[00:00] <micahg> debfx: were you going to fix testdrive for the virtualbox binary rename?
[01:57] <ESphynx> I'm late for the FF :( but after being awake for over 30 hours I think I need to resume tomorrow :(
[02:03] <micahg> ESphynx: you can still get it in if you ask the release team nicely :)), I thought you were targeting the beginning of the week though
[02:15] <micahg> debfx: nevermind, infinity fixed testdrive
[02:31] <Unit193> micahg: Does that apply when there is a maintainer clash in Debian?  (Fun story too)
[02:31] <micahg> Unit193: hrm?
[02:32] <Unit193> Would I at least be able to get it in Ubuntu, without getting it in Debian (at least for now, until I can work things out upstream)
[02:37] <ESphynx> micahg: I was . and then the X ray machine computer at the clinic broke down. and then I fried the PSU.
[02:38] <micahg> Unit193: maybe :)
[02:39] <Unit193> micahg: Wow, I was not expecting that at all.  I've had a sponsor go over it, then at the last moment, there's a conflict in maintainer which hasn't responded.
[02:43] <bkerensa> =o
[02:43] <micahg> Unit193: which packagE?
[02:43]  * micahg waves to bkerensa 
[02:43]  * bkerensa waves
[02:45] <Unit193> micahg: inxi, very simple package too.  Packaged for debian, so has closes: #xxxx and marked for unstable, but I can change that if need be  dget http://unit193.tk/source/inxi_1.8.45-1.dsc
[02:46] <micahg> Unit193: oh, hrm, new package, well, that should be easy enough to get in once it's in Debian
[02:47] <Unit193> Ah, so it's as I thought.  (I'm working on that, but hold up as stated above.)
[02:47] <Unit193> Thanks.
[02:48] <micahg> Unit193: how long of a hold up?
[02:48] <micahg> Unit193: also keep in mind, backports are enabled by default and new packages would show up in software center
[02:50] <Unit193> micahg: Well hold up hasn't been long, just this month.  Person reassigned the old ITP to himself, noticed a little later.
[02:50] <Unit193> Thanks, I can go for that.
[02:50] <micahg> and new packages, it's just build/install/run as they shouldn't affect anything else
[02:54] <ESphynx> micahg: i'll be asking the release team nicely tomorrow evening, just a heads up :P
[02:54] <ESphynx> The PPA are all working nicely ;) just testing/fixing some last stuff and fixing a few warnings
[06:37] <stevecrozz> can someone help walk me through the code review process on launchpad? I'm being asked to review some code and I have a few questions since this is the first time I've used this code review system
[06:37] <stevecrozz> this is the merge request in question: https://code.launchpad.net/~lqs/ubuntu/precise/uwsgi/fix-for-1131314/+merge/152324
[06:38] <stevecrozz> and please do let me know if i should be asking in another place
[07:48] <dholbach> good morning
[11:54] <Laney> stevecrozz: hey, still need help?
[11:54] <Laney> stevecrozz: I think that whoever requested the upstream review there was probably mistaken; those changes are to the init script shipped in the Debian package
[11:54] <Laney> It should be the Ubuntu sponsors who review that
[14:10] <nigelb> g3
[14:10] <nigelb> grr
[14:32] <jokerdino> hey, any archive admin around? :)
[14:35] <tumbleweed> jokerdino: archive admin stuff tends to happen in #ubuntu-release
[14:36] <jokerdino> oh thanks tumbleweed.
[14:55] <mitya57> hi tumbleweed :)
[14:58]  * mitya57 is still interested in uploading pyxdg to experimental
[15:01] <tumbleweed> mitya57: ok, I'll look
[15:02] <tumbleweed> seems sane
[15:03] <tumbleweed> mitya57: what's the upstream status of those patches?
[15:04] <mitya57> tumbleweed: 3 are "not-needed", one is applied in takluyver's github repo, and he'll soon merge it
[15:04] <mitya57> no, 2 are "not-needed" and one is cherry-picked
[15:07] <tumbleweed> mitya57: you know that I'm talking about gettext-support.patc
[15:08] <mitya57> tumbleweed: it's Ubuntu-specific, but doesn't hurt Debian
[15:08] <tumbleweed> is X-GNOME-Gettext-Domain ubuntu-specific?
[15:08] <mitya57> I believe yes
[15:08] <tumbleweed> but the point is, that patch doesn't say anything about the upstream status
[15:10] <mitya57> fixed
[15:12] <tumbleweed> it seems https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=569829 is relevant
[15:13] <mitya57> but that was reported 4 years ago, and not fixed since then
[15:13] <tumbleweed> I'd mention it
[15:13] <mitya57> tumbleweed: mention in the patch description?
[15:15] <tumbleweed> yes
[15:17] <mitya57> tumbleweed: done. Actually I have to go away for ~1h now, feel free to do anything yourself or leave a message here and I'll read it when I'm back
[15:17] <mitya57> and thanks!
[16:41]  * mitya57 is back
[16:54] <lfaraone> ScottK: would it be possible to move lp #1015925 to -updates?
[16:55] <lfaraone> we've verified it works, and does not cause regressions on the older kernels
[16:55] <lfaraone> and I have no idea when the security upload for OpenAFS will get processed...
[16:55] <ScottK> lfaraone: It needs to be there 7 days and typically we don't release SRUs on Fridays in case of regressions.
[16:56] <lfaraone> ScottK: Ah, okay. So getting in the archive for Monday would be reasonable?
[16:56] <ScottK> lfaraone: If that's at least 7 days, yes.  Feel free to ping me.  How's barry's NM going?
[16:56] <lfaraone> ScottK: Reviewing his packages.
[16:57] <ScottK> Great.
[17:11] <jdstrand> lfaraone: I'm doing it today
[17:11] <lfaraone> jdstrand: oh, cool.
[17:12] <lfaraone> thanks!
[17:12] <jdstrand> lfaraone: sorry for the delay
[17:12] <jdstrand> np, thanks for the update! :)
[17:29] <micahg> jbicha: new blender up with fix for segfault, do you want to merge?
[17:31] <jbicha> micahg: already done, smartboyhw pinged me to do it as soon as I logged in today
[17:31] <micahg> jbicha: ah, so it is, sorry, I must have missed it in my morning scrolling
[17:32] <micahg> thanks
[17:32] <jbicha> yeah this version actually runs :)
[19:07] <micahg> tumbleweed: is there any good example of a python package with a build.py but no setup.py and has configure+Makefile?
[19:08]  * micahg is trying to update catfish, but is failing to get the python files installed
[22:53] <lfaraone> jdstrand: I'll correct some of the issues identified in your review, but some of them are wrong.
[22:55] <lfaraone> jdstrand: specifically, the versioning scheme is done this way for a reason; otherwise it makes openafs's versioning sad. See "rmadison  openafs" for details
[22:56] <lfaraone> jdstrand: the package is based on a version in proposed after checking with mdeslaur and ScottK.
[23:16] <lfaraone> jdstrand: (summarised in the bug report)
[23:33] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: sorry, lfaraone and ScottK did in fact ask me if it was ok if the updates were based on -proposed, and in this instance I agreed. My apologies for not having communicated this.