[07:04] <dholbach> good morning
[07:19] <geser> good morning dholbach
[07:19] <dholbach> hey geser
[08:21] <alo21> hi all
[08:23] <alo21> I have just read some guides.... and I am wondering what should I do now
[08:23] <alo21> can someone follow me for a short period of time?
[09:09] <FlowRiser> I want to see what's inside a library, can i do that ?
[09:10] <Zhenech> get the source?
[09:11] <FlowRiser> i have the source
[09:12] <FlowRiser> Zhenech: i got it using apt-get install liblightdm
[09:12] <FlowRiser> Zhenech, i'm sorry i'm a newb, is that the source ?
[09:13] <Zhenech> apt-get source liblightdm will give you the source
[09:14] <FlowRiser> Zhenech, i see, thanks
[09:14] <FlowRiser> Zhenech,  where will it save the source code ?
[09:14] <Zhenech> it will tell you :)
[09:14] <FlowRiser> Zhenech, thanks alot :D
[10:45] <alo21> hi..
[10:46] <alo21> when I am upgrading a package, should I put "quantal" as release?
[10:50] <alo21> yofel: could help me for a while?
[10:52] <tumbleweed> alo21: the release in the changelog is the release you are uploading to
[10:52] <tumbleweed> which is almost always going to be the development release, currently: quantal
[10:52] <alo21> tumbleweed: for example I am trying to fix this (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gajim/+bug/1044292)
[10:53] <alo21> tumbleweed: Is a good idea to put 'quantal'?
[10:54] <tumbleweed> yes
[10:54] <alo21> tumbleweed: and as I learnd I should write 'new upstream' as a comment. Right?
[10:55] <alo21> new upstream release*
[10:55] <tumbleweed> yes, and then mention all teh packaging changes you had to make (if there are any)
[10:56] <alo21> tumbleweed: I have just applied the debdiff to the new version
[10:56] <alo21> tumbleweed: Should I list it?
[10:57] <tumbleweed> no, that's not a change
[10:57] <tumbleweed> does this new release have new features? or only bugfixes?
[10:58] <alo21> tumbleweed: how I know it?
[11:01] <alo21> tumbleweed: I did not introduce any other changes, a part joining the debdiff
[11:03] <tumbleweed> alo21: read the diff? look at the upstream commit history?
[11:04] <tumbleweed> from the changelog in the bug, the only potential issue looks like farsight -> farstream (I don't know enough about them to know offhand how invasive that is)
[12:15] <alo21> Nafallo:
[12:15] <alo21> Nafallo: hi.. I am fixing this bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gajim/+bug/1044292)
[12:15] <alo21> and I create the package. Where should I upload it?
[12:18] <Nafallo> alo21: sorry. I haven't touched the package for years, and I probably haven't got upload rights anymore.
[12:18] <Nafallo> -EPERSON
[12:19] <mitya57> alo21: I think you should contact the current maintainer (check https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gajim for his name)
[12:19] <alo21> Nafallo: ok.. thanks
[12:21] <Nafallo> actually, looking at that page, we're using the debian package these days
[12:21] <Nafallo> alo21: don't touch it. the only thing necessary is getting it synced from debian :-)
[12:22] <Nafallo> what's the pre-release freeze currently in effect about?
[12:22] <alo21> Nafallo: I downloaded the source from the website (http://gajim.org/downloads.php?lang=en#tarball). Isn't right?
[12:22] <Nafallo> alo21: no
[12:23] <Nafallo> alo21: it's a sync from Debian these days. not an ubuntu package at all.
[12:23] <alo21> Nafallo: ok
[12:24] <Nafallo> we're in beta1 freeze?
[12:25] <Laney> yesyes
[12:25] <Laney> DOUBLE YES
[12:26] <Nafallo> :-)
[12:27] <Nafallo> so yeah, get it synced. it's a bugfix release :-)
[12:27] <Nafallo> gajim (0.15-1.1) unstable; urgency=high
[12:27] <Nafallo>   * Non-maintainer upload by the Security Team.
[12:27] <Nafallo>   * Fix CVE-2012-2093: insecure use of temporary files when convering LaTeX
[12:27] <Nafallo>     IM messages to png images. Closes: #668710
[12:27] <Nafallo>  -- Luk Claes <email address hidden>  Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:22:00 +0200
[12:27] <Nafallo> even better. security release.
[12:28] <Nafallo> should probably get synced to precise-security as well
[12:30] <alo21> Nafallo: So... reguarding ubuntu 12.10, I was able to upgrade package until July 5th. Right?
[13:42] <dholbach> lfaraone_, lfaraone__: do you know which version of the sugar source packages in Ubuntu should be current right now?
[13:42] <dholbach> it seems like there's a few merge proposals for older versions of it and I'm not quite sure if they should have been replaced or anything
[14:05] <ScottK> dholbach: Sugar is pretty unmaintained in Debian and Ubuntu ATM.  It's a mess.
[14:05] <dholbach> ok
[14:05] <dholbach> it just wasn't clear to me what to do with the packages that are in Ubuntu but not in Debian
[14:06] <dholbach> it's hard to figure out if they're needed somewhere
[14:07] <Laney> I mailed him about the packageset the other day and he indicated that the maintenance effort (at least in the distro) is no more
[14:07] <ScottK> I'd remove anything in Ubuntu that's not in Debian since no one in Ubuntu is looking after them.
[14:11] <alo21> can someone follow me step by step via this long trip?
[14:23] <jbicha> dholbach: I agree with ScottK, we should remove the old Sugar packages that were remove in Debian
[14:24] <dholbach> agrandi's fixes in http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/ made me aware of it
[14:26] <jbicha> http://bugs.debian.org/674547
[14:33] <dholbach> there seem to be some 0.84 bits in the archive as well
[14:34] <DktrKranz> dholbach: ScottK: I had some conversations with Jonas, here are some useful bits: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2011-October/003723.html http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-olpc-devel/2012-May/003943.html
[14:35] <DktrKranz> also, that should clarify other versioned packages shouldn't be versioned at all
[14:35] <dholbach> great
[14:36] <tumbleweed> the ubuntu-only sugar bits do look fairly neglected http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/neglected/ (newest one was touched 2 years ago)
[14:36] <DktrKranz> that reminds me, I should ask for potential 0.88 removal