| LaserJock | so is there a way around oneiric pbuilders failing to build? | 01:45 |
|---|---|---|
| LaserJock | I don't have any natty base tarballs to dist-upgrade | 01:47 |
| broder | LaserJock: are you just running into the /run issues? i thought those were all ironed out at this point | 01:51 |
| LaserJock | hmm, I'll have to double check them | 01:54 |
| LaserJock | *then | 01:54 |
| broder | i don't use pbuilder, so there might be issues i don't know about, but that was the only thing i've heard of recently | 01:58 |
| * dtchen perks up at the mention of pbuilder | 01:58 | |
| dtchen | I know that oneiric will fail to bootstrap just about * | 01:58 |
| LaserJock | I tried twice today to build an oneiric pbuilder and I got nowhere | 01:59 |
| dtchen | LaserJock: the /proc mount issue? | 01:59 |
| LaserJock | I think so | 01:59 |
| dtchen | yeah, I posted about that on g+ | 01:59 |
| dtchen | luckily I had an existing natty-base.tgz | 01:59 |
| LaserJock | I guess I do have 1 natty machine, I can make an oneiric on that and transfer it? | 02:01 |
| dtchen | sure | 02:02 |
| dtchen | you could also just create a natty base on said natty machine, then copy it over and dist-upgrade it | 02:03 |
| LaserJock | ok | 02:03 |
| LaserJock | my natty machine is a netbook so I don't have pbuilder on that one, but it should work | 02:04 |
| ajmitch | I think I was lucky & created an oneiric base tarball early on, before there were problems | 02:04 |
| LaserJock | ok, maybe I'll merging a package | 03:17 |
| LaserJock | so ... I've got a merged package, what do I do next? | 04:21 |
| ajmitch | upload it? | 04:22 |
| LaserJock | I need sponsorship | 04:22 |
| LaserJock | where do I do that, bug report? | 04:22 |
| ajmitch | yes, and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors | 04:22 |
| LaserJock | gotcha, thanks | 04:22 |
| ajmitch | & you should reapply for upload rights | 04:22 |
| ajmitch | it shouldn't be hard to be reapproved | 04:23 |
| dtchen | which bug # ? | 04:24 |
| LaserJock | hang on, need to file one | 04:24 |
| dtchen | pssht, too slow! O:-) | 04:25 |
| ajmitch | you'd better hurry, dtchen is running out of things to sponsor | 04:25 |
| * micahg doesn't think that'll happen for at least a week :-/ | 04:25 | |
| LaserJock | is there an easy way to file a sponsorship bug? | 04:26 |
| micahg | if you're not in bug control? ubuntu-bug pkgname | 04:26 |
| micahg | no tricks that I know of... | 04:27 |
| * ajmitch should probably not let his upload privileges lapse | 04:27 | |
| nigelb | should badger ajmitch with sponsorship requests ;) | 04:27 |
| LaserJock | I'm in bug control | 04:28 |
| ajmitch | nigelb: what good would that do? :) | 04:28 |
| micahg | LaserJock: you can just click the submit a bug button in launchpad for the package then (or use ubuntu-bug) | 04:28 |
| LaserJock | unfortunately I'm a bit nervous about packaging, I don't want to screw anything up | 04:28 |
| nigelb | bugs.launchpad.net/+source/packagenamehere/+filebug I think | 04:28 |
| nigelb | oh wait | 04:28 |
| nigelb | ubuntu/+source | 04:29 |
| dtchen | LaserJock: don't worry, I'll flame you if you screw up O:-) | 04:29 |
| ajmitch | public flogging on the mailing list? | 04:29 |
| micahg | ajmitch: do you have to reapply each time? | 04:29 |
| LaserJock | dtchen: yeah, that's what I'm afraid of :-) | 04:30 |
| ajmitch | micahg: only if it lapses, you're ok if you catch the renewal in the 1 week a year that LP asks you | 04:30 |
| nigelb | ajmitch: make sure the "probably renew" becomes "renew" | 04:30 |
| nigelb | LaserJock: You can then say "Achievement Unlocked: Flamed by dtchen" | 04:31 |
| LaserJock | lol | 04:31 |
| LaserJock | are we after DIF? | 04:33 |
| ajmitch | yes | 04:33 |
| LaserJock | dtchen: bug #403457 | 04:45 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 403457 in wmii (Ubuntu) "broken dependencies in wmii deb package" [Wishlist,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/403457 | 04:45 |
| LaserJock | ohh | 04:46 |
| LaserJock | oops | 04:46 |
| dtchen | I'm so very confused, but I think you just answered my question. :-) | 04:48 |
| dtchen | poor LP was tossing OOPSes at me left and right | 04:48 |
| LaserJock | dtchen: bug #816792 | 04:49 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 816792 in wmii (Ubuntu) "Please merge wmii 3.9.2+debian-3ubuntu1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/816792 | 04:49 |
| LaserJock | maybe that one will work better | 04:51 |
| LaserJock | gosh it's been ages since I did this | 04:52 |
| dtchen | d'oh, in -3 doko's --no-add-needed patch was merged | 04:52 |
| LaserJock | yeah, so I took Debian's version | 04:53 |
| dtchen | ah, I see now - I was looking at the Debian -> Ubuntu debdiff, which is actually just -2ubuntu2 | 04:55 |
| dtchen | whereas the Ubuntu -> Ubuntu debdiff is the one you actually want sponsored :-) | 04:55 |
| LaserJock | the wiki said to include both | 04:56 |
| LaserJock | I wasn't sure which one would be used for sponsorship | 04:56 |
| LaserJock | I guess if it was new upstream release it would make sense base off of the Debian package | 04:56 |
| dtchen | LaserJock: right, that's fine, but your Debian -> Ubuntu debdiff isn't actually -3ubuntu1 | 04:57 |
| LaserJock | hmm | 04:58 |
| LaserJock | well, it's the diff off of the latest Debian, I guess I should have diffed from -2? | 04:59 |
| dtchen | I'm pretty sure you did diff from -2 (instead of -3) | 05:00 |
| dtchen | I'm only referring to the Debian -> Ubuntu debdiff, BTW | 05:00 |
| LaserJock | hmm, maybe I uploaded the wrong one then | 05:00 |
| dtchen | yeah, that's what I was thinking | 05:00 |
| LaserJock | my bash history has -3 -> -3ubuntu1 | 05:00 |
| LaserJock | but I did do one from -2 earlier | 05:01 |
| LaserJock | whatever | 05:01 |
| LaserJock | it's so much easier when I just upload the darn thing :-) | 05:01 |
| dtchen | hehe | 05:09 |
| dtchen | LaserJock: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wmii/3.9.2+debian-3ubuntu1 | 05:12 |
| LaserJock | dtchen: thanks, I suppose I coulda closed the bug in the changelog :/ | 05:13 |
| dtchen | no biggie | 05:13 |
| * dtchen waves, Z | 05:15 | |
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| micahg | umm, why wasn't wmii a sync? | 05:56 |
| micahg | ah, the ld fix not in the changelog :-/ | 05:58 |
| micahg | oh, no, it could've been a sync :-/ | 05:58 |
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| dholbach | good morning | 07:02 |
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| === jussi01_ is now known as jussi | ||
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| AnAnt | LP #816956 | 12:47 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 816956 in ttf-arabeyes (Ubuntu) "Please sync fonts-arabeyes 2.1-3 (main) from Debian unstable (main), and remove ttf-arabeyes" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/816956 | 12:47 |
| debfx | ScottK: could you please approve bug #816907 | 13:20 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 816907 in natty-backports "Please backport virtualbox and virtualbox-guest-additions-iso 4.0.10" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/816907 | 13:20 |
| ScottK | Looking | 13:22 |
| ScottK | Done | 13:23 |
| debfx | thanks | 13:23 |
| ScottK | jdstrand: ^^^ fixes security bugs, so I'd appreciate it if you would go ahead and process it. | 13:24 |
| jdstrand | ScottK: virtualbox is done. can you rollback the bug to In Progress so I can do virtualbox-guest-additions-iso? | 13:39 |
| ScottK | Sure | 13:39 |
| ScottK | jdstrand: Done. | 13:39 |
| ScottK | jdstrand: Thanks. | 13:57 |
| jdstrand | sure thing | 13:57 |
| jtaylor | is the changelog display in source packages dropping newlines or is it just my browser(opera)? e.g. sugar-base-0.90 | 14:02 |
| jtaylor | the changelog for -3 is one gigantic line | 14:02 |
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| dupondje | Laney: http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/ghc.html sync this again? new upstream in debian which fixes http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=622731 | 16:28 |
| ubottu | Debian bug 622731 in ghc "GHC 7 deb package ships with a stripped libHSghc" [Normal,Fixed] | 16:28 |
| dupondje | Heh | 16:31 |
| dupondje | Please sync, cause now packages are broken it seems. haskell-devscripts depends on ghc (>= 7.0.4-3) | 16:32 |
| dupondje | Or if somebody else can sync it :) | 16:36 |
| micahg | dupondje: uh? not good, that first transition was a nightmare | 16:37 |
| micahg | and I don't know if it's even done yet | 16:37 |
| micahg | ah, was done | 16:37 |
| * micahg wonders is 7 is ABI compatible with itself | 16:38 | |
| micahg | *if | 16:38 |
| geser | dupondje: please talk to Laney before you sync ghc | 16:39 |
| geser | bah, looks like fall-out for the mistaken "auto-sync" today | 16:42 |
| dupondje | Thats indeed the reason :) | 16:43 |
| c_korn | hm, if a manpage only contains a line ".so man/whatever.1" it is replaced with a symlink to that file. first it symlinks to whathever.1 instead of whatever.1.gz and then lintian complains that the symlink is not compressed | 16:43 |
| dupondje | but haskell-devscripts is uninstallable now | 16:44 |
| micahg | geser: right :( | 16:44 |
| dupondje | guess some other also | 16:44 |
| Laney | argh | 16:51 |
| nigelb | I want to package something on Debian, but I don't have enough knowledge. What's the next step at this stage? | 16:51 |
| nigelb | (Actually I want it in Ubuntu, but I'd rather work with Debian) | 16:52 |
| Laney | is there a list of stuff that got synced? | 16:53 |
| Laney | i'd rather revert haskell-devscripts | 16:53 |
| jtaylor | nigelb: with what do you have problems? | 16:54 |
| nigelb | jtaylor: New enough that I don't think I can solve problems that will arise. | 16:55 |
| micahg | Laney: http://people.canonical.com/~didrocks/sync110727/ | 16:56 |
| didrocks | the email to the ML will be soon sent | 16:56 |
| maco | nigelb: so you need a sponsor then | 16:56 |
| Laney | good job I didn't get GHC back in sync ;-) | 16:56 |
| maco | sponsor/mentor | 16:56 |
| nigelb | maco: Yeah, that. | 16:56 |
| Laney | dupondje: if you want that patch in then you're free to backport it | 16:59 |
| Laney | reverting haskell-devscripts now | 17:03 |
| dupondje | Laney: haskell-devscripts is the only one giving issues ? :) | 17:36 |
| Laney | looks that way | 17:38 |
| dupondje | getting new ghc in was to much work ? | 17:38 |
| Laney | have you ever experienced a haskell transition? | 17:40 |
| dupondje | Much changed between 7.0.3 and 7.0.4 ? /) | 17:41 |
| * tumbleweed waits for Laney to bring out his graphs | 17:41 | |
| dupondje | :P | 17:41 |
| micahg | Laney: we don't want to make him cry yet :D | 17:41 |
| dupondje | as long haskell-devscripts isn't broken anymore :) | 17:42 |
| dupondje | The builders are having a hard time :p | 17:47 |
| micahg | nah, there's just a queue for the first time in weeks :) | 17:47 |
| c_korn | is there a way to tell dh_install to list the files which are installed into more than one package? | 17:53 |
| jtaylor | no but you could probably look at the intersection of your *install files | 17:57 |
| c_korn | hm, ok | 18:16 |
| ScottK | I think there's a lintian check for that. | 18:45 |
| ScottK | Not sure if we have it in Ubuntu yet or not. | 18:45 |
| === med_out is now known as medberry | ||
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| === yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
| Laney | maco: thanks for the stats | 21:59 |
| maco | Laney: np | 22:01 |
| Laney | :-) | 22:02 |
| ajmitch | maco: that page is interesting to say the least | 22:03 |
| ajmitch | a bit worrying that there are so few non-canonical applicants in the last few months | 22:03 |
| maco | ajmitch: bdrung wonders if thats always been the canonical:volunteer ratio, but i dont think i can go far back before i hit people-who-were-at-the-time-but-not-now (keybuk) and people-who-are-now-but-weren-then | 22:04 |
| ajmitch | right, and it's not always clear :) | 22:05 |
| bdrung | mailing all those people would be one solution | 22:05 |
| bdrung | and introducing another color for 'unknown' | 22:05 |
| ajmitch | maco: I'll let my team membership lapse & then reapply to pad the numbers, then :) | 22:07 |
| maco | hah | 22:07 |
| ScottK | ajmitch: Which set? | 22:08 |
| ajmitch | ScottK: sorry? | 22:08 |
| maco | ajmitch: which will you let expire? | 22:08 |
| ScottK | Are you expecting to pad the approved numbers or the rejected numbers? | 22:09 |
| ScottK | ;-) | 22:09 |
| ajmitch | ScottK: rejected, this is why I can't let it lapse :) | 22:09 |
| ajmitch | maco: I'm only a member of core-dev, if I get kicked out of there, my membership is gone :) | 22:09 |
| * ajmitch shouldn't give Laney ideas | 22:10 | |
| * Laney spots a shiny 'Deactivate' button | 22:10 | |
| * Daviey wonders why the stats matter :/ | 22:11 | |
| Laney | people were complaining we defer too much, so maco made some numbers | 22:11 |
| ajmitch | Daviey: because it's useful to get indications of the health of the community | 22:11 |
| maco | Laney: i didnt *make* them! i *counted* them! | 22:11 |
| Laney | and then spotted something interesting | 22:11 |
| Daviey | meh | 22:12 |
| maco | 4 volunteers in 5.5 months applying...is...not many :-/ | 22:12 |
| nigelb | maco: I think dholbach will find the stats interesting. | 22:13 |
| nigelb | He's been involved in trying to get new developers | 22:13 |
| nigelb | Of note, there are new developers, except they probably aren't ready to apply yet. | 22:13 |
| Daviey | Where were the stats posted? | 22:14 |
| Laney | http://people.ubuntu.com/~maco.m/dmb_record_keeping.html | 22:14 |
| ajmitch | in a thread on ubuntu-devel | 22:15 |
| Daviey | I'm a bit behind on my mailing lists today :( | 22:15 |
| Laney | maco: About Sylvestre, there were some concerns raised (perhaps in private), so we pressed a bit on questioning and he didn't respond | 22:15 |
| Daviey | (tbird is being a PoS for me this week) | 22:15 |
| Laney | someone should poke that | 22:15 |
| ajmitch | https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-July/033786.html | 22:15 |
| ajmitch | Daviey: thunderbird is unfortunately often a PoS for me | 22:16 |
| Daviey | maco fwiw, i'm not a big fan of showing peoples employer :) | 22:16 |
| nigelb | Daviey: I know what you mean, but there a very narrow context where its useful. | 22:17 |
| Daviey | You'll notice that i went to effort to not mention my employer for my latest application. :) | 22:17 |
| * nigelb notes that there people doing work as part of day job and people doing work because of their interest + dayjob | 22:17 | |
| ajmitch | when it's a discussion about employees of a certain sponsoring company being treated differently than others, it can be useful to see the stats | 22:18 |
| maco | ajmitch: which is exactly why i put it in | 22:18 |
| Daviey | Yes, but i didn't want my employer in any way related to my Core Dev application. | 22:18 |
| maco | i dont think the employer is relevant to the voting, but i figured the way to /find out/ whether it was turning up as relevant was to do a count and see. though really given the small deferral rate, i dont know how much conclusion you can draw about whether canonical employees are rejected at a higher rate than non-canonical employees, which is the allegation thats been made | 22:20 |
| Daviey | Infact, somebody else raised my employer during my meeting and i added that it was irrelevant to my application. | 22:20 |
| Laney | Assertions are being made in the thread that are just plain untrue | 22:27 |
| Laney | it's really rather disheartening | 22:27 |
| bdrung | Daviey: do you really think that knowing the employer would make a difference? | 22:30 |
| Daviey | bdrung: No, but i specifically didn't make it part of my application. | 22:31 |
| bdrung | okay. | 22:32 |
| bdrung | stating 'i want to get upload rights because x, y, z' is better than writing 'i work for company x and i need upload rights because that's my job' | 22:33 |
| Daviey | Well their are people on my team that do not have the relevant upload access they need to be able to do their job faster.. | 22:34 |
| Daviey | people who i trust, and have access in other sets. | 22:34 |
| Daviey | For example, only MOTU can upload NEW. | 22:34 |
| Daviey | (well and core.) | 22:34 |
| Daviey | It's not a big deal.. i might add. | 22:35 |
| Laney | I am trying to write down some 'guidelines' | 22:39 |
| Daviey | standardisation \o/ | 22:43 |
| bdrung | Laney: thanks | 22:43 |
| Daviey | clarity \o/ | 22:43 |
| Laney | I am not sure you could call it standardisation | 22:43 |
| Laney | but maybe it will help with clarity | 22:44 |
| Daviey | Also, we need a quorum-o-matic.py :) | 22:44 |
| Daviey | Really, mootbot should /warn/ of quorum failure. | 22:44 |
| Laney | well, sometimes people provide votes in advance via email | 22:47 |
| Daviey | Laney: in *advance*? That implies there is sometimes a pre-determined view, making the Q&A session a little odd. | 22:51 |
| Laney | sometimes a member can determine all they need to satisfy themselves of a vote before the meeting | 22:53 |
| Laney | https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-July/000956.html | 22:53 |
| maco | Daviey: i often dont ask questions in hte meeting because the testimonials and LP were enough for me | 22:54 |
| Daviey | maco: enough to +1, or ever enough for a -1? | 22:55 |
| maco | enough to +1. if i had concerns thatd potentially warrant me giving a -1, then id want to ask questions | 22:55 |
| Daviey | maco: good stuff! | 22:56 |
| Laney | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess I got stuck. Please help. | 22:57 |
| Daviey | Laney: I think applying for archive access, the applicant should have examples of where they have helped others with less experience (or even peer). | 22:59 |
| Daviey | For comments on merge proposals etc. | 22:59 |
| Daviey | Should interfacing with the community, and shows that they have experience in reviewing to be able to sponsor in the future. | 23:00 |
| maco | teaching something does tend to cement it more strongly | 23:00 |
| Laney | yeah that would be nice, but I am wary of being too prescriptive | 23:00 |
| Daviey | Laney: no, but as "things to do to make your application stronger" | 23:01 |
| LaserJock | so up to this point the application process hasn't been written down? | 23:01 |
| Laney | "You are encouraged to participate in peer review and to help with the training of new developers. This will help to make your application stronger." | 23:01 |
| Laney | the process is, but the guidelines were probably not so well defined | 23:02 |
| maco | LaserJock: the process is there, but there hasnt been a very descriptive rubric | 23:02 |
| LaserJock | how can that be? | 23:03 |
| LaserJock | I thought this stuff was written down in like 2005 :-) | 23:03 |
| Laney | people were unsure when they were ready to apply | 23:03 |
| maco | and some way skewed expectations popped up | 23:03 |
| Daviey | Laney: If the applicant gets a "please come back later", that page should probably state that they can expect feedback on how to make their application stronger for next time. | 23:03 |
| Laney | and apparently there has been some, uh, misinformation | 23:03 |
| maco | Daviey: they usually do | 23:03 |
| Laney | - MOTU is dead | 23:03 |
| Laney | - To get core-dev one must get MOTU first | 23:03 |
| Daviey | maco: ack, just as a process thing - they should be aware that they can expect it. | 23:03 |
| maco | like i said on the mailing list, id heard rumours of a ">=30 uploads" expectation for motu applications around the time i applied so wasnt so sure id get through with only 15 | 23:04 |
| ajmitch | Laney: information about what's been going on with that has been a bit sporadic | 23:04 |
| Laney | I am sure | 23:05 |
| Laney | in the absence of clarity confusion reigns | 23:05 |
| Daviey | I still think it's crazy anybody has direct access to the archive without peer review :) | 23:06 |
| maco | heh | 23:06 |
| Daviey | However, i think i'm a minority on that. | 23:06 |
| maco | thatd be why i listed "alerts quickly & fixes it when an upload breaks things" in that first email i sent about expectations | 23:06 |
| ajmitch | Daviey: you mean every upload should be peer-reviewed? | 23:07 |
| Daviey | ajmitch: I wouldn't be against that in a principle :) | 23:08 |
| maco | ajmitch: at least with my employer, all commits require a code review first | 23:08 |
| ajmitch | for small changes it'd be quite onerous, like no-change rebuilds, or just changing some build dependencies | 23:08 |
| RAOF | I think that's very reasonable for coding, but packaging is significantly different. | 23:08 |
| Daviey | I've previously seen people do 3 uploads to get one issue fixed, and i can't but thinking the schoolboy errors would have been noticed in peer review. | 23:09 |
| tumbleweed | we trust each other to write reasonable changelogs, and a fair number of people review those (post upload) | 23:10 |
| Daviey | silly things like debian/patches/debain-changes-* auto generated patches, created by accident. | 23:10 |
| tumbleweed | fortunatly lintian spots those these days | 23:10 |
| * Laney wrote that check \o/ | 23:10 | |
| ajmitch | assuming that people look at lintian output | 23:10 |
| Daviey | i changed my debuild to not generated them :P | 23:11 |
| Laney | are these changes generally brought to the developer's attention? | 23:11 |
| tumbleweed | yeah, when doing qa-ish stuff in universe, lintian is noisy, but one should look for things one introduced onself | 23:11 |
| Daviey | Yus. | 23:11 |
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| Daviey | I also find it odd that people that haven't done uploads for 2 years, still maintain their upload access. :) | 23:12 |
| maco | ajmitch: people dont look at lintian output? O_O | 23:12 |
| Daviey | lots has changed in 2 years :) | 23:13 |
| * Laney looks at ajmitch | 23:13 | |
| Laney | ;-) | 23:13 |
| maco | i mean....if its "standards version is 0.0.1 out of date" then whatevs, but... | 23:13 |
| Laney | #ubuntu-ajmitch-trolls | 23:13 |
| Daviey | really, i think we should not show standards version in ubuntu lintian | 23:13 |
| Daviey | any package with a ubuntu delta is not 3.9.2 compliant. | 23:13 |
| ajmitch | maco: Laney is being mean to me... | 23:13 |
| tumbleweed | Daviey: we have ubuntu-only packages | 23:14 |
| ajmitch | maco: but I'm sure you've seen some stuff get through in uploads that lintian should be catching | 23:14 |
| Daviey | tumbleweed: Yes, but unless the Maintainer is set to a person, it's not compliant with 3.9.2 | 23:14 |
| Laney | we have Ubuntu Policy | 23:14 |
| Laney | that should alter debian policy when it makes sense, for example in that case | 23:14 |
| Daviey | which is not standards version aware :) | 23:15 |
| Laney | you mean lintian isn't aware of it? | 23:15 |
| Laney | also, it is not maintained | 23:15 |
| Daviey | Laney: do we have a 3.9.2 Ubuntu policy? | 23:15 |
| Laney | it does however exist in principle | 23:15 |
| tumbleweed | Daviey: oh I see what you mean | 23:16 |
| Laney | someone should update it :-) | 23:16 |
| Daviey | we seem wedged at 3.8.2.0ubuntu1 :) | 23:16 |
| tumbleweed | it should alse have a clear list of changes between it an debian. I don't find the ubuntu policy useful | 23:16 |
| Daviey | pkg ubuntu-policy | 23:16 |
| Daviey | tumbleweed: do a debdiff :) | 23:17 |
| tumbleweed | pah :) | 23:17 |
| Laney | I can't remember the last time I used it before just now | 23:18 |
| * Daviey raises a bug that ubuntu-policy should be reviewed and possibly merged | 23:18 | |
| Laney | but if we want standards-version to be useful for Ubuntu packages then it needs to be maintained | 23:18 |
| Laney | and with that, goodnight! | 23:18 |
| ajmitch | night Laney | 23:18 |
| * Laney cuddles ajmitch | 23:19 | |
| Laney | ♥ you really | 23:19 |
| ajmitch | sure you do | 23:19 |
| Daviey | bug #817264 | 23:25 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 817264 in ubuntu-policy (Ubuntu) "Policy should be reviewed and/or merged with latest debian-policy" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/817264 | 23:25 |
| * tumbleweed heads to sleep too. I swear I meant to, two hours ago... | 23:26 | |
| LaserJock | so ubuntu-policy doesn't have a maintainer? | 23:31 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!