| [07:46] <dholbach> good morning | |
| [16:02] <zoopster> mhall119: did we rectify the scope dep issues? | |
| [16:02] <wendar> stgraber: I notice that none of the ARB apps are showing their icons in the Software Centre, is this expected? | |
| [16:03] <stgraber> wendar: well, at least here if I click on them, then go back to the list, I get the icons | |
| [16:03] <stgraber> wendar: that looks like a SC bug, hopefully will resolve itself with the switch to MyApps API | |
| [16:03] <wendar> stgraber: I'm a little behind in updates, maybe I've got an older version of SC | |
| [16:13] <wendar> I'm looking for a next app to pick off | |
| [16:14] <wendar> but, not sure what ajmitch/highvoltage were working on | |
| [16:24] <mhall119> zoopster: no, it was sent to the TB over a week ago for discussion, no resolution yet or even much feedback that I've seen | |
| [16:26] <mhall119> zoopster: I have submitted my first package throuogh the developer portal though | |
| [16:26] <wendar> mhall119: the TB ran out of time, the business remix conversation took most of the hour | |
| [16:27] <mhall119> wendar: yeah, I was lurking | |
| [16:27] <mhall119> hopefully they'll have time to discuss it in the ML and bring it up in the next meeting | |
| [16:27] <wendar> mhall119: cool | |
| [16:28] <mhall119> I have a long list of lenses/scopes to get packaged and submitted to the ARB, but how they get packaged will depend on the outcome of that meeting | |
| [16:29] <wendar> yeah, it's a bit of a tricky one | |
| [16:29] <wendar> seems like we've got a workable solution either way | |
| [16:30] <wendar> (separate source packages, or treat each source package as a "mini distro" with all contributed scopes) | |
| [16:30] <mhall119> yeah, but it's process-tricky, not technical-tricky, so I unfortunately I can't just code up a solution | |
| [16:30] <wendar> yup | |
| [16:43] <wendar> stgraber: is it safe to click "Approve" on the ARB MyApps review page? | |
| [16:44] <wendar> stgraber: that just takes it to the "Pending QA" status, right? | |
| [16:44] <stgraber> wendar: yeah, the first Approve is safe, the second one (from Pending QA) isn't | |
| [16:47] <wendar> stgraber: what did you do when the Approve button complained about things that aren't relevant to extras? | |
| [16:47] <wendar> (like archive id and PPA signing key) | |
| [16:48] <stgraber> I simply entered some garbage in those fields ;) | |
| [16:48] <stgraber> and complained about it to achuni | |
| [16:49] <wendar> :) sounds good, I'll do the same | |
| [17:50] <wendar> okay, sent the framingham dev information about the changes we made to the package | |
| [17:50] <wendar> requested a real source tarball for Leds | |
| [17:50] <wendar> working on Guallet next, unless anyone claims it | |
| [18:32] <ajmitch> hi | |
| [18:33] <ajmitch> wendar: top of my list was tagplayer, I was just touching up the patches for that & checking it before I push for voting | |
| [18:33] <wendar> ajmitch: sweet! | |
| [18:34] <wendar> guallet seems to be another one that's packaged well, but needs a few touchups for /opt install and eliminating the deprecated python-support dependency | |
| [18:35] <ajmitch> yeah, I was going to do that after harmonyseq but please take it :) | |
| [18:35] <wendar> cool, will do | |
| [18:36] * ajmitch has picked a few of the changes to tagplayer from framingham, since they're both quickly apps | |
| [18:37] <wendar> great, glad to have the work generally useful | |
| [18:37] <wendar> I'm talking with the Quickly devs to see if we can get some of these changes upstream | |
| [18:37] <ajmitch> yeah, though I think they were created with different versions of quickly | |
| [18:37] <wendar> may not make it in time for Precise feature freeze | |
| [18:38] <wendar> yeah, that's the thing, it really depends on what version of Ubuntu they're running, and what version of Quickly was included | |
| [18:38] <wendar> some of the fixes did make it into Precise, so that's good | |
| [19:15] <ajmitch> transitions dj is new? | |
| [19:15] <wendar> stgraber: so, 'bzr builddeb' won't build a 3.0(native) format package with an '-0extras11.10.1' version number | |
| [19:15] <ajmitch> or I guess it could be mail leaking in from the commercial queue again | |
| [19:15] <wendar> stgraber: and, I notice all the unity lenses launched without the extras bit in their version numbers | |
| [19:15] <wendar> stgraber: is this an exception to the version number policy? | |
| [19:16] <stgraber> wendar: nope, that was me messing up the version numbers ;) | |
| [19:16] <stgraber> and apparently nobody noticing ;) | |
| [19:16] <wendar> ajmitch: I don't see it in the ARB queue, so must be a leaking message | |
| [19:17] <ajmitch> stgraber: we're bad people for not noticing that :) | |
| [19:17] <wendar> stgraber: well, technically the extras version number is wrong with a native format package | |
| [19:17] <wendar> stgraber: I wonder if I can find a way to make bzr builddeb ignore that fact... | |
| [19:18] <wendar> stgraber: I suppose I can just switch it over to 3.0(quilt) format | |
| [19:19] <ajmitch> you could get it to create an orig.tar.gz, but I don't know if that needs some information in the branch for that | |
| [19:20] <ajmitch> should I set a priority on https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/915902 ? | |
| [19:21] <ajmitch> it's a little frustrating not being able to see the needs info submissions | |
| [19:30] <stgraber> ajmitch: can you? | |
| [19:30] <stgraber> (as in, set a priority) | |
| [19:30] <ajmitch> now that you mention it, no, it's not editable to me :) | |
| [19:30] <ajmitch> darn | |
| [19:32] <stgraber> ajmitch: please feel free to post a comment every time it annoys you though | |
| [19:33] <ajmitch> stgraber: have you filed bugs for needing junk info in some fields before approving an app? | |
| [19:34] <stgraber> I don't think so, there might be one somewhere though. I only remember complaining about it in person to achuni and mvo ;) | |
| [19:34] * ajmitch wants to have all the bugs in LP | |
| [19:35] <ajmitch> if you don't have time to do it, I'll try & remember to put it in when tagplayer gets approved | |
| [19:35] <ajmitch> I understand that you may be a little busy this week with feature freeze :) | |
| [19:35] <stgraber> bah, not that bad, I only have around 8 new packages to upload today, then work items for the rest of the week and another batch of upload on Thursday ;) | |
| [19:36] <stgraber> and I spent all morning debugging upstart ;) | |
| [19:37] <ajmitch> suddenly, the allure of working for the foundations team is slipping away ;) | |
| [19:46] <ajmitch> wendar: thank you for updating the Review/Guidelines page | |
| [19:47] <wendar> ajmitch: welcome | |
| [19:47] <wendar> ajmitch: jumping around to all those scattered pages to remember all the requirements has been driving me nuts :) | |
| [19:48] <wendar> ajmitch: I still need to add the security guidelines | |
| [19:51] * ajmitch isn't sure how vague we're keeping those | |
| [19:51] <wendar> some are pretty specific | |
| [19:51] <ajmitch> since vague is good for giving us some leeway, but not great for developers | |
| [19:51] <wendar> like sudo, su, sg, gksudo, gksu, pkexec are not allowed, ever | |
| [19:52] <wendar> no cron jobs | |
| [19:52] <ajmitch> right, nor writing files outside of /home, which can cut out quite a few apps | |
| [19:52] <wendar> no adding to apt sources, or adding ppas, or adding to keyrings | |
| [19:52] <wendar> yup | |
| [19:52] <wendar> so, definitely worth listing the hard guidelines | |
| [19:53] <wendar> and we could add an item something to the effect that we may find security problems not listed during review | |
| [19:54] <ajmitch> a package can't install other packages, can it? I'm thinking of the case of a music player using the codec installer | |
| [19:55] <wendar> I recall a policy to that effect, but can't find it | |
| [19:56] <wendar> maybe it's on the original post release apps page instead of the security page? | |
| [19:56] * wendar looks | |
| [19:56] <wendar> oh, it is on the security guidelines, just not clearly worded "cannot install/upgrade software with this software " | |
| [19:57] <wendar> That's https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/SecurityChecklist | |
| [19:57] <ajmitch> yeah, the security guidelines were written early on, I think we have some flexibility with that | |
| [19:57] <wendar> aye | |
| [19:58] <wendar> but, on the whole, I'd say we stick with it | |
| [19:58] <wendar> unless there's a really good reason not to | |
| [19:58] <ajmitch> fair enough | |
| [19:59] <wendar> the security checklist wasn't part of the reviewed/approved TB policy, so we use our own judgement | |