[00:29] <micahg> iulian: you uploaded ghc without -v :(
[00:38] <directhex> MiS-SAT, --override-config flag is needed for changes to pbuilderrc to persist
[00:38] <directhex> MiS-SAT, i.e. pbuilder update --override-config
[00:38] <directhex> (the pbuilder image has priority over pbuilderrc, by default)
[01:29] <ajmitch> micahg: you don't mind if I sync moodle for a bunch of security fixes? wasn't sure if you'd spotted that one yet :)
[02:16] <micahg> ajmitch: go for it
[02:17] <ajmitch> micahg: great, was more of a heads up that it was being synced, in case it gets held up for a few hours in the queue
[02:35] <micahg> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/ghc.html (and the fun is already showing up)
[02:38]  * ajmitch should get in on the fun
[02:39] <micahg> ajmitch: you have to wait for ghc to build on all archs first :)
[02:39] <ajmitch> micahg: in other words, probably not before I go to bed tonight? :)
[02:39] <micahg> right
[02:40] <micahg> well, ~7-8 hours
[02:40] <ajmitch> that's what I thought
[02:40] <ajmitch> assuming that the builds succeed
[02:41] <ajmitch> amd64 & armhf look to have failed already
[07:04] <tumbleweed> broder: I see you made it into the LWN quotes this week https://lwn.net/Articles/484521/
[07:04] <broder> haha, somebody pointed that out to me
[07:05] <broder> if i had known they'd be looking i would have tried to write a better soundbyte
[07:05] <tumbleweed> heh
[07:08] <tumbleweed> ah, good, vorlon's "To be fair, it also omits one of SystemD's greatest strengths: Roman numeral-compliant project naming. System D is obviously way better than System V." made it too
[07:10] <broder> i guess it's just a banner week for ubuntu
[07:11] <micahg> where are all of these
[07:11] <broder> slangasek is the "development" quote of the week: https://lwn.net/Articles/484166/
[07:11] <broder> they're part of the lwn weekly edition
[07:12] <micahg> ah
[07:12] <tumbleweed> well, that one came from a Debian flamewar^Wthread that had lots of amusing bits
[08:14] <dholbach> good morning
[09:43] <Laney> heya
[09:55] <ajmitch> hi Laney
[09:58] <Laney> myunity fan?
[10:13] <ajmitch> Laney: just excited to see things backported ;)
[10:48] <Laney> yar
[12:33] <Kiall> Heya - I have two related packages built from separate source packages, the upstream version numbers will always match up but the package version may not. I was hoping for something like "python-carbon (= ${binary:Version})" where I can just check the upstream version number? any suggestions?
[12:34] <ScottK> Kiall: {source:Version}
[12:35] <ScottK> Actually, that's not right.
[12:35] <Kiall> ah.. nice! Is there a list of that kind of thing anywhere?
[12:37] <Kiall> Actually, that does seem correct. Googling for that turned out the deb-substvars man page, with that listed
[12:38] <ScottK> source:Upstream-Version
[12:39] <ScottK> Yes.  That's the place to look.
[12:39] <Kiall> It seems both are listed there.. the Upstream-Version seems to included the "Debian version epoch if any."
[12:39] <ScottK> source:Version still includes the package revision.  You need Upstream-Version
[12:40] <Kiall> Oh. Fair enough :) Thanks
[12:40] <Kiall> Will give that a go now...
[12:58] <Kiall> ScottK: That worked a charm, thanks again...
[13:12] <ScottK> You're welcome.
[18:38] <ashickur-noor> Hi
[18:38] <ashickur-noor> Need some instant advice
[18:39] <EvilResistance> with?
[18:39] <ashickur-noor> UBJ
[18:40] <ashickur-noor> For test 12.04 and Bug reporting
[18:40] <ashickur-noor> I need to know what we have to do
[18:40] <ashickur-noor> how to start
[18:40] <ashickur-noor> etc
[19:00] <valdur55> ubuntu-bug package
[19:17] <PaoloRotolo> Hi all!
[19:39] <jtaylor> :( my unison upload was rejected, no the search for the reason begins again ...
[19:39] <jtaylor> why does the mail not just tell you
[19:41] <jtaylor> https://code.launchpad.net/~jtaylor/ubuntu/precise/unison2.32.52/lp-937596 here is the branch in case someone want to help me in the search ._.
[19:42] <ajmitch> does the mail tell you who rejected it?
[19:42] <jtaylor> no
[19:42] <ajmitch> a little trickier then, I guess you have to ask around :)
[19:42] <ScottK> The archive admin that rejected it is supposed to mail you seperately.
[19:42] <ScottK> (It wasn't me)
[19:47] <ScottK> jtaylor: There were some accidental rejects that are being restored.
[19:49] <jtaylor> k, because I can't find an issue with the package
[23:24] <arand> For backports, how strict are the criteria? Can new-in-precise packages be added?
[23:25] <broder> arand: yes. what part of the criteria makes you think you couldn't?
[23:27] <arand> Hmm, re-reading it againk, I guess none...
[23:30] <arand> Also, new versions of multiplayer-centric games (which needs to match server-client versions), are those strictly backport-material, and not SRU-able?
[23:50] <RAOF> arand: That depends case to case.
[23:51] <arand> ok, I guess I'll have to dig deeper once that time comes :)
[23:52] <arand> Hmm, by default only the main repo is available right?
[23:52] <arand> But software centre shows universe as well? Or does it only hint about enabling it?
[23:55] <arand> And if something is in universe and depends on a -data package in mutliverse, it asks for confirmation but auto-enables multiverse then, right?
[23:56] <broder> packages in universe can't depend on packages in multivers
[23:57] <arand> Hmm, I wonder if my package is voilating policy then :/
[23:58] <arand> Ah, no they're both in multiverse, good :)
[23:59] <arand> But on that note, does Ubuntu hold the same rules as Debian as to what is considered "free" with respect to artwork, music, 3D models, etc.?