[01:45] <LaserJock> so is there a way around oneiric pbuilders failing to build?
[01:47] <LaserJock> I don't have any natty base tarballs to dist-upgrade
[01:51] <broder> LaserJock: are you just running into the /run issues? i thought those were all ironed out at this point
[01:54] <LaserJock> hmm, I'll have to double check them
[01:54] <LaserJock> *then
[01:58] <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 *
[01:59] <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
[02:01] <LaserJock> I guess I do have 1 natty machine, I can make an oneiric on that and transfer it?
[02:02] <dtchen> sure
[02:03] <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
[02:04] <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
[03:17] <LaserJock> ok, maybe I'll merging a package
[04:21] <LaserJock> so ... I've got a merged package, what do I do next?
[04:22] <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
[04:23] <ajmitch> it shouldn't be hard to be reapproved
[04:24] <dtchen> which bug # ?
[04:24] <LaserJock> hang on, need to file one
[04:25] <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 :-/
[04:26] <LaserJock> is there an easy way to file a sponsorship bug?
[04:26] <micahg> if you're not in bug control?  ubuntu-bug pkgname
[04:27] <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 ;)
[04:28] <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
[04:29] <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?
[04:30] <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"
[04:31] <nigelb> LaserJock: You can then say "Achievement Unlocked: Flamed by dtchen"
[04:31] <LaserJock> lol
[04:33] <LaserJock> are we after DIF?
[04:33] <ajmitch> yes
[04:45] <LaserJock> dtchen: bug #403457
[04:46] <LaserJock> ohh
[04:46] <LaserJock> oops
[04:48] <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
[04:49] <LaserJock> dtchen: bug #816792
[04:51] <LaserJock> maybe that one will work better
[04:52] <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
[04:53] <LaserJock> yeah, so I took Debian's version
[04:55] <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 :-)
[04:56] <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
[04:57] <dtchen> LaserJock: right, that's fine, but your Debian -> Ubuntu debdiff isn't actually -3ubuntu1
[04:58] <LaserJock> hmm
[04:59] <LaserJock> well, it's the diff off of the latest Debian, I guess I should have diffed from -2?
[05:00] <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
[05:01] <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 :-)
[05:09] <dtchen> hehe
[05:12] <dtchen> LaserJock: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wmii/3.9.2+debian-3ubuntu1
[05:13] <LaserJock> dtchen: thanks, I suppose I coulda closed the bug in the changelog :/
[05:13] <dtchen> no biggie
[05:15]  * dtchen waves, Z
[05:56] <micahg> umm, why wasn't wmii a sync?
[05:58] <micahg> ah, the ld fix not in the changelog :-/
[05:58] <micahg> oh, no, it could've been a sync :-/
[07:02] <dholbach> good morning
[12:47] <AnAnt> LP #816956
[13:20] <debfx> ScottK: could you please approve bug #816907
[13:22] <ScottK> Looking
[13:23] <ScottK> Done
[13:23] <debfx> thanks
[13:24] <ScottK> jdstrand: ^^^ fixes security bugs, so I'd appreciate it if you would go ahead and process it.
[13:39] <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.
[13:57] <ScottK> jdstrand: Thanks.
[13:57] <jdstrand> sure thing
[14:02] <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
[16:28] <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
[16:31] <dupondje> Heh
[16:32] <dupondje> Please sync, cause now packages are broken it seems. haskell-devscripts depends on ghc (>= 7.0.4-3)
[16:36] <dupondje> Or if somebody else can sync it :)
[16:37] <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
[16:38]  * micahg wonders is 7 is ABI compatible with itself
[16:38] <micahg> *if
[16:39] <geser> dupondje: please talk to Laney before you sync ghc
[16:42] <geser> bah, looks like fall-out for the mistaken "auto-sync" today
[16:43] <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
[16:44] <dupondje> but haskell-devscripts is uninstallable now
[16:44] <micahg> geser: right :(
[16:44] <dupondje> guess some other also
[16:51] <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?
[16:52] <nigelb> (Actually I want it in Ubuntu, but I'd rather work with Debian)
[16:53] <Laney> is there a list of stuff that got synced?
[16:53] <Laney> i'd rather revert haskell-devscripts
[16:54] <jtaylor> nigelb: with what do you have problems?
[16:55] <nigelb> jtaylor: New enough that I don't think I can solve problems that will arise.
[16:56] <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.
[16:59] <Laney> dupondje: if you want that patch in then you're free to backport it
[17:03] <Laney> reverting haskell-devscripts now
[17:36] <dupondje> Laney: haskell-devscripts is the only one giving issues ? :)
[17:38] <Laney> looks that way
[17:38] <dupondje> getting new ghc in was to much work ?
[17:40] <Laney> have you ever experienced a haskell transition?
[17:41] <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
[17:42] <dupondje> as long haskell-devscripts isn't broken anymore :)
[17:47] <dupondje> The builders are having a hard time :p
[17:47] <micahg> nah, there's just a queue for the first time in weeks :)
[17:53] <c_korn> is there a way to tell dh_install to list the files which are installed into more than one package?
[17:57] <jtaylor> no but you could probably look at the intersection of your *install files
[18:16] <c_korn> hm, ok
[18:45] <ScottK> I think there's a lintian check for that.
[18:45] <ScottK> Not sure if we have it in Ubuntu yet or not.
[21:59] <Laney> maco: thanks for the stats
[22:01] <maco> Laney: np
[22:02] <Laney> :-)
[22:03] <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
[22:04] <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
[22:05] <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'
[22:07] <ajmitch> maco: I'll let my team membership lapse & then reapply to pad the numbers, then :)
[22:07] <maco> hah
[22:08] <ScottK> ajmitch: Which set?
[22:08] <ajmitch> ScottK: sorry?
[22:08] <maco> ajmitch: which will you let expire?
[22:09] <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 :)
[22:10]  * ajmitch shouldn't give Laney ideas
[22:10]  * Laney spots a shiny 'Deactivate' button
[22:11]  * 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
[22:12] <Daviey> meh
[22:12] <maco> 4 volunteers in 5.5 months applying...is...not many :-/
[22:13] <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.
[22:14] <Daviey> Where were the stats posted?
[22:14] <Laney> http://people.ubuntu.com/~maco.m/dmb_record_keeping.html
[22:15] <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
[22:16] <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 :)
[22:17] <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
[22:18] <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.
[22:20] <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.
[22:27] <Laney> Assertions are being made in the thread that are just plain untrue
[22:27] <Laney> it's really rather disheartening
[22:30] <bdrung> Daviey: do you really think that knowing the employer would make a difference?
[22:31] <Daviey> bdrung: No, but i specifically didn't make it part of my application.
[22:32] <bdrung> okay.
[22:33] <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'
[22:34] <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.)
[22:35] <Daviey> It's not a big deal.. i might add.
[22:39] <Laney> I am trying to write down some 'guidelines'
[22:43] <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
[22:44] <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.
[22:47] <Laney> well, sometimes people provide votes in advance via email
[22:51] <Daviey> Laney: in *advance*?  That implies there is sometimes a pre-determined view, making the Q&A session a little odd.
[22:53] <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
[22:54] <maco> Daviey: i often dont ask questions in hte meeting because the testimonials and LP were enough for me
[22:55] <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
[22:56] <Daviey> maco: good stuff!
[22:57] <Laney> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess I got stuck. Please help.
[22:59] <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.
[23:00] <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
[23:01] <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."
[23:02] <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
[23:03] <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.
[23:04] <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
[23:05] <Laney> I am sure
[23:05] <Laney> in the absence of clarity confusion reigns
[23:06] <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
[23:07] <ajmitch> Daviey: you mean every upload should be peer-reviewed?
[23:08] <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.
[23:09] <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.
[23:10] <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
[23:11] <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.
[23:12] <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
[23:13] <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...
[23:14] <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
[23:15] <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
[23:16] <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
[23:17] <Daviey> tumbleweed: do a debdiff :)
[23:17] <tumbleweed> pah :)
[23:18] <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
[23:19]  * Laney cuddles ajmitch 
[23:19] <Laney> ♥ you really
[23:19] <ajmitch> sure you do
[23:25] <Daviey> bug #817264
[23:26]  * tumbleweed heads to sleep too. I swear I meant to, two hours ago...
[23:31] <LaserJock> so ubuntu-policy doesn't have a maintainer?