[18:27] <wendar> I'd like to get that first lens pushed through
[18:27] <wendar> any meta thoughts on the repo layout?
[18:27] <wendar> should I send it to vote?
[18:28] <wendar> sounds like mhall119 has a stack to push through once we settle on the layout for the merged repos
[18:29] <wendar> 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] <mhall119> wendar: already have a list :)
[18:34] <mhall119> wendar: in fact, if you PM me your G+ email, I'll share the doc with you
[18:34] <wendar> cool, will do
[18:44] <wendar> mhall119: I'm assuming the music scopes are compatible with the default Music Lens
[18:45] <mhall119> wendar: I'm assuming so, yes
[18:45] <wendar> 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] <wendar> if they're okay with it, I'd say we do one merged source package for the collection of music-related scopes
[18:46] <wendar> the lens is a main package, which extras can depend on
[19:07] <ajmitch> wendar: right, I think that's a good idea & the layout you proposed looks good
[19:17] <stgraber> 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] <ajmitch> 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] <wendar> ajmitch: aw, it'll be someone else's turn next month :)
[22:04] <ajmitch> wendar: unity-lens-graphicdesign is a native package? (version is 0.1)
[22:11] <stgraber> yep, I think that makes sense considering it's a mix of multiple sources
[22:11] <stgraber> and 0.1 should ensure it's going to be lower to whatever might end up in the archive at some point
[22:13] <ajmitch> I'd have thought you'd want extras in the version at least
[22:13] <ajmitch> something to match how versioning is done for the other packages
[22:14] <ajmitch> if you really want, I believe you can have different versions for the binary package than the source package :)
[22:18] <stgraber> yeah you can can but it's black magic at this point ;)
[22:18] <ajmitch> true
[22:18] <ajmitch> it warped my mind when I saw it being done
[22:18] <stgraber> 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] <ajmitch> I don't think it should complain
[22:18] <ajmitch> I think dpkg even treats 0~0 as valid
[22:22] <ajmitch> so for this lens & scope set, they're all by the same author at the moment?
[22:33] <wendar> ajmitch: it's 0.1-0extras11.10.1~ppa1  in the PPA
[22:33] <wendar> ajmitch: maybe I didn't push that change to the remote repo
[22:34] <wendar> ajmitch: bzr builddeb refuses to accept extras version numbering
[22:34] <wendar> 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] <ajmitch> wendar: right, I should have checked the PPA as well, sorry :)
[22:34] <wendar> so the final version will be 0.1-0extras11.10.1
[22:34] <ajmitch> it probably refuses to accept the - in the version
[22:35] <wendar> actually, what it complains about is combining "3.0 (native)" format with a non-native version
[22:35] <ajmitch> 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] <wendar> 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] <wendar> they can't get our current scheme right, so I hesitate to introduce any more complexity
[23:28] <wendar> (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] <wendar> or, maybe we can talk to the bzr-builddeb folks about an exception for version numbers that match "extras"
[23:30] <wendar> ajmitch: oh, and yes, this lens and scopes are all by the same author, just originally developed as multiple separate packages
[23:32] <wendar> 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] <ajmitch> wendar: ok
[23:37] <wendar> 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] <wendar> "3.0 (native)" seems to be more approachable, more like the "my software is just a bundle" idea.
[23:40] <ajmitch> so any patches are applied inline?