[02:33] <RedFace> hey people
[09:57] <mok0_> Now why does bzr builddeb and debuild not do the same thing?
[12:41] <hyperair> what's the conventional way of numbering SRU bugfixes?
[12:41] <hyperair> for previously synced packages i mean
[12:43] <hyperair> this is regarding nautilus-image-manipulator. it's 0.3-1 in oneiric, 0.4-1 in debian, and i'd like to more or less backport 0.4-1 (with some changes) into oneiric-proposed
[12:43] <hyperair> 0.4-1 will be synced to precise first though.
[12:43] <hyperair> would it be 0.4-0ubuntu0.1?
[12:43] <hyperair> or just 0.4-0ubuntu1?
[12:50] <hyperair> hmm okay, -0ubuntu0.1 looks right
[12:51] <Rhonda> hyperair: the wikipage about SRU has the numbering schema in it
[12:52] <hyperair> hmm
[12:52] <Rhonda> Wouldn't 0.4-1~oneiric1 be the one to go with?
[12:53] <hyperair> Rhonda: i don't see it.
[12:53] <Rhonda> And, somehow I doubt that a new upstream version would get approved for SRU
[12:53] <hyperair> Rhonda: not quite, it's not a direct backport.
[12:53] <hyperair> Rhonda: there will be a delta.
[12:53] <Rhonda> so?
[12:53] <hyperair> hm okay
[12:53] <broder> new upstream versions can be accepted for SRUs if it makes sense
[12:53] <Rhonda> It's still a backport of 0.4-1, no matter whether there are changes or not
[12:53] <broder> (i.e. upstream pushed a new release with just your fix)
[12:53] <hyperair> nautilus-image-manipulator is completely defunct in oneiric.
[12:53] <Laney> just use something that is in between, don't think the exact schema matters
[12:54] <Laney> -1~ubuntu0.1
[12:54] <hyperair> that works too.
[12:54] <broder> ah yeah, totally defunct in the previous release is also a good justification for doing otherwise unacceptable things
[12:54] <broder> btw, the sru wiki page links to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update_the_packaging for version numbering advice
[12:54] <hyperair> ah
[12:56] <hyperair> thanks
[12:58] <broder> hyperair: at the end of the day, a lot of version number discussion is just bikeshedding. the thing that matters most is that a package's version numbers are well-ordered between releases
[12:59]  * hyperair nods
[12:59] <hyperair> okay
[12:59] <hyperair> i haven't made an SRU update in a while, so i just wanted to make sure i didn't screw anythign up.
[13:32] <Rhonda> hmmm, who was my sysadmin contact again for sulfur …
[18:35] <stlsaint> hey folks had a question here
[18:35] <stlsaint> i just created a 11.10 vm, grabbed a bzr branch from lp and ran bzr builddeb on it
[18:35] <stlsaint> build went fine minus the debsign
[18:35] <stlsaint> i then tried that exact same process on my host which ive been doing all packaging on and bzr builddeb command is search for a source upstream tar?
[18:35] <stlsaint> why now and not on the vm?
[18:51] <ersi> stlsaint: What are you running on the host? I bet that'd be a good question to ask :)
[18:52] <stlsaint> ersi: host is lucid
[18:53] <ersi> changed anything recently on the host? like packages, configurations?
[18:53] <ersi> I mean, if it worked previously
[18:54] <stlsaint> ersi: no, thru troubleshooting i believe that the error is due to issues with my host versions of packages
[18:54] <stlsaint> builddeb/pristine-tar possibly