell didn't
[20:08] <cjwatson> ari filed the bug AFTER talking to me
[20:08] <micahg> fun
[20:08] <cjwatson> I don't see the point in me asking questions if I'm just going to be ignored without the courtesy of a rebuttal
[20:08] <cjwatson> er, answering questions
[20:08] <micahg> cjwatson: do you want me to get those sources back?
[20:09] <cjwatson> I want ari to stop being a loose cannon
[20:09] <cjwatson> I don't desperately care about the source packages in question, but I want us not to be wasting work on this stuff
[20:09] <Rhonda> Actually there are people who think his behavior is appropriate.
[20:09] <cjwatson> what, asking a question, getting the answer, and then behaving as if he hadn't?
[20:10] <cjwatson> I have no problem with there being a difference of opinion on whether the source package should be removed
[20:10] <cjwatson> but that should be handled by actually having the conversation
[20:12] <cjwatson> one reason why it's actually important not to remove packages for this reason is that it's a problem if we ever decide we want to reintroduce the architecture later
[20:12] <cjwatson> and the weight of source packages that only build for architectures we don't support is negligible
[20:15] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: please don't remove packages based solely on the fact that we're not building for its architectures
[20:15] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: it will be problematic if we ever need to reintroduce the architecture in future, and in general it's just busy-work
[20:16] <cjwatson> I have a definite memory that I had already asked you not to do this in these cases, not that I can find the logs
[20:18] <cjwatson> ah yes, here we go, here are the logs from a week ago
[20:18] <cjwatson> 22:34 <ari-tczew> can we remove packages from archive, if there is only one binary - sparc ?
[20:18] <cjwatson> 22:35 <persia> ari-tczew, That's not a good reason, but we can remove stuff.  Which package?
[20:18] <cjwatson> 22:36 <ari-tczew> persia: xserver-xorg-video-sunleo
[20:18] <cjwatson> 22:36 <cjwatson> I've generally not found it worth the effort to do so
[20:18] <cjwatson> 22:37 <cjwatson> it's easier to just sync all those source packages and have them do nothing, rather than go to the effort of maintaining entries in the sync-blacklist for everything that generates only binaries for architectures not in Ubuntu
[20:18] <cjwatson> 22:37 <persia> We could remove that (use "Unbuildable in Ubuntu" as the reason, and blacklist), but yeah, I don't see the point.
[20:18] <cjwatson> 22:37 <cjwatson> (and keep track of when source packages add new architectures and remove them from the blacklist, and ...)
[20:18] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: did you not see that discussion?
[20:26] <micahg> geser: BTW, I took a look at the FTBFS page to add package sets, but my python foo isn't quite there yet
[20:28] <geser> send me what you have, and I try to merge it
[20:29] <micahg> geser: I don't have anything yet, I probably won't be able to do much with it before the beginning of the year
[20:30] <geser> np, I guess till then I'll find time to finish it myself
[20:30] <micahg> geser: you can feel free to leave it for me unless you want to work on it yourself
[20:31] <geser> I wanted to code  myself a little again but lacked an idea (know I have one thanks to you :)
[20:31] <micahg> geser: cool, thanks
[20:43] <highvoltage> heh, dhcp in network manager seemed to break anyway
[21:43] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: sorry, today my ISP doesn't work good