[01:26] <micahg> jalcine: I don't see a reason why not, maybe file a wishlist bug in Debian?
[07:08] <dholbach> good morning
[11:35] <jalcine> micahg: I'd look into it, thanks
[11:36] <jalcine> morning dholbach
[11:40] <dholbach> hi jalcine
[16:16] <mfisch> Does Ubuntu automatically sync new packages from debian? (new to debian packages)
[16:23] <hannie> I have given the package I made version # 1.0. Can I keep this or should i change it to 0ubuntu1 for Ubuntu?
[16:24] <mfisch> hannie: did you make ubuntu changes?
[16:24] <hannie> well, it is just a pdf file, the ubuntu manual
[16:25] <hannie> I packaged it and gave it version 1.0
[16:26] <mfisch> hannie: I don't think it needs 0ubuntu1 then since it's really only for ubuntu
[16:26] <mfisch> there's no split between upstream and ubuntu
[16:27] <mfisch> take the ubuntu-packaging-guide as an example, it's 0.3.1 for the version
[16:27] <hannie> ok, that is a good example.
[16:28] <hannie> mfisch, thanks
[16:29] <hannie> Conclusion: I can take any version number I want
[16:35] <hannie> Now I need 2 motu's  to review and sign off my package (Going through MOTU)
[16:54] <micahg> mfisch: it should have -0ubuntu1 if there's an upstream source, if it's a native package, than not
[16:55] <micahg> ubuntu-packaging-guide is also in Debian :)
[16:55] <mfisch> micahg: right, I don't think there's an upstream here, but I didn't ask
[16:56] <micahg> hrm, not quite right, Ubuntu designation if there's an upstream source or different than Debian
[16:56] <mfisch> if Ubuntu is the upstream than it doesn't need the designation
[16:56] <mfisch> right?
[17:21] <micahg> mfisch: well, I'd say it depends, if it's not in Debian, right, otherwise, it's good to have it
[18:29] <geser> mfisch: Ubuntu auto-syncs also new packages from Debian till DebianImportFreeze which should be the case now
[18:29] <micahg> DIF was last week
[19:02] <mfisch> micahg/geser: I was told that Ubuntu does not have every package that debian has, so a) is that true and b) is there a blacklist?
[19:03] <geser> mfisch: yes, Ubuntu doesn't have all packages, e.g. not the kfreebsd kernel and related packages
[19:03] <jbicha> mfisch: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/sync-blacklist.txt
[19:04] <mfisch> thanks guys
[19:04] <mfisch> it will have every *new* package unless someones updates this list
[19:09] <geser> mfisch: if you want to sync a new or updated package now, you have to request it (we are past DIF)
[19:09] <mfisch> geser: yep, I get that
[19:09] <mfisch> I just didn't know about this list
[19:10] <mfisch> I was told debian had "multiple thousands" more packages than Ubuntu
[19:12] <micahg> hrm, shouldn't be
[19:15] <Unit193> Debian jessie: Total package names: 49180 (984 k) Normal packages: 37555  Raring: Total package names: 52855 (1,057 k) Normal packages: 40663
[19:27] <jbicha> mfisch: see the Derived from Wheezy section of https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/saucy/
[19:28] <mfisch> interesting stats
[19:38] <mfisch> zul: why would openstack packages be blacklisted?
[19:39] <zul> mfisch:  because we dont sync them from debian
[19:39] <micahg> I would hope that could eventually be remedied
[19:39] <mfisch> zul: if we have local changes, they shouldn't be sync'd anyway, right?  or is this just to prevent someone from doing it not just an automated process?
[19:40] <mfisch> in other words, local changes blocks the autosync anyway
[19:40] <zul> mfisch:  they are a version behind and we dont use their packages as a sbase
[19:40] <mfisch> does the blacklist prevent a rogue MOTU from syncing?
[19:40] <zul> mfisch:  yes
[19:40] <mfisch> ok, thanks zul
[19:40] <zul> and they are in main as well
[19:41] <zul> micahg:  openstack from debian going to be remedied? its not going to be...ever
[19:42] <micahg> zul: I don't see why the teams can't eventually work together and just upload to Debian and sync
[19:42] <zul> micahg:  sure...but it isnt going to happen anytime soon
[19:43] <micahg> zul: speaking of Debian, can you look into the mail that zigo copied you on re python-warlock?
[19:44] <zul> micahg:  its on my todo list
[19:44] <micahg> ok, thanks
[19:49] <jbicha> quite a bit of the openstack stuff is in sync http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=openstack-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
[22:26] <teresaejunior> Hi to all! I'm a long time Debian user researching the benefits of switching to Ubuntu! I hope you don't mind answering my question:
[22:26] <teresaejunior> I was reading about security procedures for a LTS and, from what I could gather, Canonical officially supports about 700 packages (http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/lucid-supported.txt) and the rest is left to the community.
[22:26] <teresaejunior> I took a list of my most commonly used desktop applications, and most of them come from universe.
[22:26] <teresaejunior> Now the question is, for the MOTU developers, is the priority on security mostly for the current release like raring? How are the LTS handled?
[22:27] <Rcart> asd
[22:38] <micahg> teresaejunior: that's for the LTS that's server only
[22:42] <micahg> teresaejunior: in terms of MOTU. it's really whatever people want to work on
[22:43] <teresaejunior> micahg: hi, thanks for your answer! i had a look at the wiki page for LTS and and it seems to be focused on enterprise customers really
[22:43] <teresaejunior> micahg: i use long term releases on the desktop too, like debian stable, but was concerned about security aswell
[22:44] <micahg> teresaejunior: so, 12.04 is LTS for desktop for 5 years
[22:45] <micahg> that should come with the requisite security support for most stuff in main, you can find out about individual packages with the ubuntu-support-status program
[22:45] <jtaylor> security in universe is not so great, often fixes are much slower than debian, sometimes never
[22:45] <teresaejunior> micahg: i think i didn't understand you. please, what did you mean when you said "that's for the LTS that's server only"
[22:45] <jtaylor> depends if someone finds the time/will to do so
[22:46] <micahg> teresaejunior: Lucid is now a server only LTS, desktop support ended in April
[22:47] <teresaejunior> micahg: ok, now i get it!
[22:48] <teresaejunior> jtaylor: so i think that, unless i use the default Ubuntu media with Unity, I should not go for a LTS release on the desktop
[22:48] <micahg> teresaejunior: well, the flavors try to support their own packages and have different LTS shelf lifes
[22:49] <micahg> the base desktop is currently shared by the flavors X/Mesa
[22:49] <jtaylor> teresaejunior: depends on how much time you want to invest yourself and how paranoid you are
[22:49] <micahg> here's a list of who committed to what for how long: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/ReleaseManifest
[22:50] <jtaylor> e.g. I ahve all my applications dealing with untrusted sources apparmored and am subscribed to debian-security-announce
[22:51] <teresaejunior> micahg: thank you, although i wouldn't really use any of the falvours
[22:52] <teresaejunior> jtaylor: and what do you do when advisories are announced?
[22:53] <jtaylor> if they concern me I try to do the update in ubuntu
[22:53] <jtaylor> though lately I didn't really do much ._.
[22:53] <teresaejunior> jtaylor: do you recompile them?
[22:54] <jtaylor> if its fixed in debian you can often just take their patches
[22:55] <teresaejunior> jtaylor: could i assume that the most important ones get their way through the MOTU?
[22:56] <teresaejunior> jtaylor: also, do you use the LTS?
[22:56] <jtaylor> luckily the most important stuff tends to be in main
[22:56] <jtaylor> lts and latest
[22:59] <teresaejunior> jtaylor: ok, thanks! although i still don't know what decision to make...
[23:06] <teresaejunior> good night to all