[08:11] <dpm> good morning all
[08:15] <ajmitch> hi dpm
[08:18] <dpm> hey ajmitch
[12:56] <highvoltage> goor morning
[12:56] <highvoltage> *good
[17:53] <wendar> mhall119: the community lens was out for changes, is it ready now for re-review?
[17:54] <mhall119> wendar: no, I haven't had a change to make the requested changes to it yet
[17:56] <wendar> mhall119: okay, I'll add a comment to it
[17:56] <wendar> thanks
[17:56] <mhall119> wendar: it's currently precise-only anyway
[17:56] <wendar> mhall119: yup, no rush
[17:57] <mhall119> has david calle submitted any more?
[17:59] <wendar> mhall119: not yet
[17:59] <wendar> mhall119: I'm nearly done packaging the scopes for the music lens
[20:00] <ajmitch> wendar: have you been re-poking people who've submitted applications?
[20:01] <wendar> ajmitch: like, reminding them that we haven't heard from them in a while?
[20:01] <wendar> ajmitch: not yet, but I was thinking about doing that for guallet today
[20:01] <wendar> it's really close to ready to go
[20:02] <ajmitch> I was just seeing the flood of information needed requests, they were all pending review/
[20:02] <ajmitch> ?
[20:02] <wendar> yeah, that's me
[20:03]  * ajmitch had talked to the hacketyhack submitter a couple of days ago about shoes & offered help
[20:03] <wendar> ajmitch: cool
[20:03] <wendar> I didn't see any activity in the comments
[20:03] <ajmitch> sorry I hadn't copied it in there
[20:04] <wendar> I always forget too :)
[20:04] <wendar> he will have to wait until P+1 to get into Ubuntu, unfortunately
[20:04] <ajmitch> yeah
[20:04] <wendar> but, he could get into Debian quite quickly
[20:04] <ajmitch> once we learn what the name is :)
[20:04] <wendar> as soon as shoes is updated
[20:05] <ajmitch> thanks for the harmonyseq vote on the list, too
[20:05] <wendar> thanks for shepherding it through, it's looking great
[20:17] <wendar> hmmm... anyone have any ideas where this launchpad branch went? lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu/oneiric/unity-lens-graphicdesign/trunk/
[20:19] <wendar> Okay, it's https://code.launchpad.net/~app-review-board versus https://code.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board
[20:20] <wendar> but the packaging-tools branch shows up on both
[20:21] <ajmitch> because lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu/oneiric/unity-lens-graphicdesign/trunk/ is against ubuntu
[20:53] <wendar> ajmitch: so, launchpad is setting the project based on the path
[20:53] <wendar> ajmitch: the bigger question is, do we want these branches for ARB maintained lens/scope packages to be tagged as Ubuntu project?
[20:54] <wendar> ajmitch: or, should we use bzr paths that avoid the auto-categorization?
[20:55] <ajmitch> lp branches are always lp:~person/project/branch_name, I think we make them be under the ubuntu-app-review-board project rather than ubuntu/release
[20:55] <ajmitch> mostly because these are for extras
[20:57] <wendar> ajmitch: makes sense, I'll move them over
[20:57] <wendar> ajmitch: but, I'll keep the Ubuntu release name in the path for sanity
[20:58] <wendar> so, lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu-app-review-board/oneiric/unity-lens-graphicdesign
[20:59] <wendar> because there's a decent chance we may be releasing an update to the Oneiric version of the lens, even after we've moved on to the Precise version of the lens
[21:02] <ajmitch> can you name the branch like that?
[21:03]  * ajmitch assumed that you could only name a release with a distro in LP branches
[21:08] <wendar> hmmm... I get a "Permission denied" error when I try to push any branch with "oneiric" in the path
[21:09] <wendar> I'll just have to encode it in the name of the branch
[21:12] <wendar> We've now got lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu-app-review-board/unity-lens-graphicdesign-oneiric and lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu-app-review-board/unity-scopes-music-extras-oneiric
[21:15] <ajmitch> alright, thanks
[21:16] <ajmitch> I'll set aside some time this weekend to attack the queue & try & catch up on where things are at
[21:16] <ajmitch> as a bonus it's a 3-day weekend again :)
[21:29] <ajmitch> wendar: yes, I *finally* dealt with terraview, what others should I look at? :)
[21:30] <wendar> ajmitch: awesome!
[21:30] <wendar> I feel worst about the oldest ones
[21:30] <wendar> it'd be nice to get them either published, or rejected
[21:30] <ajmitch> yep
[21:30] <wendar> whichever is appropriate
[21:30] <wendar> pac, TetraCity, or Qoobar?
[21:30] <ajmitch> like pac, I know that was sitting around on LP for quite awhile
[21:31] <wendar> yeah, sounds good
[21:31] <ajmitch> the feeback on that was problematic
[21:32] <wendar> I don't recall, was it too large/complex?
[21:32] <ajmitch> " Your "source package" contains some binaries (/opt/pac/lib/ex/vte32/auto/Gnome2/Vte at least), this shouldn't be the case. - Your source package also includes .deb files in /opt/pac/res, this looks wrong.
[21:32] <ajmitch> "
[21:32] <wendar> or, security concerns around passwords and connections?
[21:32] <wendar> oooh, packaging problems
[21:33] <ajmitch> https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/apps/179/feedback/ indicates that he couldn't find those binaries anywhere
[21:33] <ajmitch> well, except on getdeb.net
[21:34] <wendar> so, he's got dependencies that aren't in Ubuntu
[21:34] <wendar> are they small, or likely to be added to Debian at some point?
[21:34] <ajmitch> I'll need to pull apart the package to see
[21:35] <ajmitch> it's hard when he's included them as binary .so files
[21:35] <wendar> he's not even pulling in the source... blech
[21:36] <ajmitch> right, and they're some libraries for libvte which is a core package for ubuntu-desktop
[21:36]  * ajmitch can't pull enough info out with objdump
[21:37] <wendar> hmmmm... it's a terminal emulator widget
[21:37] <ajmitch> yep
[21:38] <wendar> Technically, this did come in before we required a PPA, but I'm leaning toward reject.
[21:38] <ajmitch> libvte is definitely in ubuntu, but I can't tell how different the one he's packaged is (apart from a large size difference in the .so)
[21:40] <wendar> If you're inclined toward due-diligence, I'd say try running the software using the Ubuntu version of the library, and if it works go ahead and package it.
[21:40] <wendar> Otherwise, reject it on the grounds that software has to work on the current version of all dependencies in the current release of Ubuntu.
[21:41] <ajmitch> I feel bad doing so, but we really can't ship unknown binaries in source packages like that
[21:42] <wendar> Yeah
[21:42] <wendar> And, don't feel bad, it's part of the policy.
[21:42] <wendar> We're not allowed to ship updated versions of standard system libraries.
[21:42] <ajmitch> I feel bad about the time between last feedback & rejection :)
[21:42] <wendar> even if he included the source, we couldn't do it.
[21:42] <wendar> yeah, me too
[21:43] <wendar> but, we're doing better on that now
[21:43] <ajmitch> mostly your work
[21:43] <wendar> You gave a great apologetic message to the TerraView developer, that tone really helps.
[21:44] <wendar> And, so does the suggestions for what to do next.
[21:44] <ajmitch> that's why I took so long to respond
[21:45] <wendar> Yup, it's worth taking the time to phrase kind rejection messages, it makes a huge difference in the developer experience. (And in whether they're likely to learn and do better from it, or give up in frustration.)
[21:47] <ajmitch> so it looks like libgnome2-vte-perl was on getdeb.net but is no longer there
[21:47] <wendar> I think most of what I'm doing at the moment is trailblazing. Setting up easy, repeatable patterns for future apps.
[21:47] <wendar> Ah, so the source isn't even available anymore.
[21:47] <wendar> Maybe dropped when it made it in to the live distro?
[21:48] <ajmitch> there's no perl vte bindings in precise
[21:48] <ajmitch> do you know the state of gobject introspection & perl?
[21:49] <ajmitch> if I can suggest an alternative way to use the system libvte, I won't feel so bad rejecting :)
[21:50] <wendar> AFAIK, Perl is farther behind than Python in support for gtk3
[21:51] <wendar> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.gtk%2B.perl/12474
[21:52] <wendar> ah, wait http://search.cpan.org/~tsch/Gtk3-0.004/
[21:52] <ajmitch> right, he's the author of the vte-perl bindings tshipped as binaries in pac
[21:54] <wendar> then maybe suggest to the pac developer to get in touch with Torsten?
[21:54] <ajmitch> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647711
[21:54] <ajmitch> so as of a week ago, there's progress in debian
[21:55] <wendar> excellent. So, that's something to say: watch the progress of the bug, and use the new versions of the libraries when they come out
[22:00] <ajmitch> ok, have added notes on that to my todo list, I won't write it up just yet