[01:41] <mfisch> micahg: ping
[02:35] <micahg> mfisch: pong
[02:36] <mfisch> micahg: hey a quick question, the package epic4 has a verion of -build1 and -build2 and I'd not seen that before
[02:36] <mfisch> the reason was rebuilds, but is that a normal practice?
[02:36] <micahg> mfisch: usually not with those versions, let me see
[02:37] <mfisch> they're 2 years old so maybe it changed
[02:37] <micahg> oh, yes indeed
[02:37] <micahg> mfisch: dch -R
[02:37] <micahg> it's used for no change rebuilds where Ubuntu has no diff
[02:37] <micahg> -XbuildY where X is the Debian revision
[02:37] <mfisch> but then it doesn't seem to be autosync'd anymore
[02:38] <micahg> it should be autosync'd in that case
[02:38] <micahg> the only thing that would block it is blacklist or ubuntu in the version string
[02:38] <micahg> mfisch: my guess is we're syncing from testing if that helps any
[02:38]  * micahg is a bit behind on mail
[02:39] <mfisch> debian has 1:2.10.2-1 in testing and unstable
[02:39] <micahg> mfisch: it's been syn'd
[02:39] <micahg> *sync'd
[02:39] <mfisch> well there it is
[02:40] <mfisch> this webpage I'm looking at is out of date
[02:40] <mfisch> thanks for solving the mystery micahg ;)
[02:40] <micahg> Colin sync'd it yesterday
[02:41] <mfisch> this page must not refresh until it hits trusty: http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/mdt/universe.html
[02:44] <micahg> not sure how often Ubuntuwire updates (IIRC it used to be once daily)
[08:05] <Laney> micahg: testing> nah, not true
[08:47] <cjwatson> micahg,mfisch: "blacklist" in the version doesn't inhibit autosync; that's just the "ubuntu" substring
[10:30] <hakermania> How can I kindly request the removal of a package of mine from USC ?
[10:37] <sladen> hakermania: what is the package?
[10:37] <sladen> hakermania: perhaps we can ask the person who uploaded it for the background
[10:38] <hakermania> sladen, It is wallch. It has buggy functions and it doesn't seem to work properly under 13.10, in general.
[10:38] <hakermania> I am the uploader.
[10:41] <sladen> hakermania: are you Leon Vitanos?
[10:41] <hakermania> sladen, nope, I am Alex Solanos.
[10:42] <hakermania> In debian/control: XSBC-Original-Maintainer: Alex Solanos<EMAIL_ADDRESS>[10:42] <sladen> hakermania: okay, I can see both of you listed in   https://launchpad.net/~wallch/+members#active
[10:43] <sladen> hakermania: so, if you are sure that it would be better to remove/hide it from USC or the archive altogether, please could you file a bug stating and subscribe 'ubuntu-archive'
[10:44] <sladen> hakermania: try to give some high-level context, and clearly state why it would be better to remove it
[10:45] <hakermania> sladen, The process of including Wallch in the repos was painful. Updating it to a newer version was much easier (I just gave a PPA). Will including the newer version of Wallch (4.0) into the repos be equally painful as re-adding it from scratch ? (Sorry, I am not very fond of the complete process)
[10:45] <geser> hakermania: are you trying to remove it from Ubuntu at all or only from 13.10?
[10:46] <cjwatson> We don't remove packages from stable releases, generally
[10:46] <cjwatson> Since that would require effectively republishing the release
[10:46] <hakermania> geser, from 13.10. It seems to have some problems: http://i.imgur.com/y6kNz8h.png
[10:47] <hakermania> cjwatson, I see. So sladen is wrong?
[10:47] <cjwatson> He's correct for the development relese (trusty), incorrect for 13.10
[10:47] <cjwatson> *release
[10:47] <geser> hakermania: can't it get fixed with a SRU?
[10:48] <cjwatson> Indeed, this is a simple enough package, surely it can be corrected in a stable update
[10:48] <cjwatson> We're not talking deep system integration here
[10:49] <hakermania> cjwatson, does a SRU  include updating all the systems (back from 12.04 till now?) ?
[10:49] <hakermania> systems/releases
[10:49] <sladen> "clearly state why it would be better to remove it *[because it is very unlikely to be done]"
[10:49] <cjwatson> Only if the older versions are broken too
[10:49] <cjwatson> sladen: impossible without infrastructure changes
[10:49] <sladen> cjwatson: precisely
[10:49] <cjwatson> Launchpad forbids modifying the release pocket after release, for good reason
[10:50] <cjwatson> We would probably do it for a cease-and-desist letter (but we'd be extremely reluctant to ever deal with the person/organisation who sent such a thing again)
[10:51] <hakermania> cjwatson, The stable update is not ready yet. It isn't finished. Thus, I think that we will develop the 4th version of the program and upload it to 14.04. Will the previous releases be updated automatically, then?
[10:51] <cjwatson> hakermania: No
[10:51] <cjwatson> hakermania: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[10:51] <cjwatson> You'll need to backport targeted fixes for just the critical problems
[10:52] <cjwatson> Can't be that hard for a simple wallpaper app
[10:54] <hakermania> cjwatson, I think that we will prepare 4.0, include it in the repos for 14.04 and do an SRU for some previous systems (maybe 13.04, 13.10), then.
[10:55] <hakermania> The SRU will include the 4th version.
[10:55] <hakermania> Is there a process for hiding the application from USC?
[13:50] <Rhonda> waaaah
[14:43] <dereck> Does this sync request look ok?: http://goo.gl/vrdFzI
[14:44] <cjwatson> dereck: We won't sync it to raring or saucy - this sort of thing should only be for trusty
[14:44] <geser> dereck: syncs are only possible for "trusty". For "raring" and "saucy" only SRUs or backports are possible
[14:44] <cjwatson> dereck: stable releases are maintained according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[14:45] <cjwatson> Let me check that the latest upload includes my change
[14:46] <dereck> cjwatson: it doesn't appear to include your patch directly, but I tested that build command that you said failed and it didn't spit out any errors at least
[14:46] <cjwatson> dereck: you ran that command on Ubuntu?
[14:46] <dereck> raring
[14:47] <cjwatson> dereck: ok, let me double-check
[14:48] <dereck> cjwatson: I built the .debs from the upstream github, installed them, and ran that command.
[14:48] <cjwatson> Yeah, that's not necessarily an interesting test
[14:48] <cjwatson> I'll actually test-build the source package on trusty
[14:49] <dereck> alright then, thank you. :)
[15:14] <cjwatson> dereck: No, the new package in Debian doesn't build in Ubuntu.  It needs the same or a very similar patch.  I'll do a merge.
[15:15] <dereck> i'm curious, why does it build locally for me, but not for you? how can I reproduce this to understand the problem?
[15:16] <TheLordOfTime> before I go bashing my head against a wall, what's the series name i have to enter in debian/changelog for t-series?  (since i missed a name announcement or something)
[15:16] <dereck> I'll try to get your patch pulled upstream
[15:16] <dereck> trusty
[15:17] <TheLordOfTime> dereck: thank you kindly.
[15:17] <dereck> TheLordOfTime: it's not often that I can be useful in these parts :D
[15:17] <TheLordOfTime> dereck: heh
[15:27] <cjwatson> dereck: I used sbuild
[15:28] <cjwatson> dereck: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SimpleSbuild
[15:30] <dereck> cjwatson: thanks, I'll poke at it :)
[15:31] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: where has that wiki document been the past couple years, i've wanted to move to sbuild from pbuilder for a while now o.o
[15:38] <Laney> porthose: hey, any chance of a newer rhythmbox-ampache in Debian?
[15:39] <Laney> With py3 compatibility for the new rhythmbox
[15:43] <porthose> Laney, on the todo list
[15:43] <Laney> okay
[15:49] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: I think it was only written fairly recently
[15:49] <cjwatson> dereck: so I'm happy to deal with a merge for now
[15:49] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: and it works?
[15:50] <dereck> cjwatson: ok, thank you.
[15:50] <TheLordOfTime> because i'd love to use sbuild instead of pbuilder, i've had weird obscure errors in pbuilder before that don't happen in PPA builders (as an example)
[15:50] <dereck> cjwatson: and do I need to submit an SRU on launchpad for S & R?
[16:01] <cjwatson> dereck: Only if there are fixes that fall within the stable release upload policy and that are backportable - i.e. not a new version
[16:02] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: I use sbuild all the time; I did it before that document existed but it's pretty similar
[16:04] <dereck> cjwatson: well the problem is that the existing version is missing features and the entire python API. We also don't intend to support 2.7, so it seems to make sense to me at least. :)
[16:04] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: the question is whether it works or not, the main reason for that is because i get obscure pbuilder errors
[16:04] <TheLordOfTime> (some of the time)
[16:04] <TheLordOfTime> and nobody knows how to resolve them, so... :P
[16:05] <cjwatson> dereck: those don't sound like stable-update changes to me
[16:05] <cjwatson> we don't generally add features to packages in stable releases
[16:06] <dereck> actually, what about a backport? I think that's where the current release is sitting anyways. :/
[16:06] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: Yes, sbuild works excellently IME
[16:06] <cjwatson> dereck: sounds better
[16:06] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: awesome.  :)
[16:06] <dereck> :) I'll read up on this proceedure now then