[00:59] <ahoneybun__> hello all
[01:33] <ahoneybun> hello
[02:51] <ahoneybun> hello all
[03:17] <ahoneybun> hey palasso
[05:11] <palasso> hey ahoneybun ;)
[06:06] <soee> god morning
[09:35] <shadeslayer> Riddell: ScottK is LGPL compatible with GPL v2?
[09:43] <Riddell> shadeslayer: which LGPL, there's three of them.  compatible to do what?
[09:43] <Tm_T> ScottK is LGPL?
[09:43] <shadeslayer> saidinesh5: ^^
[09:44] <shadeslayer> hah
[09:44]  * saidinesh5 checks
[09:44] <shadeslayer> Riddell: would it be possible for you to evaluate https://github.com/vovoid/vsxu for inclusion in the ubuntu archive?
[09:44] <shadeslayer> from a source/license PoV
[09:45]  * Riddell clones
[10:00] <Riddell> Visualizations, project files and art provided with this release:
[10:00] <Riddell>     You may use them as you see fit, but we reserve the right to decide wether
[10:01] <Riddell>     or not you can remix them.
[10:01] <Riddell> shadeslayer: so the visualisation files can't be included
[10:01] <Riddell>   All design and graphic content/skins etc (c) Vovoid Media Technologies AB
[10:01] <Riddell>   are provided to you as-is, not for remixing.
[10:01] <Riddell> nor can they
[10:01] <shadeslayer> saidinesh5: ^^
[10:01] <Riddell>   Example assets:    Raya (c) Katie De Sousa.
[10:01] <Riddell> no licence on that
[10:02] <saidinesh5> Ah
[10:10] <Riddell> shadeslayer, saidinesh5: the cpp code is a mix of GPL 2, GPL 2+, LGPL 2+ and LGPL 3+.  GPL 2 isn't compatible with LGPL 3+
[10:10] <saidinesh5> Oh
[10:10] <saidinesh5> and LGPL2.1 ?
[10:10] <Riddell> yes, that's the same as LGPL 2+
[10:11] <saidinesh5> no i mean is GPLv2 compatible with LGPL2.1 ?
[10:11] <Riddell> yes that's fine
[10:11] <Riddell> for both linking and distributing together
[10:11] <saidinesh5> Ah
[10:11] <saidinesh5> Riddell: which bits are using LGPL3+ ?
[10:12] <Riddell> ./tools/socket_library/trunk/src/
[10:12] <Riddell> says   find . -name *cpp | xargs licensecheck | grep LGPL
[10:13] <saidinesh5> Ahh
[10:14] <Riddell> so maybe those bits don't get linked in, I'm not sure
[10:15] <saidinesh5> yep those arent linked afaik
[10:48] <apol> maybe kdevelop should depend on kate-data? https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=318188
[10:50] <Riddell> apol: yeah I'll add that
[10:51] <Riddell> apol: probably also worth that being noted in the sources, in a README (it points at http://www.kdevelop.org/index.html?filename=HEAD/requirements.html but that doesn't exist) or better yet in cmake config output
[10:52] <apol> ok
[10:53] <Riddell> shadeslayer: a person has e-mailed me asking for plasma active 4 packages pointing at http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/active/2013-May/006136.html
[10:53] <Riddell> shadeslayer: I'm not sure what martin's e-mail there is saying though, I don't think there's such a thing as PA 4 yet
[10:55] <Riddell> ah it's on k-d as well
[10:56] <Quintasan> Riddell: I am to schedule a packaging sprint for PA so we can get the packages in shape
[10:57] <Quintasan> I'll do that after the damn exams
[10:57] <Riddell> very cool
[10:58] <Quintasan> Riddell: as for KTp, I'm putting uploading onhold till I get it into Debian since I believe I just just became the maintainer of it
[10:58] <Quintasan> Might as well as attempt to get DM
[11:03] <Riddell> Quintasan: mm that sounds like something that could take time
[11:15] <Quintasan> Riddell: Getting it to Debian - no. Getting DM - more likely
[11:16] <Quintasan> Riddell: When I get it to Debian I'll just ask you to sync it, or ScottK, whoever has rights to perform this magic
[11:19] <Riddell> Quintasan: mm well be careful it doesn't end up taking weeks when people could be using it and testing it
[11:20] <Quintasan> Riddell: Should uploading that take more than 3 days from now on I'll just throw in the whole stack into our repos
[11:22] <Riddell> sounds a good plan
[11:29] <Riddell> hi tariq_ 
[11:30] <Quintasan> lol
[11:30] <Quintasan> It's almost like apachelogger's reaction to python
[11:30] <tariq_> Hi RIddell!
[11:31] <tariq_> still getting to grips with this IRC!
[12:48] <BluesKaj> Hey all
[15:12] <murthy> hello everyone
[15:14] <ahoneybun> murthy: hello
[15:14] <Riddell> hi murthy 
[15:16]  * Riddell blogs http://blogs.kde.org/2013/06/12/nice-e-mail
[15:17] <murthy> we here some in the #kubuntu channel
[15:17] <murthy> *hear
[15:18] <ahoneybun> Riddell: always getting great emails :)
[15:21] <murthy> I have some doubts about updating a changelog for a merge
[15:22] <Riddell> murthy: what do you doubt?
[15:30] <murthy> a package has only 1 conflicting file which is debian/control, grab-merge script generates the source from A(debian), B(ubuntu) and produces C  which contains the conflicting file with the two difference with markings. Now the debian/control segments that are in conflict in A(debian) is not right and is totally ignored by choosing all the details from B(ubuntu). What will be my changelog entry and is C ubuntu or debian. I will paste the debian/control
[15:30] <murthy>  given by grab-merge and the merged one now  
[15:31] <murthy> Riddell: ^
[15:32]  * Riddell waits for paste
[15:32] <murthy> http://paste.kde.org/771608/
[15:32] <murthy> ^the file in conflict
[15:33] <murthy> http://paste.kde.org/771614/
[15:33] <murthy> ^ the new one
[15:33] <Riddell> murthy: please use   diff -u  and paste that again
[15:34] <murthy> Riddell: between the two?
[15:34] <Riddell> yes
[15:34] <murthy> ok
[15:34] <Riddell> http://paste.kde.org/771608/ does not use diff -u
[15:37] <murthy> Riddell: I couldn't get you
[15:38] <murthy> Riddell: http://paste.kde.org/771608/ is generated by grab-merge script
[15:38] <murthy> Riddell: http://paste.kde.org/771626/
[15:38] <murthy> thats the one with diff -u of both the control files
[15:40] <Riddell> hmm, I'm not sure it is :)
[15:40] <Riddell> anyway, build-deps looks like no changes needed so keep debian
[15:40] <Riddell> X-Python-Version need to work out if that's needed (by dh_python or something like that)
[15:41] <Riddell> Breaks: python-albatross-common   probably still needed, check changelog
[15:41] <Riddell> Breaks: python-albatross likewise
[15:41] <Riddell> changes to Maintainer: are needed if there's any ubuntu changes
[15:41] <Riddell> voila
[15:41] <Riddell> murthy: how did you get on with kdiff3 ?
[15:42] <murthy> Riddell: why what?
[15:43] <Riddell> murthy: what why what?
[15:44] <murthy> Riddell: What about kdiff3?
[15:44] <murthy> Riddell: have you noticed python in build-depends ?
[15:45] <Riddell> murthy: did you merge it?
[15:46] <murthy> Riddell: you mean the file or the status of the merge request?
[15:46] <Riddell> murthy: the package of kdiff3 needs merged https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html
[15:46] <murthy> oh :D
[15:47] <murthy> I thought you were talking about the kdiff app
[15:47] <murthy> I am doing albatross now
[15:47] <murthy> #1189942
[15:48] <murthy> LP : #1189942
[15:48] <murthy> whats the syntax?
[15:48] <Riddell> bug 1189942
[15:50] <murthy> Riddell:  this "python (>= 2.6.6-3~)" is added to the ubuntu's build-depends have you noticed? 
[15:50] <murthy> Riddell: so the resulting merge is a debian one?
[15:50] <Riddell> murthy: it's not needed as far as I can see, python-all would being it in
[15:50] <Riddell> murthy: it's not needed as far as I can see, python-all would bring it in
[15:51] <murthy> Riddell: ok, in case if it is need what should i put in the changelog?
[15:52] <Riddell> murthy: merge from debian, remaining changes: add python build-dep (needed for reason foo)
[15:52] <murthy> Riddell: so the target is debian
[15:53] <murthy> oops
[15:53] <Riddell> murthy: yes, we want to have as few changes from debian as possible
[15:53] <Riddell> don't be afraid of adding them but also don't add them for no reason, it just adds more work
[15:53] <Riddell> ok I'm out for the evening, good luck
[15:55] <murthy> see you later
[15:57] <murthy> yofel: are you there?
[15:57] <yofel> yes?
[15:57] <murthy> yofel: can you help me with a changlog for a merge
[15:58] <murthy> yofel: its a very simple one
[15:58] <yofel> sure
[15:58] <murthy> thank you, i will paste the files
[15:58] <murthy> yofel: http://paste.kde.org/771608/
[15:59] <murthy> ^ thats the debian/control file in conflict given by grab-merge
[16:00] <yofel> ok
[16:00] <murthy> yofel: assume all the ubuntu stuff is correct, now update the  changelog which i will paste now
[16:01] <murthy> yofel: http://paste.kde.org/771662/
[16:01] <murthy> the last entry is mine
[16:01] <murthy> correct that please
[16:03] <yofel> murthy: well, Continuing the line, you add "Remaining changes:" and then list every change that you had to add to the debian package
[16:04] <murthy> yofel: can you do that and show me?
[16:04] <yofel> you don't need to document the maintainer update though
[16:05] <murthy> yofel: just this one changelog
[16:08] <yofel> murthy: try it yourself and I'll tell you what's wrong ;) take http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~kubuntu-packagers/kubuntu-packaging/digikam/view/head:/debian/changelog as example
[16:09] <murthy> yofel: ok i will try
[16:16] <shadeslayer> yofel: can you send me a test mail at rohangarg AT kubuntu dot org ?
[16:23] <yofel> shadeslayer: done
[16:23] <shadeslayer> that subject ...
[16:23] <yofel> I couldn't resist :P
[16:24] <shadeslayer> :D
[16:24] <shadeslayer> the error mail usually has the same subject ;)
[16:27] <murthy> yofel: http://paste.kde.org/771692/
[16:27] <murthy> the updated changelog
[16:47] <yofel> murthy: looking
[16:48] <yofel> murthy: do we really still need that build-dep on python?
[16:48] <yofel> rest looks fine, except that I don't know enough about python packaging to decide what X-Python-Version should be set to
[16:48] <murthy> yofel: no it has to be checked, but for now, i am concerned about the changelog
[16:49] <murthy> yofel: so expect the python stuff everything ok(in case of the changelog wordings)?
[16:49] <yofel> murthy: change "Update" to "Add" or "Set" as that's not really an update of anything but a new thing
[16:50] <murthy> ok
[16:50] <yofel> other than that, the changelog is fine for the changes in the control file
[16:51] <murthy> ok thank you, i will check for the phthon build-dep and update the changelog accordingly
[18:49] <vHanda> Riddell: Could you please verify this package? https://sourceforge.net/projects/oscaf/files/shared-desktop-ontologies/0.11.0/
[18:49] <vHanda> shadeslayer: ^
[18:51] <yofel> vHanda: what do you need verified?
[18:51] <vHanda> just that the package is fine
[18:51] <vHanda> and that I haven't done anything stupid
[18:51] <vHanda> s/package/tarball
[18:53] <yofel> hm, looks fine on first glance
[18:54] <vHanda> cool, thanks
[18:54] <vHanda> It looked fine to me as well, but I wanted to be sure before I made the release announcement
[19:07] <ahoneybun> hello valorie
[21:07] <valorie> greets
[21:09] <ahoneybun> valorie: hello
[21:11] <valorie> hello, ahoneybun
[21:11] <ahoneybun> valorie: littlegirl has been really working hard
[21:11] <valorie> I saw what you said the first time; I always read all the scrollback
[21:11] <valorie> I saw that
[21:11] <ahoneybun> oh
[21:14] <valorie> I sort of stepped back because it seemed she was doing her work off the wiki for some reason
[21:14] <valorie> so many pastebins!
[21:14] <valorie> once she's slowed down, I'll look
[21:14] <ahoneybun> to see the work before saving
[21:14] <valorie> it would be nice to get all our pages with a common format
[21:14] <valorie> I was working on that as I could
[21:14] <ahoneybun> yea
[21:18] <valorie> Riddell: lovely blog!
[21:19] <ahoneybun> valorie: did you see the rewrite of the managing repos
[21:20] <ahoneybun> https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/KubuntuDocs/Basic/ManagingRepositories
[21:22] <valorie> wth, why do we have the old way to add repositories, instead of the apt-add-repo way?
[21:22] <valorie> which is much superior
[21:22] <ahoneybun> oh
[21:22] <valorie> not a good idea at all, IMO
[21:22] <valorie> perhaps a link to the old way, for people running ancient versions
[21:23] <valorie> but seriously, those have long been EOL
[21:23] <ahoneybun> littlegirl is running 10.04
[21:23] <ahoneybun> how would you remove them then?
[21:24] <valorie> oh, I dunno
[21:24] <valorie> sec
[21:25] <valorie> grrr, I had a good explanation of that, now it's gone
[21:25] <valorie> :(
[21:25] <valorie> oh, well
[21:27] <valorie> short answer: sudo ppa-purge ppa:<repository-name>/<subdirectory>
[21:27] <ahoneybun> does that work without additional software?
[21:27] <valorie> what?
[21:27] <valorie> I'm not sure what you mean
[21:28] <valorie> ppa-purge is something we should document anyway, for those who have added problematic PPAs
[21:29] <valorie> anyway, I see no reason to make that page enormous by documenting an outdated method of adding and removing repos
[21:29] <valorie> but that's just my opinion
[21:30] <ahoneybun> true
[21:30] <ahoneybun> I'm ok with making it more uptodate
[21:30] <ahoneybun> up to date
[21:31] <valorie> I'm just wondering why good work was removed, and replaced with old stuff
[21:32] <ahoneybun> well I thought we needed work done on how to deal with ppa;s
[21:35] <valorie> sure
[21:35] <valorie> I was wrong though, there is a ppa-purge package
[21:35] <valorie> http://www.webupd8.org/2009/12/remove-ppa-repositories-via-command.html
[21:35]  * valorie goes to find official documentation of this
[21:37] <valorie> so otherwise it can be done thus: sudo add-apt-repository --remove ppa:someppa/ppa
[21:37] <yofel> there's 2 definitions of "remove" mixed here
[21:37] <valorie> probably a better idea to not introduce a package
[21:37] <valorie> true
[21:37] <yofel> add-apt-repository --remove -> disables the source entry but keeps the packages
[21:38] <yofel> ppa-purge -> removes the PPA and downgrades what it can
[21:38] <valorie> and there are cases for doing both
[21:38] <valorie> or either
[21:39] <ahoneybun> valorie: do what you think is best and I will work on it later
[21:39] <ahoneybun> gtg
[21:39] <valorie> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+package/ppa-purge
[21:39] <valorie> see you later
[21:39] <ahoneybun> yea \