[05:57] <hyperair> sb levelclear -level clientcrap,crap,joins,parts,quits,nicks,clientnotice
[07:38] <dholbach> good morning
=== ogra_ac is now known as ogra_
[10:44] <AnAnt> Hello, can someone run this on natty: apt-cache rdepends libswt-gtk-3.5-java
[10:44] <AnAnt> or: apt-cache rdepends libswt-gtk-3.5-java
[10:45] <AnAnt> or: apt-cache rdepends libswt-gtk-3.6-java
[10:46] <dholbach> AnAnt, http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/586395/
[10:46] <AnAnt> dholbach: thanks
[10:47] <AnAnt> hmmm, so why is swt-gtk in main then ? all rdepends are in universe/multiverse ?
[10:48] <soren> AnAnt: Eucalyptus build-depends on it
[10:48] <AnAnt> ah
[10:48] <AnAnt> thanks
[10:50] <soren> Sure
=== bcurtiswx_ is now known as bcurtiswx
=== med_out is now known as medberry
[16:13]  * JackyAlcine will be right back.
[16:54] <JRBeer> "/format own_msg {ownmsgnick $2 {ownnick $[-9]0}}$1"
[16:54] <JRBeer> "/format own_msg_channel {ownmsgnick $3 {ownnick $[-9]0}{msgchannel $1}}$2"
[16:54] <JRBeer> "/format pubmsg_me {pubmsgmenick $2 {menick $[-9]0}}$1"
[16:54] <JRBeer> "/format pubmsg_me_channel {pubmsgmenick $3 {menick $[-9]0}{msgchannel $1}}$2"
[16:55] <JRBeer> "/format pubmsg_hilight {pubmsghinick $0 $3 $[-9]1}$2"
[16:55] <JRBeer> "/format pubmsg_hilight_channel {pubmsghinick $0 $4 $[-9]1{msgchannel $2}}$3"
[16:55] <JRBeer> "/format pubmsg {pubmsgnick $2 {pubnick $[-9]0}}$1"
[16:55] <JRBeer> "/format pubmsg_channel {pubmsgnick $3 {pubnick $[-9]0}{msgchannel $1}}$2"
[16:55] <Pici> okay then.
=== warp10 is now known as aquila1
=== em is now known as emma
=== apachelogger is now known as javalogger
=== bdrung_ is now known as bdrung
=== aquila1 is now known as warp10
[20:58] <tumbleweed> broder: lp:~stefanor/ubuntu-dev-tools/extra-scripts (a few bits and pieces I've written but haven't added to trunk because I haven't seen demand / testing)
[20:59] <broder> tumbleweed: sweet. i'll check it out
[21:01] <micahg> SpamapS: BTW, we now have a mozjs in /usr/lib, so we can clean up the hackery in mongodb
[21:01] <micahg> SpamapS: and congrats :)
[21:01] <tumbleweed> indeed, congrats
[21:01] <SpamapS> micahg: YES! (re the mozjs) .. I saw that happening and meant to ^5 you :)
[21:01] <micahg> SpamapS: chrisccoulson did that all :)
[21:02] <SpamapS> We should buy him dinner in Budapest. :)
[21:03] <SpamapS> I have some friends using MongoDB on Maverick and they've held off moving up to the latest mongo because they feel our packages are of higher quality than upstream's.
[21:03] <SpamapS> I was shocked to hear that. ;)
[21:03] <SpamapS> I told them its largely Antonin Kral's excellent debian maintainership.
[21:03] <micahg> cool, that's good to hear
=== ari-tczew changed the topic of #ubuntu-motu to: Archive: feature freeze | Want to get involved with the MOTU? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing | Sponsor queue: http://bit.ly/fz6AyQ | http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs | http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/NBS | http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/bugs/rcbugs/ | Congrats to new core-dev: SpamapS
[21:17] <broder> tumbleweed: looking at list-sponsorships. it requires a dateutil.parser - is that a py2.7-ism?
[21:18] <tumbleweed> broder: python-dateutil
[21:19] <broder> tumbleweed: does ubuntu-dev-tools have rules about weak dependencies for scripts? it seems like for third-party packages, at least, it would be nice to catch the ImportError and print something a bit more user friendly
[21:20] <tumbleweed> yeah, we do that. These scripts are a bit scrappier, though :)
[21:20]  * tumbleweed tidies it up
[21:21] <broder> hmm...it's not finding anything for me in natty
[21:21] <broder> (sponsoring SpamapS)
[21:21] <broder> maybe i imagined it. or only sponsored srus?
[21:22] <tumbleweed> it also won't pick up archive-admin syncs
[21:22]  * broder nods. that's reasonable for a first cut
[21:22] <tumbleweed> and the list archives it downloads can be rather big
[21:23] <broder> is there a particular reason to require specifying the sponsor? e.g., when i get around to doing enough and applying for core-dev, i'd want to be able to use this to track down my sponsors for endorsements
[21:23] <tumbleweed> I just wrote it from the standpoint of someone giving endorsements
[21:23] <broder> tumbleweed: when i applied for motu, i looked up who had sponsored me and e-mailed each of them asking for support
[21:23] <tumbleweed> I think both modes are useful
[21:24] <tumbleweed> yeah I did that too
[21:25] <ari-tczew> broder: when I found people who would like to do 'dedicated sponsoring' for me, I'm subscribing sponsor to bug and comment that I'd like to be sponsored by John Doe.
[21:25] <ari-tczew> (I'm going to apply for core-dev in future as well)
[21:25] <ari-tczew> it's informal contract with sponsors ;-)
[21:26] <ari-tczew> and big thanks to they for their time
[21:28] <broder> i've always been on the fence about asking specific people to sponsor. personally, i prefer to just throw it to the queue, especially since the queue works these days
[21:29] <tumbleweed> yeah, I'm also undecided. I worked with quite a few sponsors in Ubuntu, but only had a single mentor in Debian
[21:30] <ari-tczew> broder: I've opened cooperation with sponsors via dedicated sponsoring to get endorsements from they - via sponsors queue it can't be guaranteed.
[21:30] <ari-tczew> ~15 uploads and ask they for comment.
[21:30] <ari-tczew> (endorsement)
[21:31] <ari-tczew> However, some people blame me for this way. They think that I should use sponsors queue, so it's sometimes hard to lead dedicated sponsoring.
[21:32] <bdrung> ari-tczew: do you subscribe ubuntu-sponsors when you have a dedicated sponsor?
[21:32] <cody-somerville> ari-tczew, I'd recommend having item in sponsorship queue like normal then asking sponsors you work with regularly if they can take care of it.
[21:32] <ari-tczew> bdrung: of course no :)
[21:33] <cody-somerville> (that way someone else can sponsor it your regular sponsors are busy)
[21:33] <ari-tczew> cody-somerville: what's the point? only making sponsors overview busy.
[21:33] <bdrung> ari-tczew: that depends if your sponsor has the time for it.
[21:33] <ari-tczew> cody-somerville: but when I'd like to be sponsored by sponsor 'X', I don't want to get it uploaded by someone else, so I don't need to subscribe ubuntu-sponsors.
[21:34] <broder> ari-tczew: Looks like at least one of the endorsements I got on my MOTU application was essentially for a single sponsorship
[21:34] <broder> Though it involved sponsoring the same bug into, like, 10 different places :)
[21:35] <ari-tczew> broder: endorsement based on 1 upload? then it should be rather a comment instead endorsement ;-)
[21:35] <broder> ari-tczew: No, one patch. Just uploaded to several different releases/SRUs/backports/etc.
[21:35] <ari-tczew> bdrung: when my dedicated sponsor doesn't have time, he gives me a note that I should find someone else. It works. ;-)
[21:36] <cody-somerville> ari-tczew, wouldn't you like to get your change into Ubuntu as quick as possible?
[21:36] <broder> But I don't see why someone couldn't endorse based on a single upload, if that was combined with non-upload-driven interactions on IRC, mailing lists, etc. I'd certainly do that
[21:36] <ari-tczew> cody-somerville: it depends what is it.
[21:36] <cody-somerville> ari-tczew, So you're saying you see value in getting your changes reviewed by people with domain expertise?
[21:36] <cody-somerville> Makes sense.
[21:36] <ari-tczew> cody-somerville: as quick as possible - hmm, sounds like Quick Response. ;-)
[21:37] <ari-tczew> cody-somerville: yes
[21:38] <ari-tczew> broder: I don't say that it can't be endorsement. Personally I would to ask sponsor for do more uploads for me and give _really_ and _strong_ endorsement.
[21:38] <ari-tczew> That's my strategy.
[21:39] <ari-tczew> ATM I have 8 sponsors to pick up endorsement from they.
[21:39] <ari-tczew> All of them are done for main.
[21:39] <ari-tczew> Average: 8-9 uploads per sponsor.
[21:40] <ari-tczew> I had to ask bdrung to not sponsoring me cause I have done a lot of uploads by bdrung. ;-)
[21:40] <Amoz> hi guys :)
[21:41] <ari-tczew> bdrung: please don't take it as bad or something, it's just statistic issue.
[21:41] <ari-tczew> s/issue/case
[21:41] <ari-tczew> hi Amoz
[21:41] <Amoz> I might be in the wrong channel  now but, I'd like to learn how to package a kernel and can't find any information. anyone willing to give a pointer?
[21:42] <ari-tczew> #ubuntu-kernel exists?
[21:42] <broder> Amoz: are you just trying to create packages from a kernel source tree?
[21:43] <broder> (as opposed to starting from an already Ubuntu-ified kernel)
[21:43] <broder> For that, you might be interested in https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Kernel/Compile
[21:43] <Amoz> broder, actually I'd like to learn how to create a source package so I can upload it to the build farm on LP
[21:43] <Amoz> also, I'm trying to use the latest 2.6.38 but can't find the Ubuntu-fied sources for that one
[21:44] <Amoz> sureley I'm missing out on something obvious here, but hey, I'm new to this =)
[21:44] <broder> Any particular reason you're starting with the kernel? It's quite likely *the* most complicated package in Ubuntu
[21:44] <Amoz> broder, I like challenges
[21:44] <Amoz> ;)
[21:44] <broder> It's also highly specialized, and requires a lot of knowledge that won't apply to anything else
[21:44] <tumbleweed> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel btw (and seriously, I can't work out how to do things in the kernel packages easily)
[21:44] <Amoz> I can imagine that
[21:45] <Amoz> is it really that hard then?
[21:45] <tumbleweed> that's why we have nice people in #ubuntu-kernel to do prepare builds when we want to test packages :)
[21:45] <tumbleweed> s/packages/patches/
[21:45] <Amoz> I can get my own kernel to work, is it that much harder to package it then?
[21:45] <broder> It sounds to me like your thought process is something like "if I can handle the kernel packages, I can take on anything", and I don't think that's really true
[21:46] <broder> But if you're still interested, I think the links tumbleweed and I sent are an excellent place to start
[21:46] <Amoz> mostly I'd like to do it so I can get my custom kernels distributed to all my computers easily
[21:47] <Amoz> and would be fun to learn how to do it on the LP build farms
[21:47] <tumbleweed> Amoz: ubuntu's kernel packaging may not help you with that
[21:47] <Amoz> not even via PPA ?
[21:48] <Amoz> hmm, I guess it's possible to just upload my own compiled package to a ppa for distribution, right?
[21:48] <tumbleweed> no, lp only accepts source uploads
[21:48] <broder> Amoz: No, PPAs will only accept source-only uploads
[21:48] <Amoz> ah
[21:48] <broder> But make-kpkg can generate source packages
[21:49] <tumbleweed> the ubuntu kernel workflow is quite entrenched in the build system. and Ubuntu kernels have deviated from vanilla linux quite a bit
[21:49] <Amoz> tumbleweed, but that doesn't mean I can't take a vanilla kernel and package it as my custom kernel, does it?
[21:49] <tumbleweed> yeah I'd start with make-kpkg (I used to use it a lot, many many years ago)
[21:50] <Amoz> hehe I'll look into that then. Also, when I'm here already, what would you recommend for a newbie like me to start out with when it comes to MOTU stuff?
[21:50] <tumbleweed> Amoz: that means that Ubuntu's kernel packaging comes togother with ubuntu's kernel, and separating them won't be trivial
[21:51] <tumbleweed> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU
[21:52] <Amoz> tumbleweed, I already looked at that, but then? :)
[21:52] <Amoz> ah
[21:52] <Amoz> the recipes maybe?
[21:53] <tumbleweed> I'd say: You find a bug that affects you, and try to fix it. Having already played with packaging would help
[21:54] <Amoz> tumbleweed, if I don't know of one, what to do then? :P
[21:54] <tumbleweed> harvest.ubuntu.com can help you find things to get started with
[21:56] <Amoz> ah thanks tumbleweed
[21:57] <Amoz> oh wait! I know of one
[21:57] <Amoz> the MosML package disappeared somewhere between 9.10 and 10.04 I think
[21:58] <Amoz> maybe I could bring it into the universe again
[21:58] <tumbleweed> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mosml/+publishinghistory
[21:58] <Amoz> oh..
[21:58] <tumbleweed> it was removed together with a bunch of rarely used packages that weren't in Debian
[21:59] <Amoz> probably not recommended to bring it back then
[21:59] <Amoz> I'll just check the harvest site
[22:00] <tumbleweed> it's recommended to maintain packages in Debian. Packages only in ubuntu can get negleted
[22:05] <Amoz> tumbleweed, looks like most bitesize bugs are "coding" stuff here
[22:11] <tumbleweed> Amoz: well, packaging is working with code. A lot of packaging doesn't involve actually understanding and modifying the source code, but fixing bugs tends to.
[22:11] <Amoz> I see
[22:12] <tumbleweed> Amoz: have you packaged anything for Ubuntu/Debian before? Are there any programming languages you are more comfortable with?
[22:12] <Amoz> tumbleweed, I know some C and Java, and coded a very small python script
[22:12] <Amoz> never done any packaging
[22:13] <tumbleweed> well, at the moment we are in feature freeze, with a release around the corner. So we are looking at fixing important bugs and making sure all the packages build
[22:14] <Amoz> so I guess it's just a lot of bug smashing then ?
[22:17] <tumbleweed> yeah. I'm afraid I can't see any easy build failures ( http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/ftbfs/ ) to point you to and my bugs-to-look at inbox is almost empty
[22:19] <Amoz> hehe no problem, I think that is a good thing, isn't it? ;)
[22:21] <tumbleweed> yeah I've been limiting myself to things I can manage in the free time I have
[22:21] <tumbleweed> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BeginnersTeam might have better ideas about what to tackle. I've heard good things about that team
[22:26] <chrisccoulson> SpamapS, "We should buy him dinner in Budapest" - that sounds good to me ;)
[22:26] <chrisccoulson> :)