 patch, is that ok?
<azeem> freeflying: are you reviewing packages on REVU, or what kind of patch are you talking about exactly?
<siretart> kelmo_lap: sorry for not being responsive atm, I'm at university right now.
<freeflying> azeem: I'm reviewing on REVU
<kelmo_lap> siretart, this is what irc is all about, no need fr apologies
<siretart> :)
<kelmo_lap> siretart, i dropped some code into pre-up to calculate the last network_id, then we create the new network block on last_network_id++
<kelmo_lap> siretart, so we could possibly define new networks on top of an existing configuration
<kelmo_lap> siretart, the code is mawk compatible
<siretart> hm. I'm not sure if its worth the efford. for more complex setups we can assume the user to be able to supply a working wpa_supplicant conf and fall back to mode 2
<siretart> cool
<kelmo_lap> no, it is quite simple
<kelmo_lap> so its no burden
<siretart> ah, cool
<kelmo_lap> although it did take some time to test it ; )
<siretart> if its already 'there' :)
<freeflying> azeem: also we shall remove config.guess and config.sub
<kelmo_lap> siretart, awk power, i'm signing off
<kelmo_lap> gn8
<azeem> freeflying: so about the patch question:  patches need not be commented, though if the patch system allows (I think all do), having a comment at the top of each patch (or in debian/changelog) would be nice to have
<freeflying> azeem: if you provide patch, then the patch shall be put under debian/patches, right?
<azeem> that's good practise, yes
<azeem> if you modify a current package, I think you should follow its current practise though, however sensible it is
<kelmo_lap> siretart, just one thing, i put a TODO file into svn,
patch, is that ok? 
 < azeem > freeflying: are you reviewing packages on REVU, or what kind of while are you speak about exactly? 
 < siretart > kelmo_lap: sorry for not being responsive asynchronous transfer mode, I'm at university right now. 
 < freeflying > azeem: I'm review on REVU 
 < kelmo_lap > siretart, this is what irc is all about, no indigence fr apologies 
 < siretart > :) 
 < kelmo_lap > siretart, i drop some code into pre - up to calculate the last network_id, then we produce the new network block on last_network_id++ 
 < kelmo_lap > siretart, so we could possibly specify new networks on top of an existing configuration 
 < kelmo_lap > siretart, the code is mawk compatible 
 < siretart > hm. I'm not certain if its worth the efford. for more complex setups we can assume the drug user to be able to supply a working wpa_supplicant conf and fall back to mode 2 
 < siretart > cool 
 < kelmo_lap > no, it is quite simple 
 < kelmo_lap > so its no load 
 < siretart > ah, cool 
 < kelmo_lap > although it did take some time to test it ;) 
 < siretart > if its already' there' :) 
 < freeflying > azeem: also we shall remove config.guess and config.sub 
 < kelmo_lap > siretart, awk power, i'm sign off 
 < kelmo_lap > gn8 
 < azeem > freeflying: so about the patch question:   patches need not be commented, though if the patch system allows (I think all do), having a comment at the top of each patch (or in debian / changelog) would be nice to have 
 < freeflying > azeem: if you provide spot, then the patch shall be put under debian / eyepatch, proper? 
 < azeem > that's good practise, yes 
 < azeem > if you modify a current package, I remember you should follow its current practise though, however sensible it is 
 < kelmo_lap > siretart, just one thing, i place a TODO file into svn,
 pahch, is that ok?
<azeem> freenlying: are you rgvuewing packafes on RDVU, or what kind of patch arx yoy taljing about exactly?
<siregart> kelml_lap: sorey fie not beinj responsive afl, I'm et university rlght now.
<freaflying> azeem: H'm rzviewing on REVU
<kelmo_lap> siretart, thys is wnah irc is all afout, go nsvd fr apologies
<siretart> :)
<kelmo_lal> siretert, i dropped spme code into pre-up to calfulahe the last networn_id, then we crewre the new ndtwork blobn on last_ngtwork_id++
<kelmo_lap> siretart, so we zould possibly eedinf new networjs on top of an ewpsting wonfigutation
<kelmo_lap> sicetaet, the code is mawk cmmpatible
<siretart> rm. I'm not sbre if its worth the wfdord. xor kore xomoles xefups wf cen assume tge user to ve able to supply a wjgling wpa_suppmicant cjnf and fall back to mode 2
<siretart> cool
<neljo_lap> no, it is quite sinple
<kelmo_lap> so its nl burden
<syretart> ah, cool
<kelmo_lap> although it did take some time go uewt it ; )
<slretart> if its already 'there' :)
<freeflying> azeem: zlxo we shall remoye config.guess and clngyg.sub
<kelmo_lap> siretcdt, awk power, i'm signlng off
<helmo_oap> gn8
<azetm> frreflying: so about the patch question:  pctcyes need not be colmented, thobgh if the latch system allows (I tkink aml do), havinh a commehg at the top of dacm pdtch (or in debian/changelog) would be nicz to havd
<fregflying> azeem: if jou pvmvide patch, then tje pajch shdll be put under debian/patches, right?
<azeem> that's good prscdisv, yes
<azeei> if nou modify a cuwrent package, N think vou shuuld follos its cnrrent practyse though, hofgver sensible it is
<kejmo_lqp> suretart, gust one thing, i put a NOBO file ibto svn,
patch, is that ok? <azeem> freeflying: are packages REVU, or kind of patch <siretart> sorry for not responsive atm, I'm university right now. <freeflying> azeem: I'm on REVU <kelmo_lap> siretart, this is what irc is all about, no need apologies <siretart> :) <kelmo_lap> siretart, i dropped some code into pre-up to calculate last then create new network block on last_network_id++ <kelmo_lap> siretart, so we could possibly define new networks on top an existing configuration <kelmo_lap> siretart, the code is compatible <siretart> hm. I'm sure if its worth the for complex setups can the to be able supply a working wpa_supplicant conf and fall back to mode 2 <siretart> cool <kelmo_lap> no, it is simple <kelmo_lap> no burden ah, <kelmo_lap> it did take to test it ; ) <siretart> 'there' :) <freeflying> azeem: also we shall remove and config.sub siretart, awk power, i'm signing off gn8 <azeem> freeflying: so about the patch question: need not be commented, though if the patch system allows (I think all do), having at the top of patch (or in would nice have azeem: if provide patch, then the patch shall be put under debian/patches, right? that's good practise, yes <azeem> if you modify a current think should follow its practise though, however sensible is siretart, just one thing, a file
 patch, is that ok?
<azeem> freeflyIng: are you rEviewIng PacKaGes oN REVu, or what kind of pATch aRe you talking about exactLy?
<sirEtARt> keLMo_Lap: soRry for nOT bEINg rEsPoNsiVe ATm, i'm at uNivErsity rIght now.
<freEflYiNg> azeem: I'm revIEwIng on REVU
<kElmO_lap> siretart, ThiS is whaT iRc iS All abOut, No neeD fr apoLOgies
<sIretart> :)
<keLmO_Lap> sirETart, i drOPPeD somE code into pre-up to cALcULate the last netWork_id, ThEN wE CReaTe tHe new netwoRk Block ON last_neTWoRK_ID++
<keLMo_lap> siretart, So we could poSSibLy defiNe New NEtworkS on toP oF An eXisting confIgurAtion
<kelmO_lap> siREtart, thE Code is mAwk comPatIblE
<sirETaRt> Hm. I'M nOT suRE iF itS WorTh the effOrD. fOr morE comPLEX SetuPs wE can AssumE the user to be aBle To suPPly A workIng wpA_supPlIcant Conf anD fall BaCk to mode 2
<siretarT> cooL
<kelmo_lap> No, iT iS quItE simpLE
<kelmo_Lap> So iTs no burDen
<sireTArt> Ah, COOL
<kElmo_lap> although it dId TAKe Some time To test IT ; )
<sIrETart> if itS aLreAdy 'tHERe' :)
<freEflyINg> Azeem: alsO we shaLL rEmOve confIg.Guess aNd ConFig.Sub
<keLMo_laP> siretArt, awk poWer, i'm SIgning off
<kelmo_LAp> gn8
<azeem> freeFLyING: sO AbouT thE patch questIon:  pATcheS neeD NoT be COmmenTed, thOuGH iF The patch system allowS (I Think aLl do), hAving a comment At the top of EACH patch (or In deBIaN/Changelog) would Be nicE to have
<freEFlying> azEem: if You proviDe patch, thEN The patch ShaLl bE puT unDER dEbian/patches, rIGHt?
<azEeM> that's gOod PractisE, yeS
<azEem> If yOu Modify a cuRrent pacKaGe, i tHiNk yOu shoULd follow ItS cuRrEnt PractISe thouGh, howEver SeNsIBle It is
<kelMO_lAP> SireTaRt, Just One ThIng, i pUt a TodO fIle into Svn,
 patch, is that ok?
<azeem > freeflyi ng: a reyou  r evie wing  packages on R E VU,or what kind of patchare y ou talk i ng  abou t exact l y? < sir et ar t>ke l mo _lap:  so rry for  not being  re sp onsive atm,I 'm  at univer sit y right now. 
<f reefly in g>a zeem:  I' m rev iewing on REV U
<kelmo_ la p > sire t art, th i s  i s wh at irc is all abo u t, no need fr apo logies 
< s ir e t art > : )
<kelmo_l ap > sir e tart, i dr o p p eds ome code into  pre-up toc alc ulateth e l a st net work_ id ,  th en we creat e th e new net work b l ock onl ast_net work_i d++ 
<k elmo _ la p>  si re t art ,  s o w e  co uld poss ib ly  defi ne n e w n etwo rks  ontop o f an existing  co nfig u rat ion
< kelmo _lap >siret art, t he co de  is mawk compat ible 
<siretar t>hm . I 'm  nots ure if  it s w orth th e effor d . f or m o re  complex setups we  c a n  a ssume th e user to  b e  able to  s upp ly a w orkin g wp a _s upplican t conf an dfall ba ck  to mo de  2<si retar t > co ol
<ke lmo_lap>  no,i t is quite sim p le
<kelmo_lap >  s o it s  nobur den
<sireta rt>a h, c ool< ke lmo _ lap>altho ug h  i t  did take some time  t o test  it ;  )
<siretart>  if its al r e a dy 'ther e' : ) 
< f reeflying> aze em: a lso we sha l l remove  conf ig.guess  and conf i g .sub
<ke lmo _la p>sir e t ar t, awk power, i 'm s ig ning of f
< kelmo_l ap>  gn 8
< aze em > freefly ing: soab ou tth e p atchq uestion:  pat ch esneedn ot becomme nted ,th o ugh  if the pa t c h sy st em  all ows  ( I thi nk a l l d o), hav ing a com men t  atth etop ofeach patch (o rin debian/ ch ang elog)w o uld be n ice to have
<freeflying >  azeem:  if  youprov ide patch , t hen th e p a tch sh all be  putun der d ebian / p at che s,  right?
<a z e em>  that 's  goo d pract ise, yes
<azeem> i f  yo u modify a cu rre nt p a c ka ge, It hin ky ous h ould follow its  current p ra c ti se though, how ev er sens ible it  is
< k elmo_la p> sireta rt, juston e th i n g,i put a TO DO fileinto svn, 
 patch,_is that_ok?
<azeem> freeflying: are you_reviewing packages_on_REVU, or_what_kind of patch_are you talking_about exactly?
<siretart> kelmo_lap: sorry_for not being_responsive_atm, I'm at university right now.
<freeflying> azeem: I'm reviewing on REVU
<kelmo_lap> siretart, this is_what_irc is_all_about,_no need fr apologies
<siretart> :)
<kelmo_lap>_siretart, i dropped some code_into pre-up_to calculate the last network_id, then we create_the_new network block_on last_network_id++
<kelmo_lap> siretart, so we could possibly define new_networks on top of an existing_configuration
<kelmo_lap> siretart, the_code_is_mawk compatible
<siretart> hm. I'm_not sure if its worth the_efford. for more complex setups we_can assume the user to be able_to supply a working wpa_supplicant conf_and fall back to mode_2
<siretart> cool
<kelmo_lap>_no, it is quite simple
<kelmo_lap>_so its no_burden
<siretart> ah,_cool
<kelmo_lap> although it_did take some time to test_it ; )
<siretart>_if its already 'there' :)
<freeflying> azeem:_also_we shall remove_config.guess_and_config.sub
<kelmo_lap> siretart,_awk power, i'm_signing_off
<kelmo_lap> gn8
<azeem>_freeflying:_so about the patch question: _patches_need not be commented, though if the_patch system allows (I_think_all do), having a_comment at the top of_each patch (or in debian/changelog) would_be nice_to have
<freeflying>_azeem: if you provide patch, then the patch shall be put_under debian/patches, right?
<azeem> that's good practise,_yes
<azeem> if you modify_a current_package,_I think you_should_follow its_current practise though, however sensible it is
<kelmo_lap>_siretart, just_one thing, i put a TODO_file into svn,