[08:21] <dholbach> good morning
[08:54] <Laney> hiya
[11:30] <tumbleweed> micahg: are you a core-dev these days? :) bug 792616
[11:31] <tumbleweed> oh, why did I think that was main?
[11:31]  * tumbleweed hasn' thad enough sleep
[11:32] <matttbe> Hello,
[11:32] <matttbe> I'm looking for a sponsor for 3 packages:
[11:32] <matttbe> * Cairo-Dock: it's a bugs fixed version => bug 786104
[11:32] <matttbe> * Cairo-Dock Plug-Ins: bugs fixed version too => bug 786105
[11:32] <matttbe> * Gthumb: we are currently not able to install GThumb on Ubuntu Oneiric due to the new version of libbrasero-media3 => bug793438
[11:32] <matttbe> is someone can help me? Thank you :)
[11:33] <matttbe> A bzr branch has been linked to these 3 bug reports, so it should be easy to fix I think
[11:33]  * tumbleweed sees them in the sponsorship queue
[11:33] <tumbleweed> if there's no rush, someone will get to them
[11:36] <matttbe> tumbleweed: ok no problem, it's just because the cairo-dock branches have been added more than 2 weeks ago and Gthumb doesn't work. But it's not urgent for Oneiric ;)
[11:37] <matttbe> But if someone want to sponsor them, I'm here if he wants some details
[15:20] <micahg> tumbleweed: not unless I missed something :)
[15:21] <tumbleweed> micahg: no, I was being an idiot. It happens quite often :)
[15:28] <anarcat> hi
[15:28] <anarcat> how do i get a package *removed* from ubuntu?
[15:29] <anarcat> i have opened a bug in the package, but since I'm the maintainer, i figured i could do a bit more https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aegir-provision/+bug/793567
[15:29] <micahg> anarcat: file a bug and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors if you can't upload it
[15:30] <anarcat> okay, done
[15:31] <micahg> anarcat: no, you "subscribe someone else", not also affects project
[15:31] <tumbleweed> anarcat: (hi, btw) the archive admins also occasionally remove packages that were removed from debian, by themselves.
[15:33] <micahg> anarcat: it's already been removed from Ubuntu oneiric
[15:33] <anarcat> tumbleweed: hi :) this was has been removed for a while now!
[15:33] <anarcat> micahg: oh.
[15:34] <anarcat> what a mess have i done...
[15:34] <tumbleweed> nah, np
[15:34] <micahg> anarcat: don't worry about it :)
[15:34] <anarcat> ok
[15:34] <anarcat> er
[15:34] <anarcat> so
[15:34] <anarcat> do i need to do anything more here? :)
[15:34] <tumbleweed> mark the bug invalid
[15:34] <anarcat> but it's still in lucid/maverick... can't it be removed there?
[15:35] <lucidfox> no
[15:35] <lucidfox> and no need for it
[15:35] <anarcat> why is that?
[15:35] <lucidfox> If a package shipped in an earlier Ubuntu release, it will continue to be supported for the rest of that release's support cycle
[15:37] <anarcat> it should *not* be supported :)
[15:37] <anarcat> nobody in his right mind should be installing that stuff :)
[15:37] <tumbleweed> is it actually going to do any damange? or just not work?
[15:38] <anarcat> tumbleweed: it's confusing users right now
[15:38] <anarcat> we have install instructions that tell them to add another archive to their sources.list, but sometimes they mess up
[15:38] <anarcat> and then end up installing 0.3 and come back complaining it's not working :)
[15:39] <anarcat> so yeah, it's creating problems - and doing damage :P
[15:39] <lucidfox> Why not just upload a working version over this one?
[15:40] <anarcat> because the "working version" is not policy-compliant
[15:40] <anarcat> it duplicates code from the drupal6 package, it doesn't cleanup after itself
[15:40] <anarcat> there's a bunch of issues that should keep it away from the debian (and ubuntu?) archives
[15:41] <tumbleweed> can the version in the archive not be fixed to do no damage? (even if it doesn't work very well)
[15:41] <anarcat> i wouldn't bother...
[15:41] <anarcat> it's very old
[15:41] <anarcat> and upgrading between the two is quite hard
[15:41] <evaluate> anarcat, you could contact the original maintainer of the package in Debian, he might be willing to help packaging and even sponsor it. Also, you could look into the packaging of the old version, to se how they fixed them (if it's applicable).
[15:41] <anarcat> so in short - no
[15:42] <anarcat> i am the original maintainer
[15:42] <evaluate> I see.
[15:42] <anarcat> i am the maintainer of the debian package, and i'm the lead of the upstream project :)
[15:42] <anarcat> doing my best here :P
[15:42] <tumbleweed> anarcat: stable releases will always have old packages in them, stable tends to imply old
[15:42] <anarcat> packaging this sucker is quite a challenge
[15:42] <evaluate> And can't the package be fixed so that it complies with the packaging standards?
[15:42] <anarcat> evaluate: i will not fix 0.3
[15:42] <anarcat> and 1.1 will be hard, but it's on my todo...
[15:43] <anarcat> it's just... hard
[15:43] <evaluate> Yeah, I meant the new one.
[15:43] <anarcat> see this for the gory details: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=532923#26
[15:44] <anarcat> any feedback and help here would be strongly appreciated
[15:47] <evaluate> In #3 you mention "upstream". Didn't you say *you* were upstream?
[15:47] <anarcat> yes, i am part of the upstream team
[15:48] <evaluate> Well, #3 at least should be fixed in upstream.
[15:48] <anarcat> i agree, but it's just more work for me :P
[15:48] <evaluate> The FHS isn't Debian specific, but *nix specific, so your application should normally conform to that.
[15:49] <anarcat> i am aware of that
[15:49] <anarcat> as i said
[15:49] <anarcat> the package is not ready to get into debian or ubuntu
[15:49] <anarcat> but it's better than the manual install
[15:49] <anarcat> *so* the older package should be removed
[15:51] <evaluate> anarcat, are the patched from the version in lucid/maverick to the working one big?
[15:51] <anarcat> yes.
[15:52] <evaluate> I'm not aware of the actual procedure in such a case, but if the currently packaged version isn't working *at all*, it might justify a SRU
[15:52] <anarcat> see this huge bump: https://www.ohloh.net/p/aegirproject/analyses/latest
[15:52] <anarcat> that's 0.4 :P
[15:54] <blackmoon-105> hi, in the "libsm6" package, .so files are under  /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/  but  they should be under /usr/lib  Or i'm wrong?
[15:55] <micahg> blackmoon-105: no, that's multiarch :)
[15:57] <evaluate> anarcat, anyway, I'd guess a SRU might rather be an option than a complete removal. But micahg or tumbleweed could probably tell you more on this...
[15:57] <blackmoon-105> micahg: i've asked this because when i compile wxWidget it is unable to find libsm in the x86_64-linux-gnu  only if it's under /user/lib
[15:57] <blackmoon-105> */usrlib
[15:58] <blackmoon-105> **  /usr/lib/
[15:58] <micahg> blackmoon-105: right, it needs to be fixed for multiarch
[15:59] <blackmoon-105> micahg: so it's a wxwidget bug?
[15:59] <micahg> blackmoon-105: well, yes, to some extent, the lib path appears to be hardcoded
[16:00] <micahg> blackmoon-105: actually, I haven't looked at the packaging, so I shouldn't say that
[16:01] <tumbleweed> evaluate, anarcat: This just isn't something I have any experience in dealing with. We much prefer minimal patches for SRUs, but for broken leaf packages like this, version updates are possible. However you don't have a new release to replace it with, so things get messy :/
[16:02] <tumbleweed> I don't know how the SRU team would respond to replacing it with an empty package saying "removed, totally broken". I suspect you'd have to argue that there's no way anyone could possibly be using it.
[16:02] <blackmoon-105> micahg: maybe i should report thi issue in launchpad, if isn't already reported
[16:04] <micahg> blackmoon-105: sure, you can tag it multiarch
[16:05] <blackmoon-105> micahg: ok, thank you
[16:24] <anarcat> tumbleweed: well, people *could* use it, but the problem is it's much less featured and much more confusing than the later versions
[16:24] <anarcat> i wouldn't recommend anybody using that version
[16:25] <anarcat> as then they would have a hard time upgrading to latter versions
[16:26] <anarcat> tumbleweed: the other thing is that this is blocking a backport...
[16:26] <anarcat> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/drush/+bug/755169
[16:27] <ScottK> anarcat: The only times I'm aware of packages being removed from releases were for legal reasons where they turned out not to be legally distributable or one case of a very security sensitive application being removed because people were being exploited.
[16:27] <tumbleweed> anarcat: sounds like its best to leave it alone then, it doesn't sound too bad.
[16:29] <ScottK> anarcat: It won't block the backport.  I just commented in the bug (I run the Ubuntu Backports project).
[17:22] <lucidfox> Okay, and that leaves all REVU packages from 2010 reviewed
[17:22] <lucidfox> I really should have got to it earlier... Like, say, in the natty cycle :p
[17:32] <lucidfox> On that note, why does the reviewer icon on REVU look like the Tetragrammaton symbol from Equilibrium?
[17:50] <paultag> lucidfox: I LOVE THAT MOVIE!
[17:50] <paultag> What a fantastic film
[17:50] <paultag> never noticed that, hahaha
[19:37] <micahg> bdrung: BTW, I tried to file the eclipse sync over the weekend, but requestsync didn't work on natty or oneiric (0.122 and 0.124)
[19:37]  * micahg filed a bug on the crash
[19:38] <bdrung> micahg: there is already a bug report for that
[19:38] <bdrung> micahg: you have to file the sync manually
[19:38] <micahg> well, the retracer should dupe then
[19:38] <micahg> bdrung: ok, will do tonight
[20:31] <micahg> jtaylor: can you take a look at bug #793695, it seems similar to the other one you fixed
[20:33] <jtaylor> I'll take a look
[20:35] <micahg> jtaylor: thanks
[20:39] <jtaylor> micahg: same issue
[20:40] <jtaylor> egg file replaced by folder
[20:40] <micahg> jtaylor: is there a more global fix that can be done or is this a one off issue?
[20:40] <jtaylor> well dpkg say its intended behaviour and dh_python2 says its a dpkg issue
[20:40] <micahg> fun :)
[20:41]  * micahg knows nothing about python, so unfortunately can't help much