[04:22] <ajmitch> cielak: after much pain & suffering with fluidsynth, alsa & various pieces, I got it to make some sound
[04:22] <ajmitch> I won't call it music ;)
[04:30] <ajmitch> cielak: sorry that I've not spent much time on it, about the only thing I can find with the packaging is that the postinst & postrm may not be needed
[17:14] <mhall119> wendar: ping
[17:15] <wendar> mhall119: pong
[17:16] <mhall119> wendar: looking at the arb ML, and there was a question about the versioning scheme for the graphic design lens, is that something the lens developer sets or something you guys will control in the package template?
[17:17] <wendar> mhall119: the developer can set it, but we can too, so we'll just do that before it goes out the door
[17:18] <wendar> mhall119: though, we've had packages shipping with purely native version numbers, so I'm inclined to publish this one under the current standard, and apply any changes in policy we agree on to future packages.
[17:19] <mhall119> wendar: is this something I should document for developers submitting lenses/scopes?
[17:19] <wendar> mhall119: yeah, we should create a brief wiki page for them with the whole repository layout
[17:19] <wendar> mhall119: basically "what to expect when you submit a lens/scope"
[17:20] <wendar> IIRC, quickly has a "package for arb" option
[17:20] <wendar> so, hopefully we can just get it generating the right files and formats, and then the developers won't have to think about it
[17:21] <mhall119> wendar: quickly has "submitubuntu" or something like that, but I think it needs some work
[17:22] <wendar> mhall119: aye, it does need some work. One of the things on my list is to submit some patches
[17:23] <wendar> interesting problem for the ARB: we do all our work on the current production release
[17:23] <wendar> but, can only get changes for Quickly into the development release
[17:23] <wendar> so, Quickly is always lagging behind
[17:24] <mhall119> wendar: I thought we weren't going to need ARB packaging for lenses and scopes though
[17:24] <mhall119> not from the developers that is
[17:24] <wendar> not a huge deal, since we can manually fix up the packages after they're submitted
[17:25] <wendar> mhall119: yeah, we'll do it all for them
[17:25] <wendar> mhall119: the packaging is very simple
[17:25] <mhall119> ok
[17:25] <wendar> mhall119: but ideally, down the road, Quickly will do it for them (or some other tool)
[17:25] <mhall119> thanks, I just wanted to make sure I understood ajmitch's concerns
[17:26] <wendar> mhall119: aye, Ubuntu/Debian has two styles of version numbers
[17:26] <wendar> mhall119: one for "packages with a tarball" and one for "packages without a tarball"
[17:26]  * mhall119 is still trying to learn all of this
[17:27] <wendar> mhall119: yeah, a lot of this is arcane knowledge
[17:28] <wendar> mhall119: the real question with this version number thing is "do we protect developers from it?"
[17:28] <wendar> mhall119: or "is it better to start teaching them arcana early?"
[17:29] <mhall119> I'm of the "teach a man to fish" philosophy, personally
[17:30] <mhall119> but some people don't want to be fisherman, they just want to buy fillets at the grocery store
[17:30] <mhall119> and I think we should be flexible for those people too
[18:35]  * cielak is away: Busy/Away
[18:59] <wendar> mhall119: I agree :) (some people just want fillets, and we have room for them too)
[19:03]  * ajmitch was mostly arguing for native versioning because the lenses & scopes are often not going to be by the same author, and the source package is put together by the ARB
[19:36] <ajmitch> wendar: I hope I haven't held up the upload of the lens package, I don't want to do that
[23:08] <wendar> ajmitch: nah, I'm busy on my astrophysics homework today
[23:09] <wendar> ajmitch: but, if you're comfortable, I'll go ahead and upload it with the existing version number scheme tomorrow, and we can figure out variants later?
[23:10] <wendar> ajmitch: we've got 3 positive votes, which is what's needed to go ahead
[23:10] <wendar> though, I would like a quick double-check from stgraber specifically on the apparmor profile
[23:10] <wendar> profiles (one for each lens and scope)
[23:28] <ajmitch> wendar: sure, I'm fine with that