[01:55] <ojwb> hads: ah, I just regenerated the list in ~/.xmltv
[01:56] <ojwb> looks better now, except for no icon, but I guess there just isn't one available yet
[01:56] <ojwb> thanks
[03:22] <fmarier> ojwb what happened to the php5-xapian package in Debian/Ubuntu?
[03:22] <fmarier> are the php bindings deprecated or unmaintained?
[03:23] <ojwb> fmarier: no, php licence + GPL = boom
[03:24] <ojwb> or at least that seems to be the prevailing opinion - it's not completely clear to me if PHP and GPL are incompatible
[03:24] <ojwb> the PHP licence has a stupid requirement that you can't use a name for your derived version which includes PHP
[03:24]  * ajmitch digs up the bug for that & winces
[03:24] <fmarier> ah, yeah, the php license sucks
[03:25] <ojwb> which people have taken to mean you couldn't call it graphplotter, for example
[03:25] <ajmitch> that's idiotic
[03:25] <ojwb> which is a fairly strong naming restriction
[03:25] <mwhudson> this is why hiphop was such a clever name for facebook's thing :)
[03:25] <ojwb> yes
[03:25] <ojwb> they really want to stop people like phpnuke I think
[03:25] <fmarier> mwhudson: that's awesome
[03:26] <ojwb> but that is derived code, so doesn't help
[03:26] <ojwb> is *NOT*
[03:26] <fmarier> phpmyadmin is another one they should stop IMO
[03:26] <ojwb> yeah, though it's not like PHP has a terribly good name to be besmirching
[03:26] <mwhudson> any love for phpBB?
[03:26] <ibeardslee> only for abuse
[03:26] <ajmitch> burn it with fire?
[03:26] <ojwb> really they want a trademark to actually address such issues
[03:27] <ibeardslee> Masochism & phpBB
[03:27] <ojwb> but from what I've seen of past licence discussions with PHP upstream, they're unlikely to see sense
[03:27] <ajmitch> as long as they didn't restrict patching php & being able to use the name
[03:27] <ojwb> and xapian has code we can't get relicensed, so an exception for PHP isn't possible there
[03:28] <fmarier> so it wasn't written from scratch by you guys?
[03:28] <ojwb> ajmitch: strictly speaking, we probably can't:
[03:28] <ojwb>   4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
[03:28] <ojwb>      may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
[03:28] <ojwb>      from group@php.net.  You may indicate that your software works in
[03:28] <ojwb>      conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
[03:28] <ojwb>      it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
[03:29] <ojwb> fmarier: well, yes and no
[03:29] <ajmitch> ojwb: excellent, an excuse to drop php from debian :)
[03:29] <ojwb> it was originally "open muscat" and being written mostly by people currently involved but as employees
[03:29] <ojwb> it's not even clear who owns the brighstation copyright now
[03:30] <ojwb> I know who claims to, but another company seem to assume they do too
[03:30] <ojwb> orange (the mobile phone people) own some too, and negotiation with them proved rather fruitless
[03:31] <ojwb> they seemed obsessed with me retrospectively signing an employment contract I refused to sign at the time
[03:31] <fmarier> ajmitch: i'm sure the security team would approve given all of the crap that depends on php that would then need to be removed :)
[03:32] <ajmitch> fmarier: unfortunately a few people tend to use those buggy apps
[03:32] <ojwb> I guess you could argue that the debian package is "php5" which doesn't contain "PHP"
[03:32] <ojwb> though their "phpfoo" example suggests they intend the case to matter
[03:32] <ajmitch> it'd depend on how they interpreted derived work
[03:32] <mwhudson> um
[03:33] <mwhudson> doesn't "PHP" appear in "Foo for PHP" ?
[03:33] <ajmitch> & how a court would :)
[03:33] <ojwb> to not matter
[03:33] <ojwb> mwhudson: 'or "phpfoo"'
[03:33] <ojwb> mwhudson: oh, ISWYM
[03:33] <ojwb> yes, that's somewhat murky
[03:34] <ojwb> I think again it's trademark-ish
[03:34]  * mwhudson .oO(how many idiotic licensing discussions can dance on the head of a pin)
[03:34] <ojwb> you can use a trademark to identify something AIUI
[03:34] <ajmitch> so in essence their licensing is about as bad as the code
[03:34]  * mwhudson tries to remember if the PSF owns the trade mark on "Python"
[03:34]  * ojwb discovered a fun one last week
[03:34] <mwhudson> i _think_ it does
[03:34] <ojwb> the PHP C API call to set a constant uses a length one different to the call to read a constant...
[03:34] <ajmitch> mwhudson: google says yes
[03:35] <mwhudson> 79 unread in psf-members
[03:35] <mwhudson> life isn't that boring yet :)
[03:36] <ojwb> fmarier: anyway, the long term plan is that we'll eventually have replaced all the code we can't relincense in xapian
[03:38] <ojwb> GPL doesn't make huge amount of sense given it's used extensively as a backend for web services - it's like there's a liberal licence for those people, but a copyleft one for others
[03:39] <ojwb> and lucene uses the apache license, so less restrictive is more sensible I think
[03:52] <fmarier> solr really has ugly version numbers: 4.0.0.2011.01.04.00.08.44
[03:56] <ojwb> wow
[03:56] <ojwb> but what if they want to make more than one release per second?
[03:57] <fmarier> ojwb use an epoch?
[03:57] <fmarier> 1:4.0.0.2011.01.04.00.08.44
[03:57] <fmarier> looks even better
[03:58] <ojwb> hmm
[03:58] <ojwb> fmarier: were you wanting to use xapian in php?
[03:58] <ojwb> if so, debian/rules still has support for building it
[03:59] <fmarier> yeah i was looking into it, but it's for an open source project, so we do need to have a properly licensed library...
[03:59] <ojwb> just uncomment: # PHP_VERSIONS := 5
[03:59] <ojwb> an alternative is to use omega's XML output
[18:52] <ibeardslee> morning
[19:12] <ajmitch> morning
[20:13] <hads> Morning
[20:37] <thumper> morning
[20:39] <mwhudson> morning
[21:29] <Atamira> mornin
[21:47]  * ajmitch is awfully tempted to get a laptop with an SSD
[21:52] <ojwb> morning
[21:55] <ibeardslee> ajmitch: just do it
[21:56] <ajmitch> ibeardslee: costs $
[21:58] <ibeardslee> true that
[21:59] <chilts> morning
[21:59] <chilts> and my next lappy will have an SSD
[21:59] <chilts> my desktop at home has a 40GB SSD and it boots in about 4 seconds :)
[21:59] <ajmitch> ibeardslee: acquiring $ depends on how much employers are willing to fork over :)
[21:59] <chilts> the initial time for the computer to start is longer than Ubuntu getting to the sign in page
[22:01] <ibeardslee> I think my netbook is bit slow on the start, even with the SSD
[22:01]  * ojwb prefers a computer which doesn't need restarting often
[22:01] <ojwb> now time to resume from hibernate...
[22:01] <ajmitch> as do I, but SSD helps for everyday use, not just restarting
[22:16]  * snail will refrain from whinging about the enterprise windows7 upgrade he is participating in
[22:16] <ajmitch> but it's enterprise, so it must be good...
[22:18]  * ibeardslee tries hard to refrain from laughing
[22:20] <snail> the one good thing about windows upgrades (compared to linux upgrades) is that they nuked the disk and started from scratch so you had identical machines with identical faults. not any more
[22:26]  * ibeardslee installs likewise-open
[22:27]  * ajmitch has heard that likewise-open works pretty well
[22:27] <ojwb> ibeardslee: it doesn't work with newer ubuntu versions
[22:27] <ajmitch> never really had a chance to try it though
[22:27] <ajmitch> ojwb: what's broken with it?
[22:27] <ojwb> just doesn't work
[22:27] <ojwb> at least with the last LTS
[22:27] <ojwb> likewise know about it
[22:28] <ojwb> possibly fixed now, this was a few months ago
[22:28] <ojwb> but they didn't seem to be in any hurry
[22:28] <ojwb> a client was trying to use it
[22:28] <ajmitch> I see that version 6 is in natty, so it may have a chance of working
[22:28] <ojwb> it's not compatible with a new enough samba version
[22:29] <ajmitch> through being broken on an LTS is pretty dire
[22:29] <ajmitch> s/through/though/
[22:29] <ojwb> indeed - we just avoided the dependency in the end
[22:30] <ibeardslee> yeah it is looking like LTS ain't going to make the PoC
[22:30] <ibeardslee> the exchange mapi is too old
[22:31] <ibeardslee> might end up focusing on maverick
[22:34] <ajmitch> by exchange mapi, you mean the evolution thing?
[22:37] <ibeardslee> yeah
[22:38] <ajmitch> & evolution is one of those packages that's a pig to backport because of how many libraries it drags around
[22:39] <ibeardslee> yes, so I'm discovering
[22:39] <ajmitch> I was reading the bug about it earlier
[22:39] <ajmitch> https://bugs.launchpad.net/lucid-backports/+bug/653619/comments/34
[22:40] <ibeardslee> the LTS is an ideal target for a proof of concept you'd expect it to be solid
[22:40] <ibeardslee> the various PPA I've seen have a bunch of incomplete, stopped etc
[22:46] <ojwb> there's always squeeze...
[22:48] <ibeardslee> or redhat
[22:49] <ajmitch> ojwb: sadly even squeeze falls down in a few areas where things need to be up to date
[22:50] <ojwb> ajmitch: any non-rolling release will have that issue
[22:51] <ajmitch> yeah, I'm still waiting for certain packages to be updated in sid or experimental :)
[22:51] <ojwb> but squeeze is at least LTS-like
[22:51] <ojwb> or the NEW queue...
[22:52] <ajmitch> it took a bit less than 2 months for a package of mine to get through NEW recently :)
[22:55]  * ajmitch should upgrade the servers for work to squeeze sometime in the next few months
[22:58] <ojwb> ajmitch: is that the experimental one?
[22:59] <ojwb> was just ahead of mine, but mine is still languishing
[22:59] <ojwb> the NEW queue manages to be both apparently very open and almost completely opaque, which is a good trick
[22:59] <ajmitch> yeah, ubuntu-sso-client
[22:59] <ajmitch> heh
[22:59] <ojwb> god, I killed that on the ubuntu laptop
[23:00] <ojwb> it was using a huge amount of memory
[23:00] <ajmitch> not surprising, but it's needed for some other packages
[23:00] <ojwb> and I doubt I've ever used it or every will
[23:00] <ajmitch> I wish I knew why desktopcouch needs to depend on it... :)
[23:01] <ajmitch> I doubt I'd have time to help out on the FTP team & review package licenses
[23:02] <ojwb> it's ok, it seems ok to pick just the ones you like