[00:31] <inashdeen> hi, I would like to enquire, how do i send my program for consideration by motu to put in ubuntu software cneter?
[00:32] <RAOF> inashdeen: It depends on what you're after; what is your program, and what is your desired outcome?
[00:35] <inashdeen> RAQF : can i explain it here? ok, it is a keyboard layout for traditional malay (jawi). it is based on the arabic writing. this is the link to the project. https://launchpad.net/jawi/jawi-keyboard-0.5.7-precise currently, i just built a .deb. i tried to make a ppa, but it requires source. my program doesnt have a source
[06:59] <dholbach> good morning
[07:02] <ajmitch> morning dholbach
[07:02] <dholbach> hey ajmitch
[07:13] <vibhav> The number of items in the sponsor queue is increasing again >_<
[07:14]  * vibhav adds some more items
[07:20] <micahg> vibhav: that's what happens over the weekend, it should go down again as people do their piloting shifts (unless we're getting a swarm of contributions, which isn't really a bad thing), high number in queue isn't as bad as old requests not being addressed
[07:21] <vibhav> exactly
[07:21] <micahg> in fact, I'd posit that a large queue is good as long as they're all recent submissions :)
[07:21] <vibhav> Its good that there not old requests
[08:02] <iulian> Morning dholbach, evening ajmitch.
[08:02] <dholbach> hi iulian
[08:02] <ajmitch> hi iulian
[12:51] <LoT> not sure if you get bug notifications, but... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-django-openid-auth/+bug/1017462
[12:51]  * LoT was watching the announcements list, noticed that the package "maintainer" for this was MOTU
[12:51] <tumbleweed> oh, good, was waiting for that
[12:52] <LoT> wasnt sure how to mark it, so i just came here to say "Here, its yours, deal with it"  </delegation>
[12:52] <LoT> (in terms of status / importance)
[12:53] <tumbleweed> it's a special, workflow bug
[12:53]  * LoT returns to multitasking, watching the bugs announcements list and working on a report for work.
[14:18] <arand> How would I go about flagging bug #540035 for "please-SRU-with-Debian-stable-sync"
[14:21] <tumbleweed> we don't actually sync into stable (that I've ever seen)
[14:22] <tumbleweed> you'd just prepare an SRU as usual
[14:25] <badfox> dholbach,  ping : After uploading a PPA into my launchpad from terminal , how much time is going to taken  for applying changes in PPA  ?
[14:26] <dholbach> badfox, if you have a look at your ppa page, it should give you an estimate
[14:26] <dholbach> badfox, do you have a link to your ppa?
[14:27] <badfox> yes dholbach
[14:27] <dholbach> can you share it? :-P
[14:28] <badfox> dholbach,  https://launchpad.net/~genupulas/+archive/accountsservice-0.6.21 and i have uploaded successfully
[14:28] <badfox> dholbach,  i have seen the message too states that uploaded successfully
[14:28] <dholbach> badfox, did you get an 'accepted' email after uploading?
[14:29] <dholbach> I'm asking because I can't see anything on the ppa page
[14:29] <dholbach> maybe you could ask the fine people in #launchpad?
[14:29] <arand> tumbleweed: Ah, ok, I figured it would be nicer in the case it was possible.
[14:30] <badfox> dholbach,  yeah thats what i am also saying . i have uploaded successfully . i am sure . i have seen the message too in my terminal ,
[14:30] <dholbach> no, not in the terminal
[14:30] <dholbach> an email
[14:30] <badfox> ok i will ask there dholbach
[14:30] <tumbleweed> you should get a ne-mail within 5 mins
[14:30] <dholbach> ok good
[14:30] <badfox> dholbach,  i think i didnt
[14:30] <tumbleweed> if you don't you didn't sign it correctly
[14:31] <dholbach> or you don't have your associated key in LP
[14:31] <LordOfTime> that may be the case
[14:31] <dholbach> ok, you have gpg keys in LP
[14:31] <badfox> dholbach,  No , just now i have got a mail
[14:31] <badfox> saying as rejected :(
[14:31] <badfox> lemme try one more time
[14:31] <LordOfTime> badfox: hwat did it say
[14:31] <dholbach> does the mail give a reason?
[14:31] <LordOfTime> it should say why it was rejected
[14:32] <badfox> dholbach,  yes it does "Rejected:
[14:32] <badfox> Unable to find distroseries: unstable
[14:32] <badfox> Further error processing not possible because of a critical previous error.
[14:32] <badfox> "
[14:32] <LordOfTime> use quantal, precise, natty, oneiric, etc.
[14:32] <LordOfTime> not "unstable"
[14:32] <LordOfTime> (the PPAs cant yet build Debian Unstable packages)
[14:32] <badfox> yeah
[14:32] <badfox> thank you dholbach  LordOfTime
[14:33] <dholbach> anytime
[14:33] <badfox> :)
[14:33] <LordOfTime> mhm
[14:51] <arand> Does a SRU need a changelog entry, or would it be reasonable to use only the Debian changelog for a SRU that is a straight sync from Debian?
[14:52] <tumbleweed> every upload needs a changelog entry
[14:52] <tumbleweed> for this case, you can just copy Debian's changelog entry (crediting it) but change the version and release to appropriate values
[14:53] <tumbleweed> it also has to close the SRU bug, naturally
[14:55] <arand> tumbleweed: So I'd replace the Debian one or add an extra after it?
[14:56] <tumbleweed> replace it
[15:04] <arand> Hmm, 0.9.3-0ubuntu0.1 is appropriate? (0.9.3-0.1 is the based-off package in Debian, 0.9.2-3.1 current in Ubuntu).
[15:10] <tumbleweed> so you're SRUing anew upstream release?
[15:10] <tumbleweed> yes, that seems an appropriate version
[15:12] <arand> tumbleweed: Yes, but should *hopefully* qualify as microrelease.
[15:13] <Zhenech> arand, uhm, 0.9.3-0.1 >> 0.9.3-0ubuntu0.1 afaict
[15:14] <Zhenech>  % dpkg --compare-versions 0.9.3-0.1 le 0.9.3-0ubuntu0.1 says so
[15:17] <arand> Zhenech: Hmm, I'm wondering if that would be a prolem though...
[15:18] <tumbleweed> arand: what package?
[15:18] <arand> Though using 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu0.1 might be prudent, still.
[15:18] <arand> pango-graphite
[15:18] <Zhenech> arand, not "ubuntu1" then?
[15:19] <badfox> dholbach,  you here ?  Success , i have uploaded :D
[15:19] <dholbach> excellent
[15:19] <arand> 0.1 is a SRU-indicator afaik.
[15:19] <Zhenech> ah ok
[15:19] <tumbleweed> arand: there is a 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu1 in natty
[15:20] <badfox> dholbach,  one more thing i wanna do , lemme see
[15:20] <badfox> dholbach,  :)
[15:20] <tumbleweed> so 0.9.3-0ubuntu0.1 should be fine
[15:21] <Rhonda> If it is based on 0.9.3-0.1 it should be 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu0.1
[15:21] <Rhonda> 0.9.3-0ubuntu0.1 is smaller as 0.9.3-0.1, as Zhenech pointed out. :)
[15:21] <tumbleweed> which is what we want
[15:22] <Rhonda> But it's a wrong "upstream" version part.
[15:22] <Rhonda> 0.9.3-0.1~ubuntu0.1 it should be then?
[15:22] <tumbleweed> it's an SRU, getting the Debian revision rnight is less important than beingh smaller than the next Ubuntu release
[15:23] <Rhonda> So changing the "upstream" version is correct?
[15:23] <Rhonda> The next ubuntu release has 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu1 I thought?
[15:23] <arand> But 0.9.3-0ubuntu0.1 vs 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu0.1 doesn't matter in Ubuntu, right?
[15:24] <tumbleweed> Rhonda: yes
[15:24] <Rhonda> So being precise doesn't matter in Ubuntu? :)
[15:24] <Zhenech> Rhonda, not since quantal :>
[15:24] <tumbleweed> meh, I can't say I care too much abou tupstream versions in SRUs
[15:24] <tumbleweed> it's a fork in the revision history that'll go away at some point
[15:24] <Rhonda> So if the next ubuntu release has 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu1 why is 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu0.1 being considered an issue?
[15:25] <tumbleweed> 0.9.3-0.1ubuntu0.1 would be fine
[15:25] <arand> I'll go with that
[15:25] <Rhonda> There is a guideline for the versioning, and I don't understand the reason for why it is wanted to ignore that.
[15:25] <tumbleweed> the guidelines for versioning in SRUs don't cover new upstream versions
[15:26] <Rhonda> It covers how it ensures proper upgrading possibilities, and that is the 0.1 at the end?
[15:26] <arand> Well, I'm kind of basing it off the Debian version but still not, at the same time (since removing the Debian changelog entry for 0.9.3-0.1, which seems a bit odd)
[15:27] <Rhonda> And/or the addition of the release name, which sorts nicely?
[15:27] <tumbleweed> arand: I'd keep the changolg entry if you are using that version
[15:27] <Rhonda> Removing changelog entry?  So removing the changes?
[15:27] <arand> Right, heh.
[15:30] <tumbleweed> Rhonda: I tend to just consider SRUs as a targetted patch to a stable ubuntu release. Even if the patch makes it equivalent to a known debian version. I'll append an SRU .1 to the version / bump an existing one. I'll only touch the upstream version if I'm uploading a .orig too, which is fairly rare for SRUs
[15:31] <Laney> I think I've had enough of apt-cacher-ng
[15:31] <Laney> what's a good alternative?
[15:32] <tumbleweed> squid? (with totally different semantics)
[15:32] <Laney> heh
[15:32] <Laney> i'm more tempted to buy some extra storage and run mirrors
[15:33] <tumbleweed> yes, I have a home mirror. it rocks
[15:33] <jpds> Laney: squid-deb-proxy(-client).
[15:33] <tumbleweed> but it will be a little more stale
[15:33] <Laney> jpds: how painful is it to configure?
[15:35] <jpds> Laney: http://www.jorgecastro.org/2010/02/04/introducing-squid-deb-proxy/
[15:36] <Laney> ta