[10:15] <iulian> Rhonda: Someone will have to send out an email quite soon I reckon. Do we want to have the News on packages.u.c? I doubt that our users find that helpful.
[10:21] <Rhonda> The news on the packages site are more a changelog of what's done.
[10:22] <iulian> Rhonda: Yes, I can see that. I was just saying that I don't see the point of it being public.
[10:23] <iulian> Anyway, not a big deal.
[10:23] <iulian> Uni time.
[10:33] <Rhonda> Do you see it as problem?
[14:48] <mhall119> question for any MOTU, unity-tweak-tool needs a screenshot uploaded for Raring, the package is in Universe, but is not showing up on screenshots.u.c, how can they upload something for display in USC?
[14:50] <tumbleweed> mhall119: I don't know anything about screenshots.u.c, and assume most other MOTUs don't, either
[14:51] <mhall119> tumbleweed: ok, let me change the question then
[14:51] <mhall119> unity-tweak-tool is in Universe, and needs a screenshot added, how do they do that?
[14:51] <tumbleweed> it's hosted on a Canonical server, and presumably someone in Canonical administers it
[14:51] <tumbleweed> mhall119: no idea
[14:55] <tumbleweed> looks like the Ubuntu one people look after software center things, these days
[15:32] <mhall119> tumbleweed: yeah, but they only deal with stuff going through MyApps, not stuff in Universe
[16:31] <jtaylor> cat launchpad git importer do submodules?
[16:31] <jtaylor> can
[16:35] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: #launchpad?
[16:35] <Laney> no
[16:35] <Laney> it explodes and dies
[16:37] <jtaylor> hm bye bye ipython daily build then :(
[16:37] <jtaylor> now I have to start packaging javascript *shudder*
[16:38]  * tumbleweed doesn't beleive in submodules
[16:40] <jtaylor> yes they suck :/
[16:41] <jtaylor> but having more third party javascript code in your repository than own code is also not nice
[18:03] <chilicuil> hi there, I'm looking into bug #530036 do you think it may be acceptable for a SRU?, I'm not sure how important is to have a wget 'digest' capable into the stable Ubuntu releases (precise / quantal)
[18:35] <gotwig> hey
[18:36] <gotwig> I wanna report a broken package
[18:36] <gotwig> what to do
[18:36] <gotwig> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/touchegg/+bug/1174070
[19:31]  * Rhonda nibbles again on Laney
[20:32] <Laney> Rhonda has a career in Ubuntu support ahead
[21:16] <ScottK> mhall119: Own answer is get the package in Debian.  Screenshots from screenshots.debian.net/org (I don't recall which) are automatically pulled in.
[21:23] <mhall119> ScottK: I'm not sure Debian would want a tweak tool for a desktop shell that isn't in Debian
[21:27] <Rhonda> Laney: pah :)
[21:27] <Rhonda> Laney: Now I'm even summoned to unrelated bugs to comment on launchpad. :)
[21:28] <Laney> have you had a packages related email?
[21:28] <Rhonda> Of course.
[21:28] <Laney> You could just remove it
[21:28] <Rhonda> Why else would I nibble on you. :)
[21:28] <ScottK> mhall119: Sure, just saying that's the only way I know.
[21:28] <Rhonda> No, I enjoy the nibbling invites. ;)
[21:28] <Laney> no, I mean have you ever had an on-topic email as a result of it?
[21:29] <Rhonda> Yes, just recently.
[21:29] <Rhonda> "raring isn't the default"
[21:29] <Laney> heh
[21:29] <mhall119> ScottK: thanks anyway
[22:37] <chilicuil> does anyone knows of an alternative to dpkg-shlibdeps?, I'm trying to get all the dependencies of a binary file, but dpkg-shlibdeps requires I setup a packaging directory tree, and I don't want to hack my own ldd + apt-file script
[22:41] <maxb> ldd alone is no enough?
[22:42] <maxb> Or you want the deps translated into package names?
[22:44] <chilicuil> maxb: yes, I want to get the package names where are the .so libraries
[22:45] <maxb> I think you're stuck with dpkg-shlibdeps then
[22:46] <chilicuil> maxb: thanks for replying =), I'll give it a shot or write my own script
[22:49] <Unit193> for file in $(ldd path/to/program | awk '{print $3}') ; do dpkg -S $file ;done    :P  (Though, I don't think I'd use it.)
[22:51] <chilicuil> Unit193: cool, I've just though in ldd /path/to/program | sort -n | uniq | awk '{print $1}' | xargs -i apt-file search {} #will test both =)
[22:52] <Unit193> I clearly didn't bother to add uniq, was just an example.