[06:57] <dholbach> good morning
[07:42] <mgolisch> can someone fix fusioninventory-for-glpi? its the wrong version in natty
[08:25] <jtaylor> whats the general advice for fixing packages that have no patch system, add one or add the changes inline?
[08:25] <jtaylor> sometimes I get spoonsors who want me to add one sometimes I get one that wants me to not do it ._.
[08:45] <Laney> we've always said "don't change the patchsystem"
[10:38] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: edit-patch will create a debian/applied-patches directory, which at least documents the patch
[10:39]  * tumbleweed just patches directly
[12:18] <lenios__> hi there
[12:21] <Laney> hello
[12:30] <vk> hi i want to create an ubuntu package for OpenGrok (http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+opengrok/WebHome), an SCM Browing tool
[12:30] <vk> does anything stay against the inclusion of such a package into ubuntu universe/multiverse? or how is the process of applying for inclusion
[12:30] <vk> or do i have to create the package for debian and then pull it into ubuntu?
[12:31] <sagaci> it's generally better to package it for debian
[12:32] <vk> is there an equivalent of motu in debian?
[12:32] <Laney> vk: have you seen http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=425609 ?
[12:32] <vk> Laney, yes i have
[12:33] <vk> i just don't know what that means. does it mean somebody is already working on it? or do they want to include it but just nobody had the time to do it
[12:33] <vk> or is it just somebody asking for the package and it's not decided whether or not the package will be included?
[12:33] <Laney> somebody did work on it some time ago, but isn't any more
[12:34] <Laney> there's a mentors link there that you may be able to start with for your package
[12:34] <sagaci> vk, best to look through the debian new maintainers guide if you haven't already
[12:34] <vk> sagaci, ok thanks. no i haven't :)
[12:37] <jamespage> hey vk - we also discussed packaging of opengrok at UDS-O - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-o-opengrok
[12:37] <jamespage> currently blocked as lucene3 is not packaged - but someone is working on that ATM
[12:37] <vk> jamespage, ah ok
[12:37] <vk> cool :-)
[12:38] <jamespage> vk: I was going to try and spend some time on opengrok itself but... no time ATM
[12:38] <Laney> jamespage: In Debian, I hope :-)
[12:38] <jamespage> Laney: of course :-)
[12:39] <Laney> excellent
[12:39] <jamespage> jhunt and I had this crazy idea about indexing all of the source packages in ubuntu to make the codebase supporting ubuntu searchable
[12:39] <jamespage> opengrok will support that nicely
[12:40] <cjwatson> vk: MOTU shares some characteristics with debian-mentors, debian-qa, and other teams, but there is no direct or even particularly near equivalent
[12:43] <tumbleweed> cjwatson: thanks for the detailed u-d-t bug report on Pending -> Published :)
[12:46] <cjwatson> NP, sorry not to be able to propose an immediate fix
[12:46] <cjwatson> just always using status='Published' is probably *mostly* OK now
[12:46] <cjwatson> at least for the time being, until they fix passing a list of statuses
[12:46] <tumbleweed> yeah, that's certainly the quick answer
[13:11] <geser> the check for 'pending' was only added because the Debian mirror used it
[13:13] <geser> cjwatson: is it valid to assume that if checking for 'pending' that a returned package is newer than the 'published' once and will get 'published' soon? or can something stop the publishing of a pending package?
[13:14] <Laney> i just put some more information on http://people.ubuntu.com/%7Elaney/bugs-with-debdiffs.txt
[13:14] <Laney> would be nice to generate some html out of it at this stage ...
[13:15] <cjwatson> geser: in Ubuntu, it's probably possible to reject/remove/something a package between pending and published
[13:17] <geser> like a source package in the NEW queue or being held in the queue during a freeze?
[13:24] <cjwatson> geser: like being quick
[13:24] <cjwatson> it happens occasionally
[13:24] <cjwatson> I can't remember whether NEW/UNAPPROVED are the same state
[13:43] <ScottK> geser: You can definitely reject a pending package.  I've done it when I clicked the wrong button.
[13:43] <geser> ok, so best to wait on "published" (in context of requestsync)
[13:52] <cjwatson> geser: I don't think that follows.  Debian Pending publications aren't going to get rejected
[13:52] <cjwatson> in the case of imported distributions, Pending is basically an internal state rather than corresponding to any true pendingness in Debian archive management
[13:56] <geser> the function is used to fetch source package data (through the LP API) both for Debian and Ubuntu, so it would be nice if it does for the both the "right" thing
[14:06] <ScottK> But requestsync only operates one way, so I'm not sure why it matters.
[14:12] <tumbleweed> it is nice to have requestsync usable as soon as possible. But the real solution there is to allow requestsync to act against incoming.debian.org / a local dsc
[14:13] <cjwatson> I agree with ScottK; this isn't symmetric.  And in any event, rather soon we'll stop seeing any Pending records for Debian anyway, so it will be moot
[14:13] <tumbleweed> ok
[17:04] <bdmurray> Laney: so we said subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to bugs with debdiffs correct?  I'm doing this now
[17:04] <tumbleweed> that would overwealm the sponsors queue, wouldn't it
[17:04] <Laney> only new ones
[17:04] <bdmurray> well right that seemed like a given to me sorry
[17:05] <Laney> I made a list of all of the old ones, so people may think of that
[17:05] <Laney> yes, that's what I was thinking. Also if you could it would be nice to add a comment saying what's been done
[17:06] <bdmurray> okay that seems reasonable
[17:07] <Laney> are you limiting to only attachments flagged as patches?
[17:08] <bdmurray> Laney: yes the search uses has_patch=True
[17:08] <Laney> tumbleweed: was weird to see "...rather than filing this as a bug..." on a bug report ;-)
[17:08] <Laney> file
[17:08] <Laney> bdmurray: great, I guess it's best to just give it a go and see how it works then
[17:09] <tumbleweed> Laney: it was a question. I've never turned a question into a bug report before. Didn't realise it would be reported by me
[17:09] <Laney> seems suboptimal
[17:29] <bdmurray> Laney: Does this comment work for you? http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/686038/
[17:30] <Laney> removing the patch tag won't get the bug off the queue
[17:30] <bdmurray> right but you have to be a member of the sponsor's team to unsubscribe the team
[17:30] <Laney> indeed
[17:31] <Laney> so I guess they should add a comment saying that it was incorrect
[17:31] <bdmurray> it can't hurt to add that though I guess
[17:31] <Laney> indeed
[18:17] <jbicha> Laney: would you be willing to sponsor another update of gnome-shell?
[18:49] <Laney> jbicha: sure
[18:57] <jbicha> Laney: thank you! https://code.launchpad.net/~jbicha/ubuntu/oneiric/gnome-shell/3.1.90.1/+merge/74840
[19:25] <Laney> jbicha: do you know why it doesn't start for me? I just get a nautilus menu stuck to the top of the screen and no WM
[19:27] <jbicha> Laney: no, could you try running DISPLAY=:0.0 gnome-shell --replace from a virtual terminal and see what errors you get?
[19:29] <jbicha> it works for me but I'm having trouble figuring out what the runtime dependencies should be so that it works for everyone else
[19:44] <Laney> jbicha: http://paste.debian.net/129091/
[19:51] <tumbleweed> bdrung: around?
[19:52] <jbicha> Laney: are you using the most recent gjs (1.29.17) & mutter (3.1.90.1)?
[19:58] <Laney> jbicha: likely not, I haven't upgraded in a couple of days. You might want to bump the required versions if old ones don't work.
[20:06] <jbicha> Laney: done and I repushed to my branch
[20:08] <Laney> ok, thanks, waiting for my full-upgrade to finish then we'll see
[20:09] <jbicha> Laney: looks like it's already been published to the archive without that
[20:09] <Laney> :/
[20:09] <Laney> oh well, just get it into the next release then
[20:10] <jbicha> Laney: thanks for looking it over & I'll just wait for the next release to up the versions
[20:13] <Laney> jbicha: ah yes, works now with after the upgrade - good call
[20:26] <Laney> I have definitely been broken by using a tiling WM for the past x years
[20:26] <Laney> overlapping windows feel insane to me now
[20:58] <lenios> hi there, i'm interested in getting my package in universe, can anyone help?
[20:59] <tumbleweed> lenios: I'm afraid its rather late in the cycle to get new packages in. Although with the right motivation it can happen. Does it need to happen for oneiric?
[21:00] <Laney> you can get it into P and do an immediate backport
[21:00] <lenios> would be great, but i guess there's no rush
[21:01] <lenios> i tried it on lucid, maverick and oneiric (and i think natty too), working fine
[21:02] <tumbleweed> yeah, Laney's backport suggestion seems good
[21:03] <lenios> what's different from doing it for oneiric?
[21:03] <tumbleweed> oneiric is in feature freeze
[21:04] <lenios> backports aren't frozen?
[21:04] <tumbleweed> lenios: he was suggesting that you wait until oneiric releases, then backport to oneiric
[21:04] <tumbleweed> (get it into P, and backport to oneiric)
[21:05] <tumbleweed> anyway, the best way to get it into Ubuntu is to get it into Debian, have you started trying to do that?
[21:05] <lenios> there's a debian package
[21:05] <lenios> i merged it into ubuntu
[21:06] <tumbleweed> lenios: what is it?
[21:06] <lenios> ocsinventory-agent
[21:07] <tumbleweed> that appears to be in Ubuntu
[21:07] <lenios> yes, but only the old version
[21:07] <lenios> i packaged the latest version
[21:08] <Laney> P will get 2.0 automatically
[21:10] <tumbleweed> if you think 2.0 should go into oneiric, it needs to be motivated (fixes more bugs than it introduces regressions, doesn't impact rdepends, you've tested it, etc.)
[21:11] <lenios> there are no regressions that i know of, and we're using it at the company i work for a few weeks with no issues
[21:12] <tumbleweed> lenios: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess
[21:12] <Laney> does the ocsinventory stack need to be in sync?
[21:13] <Laney> looks like -server got hit by the accidental autosync so is at 2.0 already :(
[21:13] <lenios> no, server and client are different
[21:13]  * tumbleweed gets the feeling we sholud have paid more attention to that accidental sync, I keep coming across debris from it
[21:14] <Laney> we should have finished the job
[21:15] <jcfp> "accidental sync"? when did that happen
[21:15] <Laney> july
[21:18] <lenios> i should have let you know about 2.0 client earlier
[21:22] <Laney> no worries, if you want to follow the freeze exception route and mention the testing you've done I'm sure we can work it out
[21:34] <bdrung> tumbleweed: now
[21:35] <tumbleweed> bdrung: I've been going over u-d-t bugs (as I'm sure your INBOX is showing you)
[21:35] <tumbleweed> most of the things I was going to ask I've added as bug comments
[21:36] <bdrung> tumbleweed: ok, then give me time to process my inbox
[21:38] <bdrung> tumbleweed: changelog._blocks looks like a private variable
[21:39] <tumbleweed> bdrung: I agree, but I don't see any alternative
[21:39] <bdrung> tumbleweed: iirc, there is an iterator
[21:40] <tumbleweed> oh, duh, I was blind
[21:44] <bdrung> tumbleweed: re massfile, can you ask on ubuntu-devel if someone uses it?
[21:44] <tumbleweed> yeah, that seems sensible
[21:46] <bdrung> tumbleweed: can you add the malformed changelog entry test to sponsor-patch?
[21:47] <tumbleweed> sure
[21:49] <bdrung> tumbleweed: and yes, we want to SPU some fixes
[21:51] <lenios> should i give build log and install log in the bug, considering there's a ppa?
[21:51] <tumbleweed> lenios: you can link
[21:51] <lenios> link ppa?
[21:52] <tumbleweed> to the build log
[21:52] <lenios> is there a way to get the ppa build log?
[21:53] <tumbleweed> yes, from an architecture's build record, from the detailed package view
[21:56] <lenios> how's that? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ocsinventory-agent/+bug/846058
[21:57] <tumbleweed> lenios: looks good
[22:02] <bdrung> tumbleweed: have you compare mk-build-deps with get-build-deps?
[22:03] <tumbleweed> bdrung: mk-build-deps doesn't install the dummy deb it creates (devscripts doesn't abuse sudo as much as u-d-t)
[22:03] <jtaylor> yes it does
[22:03] <jtaylor> -i
[22:03] <tumbleweed> oh, :)
[22:04]  * tumbleweed should have read the manpage...
[22:04] <bdrung> jtaylor: -ir
[22:05] <tumbleweed> bdrung: I remember we vaguely discussed this at UDS, and someone (persia?) mentioned something else. I can't remember what it was
[22:06] <bdrung> tumbleweed: we have four scripts: get-build-deps, mk-build-deps -i -r, embuilddeps, apt-get-build-depends
[22:06] <tumbleweed> plus sbuild + pbuilder
[22:09] <tumbleweed> bdrung: I don't think get-build-deps is adding anything useful (except that it doesn't need equivs, which mk-build-deps does)
[22:10] <bdrung> tumbleweed: can you check the code? if get-build-deps has no additional feature, let's drop it.
[22:10] <tumbleweed> and I spent 30 mins on it last week, ah well :)
[22:14] <bdrung> tumbleweed: what have you done with the changelog?
[22:14] <tumbleweed> bdrung: fixed in the last commit
[22:15] <tumbleweed> "bzr commit" irritates my by guessing my commit message
[22:19] <bdrung> tumbleweed: typo Chancgelog
[22:20] <tumbleweed> and I even have spellchecking when editing changelogs :/
[22:50] <bdrung> tumbleweed: pushed
[22:54] <bdrung> tumbleweed: setup-... uses aptitude -> it should use apt-get
[22:55] <tumbleweed> agreed
[22:55] <lenios> also since i'm here, and zul is the official maintainer of likewise-open package, i hope  bug #845477 will be fixed before release
[22:59] <tumbleweed> bdrung: got an ack to land the progress bar, from the submitter
[23:07] <bdrung> tumbleweed: re bug #783991, we should catch this
[23:08] <bdrung> tumbleweed: re bug #806633, will you add the malformed changelog entry check or should i open a new bug for it?
[23:08] <tumbleweed> bdrung: busy adding malformed changelog entry check right now
[23:09] <bdrung> tumbleweed: re bug #845487, should we have a new bug for checking Pending too?
[23:10] <tumbleweed> bdrung: I think the only thing that may need to care about Pending is requestsync. We've survived without it until now
[23:10] <bdrung> tumbleweed: and pull-*
[23:11] <tumbleweed> ah, right
[23:11] <bdrung> tumbleweed: and backportpackage
[23:11] <tumbleweed> yeah, wishlist bug
[23:11] <tumbleweed> so much for me trying to clear the bug list tonight
[23:13] <bdrung> tumbleweed: i like the new download progress bar, but the user abort looks weird: http://paste.debian.net/129125/
[23:13] <tumbleweed> I'll add a finally
[23:14] <bdrung> that clears the line?
[23:14] <tumbleweed> yeah
[23:15] <bdrung> tumbleweed: feel free to file a bug for extending the logger (two or three levels should it have)
[23:17] <bdrung> tumbleweed: 'Downloading %s from %s (%0.3f MiB)' should be changed to use libkibi (someone needs to write the python binding)
[23:22] <tumbleweed> bdrung: re Vcs fields, yes it should go to ubuntu-devel. We discussed it on IRC a while back, and it also appeared as a UDD bug
[23:29]  * tumbleweed -> bed
[23:37] <bdrung> tumbleweed: you can release the current state (9 bugs fixed!)
[23:40] <bdrung> tumbleweed: and from setup.py!
[23:41] <bdrung> tumbleweed: the with statement breaks