[01:15] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: if it's to be fixed, yes
[01:19] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: the source is in main though
[01:19] <micahg> source in main, binary in universe means no official support for the binary
[01:19] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> right?
[01:20] <micahg> not necessarily left to rot, but you're free to fix them if you like :)
[01:20] <TheLordOfTime> that's what i thought
[01:20] <TheLordOfTime> mind answering the person in -bugs then?
[01:20] <micahg> you're free to fix stuff in main too if you want,
[01:20] <TheLordOfTime> you can explain it's a universe package and not maintained by the devs. :P
[01:20] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: not maintained is a misnomer, Canonical provides support for stuff in main for a period of time
[01:21] <TheLordOfTime> micahg:  you can explain it better
[01:21] <micahg> the support can be of varying degrees
[01:22] <micahg> not everything in main is actively maintained
[01:22] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: you have a UTC time on the question?
[01:22] <TheLordOfTime> micahg:  yeah, active discussion
[01:23] <TheLordOfTime> ~20 minutes ago
[01:23] <TheLordOfTime> to now
[01:55] <ScottK> TheLordOfTime: Universe means not maintained by Canonical.  There's plenty of developers that aren't Canonical.  Ubuntu != Canonical.
[01:58] <micahg> ScottK: universe means not officially supported by Canonical, there's no implication about maintenance even for stuff in main
[01:58] <ScottK> Right.
[01:58] <ScottK> "it's a universe package and not maintained by the devs" is just plain wrong though.
[01:58] <micahg> right
[05:51] <mitya57> TheLordOfTime: I've a couple of nginx questions for you
[05:52] <mitya57> * the debian/conf/sites-available/default changes don't look like ubuntu-specific, did you submit those to debian?
[05:53] <mitya57> * do we really need ubuntu branding? :)
[05:55] <mitya57> it's basically about
[05:55] <mitya57> -#define NGINX_VERSION      "1.2.6"
[05:55] <mitya57> +#define NGINX_VERSION      "1.2.6 (Ubuntu)"
[06:13] <ScottK> Personally, I think such changes are ridiculous.
[06:16] <TheLordOfTime> mitya57:  to my knowledge I didn't submit those...
[06:16] <TheLordOfTime> but...
[06:16]  * TheLordOfTime digs around in the bugs list
[06:16] <mitya57> 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] <TheLordOfTime> hang on a sec
[06:17] <TheLordOfTime> will ya?
[06:17] <TheLordOfTime> rather than just saying "OK"...
[06:17] <TheLordOfTime> i think i sawa bug that needed those changes
[06:17]  * TheLordOfTime double checks
[06:17] <mitya57> looks like the history was:
[06:17] <mitya57> - we added ipv6_only
[06:17] <mitya57> - we fixed it to be ipv6only
[06:17] <mitya57> - debian added wrong ipv6_only
[06:19] <TheLordOfTime> ignoring the history
[06:19] <TheLordOfTime> and reading the ACTIVE LP bugs
[06:19]  * TheLordOfTime sighs
[06:19] <TheLordOfTime> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nginx/+bug/1174158
[06:19] <TheLordOfTime> the "runfix" for that bug is the "ubuntu branding"
[06:19] <TheLordOfTime> TBPH i don't like nginx-extras.
[06:20] <TheLordOfTime> but i'll spare you my tirade of why i hate it because that requires swearing
[06:21] <TheLordOfTime> mitya57:  i'm going to assume that zul didn't bother to mark it as "This fixes bug [blah]"
[06:22] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> but it's 02:22 here, and i'm tired, so i'm not going to be coherent much longer
[06:22] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> but... in tweaked form
[06:23] <mitya57> ok, I'll add a bug reference and keep that for now
[06:23] <TheLordOfTime> I.E. drop the changes as is, sync/update, then readd in the branding.  and possibly fix errors in the defaults.
[06:23] <ScottK> TheLordOfTime: Or just drop the branding and count being able to sync as a win.
[06:24] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK:  true.
[06:24] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK:  until a regression of 1174158 shows up then I start banging my head on the keyboard
[06:24] <TheLordOfTime> ... did I mention I hate the nginx-extras package?
[06:24] <ScottK> 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] <ScottK> It might have come up.
[06:24] <TheLordOfTime> (also agreed)
[06:25] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> ScottK:  keep it in line with Debian as much as I can
[06:26] <TheLordOfTime> but... sometimes some minor changes had to be done to fix that for, say, Lucid, or for my own botched patchfixes.
[06:26] <mitya57> TheLordOfTime: actually it seems that "runfix for bug 1174158" is removing the "(Ubuntu)" part
[06:26] <mitya57> (at least according to comment 5)
[06:26] <TheLordOfTime> ... 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] <TheLordOfTime> mitya57:  oh duh, misread.
[06:27] <TheLordOfTime> mitya57:  then wth is zul doing...
[06:27] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> not to mention asking them WHY we need ubuntu branding in nginx anyways, especially since universe?
[06:28] <TheLordOfTime> ... okay, and now i'm off.
[06:28] <TheLordOfTime> (messages will be logged)
[06:28] <mitya57> zul is not here, and I agree that we should just drop that patch
[06:29] <TheLordOfTime> ... oh and i should probably assign that bug to me and prep a fix for it tomorrow...
[06:29] <ScottK> Yeah.  Just drop it.
[06:29] <ScottK> Then prepare an SRU for 13.04.
[06:31] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> done.  now... SLEEP TIME.

[09:44] <dpm> 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] <dpm> 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] <dpm> 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] <jtaylor> dpm: the preferred way to get it into the archive is over debian
[09:51] <jtaylor> would it be useful in debian too?
[09:51] <dpm> 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] <dpm> 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] <dpm> brb
[09:55] <Laney> dpm: File the bug on "Ubuntu"
[09:56] <Laney> and you can just subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to the bug to get it looked at
[09:56] <Laney> you should probably address the debian question up front though, so you don't have to answer it again
[10:02] <dpm> ok, cool, thanks Laney
[10:03] <dpm> 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] <Laney> 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] <dpm> Laney, that should not be a problem, I'd prefer to have backports to all stable releases anyway
[10:18] <dpm> well, P, Q, R
[10:18] <Laney> cool
[10:20] <dpm> 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] <dpm> sorry, I meant the lp.net/ubuntu/+filebug *page
[10:23] <Laney> 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] <Laney> or retargeting probably works too
[10:23] <Laney> I swear the newpackages page used to have a link for that
[10:23]  * Laney edits it
[10:25] <dpm> ah, yeah, ?no-redirect did the trick, thanks!
[10:27] <Laney> aha
[10:27] <Laney> it does link in one place but not the other
[10:39] <dpm> Laney, ok. Does bug 1178202 look ok?
[10:42] <Laney> dpm: Looks good - perhaps provide a direct link to the .dsc you want to be sponsored
[10:44] <dpm> done, thanks Laney!
[10:44] <Laney> np
[10:44] <Laney> if you don't get any bites in a few days, ping me and I'll look
[10:44] <dpm> excellent, thanks
[14:17] <jtaylor> I noticed one of my packages was transitioned from guile 1.6 to guile 1.8
[14:17] <jtaylor> there is also a guile 2.0
[14:17] <jtaylor> someone know if I can just use that?
[14:19] <jtaylor> hm news lists no backward incompatible things
[14:33] <jtaylor> hm using 2.0 makes autoreconf fail, 1.8 it is
[17:23] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> mitya57's handling a merge that might fix the bug for Saucy.
[17:24] <TheLordOfTime> but i'm SRUing a fix for Raring.
[17:30] <jtaylor> did you get an answer why zul did this weird branding
[17:31]  * mitya57 didn't
[17:31] <jtaylor> the second time Ive seen zul screw something up with a pointless change ._.
[17:32] <TheLordOfTime> jtaylor:  no answer whatsoever via email
[17:33] <TheLordOfTime> might I recommend a reeducation in why you don't do pointless changes?
[17:33] <TheLordOfTime> well, regardless (i typed without thinking! o.O) i'd like to get a debdiff up for it
[17:33] <TheLordOfTime> but i'm curious whether this happens in Saucy
[17:33] <TheLordOfTime> (and if it DOES, the bug needs to be handled separately for it, from Raring)
[17:34] <mdeslaur> it's not pointless, it allows tracking market share, which is important
[17:34] <TheLordOfTime> mdeslaur:  it also breaks nginx-extras
[17:34] <mdeslaur> the fact that it's broken is unrelated to the fact that it's pointless or not
[17:34] <TheLordOfTime> mdeslaur:  by adding ubuntu branding to the nginx software, it introduces bugs
[17:34] <TheLordOfTime> mdeslaur:  jtaylor called it pointless, not me
[17:34]  * TheLordOfTime was using their words
[17:35] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <jtaylor> mdeslaur: that should be stated in the changelog then
[17:35] <mdeslaur> TheLordOfTime: that's not a proper fix
[17:35] <jtaylor> its not obvious
[17:35] <jtaylor> + actually tested ...
[17:35] <mdeslaur> jtaylor: what's not obvious?
[17:35] <TheLordOfTime> mdeslaur:  then state a proper fix
[17:35] <jtaylor> not to anyone here
[17:36] <mitya57> there can be no other fix for raring except just removing that patch
[17:37] <TheLordOfTime> agreed with mitya57
[17:37] <mdeslaur> that's nonsense
[17:38] <jtaylor> if its important enough to use market share counter why is it not in main?
[17:38] <jtaylor> universe can'T really provide good security support
[17:38] <TheLordOfTime> if i remember right there was a discussion last UDS about whether it should be included in main
[17:38] <TheLordOfTime> i don't remember what that discussion concluded though
[17:38] <TheLordOfTime> s/last/in a previous/
[17:39] <TheLordOfTime> given it's still in Universe i think the discussion of adding it to main went nowhere
[17:39] <mdeslaur> TheLordOfTime: doesn't the fix stated in the bug work?
[17:40] <TheLordOfTime> on which comment?
[17:40] <TheLordOfTime> there's two fixes proposed
[17:40] <TheLordOfTime> one in comment 5 and one in comment 7
[17:40] <mdeslaur> #5 just reverts it, #7 fixes it properly
[17:40] <mdeslaur> (has to be tested though)
[17:41] <TheLordOfTime> mdeslaur:  i'll test-build in a PPA of mine, and then ask the bug to test it
[17:41] <TheLordOfTime> if that fixes it, i'll debdiff #7's fix
[17:41] <TheLordOfTime> if it does NOT fix it, then i'll be back here reaffirming dropping the branding patch is the fix
[17:41] <TheLordOfTime> s/bug/people affected by the bug/
[17:41] <TheLordOfTime> boy, i'm sucking at typing today...
[17:42] <mitya57> if you want to push your "proper fix" to SRU, we first need to get that into saucy
[17:42] <mitya57> (read: test the debdiff and point me to it so that I can update my branch)
[17:43] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> granted it'll be written for raring but...
[17:43]  * TheLordOfTime yawns
[17:43] <TheLordOfTime> first, coffee.
[17:44] <TheLordOfTime> and regardless, can we get the Raring nomination approved?
[17:44] <TheLordOfTime> since this needs fixing in two releases.
[17:45] <TheLordOfTime> oop i missed the update
[17:45]  * TheLordOfTime kicks his emial
[17:46] <mitya57> maybe infinity can approve it
[17:47]  * mitya57 facepalms
[18:05] <jtaylor> hm got this mail: pyzmq_2.2.0.1-2_armhf.changes rejected
[18:05] <jtaylor> Rejected:
[18:05] <jtaylor> Server said:
[18:05] <jtaylor> nothing more
[18:05] <jtaylor> what does that mean?
[18:06] <jtaylor> also why do I get a mail for that from ubuntu? I uploaded in debian
[18:07] <jtaylor> hm https://launchpadlibrarian.net/139498554/upload_4564002_log.txt
[18:18] <mitya57> looks like a failed sync
[18:19] <mitya57> ah, I see that failure @ https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pyzmq/2.2.0.1-2/+build/4564002
[18:19] <jtaylor> I wonder if I just got the mail because I'm in motu or will every debian maintainer get that?
[18:19] <mitya57> jtaylor: do you have a "retry" button there?
[18:20] <jtaylor> (I was not subscribed to the package until now, so thats not it)
[18:21] <jtaylor> mitya57: yes, I'll leave it for a bitmaybe someone wants to investigate
[18:25] <mitya57> 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] <mitya57> but that should be fixed now
[18:26] <jtaylor> the bug is still in progress
[18:26] <jtaylor> its probably it, thx