| [08:11] <dpm> good morning all | |
| [08:15] <ajmitch> hi dpm | |
| [08:18] <dpm> hey ajmitch | |
| [12:56] <highvoltage> goor morning | |
| [12:56] <highvoltage> *good | |
| [17:53] <wendar> mhall119: the community lens was out for changes, is it ready now for re-review? | |
| [17:54] <mhall119> wendar: no, I haven't had a change to make the requested changes to it yet | |
| [17:56] <wendar> mhall119: okay, I'll add a comment to it | |
| [17:56] <wendar> thanks | |
| [17:56] <mhall119> wendar: it's currently precise-only anyway | |
| [17:56] <wendar> mhall119: yup, no rush | |
| [17:57] <mhall119> has david calle submitted any more? | |
| [17:59] <wendar> mhall119: not yet | |
| [17:59] <wendar> mhall119: I'm nearly done packaging the scopes for the music lens | |
| [20:00] <ajmitch> wendar: have you been re-poking people who've submitted applications? | |
| [20:01] <wendar> ajmitch: like, reminding them that we haven't heard from them in a while? | |
| [20:01] <wendar> ajmitch: not yet, but I was thinking about doing that for guallet today | |
| [20:01] <wendar> it's really close to ready to go | |
| [20:02] <ajmitch> I was just seeing the flood of information needed requests, they were all pending review/ | |
| [20:02] <ajmitch> ? | |
| [20:02] <wendar> yeah, that's me | |
| [20:03] * ajmitch had talked to the hacketyhack submitter a couple of days ago about shoes & offered help | |
| [20:03] <wendar> ajmitch: cool | |
| [20:03] <wendar> I didn't see any activity in the comments | |
| [20:03] <ajmitch> sorry I hadn't copied it in there | |
| [20:04] <wendar> I always forget too :) | |
| [20:04] <wendar> he will have to wait until P+1 to get into Ubuntu, unfortunately | |
| [20:04] <ajmitch> yeah | |
| [20:04] <wendar> but, he could get into Debian quite quickly | |
| [20:04] <ajmitch> once we learn what the name is :) | |
| [20:04] <wendar> as soon as shoes is updated | |
| [20:05] <ajmitch> thanks for the harmonyseq vote on the list, too | |
| [20:05] <wendar> thanks for shepherding it through, it's looking great | |
| [20:17] <wendar> hmmm... anyone have any ideas where this launchpad branch went? lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu/oneiric/unity-lens-graphicdesign/trunk/ | |
| [20:19] <wendar> Okay, it's https://code.launchpad.net/~app-review-board versus https://code.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board | |
| [20:20] <wendar> but the packaging-tools branch shows up on both | |
| [20:21] <ajmitch> because lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu/oneiric/unity-lens-graphicdesign/trunk/ is against ubuntu | |
| [20:53] <wendar> ajmitch: so, launchpad is setting the project based on the path | |
| [20:53] <wendar> ajmitch: the bigger question is, do we want these branches for ARB maintained lens/scope packages to be tagged as Ubuntu project? | |
| [20:54] <wendar> ajmitch: or, should we use bzr paths that avoid the auto-categorization? | |
| [20:55] <ajmitch> lp branches are always lp:~person/project/branch_name, I think we make them be under the ubuntu-app-review-board project rather than ubuntu/release | |
| [20:55] <ajmitch> mostly because these are for extras | |
| [20:57] <wendar> ajmitch: makes sense, I'll move them over | |
| [20:57] <wendar> ajmitch: but, I'll keep the Ubuntu release name in the path for sanity | |
| [20:58] <wendar> so, lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu-app-review-board/oneiric/unity-lens-graphicdesign | |
| [20:59] <wendar> because there's a decent chance we may be releasing an update to the Oneiric version of the lens, even after we've moved on to the Precise version of the lens | |
| [21:02] <ajmitch> can you name the branch like that? | |
| [21:03] * ajmitch assumed that you could only name a release with a distro in LP branches | |
| [21:08] <wendar> hmmm... I get a "Permission denied" error when I try to push any branch with "oneiric" in the path | |
| [21:09] <wendar> I'll just have to encode it in the name of the branch | |
| [21:12] <wendar> We've now got lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu-app-review-board/unity-lens-graphicdesign-oneiric and lp:~app-review-board/ubuntu-app-review-board/unity-scopes-music-extras-oneiric | |
| [21:15] <ajmitch> alright, thanks | |
| [21:16] <ajmitch> I'll set aside some time this weekend to attack the queue & try & catch up on where things are at | |
| [21:16] <ajmitch> as a bonus it's a 3-day weekend again :) | |
| [21:29] <ajmitch> wendar: yes, I *finally* dealt with terraview, what others should I look at? :) | |
| [21:30] <wendar> ajmitch: awesome! | |
| [21:30] <wendar> I feel worst about the oldest ones | |
| [21:30] <wendar> it'd be nice to get them either published, or rejected | |
| [21:30] <ajmitch> yep | |
| [21:30] <wendar> whichever is appropriate | |
| [21:30] <wendar> pac, TetraCity, or Qoobar? | |
| [21:30] <ajmitch> like pac, I know that was sitting around on LP for quite awhile | |
| [21:31] <wendar> yeah, sounds good | |
| [21:31] <ajmitch> the feeback on that was problematic | |
| [21:32] <wendar> I don't recall, was it too large/complex? | |
| [21:32] <ajmitch> " Your "source package" contains some binaries (/opt/pac/lib/ex/vte32/auto/Gnome2/Vte at least), this shouldn't be the case. - Your source package also includes .deb files in /opt/pac/res, this looks wrong. | |
| [21:32] <ajmitch> " | |
| [21:32] <wendar> or, security concerns around passwords and connections? | |
| [21:32] <wendar> oooh, packaging problems | |
| [21:33] <ajmitch> https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/apps/179/feedback/ indicates that he couldn't find those binaries anywhere | |
| [21:33] <ajmitch> well, except on getdeb.net | |
| [21:34] <wendar> so, he's got dependencies that aren't in Ubuntu | |
| [21:34] <wendar> are they small, or likely to be added to Debian at some point? | |
| [21:34] <ajmitch> I'll need to pull apart the package to see | |
| [21:35] <ajmitch> it's hard when he's included them as binary .so files | |
| [21:35] <wendar> he's not even pulling in the source... blech | |
| [21:36] <ajmitch> right, and they're some libraries for libvte which is a core package for ubuntu-desktop | |
| [21:36] * ajmitch can't pull enough info out with objdump | |
| [21:37] <wendar> hmmmm... it's a terminal emulator widget | |
| [21:37] <ajmitch> yep | |
| [21:38] <wendar> Technically, this did come in before we required a PPA, but I'm leaning toward reject. | |
| [21:38] <ajmitch> libvte is definitely in ubuntu, but I can't tell how different the one he's packaged is (apart from a large size difference in the .so) | |
| [21:40] <wendar> If you're inclined toward due-diligence, I'd say try running the software using the Ubuntu version of the library, and if it works go ahead and package it. | |
| [21:40] <wendar> Otherwise, reject it on the grounds that software has to work on the current version of all dependencies in the current release of Ubuntu. | |
| [21:41] <ajmitch> I feel bad doing so, but we really can't ship unknown binaries in source packages like that | |
| [21:42] <wendar> Yeah | |
| [21:42] <wendar> And, don't feel bad, it's part of the policy. | |
| [21:42] <wendar> We're not allowed to ship updated versions of standard system libraries. | |
| [21:42] <ajmitch> I feel bad about the time between last feedback & rejection :) | |
| [21:42] <wendar> even if he included the source, we couldn't do it. | |
| [21:42] <wendar> yeah, me too | |
| [21:43] <wendar> but, we're doing better on that now | |
| [21:43] <ajmitch> mostly your work | |
| [21:43] <wendar> You gave a great apologetic message to the TerraView developer, that tone really helps. | |
| [21:44] <wendar> And, so does the suggestions for what to do next. | |
| [21:44] <ajmitch> that's why I took so long to respond | |
| [21:45] <wendar> Yup, it's worth taking the time to phrase kind rejection messages, it makes a huge difference in the developer experience. (And in whether they're likely to learn and do better from it, or give up in frustration.) | |
| [21:47] <ajmitch> so it looks like libgnome2-vte-perl was on getdeb.net but is no longer there | |
| [21:47] <wendar> I think most of what I'm doing at the moment is trailblazing. Setting up easy, repeatable patterns for future apps. | |
| [21:47] <wendar> Ah, so the source isn't even available anymore. | |
| [21:47] <wendar> Maybe dropped when it made it in to the live distro? | |
| [21:48] <ajmitch> there's no perl vte bindings in precise | |
| [21:48] <ajmitch> do you know the state of gobject introspection & perl? | |
| [21:49] <ajmitch> if I can suggest an alternative way to use the system libvte, I won't feel so bad rejecting :) | |
| [21:50] <wendar> AFAIK, Perl is farther behind than Python in support for gtk3 | |
| [21:51] <wendar> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.gtk%2B.perl/12474 | |
| [21:52] <wendar> ah, wait http://search.cpan.org/~tsch/Gtk3-0.004/ | |
| [21:52] <ajmitch> right, he's the author of the vte-perl bindings tshipped as binaries in pac | |
| [21:54] <wendar> then maybe suggest to the pac developer to get in touch with Torsten? | |
| [21:54] <ajmitch> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647711 | |
| [21:54] <ajmitch> so as of a week ago, there's progress in debian | |
| [21:55] <wendar> excellent. So, that's something to say: watch the progress of the bug, and use the new versions of the libraries when they come out | |
| [22:00] <ajmitch> ok, have added notes on that to my todo list, I won't write it up just yet | |