[07:07] <bkerensa> cjwatson: libvideo-frequencies-perl  ;)
[11:30] <cjwatson> bkerensa: que?
[11:41] <geser> Laney: do you know if we can sync haskell-conduit from experimental as haskell-network-conduit is in depwait on that version?
[11:43] <Laney> geser: no I don't know about that specifically I'm afraid
[11:43] <Laney> I had hoped to start the transition in earnest over the holidays but it turned out that I didn't have much time for that stuff
[11:47] <geser> ah, I once looked at it (if it builds) but it also needs a merge of haskell-devscripts
[11:47] <Laney> probably so
[11:48] <Laney> iulian: would you have any time to help on this?
[15:38] <aboudreault> hey, does anyone know what's the error? https://launchpadlibrarian.net/127508146/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-amd64.libxml2_2.8.0%2Bdfsg1-5ubuntu2.2~lucid1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[15:38] <aboudreault> The same package build properly in pbuilder.
[15:48] <geser> did you pbuilder used the same debhelper package like it was used in the PPA (8.9.0ubuntu1~ppa1~lucid4 from the ubuntugis-unstable PPA)
[15:50] <aboudreault> guess not. the building machine is a latest.
[15:50] <aboudreault> geser, we try a override_dh_prep now..
[15:52] <aboudreault> geser, oh, well... yes the debhelper is supposed to be the same since we build in the same distribution inside a pbuilder
[15:54] <geser> aboudreault: I asked because I noticed a "T" at the end of each dh call in your log (and I don't remember seeing this normally)
[15:56] <aboudreault> emm... that's right
[15:56] <aboudreault> /bin/rm: cannot remove `libtoolT': No such file or directory
[15:57] <aboudreault> strange.. will check this
[15:58] <aboudreault> geser, but there is no T at all when building with pbuilder lucid ...
[15:59] <geser> hmm, strange
[16:06] <geser> aboudreault: dh $@ T (from your debian/rules)
[16:06] <geser> what does/should do the "T" do there?
[16:08] <aboudreault> good question.
[16:08] <aboudreault> will point it to my coworker.
[16:14] <geser> aboudreault: and the reason why it build in your pbuilder is the same why it build in your PPA for i386 and not amd64: pbuilder and the i386 use by default the "binary" target (build both binary-arch and binary-indep) while the amd64 buildd uses "binary-arch"
[16:14] <aboudreault> ah. I see. Thanks for the info
[16:14] <geser> you should be able to reproduce it with specifing "--binary-arch" to your pbuilder call
[17:46] <achiang> any pilots around? i'm poking about bug #1093511
[19:13] <TAsn> From #ubuntu: (who sent me here as MOTU is the maintainer of the relevant packages)
[19:13] <TAsn> Hey guys. What should I do to get a package off the ubuntu repos? I work on e17 and ubuntu has a 3 year old package in it's repos. This is very annoying as  users think badly of e17 because of it (it was an early dev version). I would like that if possible this package will be removed altogether or upgraded to  the stable release, but what should I do in order to achieve that?
[19:16] <TAsn> that and all the relevant supporting libs (evas, eina and etc)
[19:16] <TheLordOfTime> TAsn, getting it upgraded in Debian might be where you need to start - afaict its being pulled form sid (aka "unstable") into the ubuntu repositories.
[19:16] <TAsn> it is upgraded in debian
[19:16] <TheLordOfTime> note I"m not a MOTU, i'm just going by what i see on the packages on here: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/e17
[19:16] <TAsn> I mean
[19:16] <TheLordOfTime> TAsn, not in unstable?
[19:16] <TAsn> getting upgraded
[19:17] <TheLordOfTime> probably post-freeze.
[19:17] <TAsn> the problem is old repos
[19:17] <TAsn> 12.04 and etc
[19:17] <TheLordOfTime> (i think debian's still under freeze)
[19:17] <TAsn> we want them removed
[19:17] <TAsn> TheLordOfTime, the link you provided is too old.
[19:17] <ScottK> TheLordOfTime: Itis.
[19:17] <TheLordOfTime> TAsn, the link I provided is live data from launchpad
[19:17] <TheLordOfTime> it doesn't track Debian
[19:17] <TAsn> sure
[19:18] <TheLordOfTime> that's whats in the repos now, expand one of the packages you'll see its pulled in from sid.
[19:18] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK, MOTU?
[19:18] <TAsn> TheLordOfTime, and that's old
[19:18] <TheLordOfTime> (you're everywhere, hence me asking)
[19:18] <TheLordOfTime> TAsn, you said that three times already
[19:18] <TAsn> and people using older ubuntu get older versions
[19:18] <TAsn> and we would like that removed
[19:19] <ScottK> TAsn: How about getting it updated?
[19:19] <ScottK> Wouldn't that be better?
[19:19] <TAsn> it won't be updated in old ubuntus, won't it?
[19:20] <TAsn> no features policy and etc
[19:20] <TAsn> no?
[19:20] <ScottK> No.  It also won't be removed.
[19:20] <ScottK> We don't do post release removals.
[19:20] <ScottK> I can remove it from the development release, but that's all I can do.
[19:20] <TAsn> that's just frustrating
[19:20] <TAsn> ScottK, nah, that's alright, thanks.
[19:20] <ScottK> Once it's updated in the development release, we could backport the newer one.
[19:21] <ScottK> Then you could at least say "Oh, install the update in backports)
[19:21] <TAsn> yeah
[19:21] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK, it'd have to be upgraded in Sid, at least in experimental, no?
[19:21] <TheLordOfTime> and then sync'd to $latestdev
[19:21] <TheLordOfTime> ?
[19:21] <ScottK> TheLordOfTime: Or we do a direct upload.
[19:21] <TAsn> it's being updated in unstable atm iirc
[19:21] <TAsn> or maybe experimental
[19:21] <TheLordOfTime> TAsn, not while debian's under freeze it likely won't be
[19:22] <ScottK> If it's being updated in Unstable/experimental, then we can sync that.
[19:22] <TAsn> ScottK, the thing is, that as I said, the current version is a very old development snapshot
[19:22] <TAsn> that is just broken
[19:22] <TAsn> we get a lot of users that install that
[19:22] <TAsn> instead from our ppa
[19:22] <TAsn> it's very frustrating
[19:22] <ScottK> Sure.
[19:22] <TAsn> and because there's a package
[19:22] <TAsn> they think it's alright
[19:22] <TheLordOfTime> TAsn, the nginx team has the same issue
[19:22] <TheLordOfTime> but we can't do a single thing about it
[19:22] <TAsn> as ubuntu/debian usually don't package dev snapshot
[19:23] <ScottK> Sure you can.
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> so we say "screw it" and tell people to use the PPA when they stop in #nginx (we keep $latestdev synced with Debian as much as possible)
[19:23] <TAsn> so they don't even try the ppa
[19:23] <ScottK> You can get involved in Ubuntu development and make sure the stuff in the repos is up to date/working.
[19:23] <TAsn> they either complain in our support chan
[19:23] <TAsn> ScottK, I'm not an ubuntu user myself
[19:23] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK, i could, but CBA to repackage things when i'm busy fixing things :p
[19:23] <TAsn> I'm just sick of users bein mislead
[19:23] <TAsn> or more correctly
[19:23] <ScottK> TAsn: Sure.
[19:23] <TAsn> users misleading themselves. :)
[19:24] <ScottK> Is there someone on the e17 team that is?
[19:24] <TAsn> a user?
[19:24] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK, speaking of which, PPU rights, how often are those requests addressed/handled?
[19:24] <ScottK> An Ubunt person.
[19:24] <TAsn> Some lazy ones, I'm sure.
[19:24] <TAsn> yeah
[19:24] <TheLordOfTime> TAsn, upstream, as in devs/packagers i think is what ScottK meant.
[19:24] <TAsn> but the fact that I'm here
[19:24] <TAsn> and they are not
[19:24] <TAsn> means that they are too lazy too bother
[19:24] <ScottK> Right.
[19:25] <TAsn> I have a box with ubuntu 12.04 on it though
[19:25] <TAsn> somewhere
[19:25] <ScottK> Perhaps the person maintaining the PPA could get some sponsored uploads and the apply for per-package uploader rights for e17?
[19:25] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: PPU upload rights are process fortnightly at the Developer Membership Board meeting (2 applicants per meeting max)
[19:25] <TAsn> what does that even mean? I.e what should be done?
[19:26] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, thanks.
[19:26] <micahg> as for backports, I've been trying to keep up with the recent requests, I haven't dug into the backlog yet
[19:26] <ScottK> Whoever is doing the PPA would also prepare an upload for Ubuntu and then file a bug with a link to the .dsc and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors
[19:26] <TAsn> And what are those ubuntu-sponsors?
[19:27] <ScottK> It's a team of Ubuntu devs that review requests by non-developers for package uploads
[19:27] <TAsn> ScottK, and also, just to have it sorted in my head: what can be done with the old ubuntu versions? 10.04-13.04? I.e ones that ship the old version?
[19:27] <ScottK> They then also tend to be the ones who will advocate for someone being ready for direct upload rights since they've seen their work.
[19:28] <ScottK> 13.04 is the development version.
[19:28] <ScottK> We can still update that freely.
[19:28] <TAsn> Ah, cool.
[19:28] <ScottK> Once that's done, we can backport the new package to 10.04 - 12.10.
[19:28] <TAsn> ScottK, OK. Will ask in our mailing list for volunteers.
[19:28] <ScottK> So that users of those releases can install it from backports.
[19:28] <TAsn> Thanks a lot.
[19:29] <TAsn> ScottK, and there's no way to remove the old packages from the repos, right?
[19:29] <ScottK> That's correct.
[19:29] <TAsn> Thank you.
[19:54] <TAsn> ScottK, talked to someone, will be done soon. Thanks a lot.
[19:54] <TAsn> later
[19:54] <ScottK> You're welcome.
[20:47] <jbicha> here's a weird problem: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=697158