[12:19] <Seveas> Adri2000, Lutin: cloaks are set
[12:19] <Lutin> Seveas: great! thanks :)
[12:20] <Adri2000> yay :)
[12:20] <Seveas> geser (n=michael@ubuntu/member/geser) has joined #ubuntu-motu
[12:20] <Seveas> geser, cloaked :)
[12:30] <geser> Seveas: thanks
[02:16] <metres> Hi guys, Lintian gives me that : E: xvidcap: menu-icon-not-in-xpm-format /usr/share/xvidcap/xvidcap.png any idea of the procedure..?
[02:19] <somerville32> Yes
[02:19] <somerville32> You need to convert it to png
[02:19] <somerville32> use convert
[02:19] <crimsun> you meant the other way.
[02:19] <somerville32> then place the new xpm in debian/ and patch the source to use it
[02:19] <somerville32> crimsun: right
[02:19] <somerville32> You need to convert it to xpm, sorry
[02:20] <metres> somerville32 : yes I convert it with gimp I want to know where to search in source to patch it...
[02:20] <somerville32> debian/menu ?
[02:20] <somerville32> and you'll want to patch the desktop file too
[02:21] <somerville32> If it is just debian/menu, just edit it directly
[02:21] <metres> there is no debian/menu... 
[02:22] <metres> Sorry i got xvidcap.menu...
[02:32] <metres> Lintian now return me that... : W: xvidcap: menu-icon-missing /usr/share/xvidcap/xvidcap.xpm which file tell which files are copied ?
[02:33] <somerville32> You need to install your new xpm icon
[02:33] <somerville32> and it should goto /usr/share/pixmaps
[02:33] <somerville32> use dh_install
[02:33] <somerville32> and the install file in debian/
[02:33] <somerville32> ie.
[02:33] <somerville32> debian/xvidcap.xpm /usr/share/pixmaps/
[02:35] <metres> Thank you somerville32 
[02:35] <somerville32> np
[02:36] <somerville32> :)
[02:36] <somerville32> When you upload to revu, want me to look it over to make sure you did everything right?
[02:36] <metres> yeah but I have to get in the motu first... pending request to the ubuntu-dev team...
[02:38] <somerville32> You can upload to revu w/o being in ubuntu-dev
[02:38] <somerville32> Do you have a lot of experience packaging?
[02:38] <metres> my frst :)
[02:38] <metres> first sorry
[02:38] <somerville32> lol
[02:39] <somerville32> You might want to get some more experience before applying to ubuntu-dev
[02:39] <somerville32> You can still contribute super easily though
[02:39] <somerville32> You can upload your packages to revu where they get reviewed by MOTUs
[02:39] <somerville32> then they'll upload it for you if it meets criteria :)
[02:40] <metres> Nice, how do I upload to revu ?
[02:40] <Lutin> metres: execute 'dput revu yourpackage*source.changes' in a console
[02:41] <somerville32> metres: There is also some excellent info on the motu wiki
[02:41] <metres> I'm opening it right now...
[02:41] <somerville32> To upload to revu, you need to add yourself to this group: http://tinyurl.com/fgpgy 
[02:41] <somerville32> And then it needs to be synced
[02:41] <somerville32> So you'll need to wait for a revu admin
[02:44] <metres> Im now a Contributor of packages for ubuntu universe
[02:44] <somerville32> Awesome! :)
[02:44] <somerville32> Welcome!
[02:46] <somerville32> Now you'll need to bug  someone like ajmitch to sync it for you
[02:46] <metres> hehehe
[02:47] <somerville32> After you upload your first package, you'll be able to login to the web interface to make comments on your uploads
[03:09] <bddebian> Heya gang
[03:09] <ajmitch> hello
[03:09] <bddebian> Hi ajmitch
[03:09] <somerville32> ajmitch: Can you sync revu with lp for metres please?
[03:10] <metres> I still have my menu-icon-missing issue... 
[03:10] <somerville32> metres: What does it say?
[03:10] <metres> W: xvidcap: menu-icon-missing /usr/share/xvidcap/xvidcap.xpm
[03:10] <somerville32> Did you install it to /usr/share/pixmaps ?
[03:11] <somerville32> @lart 28 ajmitch
[03:11] <zul> yeah you shouldnt
[03:11] <metres> yes
[03:11] <somerville32> :)
[03:11] <somerville32> metres: Then you need to modify the menu file to point to /usr/share/pixmaps/xvidcap.xpm instead of /usr/share/xvidcap/xvidcap.xpm
[03:11] <metres> I add /usr/share/xvidcap/xvidcap to my /debian/xvidcap.files
[03:11] <zul> somerville32: i think ajmitch is at work
[03:13] <metres> I also made a   dh_install debian/xvidcap.xpm /usr/share/xvidcap/
[03:15] <bddebian> At what point should we archive uploads with no responses?
[03:17] <somerville32> crimsun: ping
[03:17] <ajmitch> keyring resynced
[03:26] <Jerub> hi!
[03:27] <Jerub> I'd really like to be able to use universe package named 'ipset' with ubuntu, but I can't because there isn't a kernel module for it.
[03:27] <Jerub> the kernel module can be built and packaged seperately to the kernel, but I'm not really sure how to go about that.
[03:28] <Jerub> I've done the work of extracting out of patch-o-matic-ng the required patch, which I've put here: http://shiny.thorne.id.au/~stephen/set-2.6.20.patch
[03:29] <Jerub> it's a netfilter module.
[03:31] <lifeless> ajmitch: ^ who knows external kernel module packaging here ?
[03:32] <bddebian> Not I
[03:32] <somerville32> Not I
[03:32] <jdong> Not I </bandwagon>
[03:32] <somerville32> - Said the three little pigs.
[03:33] <somerville32> Or wait.. wrong fairytale.
[03:33] <bddebian> somerville32: Did pyneighborhood get uploaded or not?
[03:33] <somerville32> bddebian, It did. Waiting for archive admins to approve it
[03:33] <bddebian> OK, thx
[03:33] <somerville32> np :)
[03:33] <zul> lifeless: it shouldnt be too hard but i dont have the time or knowledge
[03:34] <ajmitch> lifeless: not sure, sorry
[03:34] <lifeless> zul: yeah, I know it shouldn't be too hard.
[03:34] <lifeless> zul: the question wasn't 'how hard is it', it was 'who knows already' ;)
[03:34] <Jerub> of course, it's trivial to do incorrectly.
[03:34] <Jerub> I'd rather it weren't done incorrectly however :)
[03:38] <LaserJock> darn
[03:38] <bddebian> Well hello to you too LaserJock :-)
[03:39] <LaserJock> bddebian: sorry, just realized I missed the President's speech
[03:39] <LaserJock> that's what I get for staying at the lab too long
[03:41] <bddebian> I watched it
[03:43] <somerville32> A president made a speech?
[03:44] <LaserJock> they do that now and then
[03:44] <metres> about 20 000 more americans in IRAQ
[03:45] <zul> heh
[03:45] <zul> suck
[03:45] <metres> what a mess
[03:47] <metres> Got a question on my missing file issue, how do I use dh_install, I tried in console and in th rules file but hadnt worked...
[03:47] <LaserJock> you can do an install file and then call dh_install in debian/rules
[03:48] <metres> in the debian/rules, I put the call in the build section ?
[03:49] <somerville32> Yup
[03:50] <LaserJock> metres: probably the install: rule
[03:55] <lifeless> hmm
[03:56] <bddebian> mmh
[03:56] <LaserJock> mhm
[03:57] <Jerub> hhm
[03:57] <lifeless> I'm wondering what packages provide modules already
[03:58] <ajmitch> lirc, alsa-modules, etc
[03:58] <ajmitch> there aren't that many
[03:58] <lifeless> Jerub: look at one of those ;)
[03:59] <Jerub> lirc-modules-source is one of those annoying ones you have to build against the running kernel
[04:00] <lifeless> Jerub: try alsa-modules
[04:00] <Jerub> and alsa-modules isn't in feisty.
[04:00] <lifeless> oh hmm
[04:00] <lifeless> let me query
[04:02] <lifeless> debian has tonnes
[04:03] <lifeless> msidn-kernel
[04:08] <Jerub> lifeless: looks like if you Build-Depends: patch-o-matic-ng, linux-source-2.6.20, then you can do something useful.
[04:11] <lifeless> Jerub: yes, you still need to build the module and install it correctly
[04:12] <Jerub> and patch-o-matic-ng isn't in ubuntu
[04:14] <Jerub> oh, and how do I make something build-depends on the source of something else...
[04:15] <lifeless> ok, table scan time
[04:15] <lifeless> Jerub: dont depend on the other source, just have the files you need to build as independent. If you can.
[04:16] <lifeless> Jerub: how would you build it manually?
[04:16] <Jerub> don't know.
[04:16] <Jerub> I guess I'd just use patch-o-matic and build the whole kernel.
[04:16] <Jerub> but patch-o-matic depends on the source of iptables it seems.
[04:17] <lifeless> in a few minutes I'll have a complete list of packages installing modules
[04:17] <Jerub> (no wonder non of the patchomatic stuff is packages)
[04:18] <lifeless> make-kpkg knows how to build module packages
[04:18] <lifeless> but I'd ask benc
[04:19] <rexbron> bddebian: Would you mind re-reviewing murrine, it's upid is 4033
[04:21] <rexbron> also, that review request is open to anyone else
[04:22] <bddebian> rexbron: I fear crimsun :-)
[04:24] <rexbron> bddebian: I am asking him too
[04:24] <persia> bddebian: You could just comment, without advocating...
[04:24] <rexbron> =)
[04:25] <lifeless> ok, heres some packages Jerub 
[04:25] <lifeless> vmware-player-kernel-modules
[04:25] <lifeless> linux-restricted-modules
[04:26] <lifeless> linux-image-kdump
[04:26] <lifeless> vmware-tools-kernel-modules
[04:26] <lifeless> vmware-server-kernel-modules
[04:26] <lifeless> Jerub: ^
[04:28] <lifeless> they should all be reasonable examples of building kernel modules outside the kernel
[04:34] <bddebian> rexbron: Did you do either of the two things crimsun mentioned?
[04:35] <rexbron> bddebian: I did to the best of my knowledge as I remove an unessicarry dirs entry
[04:36] <rexbron> s/remove/removed
[04:36] <bddebian> rexbron: Where did you removed them?  You still have /usr/bin and /usr/sbin in debian/dirs file?
[04:36] <bddebian> Also, you did not add the CREDITS file to the debian/docs file
[04:36] <rexbron> ....
[04:36] <rexbron> I thought I did
[04:37] <bddebian> Hmm, maybe I didn't get the latest file when I downloaded?
[04:37] <rexbron> this is strange...
[04:37] <bddebian> Yeah, afaict I did
[04:37] <rexbron> oh well, I will fix it
[04:38] <Jerub> lifeless: yipe.
[04:38] <Jerub> lifeless: applying this patch mutates iptables.
[04:38] <lifeless> Jerub: so its not just new modules ?
[04:40] <Jerub> oh, that's okay
[04:41] <Jerub> iptables already has the patch
[04:41] <rexbron> bddebian: I removed /usr/share/themes, that is what I believe crimsun was refering to
[04:41] <bddebian> Ahh
[04:42] <bddebian> You don't install anything in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin do you?
[04:45] <rexbron> bddebian: it was there from the original upload
[04:45] <rexbron> I will do a prefix install and check
[04:46] <rexbron> bddebian: nope, they will be gone
[04:46] <rexbron> but should the dirs file still exist?
[04:47] <ScottK> Good evening/night/morning/afternoon, as appropraite...
[04:47] <ScottK> appropraite/appropriate
[04:47] <bddebian> rexbron: Nope
[04:47] <rexbron> ok
[04:54] <ScottK> Does anyone have a moment that is familiar with directory/file naming conventions when you have to reconstruct orig.tar.gz?
[04:56] <rexbron> bddebian: ok done, care to re-evaluate?
[05:07] <bddebian> rexbron: Done
[05:08] <rexbron> thanks
[05:09] <ScottK> Just in case someone is reading the backscroll later and is willing to take a look... http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4024
[05:16] <persia> ScottK: I've never before seen a native package with a remote package style version name.  I'm not sure this is incorrect, but it is surprising.
[05:16] <ScottK> OK.  
[05:16] <ScottK> It's not meant to be a native package.  I had to reconstruct orig.tar.gz to add license text.
[05:17] <ScottK> As I read the Debian (I think it was) Policy manual, that appeared to be the way to name it, but I wasn't sure.
[05:17] <rexbron> ScottK: I hope upstream is includeing the licenses in the next release
[05:18] <somerville32> It is my understanding that if the package doesn't include the license upstream then you don't have permission to distribute it or something
[05:19] <ScottK> Sorry, it was the Debian Developers reference.
[05:19] <ScottK> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-origtargz
[05:19] <somerville32> ScottK: I would refuse to package it until they have a proper license
[05:19] <ScottK> Upstream said which licenses were applicable and pointed to URLs.
[05:19] <somerville32> ScottK: If I told you that I had a copy of Microsft Windows OS and it was licensed under the GPL, do you think that would be good enough?
[05:19] <ScottK> No.
[05:20] <ScottK> But if you were the author of a program and you said it's licensed under GPL, I think it would.
[05:20] <persia> ScottK: Either you missed item #4 in this (should have name *.orig.tar.gz), or I'm reading the data from REVU incorrectly.
[05:20] <ScottK> After Tollef bounced the package ther first time, I e-mailed him and he said...
[05:21] <lifeless> somerville32: theres no requirement for the licence to be in the source code for the code to be licenced.
[05:21] <lifeless> somerville32: its just a best practice
[05:21] <somerville32> lifeless: Ah, thanks.
[05:21] <ScottK> That would be me misreading #4.  Thanks.
[05:21] <persia> somerville32: If you had copyright for MS-Windows, then yes.
[05:22] <lifeless> clearly, *I* can write some code, put the code [without a copy of the licence text]  up somewhere I control, and state 'I wrote this, and this is under GPL'
[05:22] <ScottK> I'll go fix that then...
[05:22] <lifeless> but it would be stupid
[05:22] <somerville32> persia: Incidentally I just happen to have it here in my back pocket ;] 
[05:22] <ScottK> If you go look, a large fraction of the Perl packages we get from Debian do not have license text in the package.
[05:22] <persia> lifeless: Or just as result of inexperience :)
[05:23] <lifeless> persia: stupid is as stupid does
[05:23] <ScottK> This is a very small package, it's just a library needed for a more important one to follow.
[05:23] <ScottK> Thanks again persia.
[05:24] <persia> ScottK: No worries.
[05:41] <persia> I'd like to add a patch to restore .desktop files to rapidsvn, but am not sure whether it should apply against the latest Ubuntu version or the latest Debian version.  The only differences between the two are the version numbers (-0ubuntu1 vs. -1) (even the maintainer is the same).  Opinions?
[05:43] <LaserJock> they are exactly the same?
[05:43] <persia> LaserJock: Well, the maintainer used his @ubuntu address in the ubuntu one, and his @debian address in the debian one, but otherwise, yes.
[05:44] <LaserJock> Matthias
[05:48] <LaserJock> persia: I think you can "merge" the debian and add your .desktop
[05:49] <LaserJock> persia: although it should come from Debian or upstream upstream
[05:51] <persia> LaserJock: Thanks.  If I find anything else like this, I'll merge.  In this case, it appears that the recent rebuild supercedes my earlier investigation.
[06:05] <ScottK> Wow.  Looks like there was a little hicuup while I was working on my package.
[06:06] <ScottK> I made another try - http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4036 persia - If you're still there I'd appreciate another look.  I think I'm closer, but still not sure I got it.
[06:11] <persia> ScottK: The package structure looks more normal now.  I've nothing to add.
[06:11] <superm1> crimsun, ping: did you get around to mythtv after i mentioned it the other day?
[06:12] <ScottK> Thanks again for the help.
[06:12] <crimsun> superm1: I haven't, no (mid-stride office migration, so everything's chaotic)
[06:12] <superm1> ah, k
[06:17] <ScottK> Good night everyone (it's getting a bit late here at UTC -5).  Thanks for the help/comments.
[06:19] <somerville32> I'm UTC -4 and I'm still here :P
[06:39] <LaserJock> somerville32: you're in CA?
[06:47] <LaserJock> hi Hobbsee 
[07:08] <somerville32> LaserJock: Yup :)
[07:09] <Hobbsee|NotHere> hey LaserJock 
[07:26] <LaserJock> anybody konw what the difference between dpkg-scanpackages and apt-ftparchive
[07:26] <persia> LaserJock: man apt-ftparchive describes the differences.
[07:27] <LaserJock> well, I read that
[07:27] <LaserJock> it says it's dpkg-scanpackages+
[07:31] <persia> LaserJock: As far as I know, apt-ftparchive packages foo is basically like dpkg-scanpackages foo, but apt-ftparchive also has the other commands (sources, contents, etc.).
[07:47] <crimsun> nixternal: BenC motivated me to push him the conexant changes; your sound should be fixed RSN (probably in the next kernel?)
[07:49] <Sp4rKy> hi there
[07:50] <joejaxx> LaserJock: i just read your ml post how whould we go about that?
[07:51] <LaserJock> joejaxx: using bzr?
[07:51] <LaserJock> or -derivative mailing list
[07:51] <joejaxx> LaserJock: whoops i meant the u-d ml
[07:51] <LaserJock> ?
[07:51] <joejaxx> yes that one
[07:52] <LaserJock> make and rt request I suppose
[07:52] <LaserJock> once there is some "critical mass"
[07:53] <nixternal> crimsun: awesome!
[07:53] <joejaxx> LaserJock: yeah
[07:53] <nixternal> for the life of me i cannot find the freeze schedule for KDE now
[07:53] <Hobbsee> nixternal: d.k.o
[07:53] <nixternal> that's where it was a few days ago
[07:54] <nixternal> unless, i bet it is removed since the 3.5.6 release is next week or so
[07:54] <Hobbsee> you mean it's not there now?
[07:54] <nixternal> they haven't set a freeze schedule for 4 yet
[07:54] <Hobbsee> nixternal: http://developer.kde.org/development-versions/kde-3.5-release-plan.html
[07:54] <Hobbsee> indeed
[07:55] <nixternal> ya, they changed that page around. before when you went to the schedules, it was 3.5-r-p by default
[08:00] <LaserJock> joejaxx: feel free to chime in on behalf of fluxbuntu on that thread
[08:01] <LaserJock> I was glad to see somebody from Nexenta say something
[08:01] <joejaxx> LaserJock: nexenta?
[08:02] <joejaxx> i must have missed that one
[08:02] <LaserJock> opensolaris derivative
[08:03] <joejaxx> they posted?
[08:03] <joejaxx> i did not see that
[08:03] <LaserJock> Erast Benson
[08:03] <joejaxx> ahh
[08:03] <joejaxx> oh ok
[08:04] <Amaranth> quick question: are any of you actually subscribed to the -discuss mailing list?
[08:04] <Hobbsee> Amaranth: i am.  for the moment
[08:04] <Lathiat> -discuss? ;)
[08:05] <Lathiat> is that the new non moderated list?
[08:05] <Amaranth> yeah
[08:05] <Lathiat> no
[08:05] <Amaranth> it's worse than sounder from what i've heard
[08:05] <Amaranth> i'm not on it
[08:05] <LaserJock> I was
[08:05] <Lathiat> you knwo why
[08:05] <LaserJock> it wasn't
[08:05] <LaserJock> bad
[08:05] <Lathiat> because people are no longer afraid to post
[08:05] <Hobbsee> Amaranth: yeah, it is.
[08:05] <Lathiat> on -devel you'd get LARTed
[08:06] <Amaranth> my -devel action is read-only though :/
[08:06] <Hobbsee> everyone just posts crap on there
[08:06] <LaserJock> really? I didn't think -discuss was as bad as the original -devel
[08:06] <Amaranth> crap about eric raymond even, i've heard
[08:06] <Hobbsee> LaserJock: it's worse.
[08:06] <Hobbsee> LaserJock: dunno when you stopped joining
[08:06] <Hobbsee> er, subscribing
[08:06] <LaserJock> well, I just unsubscribed the other day, it must have gone downhill since then
[08:06] <Lathiat> Amaranth: EVERYBODY LOVES ERIC RAYMOND
[08:06] <Hobbsee> hehe
[08:07] <somerville32> Rowdy in here tonight
[08:07] <somerville32> ;] 
[08:08] <LaserJock> I just trimmed my lists, I didn't have a prticular reason to unsubscribe
[08:09] <LaserJock> hmm, doesn't look too bad at all to me
[08:09] <joejaxx> oh wow
[08:10] <joejaxx> this list IS ridiculous
[08:10] <Hobbsee> haha
[08:13] <joejaxx> "what third party repository do you use ?x155"
[08:13] <joejaxx> what a shame
[08:13] <joejaxx> lol
[08:13] <LaserJock> I'm still not seeing it, are you sure we are talking about the same list?
[08:13] <Hobbsee> joejaxx: yeah...saw that...
[08:13] <LaserJock> that was a good idea
[08:14] <LaserJock> I thought, anyway
[08:14] <LaserJock> although it's kind of not the best place to ask
[08:15] <LaserJock> Hobbsee: they have OP laws?
[08:16] <Hobbsee> LaserJock: yeah.  well, guidelines - dont stay op'd longer than you need to, etc
[08:56] <dholbach> good morning
[08:56] <ScottK> good morning.
[08:57] <dholbach> hey ScottK
[08:57] <ScottK> Hey
[08:58] <ScottK> I left here 3 hours ago saying I was going to sleep, but no luck...
[08:59] <Hobbsee> hehe
[09:01] <ScottK> It's OK.  I got a couple of hours of coding done.  If all goes well I may have another package to add to the three I'm waiting on for revu now...
[09:15] <ScottK> Anyone have a moment to REVU?  I've got two that I'd appreciate a look at...  One should be straightforward: http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4027  The other is slightly obtuse: http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4036 I'll be here for a bit still not sleeping...
[09:22] <somerville32> I'll take a peak
[09:23] <ScottK> Thanks.
[09:30] <persia> ScottK: postfix-policyd-spf-perl doesn't exist in Debian (with this package name), so you might want to shorten the changelog (especially due to the native/non-native versions).
[09:32] <ScottK> I've just taken over that package today (yesterday now) and the previous maintainer had a habit of including he /debian folder in the orig.tar.gz.
[09:32] <ScottK> He also put ALL the changes in /debian/changes.
[09:33] <ScottK> I thought it best to keep the changes I made for packaging to a minimum.
[09:33] <somerville32> I thought we had to use @ubuntu.com address for the maintainer field
[09:33] <lifeless> somerville32: why ?
[09:33] <lifeless> somerville32: as in, got a url reference for that?
[09:33] <somerville32> Yup
[09:34] <somerville32> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeistyReleasePlan
[09:34] <somerville32> mdz is the author
[09:35] <somerville32> "Packages which have been modified in Ubuntu must now have their Maintainer field set to an @ubuntu.com email address, and the original Maintainer field renamed to Original-Maintainer, per DebianMaintainerField."
[09:35] <lifeless> ok
[09:35] <ScottK> OK.  News to me.
[09:35] <lifeless> shame about the diversity a little, but fair enough. The change in fields is normal for some time
[09:36] <persia> Ah.  New stuff to do when merging.  Is there a standard address to use for universe, or should each merger use their own?
[09:36] <ScottK> Does this mean that I need to find someone to 'maintain' the packages for me or do I have an @ubuntu.com address I don't know about...
[09:37] <Hobbsee> ScottK: are you a member?
[09:37] <Hobbsee> ScottK: i presume you can use any address - your @ubuntu.com one, if you have one
[09:37] <Hobbsee> (which most people do, as they're members)
[09:38] <ScottK> Actually I found the 'official answer' I think...
[09:38] <ScottK> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebianMaintainerField
[09:38] <somerville32> Maintainer: Ubuntu MOTU Developers <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>
[09:38] <ScottK> If the package is in universe or multiverse, the Maintainer field will be set to ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
[09:39] <ScottK> Am I the "Uploader" then?
[09:39] <somerville32> For, postfix-policyd-spf-perl, debian/copyright isn't right
[09:40] <somerville32> You need to include the preamble or w/e it is called for the GPL
[09:40] <somerville32> You also need a copyright notice for the debian package
[09:40] <Hobbsee> ScottK: yeah, but you dont need to list the uploader
[09:40] <Hobbsee> ScottK: as we dont do NMU's
[09:40] <somerville32> ie.
[09:40] <somerville32> The Debian packaging is (C) 2007, Cody A.W. Somerville <cody-somerville@ubuntu.com> and is licensed under the GPL, see above.
[09:40] <ScottK> OK.
[09:40] <ScottK> I can understand that.
[09:41] <Hobbsee> ScottK: it still shows on LP that you made teh changes, and with you in the changelog, etc
[09:41] <ScottK> Ah.
[09:41] <ScottK> Sure.
[09:41] <somerville32> "Contributions by various members of the SPF project" <-- I don't think you can assign copyright to a team like this
[09:42] <somerville32> You also need to list the upstream authors
[09:42] <ScottK> It came from upstream that way.  I read it as more of an acknowledgement than a copyright statement.
[09:42] <persia> or at least the primary authors, as the contributors may be assigning copyright.
[09:42] <somerville32> ScottK: It says you own the copyright and are the debian package maintainer?
[09:43] <somerville32> Also, you need to have the date of debianization
[09:43] <ScottK> There isn't actually a Debian maintainer...
[09:43] <ScottK> Yet.
[09:43] <somerville32> "This package was debianized by Cody A.W. Somerville <cody-somerville@ubuntu.com> on Mon,  8 Jan 2007 01:48:14 -0400."
[09:43] <somerville32> ah
[09:44] <somerville32> Ok, you need to remove that part from the copyright, I believe.
[09:44] <ScottK> Will do.
[09:44] <somerville32> You should refer to the packaging guide
[09:44] <somerville32> It'll give you an example of what it should look like
[09:44] <ScottK> Will do.
[09:44] <ScottK> Thanks.
[09:45] <somerville32> README.Debian is for notes about the package
[09:45] <somerville32> It seems like you're giving notes about the software you're packaging
[09:46] <\sh> moins
[09:46] <ScottK> That one is there because what you have do to integrate with Postfix is different if you installed via a Debian package.
[09:46] <ScottK> Because the path to the program is different.
[09:46] <ScottK> Is there a better place to put that kind of information?
[09:47] <somerville32> Is it for package maintainers or for users?
[09:47] <ScottK> Users
[09:47] <ScottK> System administrators
[09:47] <somerville32> Then I don't think it should be there since they won't ever see it
[09:48] <ScottK> Makes perfect sense.
[09:48] <somerville32> You can use dh_installdocs
[09:48] <ScottK> OK.  I'll look at that.
[09:49] <somerville32> Right, you'll want to use that to install the rest of the documentation too
[09:49] <ScottK> Thanks.
[09:49] <somerville32> ie. README and INSTALL
[09:49] <somerville32> Is postfix-policyd-spf-perl an executable script?
[09:51] <ScottK> It's called by Postfix and Postfix talks to it via stdin/out.  It's not a standalone script.
[09:52] <somerville32> Your rules file is a little messy
[09:52] <ScottK> Because of the stuff that's commented out and left there?
[09:53] <somerville32> You don't currently need dh_install or dh_installdirs
[09:54] <somerville32> Get rid of the commented out dh_* scripts
[09:54] <ScottK> Because I already installed the one file that needs installing, right?
[09:54] <ScottK> Yes.
[09:54] <somerville32> Right
[09:55] <ScottK> Thanks.  Am taking notes as we go...
[09:55] <somerville32> Also
[09:55] <somerville32> You're installing to the wrong place I think
[09:55] <somerville32> arch-indep should go in share, not lib
[09:55] <somerville32> but I might be wrong in this case
[09:56] <somerville32> Is there a link for this code?
[09:56] <somerville32> Like a website or something?
[09:57] <ScottK> http://www.openspf.org is the project site.
[09:57] <somerville32> Ok, then you need to add that to the description
[09:57] <ScottK> OK.
[09:57] <somerville32> Also, you're manually specifying the perl dependencies
[09:57] <somerville32> You should have ${perl:Depends}
[09:58] <ScottK> OK.
[09:58] <ScottK> Debian-policy is where I look for guidance on where to install the file, right?
[09:58] <somerville32> arch-indep in share and arch-dep in lib
[09:59] <ScottK> OK.
[09:59] <somerville32> Depends: libversion-perl, libmail-spf-query-perl -> Depends: libversion-perl, libmail-spf-query-perl, ${perl:Depends}
[09:59] <\sh> yes..I'm LPIC-1 certified...
[10:00] <\sh> now I can do the LPIC Ubuntu Vertification ;)
[10:00] <ScottK> Ah.
[10:00] <somerville32> Also, you'll find that that dh_perl won't work if you install to a non-standard directory
[10:00] <somerville32> Which you do
[10:00] <somerville32> So you'll need to manually specify
[10:00] <somerville32> see man dh_perl
[10:01] <ScottK> OK.
[10:01] <somerville32> lol
[10:01] <ScottK> That or put it in a standard one.  I don't feel a burning need to be non-standard.
[10:01] <somerville32> ScottK: To be standard, you would install to:
[10:01] <somerville32> /usr/share/<package-name>
[10:02] <somerville32> so it's ok to be non-standard in this case (it appears)
[10:02] <ScottK> No reason I can't do that.
[10:02] <somerville32> The software will still work?
[10:02] <ScottK> Sure.  I just need to change the documenation to match.
[10:02] <somerville32> Could you use a post installation script to do that for the user?
[10:03] <ScottK> I'd have to mess with Postfix config files.  Is that allowed?  I thought not?
[10:04] <ScottK> I'm not sure it's a good idea even if it's allowed.
[10:04] <somerville32> Will people expect this to work after they install it?
[10:04] <ScottK> If they read the readme they'll know that they have to change their Postfix to use it.
[10:05] <somerville32> Most people expect easy integration
[10:05] <ScottK> Yes, but Postfix isn't famous for it.
[10:05] <ScottK> Is it allowed for one package to mod another package's config?
[10:05] <somerville32> In that case, you'll want to edit your control file to make a note in the long description to refer to the documentation giving a full path
[10:06] <ScottK> That makes sense.
[10:06] <ScottK> I'd rather leave them no worse off if they don't read the docs then break their system if their config is one I didn't anticipate.
[10:06] <somerville32> And should the priority be extra or optional?
[10:07] <ScottK> I'd say optional.
[10:07] <ScottK> Well, maybe not...
[10:08] <ScottK> I'll change it to extra.
[10:08] <somerville32> I think optional would be safe
[10:08] <ScottK> OK.  I won't change it extra.
[10:09] <somerville32> Also, instead of specifying the documents to install the the rules file
[10:09] <somerville32> put them in debian/docs
[10:09] <somerville32> one per line
[10:09] <ScottK> OK.
[10:17] <ScottK> I really appreciate you making the time to give me such a thorough review.
[10:17] <somerville32> np
[10:18] <somerville32> :] 
[10:18] <somerville32> I just know I hate it when I have to wait for people to review my packages
[10:18] <somerville32> So I figured I'd give it a shot and try and help you out
[10:18] <ScottK> Thanks.  I've learned a lot.  I'll be back...
[10:19] <somerville32> me too :)
[10:19] <somerville32> see you in a bit
[11:18] <metres> Hi guys i'm having a problem... http://paste.ubuntu-nl.org/1145/ can someone figure it out ? or do I have to bypass the configure file ? 
[11:19] <ScottK> OK.  I"ve update the package and it's fixed (or at least better) http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4027
[11:20] <ScottK> This time I"m really going to bed.  Thanks again for all the help.  I'll be interested to read any comments you have when I get up in two hours...
[11:21] <somerville32> :)
[11:21] <\sh> metres: configure expectes python version 2.3 and you have python 2.4 and 2.5  installed...which is the default nowadays...you have to update the source to use python 2.4 or 2.5
[11:41] <metres> thank you \sh I succeed 
[11:41] <\sh> metres: np
[11:50] <persia> siretart: ping
[11:50] <siretart> persia: You sent me a contentless ping.  This is a contentless pong.  Please provide a bit of information about what you want and I'll respond when I am around.
[11:51] <somerville32> :)
[11:53] <somerville32> How many packages does a person usually package before the TB would consider them for -devel ?
[11:55] <persia> Could somebody please type a close brace for me?
[11:56] <somerville32> }
[11:56] <persia> somerville32: Thank you (jp106 still doesn't map that key).
[11:56] <somerville32> hehe
[12:00] <Adri2000> somerville32: I think new packages is good, but MOTU is also merges and bugs :)
[12:01] <christopher_l> Hello all, my new keyboard won't work, here's some information: http://pastie.caboo.se/32556. Someone?
[12:02] <persia> somerville32: As Adri2000 said, it's not about the number of packages, it's about doing the hard and the tedious of universe maintenance (stealing the fun stuff isn't an incentive for recommendations).  Merges, library transitions, bug management, etc.  Look for hints in the topic of this channel as release approaches.
[12:04] <somerville32> Thats what I meant
[12:04] <somerville32> ;] 
[12:04] <Adri2000> christopher_l: you are in the wrong channel, #ubuntu should be more appropriate
[12:06] <christopher_l> nobody knows how to fix the problem there, so I am trying to find someone on differnet channels
[12:08] <persia> somerville32: I reached about 20 patches applied to the archive before anyone approached me about starting the process.  That was a while ago, so the numbers may be inflated due to team growth.
[12:10] <Adri2000> does anyone know gtk-doc? if I understand correctly, the upstream source tarball should only contain sgml/, and make should generate the tmpl and/or html files, right?
[12:18] <Nafallo> Adri2000: I would ask in #ubuntu-desktop if I where you :-)
[12:37] <siretart> persia: yes?
[12:38] <persia> siretart: I was looking at the merge of oops, and thought I'd check with you in light of the hijack, but I couldn't get it to compile, so I gave up.
[12:41] <siretart> persia: I think a sync should just be fine. if it doesn't compile, feel free to send me an buildlog
[12:41] <siretart> persia: I'll check on the debian side and fix it there
[12:45] <persia> siretart: OK.  For the buildlog, shall I just send `dpkg-buildpackage > oops.buildlog`?  Also, I liked all the readability fixes in debian/rules for 1.5.23.cvs-2.2ubuntu2, although I suppose it's cleaner to drop them.
[12:47] <siretart> persia: I'd use 'tail', so you see the output in the shell. in general, I'd rather suggest using debuild instead, which creates buildlogs on every build in a '.build' file
[12:48] <siretart> btw, both sbuild and pbuilder support  creating buildlogs
[12:49] <persia> siretart: I've been trying to install pbuilder every few months since you first suggested it to me (still without success).  I'll take a look at sbuild.  Separately, expect an email with .build from debuild soon.
[12:51] <siretart> persia: sbuild takes some more efford to setup. in combination with schroot and lvm snapshot, I think its unbeatable. I wrote a wiki page describing this setup
[12:56] <siretart> persia: the build log really surprises me, cf. http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=oops;ver=1.5.23.cvs-3;arch=arm;stamp=1138342531
[12:56] <siretart> pardon http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=oops;ver=1.5.23.cvs-3;arch=amd64;stamp=1142759810 for amd64
[01:00] <persia> siretart: Given the lack of source changes, the fact that 2.2ubuntu2 is available on AMD64 was enough to make me stop at that point.  I don't understand the threading libraries well enough.
[01:04] <siretart> persia: might be worth discussing it on #ubuntu-toolchain. unfortunately, I'm currently busy at work
[01:05] <persia> siretart: No worries.  Looks to me like the difference between glibc 2.3 and glibc 2.5, but that's getting into lower-level stuff than I well understand.  May I leave it to you to chase tomorrow?
[01:11] <siretart> persia: I'm not particulary keen on this, but I'll try to reproduce your bug by trying glibc from debian/experimental
[01:11] <siretart> thats the drawback with having 'real' maintainers for one package ;) - (i'm co-maintaining it in debian)
[01:14] <persia> siretart: OK.  As you are busy, If I can get sbuild configured in the next few hours, I'll send a buildlog from sid+experimental glibc.  Thanks for the help with this.
[01:31] <\sh> wine-0.9.29 on its way
[01:36] <siretart> \sh: w00t :)
[01:46] <\sh> siretart: hehe ... birthday, LPIC-1 certification and new wine...what a great day :)
[01:47] <siretart> \sh: todays your birthday?
[01:48] <persia> \sh: Happy Birthday
[01:48] <\sh> yepp
[01:48] <siretart> \sh: congrats boy!
[01:48] <\sh> every year on the 1th january...since 1971 ;)
[01:50] <\sh> 11th :)
[01:52] <siretart> noted ;)
[01:53] <ogra> \sh, HAPPY BDAY !
[01:54] <\sh> thx oliver :)
[01:56] <jsgotangco> woooo
[02:05] <poningru> \sh: happy bday
[02:05] <poningru> will that .29 make it in time for herd 2?
[02:05] <poningru> should I put it in the release notes
[02:06] <\sh> Accepted:
[02:06] <\sh>  OK: wine_0.9.29-0ubuntu1.dsc
[02:06] <\sh>      -> Component: universe Section: otherosfs
[02:06] <\sh>  OK: wine_0.9.29.orig.tar.gz
[02:06] <\sh>  OK: wine_0.9.29-0ubuntu1.diff.gz
[02:06] <\sh> This upload awaits approval by a distro manager
[02:07] <poningru> sweet
[02:07] <poningru> oh
[02:07] <\sh> so someone from distro team has to approve it
[02:08] <persia> Isn't there a freeze on to support the herd 2 build?
[02:08] <\sh> that's what it says :) approval by a distro manager...build servers are in manual mode
[02:08] <\sh> but wine is not in main
[02:08] <\sh> so it's actually not release critical for herd2
[02:09] <poningru> well yeah but marketing likes to put in stuff in universe as well ;)
[02:09] <poningru> we're crazy like that
[02:09] <persia> marketing could speak to distro management...
[02:10] <\sh> well you could ask someone from the build admins...if it could be build and released before herd2 release...for me it's not so important if it's coming before or after herd2 release :)
[02:10] <\sh> for me it's important that we could get a 1.0 release with Ubuntu 7.04
[02:11] <poningru> persia: eyes and ears set to open, ramble away my friend
[02:13] <persia> poningru: ?
[02:13] <poningru> hehe nothing
[03:03] <\sh> poningru: Accepted:
[03:03] <\sh> wine 0.9.29-0ubuntu1 was ACCEPTED.
[03:03] <\sh> 	Component: universe Section: otherosfs
[03:03] <\sh> it will be build :)
[03:03] <poningru> sweet
[03:43] <hub> dholbach: why did you assign me bug 6090
[03:43] <hub> dholbach: I'm neither upstream nor the package maintainer
[03:43] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 6090 in nautilus "allow RAW pictures thumbnailing" [Wishlist,Confirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/6090
[03:44] <dholbach> hub: oh... you said something like "i need to figure this out", so I thought you'd intend to work on it
[03:44] <hub> there are some bugs
[03:45] <hub> with the gnome thumbnailer that cause problem with the package un *universe*
[03:45] <hub> the wishlist is about to have that by default *in main*
[03:46] <hub> but it does not matter
[03:46] <hub> just that I'm not really working on it atm
[03:46] <hub> if canonical wants to contract it, I'm fine :-)
[03:46] <dholbach> ok - if you want you can just reassing it to desktop-bugs that's fine with me
[03:47] <hub> ok
[03:47] <dholbach> thanks
[03:48] <bddebian> Heya gang
[03:48] <dholbach> hiya bddebian
[03:48] <bddebian> Hi dholbach
[03:48] <\sh> moins bddebian
[03:49] <bddebian> Heya \sh
[03:49] <bddebian> dholbach: Do you have an opinion on what to do with packages that have been sitting on REVU for a while with no response?
[03:49] <dholbach> bddebian: like you reviewed it, asked for some changes and nothing happened?
[03:50] <bddebian> Like it has 3,4, some even have 7 comments with no response afaict
[03:50] <bddebian> Of course part of the problem is that I don't really know what year they were uploaded :-)
[03:51] <dholbach> no response of the uploader?
[03:51] <bddebian> Aye
[03:51] <dholbach> bin them
[03:51] <dholbach> a month should be enough time to answer a request
[03:51] <bddebian> OK, thx
[03:52] <dholbach> thank YOU :)
[03:52] <bddebian> Bah, I'm pretty useless lately :-(
[03:54] <Lutin> s/pretty useless/reviewing a lot/ and I agree with you
[04:05] <Lutin> dholbach: do you think that bug 61624 should be fixed ?
[04:05] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 61624 in gnus "Please Recommend: or Suggest: idn" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/61624
[04:06] <dholbach> phew, no idea about gnus
[04:08] <Lutin> k
[04:59] <\sh> moins nixternal
[05:01] <Lutin> what's the section 'grml' in a2mp3  debian/rules ??
[05:03] <nixternal> happy birthday \sh!
[05:05] <\sh> nixternal: thx buddy :)
[05:08] <allee> \sh: ah, didn't know.  Happy birthday!!!
[05:12] <white> \sh: happy birthday
[05:12] <neutrinomass> are packages in dapper going to receive updates? 
[05:16] <Lutin> motus: this package depends on lame, which is in mutiverse : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/a2mp3
[05:16] <Lutin> should it go in multiverse as well ?
[05:19] <neutrinomass> Lutin: (I submitted the report) Ubuntu policy doesn't allow packages in universe to depend in multiverse.... bug 77159 is a similar case
[05:19] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 77159 in singularity "Please move to multiverse [feisty] " [Undecided,Fix released]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/77159
[05:20] <Lutin> neutrinomass: ok, it's what I was thinking
[05:20] <neutrinomass> Lutin: It sort of makes sense... if to install it you need to install something from multiverse, it defeats the entire concept of "freedom" 
[05:20] <Lutin> besides, the 'section' of a2mp3 is kind of weird in edgy
[05:24] <Lutin> neutrinomass: maybe you could bug dholbach about that, as he uploaded the package
[05:24] <neutrinomass> Lutin: Yeah, I guess /sound would be good too , but I don't know the policy regarding the categories (if any).... File a bug report so that somebody takes a look at it with the next upload (a2mp3 is generally unusable at the moment  )
[05:24] <dholbach> neutrinomass: which one?
[05:24] <neutrinomass> dholbach: I'm bugging you
[05:24] <neutrinomass> dholbach: a2mp3
[05:24] <dholbach> that must have been a mistake - I never intended to
[05:24] <dholbach> I'm kidding - what's the problem with it?
[05:25] <neutrinomass> dholbach: Several actually ... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/a2mp3/+bugs
[05:25] <Lutin> dholbach: is in universe ans depends on mutiverse pkg. and wrong section in edgy at least
[05:26] <dholbach> neutrinomass: could you subscribe ubuntu-archive to the bug explaining the multiverse issue?
[05:26] <neutrinomass> dholbach: I already did but they are rather busy it seems after the holidays 
[05:26] <dholbach> I'm not maintainer of the package and too busy to take care of its bugs.
[05:26] <dholbach> right
[05:26] <dholbach> but there's nothing I can do - I can't shift it somewhere else
[05:26] <neutrinomass> ok ok
[05:26] <dholbach> but it's good you noticed the problem
[05:26] <dholbach> I didn't realize
[05:26] <neutrinomass> I'll see if I can prepare an upload to fix it
[05:27] <neutrinomass> dholbach: Shouldn't it be -0ubuntuX btw ?
[05:27] <dholbach> I think that's one of the apt-get.org packages
[05:27] <dholbach> which had a -X already
[05:28] <neutrinomass> Erm... still, current version is "0.01" and it's not in debian
[05:28] <dholbach> let me get the source
[05:29] <dholbach> I didn't upload it
[05:29] <dholbach> it was synced
[05:29] <dholbach> (not from Debian, but from the repository in question)
[05:30] <neutrinomass> Ok, I wasn't quite aware of this. If I make an update to it, it should be "0.01-0ubuntu1"/"feisty" right ?
[05:30] <dholbach> 0.01ubuntu1
[05:30] <dholbach> just add ubuntu1
[05:30] <dholbach> but yeah, that's fine
[05:31] <neutrinomass> dholbach: ok thanks... :) you're free to go :p
[05:31] <dholbach> I had my turn in the meeting already, so I had some time anyway ;-)
[05:53] <gpocentek> dholbach: will the MOTU Council be on the next TB Agenda?
[05:53] <gpocentek> dholbach: hello BTW ;)
[05:53] <dholbach> gpocentek: we should make sure it's on there
[05:53] <dholbach> gpocentek: with all the open questions we have
[05:54] <dholbach> gpocentek: and ask sabdfl to make sure he can make it :)
[05:54] <gpocentek> :)
[06:08] <ScottK> Good afternoon everyone.  
[06:41] <cypher1> crimsun, hi
[06:42] <cypher1> crimsun, can we discuss regarding the comment you had put for bug #76483 ?
[06:42] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 76483 in ipac-ng "Merge ipac-ng 1.31-3 from Debian" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/76483
[06:43] <crimsun> cypher1: ignore it; I'll process it 
[06:44] <cypher1> crimsun, thanks !
[06:57] <cypher1> crimsun, thank you .. say your comment now :)
[07:11] <gnomefreak> who deals with flash package?
[07:13] <\sh> anyone :)
[07:14] <Toadstool> the only package that is maintained by only one person in universe is wine ;)
[07:14] <Toadstool> hi everybody
[07:14] <hub> macromedia/adobe deal with flash
[07:14] <bddebian> Heya Toadstool
[07:14] <Toadstool> hey bddebian 
[07:14] <\sh> Toadstool:lol :)
[07:15] <\sh> Toadstool: it's because nobody else wants to fck around with this strange emulator
[07:15] <Toadstool> heh
[07:16] <\sh> and, tbh, I'm dealing with sles9 at work..so I'm a bit masochistic and can deal with it =|>
[07:17] <Toadstool> rofl
[07:17] <Toadstool> sles9, at least your working in a linux environment... :/
[07:17] <Toadstool> *you're
[07:18] <\sh> Toadstool: and how happy I was yesterday, when I heard, that I'm allowed to install ubuntu on all our servers from now on
[07:19] <\sh> only the oracle servers will be still sles9
[07:20] <Toadstool> lucky guy, I have to struggle with xp, office, visual studio and clearcase, it drives me crazy sometimes
[07:23] <\sh> Toadstool:well on my company laptop I have also xp running and on the desktop machine...just because of our *censored* token authentication, which doesn't work under linux :(
[07:31] <ScottK> bddebian: While you are busy cleaning up the REVU queue, would you mind taking a look and and (hopefully) re-advocating http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4038.  After somerville32 got through thrashing me here last night (for me anyway), I had a little work to do...
[07:39] <bddebian> ScottK: OK, I'll try to take a look in a few
[07:39] <ScottK> Thanks.
[07:50] <crimsun> gnomefreak: essentially, me.
[07:51] <gnomefreak> crimsun: crap i lost the bug. ill find it. 
[07:52] <gnomefreak> crimsun: is this bug something we can do anything with? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/14911 it seems flash 9 fixes the issue but we cant put flash9 in repos other than the backports and they arent really supported
[07:52] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 14911 in firefox "Flash plugin problem with ARGB visuals causes crash" [Unknown,Confirmed]  
[07:53] <gnomefreak> is this something flash upstream can patch for flash 7 or just something people have to live with.
[07:54] <crimsun> the latter for sure
[07:54] <crimsun> I can't dictate what upstream will or won't do, so I can't answer the former
[07:54] <gnomefreak> i figured as much. 
[07:55] <crimsun> it's not a Firefox bug per se
[07:55] <gnomefreak> just wondering if we can close it but its been sent upstream already
[07:55] <gnomefreak> yeah i know its flash. i was in a meeting about mozilla bugs/team and this bug poped up and not sure what the hell do to with it
[07:56] <crimsun> talk with iwj in -devel; if he agrees to allow it to be reassigned to flashplugin-nonfree, then do so and you have my blessing to mark it Fix Released.
[07:56] <crimsun> off to lecture.
[07:56] <gnomefreak> ok ty
[07:59] <ScottK> If there's a package that's been orphaned in Debian, is there a way I can 'adopt' it so it won't fall out of Ubuntu?
[08:01] <zorglu_> debian has doc spefically for this
[08:01] <zorglu_> dont remember the url, just saw it in the past
[08:01] <ScottK> OK.  Will go look.
[08:01] <ScottK> I've got no relationship with Debian, so I was wondering about something Ubuntu specific for MOTU.
[08:03] <ScottK> bddebian: Thanks for looking at it.  Your comment hits a question I was unsure about.  Do I leave the upstream INSTALL file intact and then put a new INSTALL file in /debian and then have my rules install the /debian one?
[08:06] <bddebian> ScottK: I don't think you should install the INSTALL file at all, should you?
[08:08] <ScottK> The problem I am trying to solve is that there is some manual configuration of Postfix required to intgrate this after the installation is complete.
[08:08] <ScottK> intgrate/integrate.
[08:08] <ScottK> What you have to do with the Debian/Ubuntu package is different than what you would have to to with the upstream version because the path is different.
[08:09] <ScottK> Where do I document that?
[08:09] <ScottK> That's the point I'm struggling with...
[08:09] <ScottK> I'd love suggestions.
[08:11] <geser> README.Debian perhaps
[08:11] <bddebian> ScottK: You probably need to add something to debian/  and then display that on postinst
[08:12] <ScottK> geser: It was in README.Debian and somerville32 pointed out that that is for packaging stuff.  A user would never see it.
[08:12] <ScottK> That sounds right.
[08:14] <ScottK> If anyone knows of a simple package that uses postinst to display stuff that I can learn from, I'd appreciate a pointer.
[08:15] <gnomefreak> crimsun: i went and added flashplugin-nonfree to it and confirmed it since well alot of people having the issue
[08:18] <geser> ScottK: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dother.en.html , point 5.1
[08:19] <geser> sounds like the right place to document the different path
[08:20] <geser> if you do that instead in your postinst you must use debconf (or similar)
[08:21] <geser> ScottK: see also http://merkel.debian.org/~ballombe/lintian-etch-i386/reports/Tpossible-debconf-note-abuse.html
[08:30] <ScottK> geser: Thanks (was AFK dealing with a coffee emergncy)
[08:42] <somerville32> ScottK: Btw, make sure to double check the things I told you last night. I've only ever done one package, lol
[08:42] <somerville32> But I'm pretty confident we're on the right track
[08:43] <ScottK> OK.
[08:43] <ScottK> Thanks.
[08:43] <ScottK> I'm reviewing the changes with the guy that was helping with packaging it on another channel right now.
[09:08] <Le_Vert> hi motus
[09:09] <LaserJock> hi Le_Vert 
[09:10] <LaserJock> any Java people about?
[09:11] <somerville32> maybe
[09:30] <zorglu_> i have a "deamon" run for a given user, more like a background process, and i would like it to be started when the compute boot (aka not when the user login), is there a typical/recomended way to do this ? (currently i doing something like "put this script in /etc/rc.local" and the script starts the deamon)
[09:37] <LaserJock> I think /etc/rc.local is the normal thing to do, but I'm not positive
[09:37] <zorglu_> ok thanks
[09:43] <Adri2000> do you think bug 62346 needs a SRU?
[09:43] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 62346 in obconf "Missing libobrender.so.1 -> unable to launch obconf" [Unknown,Fix released]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/62346
[09:43] <somerville32> Adri2000: Does it meet the requirements on the SRU page?
[09:44] <Adri2000> obconf: error while loading shared libraries: libobrender.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
[09:44] <Adri2000> it makes the package unusuable
[09:44] <Adri2000> but there is an easy workaround
[09:44] <Adri2000> and the fix is only a rebuild
[09:44] <somerville32> cjwatson might approve it but you'd most likely have better luck with a backport
[09:45] <mr_pouit> Adri2000, ping a member of the SRU team ^^
[09:45] <LaserJock> yeah, that's sort of tough
[09:45] <somerville32> Have you read this? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[09:45] <LaserJock> it's obvious regression, and easy fix
[09:45] <LaserJock> but it's also a big pain in the butt :-)
[09:45] <Adri2000> somerville32: isn't it https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/SRU ?
[09:46] <mr_pouit> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/SRU
[09:46] <somerville32> Adri2000: Oh, the package is in Universe?
[09:46] <mr_pouit> Adri2000, oops, I came too late, as usual ^^
[09:46] <somerville32> Adri2000: Propose it ;] 
[09:47] <Adri2000> ping crimsun siretart StevenK: I would like your opinion about a SRU for bug 62346
[09:47] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 62346 in obconf "Missing libobrender.so.1 -> unable to launch obconf" [Unknown,Fix released]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/62346
[09:49] <Adri2000> version should be ubuntuX.1~proposed1, right?
[09:49] <Adri2000> I don't see that on MOTU/SRU
[09:50] <somerville32> Looks about right
[09:51] <Adri2000> hmm but for rebuild, it should be build, not ubuntu
[09:52] <Adri2000> (this package has no ubuntu change)
[09:52] <LaserJock> hmm, that might take somethinking
[09:52] <LaserJock> what's the version right now?
[09:52] <Adri2000> 1.5-3
[09:53] <Adri2000> for a SRU, I'd say use ubuntu0.1, not build
[09:54] <LaserJock> well, you might do 1.5-3~proposed
[09:54] <Adri2000> because we don't care of the automatic sync
[09:54] <LaserJock> but I'm not sure about that
[09:54] <LaserJock> you might do some dpkg --compare-versions to see
[09:56] <geser> 1.5-3~proposed should be smaller than 1.5-3
[09:56] <lifeless> 1.5-3~ is lower
[09:56] <lifeless> theres a policy on SRU versioning
[09:56] <lifeless> its the same one used for security updates
[09:57] <LaserJock> lifeless: yes, but I don't know what it would be for a non-ubuntuX versioned package
[09:57] <lifeless> LaserJock: huh?
[09:57] <Adri2000> ubuntu0.1 no?
[09:57] <Adri2000> lifeless: for a package with no ubuntu change
[09:57] <LaserJock> lifeless: normaly it woudl be a build1
[09:57] <LaserJock> so build1~proposed1?
[09:58] <lifeless> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityUpdateProcedures
[09:58] <lifeless> 2.0-2                  2.0-2ubuntu0.1
[09:58] <Adri2000> 0.1, like the new upstream version NMUs in debian
[09:58] <keescook> I need to fix the dpkg patch to handle the "." style... it doesn't like SRU/security versions.  :)
[09:58] <LaserJock> hmm, I don't really like that though
[09:59] <lifeless> LaserJock: its not a matter of like... thats the current policy - feel free to raise it on ubuntu-devel for review if you dont like it.
[09:59] <LaserJock> that'll mean we have to merge the bugger for Feisty+1
[09:59] <keescook> LaserJock: shouldn't it just be build1 for -proposed, and then build2 for -updates?
[09:59] <lifeless> LaserJock: huh, the SRU is not going into feisty, its going into edgy
[10:00] <lifeless> LaserJock: it has no impact on feisty or feisty + 1
[10:00] <LaserJock> lifeless: true :/
[10:00] <LaserJock> forgot that, went to the dentist this morning, my brain's not quite all there ;-)
[10:00] <LaserJock> keescook: I think putting ~proposed or ~prop is a good thing
[10:01] <LaserJock> just to keep track of things
[10:01] <keescook> LaserJock: yeah, probably right.
[10:01] <LaserJock> I'm having  a hard enough time as it is
[10:01] <LaserJock> I can't see my uploads
[10:01] <LaserJock> so I have to go trolling in Sources files to see if it's actually there or not
[10:03] <keescook> Adri2000: yeah, that seems right.
[10:04] <LaserJock> enyc: if it's for qpsmtpd then that's right, although LP should show it too
[10:04] <enyc> LaserJock: ??LP??
[10:05] <LaserJock> Launchpad
[10:05] <enyc> LaserJock: coo... how do I see the testing version etc.?
[10:06] <LaserJock> well, once it's accepted it should show up on launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/<packagename>
[10:06] <tsmithe> could i ask the favour of revu'age?
[10:07] <somerville32> What do you want tsmithe? :)
[10:07] <tsmithe> http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=3902 <= alsa-firmware
[10:07] <tsmithe> and...
[10:07] <geser> LaserJock: afaik the archive is still frozen, uploads to universe have to accepted by hand
[10:07] <tsmithe> http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=3892 <= alsa-tools
[10:07] <tsmithe> ;)
[10:08] <enyc> LaserJock: well thats odd... https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpsmtpd does not show the packages yet...
[10:08] <enyc> LaserJock: they have both been 'approved' with enuogh +1 's by universe team etc.
[10:08] <LaserJock> geser: right, that's fine
[10:08] <enyc> LaserJock: as ~proposed etc.
[10:08] <LaserJock> enyc: yes but it's not in -proposed yet
[10:08] <LaserJock> that's what I'm talking about
[10:09] <LaserJock> it has to be approved by the archive admins
[10:09] <LaserJock> we seem to be having approval bottlenecks again
[10:10] <enyc> LaserJock: bah! is this a problem
[10:10] <somerville32> tsmithe: ok, I'll review
[10:10] <tsmithe> kk
[10:10] <tsmithe> thanks cody
[10:10] <enyc> LaserJock: bah, erm... is this a common problem ?
[10:10] <LaserJock> sort of
[10:10] <enyc> LaserJock: does this happen at certain times in release-cycles etc.?
[10:10] <LaserJock> we always have times where the archive admins have a backlog
[10:10] <enyc> LaserJock: I see
[10:11] <enyc> LaserJock: what do they need to check about the upload?
[10:11] <LaserJock> as it gets closer to release time and they get busier it does
[10:11] <LaserJock> enyc: they just have to approve it (flip the switch or whatever) as far as I know
[10:13] <LaserJock> enyc: the good news is you've done all you're supposed to do :-)
[10:13] <LaserJock> you just gotta wait now
[10:14] <enyc> LaserJock: thats fine then ;-)  Im not trying to be impatient... but I do like to understand problems like this
[10:15] <somerville32> tsmite: It'll be a second but I will review it
[10:18] <ScottK> somerville32: I have a question about last night's (for me) advice...  You said I need a copyright statement for /debian.  I looked in http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html#s-copyright and I don't find such a requirement.
[10:18] <somerville32> Not for /debian, the entire debian package
[11:15] <siretart> bug #62346
[11:15] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 62346 in obconf "Missing libobrender.so.1 -> unable to launch obconf" [Unknown,Fix released]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/62346
[11:38] <chillywilly> um, quick question...how do I see the init script messages in edgy but not the noise from the kernel?
[11:38] <chillywilly> this is on a server machine
[11:38] <chillywilly> I'd like to see what is booting up when, etc. but not he kernel messages on the console
[11:39] <Adri2000> siretart: so? :)
[11:40] <siretart> Adri2000: hi
[11:40] <Adri2000> hello siretart 
[11:41] <tsmithe> who's gonna make my day and revu my alsa-* packages?
[11:42] <Adri2000> siretart: what do you think of a SRU for this bug?
[11:43] <siretart> I'm currently testbuilding it on my amd64 box
[11:43] <siretart> the debdiff is IMO quite big, and I'm not familiar with these glade changes
[11:44] <siretart> I have no problem with approving it in -backports, though
[11:45] <Adri2000> siretart: the debdiff between what and what? I thought that only a rebuild was needed to fix this bug
[11:46] <siretart> Adri2000: according to the buglog, it seems that version 1.6-1 is needed
[11:47] <Lutin> tsmithe: the diff of alsa-firmware is huge. wht did tou include the configure files in it ?
[11:47] <Adri2000> "A fix has been provided in debian version 1.5-4."
[11:47] <siretart> Adri2000: this makes a diff from 1.5-3/-4 to 1.6-1
[11:47] <siretart> the only change between -3 and -4 was to orphan to package
[11:48] <siretart> Adri2000: do you use that package on your workstation?
[11:48] <Adri2000> no, and I haven't got edgy anymore on my desktop
[11:48] <tsmithe> Lutin, i will remove them. unless its not necessary...
[11:49] <Lutin> tsmithe: the bigger diff, the worst (if you can avoid it of course)
[11:49] <tsmithe> ok
[11:50] <tsmithe> it seems i changed the files through carelessness...
[11:50] <tsmithe> ill rebuild it...
[11:50] <Lutin> :)
[11:51] <siretart> Adri2000: well, as said, I don't think a mere rebuild will fix the version. the diff to the next upstream version isn't that big, however.. 
[11:51] <siretart> this leaves me somewhat undecided
[11:51] <Adri2000> according to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=385464;msg=15 and a comment on malone, a rebuild is sufficient
[11:51] <Ubugtu> Debian bug 385464 in obconf "obconf: does not run with new openbox version" [Important,Closed]  
[11:52] <siretart> Adri2000: oh. fascinating.
[11:53] <siretart> Adri2000: in this case, I'd approve the rebuild, of course. 
[11:54] <Adri2000> ok, I'll do that tomorrow
[11:55] <Adri2000> siretart: can you approve the "Nomination  for Edgy" of the bug please
[11:55] <Adri2000> maybe it's not called "nomination" for core-devs, I don't remember
[11:56] <Adri2000> target?
[11:57] <siretart> Adri2000: please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/SRU for our policy
[11:58] <siretart> Adri2000: first, subscribe motu-uvf, attach your debdiff, wait for 3 acks and then upload it
[11:58] <siretart> oh, and assign the bug to you ;)
[11:59] <Toadstool> motu-uvf for a SRU? :)
[12:00] <Adri2000> siretart: I know I know, but I wanted to have an edgy task in the same bug (only core-devs can approve these nominations/targets for release), but maybe you want me to file another bug for the SRU?
[12:00] <tsmithe> Lutin, i've reduced it down to 40KiB - is that ok? it still contains changes in config.guess; but i don't know how acceptable that is
[12:00] <siretart> argl
[12:00] <siretart> s/motu-uvf/motu-sru/
[12:00] <Adri2000> eheh
[12:00] <siretart> sry
[12:00] <Toadstool> heh
[12:01] <siretart> Adri2000: honstely, I still don't get this nomination stuff. I'm not sure if implements the requirement that we need 3 acks
[12:01] <Lutin> tsmithe: config.{guess,sub} are useless in the diff
[12:01] <tsmithe> hmm
[12:01] <tsmithe> ok 
[12:01] <tsmithe> i'll fix that then
[12:02] <Adri2000> siretart: look at this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/k3d/+bug/64848 which uses that for a SRU
[12:02] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 64848 in k3d "[SRU: EDGY]   packaging typo - k3d does not install" [High,Fix committed]  
[12:03] <siretart> aha?
[12:04] <siretart> hm. I think then its safe to approve the nomination, since it 'just' creates a new bugtask
[12:04] <siretart> aah, now I think I got the point of these nominations..
[12:05] <Adri2000> :)
[12:10] <siretart> Adri2000: okay, I think you can proceed now with the 'normal' protocol :)
[12:10] <tsmithe> Lutin, i've fixed that and it looks quite clean now (although it's still uploading). if you could take another look soon when it's done that would be fantatstic. (stoopid slow upload speeds)
[12:10] <Adri2000> yep, just added a comment to the bug
[12:10] <Lutin> tsmithe: ok
[12:11] <tsmithe> thanks - the upload was quicker than i thought - so it should be ready soon
[12:11] <Lutin> tsmithe: i'm not a motu though :)
[12:12] <tsmithe> doesn't matter! i appreciate it anyway of course.
[12:12] <tsmithe> more eyes the better ;)
[12:12] <Lutin> hehe, indeed