[01:38] <MTecknology> Hrm..... I wonder if it's to late to get a new package into 11.04...
[01:38] <MTecknology> just made it into unstable :P
[01:40] <RAOF> Beta 2 freeze is today :).
[02:40] <RAOF> StevenK: You might be interested to know that the Do mpris plugin is advancing.  Sadly, it's advancing into limitations of the core :)
[02:40] <lifeless> RAOF: mpris?
[02:41] <StevenK> RAOF: Haha
[02:41] <RAOF> The standard media player DBus interface
[02:41] <lifeless> ah
[02:41] <lifeless> I knew I had heard of it
[02:42] <RAOF> StevenK: It's not a big problem; it's just that you'll have orphaned items in the Universe until the next refresh when you quit the player.
[02:43]  * RAOF has a DynamicItemSource API in mind to fix this, but that obviously needs a new core release.
[02:44] <RAOF> I'll see if I can finish a slightly hacky plugin for you this evening :)
[02:44] <StevenK> \o/
[02:44] <RAOF> While waiting for the DMB meeting, presumably :)
[08:04] <dholbach> good morning
[08:08] <ajmitch> hi dholbach
[08:09] <dholbach> hi ajmitch
[08:11] <damno> anybdy here?
[08:13] <Rhonda> Never ever.
[08:14] <damno> hello.. .
[08:14] <damno> I need a bit of help
[08:17] <Rhonda> We can't help you if you don't describe your problem. :)
[08:19] <damno> i just compiled abiword successfully; but collab isnt working
[08:20] <damno> I did install asio needed for collab to work; as it mentioned
[08:28] <Rhonda> is collab part of abiword? I don't find any hint in that direction?
[08:28] <Rhonda> Or what do you mean with collab?
[14:09] <RAOF> StevenK: One mpris plugin, working with banshee.  Allow me to rebuild it with the quodlibet dbus path and you can take it away!
[14:15] <RAOF> RAOF: And, indeed, http://cooperteam.net/MPRIS.dll is now available for your delectation.
[15:13] <matttbe> Hello,
[15:13] <matttbe> I'm looking for a sponsor to fix these two bug reports: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/723994
[15:13] <matttbe> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/723995
[15:13] <matttbe> Last week we received an ACK, two branches has been linked to these bug reports and they are ready to be pushed on Ubuntu branches (we just need a sponsor to upload them :) )
[15:21] <AnAnt> Hello, I was asked to package a new upstream release of ttf-kacst-one, since it added support for Uyghur fonts
[15:21] <AnAnt> will that be accepted ?
[15:21] <AnAnt> as far as I understand, Ubuntu does not have Uyghur fonts supported
[15:26] <AnAnt> LP 757540
[15:28] <directhex> i didn't know Uighur was its own language
[15:28] <lfaraone> AnAnt: that sounds like a new feature.
[15:28] <AnAnt> it needs an FFe I think
[15:31] <ScottK> AnAnt: It does need an FFe, but that sounds like one that would be likely be easy to approve.
[15:31] <AnAnt> where was the FFe processagain ?
[15:32] <ScottK> !ffe
[15:32] <ScottK> AnAnt: ^^^
[15:32] <AnAnt> splendid
[15:32] <AnAnt> thanks
[16:11] <ScottK> AnAnt: Replied to you in the bug.
[16:12] <AnAnt> ScottK: I already did so
[16:12] <ScottK> OK. Please say so in the bug.
[16:18] <AnAnt> done
[16:36] <ScottK> superm1: I see that the most recent mythtv upload FTBFS on armel.  This is due to us switching from GL to GLES in Qt on armel.  I'm not sure if mythtv has any compile time options to build without GL or not.  I've added it to Bug #707794 to track it with the other affected packages.
[16:38] <psusi> isn't the current time 16:41 UTC?
[16:38] <ScottK> Plus or minus a few minutes, yes.
[16:38] <ScottK> I have it as 16:38.
[16:38] <psusi> so why has this meeting already taken place in the future? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/devweek1103/GetStarted
[16:39] <ScottK> psusi: Feb 28th, 2011
[16:39] <dholbach> psusi, developer week - not app developer week
[16:39] <dholbach> 21 more minutes :)
[16:39] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuAppDeveloperWeek
[16:43]  * psusi wonders where he made the wrong turn
[16:43] <AnAnt> LP 757629
[16:45] <ScottK> AnAnt: Approved.
[16:45] <AnAnt> thanks
[16:46] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuAppDeveloperWeek starting in 15 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom
[16:59] <ScottK> superm1: Apparently it was fixed to not use GL on armel before but the fix got dropped.
[18:15] <superm1> ScottK, yeah i've been aware of the failures. upstream won't be fixing 0.24 for GLES at all, it will be something for 0.25
[18:15] <superm1> armel isn't a priority architecture to them right now anywho
[18:16] <ScottK> superm1: The fix to avoid GL was just re-uploaded.  Please update whatever VCS needs updating to the change doesn't get dropped again.
[18:16] <ScottK> Understand it's not a priority, but I'd rather keep stuff buildable.
[18:17] <superm1> could jani not have committed that to the VCS?
[18:17] <superm1> oh it looks like maybe that field isn't populated correctly in debian/control right now
[18:17] <superm1> okay i'll pull it in
[20:39] <matttbe> Hello there,
[20:39] <matttbe> I'm still looking for a sponsor to upload 2 packages: LP:723994 & LP:723995.
[20:39] <matttbe> Is somebody can help?
[20:39] <matttbe> LP: 723994
[20:39] <matttbe> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/723994
[20:40] <matttbe> Two branches has been linked to these bug reports and they are ready to be pushed on Ubuntu branches
[20:42] <micahg_> no, the branches still need to be reviewed and upstream tarball imported properly
[20:43] <matttbe> micahg_: but I've modified these branches (I've modified the debian/watch, is it not what we had to do?)
[20:44] <micahg_> no
[20:45] <matttbe> :(
[20:45] <matttbe> ok so I don't know what's wrong
[20:48] <matttbe> ok so... anybody can help me to fix this bug in my branches? => https://code.launchpad.net/~cairo-dock-team/ubuntu/natty/cairo-dock/2.3.0-0rc1/+merge/51034
[20:48] <matttbe> https://code.launchpad.net/~cairo-dock-team/ubuntu/natty/cairo-dock-plug-ins/2.3.0-0rc1/+merge/51035
[20:50] <tumbleweed> matttbe: look at the link micahg_ provided in his review
[20:50] <tumbleweed> it's not about tags, it's about the necessary pristine-tar  bits (I'm assuming)
[20:51] <tumbleweed> why where you using -r with merge-upstream?
[20:53] <micahg_> tumbleweed: yep
[20:56] <matttbe> but this is what I have $ bzr merge-upstream --version 2.3.0~0rc1 http://launchpad.net/cairo-dock-core/2.3/2.3.0-0rc1/+download/cairo-dock-2.3.0~0rc1.tar.gz --distribution=natty
[20:56] <matttbe> Using version string 2.3.0~0rc1.
[20:56] <matttbe> bzr: ERROR: [Errno 2] Aucun fichier ou dossier de ce type: u'http://launchpad.net/cairo-dock-core/2.3/2.3.0-0rc1/+download/cairo-dock-2.3.0~0rc1.tar.gz'
[20:57] <tumbleweed> download the tarball, and point it at the local file?
[20:57] <tumbleweed> (assuming google translate helped me there)
[20:58] <matttbe> bzr: ERROR: Unable to find the tag for the previous upstream version, 2.3.0~0rc1, in the branch: upstream-2.3.0~0rc1
[20:59] <broder> mattbe: undo the changelog, etc. changes you made first
[20:59] <broder> err, matttbe, sorry
[20:59] <matttbe> ok I will try
[21:01] <matttbe> bzr: ERROR: Unable to find the tag for the previous upstream version, 2.2.0~4, in the branch: upstream-2.2.0~4
[21:01] <tumbleweed> ok, that needs to be tagged in then
[21:02] <matttbe> ok , it's done and it seems better
[21:02] <matttbe> except that it removes the debian directory?
[21:03] <matttbe> do I have to create a tarball with a debian directory?
[21:07] <tumbleweed> matttbe: you probably tagged the wrong thing as 2.2.0~4 then
[21:07] <tumbleweed> it should give you the previous debian directory (but uncommitted)
[21:07] <tumbleweed> no tarballs need to be created
[21:08] <matttbe> tumbleweed: but I have download the branch and then use the bzr merge-upstream with the local file
[21:08] <tumbleweed> I guess I should actually pull this same branch so I can be of real help
[21:08] <matttbe> (except that I've tagged the last rev)
[21:09] <tumbleweed> you should tag different revisions as 2.2.0~4 and upstream-2.2.0~4
[21:09] <tumbleweed> upstream-2.2.0~4 will be a merge revision
[21:10] <matttbe> this is what I did:  bzr branch lp:ubuntu/cairo-dock ; cd cairo-dock ; bzr merge-upstream --version 2.3.0~0rc1 ../../cairo-dock_2.3.0~0rc1.orig.tar.gz --distribution=natty ; bzr tag upstream-2.2.0~4 ; bzr merge-upstream --version 2.3.0~0rc1 ../../cairo-dock_2.3.0~0rc1.orig.tar.gz --distribution=natty
[21:11] <matttbe> should I have to create this tag? 2.2.0~4
[21:11] <tumbleweed> hrm, /me has a paly with this branch
[21:13] <matttbe> there is maybe something wrong because the plug-ins branch is not up to date. => https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/704694
[21:14] <tumbleweed> that certainly makes merge proposals problematic
[21:14] <tumbleweed> someone has to fix up the UDD branch before its useful
[21:15] <matttbe> :)
[21:15] <matttbe> thank you but what can I do now?
[21:16] <tumbleweed> the easy answer is just don't use UDD for these packages, the UDD branches are broken
[21:17] <matttbe> :) and do I have to do something else before contacting a sponsor?
[21:18] <tumbleweed> i'm not quite sure what needs to be done to get this branch to behave
[21:19] <tumbleweed> matttbe: prepare debdiff + tarballs and attach to bug, subscribe sponsors (like the old days)
[21:19] <matttbe> tumbleweed: ok thank you
[21:19] <matttbe> I guess I can open another bug report to UDD too
[21:34] <matttbe> About these cairo-dock packages: a rc3 version of these packages is ready to be uploaded in Ubuntu repositories too. Do I have to wait for the update of the RC1 version or not (may I have to update the two branches linked to these bug reports)?
[21:34] <matttbe> The final version should be available in a few days (this WE) but we just have to wait for the update of these packages on Ubuntu and check if there isn't any other bugs before having the final version.
[23:55] <csjohn> hey