[03:54] <vibhav> IS https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sqlobject/+bug/941382 work a fix or sync?
[04:11] <ScottK> vibhav: Yes.
[04:46] <vibhav> ScottK: ScottK Should I sync it then?
[04:47] <ScottK> You should make sure it builds and otherwise see if it's suitable for sync.  Assuming you aren't an ubuntu developer, then subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to the bug asking it be synced
[04:48] <vibhav> sure, thanks
[04:49] <micahg> vibhav: or use the requestsync tool which subscribes -sponsors for you
[04:51] <vibhav> micahg: Thats what I use
[04:57] <ScottK> micahg: Except there's already an existing bug.
[04:57] <ScottK> If you turn that bug into the sync request, there's no need to remember to go back and close it later.
[04:57] <micahg> ah, ok
[05:45] <vibhav> im facing FTVFS here
[05:45] <vibhav> Can anybody else test sqlobject-python from debian if it build correctly
[05:46] <vibhav> sqlobject*
[06:30] <hakermania> why https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug keeps redirecting me to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs?
[06:32] <vibhav> hakermania: Because you can only report bugs (for Ubuntu) using apport\ubuntu-bug
[06:33] <hakermania> vibhav, even for the first step of FFe process? Should it be mentioned somewhere https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess#FeatureFreeze_for_new_upstream_versions?
[06:35] <hakermania> I mean people following the steps one by one will not be able to pass step one :P
[06:53] <AnAnt> Hello, anyone interested in testing TeXLive 2012 on precise ?
[06:54] <vibhav> AnAnt: Sure
[06:54] <AnAnt> ppa:aelmahmoudy/tl2009
[06:55] <AnAnt> don't be fooled by the repository name, I used it 3 years ago for TL2009, now it has TL2012
[07:06] <tumbleweed> hakermania: If you read the ReportingBugs page, you'll see it has a link that won't redirect you
[07:07] <PaoloRotolo> Hi all!
[07:07] <hakermania> tumbleweed, I found it myself (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug/?no-redirect) but it should be more obvious
[07:08] <tumbleweed> hakermania: ubuntu developers get bugcontrol membership, that also stops that redirect
[07:09] <hakermania> tumbleweed, but, apparently, not everybody is an ubuntu developer ?
[07:10] <tumbleweed> sure
[07:12] <hakermania> The amount of things that FFe process is mentioning and I have no idea about, is too damn high :P I don't use pbuilder, i don't have a CHANGES or NEWS file, 'install log'?
[07:34] <tumbleweed> if you don't use pbuilder, how do you know if it'll build in the archive?
[07:34] <tumbleweed> install log = the output from installing it with dpkg
[07:45] <hakermania> tubmleweed, thanks. I don't use pbuilder, so, I guess instead of pdebuild I use debuild. Is it something wrong with this? As for the output, you mean the one from 'dpkg -i deb_file.deb'?
[08:26] <tumbleweed> hakermania: assuming you are running precise, yes
[08:27] <tumbleweed> another advantage of testing in pbuilder is that it's a minimal environment, with only the packages you are build-depending on
[08:27] <tumbleweed> so if you don't have pbuilder set up, at least build for precise in a PPA
[08:27] <hakermania> I've already build a PPA
[08:27] <hakermania> and it built just fine
[08:28] <tumbleweed> link to that, then
[08:29] <hakermania> tumbleweed, would just that be fine?
[08:30] <tumbleweed> yes
[08:31] <hakermania> good news
[10:16] <hakermania> tumbleweed, if you could check it would be nice: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wallch/+bug/964451
[20:18] <helder_raptor> hyperair: buddy was looking at an approx 2 yr back chat of u nd bilal
[20:18] <helder_raptor> hyperair: how doeas GPL affect the packages
[20:18] <hyperair> helder_raptor: 2 year back? =O
[20:18] <helder_raptor> hyperair: yup...
[20:19] <hyperair> what do you mean by affect the packages?
[20:19] <Laney> the internet never forgets
[20:19] <helder_raptor> hyperair: so if upstream changes to GPL-4, your packaging is no longer usable.
[20:19] <hyperair> hmmm
[20:19] <hyperair> i wonder
[20:19] <hyperair> not necessarily.
[20:20] <hyperair> if you've licensed your packaging as GPL-2+, then you can just bump your packaging GPL version.
[20:20] <hyperair> or GPL-3+, for instance
[20:20] <helder_raptor> hyperair: i see that u were stressing on the GPL issue
[20:20] <hyperair> however, if it's GPL-2 or GPL-3 (no +) then you need to contact all copyright holders and get them all to agree to relicense to the new GPL.
[20:21] <hyperair> helder_raptor: could you link me to the log?
[20:21] <hyperair> as it is, i'm not even sure that the packaging stuff (debian/*) constitutes as a "derived work"
[20:22] <helder_raptor> hyperair: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/05/03/%23ubuntu-motu.html
[20:23] <hyperair> ah that
[20:23] <hyperair> well i was mistaken regarding the whole "becomes illegal to use" part.
[20:23] <hyperair> the license becomes incompatible
[20:23] <hyperair> i.e. you can't use the packaging without relicensing to the new GPL
[20:23] <helder_raptor> hyperair: thnks
[20:23] <hyperair> but relicensing to the new GPL requiers consent of *all* copyright holders
[20:23] <hyperair> (for the debian/* part)
[20:24] <hyperair> which can be pretty hard to get if it's a long-lived package
[20:24] <hyperair> you have passing-by constributors, retired developers and whatnot to track down
[20:26] <helder_raptor> hyperair: thanks again
[20:27] <hyperair> np