[00:40] <jv13613> Hi all. I would like to help with the development of ubuntu, but I do not know how to program. I was thinking that I could take approved and reviewed patches, and make a branch with the patch applied, then upload it to launchpad and ask for a merge proposal. Do you think I would be able to do such a thing? I do not mind build and testing the packages. Like I said I do not know hot to program but I know a great deal about compute
[01:00] <directhex> jv13613: i'm not sure that would be worth your time, as i think tools automate that process. bug triage in general is useful though
[01:44] <SpamapS> jv13613: Indeed, if you don't have programming skills, but are a "power user", you can sift through bug reports and help confirm new ones, and find duplicates...
[01:44] <SpamapS> jv13613: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage/
[01:45] <jv13613> @directhex and @SpamapS thank you
[01:47] <jv13613> @directhex in launchpad I see bugs that have patches but are not linked to any branches. Why is that? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_supervisor=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.component-empty-marker=1&field.tag=&field.tags_combinator=ANY&field.status_upstream-empty-marker=1&field.has_cve.used=&field.omit
[01:48] <SpamapS> jv13613: the process is not, in fact automated. However, its more important that the *patch* is reviewed than that the patch is packaged.
[01:49] <SpamapS> jv13613: there's no sense packaging a patch which is not suitable for all users of the intended package.
[01:49] <jv13613> oh ok nbow I understand. Is there a need for packaging of accepted patches?
[01:51] <SpamapS> honestly, no. the patches will get packaged once the bug is fully triaged and ready for fixing/upload
[01:51] <SpamapS> Taking bugs from New -> something else status is really helpful.
[01:52] <SpamapS> When the feature freeze comes along, usually developers look through the bug reports for Confirmed and Triaged bugs, and fix those.
[01:52] <SpamapS> So just having you, as an interested user, try to repeat the reported problem, and confirming it (or telling why you couldn't) is really, really helpful
[01:54] <SpamapS> jv13613: now, one thing that would be helpful, regarding patches, is if you packaged them and *tested* them.
[01:56] <SpamapS> doh
[01:56] <SpamapS> well I'm off to enjoy the gloming
[03:03] <highvoltage> what's gloming!?
[03:46] <jmarsden> highvoltage: Probably gloaming, i.e twilight, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloaming
[11:32] <alex_> hi, this would be the channel to ask questions about uploading to PPA's and stuff?
[12:18] <c_korn> get-orig-source:
[12:18] <c_korn> 	@@dh_testdir
[12:18] <c_korn> what are the two @ for?
[12:19] <hrw> one @ == 'dear make, do not print this command'
[12:55] <jack_lt> this is debian/rules
[12:55] <jack_lt> I like to backport a package from debian to lucid
[12:55] <jack_lt> but python-scour is not in lucid
[12:56] <jack_lt> is it possible to replace dh_scour with something similar?
[12:56] <jack_lt> http://fpaste.org/M5LK/
[12:57] <jack_lt> 'Scour is a Python module that aggressively cleans SVG files'
[12:58] <jack_lt> what is the best way to approach this situation?
[13:14] <artfwo> jack_lt, i think you can disable scour optimisations completely for lucid
[13:15] <jack_lt> artfwo, ok, how?
[13:15] <jack_lt> just rm (or replace) the dh_scour command?
[13:15] <artfwo> well, remove scour from build-depends and delete that 2 lines from debian/rules (disclaimer: i'm not an ubuntu dev/motu)
[13:17] <jack_lt> let's try
[13:18] <artfwo> brb
[13:23] <jack_lt> seems to build at least
[13:24] <cjwatson> that strategy should be correct, yes
[13:30] <jack_lt> thanks guys
[14:04] <fta> hm, ecb breaks during the upgrade in oneiric
[14:05] <fta> and its d/changelog is corrupted
[19:09]  * psusi just signed his first changelog with @ubuntu.com... feels nice.
[21:19] <Amoz> Hi, how can I upload/build a package to ppa, if it depends on another package in the same ppa?
[21:20] <broder> Amoz: just upload it - the PPA builders can use packages from the same PPA to satisfy dependencies
[21:21] <Amoz> broder, thanks!
[21:27] <Amoz> broder, you don't happen to know how I'd do that with the pbuilder?
[21:28] <broder> Amoz: sorry, i don't use pbuilder, but somebody else might know
[21:29] <Amoz> broder, I think I found it, thanks anyway =)
[21:30] <papo> hello
[21:31] <papo> I am wondering why the tiemu package is in mutliverse and not in universe... could anyone give me a hint? I maintain a PPA for it and just realized about this
[21:33] <micahg> papo: either licensing issues or it's a binary
[21:34] <papo> micahg: hm yes I know why packages are generally classified that way but I am wondering about this particular case
[21:34] <papo> because either I'm missing something or this has changed in the mean time... thanks though
[21:35] <papo> micahg: because as far as I can see, the software is GPL, it ships with a rom that's GPL too and the source is included in the tarball
[21:36] <papo> the source of the rom I mean, but the tiemu source is there too, of course
[21:39] <micahg> papo: maybe it should be moved?  I can't find a good reason myself ATM
[21:39] <micahg> it could be one of the build-deps used to be in multiverse?
[21:40] <papo> let me check, I highly doubt it, though
[21:41] <papo> micahg: nope, the only build dependency I was not sure of is in universe indeed
[21:44] <papo> micahg: On a related note, a new version of the software was released and I am planning to release that in my PPA... now it would be helpful to know which version name that would get once it makes it into multiverse (or whatever repo it will be) in order to set the ~ppa1 suffix properly
[21:44] <micahg> papo: where it is isn't reflected in the version
[21:48] <papo> yes I know that... my best guess is that the new version will be called 3.03-1.1ubuntu1. But if someone has the brilliant idea to call it 3.03-1.2ubuntu1 then it will be newer than my ppa version, at least as far as I understand these rules
[21:49] <micahg> papo: you generally want the archive version ahead of your PPA
[21:50] <papo> yeah but there is none
[21:50] <micahg> multiverse is part of the archive
[21:50] <papo> yes but 3.03 is not yet in the archive
[21:50] <papo> 3.02 is and I have it in my PPA
[21:50] <papo> the patched version, that is
[21:51] <micahg> so, I would suggest your version be 3.03-0ubuntu1~series~ppa1 where series in (lucid, maverick...)
[21:51] <papo> now I am in the process of upgrading to natty and since 3.02 was released like 3 years ago, I couldn't hurt to directly patch the new release that is not officially packaged yet
[21:51] <papo> OK, thank you
[21:52] <Amoz> I'm trying to build the latest unstable libtorrent (0.12.8)
[21:52] <Amoz> but it fails =(
[21:53] <micahg> papo: you might want to file a bug in Debian requesting an update since there's apparently no watch file (or it's broke)
[21:53] <papo> because if I don't pay attention during an arbitrary and my patched version will get overridden by a newly released, official 3.03 package, I am sort of in trouble because I use the software for university lecture and I don't want this to happen in front of 300+ students
[21:53] <Amoz> http://pastie.org/2062950
[21:54] <papo> micahg: OK, I'll consider that... I could even prepare the package, just have to upgrade to natty before I can do that
[21:54] <micahg> papo: ah, yeah, that's a problem, I'd suggest apt-pinning in your case vs crazy versioning, but test first :)
[21:54] <Amoz> could someone give a few pointers?
[21:55] <papo> micahg: good point
[21:57] <micahg> papo: also, feel free to request the update in Ubuntu as well
[21:57] <papo> Amoz: I'm probably of limited help here, but is there a configure script in the first place? You may have pulled some HEAD code for which the file has to be generated (in contrast to release tarballs)
[21:58] <papo> micahg: yeah I'll probably just file a bug once I have natty up and running and played around with the program. If it's buggy there's no point in the first place
[21:59] <micahg> papo: k, also if the patches are useful for the public, we could possibly include them in ubuntu
[22:00] <Amoz> papo, yes there's a configure file in the directory
[22:00] <papo> micahg: hm yes the thing is that the patches may be controversial
[22:01] <papo> micahg: the thing is, this is an emulator for a calculator. The author probably has a US keyboard where most keys are ready at hand... but I have some European keyboard layout and can't even use the '+' key
[22:02] <micahg> papo: if you have a patch which makes it international friendly, that sounds like a win
[22:02] <papo> because the original code passes both shift keys directly to the calculator (it has a shift button). And what I am doing is a only pass the left shift key and use the right one to get '+' and other things... this is a bit of a hack
[22:03] <micahg> that sounds like a bug more that anything else
[22:03] <papo> I mean it works perfectly fine and everything, but yet this would at least require some documentation (README.Debian or something) and I'm not really sure this would be adopted happily... but basically I just don't know
[22:04] <papo> micahg: yeah well I guess the proper way of handling this would try to contact upstream... I tried this 3 years ago but failed
[22:04] <micahg> if a + key is recognized, it shouldn't pass the shift (unless that's how the calculator works)
[22:05] <papo> and a bug... well you press shift and the calculator's shift function gets activated... could also be by design
[22:05] <broder> papo: could the emulator pass "A" as "SHIFT A UNSHIFT"?
[22:05] <broder> i don't remember the shift key on the TI-92 being used for anything but capital letters...
[22:05] <papo> broder: you can use it to mark stuff
[22:05] <papo> like highlighting in word... you highlight parts of your formula and hit backspace or whatever and it gets deleted
[22:07] <papo> one could argue that + is more important than shift, then some people could argue that this is a non-issue on most keyboards in the first place etc... I don't exactly want to go there since I had my fair deal of these disputes as debian package maintainer. But if you guys think this is not that big a deal I could go for it
[22:08] <papo> there's probably nobody using that software anyway :)
[23:04] <papo> hm
[23:05] <papo> micahg: "Preparing to replace tiemu 3.02-1ubuntu2~ppa1 (using .../tiemu_3.02-1ubuntu2_amd64.deb) ..."
[23:05] <papo> I don't know why but I just don't get these versioning rules
[23:05] <papo> ah wait
[23:05] <papo> I should've increased that version number I guess
[23:09] <papo> hrm. I'm quite sure that the docs said I had to append ~ppan last time I checked, but now the ~ is gone for some reason
[23:12] <papo> hrmpf got it