[18:27] I'd like to get that first lens pushed through [18:27] any meta thoughts on the repo layout? [18:27] should I send it to vote? [18:28] sounds like mhall119 has a stack to push through once we settle on the layout for the merged repos [18:29] mhall119: once we get through the list of Oneiric lenses, we can start on the Precise ones, have those lined up and ready to go before the Precise launch [18:33] wendar: already have a list :) [18:34] wendar: in fact, if you PM me your G+ email, I'll share the doc with you [18:34] cool, will do [18:44] mhall119: I'm assuming the music scopes are compatible with the default Music Lens [18:45] wendar: I'm assuming so, yes [18:45] we can't do those with our merged repository strategy, will need to talk to the Music Lens developers on how they want to handle it [18:46] if they're okay with it, I'd say we do one merged source package for the collection of music-related scopes [18:46] the lens is a main package, which extras can depend on [19:07] wendar: right, I think that's a good idea & the layout you proposed looks good [19:17] wendar: I'll "try" to have a look this afternoon, was planning on doing that over the weekend but ended up not being around much [19:30] stgraber: you're not the only one :) [19:31] * ajmitch is feeling a bit guilty about wendar doing all the work this month [20:14] ajmitch: aw, it'll be someone else's turn next month :) [22:04] wendar: unity-lens-graphicdesign is a native package? (version is 0.1) [22:11] yep, I think that makes sense considering it's a mix of multiple sources [22:11] and 0.1 should ensure it's going to be lower to whatever might end up in the archive at some point [22:13] I'd have thought you'd want extras in the version at least [22:13] something to match how versioning is done for the other packages [22:14] if you really want, I believe you can have different versions for the binary package than the source package :) [22:18] yeah you can can but it's black magic at this point ;) [22:18] true [22:18] it warped my mind when I saw it being done [22:18] I guess 0.1~extra1~11.10 or similar could work (if dpkg doesn't explode telling us a nativ package shouldn't have such weird version number) [22:18] I don't think it should complain [22:18] I think dpkg even treats 0~0 as valid [22:22] so for this lens & scope set, they're all by the same author at the moment? [22:33] ajmitch: it's 0.1-0extras11.10.1~ppa1 in the PPA [22:33] ajmitch: maybe I didn't push that change to the remote repo [22:34] ajmitch: bzr builddeb refuses to accept extras version numbering [22:34] ajmitch: so I've been doing development with native version numbers, and changing it at the end before I push to the ppa [22:34] wendar: right, I should have checked the PPA as well, sorry :) [22:34] so the final version will be 0.1-0extras11.10.1 [22:34] it probably refuses to accept the - in the version [22:35] actually, what it complains about is combining "3.0 (native)" format with a non-native version [22:35] it may be worth changing it from 0.1-0extras11.10.1 to 0.1~extras~11.10.1 as stgraber suggested, for native packages [23:26] yeah, could be (worth the change to ~), but if we were going to change I'd rather change all over, so we don't have to explain two version number schemes to developers [23:26] they can't get our current scheme right, so I hesitate to introduce any more complexity [23:28] (or, to put it another way, since I'm the one setting the ARB versions anyway, it's not really a big deal to remember to use debuild for the final build with proper version numbers) [23:28] or, maybe we can talk to the bzr-builddeb folks about an exception for version numbers that match "extras" [23:30] ajmitch: oh, and yes, this lens and scopes are all by the same author, just originally developed as multiple separate packages [23:32] ajmitch: so, in the future, we can just tell the author to develop their lenses that way to begin with (and get quickly to create lens/scopes that way too) [23:35] wendar: ok [23:37] oh, and on guallet, I changed the format from "3.0 (native)" to "3.0 (quilt)", but it seemed to cause the developer more grief than it was worth. [23:38] "3.0 (native)" seems to be more approachable, more like the "my software is just a bundle" idea. [23:40] so any patches are applied inline?