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