[07:52] <Noskcaj> did we get a strange spam-bot on http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/bugs/rcbugs/ or is my browser broken?
[08:07] <Laney> yeah that happens
[08:07] <Laney> ajmitch: ^^^
[17:05] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> trying to get an official "MOTU Opinion" on it, since the "request" came up in a bug
[17:53] <TheLordOfTime> if an SRU is verification-failed what happens to the package in the -proposed repository?
[17:54] <TheLordOfTime> does it eventually go away?
[18:13] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <slava> What is the best way to raise awareness of a silly package bug?
[19:38] <ari-tczew> TheLordOfTime: !sru
[19:38] <ari-tczew> !sru
[19:39] <ari-tczew> TheLordOfTime: SRU is generall for bug fixing, no new functions
[19:39] <TheLordOfTime> ari-tczew: bdmurray beat you to answering all the questions
[19:39] <TheLordOfTime> well, most of them
[19:40] <TheLordOfTime> ari-tczew: and yes, i'm aware, general bug fixing, no new functions, hence me wanting to talk to a MOTU...
[19:40] <ari-tczew> hm, had I lost of internet connection?
[19:40] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> the question is whether it should ever be activated based on a "Wishlist" like bug
[19:41] <TheLordOfTime> but more importantly...
[19:41] <Unit193> ari-tczew: Crossposting.
[19:41] <TheLordOfTime> i have to get this more urgent issue with the package fixed/uploading first
[19:41] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> (after non-response here for the longest time)
[19:42] <ari-tczew> TheLordOfTime: if your bug is fixed in newest ubuntu release, you can request a backport
[19:43] <TheLordOfTime> ari-tczew: again, spouting stuff i already know that's not helping
[19:43] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <ari-tczew> TheLordOfTime: ouh, of course, I should not speak, sorry
[19:47] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <ari-tczew> TheLordOfTime: after given link, I'd follow to answering, but then I saw you've already spoken @ another channel
[19:51] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <ari-tczew> so it's not so good to see that for you it's important if person is in MOTU or not
[19:51] <TheLordOfTime> ari-tczew: i'm swamped, that's the problem
[19:51] <TheLordOfTime> over-stressed is of course the other issue
[19:52] <TheLordOfTime> I'm aware what an SRU is, I'm aware what backports are for, but neither seem to fit the issue
[19:52] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <TheLordOfTime> and me saying "I can't make that call."
[19:53] <TheLordOfTime> on top of that, i've got a bunch of other bugfixes I have to commit... o.o
[19:53] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <mike321> 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] <TheLordOfTime> ari-tczew: so someone at the top of the food chain who c
[19:53] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <mike321> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dooble The package should have in the end the name " Dooble Web Browser"
[19:54] <TheLordOfTime> ... stupid computer...
[19:54] <mike321> the maintainer michal zajc told me to ask here
[19:54] <mike321> is anyone able to do this?
[19:54] <mike321> what needs to be done to get this updated?
[19:55] <mike321> version 0,02 to version 1.45 is more than 80 version updates
[19:55] <TheLordOfTime> 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] <ari-tczew> TheLordOfTime: maybe you should consider to learn handling with your stress?
[19:56] <TheLordOfTime> ari-tczew: and that's kinda bad form for a pseudo-unofficial maintainer of a package
[19:56] <TheLordOfTime> //
[19:56] <lenios> mike321, rebuild the package, test it, and put it on a ppa would be a good start
[19:56] <mike321> i cannot do this
[19:57] <lenios> why?
[19:57] <mike321> never dont hsi, i have not the skill
[19:58] <Noskcaj> mike321, some time next cycle i'll try and update it. Please file a bug asking for the update
[19:59] <lenios> debian has dooble 0.7.0 packaged
[19:59] <mike321> where tol fill the bug ? I tried to do this 2 years ago already
[19:59] <mike321> that is 002
[19:59] <mike321> ok 007
[19:59] <mike321> can you give me your email so that we can talk about it?
[19:59] <ari-tczew> mike321: on launchpad, against that package
[20:00] <mike321> i can compile it on windows and give you some help or support maybe
[20:00] <lenios> the official page of the dooble project says current version is 0.7.0 : http://grothoff.org/christian/doodle/
[20:02] <lenios> which is from january 2010, and latest svn has no special news after that (only translation fixes, and default verbosity changed)
[20:04] <mike321> lol, it is not doodle
[20:04] <mike321> it is dooble
[20:04] <mike321> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dooble
[20:06] <lenios> oh wait, how did i end up there
[20:07] <lenios> i mistyped, i guess, but debian has 0.7.0
[20:08] <slava> 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] <lenios> oh, got it, that's actually google who gave me the wrong result
[20:09] <lenios> there is actually no debian package
[20:10] <lenios> but to repay myself, i can help you package the latest 1.45 version
[20:12] <mike321> 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] <lenios> i mean, i'll try to build it
[20:13] <mike321> good
[20:13] <mike321> i can support you
[20:13] <mike321> as i did that for windows
[20:15] <Noskcaj> someone already made the bug at bug 1066504
[20:17] <lenios> would be good to get it on debian
[20:18] <lenios> do you know someone who can help sponsor it? that would really help
[20:19] <lenios> i'm also looking for a sponsor for a phabricator package (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=723804) , with no news...
[20:21] <mike321> the bug was from me years ago
[20:21] <mike321> i dont know any sponsors
[20:22] <lenios> i was talking to Noskcaj
[20:23] <lenios> a new version can be packaged for ubuntu without sponsor
[20:23] <Noskcaj> lenios, I'm not a debian developer, but i'll see what needs fixing for that to get uploaded
[20:29] <lfaraone> lenios: I'd be interested in sponsoring to get Phabricator in the archive.
[20:29] <lenios> that's great
[20:29] <lfaraone> However, you'd want to use a version like 0~gitNNNNNN-1; what if they make their first release "0.0.1"?
[20:29] <Noskcaj> 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] <Noskcaj> Normally 0.0~ is used when uploading to debian
[20:30] <lenios> there are a few warnings i can fix, but it should be ok
[20:30] <lenios> there is no official tarball, and i don't know when or even if they will release it
[20:31] <lenios> so we need a way to package it until that happens
[20:31] <lenios> oh, you mean 0.0 instead of 0.1
[20:31] <Noskcaj> yeah
[20:31] <lenios> i'll change that
[20:51] <lfaraone> lenios: review sent.
[20:53] <lenios> thanks