[09:55] <mitya57> Hi! There is no sil2100, but maybe someone else can look why https://bileto.ubuntu.com/log/4900/build/1/ got stuck?
[12:20] <ahasenack> TIL dh-nss exists, to install /etc/nsswitch.conf services
[12:20] <ahasenack> more specifically, to add entries to /etc/nsswitch.conf
[12:20] <ahasenack> sergiodj: ^ FYI
[13:40] <slyon> enr0n: FYI: systemd FTBFS with the new glibc 2.36 from -proposed. I integrated the upstream fix to solve this: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu/+source/systemd/commit/?h=ubuntu-kinetic&id=1e8048741cc0f811faf6b9e713a3fb7e38ef3503
[14:03] <enr0n> slyon: cool, thanks!
[15:41] <arraybolt3[m]> Hey, quick question for y'all - if I hit a source code file in software I'm helping package that is under a license that isn't specifically named and doesn't look like any license I've seen before, how do I put that in debian/copyright?
[15:42] <arraybolt3[m]> (The file is in an audio plugin package I'm working on making the debian/copyright file for, it's made by Apple and the license, while it is free and open-source, it's also not anything I've seen. It looks... BSD-inspired, maybe? But definitely not BSD AFAICT.)
[15:46] <rbasak> arraybolt3[m]: I think the hard requirement is merely that it's DFSG-compatible and that it's documented in debian/copyright. So you can paste the license, or install the file somewhere if it's large and then mention that in debian/copyright, etc.
[15:47] <rbasak> arraybolt3[m]: if you're following dep5 (https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep5/) then you can add a License section that contains the license.
[15:47] <rbasak> arraybolt3[m]: there's an example on that page. Search for "PSF-2"
[15:48] <rbasak> "If there are licenses present in the package without a standard short name, an arbitrary short name may be assigned for these licenses."
[15:48] <arraybolt3[m]> rbasak: Ah, thank you for that link! It says I can use an arbitrary short name, which is what I needed to know.
[15:48] <arraybolt3[m]> Thank you!
[15:50] <rbasak> Ah I said above you can link to a separate file, but that's wrong. That's only allowed for a specific limited list: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile
[15:50] <rbasak> Apart from that debian/copyright must contain the full license text.
[15:51] <arraybolt3[m]> That's not a problem, it's a short license.
[15:51] <rbasak> Sure. Just correcting myself for the record.
[16:02] <cyphermox> if you want to find a name for it you could also grep the SPDX github for a meaningful portion of the license text, in case it shows up
[16:02] <cyphermox> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/tree/master/src
[16:10] <sergiodj> ahasenack: TIL indeed
[16:16] <arraybolt3[m]> cyphermox: Thanks, that's handy! Looks like it's some very shortened variant of APL to me (still not quite the same though). I guess I'll call it ASPL (Apple Short Public License).
[17:16] <cyphermox> arraybolt3[m]: if it's not quite the same I would just not give it a name
[17:17] <arraybolt3[m]> cyphermox: You can do that? I thought it had to have a short name.
[19:20] <cyphermox> I wouldn't invent a name
[19:26] <sarnold> you wouldn't download a license
[19:27] <Eickmeyer[m]> You wouldn't download RAM either.
[20:27] <arraybolt3[m]> Well then what should I do if the license has no name and the specification requires a short name?
[20:28] <arraybolt3[m]> I mean, the doc literally says to invent a name.
[20:38] <luis220413> Please reopen bug 1843806
[20:39] <luis220413> The status of this bug was set by the reporter to Won't Fix immediately after reporting it.
[20:59] <Eickmeyer[m]> luis220413: You need to take that up with teward . He's the person that closed it as "Won't Fix" and is a seasoned developer. We are not going to override his decision.
[21:00] <Eickmeyer[m]> And, once again, stop with the insistence. You've been warned.
[21:00] <luis220413> Eickmeyer[m]: This seems to be a mistake, because he said that this bug will not be fixed for Eoan (the development series at the time the bug was filed) but may be considered for Focal.
[21:00] <teward> i'm... confused
[21:00] <teward> why am i receiving pings?
[21:01] <luis220413> teward: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bind9/+bug/1843806/comments/5
[21:01] <luis220413> teward: You are receiving pings because this is your Launchpad username.
[21:01] <teward> i was talking to Eickmeyer[m] ;)
[21:01] <Eickmeyer[m]> teward: Because he wants to reopen a bug you closed as "Won't Fix".
[21:03] <teward> then he can file his own SRU bug.  The original SRU is closed as wont fix and is staying dead.  And I dont think SRU intended to add new features despite a MIR completing or not
[21:03] <Eickmeyer[m]> luis220413: ^
[21:03] <teward> luis220413: 'revisited' was not a guarantee it would be looked at
[21:04] <teward> and guess what i got other priorities than bind9 dnstap
[21:04] <Eickmeyer[m]> That's the correct procedure.
[21:04] <teward> luis220413: if you want this considered for 20.04 onwards you have to file a *new* SRU request
[21:05] <teward> dont touch the dead dnstap sru i filed.
[21:05] <teward> Eickmeyer[m]: hes been warned about what insistence?  DM me specific logs / references please
[21:06] <teward> fyi i'm coming off a day long shift of beating an ms365 + exchange mail cluster at FT job to make it behave with an onprem app so i'm extra grumpy today
[21:08] <luis220413> teward: I just filed bug 1986586.
[21:09] <luis220413> I reset the status to New.
[21:09] <teward> and i need more pings on this why?
[21:09] <teward> i'm not Release Team.
[21:10] <sarnold> I have to expect the SRU team will require significantly more compelling test plan and problem sections
[21:12] <teward> ^^ that though
[21:12] <teward> sarnold knows all
[21:12] <teward> speaking of sarnold i summon you to dms
[21:12] <sarnold> eek I'm being dragged to another window! help help!
[21:13] <luis220413> sarnold: What do you mean?
[21:16] <sarnold> luis220413: take a look at the bug template again https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#SRU_Bug_Template  "detailed instructions" and "imagine the change is wrong or breaks something else, how would this show up?"
[21:17] <sarnold> luis220413: those aren't idle questions. go through the old SRUs and take a look at questions the SRU team has asked people who've proposed SRUs in the past. they expect details before they'll distribute changes to the tens of millions of ubuntu users.
[22:01] <luis220413> sarnold: I updated the bug with a complete test plan and an improved regression analysis.