[07:04] <dholbach> good morning
[07:37] <bkerensa> dholbach: so uhh one of the bug initiative packages does not have a depends line
[07:38] <dholbach> bkerensa, that happens - in that case just add it
[07:38] <bkerensa> dholbach: uhh ok then
[07:54] <iulian> Laney: Everyone calls me Julian, even my family. But, the name Iulian is pronounced you-lee-an with a strong 'a', similar to the letter 'r'.
[07:54] <iulian> Morning dholbach.
[08:13] <bkerensa> dholbach: Could I pardon you for a PM?
[08:14] <dholbach> sure
[09:54] <lifeless> rly
[09:54] <lifeless> bah
[10:13] <Laney> what's the host for the lintian lab?
[10:13] <Laney> tumbleweed: do you remember?
[10:14] <Zhenech> Laney, lintian.d.o? :)
[10:14] <Laney> Zhenech: doesn't help me grep for X-Ubuntu-Use-Langpack :P
[10:14] <Zhenech> or do you have your own?
[10:15] <Laney> yes
[10:15] <Zhenech> ah
[10:19] <geser> Laney: how about "lintian.ubuntuwire.org"? :)
[10:20] <Laney> geser: that's syklone somehow, which isn't it
[10:21] <geser> we have a second lintian somewhere?
[10:21] <Laney> it must mirror or proxy its output
[10:32] <Laney> nm, found it
[10:36] <Laney> I could have sworn it was supposed to have unpacked source
[10:58] <tumbleweed> Laney: erm, yes, I thought so
[10:58] <Laney> tumbleweed: can you find it?
[10:59] <Laney> I thought it at least had control files, which is what I want here
[11:01] <tumbleweed> wow, I remembered the hostname
[11:03] <Laney> all I remembered is that it was something weird
[11:04] <tumbleweed> seems like it has full sources
[11:04] <Laney> unpacked? where?
[11:04] <Laney> I see dsc .debian.tar.gz .orig.tar.gz
[11:06] <tumbleweed> unpacked/binaries/data ?
[11:06]  * tumbleweed doesn't really know his way around lintian labs
[11:06] <Laney> unpacked?
[11:06]  * Laney is lost
[11:06] <Laney> I'm in /srv/lintian/laboratory/quantal/pool/x/xmonad
[11:07] <tumbleweed> oh
[11:08] <tumbleweed> I was in 0ad-data
[11:08] <Laney> oh yes
[11:08] <Laney> creepy
[11:08] <tumbleweed> something broken?
[11:09] <cjwatson> there should be an unpacked directory up a few levels, yeah
[11:10] <cjwatson> err possibly per-package
[11:11] <Laney> can't see it
[11:11] <tumbleweed> the xmonad source package only has symlinks to the source package
[11:11] <tumbleweed> it hasn't been unpacked for some reason
[11:11] <tumbleweed> (at all)
[11:13] <cjwatson> mm, on lintian.d.o:
[11:13] <cjwatson> cjwatson@lilburn:/srv/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/pool/x/xmonad$ ls
[11:13] <cjwatson> libghc-xmonad-dev_0.10-4+b2_i386_binary   xmonad_0.10-4+b2_i386_binary
[11:13] <cjwatson> libghc-xmonad-doc_0.10-4_all_binary       xmonad_0.10-4_source
[11:13] <cjwatson> libghc-xmonad-prof_0.10-4+b2_i386_binary
[11:14] <Laney> is it unpacked inside _source?
[11:14] <cjwatson> there's *_binary/control/ with binary control files, and *_source/debfiles/ which is a copy of debian/
[11:15] <Laney> yep, some packages on our one have that
[11:15] <Laney> but a lot do not
[11:15] <Laney> http://lintian.ubuntuwire.org/quantal/full/pkg-haskell-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org.html#xmonad however it does have output
[11:16] <cjwatson> must've been cleaned up
[11:17] <Laney> most unfortunate
[11:18] <Laney> I wanted to find out what was affected by https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1048556
[11:19] <Laney> X-Ubuntu-Use-Langpack: yes in control
[12:43] <marga> Hey.  I've submitted a debdiff to launchpad, ubuntu-sponsors is subscribed to the bug, so I'm waiting for sponsorship of the change... How long does it usually take?  Is there anything extra I should do to make it go faster?
[12:44] <tumbleweed> marga: you can see some graphs on the sponsorship queue page http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/
[12:45] <geser> marga: you could try if some bribery works to speed it up :)
[12:45] <marga> tumbleweed, ok, I see it.
[12:45] <marga> geser, what kind of bribery?
[12:46] <marga> I actually work for a paying customer of Canonical... But I dislike going through the bureaucracy related to that.
[12:47] <geser> marga: depends on your sponsor, but it's usually fast enough even without bribery (was just joking)
[12:47] <tumbleweed> cookies, beer, whisky, fixing RC bugs - all work well :)
[12:48] <marga> Ok, I'll just wait then.  Hopefully it won't take too long.
[12:48] <tumbleweed> you can ask on IRC if you're in a hurry. But generally, things takea week or two
[12:51] <tumbleweed> marga: your debdiff seems to be against the backports version, but there is also the release pocket
[12:51]  * tumbleweed has no idea how the backports team is going to deal with this :)
[12:52] <geser> tumbleweed: it's correct in this specific case as myunity isn't in quantal anymore
[12:52] <tumbleweed> yes
[12:53] <tumbleweed> but we also need an SRU
[12:53] <marga> I'm happy to do it against any other version.
[12:53] <marga> From what I gathered last week I though precise-backports was the correct one.
[12:54] <tumbleweed> some users will be using the version in precise, some in precise-backports
[12:54] <cjwatson> I suggest ". /etc/lsb-release" rather than "source /etc/lsb-release", since "source" is a bashism
[12:54] <marga> cjwatson, ok.
[12:54] <cjwatson> pure drive-by though
[12:54] <marga> cjwatson, ok, will change it, thanks :)
[15:22]  * tumbleweed wonders if bug 1055435 is a good pre-release backport candidate (haven't looked at it in detail)
[15:23] <Laney> I saw that, wondered who was going to maintain it, and closed the bug
[15:23] <Laney> s/bug/tab/ to be less ambiguous
[15:24] <tumbleweed> the guy who proposed it does care
[15:24] <tumbleweed> (and I can twist his arm into caring more)
[15:25] <Laney> doesn't appear to be him that created the package though
[15:25] <tumbleweed> yeah, I hope he had a good look at it
[15:31] <micahg> tumbleweed: Laney: at this stage of the game IMHO, backports is better since we can easily delete something from backports post release (also, as seen with myunity, people might not want to continuously port stuff forward)
[15:31] <Laney> Well it automatically gets promoted to the next release, so ...
[15:32] <micahg> right, but if there are bugs reported and/or it fails to build in the following release's test build, it'll get removed
[15:32] <micahg> *RC bugs reported and not fixed
[15:33] <Laney> I don't see how that's any different to what would happen if it were in the release proper
[15:33] <Laney> either it works now in Q or it doesn't
[15:34] <Laney> now I do think it would be fine to put it in backports, but it doesn't change my usual concerns about ubuntu-local packages at all
[15:35] <Laney> if you want the other semantics, well, use extras
[15:36] <tumbleweed> as something unity-specific, there's no escaping ubuntu-local, as much as we dislike it
[15:36] <Laney> not saying there is
[15:37] <Laney> you need to be sure that there is a person who will look out for it
[15:37] <Laney> like, we'd expect them to be coming up for PPU before very long
[15:37] <micahg> Laney: in the release proper, we can't delete post release
[15:37] <Laney> so?
[15:37] <Laney> It's not very likely to stop working post release
[15:38] <micahg> so, if it's found to be RC buggy after release, we're stuck with it
[15:38] <Laney> I don't find that a very good argument in favour of backports: "it's where you can put your crap software, because we're not stuck with it there"
[15:39] <micahg> no, I'm just saying at this stage of the game (post FF, 4 weeks out from release) that backports is a safer bet in general that the release pocket
[15:39] <Laney> we should be assuming that pre-release backports will continue to live on in the distro
[15:39] <micahg> yes, of course
[15:39] <micahg> I'm not saying backports is a dumping ground, but rather we do have more flexibility there just in case
[15:40] <tumbleweed> we should re-define the new policy process - say that we expect bug subscribers, and the expectation of (future) upload rights for the proposer
[15:40] <tumbleweed> s/new policy/new package policy/
[15:41] <micahg> bug subscription, yes, PPU, I wouldn't mandate that
[15:41] <Laney> but nobody ever checks on these things
[15:41] <micahg> intention to provide sponsored updates, yes
[15:42] <micahg> Laney: sounds like we have a topic for the next MOTU meeting :)
[15:42] <tumbleweed> oops minutes
[15:42]  * tumbleweed writes two sets of minutes
[15:43] <Laney> hours
[15:43] <micahg> hours can be days
[15:44] <Laney> Centuries of the Developer Membership Board Meeting, 2012-09-24
[15:49] <highvoltage> Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our MOTUs