[03:59] <mfisch> I'm working on a bug that affects lightdm (ubuntu) and "precise", so I assign both of them to myself?
[03:59] <mfisch> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lightdm/+bug/887316
[04:00] <mfisch> I don't understand the purpose of the 2nd piece of the bug "Precise - Confirmed - etc"
[04:55] <TheLordOfTime> mfisch, because it could be fixed in Quantal before Precise
[04:55] <TheLordOfTime> since Precise needs most bugs SRU'd to get them updated in those repos
[06:34] <dholbach> good morning
[08:35] <Laney> hey
[08:35] <Laney> dholbach: I got my webcam ;-)
[08:36] <Laney> comes with a stupidly short cable though, so it won't actually reach from the monitor to the USB port
[08:43] <MCR1> Hey all: I need a volunteer to help with bug 968112
[08:44] <MCR1> Probably it was not packaged anymore, because standard compilation procedure did not work anymore in Precise.
[08:45] <MCR1> I added all info to the description of the bug.
[08:45] <MCR1> Is there anything more I can do to get this packaged again ?
[08:46] <MCR1> (it is not for me as I know how to get it to work locally, but it should be available for the average user as well as it is a regression for everyone who was happy with Emerald before Precise)
[08:58] <dholbach> Laney, yeehaw
[09:54] <mitya57> hey dholbach, did you see my packaging guide branch? are you ok with such a big diff or should I split it into separate per-change merge proposals?
[09:55] <dholbach> mitya57, to be honest I didn't have a chance to look into it yet
[09:55] <dholbach> I got the mail, but got entangled in a few other things
[09:56] <mitya57> dholbach: nothing urgent, so please let me know if i should split it ;)
[09:56] <dholbach> will do
[09:56] <dholbach> thanks a lot mitya57 for your work on it!
[11:10] <Laney> siretart: can you check https://launchpadlibrarian.net/119785886/buildlog_ubuntu-quantal-amd64.handbrake_0.9.8%2Bdfsg1-1~19.gbpc8b9ba~ubuntu12.10_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz please?
[11:16] <siretart> Laney: smells like upstream should have a serious look at this issue
[11:16] <Laney> sure does
[11:17] <siretart> ../libhb/decavcodec.c:1488:17: warning: implicit declaration of function 'av_audio_convert_alloc' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
[11:17] <siretart> i suspect that handbrake misses some #include statement to fix this
[11:20] <siretart> Laney: what ppa is that? I persume you tried to import the debian package to ubuntu?
[11:20] <Laney> siretart: no ppa, quantal-backports
[11:22] <siretart> err, and where is this package backported from? development of the r-series hasn't started yet afaiui
[11:22] <Laney> correct, it's an new thing
[11:26] <siretart> ah, i see. you directly uploaded it directly. I wasn't aware that this was covered by the current backporters policy.
[11:27] <Laney> yeah, backporters started a new policy of uploading stuff directly there during freeze
[11:28] <siretart> Laney: where are those policies discussed these days?
[11:28] <Laney> siretart: I think we talked about it in here and at UDS, and then it was taken to the TB so on their mailing list and in an IRC meeting
[11:29] <Laney> it is true that we haven't announced it yet
[11:29] <Laney> it's still a bit experimental
[11:30] <siretart> Laney: ok. well, technically I'm still a member of that team, admittedly, I wasn't very active lately, but I'm working on that.
[11:30] <Laney> fair enough
[11:30] <Laney> we'd definitely welcome more active members
[11:30] <siretart> so I'd really appreciate if https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports could be kept up-to-date
[11:30] <Laney> everyone is quite busy, as usual
[11:31] <Laney> yeah i expect to communicate it quite soon hopefully
[11:31] <siretart> thanks
[11:31] <siretart> as for the warning, it also applies to debian, so it should definitly be filed as a bug
[11:31] <siretart> can you do that?
[11:32] <siretart> the handbrake package in debian is currently in experimental for a reason. for ubuntu, john stebbins provides wonderfully working packages
[11:33] <siretart> while functional, they are unfortunately not really appropriate for the main archive :(
[11:52] <Zhenech> does ubuntu have a public lintian host like lintian.d.o?
[11:52] <cjwatson> lintian.ubuntuwire.org
[11:52] <Zhenech> ah ubuntuwire, thanks!
[18:22] <TheLordOfTime> any MOTU around?
[18:44] <mfisch> TheLordOfTime: thanks for the answer last night
[18:44] <TheLordOfTime> hm?  remind me which answer where...?
[18:45]  * TheLordOfTime yawns
[18:45] <TheLordOfTime> anyways, i know jbicha's alive, but MOTU questions exist now.  in the nginx package in Precise, in Universe, 1.1.19 is pretty broken
[18:45] <TheLordOfTime> segfaulty, its got misconfigurations, etc.
[18:46] <TheLordOfTime> the nginx team on their mailing list is basically not supporting 1.1.19, some of the upstream are asking whether we can upgrade the precise versino in the  repos to something more recent
[18:46] <TheLordOfTime> correct me if i'm wrong, but that's frowned upon, right?
[18:46] <mfisch> TheLordOfTime: it was a question about bug reports
[18:46] <TheLordOfTime> mfisch, ah
[18:46] <TheLordOfTime> mfisch, bug reports are awsum :p
[18:47] <mfisch> Sleep was awesomer which is why I missed your answer until this morning
[18:47]  * TheLordOfTime yawns
[18:47] <TheLordOfTime> i probably forgot giving the answer to a question... *checks*
[18:47] <TheLordOfTime> this was... about when?
[18:47]  * TheLordOfTime yawns again
[18:48] <TheLordOfTime> urgh, coffee is needed :/
[18:48] <mfisch> TheLordOfTime: last night, about 14 hours ago, but it's not a big deal
[18:48] <TheLordOfTime> i'm curious now :/
[18:48] <mfisch> TheLordOfTime> 22:55:28> mfisch, because it could be fixed in Quantal before Precise
[18:49] <mfisch> Shouldn't a time lord have a handle on when he did certain things?
[18:49] <TheLordOfTime> mfisch, not when he's sleep deprived :p
[18:49]  * TheLordOfTime hasnt had decent sleep in 3 days
[19:02] <TheLordOfTime> now, i still need an answer about that nginx thing
[19:22] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: if 1.1.9 is totally broke, an SRU of 1.2.0 could be entertained
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, its significantly broke.  a crucial command, try_files, which basically tells nginx "Try [this file] and then [this file] and then [this file], and if all else fails, try [final file], then error out." is somewhat broken
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> there's other errors too apparently
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> and the nginx mailing list says "yeah, upgrade to fix that.  kthxbai."
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> (basically)
[19:23] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: if it's one bug or a few, a cherry pick is preferred, if the current version is unusable, then a new version might make more sense
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> i'd have to dig around for 1.2.0, not sure if i can even find taht anymore
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, that's what i told them :p
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> its *usable*, but just barely
[19:24] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: well, once you're jumping versions, might as well backport from quantal
[19:24] <TheLordOfTime> mhm
[19:24] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: if it's usable, maybe an actual backport is better (though would be nice to fix the bugs)
[19:24] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, i'm in agreement on both points
[19:25] <TheLordOfTime> but that's not my call, i'm not the maintainer for nginx, just one of its triagers.  that, and i cant exactly test every package produced by nginx
[19:25] <TheLordOfTime> (in the backport tests)
[19:25] <micahg> Ubuntu doesn't have maintainers
[19:25] <micahg> :)
[19:26] <TheLordOfTime> :P
[19:32] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, is there  a way to see what uploads have been sponsored for me?  throughout history, not just pending.
[19:32] <TheLordOfTime> (since i'd know what's pending :P)
[19:32] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi
[19:33] <TheLordOfTime> thanks
[19:34] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, can you set what a bug applies to (release-wise)?  because there's an nginx bug that affects precise, but afaict does not affect Quantal
[19:35] <TheLordOfTime> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nginx/+bug/1065555  <-- this one needs set against Precise
[19:36] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: nominate for series
[19:36] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: task added, feel free to clean it up
[19:36] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, that bug there is also one of the main 'broken' ones
[19:37] <TheLordOfTime> thanks.  also, that bug is what prompted upstream's request for version bumping, although i could easily cherrypick the changes to fix it
[19:37] <TheLordOfTime> *shrugs*
[19:42] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, i'm going to cherrypick the fix, since its a one-liner
[19:48] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, i assume there's an additional group you'd need to set the series nomination without waiting for approval?
[19:48] <TheLordOfTime> (bugcontrol can't just "do that")
[19:48] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: uploaders or release-drivers
[19:49] <TheLordOfTime> thought so
[20:01] <rigid> i'm trying to build a .deb for my gtk+2.0 project but the binary isn't included (despite "make install" normally installs it into /usr/bin) ... the .deb just contains CONTENTS/usr/share/doc/... did I run into a common pitfall?
[20:01] <rigid> any hints appreciated
[20:09] <rigid> the /tmp directory correctly contains all the necessary files
[20:09] <micahg> ahasenack: is landscape-client the only landscape related package inthe archive?
[20:09] <micahg> (moved here since the TB meeting is imminent)
[20:09] <ahasenack> micahg: source, yes, but there are more binaries
[20:10] <micahg> ahasenack: right, was just wondering if we needed a packageset or not...
[20:10] <micahg> that's fine
[20:10] <ahasenack> micahg: ok
[20:10] <rigid> i use "dh_make --createorig --single && dpkg-buildpackage -b" to build the .deb (i could paste the whole script & debian/ directory if necessary)
[20:12] <rigid> they don't throw any errors btw. and the same method works fine for other packages
[20:12] <rigid> ...but I guess this is not so common :)
[21:04] <rigid> is there a way to find out how ubuntu packages are created? e.g. how gcalctool 6.6.0-0ubuntu1_i386.deb was created?
[21:04] <TheLordOfTime> download the source package and look through it?  a lot of Ubuntu packages are synced from Debian
[21:05] <TheLordOfTime> or based off of Debian versions
[21:06] <micahg> rigid: pull-lp-source gcalctool 6.6.0-0ubuntu1
[21:07] <rigid> ah
[21:07] <rigid> TheLordOfTime: micahg thank you
[21:08] <rigid> hm... but that doesn't contain the dpkg-buildpackage/pbuilder command used to create the .deb, does it?
[21:08] <micahg> rigid: archive packages are built with a hacked version of sbuild
[21:09] <rigid> hm... that doesn't help much :) but thanks anyway
[21:09] <micahg> should just be debuild -b on i386 or debuild -B on amd64 (or something similar)
[21:09] <TheLordOfTime> or read the pbuilder manpages to learn how to use pbuilder
[21:09] <TheLordOfTime> (no offense, had to say it)
[21:10] <rigid> i tried that before. currently i'm using dpkg-buildpackage but always the same error... I guess the error is in my configure.ac
[21:10] <rigid> I didn't try pbuilder, tho...
[21:10] <micahg> well, learning pbuilder won't help you understand how the in-archive packages are made
[21:10] <micahg> it's a decent substitute most of the time though
[21:11] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, true.
[21:11] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, speaking of archives, is there any difference between Dev Membership Board application process, and the process to get per-package rights for a universe package? (I assume not)
[21:12] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: umm, not sure what you mean by "Dev Membership Board application process"
[21:12] <TheLordOfTime> one moment
[21:12] <TheLordOfTime> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#PerPackage  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess
[21:12] <TheLordOfTime> i assume that covers PPU rights for universe packages as well?
[21:13] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: pretty much
[21:49] <TheLordOfTime> (resend due to a send queue flush) micahg:  when we update a package with ubuntu only changes, from the Debian revision number, does it become -1ubuntu0, or -1ubuntu1 ?
[21:50] <TheLordOfTime> (SRUs)
[21:55] <ScottK> There's no set rule.
[21:56] <ScottK> I would do -1ubuntu0.1
[21:56] <slangasek> there's a strong guideline though, in the form of the security team's versioning scheme which is linked from the SRU wiki page
[21:58] <TheLordOfTime> ah there we go, ScottK's right on that
[21:58] <ScottK> Right, the suggestion wasn't random.
[21:59] <TheLordOfTime> who gets the sponsoring purview, MOTU or the normal sponsors team?  since the nginx package is considered universe
[21:59] <ScottK> There's only one sponsoring team.
[22:00] <ScottK> For universe/main combined.
[22:00] <ScottK> (subscribe ubuntu-sponsors and ubuntu-sru to the bug)
[22:01] <TheLordOfTime> will do.  one last question, this always shows up...
[22:01] <TheLordOfTime> how to resolve this: dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-source -b nginx-1.1.19 gave error exit status 255
[22:01] <TheLordOfTime> erm
[22:01] <TheLordOfTime> wrong line one sec
[22:02] <TheLordOfTime> dpkg-source: error: Version number suggests Ubuntu changes, but Maintainer: does not have Ubuntu address  <-- that
[22:02] <TheLordOfTime> ... nevermind
[22:12] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK:  should I subscribe both sponsors and SRU to the bug simultaneously, or should I wait for sponsors to handle the queuing of the upload first?
[22:12] <ScottK> Both.
[22:17] <TheLordOfTime> done :)
[22:18] <TheLordOfTime> now if only my networking card were more stable