[00:17] <sarnold> bdmurray: my guess is that should be on python-apt instead of apt; I wonder what else this'll break though...
[02:08] <arraybolt3> Just making sure that there's not something I don't know about here. I believe that Doxyfiles (Doxygen configuration files) that have the usual commented "how to use this file" stuff in them are always under the GPLv2, as the license states "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation under the terms of the GNU General Public License is hereby granted."
[02:08] <arraybolt3> Since some of the software's documentation is put into the Doxyfile, I think that makes it GPLv2.
[02:09] <arraybolt3> However, at the same time, it says "Documents produced by doxygen are derivative works derived from the input used in their production; they are not affected by this license." I don't know if this seemingly template-based Doxyfile I'm seeing in a package I'm working on is the output of Doxygen or not. What license is this under - the package's main license, or the GPLv2 of Doxygen?
[02:09] <arraybolt3> (This is the Doxyfile for libfm-qt.)
[02:12] <arraybolt3> FWIW I looked through the source code of Doxygen in GitHub and could not find the documentation I was seeing in the Doxyfile, though I saw others had suspiciously similar-looking Doxyfiles.
[02:12] <arraybolt3> I *did* find the documentation on the Doxygen website though.
[06:52] <tsimonq2> #pilot in
[06:52]  * tsimonq2 figures out the correct syntax these days...
[06:53] <arraybolt3> tsimonq2: Oh nifty, now you can maybe help me with my Doxygen question :P
[06:55] <tsimonq2> arraybolt3: I'd be interested in where you find "Documents produced by doxygen are derivative works derived from the input used in their production; they are not affected by this license." and under what context
[06:55] <arraybolt3[m]> Simon Quigley: Under the "Doxygen license" section of this page: https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/index.html
[06:56] <tsimonq2> So, libfm-qt doesn't have a code copy of Doxygen itself right, just a document produced by Doxygen?
[06:56] <arraybolt3[m]> I don't know.
[06:56] <tsimonq2> In that case I'd say it's pretty explicitly "under whatever license the input data comes from"
[06:57] <arraybolt3[m]> The code is the configuration file, which appears to have been built from a template and manually edited.
[06:57] <arraybolt3[m]> I would think yes because I've not been able to find the code in question in Doxygen's code, but I also don't know where people get the template from.
[06:58] <arraybolt3[m]> I'd think that I would at least have found the snippet within the code of the project in strings if it was generated, so the fact that I couldn't find it in the code leads me to believe that maybe the template is somewhere else and is under Doxygen's GPL-2 license.
[06:59] <tsimonq2> @pilot in
[06:59] <tsimonq2> darn, maybe the bot is broken, I won't spam too much :/
[07:00] <arraybolt3[m]> Perhaps !pilot in?
[07:00] <arraybolt3[m]> (Bot commands in Ubuntu rooms usually start with !)
[07:00] <tsimonq2> meh I'm not too worried about it
 "The code is the configuration..." <- I would have to see it to make a complete decision, but I'm thinking you're likely fine - if it started in the Doxygen source code and was not *produced* by Doxygen, I'm willing to bet it needs to be GPL-2 with proper attribution
[07:03] <tsimonq2> Hard to say without looking at the file you're talking about ;)
[07:03] <arraybolt3[m]> I can show it easily enough, one moment...
[07:04] <arraybolt3[m]> Simon Quigley: https://termbin.com/kp3t
[07:04] <arraybolt3[m]> (It wouldn't fit in a Matrix message :( )
[07:04] <arraybolt3[m]> Filename is "Doxyfile.in".
[07:05] <arraybolt3[m]> s/./ dot /
[07:07] <tsimonq2> https://www.doxygen.nl/manual/config.html -> "To create the layout file that represents doxygen's defaults, run doxygen with the -l option." -> This is a file produced by Doxygen, or at least one that *can* be produced by Doxygen -> It's covered under the exception
[07:08] <arraybolt3[m]> Gah, that's even the same page I looked at! Just didn't dig deep enough I guess. Alright, thank you!
[07:08] <tsimonq2> No worries, and if I'm wrong someone tell me please ;)
[08:07] <cpaelzer> athos: PG-15 itself was resolved, you can start the related no change rebuilds
[10:55] <rbasak> Where is the magic autopkgtest behaviour that translates "triggers" into apt pinning implemented? I'm looking at a case that succeeds locally but fails due to uninstallable test deps in infrastructure, so I'm trying reproduce the pinning exactly. I see that the autopkgtest-cloud worker sets ADT_TEST_TRIGGERS, but I can't find where that's actually picked up.
[10:57] <rbasak> eg. https://git.launchpad.net/autopkgtest-cloud/tree/charms/focal/autopkgtest-cloud-worker/autopkgtest-cloud/worker/worker#n546
[10:58] <rbasak> https://git.launchpad.net/autopkgtest-cloud/tree/charms/focal/autopkgtest-cloud-worker/autopkgtest-cloud/worker/worker#n654 looks like it might do it, but I don't see the result in the autopkgtest command line
[11:00] <rbasak> eg. https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/results/autopkgtest-lunar/lunar/amd64/h/htslib/20221128_192659_ff93e@/log.gz has ADT_TEST_TRIGGERS set but nothing added to --apt-pocket=proposed
[11:32] <rbasak> It looks like it is supposed to happen via the --apt-pocket flag, but for some reason I haven't figured out, it didn't happen in that test.
[11:36] <laney> rbasak: In autopkgtest itself. autopkgtest-cloud constructs the commandline for that, and then autopkgtest realises it as apt pinning.
[17:28] <bdmurray> Boy, this new desktop installer had me clicking around to see if I could get my exact city.
[17:34] <Eickmeyer> bdmurray: I know your exact city. That's a stretch. XD
[17:38] <bdmurray> Eickmeyer: I managed to click Battle Ground, Washougal, and Salmon Creek...
[17:39] <Eickmeyer> bdmurray: Wasougal surprises me. I might have to download to see if I can find Black Diamond.
[17:40] <Eickmeyer> (not my current town, but where I grew up)