[13:11] <mark06> why this? http://vpaste.net/owShV
[16:19] <teward> any way to subscribe to all the questions/answers for a given source package, like we can do for bugs
[16:20] <teward> (in Ubuntu)
[16:29] <dobey> i don't know. i wish we could just disable answers for ubuntu though; the right place to ask questions for it is on askubuntu
[16:38] <cjwatson> teward: https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/SOURCE-PACKAGE/+answer-contact
[16:38] <teward> cjwatson: that's what i was assuming, thanks.  *adds self*
[16:39] <teward> cjwatson: wasn't sure if that's what i needed though
[16:39]  * teward went poking :0
[16:39] <teward> :) *
[17:15] <cjwatson> (hopefully will be more like seconds, but just in case anything goes wrong)
[22:13] <teward> in the bug tracker, when Debian is the upstream, what determines 'Fix Released' other than whether the bug is 'done' or not in the BTS, and is there a trigger for "won't fix"
[22:42] <wgrant> teward: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/devel/view/head:/lib/lp/bugs/externalbugtracker/debbugs.py#L126
[22:42] <teward> wgrant: thank you kindly
[22:42] <teward> ahhh okay
[22:42] <wgrant> teward: An open bug with the wontfix tag is Won't Fix.
[22:42] <teward> so that's what's missing
[22:42] <teward> wgrant: what about Resolved Bug with wontfix
[22:43] <teward> nginx has a couple of those, marked done but not wontfix
[22:43] <teward> wgrant: basically, no implementation then for Resolved, Won'tFix
[22:44] <wgrant> teward: I don't think that's valid.
[22:44] <wgrant> done and wontfix sound mutually exclusive to me.
[23:14] <cjwatson> wgrant: There's an idiom in debbugs where people wontfix and also close to get it off their list.
[23:14] <cjwatson> wgrant: Remember that debbugs has the verb "close" for this; the state is overloaded.
[23:14] <cjwatson> So I would say done+wontfix should be mapped to Won't Fix.
[23:18] <wgrant> I hate debbugs :)
[23:18] <wgrant> That doesn't seem unreasonable, no.
[23:18] <wgrant> But can't be common since I don't recall it having come up before.
[23:19] <teward> wgrant: its probably in a small number of cases, yes, but I doubt by any means is it rare
[23:19] <cjwatson> wontfix was an after-market add-on to debbugs.
[23:19] <teward> (uncommon, probably, but can we really get a realistic snapshot of the debian bts and how many people actually abide by the actual closing protocols from debian even though they're supposed to
[23:19] <cjwatson> Like tags in general, in fact.
[23:20] <teward> cjwatson: so would just checking for 'wontfix' on its own work for "Won't Fix" status in the tracker here?
[23:20] <teward> given that you get Open+WontFix and Done+WontFix
[23:21] <cjwatson> That feels correct to me, but feel free to do a random survey to check.
[23:24] <teward> cjwatson: who should i contact for this 'random survey' then?  -devel?  QA teams?  Server team?  etc.  Because the wishlist items I *know* were requested of Debian that are closed won'tfix are getting upstream tracker listings as "Fix Released" here downstream and it's messing with my head (and likely others) for nginx and probably other Universe section packages
[23:25] <cjwatson> No, I mean a random selection of bugs with the wontfix tag and see what you think their states mean.
[23:25] <cjwatson> Not a random survey of people.
[23:25] <teward> ahh okay
[23:26] <cjwatson> And actually random across the bug database (rsync the DB and use an RNG to select them, or something), not a selection from packages you follow
[23:26] <teward> cjwatson: any idea where i can rsync the db?  (it's probably huge)
[23:27] <cjwatson> https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Access
[23:27] <cjwatson> You could reasonably pick a few of the hashed directories, since they're divided up by the last two digits of the bug number so shouldn't be particularly biased.
[23:28] <cjwatson> But you'd want to select from both db and archive.
[23:28] <teward> right
[23:28] <teward> that's on my list for things to do tomorrow, i'm a little spent beating at my VPN today >.>
[23:37] <ssalenik> Hi, I have just successfully uploaded my .debs with dput, but then I got a rejection due to: "Unhandled exception processing upload: sequence item 0: expected string, exceptions.SystemError found"
[23:38] <cjwatson> Uh, that's back?  Did somebody unhold apt on alphecca?
[23:39] <wgrant> cjwatson: debs with dput :)
[23:39] <cjwatson> Er yeah good point
[23:39] <wgrant> ssalenik: You need to upload a source package. Launchpad doesn't accept binary packages directly.
[23:39] <cjwatson> I must submit my branch to at least make the error message a little more comprehensible.
[23:40] <cjwatson> (To us if not to users ...)
[23:40] <ssalenik> wgrant: ah ok... I was under the impression that if I'm just patching an existing ubuntu package that I don't need the source
[23:40] <cjwatson> No, there's no distinction there.
[23:40] <wgrant> Neither legally nor technically.
[23:41] <ssalenik> thanks