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