| === jjohansen is now known as jj-afk | ||
| === nigel is now known as nigelb | ||
| pitti | Laney: where does it say "file a bug for all bug fix uploads after FF"? | 05:07 |
|---|---|---|
| pitti | that's ceratinly wrong, and not common practice as well | 05:07 |
| pitti | that's for new upstream releases, right? | 05:07 |
| pitti | as long as they contain a proper changelog and the developer check that there are just bug fixes, no UI etc. changes, I see no reason to file release bugs | 05:07 |
| pitti | there is no more or less reason for it/trust involved than for debian/ubuntu only revisions, which might also introduce features | 05:08 |
| === doko_ is now known as doko | ||
| Laney | pitti: it /was/ on FreezeExceptionProcess, but is no more | 07:04 |
| Laney | check the changes | 07:04 |
| Laney | whoever does the sync run today, please consider doing a backport run too :) | 10:16 |
| cjwatson | done (mostly; the one you care about anyway) | 10:26 |
| Laney | well there is one in particular, but I also care more generally about backports | 10:28 |
| cjwatson | there were two packages that were listed as depending on other things in the queue, so I decided to leave those a bit rather than trying to do them all at once | 10:29 |
| cjwatson | I did the rest | 10:29 |
| Laney | okey dokey | 10:44 |
| Laney | thanks a lot | 10:44 |
| cjwatson | oho, latest LP deployment rolled out the Lubuntu change I was waiting for | 10:55 |
| * cjwatson enables lucid CD image builds, which apparently weren't running. I wonder if this means we'll be late for 10.04.3 :-/ | 11:51 | |
| cjwatson | hm, and it needs a few code changes | 11:52 |
| cjwatson | ok, doing an initial build pass now | 12:00 |
| jibel | cjwatson, is it possible to build 10.04.3 images with proposed enabled before the end of this week ? there are SRUs for casper, debian-installer and ubiquity to validate. | 12:05 |
| cjwatson | jibel: see literally the last thing I said on this channel :-) | 12:06 |
| cjwatson | bah, I broke cdimage | 12:06 |
| ogra_ | was there much more to break ? | 12:07 |
| cjwatson | thpppppppppt | 12:07 |
| cjwatson | (unbroken) | 12:08 |
| ogra_ | :) | 12:08 |
| jamespage | hi there - I have ~14 packages waiting in the NEW queue for oneiric to support packaging of Jenkins; | 16:57 |
| jamespage | they have been there for well over a week now; I wondered when they might get reviewed as I have some more to upload but wanted to clear these through first. | 16:58 |
| === utlemming_ is now known as utlemming | ||
| slangasek | jamespage: having a look now. What's the source for the MIT license statement in the packages? Upstream sources seem to be devoid of license statements | 18:28 |
| jamespage | slangasek: lemme take a look | 18:29 |
| jamespage | slangasek: any particular package you are looking at ATM? | 18:31 |
| slangasek | jamespage: fwiw, the actual copyright line looks suspect to me; I doubt that there's such a legal entity as "Contributors of the Jenkins project", and the author field in all the sources for jenkins-memory-monitor is a single 'Kohsuke Kawaguchi' | 18:31 |
| slangasek | jamespage: jenkins-memory-monitor - top of the queue :) | 18:31 |
| jamespage | slangasek: right - so for most of these package the licensing is outlined in the pom.xml (XX and a link to somewhere) | 18:33 |
| jamespage | slangasek: the source code files should have license headers - I worked with the upstream project(s) to ensure that this happened | 18:33 |
| jamespage | slangasek: which should reflect in debian/copyright | 18:34 |
| slangasek | jamespage: haha, I never would've thought to look in an xml file for license information :/ | 18:36 |
| jamespage | licensecheck does not think todo that either :-) | 18:37 |
| slangasek | jamespage: so j-m-m doesn't have any license headers in the source that I can see (or that licensecheck knows how to interpret). Since the pom.xml links specifically to a URL claiming "Copyright (c) 2011, contributors of the Jenkins project", I guess we let that stand, even though it's almost certainly not correct legally :) | 18:37 |
| jamespage | slangasek: let me just check whats in the queue | 18:38 |
| jamespage | slangasek: OK so upstream did a release for me with license headers after that one was uploaded (hence why I was a little puzzled) | 18:39 |
| slangasek | aha :) | 18:40 |
| slangasek | hmm, first time I've seen mh_make... too bad it uses cdbs :) | 18:40 |
| jamespage | slangasek: I believe thats on the roadmap to change | 18:41 |
| slangasek | :-) | 18:41 |
| jamespage | slangasek: do you want me to get the new version uploaded? or I could get it uploaded once its out of NEW and in the archive - its just the license headers in the source files that have changed | 18:42 |
| slangasek | jamespage: I'd rather you wait till I've processed this one - the missing license headers aren't a blocker for accept, it just means I had more questions when reviewing than I would have otherwise :) | 18:43 |
| jamespage | slangasek: fine with me | 18:43 |
| slangasek | accepted now | 18:43 |
| jamespage | \o/ | 18:44 |
| slangasek | that's one down, anyway :) | 18:44 |
| slangasek | lamont: hi, need some urgent buildd chroot handling | 23:57 |
| slangasek | lamont: apparently something is broken in sysvinit-utils, and I currently have the publisher off because I need to fix sysvinit ;) https://launchpadlibrarian.net/75155992/buildlog_ubuntu-oneiric-amd64.sysvinit_2.88dsf-13.10ubuntu2_CHROOTWAIT.txt.gz | 23:57 |
| slangasek | I wasn't expecting the autobuilders to pull from cocoplum bypassing the mirrors, sigh | 23:58 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!