[01:50] <micahg> if I'm preparing the debdiff for an SRU, can I just do this? http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/531484/
[01:51] <geser> lp bug number missing
[01:51] <micahg> geser: ah, good point
[01:51] <micahg> I haven't actually filed the bug yet...
[01:52] <micahg> geser: but just giving attribution like that is fine?
[01:52] <geser> yes
[01:52] <micahg> ok
[01:57] <geser> micahg: while you are here: can I get your opinion on http://www.bienia.de/tmp/natty.html ? (FTBFS with packagesets)
[01:59] <micahg> geser: that looks very cool
[02:00] <micahg> it even lets you know if a package in your packageset is in another
[06:51] <micahg> hi fabrice_sp, I was going to sponsor bug 671358, but I seem to have an issue getting the zip file from upstream, I see you sponsored it in the past, are there any tricks?
[06:59] <fabrice_sp> Hi micahg
[06:59] <fabrice_sp> let me check
[07:01] <fabrice_sp> IIRC, there is a get-orig-source target in the rules files
[07:01]  * micahg checks, thanks
[07:02] <fabrice_sp> I think that cesare should have upload access for mame: he made all the updates, and knows well when and what to update :-)
[07:03] <fabrice_sp> (re. the u releases)
[07:03] <fabrice_sp> perhaps the watch file should be updated to avoid this versions?
[07:03]  * micahg hasn't checked the watch file yet, just checked the websire
[07:03] <micahg> *website
[07:04] <micahg> it only looks for s versions, so I think it's good
[07:05] <micahg> wow, ok, now I see how this works, I guess I should have checked the Debian dir first
[07:05] <fabrice_sp> :-)
[07:10] <micahg> fabrice_sp: if the get-orig-source rule is broke, I should have that fixed by him, right?
[07:11] <fabrice_sp> or you can fix it yourself. As Cesare is very responsive, you can ask him to fix it
[07:15] <micahg> ok, I asked him, I'll see if I can grab something else to sponsor
[07:35] <euroneet> hi hi
[07:43] <micahg> fabrice_sp: I'm worried about being too critical on a sponsoring request, can you review my comment?
[07:43] <fabrice_sp> micahg, sure! any link?
[07:43] <micahg> fabrice_sp: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/531602/ for bug 673066
[07:43] <ebroder> micahg: It looks fine to me
[07:43] <ebroder> Oh, never mind
[07:44] <micahg> ebroder: yeah, I took care of that other one :)
[07:45] <fabrice_sp> micahg, not sure about the bzr merge one. The other ones mekae sense
[07:45] <ebroder> Yeah, I was just trying to figure out what I think about that
[07:46] <fabrice_sp> micahg, I usually give feedback to new packaging by files. For example: debian/changelog: 1) please collapse all non uploaded ....
[07:46] <ebroder> I understand what you're saying, although I might say something like, "can you either propose a bzr merge or attach a debdiff of something, since those are the preferred form for patches [maybe add a link to something relevant here]"
[07:46] <micahg> fabrice_sp: well, he has it in a junk branch right now based on just the Debian dir, wouldn't it make sense to base it of the current packaging
[07:47] <ebroder> The junk branch bothered me when I looked at that, too
[07:47] <fabrice_sp> micahg, you're right
[07:47] <fabrice_sp> I usually request a debdiff myself
[07:48] <micahg> I don't mind a bzr merge as long as there's a current branch for it
[07:49] <micahg> fabrice_sp: updated: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/531604/
[07:50] <fabrice_sp> micahg, sounds good to mee
[07:51] <ebroder> Same for me
[07:51] <micahg> done, should I unsubscribe sponsors while waiting?
[07:52] <ebroder> I think that's fine, with another comment to re-subscribe sponsors when your concerns have been addressed
[07:53] <micahg> oops, one of the comments should have been under anotehr section (build-dep should be under changelog), I'll add a comment
[07:53] <fabrice_sp> I usually unsubscribe sponsors, asking to re-subscribe them when fixed
[07:55] <micahg> thanks guys
[07:55] <fabrice_sp> thank you for working on the sponsorship queue :-)
[07:56] <ebroder> what fabrice said
[07:56]  * micahg was hoping to sponsor something this week, will keep an eye out tomorrow
[07:57]  * fabrice_sp still remembers when the universe sponsor list was more than 100 requests long
[07:58] <micahg> maybe Cesare will get back to me with the mame update
[07:58]  * micahg is thinking of pushing that into Debian if the pkg-multimedia team will take it
[07:58] <micahg> But I need to do a little cleanup work for them before I ask for sponsorship of a new package
[07:59] <fabrice_sp> mame is not really a multimedia app. I'd classify it under games
[07:59] <micahg> oh really, hmmm
[08:00] <micahg> oh right, that's the section it's in
[08:00]  * micahg must have been thinking of something else
[08:02] <micahg> ah, there's already a hijacked ITP for it, debian 424905
[08:02]  * micahg forwards to Cesare
[08:06] <micahg> fabrice_sp: ebroder: have you guys seen the FTBFS page this evening?  geser updated it to include packagesets
[08:06] <micahg> s/evening/morning
[08:06] <fabrice_sp> yep: I'm wondering why eclipse is under mozilla packageset
[08:07] <micahg> fabrice_sp: build-depends on xulrunner
[08:07] <fabrice_sp> oh, ok
[08:07] <fabrice_sp> then why the PS? is not marked?
[08:08] <micahg> fabrice_sp: what do you mean?
[08:08] <fabrice_sp> the PS? column
[08:08] <fabrice_sp> it's arked for all main packages, but in the mozilla package set, non is marked
[08:08] <micahg> fabrice_sp: where?  it's marked in teh universe list
[08:08] <fabrice_sp> not in the mozilla list
[08:08] <ebroder> Tooltip says "belongs also to a (different) packageset?"
[08:08] <fabrice_sp> ohh
[08:09] <micahg> right
[08:09] <ebroder> tooltip on the checkbox is what PS that is
[08:09]  * fabrice_sp is not used to tooltips in web app :-) 
[08:09] <ebroder> Although...picking one at random, I'm kind of fascinated that gimp is in ubuntu-server
[08:11] <fabrice_sp> yeah: seems strange
[08:12] <fabrice_sp> so the PS? column in the general view means "is within a package set" and in the other views, it means "within another PS"
[08:12] <micahg> yes
[08:12] <fabrice_sp> got it
[08:13] <micahg> that way MOTUs can focus on the non-packageset parts of universe first
[08:14] <micahg> and packageset uploaders can easily see what they need to take care of
[08:14] <fabrice_sp> good idea, yes
[09:22] <geser> any ideas how to make the meaning of the "PS?" column more clear?
[09:27] <hyperair> what PS? column?
[09:27] <hyperair> oh whoops ignore me
[10:07] <fabrice_sp> geser, I think the meaning is clear in the 'general' list. What bugged me is that the meaning in the packageset list is different, but the label is the same
[10:09] <fabrice_sp> and the tooltip is also the same
[10:11] <micahg> I had a double take originally also, but once you think about it it makes sense
[10:14] <geser> currently both tables use the same template (but it can be changed). Any suggestions for the column label and tooltip for the packageset table to make it more clear from the beginning?
[10:28] <fabrice_sp> it will be hard to find a different short label. For the tooltip, in the general table, I think "Belongs to a packageset" would do the trick
[10:28] <fabrice_sp> and for the packageset table, perhaps "Also belongs to another packageset"
[19:01] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: my compassion. there are a lot of merges for you in main :(