[03:27] <n8k99> 2
[05:48] <ubergoober> anyone here a package mantainer?
[05:49] <ubergoober> have a question about dependencies/versions of in my control file
[05:49] <ubergoober> ubuntu 8 was released and my package is broken now.
[05:50] <ubergoober> good evening by the way. sorry don't mean to be rude
[06:02] <RAOF> ubergoober: In general packages need a rebuild to work on a new release; dependencies tend to change.
[06:03] <RAOF> ubergoober: I don't think you've actually asked your question yet.  What is it? :)
[06:05] <ubergoober> RAOF: yeah seems that way
[06:06] <ubergoober> sorry was away for a min are you still there?
[06:06] <ubergoober> my question is my package depends on libpq4 but in my control file thats all I've required it just says simply libpq4
[06:07] <ubergoober> when ubuntu 8 came out it tells me that libpq is a virtual package and fails to install because it cant resolve the dependancy
[06:08] <ubergoober> so I tried something similar to this in my control file Depends: libpq (>=4)
[06:08] <ubergoober> but I still get the virtual package error
[06:09] <ubergoober> If I force the package to install and then install libpq5 it works just fine. Just cant figure out how to tell it to install  as long as it can fine libpq4 and up in the repositories
[06:10] <RAOF> Right.  So, this would be a library transition issue.
[06:10] <RAOF> Also, there's probably an easier way to specify your dependencies :)
[06:10] <ubergoober> not sure how though
[06:11] <ubergoober> I've only seen examples like the one above so thats what I've been trying
[06:11] <ubergoober> is that not the correct way to do it
[06:11] <RAOF> I'm sure the packaging guide has some examples of dh_shlibdeps
[06:11] <RAOF> A dh_shlibdeps call in debian/rules should create a shlib:Depends variable, containing all the packages that supply libraries that your binary depends on.
[06:12] <ubergoober> I've read a little on shlibs but doesnt that require that I build a source package first
[06:12] <ubergoober> I only want to build a binary package because our software isn't totally free
[06:13] <RAOF> Oh, so you're _manually_ writing a binary package?
[06:13] <ubergoober> yes
[06:13] <ubergoober> sorry for not being clear
[06:13] <RAOF> Man, that's much harder than it needs to be :)
[06:13] <ubergoober> just trying to roll up the software into a .deb
[06:13] <RAOF> So, the source package doesn't _actually_ have to contain source code.
[06:14] <RAOF> (Although if it wants to go somewhere official it obviously will)
[06:14] <ubergoober> ok... im real confused now lol
[06:14] <RAOF> So, a source package is basically just a way of describing how to turn something (_generally_, but not necessarily, source code) into a binary package.
[06:15] <ubergoober> oh
[06:15] <ubergoober> just wondering though... how would using the dh_shlibs call write the control file differently
[06:16] <ubergoober> I've downloaded some other packages and looked at them. they are using that syntax (>=blah)
[06:16] <RAOF> It won't change how the binary control file looks.
[06:16] <RAOF> It would examine your binaries, work out what they're linked to, then work out what package provides that library, then add that as a depend of the binary control.
[06:17] <ubergoober> so it _would_ write the Depends line for me then
[06:17] <RAOF> Yes.
[06:17] <ubergoober> curious to see what it would put in there
[06:17] <ubergoober> I don't need source to use that?
[06:17] <RAOF> Or, rather, it would take the ${shlibs:Depends} variable and substitute all the depends it knows about.
[06:18] <RAOF> You need a source package, but not necessarily the source code for what you're packaging.
[06:18] <ubergoober> sorry man. not sure what you mean by that?
[06:18] <RAOF> (For example, we don't have the source code to the nvidia binary drivers, but there's a nvidia-glx package in the archive)
[06:18] <ubergoober> would I need to make a source package then ?
[06:19] <RAOF> So, a source package _isn't_ source code.
[06:19] <ScottK-uds> The of source package as source of the .deb, not source code.
[06:19] <ScottK-uds> The/Think
[06:19] <ubergoober> ok
[06:19] <ubergoober> sounds like I need to start over then
[06:20] <ubergoober> there really is alot to this debian packaging thing
[06:20] <RAOF> The packaging guide may well help you; it's obviously not optimised for the 'I don't have the source' case, but most of what it says should apply.
[06:20] <ubergoober> alot more than I guest before I started lol
[06:20] <RAOF> ubergoober: The answer to that is somewhere between yes and no :)
[06:21] <ubergoober> lol gotta love that gray area
[06:21] <RAOF> How complicated it is basically comes down to how much you want to follow Debian policy. :)
[06:21] <ubergoober> just wish I could figure out the correct version info to put in the control file and it would be fixed
[06:21] <ubergoober> I know its got to be just that one line that I'm getting wrong
[06:22] <ubergoober> yeah thats whats complicated "the debian policy" very strict. Cant say I blame them though. makes for a quality product
[06:23] <RAOF> Did I mention what the actual problem was yet?
[06:23] <RAOF> Heh; I didn't, I got distracted :).
[06:23] <ubergoober> I guess not
[06:25] <RAOF> What you've been bitten by is a library transition.  There has obviously been some updates to the 'pq' library which have changed the ABI.  Thus the soname of the library has been increased by one, and that's what the number in 'libpq5' is; the soname of the library.
[06:25] <ubergoober> ok
[06:25] <ubergoober> listening
[06:25] <ubergoober> the package works with that version though if I force the install
[06:26] <ubergoober> so the correct symlinks are there then right?
[06:27] <ubergoober> whats the ABI by the way?
[06:27] <RAOF> Application Binary Interface.  The set of function signatures exported by the library, essentially.
[06:27] <ubergoober> ah..
[06:27] <RAOF> As compared to the API, which is subtly different.
[06:28] <ubergoober> gotcha
[06:28] <RAOF> (You can do all sorts of ABI breaking stuff without changing the API, but not visa versa)
[06:29] <ubergoober> wonder why it reports that its a virtual package though instead of saying that libpq4 or whatever is just not available
[06:29] <ubergoober> I thought a virtual package was for example "mail" which could be sendmail or postfix?
[06:30] <ubergoober> wouldn't think that libpq4 would fall under that catigory
[06:30] <ubergoober> sorry for my spelling by the way
[06:30] <daskReech> Hello
[06:30] <daskReech> will there be a release of the new Vbox for hardy ?
[06:32] <ubergoober> hmmm..
[06:34] <RAOF> ubergoober: It's 'virtual' in this case because it's depended on by something but isn't a real package :)
[06:37] <ubergoober> sorry just want to make sure I'm clear. I realy apriciate your help by the way
[06:37] <daskReech> RAOF: Oh a virtual packge :)
[06:37] <ubergoober> so.. if I put in the control file Depends: noexistant-package
[06:37] <daskReech> I was thrown for a loop I thought that you meant my virtualbox question :)
[06:38] <ubergoober> then it would show up as noexitant-package is virtual
[06:38] <ubergoober> I should try it actually
[06:38] <ubergoober> thanks again for you help RAOF I need to hit the sack now. Have my real job in the morning.
[06:38] <RAOF> Heh.  No problem.
[06:40] <daskReech> RAOF: Any help with my question?
[06:44] <RAOF> daskReech: Dunno.  Although, of course, new versions of apps almost never get added to a stable release.
[06:45] <RAOF> That being part of our definition of 'stability'.
[06:46] <daskReech> Yes but you do allow backports right? :)
[06:46] <daskReech> and I think virtualization esp one with that many new features would be very good for busniesses
[06:46] <daskReech> businesses
[06:50] <daskReech> RAOF: Just to be clear it's not the choice of the maintainer if it goes into backports?
[06:55] <RAOF> daskReech: Basically, something goes in backports if (1) Somebody cares about it enough to ask (in a bug) and (2) Enough people care enough about it to actually test the backport.
[07:00] <daskReech> ok thanks
[07:05] <emgent`UDS> heya
[07:39] <fabbione> looks like UDS is awake
[07:41] <\sh> fabbione, sounds like too many drinks last night? ;)
[07:41] <fabbione> uh?
[07:41] <fabbione> i am not at UDS
[07:42] <\sh> fabbione, sad ;)
[07:42] <fabbione> it's ok :)
[07:44] <emgent> fabbione: o/
[07:44]  * \sh wonders who is planning the smokers BOFs now ;)
[07:45] <fabbione> \sh: ogra or benc.. i am sure they will be valid contributors to that bof :)
[07:45] <fabbione> emgent: even if i wanted to come, i can't take holidays right now to be there
[07:47] <\sh> emgent, damn...you miss the mighty fabbione
[07:49] <fabbione> \sh: not anymore no... used to be "all mighty" ;)
[07:58] <foka> Hi!  Is there a specific channel for UDS Intrepid?  :-)
[07:59] <persia> foka: #ubuntu-devel-summit
[07:59] <StevenK> I daresay.
[07:59] <foka> persia, Many thanks!
[07:59] <ScottK-uds> Although jono's slides say different.  He's behind.
[07:59] <persia> The old name works too :)
[09:05] <ion_> The Ubuntu CD came by mail. My phone number is still printed as 3,5844123456e+011 on the envelope. :-)
[09:18] <sladen> ion_: classic!
[09:26] <siretart> are the buildd chroots fixed? are uploads expected to build successfully again?
[09:27] <StevenK> siretart: Soon.
[09:27] <siretart> that translates to 'not yet'. ok
[09:28] <infinity> siretart: Give it another 20 mins or so.
[09:28] <infinity> siretart: I'm just waiting on the publisher.
[09:30]  * siretart hugs infinity 
[09:36] <asac> pitti: is it possible to copy from PPA to hardy-proposed?
[09:37] <Mithrandir> asac: yes
[09:37] <asac> Mithrandir: hi! ... how would that show up in launchpad? changelog probably wont have hardy-proposed
[09:38] <asac> or does PPA accept hardy-proposed uploads?
[09:38] <pitti> asac: yes, the source can be copied; but I only do it if it has a sane version number
[09:38] <Mithrandir> asac: I don't think the PPA would accept hardy-proposed uploads, no.
[09:38] <asac> pitti: sure
[09:39] <asac> pitti: ah ok ... just source. then i dont think its worth it.
[09:39] <pitti> asac: we won't copy binaries, since we can't ensure what they were built against
[09:41] <asac> pitti: ok. thats what i assumed
[09:59] <ligemeget> dholbach, where should I go seeking a little support for the Five-a-day package..?
[10:01] <PecisDarbs> hi people, how can I test my firefox translation from Launchpad? How can I make xpi from given po file when I choose it to download?
[10:06] <dholbach> ligemeget: you can file a bug on it http://launchpad.net/five-a-day/+filebug if you're facing problems
[10:12] <infinity> Okay, chroots are all fixed now, and everything that wa sin chroot-wait has been given-back.
[10:12] <soren> \o/
[10:12] <StevenK> infinity: How many give-backs?
[10:13] <infinity> StevenK: 490.
[10:13] <StevenK> Niiiice
[10:22] <ligemeget> dholbach, maybe I'm not.. I'm just curious as to why I haven't appeared on the stats yet..
[10:22] <ligemeget> The manual submission command (via Terminal) said my login didn't exist, but the GNOME applet submitted it without problems. Strange, though..
[10:28] <dholbach> ligemeget: then there's a problem with your login, hm - did you follow all the instructions on  http://wiki.ubuntu.com/5-A-Day ?
[10:30] <ligemeget> dholbach, yes I did - I was unsure of whether my login is my username 'Lhademmor' or my emailadress?
[10:30] <dholbach> ligemeget: what does http://launchpad.net/people/+me get redirected to in your browser?
[10:31] <ligemeget> ~lhademmor
[10:32] <dholbach> so that's your LP ID
[10:32] <dholbach> lhademmor
[10:32] <ligemeget> Hmm.. now the 5-a-day --add command tells me that I've already reported the given bug today - so maybe it has come through somehow...
[10:33] <ligemeget> (strange, since my ~/.5-a-day is my emailadress..)
[10:33] <ligemeget> But wth at least it apparently   works now - otherwise I'll continue to tingle with it :)
[10:33] <dholbach> ~/.5-a-day shouldn't be your mail address
[10:33] <dholbach> daniel@lovegood:~$ cat .5-a-day
[10:33] <dholbach> dholbach
[10:33] <dholbach> daniel@lovegood:~$
[10:35] <ligemeget> HP-fan? :)
[10:36] <dholbach> you could say that
[10:48] <slangasek> soren: are you planning to take care of merging dpkg for this cycle?
[10:49] <soren> slangasek: cjwatson's doing it.
[10:49] <slangasek> ok. I ask because there's a bug on dpkg that's trivial to fix in SRU, but I don't want to get stuck as touched-it-last for intrepid ;)
[10:50] <soren> slangasek: I believe cjwatson said he was basically done, so he's your man.
[11:01] <liw> dholbach, ref my coreutils merge bug: which Steve are you referring to? (just curious)
[11:02] <dholbach> liw: I subscribed Steve Langasek - it should be on the bug page
[11:02] <liw> dholbach, ah, so it is; sorry, I'm new to this stuff
[11:03] <dholbach> don't worry :)
[12:14] <Tm_T> evand: hi
[12:52] <evand> Tm_T: hello
[12:56] <Tm_T> evand: this or next week I'm kicking seriously my project on, I might be poking you at times so be prepared ;)
[13:33] <evand> Tm_T: will do :)
[13:43] <Mirv> evand: if you have something I or you could write on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Gobuntu , it'd help on the communication issue. I'm the one who's currently updated the news that "not yet available" and the daily snapshot is there (which I've tested installing from)
[13:43] <asac> siretart: ok wpasupp synched i guess
[13:44] <asac> well ... soonish ;)
[13:51] <siretart> asac: \o/
[14:00] <evand> Mirv: I'll be sitting down with Kurt in one of the break out rooms later in the week, you're welcome to join us, and I'll update the wiki page after that.
[14:01] <Mirv> evand: yeah let's see, I'm leaving Thursday morning
[14:02] <evand> noted
[14:27] <emgent> cjwatson: thanks for debianutils :)
[14:39] <luisbg> http://packages.ubuntu.com/ is down?
[15:15] <DaBonBon> how do ubuntu apps like gdebi "interface" apt and python? i want to learn python, and i'm thikning of writing a frontend for apt.
[15:17] <persia> DaBonBon: python-apt.  Look at update manager, the distupgrade component.
[15:17] <Zic> DaBonBon: try to see python-apt
[15:18] <Zic> oops, persia is too fast :)
[15:18] <DaBonBon> persia: thanks, i was also looking at the gdebi source.
[15:18] <DaBonBon> but isn't python-apt old and obsolete?
[15:18] <DaBonBon> (i read so somewhere)
[15:18] <DaBonBon> the last and only release was in 2000!
[15:20] <DaBonBon> wow, ubuntu default has python-apt 0.7.4, but the last version released was 0.0.2. how come?!
[15:21] <lamont> DaBonBon: huh?  define "released" because 0.0.2 is ancient
[15:21] <DaBonBon> lamont: released as in upstream release here - https://launchpad.net/python-apt or here http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2602
[15:22] <lamont> DaBonBon: from which we can discern that the python-apt project on sourceforge has nothing to do with the package in debian/ubuntu
[15:22] <lamont> see also http://packages.debian.org/python-apt
[15:23] <lamont> given the lack of a hyphen in the version, it's a native package
[15:24] <lamont> (that is, debian is upstream)
[15:24] <DaBonBon> hyphen in the version? wow i learnt that today :)
[15:24] <DaBonBon> if it's not a native debian/ubuntu project, there has to be a hpyhen SOMEWHERE In the version?
[15:28] <DaBonBon> strange, there is no project page anywhere for python-apt
[15:29] <DaBonBon> i wanted to learn it
[15:30] <DaBonBon> persia_: do you know of some project page of python-apt where i can find some documentation on learning it?
[15:32] <persia_> DaBonBon: I'm fairly sure such a page doesn't exist.  There's some examples in the python/ directory in the python-apt source.
[15:36] <DaBonBon> persia: ok, thanks
[15:36] <DaBonBon> the /usr/share/doc has some examples too, i'll check them out
[15:36] <DaBonBon> why is this project so under-advertised? a python-apt bridge would be really useful to many people
[15:39] <DaBonBon> anyway i'm off .. thanks for all the help, bye :)
[15:39] <Keybuk> tkamppeter: it's not possible to schedule your meetings with the suggested people :-/
[17:32] <tkamppeter_> keybuk, still there?
[17:32] <tkamppeter_> Keybuk
[17:52] <tkamppeter_> keybuk, ping
[18:35] <fabbione> BenC: ping?
[18:38] <BenC> fabbione: yo
[18:38] <fabbione> BenC: dude can pass on the other channel please? we need a couple of info on silo :)
[18:38] <fabbione> very offtopic here
[19:15] <N00B> hi @all
[19:47] <dudus> hi, someone can explain the process to include new mimetype icons by default? Don't know why but gnome-icon-theme doesn't provide mimetypes anymore.
[23:37] <emgent> http://picasaweb.google.it/emgentili/UDSIntrepid