=== freeflying_away is now known as freeflying === freeflying is now known as freeflying_away === freeflying_away is now known as freeflying [07:52] did we get a strange spam-bot on http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/bugs/rcbugs/ or is my browser broken? [08:07] yeah that happens [08:07] ajmitch: ^^^ === freeflying is now known as freeflying_away === freeflying_away is now known as freeflying === freeflying is now known as freeflying_away [17:05] question for the MOTUs, what's the likelihood that a request to add a module to the nginx-naxsi package (to add additional functionality) in Precise would ever get approved? The module isn't critical to operation and just adds nifty naxsi monitoring stuff. [17:06] trying to get an official "MOTU Opinion" on it, since the "request" came up in a bug [17:53] if an SRU is verification-failed what happens to the package in the -proposed repository? [17:54] does it eventually go away? [18:13] and also, if I prepare a debdiff to fix the package, should I base the fixes off of proposed, and bump from, say, -1ubuntu0.3 (in proposed) to -1ubuntu0.4 (for the new fix), or do i just create another -1ubuntu0.3 debdiff? [19:02] What is the best way to raise awareness of a silly package bug? [19:38] TheLordOfTime: !sru [19:38] !sru [19:38] Stable Release Update information is at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates [19:39] TheLordOfTime: SRU is generall for bug fixing, no new functions [19:39] ari-tczew: bdmurray beat you to answering all the questions [19:39] well, most of them [19:40] ari-tczew: and yes, i'm aware, general bug fixing, no new functions, hence me wanting to talk to a MOTU... [19:40] hm, had I lost of internet connection? [19:40] because they can give more specific insights on issues such as this - the code for a module exists in NGINX but isn't "compiled" in 1.1.19... [19:40] the question is whether it should ever be activated based on a "Wishlist" like bug [19:41] but more importantly... [19:41] ari-tczew: Crossposting. [19:41] i have to get this more urgent issue with the package fixed/uploading first [19:41] ari-tczew: actually, bdmurray answered the general SRU questions, minus the whole issue of the missing module, in -bugs. but yes, as Unit said, generally crossposting-ish [19:41] (after non-response here for the longest time) [19:42] TheLordOfTime: if your bug is fixed in newest ubuntu release, you can request a backport [19:43] ari-tczew: again, spouting stuff i already know that's not helping [19:43] so you can stop, and i'll wait for someone on the MOTU team to respond. [19:44] * TheLordOfTime goes back to poking bugs because they need urgent fixes [19:47] TheLordOfTime: ouh, of course, I should not speak, sorry [19:47] ari-tczew: sorry if I seem like an ass, but as I just told you in priv, the issue isn't backport-worthy for this case, and one bug's status of existing as a bug is in question [19:48] hence me seeking MOTU guidance on the issue, so i really apologize if i seem hostile, but i'm a tad... swamped is a good word for it [19:48] * TheLordOfTime has 10 nginx bugfixes lined up o.O [19:50] TheLordOfTime: after given link, I'd follow to answering, but then I saw you've already spoken @ another channel [19:51] ari-tczew: ehhh, there's a lot of crap i've got going on... one's an SRU that needs fixing to remove a FailToInstallAfterPurge issue... [19:51] so it's not so good to see that for you it's important if person is in MOTU or not [19:51] ari-tczew: i'm swamped, that's the problem [19:51] over-stressed is of course the other issue [19:52] I'm aware what an SRU is, I'm aware what backports are for, but neither seem to fit the issue [19:52] short of someone who can literally overrule anything saying "This isn't going to ever be able to be fixed because it's already a released version of Ubuntu" i've got three people arguing in email saying it should be added/included [19:52] and me saying "I can't make that call." [19:53] on top of that, i've got a bunch of other bugfixes I have to commit... o.o [19:53] so i'm a tad swamped and stressed, so whether I need a MOTU or not, i'm stuck with people arguing with me in email that is adding to the stress [19:53] hello, is there anyone who can update the package "dooble" ? it is from 2006 version 0.02 and now there is version 1.45 soon 2014. this is 6 years!! http://dooble.sf.net [19:53] ari-tczew: so someone at the top of the food chain who c [19:53] an actually make a decisive call on it is the only real way i can get people to shut up via the emails [19:54] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dooble The package should have in the end the name " Dooble Web Browser" [19:54] ... stupid computer... [19:54] the maintainer michal zajc told me to ask here [19:54] is anyone able to do this? [19:54] what needs to be done to get this updated? [19:55] version 0,02 to version 1.45 is more than 80 version updates [19:55] ari-tczew: short of THAT, i'm going to continue to get emails about this, and likely am going to have to drop those people from emails. [19:56] TheLordOfTime: maybe you should consider to learn handling with your stress? [19:56] ari-tczew: and that's kinda bad form for a pseudo-unofficial maintainer of a package [19:56] // [19:56] mike321, rebuild the package, test it, and put it on a ppa would be a good start [19:56] i cannot do this [19:57] why? [19:57] never dont hsi, i have not the skill [19:58] mike321, some time next cycle i'll try and update it. Please file a bug asking for the update [19:59] debian has dooble 0.7.0 packaged [19:59] where tol fill the bug ? I tried to do this 2 years ago already [19:59] that is 002 [19:59] ok 007 [19:59] can you give me your email so that we can talk about it? [19:59] mike321: on launchpad, against that package [20:00] i can compile it on windows and give you some help or support maybe [20:00] the official page of the dooble project says current version is 0.7.0 : http://grothoff.org/christian/doodle/ [20:02] which is from january 2010, and latest svn has no special news after that (only translation fixes, and default verbosity changed) [20:04] lol, it is not doodle [20:04] it is dooble [20:04] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dooble [20:06] oh wait, how did i end up there [20:07] i mistyped, i guess, but debian has 0.7.0 [20:08] The is a bug filed for ebolution-mapi package which has been marked as incomplete which is inaccurate. In order to properly work with Exchange 2007+, python-samba has to be installed. The bug link is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution-mapi/+bug/1165913 [20:08] Ubuntu bug 1165913 in evolution-mapi (Ubuntu) "missing required dependency python-samba" [Undecided,Incomplete] [20:08] oh, got it, that's actually google who gave me the wrong result [20:09] there is actually no debian package [20:10] but to repay myself, i can help you package the latest 1.45 version [20:12] thats good, noskaj will try it too, but help is helpless for me, I cannot do that and will not learn it, it is true.. unfortunately. so my request needs someone caring fro the process [20:13] i mean, i'll try to build it [20:13] good [20:13] i can support you [20:13] as i did that for windows [20:15] someone already made the bug at bug 1066504 [20:15] bug 1066504 in dooble (Ubuntu) "it's now version 1.36" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1066504 [20:17] would be good to get it on debian [20:18] do you know someone who can help sponsor it? that would really help [20:19] i'm also looking for a sponsor for a phabricator package (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=723804) , with no news... [20:19] Debian bug 723804 in sponsorship-requests "RFS: phabricator/0.1~git20130909-1 [ITP]" [Wishlist,Open] [20:21] the bug was from me years ago [20:21] i dont know any sponsors [20:22] i was talking to Noskcaj [20:23] a new version can be packaged for ubuntu without sponsor [20:23] lenios, I'm not a debian developer, but i'll see what needs fixing for that to get uploaded [20:29] lenios: I'd be interested in sponsoring to get Phabricator in the archive. [20:29] that's great [20:29] However, you'd want to use a version like 0~gitNNNNNN-1; what if they make their first release "0.0.1"? [20:29] lenios, It's probably better to wait for an official tarball to be released, since that should fix a few of the issues. And add adding an empty debian/watch file is pretty simple [20:30] Normally 0.0~ is used when uploading to debian [20:30] there are a few warnings i can fix, but it should be ok [20:30] there is no official tarball, and i don't know when or even if they will release it [20:31] so we need a way to package it until that happens [20:31] oh, you mean 0.0 instead of 0.1 [20:31] yeah [20:31] i'll change that [20:51] lenios: review sent. [20:53] thanks