[03:48] <micahg> ScottK: tumbleweed: wouldn't it be better to make backportpackage work on Debian series or are we suggesting that other devs upload to backports as well?
[03:49] <ScottK> I guess we need to think about that.
[03:50] <micahg> I think either way though, it should be backportpackage since syncpackage's main way to work now is with in LP copies
[03:51] <ScottK> Having spent about 30 seconds considering it, I was thinking syncing from Debian to $devel=backports was more like a regular sync than a regular backport, but perhaps not.
[03:51] <ScottK> What's wrong with LP copies?
[03:51] <micahg> well, the version still needs to be mangled
[03:51] <micahg> nothing :)
[03:52] <micahg> if we use backportpackage type versioning, then the "upload" to devel+1 is a sync
[03:53] <ScottK> If we're syncing from Debian, why does the version need mangling?
[03:53] <micahg> for the advantage of being able to sync unchanged next cycle
[03:53] <ScottK> I figured we'd forward copy at archive open.
[03:54] <micahg> can't as backports isn't component safe
[03:54] <ScottK> Stuff might fail to build, but that's not a big deal.
[03:54] <ScottK> Just copy the source.
[03:54] <micahg> can't have 2 binaries with the same version in the archive
[03:54] <ScottK> Good point.
[03:55] <ScottK> OK, so maybe it does need mangling.
[07:57] <tumbleweed> ScottK, micahg: reminder of what the tech-board approved: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ubuntu.backports/16696
[07:58] <tumbleweed> that says no pocket-copying to the next release, but doesn't say anything about copying into -backports
[08:46] <cjwatson> I agree with micahg though - copying with unchanged version into -backports sets us up for binary conflicts, so we should avoid that
[14:16] <effiejayx> /j #ubuntu-packaging
[14:17] <effiejayx> ahrg sorry
[20:05] <hakermania> How difficult is at this part of the circle to give you the updated version of Wallch ready built in a ppa and to include it into 12.10 ?
[20:06] <jtaylor> it needs a feature freeze exception
[20:32] <micahg> or backport from R once it opens
[20:34] <pabelanger> Anybody able to upload a debdiff for bug 1039542 to percise-proposed?
[20:35] <pabelanger> I really should go through the step and get the permissions for asterisk
[20:35] <pabelanger> so I don't have to keep asking people
[20:38] <hakermania> micahg, thanks for the answer, is a FFE doable right now? If yes, for how long from now will it be still available?
[20:38] <effiejayx> Hello, is there a way one can download the source of a metapackage?
[20:38] <micahg> effiejayx: should be the same as any other package
[20:38] <micahg> hakermania: yeah, with good reason
[20:38] <exodus> micahg, it doesn't really download the meta-package's source
[20:38] <hakermania> micahg, the reason is to include a newer version of Wallch into the software courses
[20:38] <hakermania> sources*
[20:39] <exodus> I also have that question
[20:39] <micahg> exodus: what meta pacakge?
[20:39] <exodus> micahg, try apache2 for example.
[20:39] <exodus> micahg, it will actually download the apache2 source, not the metapackage source
[20:39] <micahg> exodus: what metapacakge?
[20:39] <exodus> micahg, "apache2"
[20:40] <micahg> a binary metapackage is an empty package with dependencies
[20:40] <micahg> the apache2 source contains it in debian/control
[20:40] <exodus> Yes, I want the source of that
[20:41] <exodus> Ok so, from the apache2 source, the apache2 meta package is created?
[20:41] <micahg> yes
[20:41] <exodus> I see
[20:41] <exodus> So I'm guessing that from that same source a bunch of other packages are created
[20:41] <exodus> And would those other packages also download that same source?
[20:42] <micahg> yes
[20:43] <cjwatson> each source package maps to one or more binary packages
[20:44] <cjwatson> and when you type apt-get source or equivalent, you always get a source package - there's no such thing as independent source for just one of the binary packages in a multi-binary source package, it's meaningless
[20:51] <exodus> cjwatson, thanks, I was just playing around with metapackages and I noticed this
[20:52] <exodus> cjwatson, downloading them actually gave me a better overview of how the source and each package that is generated from them work
[20:52] <exodus> cjwatson, like how several packages come from the same source, but generate different .deb files (which obviously go back to the same source)
[20:52] <jtaylor> pabelanger: do you know why its disabled in debian?
[20:53] <exodus> It's pretty interesting stuff
[20:53] <exodus> thanks cjwatson & micahg
[20:57] <pabelanger> jtaylor: no, I will have to ask
[21:21] <pabelanger> jtaylor, will have to wait for another day, getting ld errors using the new syntax