| dholbach | good morning | 07:46 |
|---|---|---|
| zoopster | mhall119: did we rectify the scope dep issues? | 16:02 |
| wendar | stgraber: I notice that none of the ARB apps are showing their icons in the Software Centre, is this expected? | 16:02 |
| stgraber | wendar: well, at least here if I click on them, then go back to the list, I get the icons | 16:03 |
| stgraber | wendar: that looks like a SC bug, hopefully will resolve itself with the switch to MyApps API | 16:03 |
| wendar | stgraber: I'm a little behind in updates, maybe I've got an older version of SC | 16:03 |
| wendar | I'm looking for a next app to pick off | 16:13 |
| wendar | but, not sure what ajmitch/highvoltage were working on | 16:14 |
| mhall119 | zoopster: no, it was sent to the TB over a week ago for discussion, no resolution yet or even much feedback that I've seen | 16:24 |
| mhall119 | zoopster: I have submitted my first package throuogh the developer portal though | 16:26 |
| wendar | mhall119: the TB ran out of time, the business remix conversation took most of the hour | 16:26 |
| mhall119 | wendar: yeah, I was lurking | 16:27 |
| mhall119 | hopefully they'll have time to discuss it in the ML and bring it up in the next meeting | 16:27 |
| wendar | mhall119: cool | 16:27 |
| mhall119 | I have a long list of lenses/scopes to get packaged and submitted to the ARB, but how they get packaged will depend on the outcome of that meeting | 16:28 |
| wendar | yeah, it's a bit of a tricky one | 16:29 |
| wendar | seems like we've got a workable solution either way | 16:29 |
| wendar | (separate source packages, or treat each source package as a "mini distro" with all contributed scopes) | 16:30 |
| mhall119 | yeah, but it's process-tricky, not technical-tricky, so I unfortunately I can't just code up a solution | 16:30 |
| wendar | yup | 16:30 |
| wendar | stgraber: is it safe to click "Approve" on the ARB MyApps review page? | 16:43 |
| wendar | stgraber: that just takes it to the "Pending QA" status, right? | 16:44 |
| stgraber | wendar: yeah, the first Approve is safe, the second one (from Pending QA) isn't | 16:44 |
| wendar | stgraber: what did you do when the Approve button complained about things that aren't relevant to extras? | 16:47 |
| wendar | (like archive id and PPA signing key) | 16:47 |
| stgraber | I simply entered some garbage in those fields ;) | 16:48 |
| stgraber | and complained about it to achuni | 16:48 |
| wendar | :) sounds good, I'll do the same | 16:49 |
| wendar | okay, sent the framingham dev information about the changes we made to the package | 17:50 |
| wendar | requested a real source tarball for Leds | 17:50 |
| wendar | working on Guallet next, unless anyone claims it | 17:50 |
| ajmitch | hi | 18:32 |
| ajmitch | wendar: top of my list was tagplayer, I was just touching up the patches for that & checking it before I push for voting | 18:33 |
| wendar | ajmitch: sweet! | 18:33 |
| wendar | guallet seems to be another one that's packaged well, but needs a few touchups for /opt install and eliminating the deprecated python-support dependency | 18:34 |
| ajmitch | yeah, I was going to do that after harmonyseq but please take it :) | 18:35 |
| wendar | cool, will do | 18:35 |
| * ajmitch has picked a few of the changes to tagplayer from framingham, since they're both quickly apps | 18:36 | |
| wendar | great, glad to have the work generally useful | 18:37 |
| wendar | I'm talking with the Quickly devs to see if we can get some of these changes upstream | 18:37 |
| ajmitch | yeah, though I think they were created with different versions of quickly | 18:37 |
| wendar | may not make it in time for Precise feature freeze | 18:37 |
| wendar | yeah, that's the thing, it really depends on what version of Ubuntu they're running, and what version of Quickly was included | 18:38 |
| wendar | some of the fixes did make it into Precise, so that's good | 18:38 |
| ajmitch | transitions dj is new? | 19:15 |
| wendar | stgraber: so, 'bzr builddeb' won't build a 3.0(native) format package with an '-0extras11.10.1' version number | 19:15 |
| ajmitch | or I guess it could be mail leaking in from the commercial queue again | 19:15 |
| wendar | stgraber: and, I notice all the unity lenses launched without the extras bit in their version numbers | 19:15 |
| wendar | stgraber: is this an exception to the version number policy? | 19:15 |
| stgraber | wendar: nope, that was me messing up the version numbers ;) | 19:16 |
| stgraber | and apparently nobody noticing ;) | 19:16 |
| wendar | ajmitch: I don't see it in the ARB queue, so must be a leaking message | 19:16 |
| ajmitch | stgraber: we're bad people for not noticing that :) | 19:17 |
| wendar | stgraber: well, technically the extras version number is wrong with a native format package | 19:17 |
| wendar | stgraber: I wonder if I can find a way to make bzr builddeb ignore that fact... | 19:17 |
| wendar | stgraber: I suppose I can just switch it over to 3.0(quilt) format | 19:18 |
| ajmitch | you could get it to create an orig.tar.gz, but I don't know if that needs some information in the branch for that | 19:19 |
| ajmitch | should I set a priority on https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/915902 ? | 19:20 |
| ajmitch | it's a little frustrating not being able to see the needs info submissions | 19:21 |
| stgraber | ajmitch: can you? | 19:30 |
| stgraber | (as in, set a priority) | 19:30 |
| ajmitch | now that you mention it, no, it's not editable to me :) | 19:30 |
| ajmitch | darn | 19:30 |
| stgraber | ajmitch: please feel free to post a comment every time it annoys you though | 19:32 |
| ajmitch | stgraber: have you filed bugs for needing junk info in some fields before approving an app? | 19:33 |
| stgraber | I don't think so, there might be one somewhere though. I only remember complaining about it in person to achuni and mvo ;) | 19:34 |
| * ajmitch wants to have all the bugs in LP | 19:34 | |
| ajmitch | if you don't have time to do it, I'll try & remember to put it in when tagplayer gets approved | 19:35 |
| ajmitch | I understand that you may be a little busy this week with feature freeze :) | 19:35 |
| stgraber | bah, not that bad, I only have around 8 new packages to upload today, then work items for the rest of the week and another batch of upload on Thursday ;) | 19:35 |
| stgraber | and I spent all morning debugging upstart ;) | 19:36 |
| ajmitch | suddenly, the allure of working for the foundations team is slipping away ;) | 19:37 |
| ajmitch | wendar: thank you for updating the Review/Guidelines page | 19:46 |
| wendar | ajmitch: welcome | 19:47 |
| wendar | ajmitch: jumping around to all those scattered pages to remember all the requirements has been driving me nuts :) | 19:47 |
| wendar | ajmitch: I still need to add the security guidelines | 19:48 |
| * ajmitch isn't sure how vague we're keeping those | 19:51 | |
| wendar | some are pretty specific | 19:51 |
| ajmitch | since vague is good for giving us some leeway, but not great for developers | 19:51 |
| wendar | like sudo, su, sg, gksudo, gksu, pkexec are not allowed, ever | 19:51 |
| wendar | no cron jobs | 19:52 |
| ajmitch | right, nor writing files outside of /home, which can cut out quite a few apps | 19:52 |
| wendar | no adding to apt sources, or adding ppas, or adding to keyrings | 19:52 |
| wendar | yup | 19:52 |
| wendar | so, definitely worth listing the hard guidelines | 19:52 |
| wendar | and we could add an item something to the effect that we may find security problems not listed during review | 19:53 |
| ajmitch | a package can't install other packages, can it? I'm thinking of the case of a music player using the codec installer | 19:54 |
| wendar | I recall a policy to that effect, but can't find it | 19:55 |
| wendar | maybe it's on the original post release apps page instead of the security page? | 19:56 |
| * wendar looks | 19:56 | |
| wendar | oh, it is on the security guidelines, just not clearly worded "cannot install/upgrade software with this software " | 19:56 |
| wendar | That's https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/SecurityChecklist | 19:57 |
| ajmitch | yeah, the security guidelines were written early on, I think we have some flexibility with that | 19:57 |
| wendar | aye | 19:57 |
| wendar | but, on the whole, I'd say we stick with it | 19:58 |
| wendar | unless there's a really good reason not to | 19:58 |
| ajmitch | fair enough | 19:58 |
| wendar | the security checklist wasn't part of the reviewed/approved TB policy, so we use our own judgement | 19:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!