[00:25] <blair> let's say there was a python 2.8 and ubuntu wanted to recompile all source packages to include it, how would one easily do that to ensure packages are built in the correct order?
[00:25] <blair> i'm wondering how to put 2.6 modules back into my PPA for precise
[00:26] <blair> even trying to get distribute or python-setuptools built has a number of dependencies
[00:28] <lifeless> the buildd system does that automatically
[08:08] <dholbach> good morning
[12:47] <mitya57> dholbach: I updated a branch for bug 927602, can you please look again at it?
[13:40] <pabelanger> jamespage: thanks for uploading the dahdi-linux package
[13:40] <pabelanger> working on seeing if I can get membership to help maintain it
[13:41] <jamespage> pabelanger, hey  - no problem - thanks for taking the time to fix it!
[15:57] <achiang> hello, what is the strategy of maintaining a package in both debian and ubuntu, re: apport hooks?
[15:57] <achiang> (nb, i realize there aren't individual package maintainers in ubuntu ;)
[16:22] <micahg> achiang: only install them in Ubuntu?  There's a helper, dh_apport
[16:26] <achiang> micahg: hm, is there an example of that? i guess my real question was, "do i need to fork this package" or can i upload the apport hook to debian but only install in ubuntu, as you say
[16:35] <micahg> achiang: no need to fork, idr offhand what a good example is for this though, you just check in debian/rules if you're on Ubuntu or a derivative and run dh_apport
[17:36] <tumbleweed> Laney: sorry, was afk
[18:11] <achiang> micahg: interesting. is there a standard way to check if you are on ubuntu/derivatives in d/rules? that's a new one for me
[18:14] <micahg> achiang: take a look at #4: http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/09/27/different-dependencies-between-debian-and-ubuntu-but-common-source-package/
[18:14] <achiang> micahg: ah, nice! thanks
[18:44] <dupondje> jbicha: around ?
[18:56] <jbicha> dupondje: aloha
[18:57] <dupondje> jbicha: could you check ubuntu.dupondje.be/freerdp_1.0.1-0ubuntu1.debian.tar.gz
[18:57] <dupondje> packaged new version :)
[18:59] <micahg> dupondje: they're planning on putting it in through Debian Monday I think
[19:00] <dupondje> oh ok :)
[19:20] <jbicha> dupondje: for .symbols, leave off the debian revision. In other words 1.0.1 instead of 1.0.1-0ubuntu1
[20:42] <dupondje> jbicha: oh ok :)
[20:52] <jtaylor> nice only 3 problematic packages for the numpy transition
[20:52] <jtaylor> one of them probably no problem, another has a fix in unstable
[21:03] <brendan0powers_1> I'm looking to get a package into Universe, and the Ubuntu Wiki suggested I come here before filing a request to package bug
[21:03] <brendan0powers_1> I realize that the feature freeze is monday, what is the chance I could get an exception?
[21:04] <micahg> for a new package, it shouldn't be that hard right after feature freeze unless it changes the way other apps work
[21:04] <micahg> but IANA release team member
[21:04] <brendan0powers_1> Ok
[21:05] <brendan0powers_1> I've gone through the first stage of package, run lintian with no errors, tested with pbuilder, and have a package building in launchpad now
[21:05] <micahg> Do you have any interest in maintaining the package in Debian?
[21:06] <brendan0powers_1> At some point, I'd like to get the package into debian
[21:06] <brendan0powers_1> But I'd really like to get it into Ubuntu 12.04 if I can
[21:11] <brendan0powers_1> So, If I understand this right, I just file an intent to package bug, assign it to me, and wait for someone to see it?
[21:12] <micahg> brendan0powers_1: I'd suggest getting it uploaded to Debian, see http://mentors.debian.net/, then you can request a sync
[21:13] <micahg> in Debian, you only need one sponsor, in Ubuntu, you need 2 people to review it
[21:14] <brendan0powers_1> Ok
[21:14] <micahg> there are some DDs that hang out here that might be able to help, there's also #debian-mentors on OFTC
[21:14] <micahg> and there's always backports even if it misses the release
[21:15] <jtaylor> apropo new packages: anyone know the problem he has: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=indicator-bug
[21:15] <jtaylor> also could need a second review
[21:16] <jtaylor> do new upstream versions of ubuntu only packages also need 2 reviews?
[21:16] <micahg> idk, maybe bad source package creation? or could be a problem on the server, maybe ask in #ubuntuwire
[21:16] <micahg> jtaylor: nope
[21:17] <jtaylor> I should do wakeup this weekend then :/
[21:17] <achiang> micahg: is adding an apport hook to an existing package justifiable past FF ?
[21:17] <jtaylor> I'd still appreciate more eyes on that code, the current version is full of security flaws, no idea if I spotted all :/
[21:17] <micahg> achiang: IMHO, sure, that's to make bug reports better
[21:17] <micahg> but IANA release team member
[21:18] <jtaylor> (most certainly not)
[21:18] <achiang> micahg: ok, thanks
[21:19] <micahg> jtaylor: ugh, that's not good, I'd suggest to keep iterating then, there's always backports (which may be open pre-release if broder ever makes it so)
[21:19] <ajmitch> speaking of broder...
[21:19] <broder> uh-oh
[21:19]  * broder 's irc client was flaking
[21:20] <ajmitch> broder: don't worry :)
[21:20] <jtaylor> micahg: the currently proposed version is much better than what we have in ther archive, so that would be better than backports
[21:20] <jtaylor> it should not introduce new security bugs
[21:21] <ajmitch> introducing new security bugs is generally a bad thing
[21:21] <micahg> jtaylor: oh, it's already in :)
[21:21] <jtaylor> unfortunatly
[21:21] <jtaylor> needs a -sec update in oneiric at some point
[21:21] <micahg> I don't see it in the archive :)
[21:22] <jtaylor> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wakeup
[21:22] <micahg> oh, that one :(
[21:22] <broder> jtaylor: i was just looking at your svn merge, and the test suite failed: http://paste.ubuntu.com/837089
[21:22] <broder> any ideas?
[21:22]  * ajmitch needs to go & sync a new coffeescript before it's too late
[21:23] <jtaylor> broder: thats new, it succeeded for me when I did it and for one other person just a few weeks ago
[21:23] <jtaylor> let me try it
[21:23] <broder> :-/
[21:23] <broder> i can try again
[21:23] <broder> it did do me the favor of waiting to fail until it had been churning for about 45 minutes :)
[21:30] <jtaylor> zzzZZZzz bzr branching takes its time
[21:36] <jtaylor> broder: did you try without the patch if the testsuite then succeeds?
[21:37] <broder> nope, not yet. i can
[21:38] <jtaylor> I just also started one build with patch one without
[21:38] <jtaylor> lets hope its not random ._.
[21:39] <jtaylor> the failure does not look related, its a wc test, the patch touches the authentification with the repo
[21:40] <broder> yeah, that's what i figured
[21:41] <micahg> jtaylor: you might want to talk to the security team and get CVEs assigned if appropriate (wakeup)
[22:30] <broder> jtaylor: build worked this time, so must be intermittent or something
[22:31] <jtaylor> broder: I got a successful build too, a second failed due to my disk being full :(
[22:31] <broder> *shrug* well, i've uploaded it
[22:31] <jtaylor> great thanks