[08:28] <dholbach> good morning
[08:30] <rbasak> dholbach: p/
[08:30] <rbasak> o/
[08:30] <dholbach> hey rbasak!
[08:31] <rbasak> dholbach: could you take a look at https://code.launchpad.net/~geoubuntu/ubuntu/trusty/gnomeradio/1256796/+merge/197817, please? It looks like he's effectively taking over maintenance of a dead upstream/less responsive Debian maintenance, but is trying to do it in Ubuntu, and I'm not comfortable sponsoring this.
[08:32] <rbasak> I appreciate the work - just that coordinating with upstream or maintaining an upstream patchset/friendly fork might be a better approach. I don't know what Ubuntu has done in this sort of case in the past.
[08:34] <dholbach> rbasak, I sponsored a lot of his patches and had some discussions already about forking the original code and throwing it up as an "-ng" project or something on LP
[08:34] <dholbach> he's doing a good job, but up until now hasn't taken the time to set up the project
[08:35] <rbasak> dholbach: he's been updating this MP pretty much daily. How much sense is it for sponsors to continuously review what is effectively every upstream commit?
[08:37] <dholbach> rbasak, I agree with you - it's just that I mentioned it to him a couple of times, but wanted to get on with my work and get on with getting the sponsoring queue down
[08:38] <dholbach> if you want I can write an email in a bit and CC you
[08:39] <Noskcaj> Is anyone willing to give me a testimonial for MOTU? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Noskcaj#MOTU
[08:40] <rbasak> dholbach: I don't mind. I just thought I'd mention it, as I'm not comfortable sponsoring/reviewing this and didn't want his work to get missed.
[08:42] <Noskcaj> And can a few of the older devs check  http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/neglected/ since a lot of packages are older than any release we support
[08:43] <Noskcaj> and as always, has anyone got some merges i can/should do?
[19:55] <michagogo|cloud> Question: I've read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates. Does that policy also forbid the removal of a package from released releases? (for Universe packages, specifically)
[20:13] <cjwatson> michagogo|cloud: we can't remove packages from stable releases, because we don't regenerate the stable Packages files, ever
[20:14] <michagogo|cloud> :-/
[20:14] <cjwatson> michagogo|cloud: in the event of a cease-and-desist threat, I suppose we might have to look at it, but in general if such a thing is required the best we could do would be to issue an "update" that replaces the package with something essentially empty
[20:15] <michagogo|cloud> The issue is with the Bitcoin software
[20:15] <michagogo|cloud> It's really not anywhere near mature enough to be in any "stable" release
[20:15] <cjwatson> (probably no point telling me more about it now, I have to go and do childcare)
[20:16] <michagogo|cloud> For example, version 0.3.24, shipping in Precise's Universe, will simply not work with the rest of the network
[20:19] <Noskcaj> cjwatson, Would you mind giving me a testimonial for MOTU at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Noskcaj#MOTU ?
[21:29] <rbasak> michagogo|cloud: are you aware of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports? That, or a PPA, would be a good place to maintain Bitcoin for Ubuntu, if somebody wants to do it.
[21:29] <rbasak> Actually I think there is a PPA for it.
[21:30] <rbasak> (though of course you have to trust the PPA, which is an issue for Bitcoin more than most other software)
[21:37] <ersi> Yes, there is an official Bitcoin PPA: http://bitcoin.org/en/download leads to https://launchpad.net/~bitcoin/+archive/bitcoin
[22:04] <michagogo|cloud> rbasak: Yes, there is ppa:bitcoin/bitcoin, maintained by BlueMatt (Matt Corallo), one of the core deva
[22:04] <michagogo|cloud> devs*
[22:06] <michagogo|cloud> The issue, though, is that the software, in its current state, is not really suitable for distribution as part of a frozen release
[22:07] <michagogo|cloud> For a multitude of reasons.
[22:08] <michagogo|cloud> For example, the Ubuntu repos don't include BDB 4.8.
[22:08] <michagogo|cloud> 4.8 is the version that release binaries for all platforms are built against
[22:09] <michagogo|cloud> Ubuntu ships Bitcoin builds with BDB 5.1. BDB is used in Bitcoin for the wallet.
[22:10] <michagogo|cloud> BDB 5.1 databases are not backwards-compatible with BDB 4.8.
[22:12] <michagogo|cloud> Meaning that a Bitcoin wallet that was created, or ever loaded, by an Ubuntu release of Bitcoin instantly becomes non-portable, incompatible with everything else.
[22:13] <michagogo|cloud> Now, there is zero warning and zero notification to the user of this
[22:22] <michagogo|cloud> Fortunately, Scott Howard of the Debian Bitcoin Maintainers Team does understand, and was able to get the package removed from Debian stable (wheezy), leaving it only in the unstable branch. This and many other issues make the Bitcoin software unsuitable for inclusion in a stable release. It's simply irresponsible to leave it in like this.
[22:33] <rbasak> michagogo|cloud: you could ask for an exception to the Debian importer, and then get bitcoin removed from the development release. That's a clearer first step at least - to stop further releases.
[22:33] <rbasak> michagogo|cloud: it seems to me that auto-upgrading wallets is a bug though, rather than a release process issue.
[22:34] <rbasak> (if you consider that behaviour to be wrong)