[01:15] wow, i'm a tad confused.. the lshw source seems to build both universe *and* main packages, unless I'm missing something... but just to make sure I'm not hallucinating, the lshw-gtk package, part of the lshw source package, is a Universe package and not a main package, so it's maintained by the community instead of the developers right? [01:19] TheLordOfTime: if it's to be fixed, yes [01:19] TheLordOfTime: the source is in main though [01:19] source in main, binary in universe means no official support for the binary [01:19] micahg: so then bugs which are about the lshw-gtk package would be repaired by the community and basically left to rot by the devs unless it affects the lshw package in main [01:19] right? [01:20] not necessarily left to rot, but you're free to fix them if you like :) [01:20] that's what i thought [01:20] mind answering the person in -bugs then? [01:20] you're free to fix stuff in main too if you want, [01:20] you can explain it's a universe package and not maintained by the devs. :P [01:20] micahg: indeed, i'm asking because of a question in -bugs that threw me for a loop xD [01:21] * TheLordOfTime was a tad confused by the question, hence asking here [01:21] TheLordOfTime: not maintained is a misnomer, Canonical provides support for stuff in main for a period of time [01:21] micahg: you can explain it better [01:21] the support can be of varying degrees [01:22] not everything in main is actively maintained [01:22] TheLordOfTime: you have a UTC time on the question? [01:22] micahg: yeah, active discussion [01:23] ~20 minutes ago [01:23] to now [01:55] TheLordOfTime: Universe means not maintained by Canonical. There's plenty of developers that aren't Canonical. Ubuntu != Canonical. [01:58] ScottK: universe means not officially supported by Canonical, there's no implication about maintenance even for stuff in main [01:58] Right. [01:58] "it's a universe package and not maintained by the devs" is just plain wrong though. [01:58] right [05:51] TheLordOfTime: I've a couple of nginx questions for you [05:52] * the debian/conf/sites-available/default changes don't look like ubuntu-specific, did you submit those to debian? [05:53] * do we really need ubuntu branding? :) [05:55] it's basically about [05:55] -#define NGINX_VERSION "1.2.6" [05:55] +#define NGINX_VERSION "1.2.6 (Ubuntu)" [06:13] Personally, I think such changes are ridiculous. [06:16] mitya57: to my knowledge I didn't submit those... [06:16] but... [06:16] * TheLordOfTime digs around in the bugs list [06:16] ok, I'll submit the s/ipv6_only/ipv6only/ change to bts (the only relevant bit in debian/conf/sites-available/default), and then we'll be to just sync the new version [06:17] hang on a sec [06:17] will ya? [06:17] rather than just saying "OK"... [06:17] i think i sawa bug that needed those changes [06:17] * TheLordOfTime double checks [06:17] looks like the history was: [06:17] - we added ipv6_only [06:17] - we fixed it to be ipv6only [06:17] - debian added wrong ipv6_only [06:19] ignoring the history [06:19] and reading the ACTIVE LP bugs [06:19] * TheLordOfTime sighs [06:19] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nginx/+bug/1174158 [06:19] Launchpad bug 1174158 in nginx (Ubuntu) "Nginx fails to start on 13.04" [Undecided,Confirmed] [06:19] the "runfix" for that bug is the "ubuntu branding" [06:19] TBPH i don't like nginx-extras. [06:20] but i'll spare you my tirade of why i hate it because that requires swearing [06:21] mitya57: i'm going to assume that zul didn't bother to mark it as "This fixes bug [blah]" [06:22] but 1.2.x is behind 1.4.x so they may have redone things that I'm not aware of. [06:22] * TheLordOfTime yawns [06:22] but it's 02:22 here, and i'm tired, so i'm not going to be coherent much longer [06:22] mitya57: i dropped zul an email, if the ubuntu branding is all that's changed as a runfix for 1174158 then that needs to stay [06:23] but... in tweaked form [06:23] ok, I'll add a bug reference and keep that for now [06:23] I.E. drop the changes as is, sync/update, then readd in the branding. and possibly fix errors in the defaults. [06:23] TheLordOfTime: Or just drop the branding and count being able to sync as a win. [06:24] ScottK: true. [06:24] ScottK: until a regression of 1174158 shows up then I start banging my head on the keyboard [06:24] ... did I mention I hate the nginx-extras package? [06:24] The goal is to be in sync with Debian and silly things like adding Ubuntu to the version string are NOT a reason to diverge. [06:24] It might have come up. [06:24] (also agreed) [06:25] ScottK: my goal is similar with the nginx stable PPA... ... which this discussion JUST reminded me I should triple check for regressions against... [06:25] ScottK: keep it in line with Debian as much as I can [06:26] but... sometimes some minor changes had to be done to fix that for, say, Lucid, or for my own botched patchfixes. [06:26] TheLordOfTime: actually it seems that "runfix for bug 1174158" is removing the "(Ubuntu)" part [06:26] bug 1174158 in nginx (Ubuntu) "Nginx fails to start on 13.04" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1174158 [06:26] (at least according to comment 5) [06:26] ... okay, i'm seriously off, before i pass out on my keyboard and end up with a reverse image of my keyboard keys on my face when i wake up. [06:27] mitya57: oh duh, misread. [06:27] mitya57: then wth is zul doing... [06:27] mitya57: can you relay to zul that by adding in ubuntu branding they're CAUSING 1174158, and if we keep the branding they break everything? [06:28] not to mention asking them WHY we need ubuntu branding in nginx anyways, especially since universe? [06:28] ... okay, and now i'm off. [06:28] (messages will be logged) [06:28] zul is not here, and I agree that we should just drop that patch [06:29] ... oh and i should probably assign that bug to me and prep a fix for it tomorrow... [06:29] Yeah. Just drop it. [06:29] Then prepare an SRU for 13.04. [06:31] that's the plan! [06:31] * TheLordOfTime is assigning the bug to himself as we speak [06:36] * mitya57 has pushed his merge to lp:~mitya57/ubuntu/saucy/nginx/1.4.1 [06:36] done. now... SLEEP TIME. [06:36] [09:44] Hi MOTUs, I'd like to get a package for a personal project into Universe. I've read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages#Going_through_MOTU and I've got a couple of questions if someone is around to give me a hand [09:44] The first one being "When you start to work on a new package, assign the needs-packaging bug to yourself and set it In Progress (if there is no needs-packaging bug, file one" <- where do I file such a bug? [09:45] my package is in a PPA, and I'm wondering how I can bring it to the MOTUs attention to get it reviewed and uploaded to the archive [09:50] dpm: the preferred way to get it into the archive is over debian [09:51] would it be useful in debian too? [09:51] thanks jtaylor, indeed, I read the wiki. However, it has some Ubuntu-specific dependencies, but it will take me a while to remove them for Debian, so I thought in the meantime it would be useful to at least have it in Ubuntu [09:52] and to answer the question, yes, I think it'd be useful in Debian as well, but as I say it requires some work [09:52] brb [09:55] dpm: File the bug on "Ubuntu" [09:56] and you can just subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to the bug to get it looked at [09:56] you should probably address the debian question up front though, so you don't have to answer it again [10:02] ok, cool, thanks Laney [10:03] another question: once it's in the archive, I'd like to backport it to at least Precise. Would that be possible? Is there anything else to bear in mind regarding backporting? [10:10] should be easy but you'll have to backport to Q and R too, to maintain an upgrade path for users upgrading that way [10:17] Laney, that should not be a problem, I'd prefer to have backports to all stable releases anyway [10:18] well, P, Q, R [10:18] cool [10:20] Laney, hm, the +filebug package redirects to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs - is there a better project I can file the bug against? Or I guess I can just file it against my app's project and then retarget to 'ubuntu'? [10:21] sorry, I meant the lp.net/ubuntu/+filebug *page [10:23] dpm: it should work if you append ?no-redirect to the filebug URL (that ReportingBugs page should say that somewhere, but it is a wall of text) [10:23] or retargeting probably works too [10:23] I swear the newpackages page used to have a link for that [10:23] * Laney edits it [10:25] ah, yeah, ?no-redirect did the trick, thanks! [10:27] aha [10:27] it does link in one place but not the other [10:39] Laney, ok. Does bug 1178202 look ok? [10:39] bug 1178202 in Ubuntu "Request to include Qreator into Universe" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1178202 [10:42] dpm: Looks good - perhaps provide a direct link to the .dsc you want to be sponsored [10:44] done, thanks Laney! [10:44] np [10:44] if you don't get any bites in a few days, ping me and I'll look [10:44] excellent, thanks [14:17] I noticed one of my packages was transitioned from guile 1.6 to guile 1.8 [14:17] there is also a guile 2.0 [14:17] someone know if I can just use that? [14:19] hm news lists no backward incompatible things [14:33] hm using 2.0 makes autoreconf fail, 1.8 it is [17:23] can someone approve Raring on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nginx/+bug/1174158 so that we can set the Raring status separate from the Saucy status? [17:23] Launchpad bug 1174158 in nginx (Ubuntu) "Nginx fails to start on 13.04" [Medium,In progress] [17:23] mitya57's handling a merge that might fix the bug for Saucy. [17:24] but i'm SRUing a fix for Raring. [17:30] did you get an answer why zul did this weird branding [17:31] * mitya57 didn't [17:31] the second time Ive seen zul screw something up with a pointless change ._. [17:32] jtaylor: no answer whatsoever via email [17:33] might I recommend a reeducation in why you don't do pointless changes? [17:33] well, regardless (i typed without thinking! o.O) i'd like to get a debdiff up for it [17:33] but i'm curious whether this happens in Saucy [17:33] (and if it DOES, the bug needs to be handled separately for it, from Raring) [17:34] it's not pointless, it allows tracking market share, which is important [17:34] mdeslaur: it also breaks nginx-extras [17:34] the fact that it's broken is unrelated to the fact that it's pointless or not [17:34] mdeslaur: by adding ubuntu branding to the nginx software, it introduces bugs [17:34] mdeslaur: jtaylor called it pointless, not me [17:34] * TheLordOfTime was using their words [17:35] mdeslaur: regardless, the fix is to drop the patch which introduced the branding, and I"ve got a debdiff ready for that for raring. [17:35] mdeslaur: that should be stated in the changelog then [17:35] TheLordOfTime: that's not a proper fix [17:35] its not obvious [17:35] + actually tested ... [17:35] jtaylor: what's not obvious? [17:35] mdeslaur: then state a proper fix [17:35] not to anyone here [17:36] there can be no other fix for raring except just removing that patch [17:37] agreed with mitya57 [17:37] that's nonsense [17:38] if its important enough to use market share counter why is it not in main? [17:38] universe can'T really provide good security support [17:38] if i remember right there was a discussion last UDS about whether it should be included in main [17:38] i don't remember what that discussion concluded though [17:38] s/last/in a previous/ [17:39] given it's still in Universe i think the discussion of adding it to main went nowhere [17:39] TheLordOfTime: doesn't the fix stated in the bug work? [17:40] on which comment? [17:40] there's two fixes proposed [17:40] one in comment 5 and one in comment 7 [17:40] #5 just reverts it, #7 fixes it properly [17:40] (has to be tested though) [17:41] mdeslaur: i'll test-build in a PPA of mine, and then ask the bug to test it [17:41] if that fixes it, i'll debdiff #7's fix [17:41] if it does NOT fix it, then i'll be back here reaffirming dropping the branding patch is the fix [17:41] s/bug/people affected by the bug/ [17:41] boy, i'm sucking at typing today... [17:42] if you want to push your "proper fix" to SRU, we first need to get that into saucy [17:42] (read: test the debdiff and point me to it so that I can update my branch) [17:43] mitya57: if and only if it works will i dump the #7 debdiff onto the bug (and you'll have access to it) [17:43] granted it'll be written for raring but... [17:43] * TheLordOfTime yawns [17:43] first, coffee. [17:44] and regardless, can we get the Raring nomination approved? [17:44] since this needs fixing in two releases. [17:45] oop i missed the update [17:45] * TheLordOfTime kicks his emial [17:46] maybe infinity can approve it [17:47] * mitya57 facepalms [18:05] hm got this mail: pyzmq_2.2.0.1-2_armhf.changes rejected [18:05] Rejected: [18:05] Server said: [18:05] nothing more [18:05] what does that mean? [18:06] also why do I get a mail for that from ubuntu? I uploaded in debian [18:07] hm https://launchpadlibrarian.net/139498554/upload_4564002_log.txt [18:18] looks like a failed sync [18:19] ah, I see that failure @ https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pyzmq/2.2.0.1-2/+build/4564002 [18:19] I wonder if I just got the mail because I'm in motu or will every debian maintainer get that? [18:19] jtaylor: do you have a "retry" button there? [18:20] (I was not subscribed to the package until now, so thats not it) [18:21] mitya57: yes, I'll leave it for a bitmaybe someone wants to investigate [18:25] there were some cases where random DDs were receiving mails about Ubuntu failures (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-January/036374.html) [18:25] but that should be fixed now [18:26] the bug is still in progress [18:26] its probably it, thx