[08:55] <ral> With debian in freeze, what is the best way to get an updated package (new upstream version) into ubuntu? Upload to experimental and request a pull?
[09:26] <Adri2000> ral: yes, that works
[09:48] <ral> Adri2000: Ok, thanks.
[09:48] <didrocks> nhandler: TheMuso: hey! it seems that I expired from the ubuntu sponsors team, can you please add me back? :)
[18:28] <sao> Hey all. I am currently trying to get a package done for Diodon a clipboard manager for the official Ubuntu repository. See here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/808464 for details. Is there anyone being interested to possibly sponsor this package?
[20:17] <alo21> hi everybody... I have a package to patch, which hasn't a patch system. This patch should go to debian/upstream. Which patch system do I use?
[20:19] <micahg> alo21: none
[20:19] <micahg> is it not source format 3.0 (quilt)?
[20:19] <alo21> micahg, 1.0
[20:20] <alo21> micahg, how can I create a patch without a patch system?
[20:21] <micahg> debdiff?
[20:22] <alo21> micahg, this is the bug which I am fixing. As you can see in the last comment, I have to create a patch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux/+bug/1095521
[20:25] <micahg> alo21: umm, he's wrong :), you did it correctly
[20:25] <micahg> as a general rule, we don't add a patch system on top of Debian, and previous "upstream" changes didn't do that, so I don't see why you should start
[20:27] <alo21> micahg, well... you could expose your idea (if you want) posting a comment in the bug report. In this way everybody can clear its own mind, and do what should be done in this case.
[20:28] <micahg> alo21: can you please be a little more verbose in your changelog as to what you're fixing?
[20:29] <micahg> normally with a patch, you'd have dep-3 headers to help with that, with inline patching, you just have the changelog, so it's good to be verbose enough so that the next person who merges from Debian understands what was done and why so it isn't dropped
[20:31] <alo21> micahg, oh.. OK. I thought that is enough put LP bug-code. Do you think is better if I edit the patch a while?
[20:33] <micahg> alo21: umm...well, it's easier if everything is in the changelog, the bug reference is so that the bug is closed on upload, the changelog is so that people working on the package can see what's changed
[20:39] <alo21> micahg, do you think this entry is OK: Nofail and iversion are options itself, not continuation of 'keybits' (LP: #1095521)  ?
[20:39] <micahg> alo21: I'd reference the file changed as well
[20:41] <alo21> micahg, Nofail and iversion are options itself, not continuation of 'keybits'  in mount/mount.8 (LP: #1095521)  ?
[20:41] <alo21> micahg, even if I think is too long
[20:42] <alo21> it is 101.. I try to cut something and reduce the entry in max 80 characters
[20:42] <micahg> alo21: use multiple lines :)
[20:42] <alo21> whit '/'?
[20:43] <alo21> with*
[20:44] <micahg> alo21: hrm?  no, just go down to a new line and indent properly
[21:15] <alo21> micahg, I am applying the debdiff to know if it works well... But it takes a lot of time. Is it normal?
[21:53] <lfaraone> Is there a term for the "If you don't fix X then I'm switching to Gentoo" rhethoric that is common in bug reports?
[21:54] <broder> brinkmanship
[21:56] <lfaraone> I mean, my mental response is "let me know how that works out for you."
[22:00]  * ajmitch would be more than happy to see such people try something else
[22:50] <micahg> lfaraone: yeah, people have said much worse
[22:50] <micahg> lfaraone: is it something worth fixing?