[05:09] <ESphynx> I found the problem :P
[06:46] <ESphynx> ScottK, xnox: I fixed the PowerPC build issue... ( https://github.com/ecere/sdk/commit/8be3b8fb26519e0bfc2a180d7d47bc060f66cd50 )  How should I go about updating this? a minimal patch with just this commit?
[07:20] <geser> ESphynx: I would add it as a patch, comment that it will be included in the next upstream release and let the new package revision get sponsored
[07:33] <dholbach> good morning
[09:31] <xnox> ESphynx: "add .patch" to the URL: https://github.com/ecere/sdk/commit/8be3b8fb26519e0bfc2a180d7d47bc060f66cd50.patch
[09:31] <xnox> ESphynx: and just drop it into ./debian/patches, note that DEP-3 headers are git compatible thus no need to tweak it at all =)
[12:28] <cjohnston> Should django-openid-auth 0.5 be backported to precise/quantal or SRU'ed? It's just bug fixes. Changelog: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~django-openid-auth/django-openid-auth/trunk/changes r88-98
[12:39] <geser> cjohnston: are there any bugs open which got fixed in 0.5?
[12:39] <tumbleweed> backports aren't for bug fixes
[12:39] <tumbleweed> and, of course, SRUs prefer minimal, testable patches
[12:40] <cjohnston> geser: tumbleweed https://code.launchpad.net/~chrisjohnston/ubuntu/raring/django-openid-auth/release-0-5/+merge/155330 lists the bugs in an easy format
[12:42] <tumbleweed> cjohnston: there's a lot going on there
[12:42] <tumbleweed> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[12:43] <cjohnston> ahh.. so one for each bug
[12:43] <tumbleweed> you can do more that one bug fix in an SRU
[12:44] <tumbleweed> but you'll have to verify each issue
[12:44] <tumbleweed> what I'm getting at is that you'll have to figure out what was actually important, you won't just be backporting 0.5
[12:46] <cjohnston> technically all but "Fixes tests failing with django 1.4" is a bug that is present in precise, and not that one just because precise doesn't ship with 1.4. If your running 1.4 on precise it does have the issues though. There weren't any new features introduced, purely bug fixes
[12:47] <tumbleweed> right, but bug fixes also introduce risk
[12:47] <tumbleweed> you read the introductary section to the SRU wiki page...
[12:49] <cjohnston> right.. I understand that.
[12:52] <tumbleweed> (and, of course, the bigger the diff, the longer it'll take the SRU team to review it, and the higher the chance they'll say no)
[14:51] <arand> Are PPAs able to grab orig tarballs from the Ubuntu archive or do they always need the orig uploaded?
[15:01] <ScottK> arand: Thy can take from the Ubuntu archive.
[15:02] <arand> Is it only from the release in question?
[15:03] <arand> e.g. if I'm doing a "backport" to precise of something that's in raring?
[15:03] <ScottK> It's all in the pool. So I think it's fine.
[18:46] <ESphynx> hmm, what if I want to include all 5 commits ahead of 0.44.05 though? :|  Should I put in 5 patches? or bundle all 5 as one? or come up wit 0.44.06?
[19:15] <ESphynx> ( All this hoping it will make it into Raring... It'd be nice nice if these UTF8 fixes and this cross-bitness fixes could make it...)
[19:15] <ScottK> Your call.  A new version is probably cleaner.
[19:16] <ESphynx> ScottK: I can do new version. but it can still make it into Raring if I do?
[19:16] <ScottK> If it's a new version or patches has no bearing on if it gets into raring.
[19:16] <ESphynx> 'aight.
[19:16] <ESphynx> new version it is. thanks.