[00:37] <blair> tumbleweed, opened 5 tickets, last one for pyside-tools is https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/925206
[00:55] <Riddell> blair: why do you care about pyside out of interest?
[00:56] <blair> Riddell, we're moving a PyQt 3 app to pyside instead of pyqt and i'm also trying to get our facility to move from fedora 13 to 12.04, so i want the latest version available
[00:56] <Riddell> blair: why are you moving an app to pyside?
[00:56] <blair> we have an app already, it's just in pyqt3
[00:57] <blair> are you asking why pyside instead of pyqt?
[00:57] <Riddell> blair: right
[00:58] <Riddell> on terminology PyQt3 means python bindings for Qt 3, I expect you mean PyQt4 with Python 3?
[00:59] <blair> yes, PyQt3 means Python 2.x with Qt3 bindings
[00:59] <Riddell> oh I see
[00:59] <blair> and the choices are moving to Python 2.x with PyQt4 or pyside
[00:59] <Riddell> so you're porting to Qt 4 as well as PyQt -> PySide
[00:59] <blair> we're not looking to move to python 3
[00:59] <blair> yes
[01:00] <Riddell> which still leaves the question of why PySide and not PyQt4
[01:00] <blair> i understand you can code them with a shim layer that can work with either
[01:00] <blair> but pyside has nokia developers
[01:01] <blair> off to a meeting, can discuss more later
[01:04] <Riddell> blair: you should be able to just change the import and it'll work with either (mostly)
[01:04] <Riddell> but PySide is losing its Nokia support and it's unknown if it can survive as a community project http://lists.pyside.org/pipermail/pyside/2011-December/003259.html
[01:05] <Riddell> whereas PyQt has a well established company behind it
[01:05] <Riddell> (one man company)
[01:54] <blair> Riddell, there's one advantage to pyside, it's LGPL while pyqt is GPL
[01:56] <blair> Riddell, didn't know about them loosing support, we decided 3-4 months ago to go with pyside and haven't started the porting effort, so this is news
[08:01] <dholbach> good morning
[08:02] <geser> Guten Morgen dholbach
[08:02] <dholbach> hey geser :)
[08:02] <ajmitch> hi dholbach, geser
[08:03] <geser> Hi ajmitch
[11:04] <_rahmat_> hi everyone. i'm using quickly in ubuntu 10.04 and following video tutorial in http://developer.ubuntu.com everything work fine, until I type quickly package, quickly get error with error message "An error has occured during package building ERROR: package command failed Aborting" here is screenshot of quickly http://paste.ubuntu.com/826217/ . Any idea? thanks
[14:32] <alucardni> hello, is there a way to use bzr behind a proxy???
[14:52] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek Day 3 (last day) starting in 8 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom
[15:49] <Zhenech_> mh, is there no backport of a dh_python2 enabled python to lucid?
[17:01] <tumbleweed> debfx: Been running update-rdepends with your patches
[17:01] <tumbleweed> so far 707MB, and I started it 4 hours ago :P
[17:01] <tumbleweed> (compared to 287)
[17:02] <tumbleweed> ah, and it finished
[17:47] <Rhonda> hmm.  I have issues with my wesnoth-1.10 backport.  It will require packaging changes because of the droids fonts changed their install path in precise.
[17:48] <Rhonda> It will require two changes in debian/rules and the different package name in debian/control.  Would that be acceptable for backports?
[18:18] <micahg> Rhonda: yes
[18:18] <micahg> Rhonda: just attach a debdiff to the backports bug
[21:18] <ScottK> jtaylor: So are you going to fix Debian Bug#639995 in Ubuntu then?
[21:18] <jtaylor> ScottK: already working on it
[21:18] <ScottK> Excellent.  Thanks.
[21:48] <Laney> iulian: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/2012-February/021764.html ? ;-)
[21:51] <iulian> Uh!
[22:25] <directhex> Laney, does it have a stable ABI yet?
[22:26] <Laney> nah who needs that
[22:27] <iulian> :)
[22:28]  * Laney wonders why dist-upgrade wants to remove half the world
[22:30] <stgraber> Laney: can you define "half the world"?
[22:30] <Laney> quite precisely, yes
[22:30] <Laney> http://paste.debian.net/154552/
[22:31] <stgraber> Laney: that looks like glib
[22:31] <stgraber> or maybe gtk, both were uploaded earlier
[22:31] <stgraber> Laney: yep, just got the same here, that's indeed glib
[22:32] <Laney> what about it? skew?
[22:33] <Laney> ah, I need to wait for gtk to read me
[22:33] <Laney> reach
[22:33] <stgraber> I don't see anything stuck in new, so yeah, I'd thing it's an archive skew
[22:35] <Laney>     - Breaks on gtk << 3.3.12, glib and gtk needs to be updated together
[22:35] <Laney>       due to the gmenu parser changes
[22:40]  * ajmitch shall be careful not to blindly upgrade today :)
[22:42] <stgraber> upgrading just after a freeze is usually a bad idea ;)
[22:42] <ajmitch> upgrading just after feature freeze has to be about the worst
[22:43] <ajmitch> hopefully there won't be too much breakage around freeze time in precise, but it's usually a bit chaotic
[22:43] <stgraber> agreed :)
[22:55] <broder> can we slap somebody for not staging massive breakage like that in a PPA?
[23:02] <RAOF> broder: I think that should become standard practice, yes.  Possibly once we have the ability to get things *out* of a PPA into the archive, though.
[23:02] <broder> oh, i didn't realize that was unusually difficult
[23:02] <Laney> is it?
[23:02] <broder> we also talked about staging transitions in -proposed pre-release, which presumably wouldn't suffer from those problems
[23:02] <Laney> Possibly copyPackage is broken with include_binaries=True
[23:02]  * ajmitch thought it still required some manual intervention copying to the archive
[23:03] <Laney> but syncSource works afaik
[23:03] <RAOF> Yeah.
[23:03] <RAOF> When we wanted to copy the X stack out of staging we needed an archive admin to do the deed.
[23:03] <Laney> I'll try copyPackage when I next get a chance
[23:04] <RAOF> Also we'd really want armel/armhf to be working for virtualised PPAs first; otherwise we just dump the breakage on architectures we don't test as a matter of daily routine, and which are hard pressed to build things :)
[23:05] <broder> RAOF: but s/PPA/-proposed/ would have worked for you guys, right?
[23:05] <RAOF> I think so?
[23:06] <RAOF> I mean, I'm fairly sure it'd work for *me*, but that's because I have archive admin privs.
[23:17] <broder> oh, should copyPackage theoretically work just using your standard upload privileges?
[23:18] <Laney> ye
[23:18] <broder> fancy