micahgdo we have a way to see who binNEWd something?03:13
micahggreat, I just got a notice that something that was rejected in Debian by ftpmasters seems to have passed Ubuntu review, do we allow packaging to be licensed under a conflicting license with the upstream source (which might result in trouble is upstream needs patching)?03:15
micahgso, we're only tracking rejects then?03:17
infinitymicahg: We don't track rejects either, except via the email you get.05:45
infinity(This is all being worked on actively right now, mind you)05:46
infinitymicahg: Anyhow, if you could be a bit more explicit about "the thing that Debian rejected and we didn't", maybe we could look into it.  Positing hypothetical scenarios is less helpful.05:46
micahgpython-warlock apache 2 (source) + GPL (packaging)05:47
infinityThat said, if it's just mismatched source/package licensing, that's not a legal problem, just a style issue, as you need to explicitly license your patches, OR get hunted down later when someone wants to submit them upstream.05:47
infinity(I agree that it's a valid reason for Debian to reject on the basis of teaching maintainers to not be silly)05:47
micahghrm, so debian/* in d/copyright doesn't really mean that?05:48
infinityErm, also, python-warlock has been in Ubuntu since Quantal...?05:48
micahgright, it seems the new python3 package05:48
infinitymicahg: No, it means what you think it means.05:49
infinitymicahg: I meant that it doesn't make the package itself a legal issue, it just makes things a hassle if someone wants to forward patches later.05:49
micahgoh, patching an apache license package with gpl code is not a problem?05:50
infinitymicahg: Anyhow, I assume ftpmaster's rejection will lead to a relicensing by the maintainer, and the world will be sunshine and kittens.05:50
infinitymicahg: Depends.  Is the packaging 2, 2+, 3...?05:51
infinitymicahg: Yeah, then it's fine.05:51
micahgah, apache 2.0 + GPL 3 is fine, so GPL-3 is implicitly used in that case05:53
infinitymicahg: Of course, it has the weird side-effect of making the whole package be relicensed as GPL-3.  Probably not the desired effect. ;)05:53
micahghrm...sorry for the noise I guesss05:53
infinitymicahg: It's still a problem, I agree with Debian ftpmasters, but I imagine it'll now get fixed and we'll get the trickle-down, so I'm not too concerned.05:54
infinitymicahg: It's not something we can't legally distribute, so I'm fine with waiting on Debian to fix.05:54
micahgI was just wondering if we're missing a check on our side so stuff like this doesn't make its way into the Ubuntu archive05:55
micahg(more hypothetical)05:55
infinitymicahg: As a general rule, binNEW doesn't trigger people to do a full source audit.  The Debian ftmaster that did so must have been either (a) a keener, or (b) had a nitpick about something in the binary package he was looking at, and dug deeper.05:55
infinitymicahg: binNEW for me usually consists of looking at the file lists for sanity, and if there's some funky migration business going on, conflict/replaces and maintainer scripts.  I tend to trust that souce new caught the glaring badness in the rest of the source.05:56
infinitymicahg: Though, now that debian/copyright is occasionally machine parseable, Debian might be running a tool that looks for obvious things (like upstream/package license mismatch) and warn on it whenever something's in NEW.  Dunno.05:58
infinityI wish it was just policy for all debian/* packaging to always be in X11/MIT/Expat or similar.05:59
micahgit would make sense05:59
infinityCause I really doubt people check the debian/* licensing before cargo-culting from package A to package B anyway.05:59
infinity(And I also really doubt anyone cares about their precious debian/* copyleft)05:59
micahgright, TBH, the thought's not crossed my mind06:00
micahgit would be a sane thing to check indeed06:00
darkxstmozjs update has been sitting in the new queue for two months now09:28
darkxstwe really want to get this in for saucy since it brings huge performance improvements for ubuntu GNOME/gnome-shell09:29
infinitydarkxst: Was there a reason for the new source package, instead of revving the current one?13:04
infinitydarkxst: And are there plans to get mozjs17 into Debian too?13:09
=== doko_ is now known as doko
infinitydarkxst: Also, it looks like a ton of files have changed their license headers from MPL/GPL/LGPL to just MPL.  Is that going to be a problem for GNOME?14:24
infinitydarkxst: Ahh, MPL2.0 has built-in GPL/LGPL compat.  Handy.14:25
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
darkxstinfinity, it is not backwards compatible with old one. it would be quite a ton of work to port all the rdepends, and atleast couchdb can't work with the new mozjs21:48
darkxstinfinity, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=70943421:53
ubot2`Debian bug 709434 in src:mozjs "mozjs: Please upgrade to last release (mozjs17.0.0)" [Wishlist,Open]21:53
darkxstI imagine it will get into debian eventually but right now there doesnt seem to be much interest from them.21:54
infinitydarkxst: Well, Chris maintains the Debian mozjs, no?  Would make sense for him to get this one in too.22:03
infinitydarkxst: I mostly just don't want to see it done independently in Ubuntu and Debian and have you guys shoot yourselves in the foot with a painful migration later to sync up.22:03
infinitydarkxst: Other than that, it looks fine, and I'm inclined to let it in.  Just trying to look out for overall archive health on that point.22:03
infinitychrisccoulson: You have any opinions on the mosjz17 in saucy/NEW, or any inclination to maintain it in Debian?22:05
jbichawe've tried pinging Chris before; I didn't get the impression he was at all interested in maintaining mozjs22:13
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
jbichaI think people are just hoping someone else will review it :|22:17
infinityjbicha: I'm happy to review it in Ubuntu, I just don't want to see Debian go another route and cause a massice headache while people migrate packaging to match.22:25
infinityjbicha: If there's a strong commitment to maintain it in Ubuntu and no current interest in doing so in Debian, I'm sure you could find a sponsor.22:25
infinityjbicha: (Maybe Laurent, who filed the bug)22:26
darkxstinfinity, right now gjs is the only project using it22:26
darkxstand probably it will stay like that until its more widely available22:27
darkxstwell newer polkit supports it as well, but that will still build with old version22:34
jbichaI don't think the Debian packaging will diverge significantly and the Ubuntu GNOME maintainers will take care of fixing things if it does22:37
infinityWill this need an MIR as well, or is universe fine for now?>22:38
infinitydarkxst, jbicha ^22:38
darkxstinfinity, universe would be fine for now, gjs/gnome-shell are in universe anyway22:43
infinitydarkxst: Accepted, then.22:44
infinityAnd now I need to go file my own MIR for the new eglibc build-deps.  Grr.22:44
darkxstinfinity, thanks! ;)22:45
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!