[04:37] <persia> So, I'm out of practice.  Is there a convenient way to discover all my workitems now that UDS is complete?
[05:54] <MestreLion> I'm creating very simple, "hello world" style project, for learning purposes. I'd like to use git, git-buildpackage, pristine-tar, etc. All packaging tutorials assume I will have a tarball to start, so what is the best way, using those tools, to create my 1.0 tarball?
[05:56] <MestreLion> should my Makefile do that in a "dist" target, or it is better to use some git-related tools for that?
[05:58] <MestreLion> I'm creating very simple, "hello world" style project, for learning purposes. I'd like to use git, git-buildpackage, pristine-tar, etc. All packaging tutorials assume I will have a tarball to start, so what is the best way, using those tools, to create my 1.0 tarball? should my Makefile do that in a "dist" target, or it is better to use some git-related tools for that?
[05:59] <MestreLion> oops, sorry for repost
[06:00] <persia> MestreLion: I don't know that workflow particularly well, but I'd suggest tagging your release in git, and then using git-archive to generate the tarball.  Someone with more experience doing this may have better suggestions.  You may find it convenient to put some of the commands to make this happen in your dist target, to ensure the solution you have selected is well documented and repeatable.
[06:01] <MestreLion> persia: is it ok to use git-archive in a Makefile?
[06:03] <persia> If you're willing to assert that it is required to build the source artefact, which means that anyone generating the artifact must have it installed.
[06:04] <persia> I wouldn't recommend having it required for the default target, or any build targets, because some folk (including Ubuntu) prefer to build with no network access.
[06:05] <persia> You might also want to try asking in different fora: lots of folks usually here are recovering from UDS last week, and many typically consume tarballs, rather than generating them.
[06:09] <MestreLion> ok persia, thanks :)
[14:57] <cariveri> Hi there. How would I start to develope on ubuntu, say the unity bar/interface ?
[15:05] <cariveri> Alright. found it myself. thanks any way. keep it up!
[18:31] <lfaraone>  /msg laney I didn't get an invoice for an amohnt this month, did you?
[18:32]  * Laney giggles
[18:32] <Laney> lfaraone: no, seems not
[18:33] <ajmitch> heh
[18:35] <lfaraone> Oops.
[18:35] <lfaraone> Welllllll nothing private, that's what I sent you in the channel earlier :P
[18:35] <lfaraone> Should we assume they just are doing this until they tell us otherwise?
[18:37] <Laney> you'll run the risk of being surprised with a bill
[18:38]  * ajmitch never likes to be surprised with those
[23:34] <slangasek> cjwatson: hey, so I'm working on kernel autoremoval and I find that the kernel metapackages are all in section 'metapackages'... which means all their direct dependencies are marked as not-for-autoremoval.  This is obviously the wrong result here, but I'm wondering if you know any reason why the kernel packages were in metapackages?