[00:12] <tumbleweed> blueyed: something I didn't notice is that it was prepending /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/ to your sys.path, and there shouldn't have been anything mercurial related there
[02:58] <blueyed> tumbleweed: io.py came from there.
[07:49] <dholbach> good morning
[08:24] <hrw> morning
[09:07] <tumbleweed> blueyed: There shouldn't be a mercurial directory in there at all on a clean natty install.
[09:08] <tumbleweed> blueyed: can you identify which mercurial version left it there?
[10:57] <dholbach> mok0, hey - how are you doing?
[10:58] <dholbach> mok0, I'll mark https://code.launchpad.net/~mok0/ubuntu-packaging-guide/upstream-guide/+merge/53166 as "in progress", ok?
[10:58] <dholbach> (to get it off the list of active reviews)
[10:58] <dholbach> can somebody please review https://code.launchpad.net/~dholbach/ubuntu-packaging-guide/restructure/+merge/52674 (it's basically just re-added content plus a new index page)
[10:58] <mok0> dholbach: sure
[10:59] <dholbach> great
[11:02] <mok0> dholbach: I actually looked at it before. ACKed (haven't checked that it compiles though)
[11:02] <dholbach> oh ok
[11:03] <dholbach> I'll get it merged then
[11:05] <dholbach> thanks mok0
[11:08] <dholbach> mok0, it compiles and works: http://daniel.holba.ch/temp/guide/ and http://daniel.holba.ch/temp/guide/knowledge-base.html :)
[11:08] <mok0> Yihaa
[11:09] <mok0> Jeezz we gotta do something about that awful CSS
[11:09] <dholbach> yes, there's a bug filed for it
[11:09] <mok0> Perhaps it's a quickie...
[11:10] <dholbach> maybe we can re-use something from lp:ubuntu-website
[11:10]  * tumbleweed really should start looking at that packaging guide (adds to todo list)
[11:10] <mok0> dholbach: exactly
[11:10] <mok0> dholbach: at least the colour-scheme
[11:10] <dholbach> let me ask the summit+loco-directory hackers
[11:10] <mok0> dholbach: good idea
[11:11] <mok0> dholbach: actually I don't like the layout either
[11:11] <mok0> dholbach: I guess it wants to look like the classic Python.org page
[11:13] <dholbach> ok, I pinged some folks in #ubuntu-locoteams
[11:37] <tumbleweed> dholbach: I got a bite from the loco member who did the theme for ubuntu-za: 12:35 < superfly> http://img140.imageshack.us/i/ubuntupackagingguide.png/
[11:38] <tumbleweed> (although he pretended to have no time at first :) )
[11:39] <dholbach> tumbleweed, was that done by altering colours? I'm just talking to some of the LD hackers who might have an idea how we can re-use Ubuntu's CSS stuff
[11:39] <tumbleweed> yeah, I assume that was just colours only
[11:39]  * dholbach nods - looks much better already :)
[11:44] <mok0> dholbach: it looks much better
[11:44] <mok0> dholbach: can we grab that?
[11:45] <dholbach> mok0, I know as much as you do
[11:45] <dholbach> I have no idea how tumbleweed's friend did it
[11:45] <tumbleweed> superfly on freenode, I'll push him to propose a merge
[11:47] <dholbach> or add something to the bug report
[11:48] <dholbach> Ronnie (in #ubuntu-locoteams) proposed to use lp:ubuntu-website/django-light-theme
[11:48] <dholbach> but it'd depend on what kind of theming options we have in sphinx (http://sphinx.pocoo.org/theming.html)
[11:49] <dholbach> I still don'T quite understand it yet :)
[11:54] <mok0> dholbach: I like that layout much more, but should we stick to the Ubuntu color scheme?
[11:55] <dholbach> mok0, which layout do you like more?
[11:55] <dholbach> I personally don't care either way - I guess it makes sense if it blends in with the rest of the Ubuntu sites
[11:55] <mok0> dholbach: sphinxdoc, scrools, haiku
[11:56] <mok0> dholbach: In the default theme, the navigation menu totally dominates the view and removes your attention from the content
[11:57] <dholbach> I'm probably not the best person to make a decision there
[11:57] <mok0> dholbach: I don't think the nature of this documentation is such that you'll be jumping around all the time, so perhaps we don't even need that navigation area
[11:57] <dholbach> I added the information I found to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-packaging-guide/+bug/740044
[11:57] <mok0> dholbach: great
[11:58] <dholbach> if we make a decision I'm sure we'll get enough feedback to make a better decision if necessary :)
[12:01] <mok0> dholbach: w/o a doubt :-)
[12:02] <Laney> I like "moving forward with an open mind" as an approach to meritocratic decision making
[12:02] <Laney> i.e. "you can change the course if you are willing to do the work"
[12:02] <Laney> :-)
[14:44] <blueyed> tumbleweed: io.py is from Python, not mercurial.. or do you mean something else?
[14:51] <tumbleweed> blueyed: there shouldn't be an /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/io.py
[15:10] <carstenh> hi, deborphan 1.7.28.5 in debian sid is a maintenance release and contains additional to the version in natty only translation updates and two important fixes (one has severity serious in debian and the other one is important for natty since it adds an exception for libreoffice which ensures that it is not wrongly detected as library). could please someone sync deborphan 1.7.28.5 from debian sid to natty?
[15:11] <carstenh> (natty is the first ubuntu release containing libreoffice instead of openoffice.org)
[15:37] <debfx> carstenh: thanks for letting us know, I've filed a sync request
[15:46] <carstenh> debfx: thanks :)
[15:46] <blueyed> tumbleweed: then python2.6 got not cleaned up properly maybe? http://paste.ubuntu.com/587389/
[15:49] <tumbleweed> blueyed: oh, duh, python-stats
[17:53] <shadeslayer> any ideas which package has GStreamer Interfaces Libraries? i can't seem to find the correct package
[17:54] <shadeslayer> here is the cmake output http://paste.kde.org/8551/
[18:00] <Bachstelze> shadeslayer: maybe libgstreamer0.10-dev?
[18:00] <ScottK> andersk: Normally we don't put the maintainer change in debian/changelog since it's a required change.  There was a long discussion about it a couple of  years ago and this was the conclusion (I see this in the nspluginwrapper upload).
[18:01] <shadeslayer> Bachstelze: already there
[18:02] <andersk> ScottK: Okay, thanks.