[08:51] <mvo> pitti: good morning! if you are around, could you please binary-NEW vmware-view-client in the canonical partner archive? and also source NEW it for lucid, mav, natty please?
[08:52] <pitti> ah, no daily archive admin around?
[08:52] <mvo> pitti: its slangasek today, but given his timezone I assume he is sleeping
[08:53] <pitti> ok, I guess it's urgent; let me just start that abiword build again, then I'll have a look (this sounds like an hour long job)
[08:53] <mvo> pitti: sorry for the interrupt, the vmware people want to a press release soon
[08:53] <pitti> (well, not really an hour I hope)
[08:53] <mvo> pitti: well, vmware is in the US tz too, but it would be good if we had a little head-start :) I really hope its just a "click-accept" and not a hour long job)
[08:54] <pitti> mvo: I have never done a partner archive review, do you know if there's some documentation what to check?
[08:54] <pitti> I can only assume that the redistributability etc. is already settled
[08:54] <mvo> pitti: I don't - since brian left it kind of felt into my hands, but this is my fist publication since 2008
[08:56] <mvo> pitti: infinity discussed that with Randy on friday too, the current license in the package is very strict but randy assured us that we have the proper contracts in place of course for the redistribution
[09:00] <mvo> I wonder who was doing the reviews for the other uploads in partner before, do we have a log of that?
[09:00] <pitti> no idea :(
[09:00] <pitti> no, the LP operations are not logged to the person level
[09:01] <pitti> in fact, I don't think that NEW processing etc. is logged at all
[09:05] <pitti> mvo: hm, there's a "jonas-full" sitting in oneiric's source NEW since october 20; I wonder if there's anyone who is responsible for those at all :)
[09:06] <mvo> pitti: heh :) I guess hte one who was left
[09:07] <mvo> pitti: I will enquire about it
[09:08] <pitti> mvo: is there a vmware-view-pcoip package? because vmware-view-client ships ./usr/share/doc/vmware-view-pcoip/README.gz
[09:08] <pitti> that's unusual and a potential file conflict
[09:08] <pitti> ./usr/lib/libpcoip_client.so
[09:08] <pitti> ./usr/lib/libpcoip_crypto.so
[09:09]  * pitti sighs at proprietary software packaging which ignores all best practices of library handling..
[09:09] <pitti> mvo: ^ I guess there's little point for me to complain about these libs?
[09:10]  * pitti pretends he never ran lintian on this
[09:11] <mvo> pitti: they are unstripped as well
[09:11] <mvo> pitti: there used to be a vmware-view-pcoip from the same source pakcage during the testing, but vmware decided in the end to have just one unified package
[09:11] <pitti> mvo: yes, but that worries me less; the apparently private library in a public path and weird /doc/ path do
[09:12] <pitti> mvo: ah, do we need a Replaces: there?
[09:12] <pitti> or just drop that extra doc file?
[09:12] <mvo> pitti: I will raise it as a concern with their people
[09:12] <mvo> pitti: just drop the extra file, I will do that in my bzr tree
[09:12] <mvo> pitti: it was never released into tthe public with the additional binary pkg
[09:13] <pitti> would be a bit sad if the first testers would get an install failure because of that right after the press release :)
[09:13] <pitti> mvo: ah, ok; as long as the internal testers of that are okay with that
[09:13] <mvo> yeah, indeed
[09:13] <pitti> mvo: if you want to reupload, perhaps also do a c/r? who knows which other files were formerly in that other package
[09:14] <pitti> mvo: if you think it's ok to ignore, just say the word, BTW
[09:16] <mvo> pitti: I think its ok to ignore, it was never anywhere publically, its also part of the upstream tarball, not done by the packaging
[09:17] <mvo> all testing happend in a private ppa with two people, so the risk is really low
[09:17] <pitti> ah, ok
[09:18] <pitti> oneiric bin-accepted then, reviewing natty ATM
[09:18] <mvo> thanks!
[09:19] <pitti> Files: *
[09:19] <pitti> Copyright: 2011 VMware, Inc.
[09:19] <pitti> License: LGPL-2.1
[09:19] <pitti> mvo: hmm -- is that an error?
[09:19] <pitti> sorry
[09:19] <pitti> this is an error
[09:19] <pitti> either it's meant to be LGPL, then the source is missing; or it can't be LGPL
[09:22] <pitti> mvo: also, copyright talks about including curl, parts of freebsd, icu and what not, none of which have source in the package
[09:24] <pitti> mvo: the rest looks ok, but it needs to be rejected for the wrong copyright
[09:24] <mvo> pitti: ok, so I will put "proprietary" in there and reupload?
[09:24] <pitti> mvo: I suppose oneiric has the same problem? can we reupload that as well?
[09:25] <mvo> yes
[09:25] <pitti> mvo: I don't know; right now we couldn't distribute it at all
[09:25] <mvo> if I have to reupload anyway, I will fix it for them all
[09:25] <pitti> because there is no license document from upstream anywhere
[09:25] <pitti> that's where the "special handling for partner" comes into play which I'm not familiar with
[09:25] <mvo> pitti: right  - infinity raised this as well, I'm happy to hold for now until Randy is up and we can discuss
[09:25] <pitti> but the principle that licenses are restrictive applies to any license, not just the free one
[09:26] <pitti> mvo: ok, I'll reject the others for now
[09:28] <mvo> thanks
[09:30] <mvo> re-uploaded to oneiric, doing the rest now too
[09:34] <pitti> mvo: do you know if it would be possible to add our contract with VMWare to the package? right now nobody knows which rights he has with this software, so legally you aren't even allowed to download it, let alone use it
[09:36] <mvo> pitti: I don't know, I think we need to discuss this with Randy, I think infinity discussed that friday too but it was late and I had to leave ( 23:00ish) so I don't know the outcome of the discussion
[10:09] <doko> so both python-central and python-support demoted over the weekend, please don't re-promote ;)
[10:11] <pitti> doko: over our dead bodies! :)
[10:11] <pitti> doko: congrats for this!
[10:12]  * mvo hugs doko
[16:43] <Laney> http://orangesquash.org.uk/~laney/transitions/index.html
[16:43] <Laney> :-)
[16:46] <cjwatson> nice
[16:47] <Laney> should be able to deploy it
[16:48] <Laney> couldn't make it one-step running due to the archive/ports separation sadly, so we still need the separate download step
[16:48] <Laney> otherwise running is just ./ben.native tracker -g ../configs/global.conf -cd ../configs/monitor
[16:49] <Laney> you can set various directories in a config file if you want too (see ries:/srv/release.debian.org/www/transitions/global.conf)
[17:19] <mvo> pitti: is there anything I can do to help with the vmware-view-client impass we currently have (binary-new in oneiric partner) before I leave for the evening? I mailed Randy but got no feedback yet
[20:55] <slangasek> pitti: aside from the license question, are you happy with the vmware packages to be accepted?
[20:59] <slangasek> mvo, pitti: fwiw, most partner reviews were being handled by kirkland - which doesn't help much now either ;)
[21:00]  * kirkland waves :-)
[22:20] <mvo> SpamapS, pitti: the verification for bug #905413 is done now, could this package please be moved to oneiric-updates?
[22:20] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 905413 in app-install-data-partner (Ubuntu Oneiric) (and 3 other projects) "SRU for vmware-view (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/905413
[22:20] <mvo> (the aging request is waived for app-install-data-partner)
[23:27] <bdmurray> slangasek: notionally what do you think of updating http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/precise/alpha-1/ with a pointer to the latest daily build?
[23:28] <bdmurray> Because Alpha 2 is still so far away and there were / are some installer bugs
[23:28] <slangasek> bdmurray: perhaps a generic message on all alpha pages that says "for the most recent daily image, click here"?
[23:28] <slangasek> or something to that effect?
[23:29] <bdmurray> slangasek: yes exactly, because people are primarily trying to install from alpha 1
[23:29] <bdmurray> I mean the bug reports we are receiving now are primarily from alpha 1
[23:30] <slangasek> bdmurray: yeah, I think that seems sensible.  Bug report on ubuntu-cdimage?
[23:37] <bdmurray> bug 906633
[23:37] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 906633 in ubuntu-cdimage "alpha pages should contain a link to the latest daily image (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/906633