[12:18] <rexbron> any revu admins that read this, please remove soma_2.3.1.dsc 
[12:18] <rexbron> the latest version
[12:21] <LaserJock> rexbron: you can also email them
[12:21] <rexbron> revu@?
[12:21] <rexbron> tauware.de?
[12:21] <LaserJock> I don't think so
[12:21] <LaserJock> check the REVU wiki page
[12:21] <rexbron> kk
[12:23] <rexbron> hmm, the address listed is for keyring
[12:24] <LaserJock> further down the page
[12:25] <rexbron> thanks LaserJock
[12:28] <tenshu> anyone could recommand me a package build with CDBS containing a php app?
[12:30] <jdong> geser: is this pkgbinarymangler thing new in Feisty, as far as the buildds are concerned?
[12:31] <LaserJock> jdong: since Edgy I think
[12:31] <geser> pkgbinarymangler exists already in edgy
[12:31] <jdong> hmm
[12:32] <jdong> then why did the build fail?
[12:32] <jdong> I'm still not understanding what the error message means
[12:32] <geser> it contains the two programs that do the maintainer mangling in the binary debs on the buildds and pkgstriptranslations
[12:32] <jdong> the package definitely built in Edgy buildd's fine
[12:33] <jdong> no new ffmpeg has been released since feisty's open
[12:33] <geser> which package?
[12:33] <jdong> geser: ffmpeg: http://librarian.launchpad.net/5805778/buildlog_ubuntu-feisty-i386.ffmpeg_3%3A0.cvs20060823-3.1ubuntu2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[12:34] <geser> the normal pbuilder doesn't have pkgbinarymangler installed (but the buildds have)
[12:34] <jdong> geser: I did a 1-line patch to x264.c, and also a unrelated debian/rules change to unlock more cheatcodes in 'risky mode'
[12:34] <jdong> geser: as I said, this package has been unchanged basically since its late-Edgy upload and that built just fine...
[12:34] <LaserJock> jdong: ouch that is a not-so-nice error
[12:35] <jdong> LaserJock: I know... never seen anything like it before
[12:35] <jdong> and can a more experience eye look at this one for me, too? : http://librarian.launchpad.net/5805779/buildlog_ubuntu-feisty-amd64.avidemux_1%3A2.3.0-0.0ubuntu2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[12:35] <jdong> it complains about a translation file missing
[12:35] <jdong> but I just built the same source pkg again in my pbuilder
[12:35] <jdong> and could not cause that error to show up
[12:36] <jdong> at this point I'm beginning to question my sanity :)
[12:36] <geser> ha, we are supposed to change the Maintainer (and set Original-Maintainer) but the buildds don't like it
[12:37] <LaserJock> yep
[12:37] <geser> jdong: it's not pkgstriptranslations erroring but pkgmaintainermangler
[12:37] <LaserJock> jdong: the problem is that Original-Maintiner is set in debian/control
[12:37] <jdong> LaserJock: it is?
[12:37] <LaserJock> yep
[12:38] <jdong> I swear I didn't see it before :)
[12:38] <geser> jdong: "[...]  already contains an Original-Maintainer field"
[12:38] <LaserJock> Maintainer: MOTU Media Team <motumedia@tauware.de>
[12:38] <LaserJock> Original-Maintainer: Sam Hocevar (Debian packages) <sam+deb@zoy.org>
[12:38] <jdong> LaserJock: yeah, I see that now
[12:38] <jdong> LaserJock: it wasn't in the debdiff I gave crimsun....
[12:38] <jdong> crimsun: contentless ping....
[12:39] <jdong> ha! I defeated his ping checker!
[12:39] <LaserJock> jdong: cruel
[12:39] <jdong> lol
[12:39] <jdong> LaserJock: so do humans put in that field or could it have been done automagically during the upload?
[12:40] <LaserJock> well, at this moment I'm not exactly sure
[12:40] <LaserJock> it's currently being discussed
[12:40] <LaserJock> I think it has to be human because I don't think they've implemented the automagic stuff yet
[12:40] <jdong> ok
[12:40] <LaserJock> we were told that we should be doing it
[12:41] <LaserJock> but there's debate as to what field it should be exactly
[12:41] <LaserJock> so nobody has been doing it yet I don't think
[12:41] <LaserJock> but maybe crimsun added it
[12:41] <jdong> well, this is the first then :)
[12:42] <jdong> crimsun: ok, serious ping, ffmpeg's Original-Maintainer field upsets buildd; apologies about the previous contentless ping
[12:42] <geser> as the mail to feisty-changes already has motu media as maintainer I'd guess crimsun did it
[12:43] <geser> \sh also uploaded some packages with modified maintainer
[12:44] <jdong> any takers on the avidemux FTBFS I posted?
[12:44] <geser> jdong: the build failed because MOTU Media isn't in the exception list for pkgbinarymangler
[12:44] <geser> for ffmpeg
[12:44] <jdong> geser: ok... who do I go to for fixing that?
[12:46] <geser> ask infinity or pitti as they maintain pkgbinarymangler
[12:47] <LaserJock> darn, I hate it when all the good stuff is in the devel release
[12:48] <jdong> any ideas on http://librarian.launchpad.net/5805779/buildlog_ubuntu-feisty-amd64.avidemux_1%3A2.3.0-0.0ubuntu2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz?
[12:48] <jdong> mv: cannot stat `t-es.gmo': No such file or directory
[12:48] <jdong> it built fine twice in my pbuilder
[12:48] <LaserJock> I want to try bzr-builddeb :/
[12:49] <geser> I don't understand either why it succeeded on powerpc and sparc and failed on the other archs
[12:51] <jdong> geser: nor do I; hence me questioning my sanity :)
[01:11] <gnomefreak> is there a reason why pbuilder never makes ~/.pbuilderrc
[01:11] <owh> gnomefreak: It's having a bad hair day perhaps?
[01:12] <gnomefreak> it never has from dapper to feisty :(
[01:14] <owh> gnomefreak: Sorry, my joke was an attempt at levity. I've just had my first coffee after a crap night sleep with a sore tooth. I'll try to be more helpful next time :-)
[01:14] <somerville32> gnomefreak, You don't want it to
[01:14] <gnomefreak> somerville32: sure i do
[01:14] <somerville32> gnomefreak, The just create it.
[01:14] <somerville32> *Then
[01:14] <gnomefreak> somerville32: why wouldnt i?
[01:14] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: why do you want one?
[01:15] <LaserJock> ~/.pbuilderrc will override /etc/pbuilderrc
[01:15] <gnomefreak> path is ~/pbuilder/pbuilderrc   and for the config file
[01:15] <gnomefreak> i typoed the path sorry
[01:15] <gnomefreak> oh crap
[01:15] <gnomefreak> its /etc/
[01:16] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: heh, what exactly is your question/problem?
[01:17] <gnomefreak> i was looking at the warning and it didnt create ~/pbuilder/pbuilderrc but if the config is /etc/pbuilder/pbuilderrc than i ignore it
[01:18] <gnomefreak> now that im done traveling im setting my system up for building again :(
[01:18] <owh> gnomefreak: Done travelling already. After four years of it, I haven't even scratched the surface :)
[01:19] <gnomefreak> lol :)
[01:19] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: don't use either /etc/pbuilder/pbuilderrc or ~/.pbuilderrc
[01:20] <gnomefreak> LaserJock: so i dont need to follow guide in that much detail?
[01:20] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: which guide?
[01:20] <gnomefreak> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto?highlight=%28pbuilder%29
[01:21] <LaserJock> no, don't bother with that one
[01:21] <gnomefreak> i lost the good guide i had
[01:22] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: use http://tiber.tauware.de/~laserjock/pbuilder-feisty
[01:22] <gnomefreak> a new one ;)
[01:22] <gnomefreak> oh script
[01:22] <LaserJock> just drop it into your PATH (I use ~/bin) and run pbuilder-feisty create
[01:23] <LaserJock> and then if you need a pbuilder for edgy say, just cp pbuilder-feisty to pbuilder-edgy and modify DISTRIBUTION in there
[01:24] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: that's a script that actually comes with pbuilder, I just modified it to work with Ubuntu
[01:24] <gnomefreak> put the script in ~/bin?
[01:24] <LaserJock> if ~/bin is in your path
[01:25] <LaserJock> also mkdir -p ~/pbuilder/feisty_result
[01:25] <LaserJock> ^^ is where your .debs will end up
[01:26] <enyc> meepmoop
[01:28] <enyc> (on experimental-machine) ;-)
[01:28] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: just add export PATH=~/bin:$PATH in .bashrc
[01:28] <gnomefreak> enyc: post it please. and attach the three files in /var/log/dist-upgrade ;)
[01:29] <gnomefreak> easy enough :)
[01:29] <enyc> gnomefreak: the funny thing is  apt-get --download-only dist-upgrade is happy (when ran with the new sources still set)
[01:30] <enyc> gnomefreak: will do if i get the message again when look at machine next (soon!)
[01:31] <enyc> why might there be a problem anyway?
[01:31] <gnomefreak> LaserJock: using sudo is ok right?
[01:31] <gnomefreak> for pbuilder-feisty create
[01:32] <LaserJock> you just have to do pbuilder-feisty create
[01:32] <gnomefreak> its telling me permissions denied
[01:33] <gnomefreak> saved the script in /bin
[01:33] <gnomefreak> oops /bin/pbuilder-fesity
[01:33] <gnomefreak> when i run pbuilder-feisty create it wants sudo
[01:34] <gnomefreak> maybe chmod 755 it?
[01:35] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: no
[01:35] <LaserJock> you put it in ~/bin/ ?
[01:35] <LaserJock> and you run pbuilder-feisty create
[01:35] <owh> gnomefreak: Well, the script that LaserJock showed you has a sudo command in it, so that's not too surprising.
[01:36] <gnomefreak> yes im cded into bin atm and i see pbuilder-feisty there
[01:36] <LaserJock> and it asks you for your password, right
[01:36] <gnomefreak> yep
[01:36] <LaserJock> that's right
[01:36] <gnomefreak> bash: /bin/pbuilder-feisty: Permission denied
[01:36] <LaserJock> pbuilder needs root privileges
[01:36] <gnomefreak> so sudo pbuilder-feisty create
[01:36] <LaserJock> no
[01:36] <owh> gnomefreak: Do you have a $HOME set?
[01:37] <LaserJock> that script already has sudo in it
[01:37] <gnomefreak> ofcourse not
[01:37] <LaserJock> ?
[01:37] <gnomefreak> nope not in bashrc i dont
[01:37] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: echo $HOME
[01:38] <owh> Indeed :)
[01:38] <gnomefreak> ok
[01:38] <gnomefreak> now it should work i hope
[01:39] <gnomefreak> nope and echo $HOME repeats my /gnomefreask/homne
[01:39] <gnomefreak> only spelled right
[01:40] <LaserJock> and you have sudo rights on that computer?
[01:40] <owh> So, just to make sure, you are a sudo-er?
[01:40] <gnomefreak> yes
[01:40] <gnomefreak> im the only user
[01:41] <gnomefreak> should i replace $HOME with my home dir?
[01:41] <geser> LaserJock: about your pbuilder script: have you see bug #57284 ?
[01:41] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 57284 in pbuilder "examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh: Funny shell error" [Undecided,Fix released]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/57284
[01:41] <owh> I thought you just said that it was set to that.
[01:41] <LaserJock> gnomefreak: hmm, maybe you should 755 it
[01:42] <gnomefreak> in terminal when ran it gives me my home
[01:42] <owh> LaserJock: Would this work: HOME=~ pbuilder-feisty create
[01:42] <gnomefreak> oh crap
[01:42] <gnomefreak> nvm
[01:42] <gnomefreak> that wasnt it either
[01:42] <gnomefreak> ok ill try chmoding it
[01:42] <LaserJock> geser: interesting
[01:44] <gnomefreak> ok its building :)
[01:44] <gnomefreak> ty
[01:44] <LaserJock> hmm, it'd dawn on me the first time you said it wasn't +x
[01:44] <LaserJock> *it didn't
[01:45] <owh> Heh
[01:45] <gnomefreak> ah
[01:45] <owh> LaserJock: That's old age setting in early :-)
[01:46] <LaserJock> must be
[01:46] <LaserJock> grad school must be burning my brain out
[01:47] <owh> LaserJock: No, just all the chemicals :)
[01:48] <LaserJock> doh
[01:48] <geser> LaserJock: if I'm not mistaken this "bug" is still in the script from the last pbuilder
[01:49] <gnomefreak> it hit me while i was smoking from when i was writing bash scrtipts you chmod a+x it :(
[01:49] <owh> Also, the "new" script looks a whole lot less readable than your version does.
[01:50] <owh> I like the change for the DISTRIBUTION definition, but really it should be a parameter, or use the name of the script.
[01:51] <geser> I use DISTRIBUTION=`basename $0 | cut -f2 -d '-'`
[01:51] <owh> geser: Yeah, but that means that if you want to change what you're building, you still need to change the script.
[01:51] <owh> geser: If you use the name of the script itself, then it will just work.
[01:51] <owh> Doh.
[01:52] <owh> geser: I'm an idiot.
[01:52] <geser> I've pbuilder-feisty and pbuilder-edgy (which is a symlink to the former)
[01:52] <owh> geser: Yes, I read basename and thought uname.
[01:52] <siretart> tsmithe: I am around from time to time! :)
[01:53] <owh> geser: It already does what I was espousing :)
[01:53] <LaserJock> owh: yeah, when you said that I suddenly realized that too
[01:55] <LaserJock> siretart: well, I installed bzr-builddeb on my edgy machine, hopefully it works ok
[01:55] <owh> So, the script that LaserJock showed us should be modified with the DISTRIBUTION=`basename $0 | cut -f2 -d '-'`, *and* a fix for the ( $PROCEED == true ) bit. I'm not sure what it should be though.
[01:55] <siretart> LaserJock: does edgy have bzr 0.13? then it should work
[01:56] <siretart> LaserJock: otherwise, there is also an 0.11 branch, which we need for debian ATM
[01:57] <LaserJock> I get bzr from bazaar-vcs.org so I have 0.14
[01:57] <LaserJock> I grabed the Feisty debs of python-central, python-debian, and python-deb288 and they installed without complaint
[01:58] <owh> Hey, anyone know a little/lot about OO.o builds around here?
[01:58] <geser> owh: the ( $PROCEED == true) part works but not for the reason you would imagine at first
[01:59] <geser> export PROCEED=true; if ( $PROCEED == false ); then echo "true"; fi
[01:59] <geser> gives also "true"
[01:59] <owh> Indeed :-)
[02:00] <geser> a simple "if $PROCEED then" should also work
[02:00] <siretart> LaserJock: oh, if you use bzr 0.14, you might be interested in directly using james' 0.14 branch
[02:01] <siretart> LaserJock: the differences aren't that big, the bzr guys changed the API of the optionsparser, which needed to be adapted
[02:01] <owh> geser: Well, PROCEED=true, makes $PROCEED contain a text string "true". But the compare, tests it against the command true, which is not the same thing. You could also do if ($PROCEED == "true").
[02:01] <siretart> however, james is using his 0.14 tree as trunk for further development
[02:03] <geser> owh: export PROCEED=true; if ( $PROCEED == "nottrue" ); then echo "true"; fi gives still true
[02:03] <owh> Hmm, that didn't work as expected.
[02:03] <owh> geser: Indeed.
[02:03] <geser> its the true from $PROCEED that gets executed
[02:03] <owh> geser: So, I'm guessing that bash is getting in the way.
[02:03] <geser> ( != [
[02:03] <owh> geser: You are correct.
[02:04] <owh> geser: That is about the $PROCEED being executed.
[02:04] <geser> if you set $PROCEED to something other you get "Command not found"
[02:04] <owh> geser, This works: if [ $PROCEED == "true" ] 
[02:05] <geser> because here it's a string
[02:05] <geser> man [
[02:06] <geser> though bash has a built-in [
[02:06] <owh> Well then would if [$PROCEED]  work?
[02:06] <owh> Nop
[02:06] <owh> +e
[02:06] <geser> ($PROCEED) would work, [$PROCEED]  not
[02:07] <geser> in the [ case $PROCEED is used as text
[02:07] <owh> geser: Yes, because that would be executed as true. Simple :-)
[02:07] <owh> So, the patch is remove '== "true"' from the script.
[02:09] <geser> for the toothache or the headache? :P
[02:09] <owh> geser: Funnily enough a headache brought on by the toothache :0)
[02:10] <owh> Anyway. I've just had a client with a crashing OO install, using Dapper's v2.0.2, Edgy is running 2.0.4 and current stable from OO.o is 2.1. I noticed after rutting through the source that some functionality I see is actually missing from the source-code. Which leads me to ask. Where does Debian/Ubuntu get its source from?
[02:11] <LaserJock> a mythical code fairy
[02:11] <owh> I Debianised the RPM installer from OO.o's site, but of course that doesn't include the stuff that is in 2.0.2 and 2.0.4.
[02:11] <owh> LaserJock: Feels like it :)
[02:11] <geser> LaserJock: aka doko?
[02:13] <LaserJock> owh: there isn't a Readme.Debian or anything?
[02:13] <owh> Hmm, oo.o-scribblers is a big hint.
[02:13] <owh> LaserJock: Not with anything like that. It starts with "This is not up to date."
[02:13] <LaserJock> ever so helpful
[02:14] <owh> Just for fun, this is what it says: [Note: This document didn't see yet a complete review for OpenOffice.org 2.0] 
[02:15] <owh> LaserJock: Someone in #dev.openoffice.org pointed to the idea that there is a Novell release, but I'm not sure if Debian would use that. The only source I found in the testing distribution points to v1.0.1 downloaded from OO.o
[02:16] <owh> LaserJock: It appears as if OO.o is a little like the kernel. Each distro adds its own patch set.
[02:16] <owh> LaserJock: Nothing like standardisation around here :)
[02:53] <snikker> i'm unable to make a .deb package from source. i've got an error: "dh_install: command returned error code 256"
[02:54] <LaserJock> snikker: can you pastebin the whole build log for us?
[02:55] <snikker> yes, just a moment...
[03:00] <ajmitch> darn, the meeting time has been chosen, and it's the one I can't really attend so well
[03:00] <snikker> LaserJock: http://pastebin.com/863940
[03:01] <snikker> LaserJock: i've compiled it under edgy
[03:01] <somerville32> ajmitch, Thats so sad :(
[03:01] <somerville32> ajmitch, It's ok. I'll be there.
[03:02] <ajmitch> that just makes me feel so much better
[03:02] <somerville32> Besides, who said you were invited anyhow? :P
[03:02] <LaserJock> ajmitch: how did Monday get choosen? It's split 3 to 3 on the wiki page
[03:02] <ajmitch> yeah, I don't know, thinking I'm a MOTU & all when I'm obviously not worthy of the title
[03:03] <LaserJock> somerville32: being one of the senior MOTUs and a core-dev usually  warrants an invite
[03:05] <ajmitch> LaserJock: but I'm obviously not one, somerville32 has decreed it
[03:05] <somerville32> For sure
[03:05] <LaserJock> snikker: can you translate "cp: impossibile fare stat di" for me?
[03:06] <LaserJock> I'm guessing something like maybe "can't find file" or something
[03:06] <snikker> LaserJock: "cp: unable to make stat of"
[03:06] <snikker> LaserJock: "Nessun file o directory" ---> "not such file or directory"
[03:11] <LaserJock> snikker: well, lua-curl-0.2.0/debian/tmp///-e is definately an odd directory name
[03:12] <snikker> LaserJock: there is a way for fix it?
[03:13] <LaserJock> snikker: is this a source package from Ubuntu repos?
[03:15] <snikker> LaserJock: yes, it's source (.gz, .diff, .dsc) from ubuntu feisty repos, compiled under edgy
[03:18] <LaserJock> snikker: ok, I'm building it real quick to see if I can replicate that
[03:19] <LaserJock> it really seems odd that it would have a problem like that
[03:19] <LaserJock> it's a CDBS package with no install file
[03:19] <LaserJock> it shouldn't have a problem I don't think
[03:21] <snikker> LaserJock: ok, tell me if you can build it...
[03:23] <LaserJock> hmm, well first problem is a missing build dependency
[03:25] <LaserJock> snikker: did you know it needed lua5.1-policy-dev ?
[03:26] <snikker> LaserJock: yes, i've build it from source and i've instelled it
[03:39] <LaserJock> snikker: well, I gotta go
[03:39] <LaserJock> I haven't figured it out yet
[03:40] <LaserJock> it could be something obvious but I don't see what
[03:40] <LaserJock> maybe ajmitch could tell
[03:40] <snikker> LaserJock: ok, thanks
[03:41] <snikker> ajmitch: hi, can i ask to you?
[03:49] <snikker> ajmitch: i'm unable to make a .deb package from source. i've got an error: "dh_install: command returned error code 256"
[04:08] <rexbron> hey, can anyone help with a licening problem?
[04:09] <rexbron> if the COPYING file says that the project is GPL
[04:16] <somerville32> rexbron, Yes...
[07:07] <pianoboy3333> How does dpkg actually build a package? I'm just wondering... because you have the rules file, which makes the file, but then what "make install"s it, and keeps track of where the files are?
[07:08] <crimsun> see dpkg-buildpackage.
[07:09] <pianoboy3333> does that tell m e of the internal workings? I'm talking about the actual way in the source code that dpkg-buildpackage builds a package
[07:10] <crimsun> the internal workings of what, dpkg-buildpackage? That's a pretty silly question.
[07:10] <pianoboy3333> crimsun: how come?
[07:11] <crimsun> of course dpkg-buildpackage will tell you of the internal workings of dpkg-buildpackage.
[07:11] <crimsun> if you're itching, read the actual Perl script.
[07:11] <crimsun> sorry, shell script
[07:17] <crimsun> [meaning if you're intent, read dpkg-source, which is a Perl script] 
[07:49] <imbrandon> ello all
[07:49] <Laser_away> imbrandon!
[07:49] <imbrandon> heya Laser_away ;)
[07:50] <imbrandon> LaserJock, hehe i've been giving archive.ubuntu.com a run for its money, i've had a 9.xx MB/s connection to it for 7+ hours now
[07:50] <imbrandon> ( rsync )
[07:51] <imbrandon> i was suprised when i looked at the graphs today
[07:54] <imbrandon> http://www.imbrandon.com/misc/bandwidth/current.png
[07:55] <imbrandon> w00t for fast connections, i'll be glad when i finaly get these build boxes all finished
[07:55] <imbrandon> hehe
[09:35] <ademan> hey the system docs for packaging has a typo, is there any easy way for me to fix that?
[09:38] <persia> ademan: Which document?
[09:40] <ademan> patch Systems -> Patching without a patch system
[09:40] <ademan> might have already been fixed, it's a totally nothing typo,  "but" instead of "put"
[09:41] <tsmithe> why do people on the forums say, "First, I suggest above all else installing Automatix so you can use files like .mp3 and other nifty programs to have, like Java and bittorrent programs.", to new users!!!
[09:42] <ademan> it's easy i guess?
[09:42] <ademan> easyubuntu is better imho though
[09:43] <persia> ademan: Do you mean on the Wiki?
[09:43] <tsmithe> ademan, but it breaks systems!
[09:44] <ademan> persia: if you go to System->Help->System documentation   then click on packaging applications for ubuntu, then go to "Patch Systems->Patching Without a Patch System"
[09:49] <persia> ademan: I don't seem to have that option.  In any case, if you want to fix it, you can find the filename from the link address, and then submit a bug including the patch to LP.
[09:51] <ademan> well right now i'm tryin to package code::blocks, which is a bit more important to me, but i'll get around to it hopefully
[09:58] <vil> ademan, you seem to abandon eclipse-cdt :)
[10:01] <ademan> vil: :-( yeah, my comp just can't handle it
[10:01] <ademan> plus it got dropped, to make matters way way worse
[10:02] <vil> ademan, what do you mean by dropped?
[10:02] <ademan> fell off a table
[10:03] <ademan> my 3d card is borked now, God knows what else
[10:04] <vil> hopefully, it the 3d was not fault of eclipse-cdt :)
[10:04] <ademan> hahah, i would think not
[12:10] <snikker> i'm unable to make a .deb package from source. i've got an error: "dh_install: command returned error code 256"
[12:11] <Hobbsee> snikker: not enough information.  please pastebin all of the buildlog
[12:15] <snikker> Hobbsee: http://pastebin.com/863976
[12:16] <StevenK> Does the package have any .install files in debian/ ?
[12:17] <Hobbsee> #
[12:17] <Hobbsee> cp: unable to make stat of `/home/snikker/misc/install-packages/amd64/deb-packages/application/beta/add_pkg/src_feisty/lua-curl-0.2.0/debian/tmp///-e': Not such file or directory
[12:20] <snikker> Hobbsee:yes, i've got: "liblua5.1-curl-dev.install" and "liblua5.1-curl0.install"
[12:20] <Hobbsee> snikker: what command did you use to build this?
[12:22] <snikker> Hobbsee:yes, i've applied the diff file, then "dpkg-source -x *.dsc" the "debuild -us -uc" in the source folder
[12:22] <Hobbsee> ah right
[12:24] <snikker> Hobbsee: i've take the source from ubuntu feisty repository and i've compiled it under edgy, if this can help
[12:32] <snikker> Hobbsee: i go to dinner... see you later
[12:48] <Amaranth> \sh_away: congrats
[12:56] <Hobbsee> pochu: please remove that away message
[12:58] <snikker> Hobbsee: i'm come back
[12:58] <Hobbsee> snikker: yay.  dont know the answer though
[12:59] <snikker> Hobbsee: ah, ok.
[01:00] <StevenK> snikker: Which package and version are you trying to build on Edgy?
[01:01] <snikker> StevenK:  i've tried to compile "lua-curl-0.2.0" (source from feisty) on edgy
[01:03] <snikker> StevenK: my build log is here: http://pastebin.com/863976
[01:03] <StevenK> I saw that, thanks
[01:04] <snikker> StevenK: ok  :)
[01:04] <StevenK> I've been asked to do something else, so I'll look in a sec.
[01:04] <snikker> StevenK: ok, thanks
[01:07] <Hobbsee> nope
[01:07] <StevenK> My machine seems to coping, so nyah. :-)
[01:08] <StevenK> snikker: I note lua5.1-policy-dev is a build dependancy which doesn't exist in Edgy.
[01:09] <snikker> StevenK: yes, i've saw. i've already build and installed this package.
[01:10] <StevenK> Right.
[01:10] <StevenK> Could I be lazy and grab that?
[01:11] <snikker> StevenK: yes, just a moment...
[01:12] <imbrandon> moins Hobbsee and StevenK 
[01:12] <Hobbsee> hey imbrandon 
[01:12] <Hobbsee> imbrandon: feel like making gnome-applets build again?
[01:12] <Hobbsee> er, install again?
[01:12] <StevenK> imbrandon: Long time, etc etc
[01:12] <imbrandon> Hobbsee, i can give it a go in a few
[01:13] <Hobbsee> imbrandon: thanks.  http://buntudot.org/people/~hobbsee/gnome-applets.debdiff
[01:13] <imbrandon> StevenK, heh yea , i've been on diffrent hours than i was 
[01:13] <imbrandon> ;)
[01:13] <imbrandon> Hobbsee, kk
[01:13] <StevenK> Oh, liboobs
[01:13] <StevenK> Trust Hobbsee to touch that package
[01:13] <StevenK> Ow!
[01:14] <imbrandon> heh
[01:14] <snikker> StevenK: i'm tring to send it through dcc
[01:14] <AnAnt> ?
[01:14] <Hobbsee> snikker: StevenK doesnt take dcc.  most people dont
[01:15] <snikker> Hobbsee: how can i send it?
[01:15] <AnAnt> Hello, I have a question
[01:15] <StevenK> snikker: Are you able to put it up on the web?
[01:15] <AnAnt> http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4110
[01:15] <Hobbsee> AnAnt: that's not a question.  that's a URL.
[01:15] <StevenK> AnAnt: That's a URL, not a question.
[01:15] <AnAnt> what's meant by "unnecessary dh_make comment lines" in the comment there
[01:16] <Hobbsee> StevenK: :D
[01:16] <snikker> StevenK: no at this moment :(
[01:16] <StevenK> snikker: e-mail?
[01:16] <Hobbsee> snikker: hyperupload.com usually works
[01:16] <AnAnt> ^-- that 's my question
[01:16] <StevenK> hyperupload.com? Don't know that one
[01:16] <imbrandon> AnAnt, it means in your debian/rules there are unnneeded comment lines 
[01:16] <snikker> StevenK: yes
[01:17] <snikker> StevenK: or i can try through hyperupload
[01:17] <AnAnt> what are unneeded comment lines ? are all comment lines unneeded or what ?
[01:17] <Adri2000> AnAnt: it means you can remove in debian/rules all the lines #dh_*
[01:17] <AnAnt> Adri2000: oh, ok, thanks !
[01:18] <StevenK> snikker: Let's listen to Hobbsee and try this hyperupload thing
[01:18] <nuke13> Hi all
[01:18] <Hobbsee> it's got a limiter on it - but i used to use it all the time before getting imbrandon's shell
[01:19] <snikker> StevenK: ok i've do it. look here: "http://hyperupload.com/download/02d1679559/lua5.1-policy-dev_6_all.deb.html" 
[01:20] <StevenK> Length: 10,878 (11K) [application/force-download] 
[01:20] <StevenK> Nice MIME type, you bozos.
[01:21] <Hobbsee> StevenK: click on the html page.  duh
[01:21] <Hobbsee> or just take otu the .html
[01:22] <StevenK> I did, it's the actual .deb downloading, but the MIME type is wrong
[01:22] <AnAnt> btw, anyone here from france ? esp. Paris ?
[01:22] <StevenK> So my bitching is justified, so nyah.
[01:22] <Hobbsee> ah
[01:23] <StevenK> snikker: Right, trying this whole building thing again
[01:24] <AnAnt> ping lionel 
[01:24] <StevenK> snikker: Reproduced, so way cool
[01:25] <snikker> StevenK: do you have my same error?
[01:25] <StevenK> Yup
[01:26] <snikker> StevenK: there is a way for fix it?
[01:26] <StevenK> To be honest, I'm suprised this thing built on feisty.
[01:27] <Hobbsee> hah
[01:29] <nuke13> c ya laters
[01:29] <StevenK> snikker: However, the way to fix it to remove the '-e' from the start of the lines in the two .install files
[01:29] <StevenK> s/fix it/fix it is/
[01:30] <snikker> StevenK: ok, now i try :)
[01:30] <lionel> pong AnAnt
[01:31] <lionel> too late :)
[01:35] <AnAnt> if I am going to patch a file in the orig tarball, is it better to use dpatch system ?
[01:37] <lionel> AnAnt: you were looking for me ?
[01:37] <AnAnt> lionel: yeah
[01:37] <persia> AnAnt: If it is a new package, yes.  If it is an existing package, follow the format in debian/patches (or patch directly if it does not exist).
[01:37] <AnAnt> persia: thanks
[01:42] <snikker> StevenK: i've tried to do what you said, but don't work :(
[01:44] <Hobbsee> persia: and it depends on how big the patch is
[01:45] <persia> Hobbsee: How big?  How?
[01:45] <Hobbsee> as in, if you're making major changes, then using dpatch is probably a good idea.  for a 2x line fix or something...then you probably woudltn bother
[01:47] <StevenK> snikker: Same error?
[01:48] <persia> Hobbsee: What do you recommend for simple fixes in new packages?  I like simple-patchsys for CDBS, but most new packages don't seem to be CDBS.
[01:49] <Hobbsee> persia: dpatch.  or manually patch it.  whichever
[01:49] <Hobbsee> it's rather personal preference
[01:51] <persia> Hobbsee: I understand.  I like debian/ changes only, but I've quite a few patches the other way :)
[01:51] <snikker> StevenK: no another error. i've run "debuild -us -uc" in source dir without clean, i past the log, if it can help... 
[01:51] <StevenK> snikker: Please do
[01:52] <Hobbsee> persia: yeah :) use dpatch, manual patching, or simple patchsys.  they're the common ones.  or if it's a 2 line fix or something, change the file
[01:54] <snikker> StevenK: http://pastebin.com/864204
[01:56] <StevenK> #
[01:56] <StevenK> dpkg-source: cannot represent change to lua-curl_0.2.0-3.diff.gz: binary file contents changed
[01:56] <StevenK> #
[01:56] <StevenK> dpkg-source: cannot represent change to lua-curl_0.2.0.orig.tar.gz: binary file contents changed
[01:56] <StevenK> That is probably the issue
[02:00] <StevenK> Oh, I know exactly why it doesn't work
[02:00] <snikker> StevenK: http://pastebin.com/86
[02:00] <StevenK> snikker: If you sort out the above problem, add 'SHELL=/bin/bash' to debian/rules
[02:00] <snikker> StevenK: sorry
[02:00] <snikker> StevenK: just a moment
[02:01] <StevenK> To be honest, the excuse this package uses for a build system is *insane*
[02:01] <StevenK> It adds files to debian/ at *build time*
[02:08] <snikker> StevenK: same error... :(
[02:35] <\sh> moins
[02:43] <Enverex> I thought I'd ask in here as you're all a little more bright. What does the "Supported?" column on the HardwareSupport Wiki mean? (there's also a Working column so I'm wondering it's it's official related)
[03:43] <tsmithe> crimsun, did you get my pm?
[03:47] <crimsun> tsmithe: yes, I'm busy writing an abstract atm.
[03:47] <tsmithe> ok
[03:47] <tsmithe> that's cool
[03:47] <crimsun> should take me about 30 more minutes.
[03:49] <tsmithe> it's ok. take your time :)
[03:54] <Adri2000> Laser_away: ping (about genesis bugs)
[03:58] <Adri2000> crimsun: please open an edgy task for bug #59138 (amule)
[03:58] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 59138 in wxwidgets "[SRU: EDGY]  amule crashes when I close a tab" [Unknown,Unknown]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/59138
[03:58] <crimsun> Adri2000: you mean wxwidgets2.6, btw.
[03:59] <Adri2000> yes :)
[04:03] <tsmithe> crimsun, i'll be away for a bit, should you want me. i'll be back in about half an hour
[04:32] <tsmithe> hmm
[04:33] <Adri2000> any core-dev (crimsun? :)): can you approve the edgy task for bug #65457 please
[04:33] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 65457 in cinepaint "[UNMETDEPS]  cinepaint has unmet dependencies" [Undecided,Fix released]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/65457
[04:34] <crimsun> done.
[04:34] <Adri2000> thanks
[05:06] <Adri2000> crimsun: I have a question about the SRU for cinepaint... I took the version in edgy and changed the dependency to fix the bug... the problem is that it FTBFS. why? because png.c:60:48: error: png.h: No such file or directory (and we can see during the configure that he doesn't find it either). why this dependency is missing? probably because it was not needed in dapper (a B-D already depended on it maybe) and because this package has not
[05:06] <Adri2000>  been actually built in edgy (no upload or sync during edgy). If I look at the package in feisty, libpng12-dev is a B-D. So, for the SRU, I have to add this B-D, is it ok?
[05:07] <Adri2000> ouch
[05:08] <crimsun> Adri2000: if it compiles, yes.
[05:08] <Adri2000> ok :p
[05:11] <ScottK-laptop> If any MOTU is up for REVUing, I have http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4115 if you feel like some Python and http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4127 if you feel more like Perl.  Both are looking for a second advocate.
[05:13] <tsmithe> crimsun, are you free to assist me in my task?
[05:13] <crimsun> tsmithe: I'll ping you, shouldn't be much longer.
[05:13] <tsmithe> ok
[05:13] <tsmithe> cool
[05:26] <asantoni> Ok guys, I have a couple of questions
[05:27] <asantoni> I'm a developer for Mixxx, and we're trying to push out a new release really soon. We'd like to try to get the new version in Ubuntu.
[05:27] <asantoni> The old version is already packaged in Debian and Ubuntu... What's the best course of action for getting the package updated? (hopefully before the UVF)
[05:27] <crimsun> release it.
[05:28] <crimsun> then file a wishlist bug against the mixxx source package using Launchpad.
[05:28] <asantoni> ok
[05:28] <asantoni> what's the usual timeline for that sort of thing?
[05:28] <crimsun> depends who does the lifting.
[05:29] <asantoni> hmmm
[05:29] <asantoni> should I contact the maintainer for the package?
[05:29] <crimsun> if you guys can verify that an updated source package builds, upgrades/installs successfully, then it can be extremely fast, a matter of hours.
[05:29] <crimsun> the maintainer is "MOTU", or "us".
[05:29] <asantoni> hmmm, cool
[05:30] <crimsun> or if you'd like to get it into Debian first, you could try that route, but Etch freeze is in effect.
[05:30] <asantoni> ok, so do I have to update the source package, then upload to REVU or sometihng?
[05:30] <asantoni> (ie. update the source package myself?)
[05:30] <crimsun> that would be one approach.
[05:31] <asantoni> hmmm, ok, thanks
[05:45] <muzzol> warning: source directory `./cinelerra-cv_2.1.0+svn20070109' is not <sourcepackage>-<upstreamversion> `cinelerra-cv-2.1.0+svn20070109'
[05:45] <muzzol> anyone?
[05:45] <crimsun> why not cinelerra-cv_2.1.0.svn20070109 ?
[05:46] <crimsun> (for the source package)
[05:46] <sladen> has that had the MPEG2 stuff removed?
[05:47] <sladen> I was having problems getting it to build 6 months ago with the MPEG2 code
[05:47] <sladen> (Ogg only)
[05:47] <geser> muzzol: shouldn't the _ between cv and 2 be a - ? ( _ is correct for the orig.tar.gz)
[05:49] <muzzol> not sure
[05:49] <muzzol> this naming is a little bit confusing
[05:52] <crimsun> the directory is probably better named cinelerra-cv-2.1.0+svn20070109 or cinelerra-cv-2.1.0.svn20070109
[05:57] <muzzol> the directory containing debian subdir?
[05:57] <muzzol> crimsun
[05:57] <crimsun> yes
[05:58] <muzzol> ok, thanks
[05:58] <muzzol> still a bit confused
[05:58] <muzzol> :D
[06:03] <Adri2000> motu-sru needed: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/edgy/+source/cinepaint/+bug/65457
[06:03] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 65457 in cinepaint "[SRU]  cinepaint has unmet dependencies" [Medium,In progress]  
[06:17] <muzzol> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
[06:17] <muzzol> any hints?
[06:19] <siretart> tsmithe: you tried to contact me on irc lateley?
[06:19] <tsmithe> ah yes
[06:19] <siretart> I do still irc :)
[06:19] <tsmithe> i was wondering about bzr and debs...
[06:19] <siretart> it's fun :)
[06:19] <tsmithe> following your bzr-debuild post
[06:19] <tsmithe> i think i'll check it out
[06:20] <siretart> development is still in flow, james_w asked me about missing features we ubuntu devs could need in there
[06:20] <tsmithe> i think crimsun and Laser_away answered my questions
[06:20] <tsmithe> cool
[06:26] <siretart> just try it out and write/blog about stuff that you like or dislike
[06:27] <tsmithe> yeah
[06:29] <crimsun> tsmithe: completed, going to grab coffee, back in 20 mins.
[06:29] <tsmithe> okey
[06:29] <tsmithe> cool
[06:37] <slomo_> siretart: ping? :)
[06:38] <siretart> slomo_: pong!
[06:40] <slomo_> siretart: there's a new faac release... unfortunately same soname but very useless ABI changes (5 constants were increased by one)... would you revert that single change (that was done for no reason), Breaks the new lib on the very few users of the lib or use a custom soname?
[06:40] <siretart> slomo_: how does upstream think about that?
[06:41] <slomo_> siretart: you know the story about faad2 with the ugly license change and no response upstream... they're the same people ;)
[06:42] <siretart> omg :/
[06:43] <siretart> slomo_: I think we'd have least pain if we go with the reverted changes, and notifying upstream about that fact
[06:43] <siretart> slomo_: I assume you maintain faac/faad  in debian as well, right?
[06:43] <slomo_> siretart: no, debian has only faad and there it has even greater problems ;) 
[06:44] <siretart> fun :/
[06:44] <slomo_> really bad that those are the only "free" implementations of a aac encoder and decoder...
[06:45] <slomo_> i would even prefer somethnig by the ffmpeg people
[06:45] <siretart> is there evidence about patent enforcement for faac/faad? I think I remember something, but I'm not sure
[06:45] <siretart> I've noticed x264 in the debian NEW queue
[06:46] <slomo_> heh, i doubt this will go through
[06:46] <slomo_> and for aac... i heard rumours
[06:48] <siretart> hm. ffmpeg and mplayer got through NEW at last, so why not x264 as well?
[06:48] <siretart> just curious, what's the difference between faac and faad?
[06:48] <slomo_> anyway, aac plays in the same league as h264 
[06:48] <slomo_> well, we had to drop all encoders from gst-ffmpeg to make the ftpmasters happy
[06:49] <slomo_> and x264 is only an encoder for a format that is patented
[06:50] <siretart> mom, phon
[06:57] <siretart> hm, I see
[06:58] <siretart> after rethinking about it, you're probably right, and ftp-master will reject both aac and x264. which is sad :(
[07:00] <siretart> hm. there are currently 5 packages using faac: avidemux, gst-plugins-bad-multiverse0.10, gst-plugins-multiverse0.8, mplayer and mythplugins
[07:00] <siretart> slomo_: does this mean that ffmpeg does not have any means to play aac material?
[07:01] <slomo_> siretart: yep... exactly that... because ffmpeg is in universe while faac is in multiverse
[07:01] <slomo_> siretart: and it has no own decoder for it
[07:01] <siretart> ffmpeg is as good as in main now
[07:01] <slomo_> hm, and linking newer faad which ffmpeg violates the gpl so maybe someone of the ffmpeg team wants to do it
[07:01] <slomo_> oh?
[07:02] <siretart> there is an inclusion request for it pending, and xine ships the internal ffmpeg copy now in main
[07:02] <slomo_> do you have a list of everything in the ffmpeg versions?
[07:04] <siretart> sorry?
[07:05] <slomo_> a list of encoder and decoders for which formats :)
[07:05] <siretart> puh, I don't think so, no
[07:06] <slomo_> hm :/ i have a feeling that we might get multiverse much smaller if we can get ffmpeg even in main ;)
[07:13] <muzzol> how can add universe on pbuilder?
[07:13] <muzzol> Considering  libavcodec-dev
[07:13] <muzzol>    -> Trying libavcodec-dev
[07:13] <muzzol>        -> Cannot install libavcodec-dev; apt errors follow:
[07:13] <muzzol> Reading package lists... Done
[07:13] <muzzol> Building dependency tree       
[07:13] <muzzol> Reading state information... Done
[07:13] <muzzol> E: Couldn't find package libavcodec-dev
[07:13] <muzzol> W: Unable to locate package libavcodec-dev
[07:13] <muzzol> E: Could not satisfy build-dependency.
[07:13] <muzzol> E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed.
[07:13] <muzzol> :(
[07:13] <enyc> hrrrm
[07:15] <jdong> muzzol: yeah sure, add it via --othermirror or login --save-after-login and edit sources.list
[07:16] <muzzol> i've added to OTHERMIRROR variable with no success
[07:16] <fernando> muzzol: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto
[07:16] <muzzol> thanks!
[07:17] <geser> muzzol: sudo pbuilder update --override-config --othermirror "deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu feisty universe multiverse"
[07:17] <muzzol> ok, what i've missed is --override-config
[07:18] <muzzol> thanks
[07:19] <crimsun> tsmithe: ping?
[07:19] <crimsun> tsmithe: sorry, ping, ready for git?
[07:20] <tsmithe> hi hi
[07:20] <tsmithe> pm?
[07:21] <crimsun> sure
[07:30] <gnomefreak> crimsun: is ther eany way we can upgrade the backported flashplugin-nonfree package to 9.0 r31. right now from what i can tell on p.u.c dapper and edgy backports have 9.0 d78. this is to fix bug 79384
[07:30] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 79384 in flashplugin-nonfree "chinese firefox crash with flash 9 after a single page" [Undecided,Needs info]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/79384
[07:30] <crimsun> gnomefreak: see jdong :-)
[07:30] <gnomefreak> ty
[07:33] <jdong> gnomefreak: I have approved the backport on Edgy
[07:33] <jdong> gnomefreak: if someone (crimsun?) can testify that it works on Dapper I will approve that too
[07:33] <gnomefreak> ok skip dapper?
[07:34] <gnomefreak> ok i just subcribed you to the bug ill add my comments there for you. if i get around to it ill test it on dapper sometime this week
[07:34] <jdong> gnomefreak: definitely for edgy, feel free to ping cjwatson or an archive admin to let the backport through
[07:34] <jdong> https://launchpad.net/edgy-backports/+bug/80642
[07:35] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 80642 in edgy-backports "please backport  flashplugin-nonfree_9.0.31" [Undecided,In progress]  
[07:35] <gnomefreak> ack
[07:35] <jdong> gnomefreak: ^^ use that as a reference for talking to archive admins
[07:35] <gnomefreak> k
[07:35] <gnomefreak> so its just waiting for a push?
[07:55] <muzzol> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${shlibs:Depends}
[07:55] <muzzol> anyone?
[07:58] <ScottK-laptop> muzzol: Dunno about shlibs, but with ${python:Depends} the same error occurs and it can be safely ignored.
[07:58] <ScottK-laptop> AFAIK..
[07:59] <AstralJava> Err... how do I get the pbuilder chroot install a local .deb file as build-dependency? I can't make it notice this anyhow.
[07:59] <muzzol> ok
[07:59] <muzzol> thanks ScottK-laptop 
[08:00] <AstralJava> I've tried dbuilderrc to include a HOOKDIR, to no avail. Straight duild-depends in control file won't go either.
[08:15] <bluefoxicy> If I want a universe package upgraded or something is it correct to file a bug?
[08:15] <bluefoxicy> (memprof and alleyoop... alleyoop 0.9.0 doesn't work with our version of valgrind, and memprof 0.6 just finally came out)
[08:16] <Adri2000> yes
[08:20] <elliotjhug> Hi all, I am just packaging something for Ubuntu Studio, but one of the dependencies is neither in Ubuntu and a search on the internet reveals very little. Looking for libdivxencore0.
[08:21] <crimsun> !memprof
[08:21] <ubotu> memprof: Memory profiler and leak detector. In component main, is optional. Version 0.5.1-12ubuntu1 (edgy), package size 337 kB, installed size 1308 kB (Only available for i386)
[08:21] <crimsun> !memprof feisty
[08:21] <ubotu> Sorry, I don't know anything about memprof feisty - try searching on http://bots.ubuntulinux.nl/factoids.cgi
[08:24] <crimsun> bluefoxicy: did you check the removal criteria for memprof?
[08:24] <crimsun> bug 324607
[08:24] <crimsun> debian 324607
[08:24] <Ubugtu> Debian bug 324607 in wnpp "O: memprof -- Memory profiler and leak detector" [Normal,Closed]  http://bugs.debian.org/324607
[08:25] <crimsun> i.e., does 0.6.0 address the RC bugs?
[08:25] <ScottK> Good afternoon bddebian.
[08:25] <bddebian> Heya ScottK
[08:26] <bddebian> :-)
[08:26] <crimsun> oh good, no revu work for me
[08:26] <bddebian> crimsun: The libticonv folks are argueing with me about the dir naming :)
[08:27] <crimsun> haw
[08:27] <ScottK> crimsun: Actually I need a second REVU if you're available?
[08:28] <bluefoxicy> crimsun:  huh?
[08:29] <crimsun> bluefoxicy: memprof does not exist in 7.04 because it was removed in March '06 from Debian unstable (and thus testing)
[08:29] <bluefoxicy> crimsun: 0.6 was just released in 2006
[08:29] <crimsun> right, but is the separate maintenance burden justified?
[08:29] <bluefoxicy> I don't know if it's "quite dead" still, it may have just woke up to mention that it works still
[08:29] <bluefoxicy> I don't know.
[08:30] <crimsun> ...well if you're so nonchalant about it, how do you expect fellow busy volunteers to help maintain it?
[08:30] <bluefoxicy> the past 4 years have been memprof 0.5.1, which didn't work
[08:31] <bluefoxicy> "The main attraction of 0.6 is that memprof now works again,"  -- http://www.gnome.org/projects/memprof/
[08:31] <bluefoxicy> crimsun:  I hadn't noticed it was removed, just that it hadn't been updated.
[08:31] <Adri2000> \sh_away: are you going to fix the FTBFS of xulrunner on ia64?
[08:32] <ScottK> bluefoxicy: Perhaps you should package 0.6 and upload it?
[08:32] <bluefoxicy> also I am not twisting anyone's arm :P
[08:32] <bluefoxicy> scottK:  perhaps, perhaps.  I don't deal with Debian though, so it'd be 0.6-0ubuntu1 or something.
[08:33] <ScottK> Sounds about right.
[08:52] <bddebian> OMG this tilibs crap is driving me nuts
[08:54] <ScottK> bddebian: Would you mind archiving http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4088 - It's a bug fix that I never should have uploaded to REVU?
[08:56] <bddebian> ScottK: Done
[08:57] <ScottK-laptop> Thanks.
[08:59] <ScottK-laptop> bddebian: Any chance you'd have second thoughts and advocate for http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4114 ...?  I think it's a good package (not that my opinion counts).
[09:00] <bddebian> ScottK-laptop: What do you mean by second thoughts?
[09:01] <ScottK-laptop> You reviewed, but didn't advocate, so maybe you change you mind and advocate....
[09:01] <ScottK-laptop> you/your
[09:01] <bddebian> ScottK-laptop: Did you fix that warning? :-)
[09:02] <ScottK-laptop> No, I understood it to be a common one that one needn't worry about.  The predecessor packages that have been uploaded have the same warning.
[09:03] <ScottK-laptop> If I really need to fix it, I will, of course.
[09:03] <bddebian> Well it's not really a biggie for me but I never know :-(
[09:16] <bddebian> crimsun: You have a minute?
[09:16] <crimsun> slomo_: has bug 80626 been reported upstream?
[09:16] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 80626 in gstreamer0.10 "Musepack stopped working (The stream is of a different type...)" [Undecided,Confirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/80626
[09:16] <slomo_> crimsun: it's already fixed upstream
[09:16] <slomo_> crimsun: see my latest comment there ;)
[09:16] <crimsun> ah, was it a playbin issue?
[09:16] <slomo_> no
[09:16] <slomo_> basetransform and pad issue
[09:17] <crimsun> oh bah, I loaded the page two minutes before you commented
[09:17] <crimsun> :-)
[09:17] <slomo_> heh
[09:17] <slomo_> i'll let seb decide, i don't have the time to make a new cvs snapshot now or get the n+1 patches to get it right ;) reverting that single change would be fine though... 
[09:18] <crimsun> ok, left until seb chimes in, then :)
[09:19] <crimsun> thanks
[09:41] <ScottK-laptop> bddebian: The solution appears to be removing the shebang.  New upload shortly.
[10:04] <bddebian> Well I'm hosed.  tilp2 depends on libticables2 which is currently libticables3-3.9.6 in the archives because of sonames but what is supposed to be the "newer" version based on libticables2 is version 1.0.3. How the hell am I gonna fix that?
[10:06] <ScottK> bddebian: Dunno, but the package is uploaded again with the warning fixed...
[10:06] <ScottK> http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=4158
[10:07] <ScottK> bddebian: IIRC persia was discussing a similar versioning problem yesterday.  Don't recall what the solution was.
[10:10] <geser> bddebian: are libticables3 and libticables2 the same source package?
[10:12] <bddebian> geser: No, supposedly the libticables2 stuff is "new".  What is currently libticables3 is supposed to be from the "libticables" branch.  But they seem to struggle with soname issues.  I'm having another problem with libticonv.
[10:13] <geser> can't you introduce a new source package for libticables2?
[10:20] <bddebian> geser: Yes but there was already a libticables2 package, plus libticables2 < libticables3 even though the code is "newer"
[10:22] <geser> packages.ubuntu.com know no libticables2 only 3
[10:22] <bddebian> Apt-cache dump shows a libticables2
[10:25] <geser> libticables3 conflicts libticables2
[10:26] <geser> libticables2 seems to be really old
[10:26] <geser> even Debian doesn't know libticables2
[10:27] <bddebian> Aye because it was supposed to be based on the "libticables" source..  There never should have been libticables2 and 3
[10:27] <geser> I'd say it's safe to use libticables2
[10:28] <geser> you dont have a problem with 2 < 3 as it's in the package name
[10:28] <bddebian> Well the version is much lower also
[10:28] <bddebian>  3.9.6 -> 1.0.3
[10:29] <geser> no problem as long as you don't build it from the libticables3 source package
[10:30] <geser> and even then exists a solution: add a epoch
[10:30] <geser> it's for such cases
[10:31] <bddebian> stupid damn upstream
[10:33] <geser> the version is only compared for the same source (or binary) packages
[10:35] <geser> dpkg has no problems if the version of libticables2 is lower than the version of libticables3 as they are different packages
[10:36] <bddebian> I realize all of this, it just adds mass confusion in my mind
[10:37] <bddebian> Say I'm packaging some new package that needs libticables.  I look and say "hey" libticables3 must be newer / better than libticables2
[10:38] <geser> that's the user interpretation but must meet the reality
[10:38] <geser> see e.g. libgoffice-1 -> libgoffice-0
[10:39] <bddebian> Well I still think it's just stupid :-)
[10:53] <muzzol> hi
[10:54] <muzzol> i get lots of "warning: no utmp entry available and..."
[10:54] <muzzol> how can i get rid of?
[10:54] <geser> ignore them
[11:10] <geser> lupine_85: ask, someone will hopefully answer them :)
[11:18] <lupine_85> :) ok. I've got a debian/ that uses cdbs & debhelper to build multiple packages; I want to add a postinst to just one of those packages
[11:19] <lupine_85> I tried calling the postinst file debian/<package name>.postinst but that didn't work...
[11:19] <lupine_85> and my google-fu is low :(
[11:44] <rexbron> bddebian: would you have time to review murrine, fixed the licening issues upstream, and soma again? upid 4149 and 4150
[11:56] <muzzol> strange problem here
[11:56] <muzzol> i'm trying to compile cinelerra package
[11:56] <muzzol> in control i have: Package: cinelerra
[11:56] <muzzol> if i change to: Package: cinelerra-cv
[11:57] <muzzol> the final deb is just a 17k file
[11:57] <muzzol> containing some doc files
[11:57] <muzzol> instead of 16M package with binaries
[11:57] <muzzol> any hints
[11:58] <muzzol> ?
[11:58] <jdong> crimsun: thanks for fixing ffmpeg ftbfs :)
[11:58] <crimsun> np
[11:58] <jdong> crimsun: ya got any idea why avidemux half-ftbfs'ed?
[11:58] <jdong> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avidemux/1:2.3.0-0.0ubuntu2
[11:59] <jdong> I'm utterly confused :)
[11:59] <crimsun> haven't looked
[11:59] <crimsun> fighting 7.04's kubuntu-desktop
[11:59] <jdong> it built fine on 2 of 5 archs, the others failing because they couldn't touch some translation file before build
[11:59] <jdong> and I can't reproduce any of the error messages
[11:59] <jdong> I think it's either my sanity or the buildd's :D
[12:05] <Adri2000> crimsun: you can upload cinepaint :)
[12:08] <crimsun> sorry, I need to smack myself first
[12:10] <Adri2000> why?