[07:46] <dholbach> good morning
[16:02] <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?
[16:03] <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
[16:13] <wendar> I'm looking for a next app to pick off
[16:14] <wendar> but, not sure what ajmitch/highvoltage were working on
[16:24] <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
[16:26] <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
[16:27] <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
[16:28] <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
[16:29] <wendar> yeah, it's a bit of a tricky one
[16:29] <wendar> seems like we've got a workable solution either way
[16:30] <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
[16:43] <wendar> stgraber: is it safe to click "Approve" on the ARB MyApps review page?
[16:44] <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
[16:47] <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)
[16:48] <stgraber> I simply entered some garbage in those fields ;)
[16:48] <stgraber> and complained about it to achuni
[16:49] <wendar> :) sounds good, I'll do the same
[17:50] <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
[18:32] <ajmitch> hi
[18:33] <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!
[18:34] <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
[18:35] <ajmitch> yeah, I was going to do that after harmonyseq but please take it :)
[18:35] <wendar> 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] <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
[18:38] <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
[19:15] <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?
[19:16] <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
[19:17] <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...
[19:18] <wendar> stgraber: I suppose I can just switch it over to 3.0(quilt) format
[19:19] <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
[19:20] <ajmitch> should I set a priority on https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/915902 ?
[19:21] <ajmitch> it's a little frustrating not being able to see the needs info submissions
[19:30] <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
[19:32] <stgraber> ajmitch: please feel free to post a comment every time it annoys you though
[19:33] <ajmitch> stgraber: have you filed bugs for needing junk info in some fields before approving an app?
[19:34] <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
[19:35] <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 ;)
[19:36] <stgraber> and I spent all morning debugging upstart ;)
[19:37] <ajmitch> suddenly, the allure of working for the foundations team is slipping away ;)
[19:46] <ajmitch> wendar: thank you for updating the Review/Guidelines page
[19:47] <wendar> ajmitch: welcome
[19:47] <wendar> ajmitch: jumping around to all those scattered pages to remember all the requirements has been driving me nuts :)
[19:48] <wendar> ajmitch: I still need to add the security guidelines
[19:51]  * 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
[19:52] <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
[19:53] <wendar> and we could add an item something to the effect that we may find security problems not listed during review
[19:54] <ajmitch> a package can't install other packages, can it? I'm thinking of the case of a music player using the codec installer
[19:55] <wendar> I recall a policy to that effect, but can't find it
[19:56] <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 "
[19:57] <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
[19:58] <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
[19:59] <wendar> the security checklist wasn't part of the reviewed/approved TB policy, so we use our own judgement