[05:07] <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
[05:08] <pitti> there is no more or less reason for it/trust involved than for debian/ubuntu only revisions, which might also introduce features
[07:04] <Laney> pitti: it /was/ on FreezeExceptionProcess, but is no more
[07:04] <Laney> check the changes
[10:16] <Laney> whoever does the sync run today, please consider doing a backport run too :)
[10:26] <cjwatson> done (mostly; the one you care about anyway)
[10:28] <Laney> well there is one in particular, but I also care more generally about backports
[10:29] <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
[10:44] <Laney> okey dokey
[10:44] <Laney> thanks a lot
[10:55] <cjwatson> oho, latest LP deployment rolled out the Lubuntu change I was waiting for
[11:51]  * cjwatson enables lucid CD image builds, which apparently weren't running.  I wonder if this means we'll be late for 10.04.3 :-/
[11:52] <cjwatson> hm, and it needs a few code changes
[12:00] <cjwatson> ok, doing an initial build pass now
[12:05] <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.
[12:06] <cjwatson> jibel: see literally the last thing I said on this channel :-)
[12:06] <cjwatson> bah, I broke cdimage
[12:07] <ogra_> was there much more to break ?
[12:07] <cjwatson> thpppppppppt
[12:08] <cjwatson> (unbroken)
[12:08] <ogra_> :)
[16:57] <jamespage> hi there - I have ~14 packages waiting in the NEW queue for oneiric to support packaging of Jenkins;
[16:58] <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.
[18:28] <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
[18:29] <jamespage> slangasek: lemme take a look
[18:31] <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 :)
[18:33] <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
[18:34] <jamespage> slangasek: which should reflect in debian/copyright
[18:36] <slangasek> jamespage: haha, I never would've thought to look in an xml file for license information :/
[18:37] <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 :)
[18:38] <jamespage> slangasek: let me just check whats in the queue
[18:39] <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)
[18:40] <slangasek> aha :)
[18:40] <slangasek> hmm, first time I've seen mh_make... too bad it uses cdbs :)
[18:41] <jamespage> slangasek: I believe thats on the roadmap to change
[18:41] <slangasek> :-)
[18:42] <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
[18:43] <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
[18:44] <jamespage> \o/
[18:44] <slangasek> that's one down, anyway :)
[23:57] <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
[23:58] <slangasek> I wasn't expecting the autobuilders to pull from cocoplum bypassing the mirrors, sigh