| crimsun | nixternal: need to rickroll jon r a birthday card | 00:13 |
|---|---|---|
| hyperair | is there an example of a package with manpages written by the debian maintainer that i can take a look? | 02:36 |
| === Czessi_ is now known as Czessi | ||
| === nellery_ is now known as nellery | ||
| AnAnt | Hello, can someone review this upload http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=thwab ? This is my first package for a python software, so I need comments regarding wether I did the python stuff correctly or not. Thanks | 07:39 |
| Jpdota | hey guys, i'm working on packaging a java program i'm writing, and i am wondering how classpaths are supposed to be handled for jar files? | 07:52 |
| jmarsden | Jpdota: Not sure if anyone is awake there, but try asking in #ubuntu-java ? | 07:55 |
| Jpdota | jmarsden ah ok thanks for the suggestion, i didnt see that channel, i figured people would know here because this is a packaging channel | 07:55 |
| jmarsden | Maybem but #ubuntu-java is specific to Java packaging | 07:56 |
| Jpdota | yep, i see that now :P thanks | 07:56 |
| jmarsden | No problem | 07:56 |
| Hobbsee | RAOF: ping? | 10:42 |
| Hobbsee | hrm. unping. seems gnome-do is behaving ish | 10:43 |
| RAOF | Heh. | 10:43 |
| RAOF | Wanna review nouveau, then? :P | 10:43 |
| * RAOF will be happy when the current gnome-do API settles down and we can do another release. | 10:44 | |
| Hobbsee | no :P | 10:47 |
| slytherin | persia: ping | 10:47 |
| RAOF | Hobbsee: Soft! :) | 10:48 |
| Hobbsee | RAOF: no, 'sane' :) | 10:48 |
| Hobbsee | or 'not quite that insane' ;) | 10:48 |
| RAOF | It's really very simple and sweet! | 10:49 |
| === thekorn_ is now known as thekorn | ||
| slytherin | persia: Just FYI ... The work on jmeter is stalled due to a dependency not yet packaged. I hope to come up with the package for this dependency by weekend. I will be putting jmeter first in Ubuntu and then port it to Debian. | 12:55 |
| persia | Thanks for the update. | 12:56 |
| pmjdebruijn | lo | 14:01 |
| pmjdebruijn | I'm the upstream about of a GNOME theme | 14:01 |
| pmjdebruijn | I also want to package it for Ubuntu | 14:02 |
| pmjdebruijn | what's the best way to distribute it upstream | 14:02 |
| pmjdebruijn | I also want to tarball to be compatible with the plain GNOME install theme functionality | 14:02 |
| slytherin | pmjdebruijn: too many questions | 14:08 |
| pmjdebruijn | heh | 14:12 |
| pmjdebruijn | s/about/author | 14:12 |
| pmjdebruijn | slytherin: rephrase... are there any guidelines to packaging gnome/gtk themes? | 14:13 |
| slytherin | pmjdebruijn: not that I know of. take a look at existing packages. for ex. community-themes package in jaunty | 14:14 |
| pmjdebruijn | slytherin: those are usually collection... | 14:21 |
| bddebian | Heya gang | 14:31 |
| geser | Hi bddebian | 14:34 |
| iulian | Hey bddebian. | 14:35 |
| iulian | Hi geser. | 14:36 |
| bddebian | Hi geser, iulian | 14:38 |
| slytherin | anyone using dial up/GPRS connection on hardy here? I am having trouble with NM not detecting connection status. | 14:45 |
| AnAnt | Hello, can someone review this upload http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=thwab ? This is my first package for a python software, so I need comments regarding wether I did the python stuff correctly or not. Thanks | 15:43 |
| james_w | Hello everyone | 15:51 |
| bobbo | hey james_w | 15:52 |
| james_w | hey bobbo | 15:52 |
| bddebian | Hi james_w | 15:56 |
| james_w | hello bddebian | 15:57 |
| DRebellion | Could a REVU admin please nuke monkeystudio? I'm no longer packaging it. | 16:01 |
| foobarmus | hey guys... I was told to come here and ask this question https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/webpy/+question/55344 | 16:23 |
| foobarmus | I'm trying to a) find out if Jaunty's webpy package can be upgraded to 0.31, and b) get my package (which depends on webpy 0.31) into Jaunty | 16:25 |
| === stdin_ is now known as stdin | ||
| Pici | foobarmus: Have you read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages yet? | 16:31 |
| foobarmus | yeah, a few times | 16:35 |
| foobarmus | I am not yet up to the stage of filing my bug | 16:35 |
| foobarmus | I want to know if I can rely on webpy 0.31 being in Jaunty, in which case I can treat it as a debian dependency | 16:36 |
| foobarmus | otherwise I will have to bundle it | 16:36 |
| Pici | I don't see python-webpy in debian yet, but IANAMOTU | 16:37 |
| iulian | foobarmus: We have 0.230 in Jaunty. | 16:38 |
| foobarmus | what do you mean "in" | 16:38 |
| iulian | Debian Sid has 0.300. | 16:38 |
| foobarmus | oh, well, FYI, you have 0.30 in Jaunty | 16:38 |
| iulian | Pici: http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/webpy.html | 16:38 |
| Pici | iulian: Misspoke, I meant I don't see 0.310 | 16:39 |
| foobarmus | it's here | 16:39 |
| foobarmus | http://ppa.launchpad.net/medigeek/ubuntu/pool/main/w/webpy/python-webpy_0.31-0ubuntu1_all.deb | 16:39 |
| foobarmus | but looks like it didn't make it into universe | 16:40 |
| iulian | foobarmus: It's in a PPA obviously. If you'd like to upgrade python-webpy please file a bug on launchpad and attach a debdiff between 0.300 and 0.31 to the bug report. | 16:42 |
| foobarmus | ok, cheers, I'll do that | 16:42 |
| iulian | Once it's uploaded to Jaunty you can start working on your new package which depends on python-webpy 0.31. | 16:48 |
| iulian | Then you'll just need to follow the steps described on that wiki page. | 16:49 |
| iulian | foobarmus: ^ | 16:49 |
| foobarmus | julian: actually I intend to have my package ready before all that hooplah happens... if one of you guys can review it using medigeek's ppa version of webpy, I'd be much obliged | 16:53 |
| rrittenhouse | What are the limitations for the description field in the debian/control file? I can't find them | 17:08 |
| rrittenhouse | under 80 I would assume? | 17:11 |
| rrittenhouse | (for the line lengths) of the description | 17:12 |
| iulian | 60 lines for short desc and 80 for the long one IIRC. | 17:12 |
| stdin | the short or long description? | 17:12 |
| rrittenhouse | First line is the short, right? | 17:13 |
| iulian | Anyway, lintian will complain if it's longer than it should be. | 17:13 |
| iulian | rrittenhouse: Yes. | 17:13 |
| rrittenhouse | both I guess | 17:13 |
| james_w | http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-descriptions | 17:14 |
| stdin | the package debian-policy contains the policy for packaging, though it's a dry read | 17:14 |
| james_w | http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Description | 17:14 |
| rrittenhouse | thank you :) | 17:15 |
| === WILLIAN is now known as ramses-sv | ||
| foobarmus | iulian: done (the webpy bug, at least) | 18:26 |
| mterry | Let's say a third party is creating their own debian package of some random proprietary stuff. What version should they ideally use? VERSION-0ubuntu1~upstream? :) | 19:59 |
| azeem | why ~upstream? | 20:00 |
| Nafallo | mterry: I would say upstream1, in case they made a mistake and want to have upstream2. | 20:00 |
| mterry | Nafallo: good point. But is there a better standard than 'upstream'? I know we use ppa for our ppas. Maybe the company name? | 20:01 |
| mterry | azeem: Just because it's not an official ubuntu package | 20:01 |
| azeem | mterry: I don't think official Ubuntu packages have the monopoly on -0ubuntu1 versions | 20:02 |
| Nafallo | mterry: not sure. what is the package for? is it special enough changes to not actually be merged into the package proper? | 20:02 |
| mterry | azeem: Well, if an official version ever came out, presumably the third-party version would not step on its toes | 20:02 |
| mterry | Nafallo: Its some proprietary TV watching program. It doesn't have a real package in Ubuntu or anywhere yet | 20:03 |
| Nafallo | hmm. okay. | 20:03 |
| mterry | Nafallo: I figured other packagers do this, right? Like adobe has flash packages... I wonder what version scheme they use | 20:04 |
| * mterry goes to check | 20:04 | |
| Nafallo | adobe-flashplugin (10.0.15.3-1intrepid2) intrepid; urgency=low | 20:04 |
| mterry | Eww. They just say "-1" | 20:05 |
| mterry | Oh. Reader just says -1 | 20:05 |
| mterry | Nafallo: Well, is that from debian/ubuntu, or from adobe? | 20:05 |
| Nafallo | mterry: I think Canonical people packaged it, but don't take my word for it. | 20:06 |
| mterry | I assume that since the -0ubuntu1~ppa1 scheme is used for community third-parties, it's good enough for other third parties | 20:06 |
| mterry | using ~companyname | 20:06 |
| Nafallo | I guess, yea. you could also do i.e. 0.0.1~1offical1 or so :-P | 20:07 |
| Nafallo | - should overrules ~ I reckon. | 20:07 |
| Nafallo | azeem: what do you think about the above? | 20:07 |
| savvas0 | Is anyone using python-webpy? I'd like someone to test the new package for the 0.31 release I created :) | 20:08 |
| mterry | Nafallo: Yeah, but that means that someone can't say Depends: PACKAGE >= 0.0.1 or something. Since 0.0.1~1 is less than 0.0.1 | 20:08 |
| crimsun | mterry: Brian Thomason <brian.thomason@canonical.com> | 20:08 |
| savvas0 | (well actually copy-pasted the debian files from the current 0.300 one :P) | 20:08 |
| crimsun | and uh, that copyright notice apparently omits everyone who has worked on it in the meantime | 20:09 |
| Nafallo | mterry: is it really? | 20:09 |
| crimsun | for instance, fabien, alexander, myself... | 20:09 |
| * mterry checks with dpkg, but I thought so | 20:09 | |
| mterry | crimsun: Huh? | 20:09 |
| crimsun | mterry: http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/a/adobe-flashplugin/adobe-flashplugin_10.0.15.3-1intrepid2.diff.gz | 20:09 |
| crimsun | mterry: they've omitted people from debian/copyright who have made changes to debian/* that the partner source package carries. | 20:10 |
| mterry | crimsun: Ah. Right. | 20:10 |
| mterry | crimsun: So then it's version is appropriately 'canonical' Hah! That joke never gets old | 20:10 |
| Nafallo | crimsun: what would you advice mterry to use as version for his package? :-) | 20:11 |
| crimsun | not that i particularly care (because i'm one of them), but i envision other contributors (e.g., red hat) being less than amused | 20:11 |
| mterry | Nafallo: Yeah, 0.0.1 > 0.0.1~1. Maybe + is lower than -. I think I've seen that before | 20:12 |
| crimsun | mterry: is it binary-only? | 20:12 |
| mterry | crimsun: Yup | 20:12 |
| crimsun | d'oh | 20:12 |
| crimsun | mterry: is upstream creating their own repository (ala google for picasa)? | 20:13 |
| mterry | crimsun: No | 20:13 |
| crimsun | mterry: ok, then you can probably get away with version~0ubuntu1 or something | 20:15 |
| mterry | crimsun: It just seems odd, to have to include the ubuntu part. I suspect in an ideal world, there'd be some way of a suffix that's lower than any other suffix ever, except bigger than no suffix | 20:16 |
| crimsun | mterry: and remember you can include ~ in the versioned dependency (tho', ew) | 20:16 |
| mterry | ~ is *almost* there, but it's smaller than no suffix | 20:16 |
| savvas0 | when's the deadline for new versions of software for jaunty? | 20:17 |
| mterry | And if there were ever another wrapper around ubuntu, so that we had packages like -0ubuntu0something1, my suggested version number wouldn't be as appropriate | 20:17 |
| crimsun | "wrapper around ubuntu"? | 20:17 |
| crimsun | meaning source packaging deriving from the ubuntu one? | 20:17 |
| crimsun | i don't see how chaining the sort character (~ in this case) really affects that | 20:18 |
| mterry | crimsun: Sorry, I meant another downstream from ubuntu | 20:18 |
| crimsun | e.g., 0.0.1~0ubuntu1~ppa1~omgzounds1 | 20:18 |
| crimsun | (right, another derivative) | 20:19 |
| Nafallo | I'm not sure why one would need to include Ubuntu at all... | 20:19 |
| savvas0 | ubuntu = ubuntu derivative package | 20:19 |
| savvas0 | it's like saying "done for ubuntu" :P | 20:19 |
| mterry | crimsun: The reason I suggested -0ubuntu1~ppa1 is because it's lower than -1 and -0ubuntu1. But it's inappropriately higher than -0ubuntu0something1 | 20:19 |
| savvas0 | if you increment the changelog with dch -i command, you'll get ubuntu1, ubuntu2, ubuntu3 and so on | 20:21 |
| mterry | savvas0: Right. But I'm not making a package for ubuntu. I'm making a general purpose upstream deb. And I want a version that won't conflict with any eventual downstream debs | 20:21 |
| crimsun | mterry: but why should that even be a concern? surely you wouldn't have -0ubuntu0 to begin with, so -0ubuntu0something1 is moot | 20:21 |
| mterry | crimsun: I'm just speculating here. Let's say Redhat decides to scrap RPMs, and base off of Ubuntu. So their package names are now -XubuntuXfedoraX | 20:22 |
| mterry | crimsun: I want a package version that works even in that circumstance | 20:22 |
| crimsun | mterry: "works" meaning "is preferred to -XubuntuXfedoraX"? | 20:23 |
| mterry | crimsun: And then of course, they might package something not in debian or ubuntu, and the appropriate version for them would be -0ubuntu0fedora1 | 20:23 |
| crimsun | err, no, in that case they would use -0fedora1 | 20:23 |
| crimsun | not -0ubuntu0fedora1 | 20:23 |
| mterry | crimsun: No, is less than -0ubuntu0fedora1 but greater than no suffix | 20:23 |
| crimsun | remember, we don't use -0debian0ubuntu1 | 20:24 |
| mterry | crimsun: I'm saying they base off of Ubuntu, not Debian | 20:24 |
| mterry | crimsun: Right. The -0 is the debian part | 20:24 |
| crimsun | even _if_ they base off ubuntu, their ultimate parent is not ubuntu but debian | 20:24 |
| mterry | crimsun: If they did -0fedora1, they wouldn't properly track changes in ubuntu | 20:24 |
| crimsun | (meaning, it's in everyone's best interest to get it into debian) | 20:25 |
| mterry | crimsun: Agreed. But they want all package changes in between their grandparent and themselvses. But we're deep in theoretical land. I'm not going to worry about it | 20:25 |
| crimsun | also, they could easily use a chained sort char | 20:25 |
| mterry | crimsun: Hmm? | 20:26 |
| crimsun | -0ubuntu1~0fedora1 | 20:26 |
| crimsun | or heck, ~0ubuntu1~0fedora1 | 20:26 |
| ia | hello. could you tell me please, does exist some easy way to determinate distro name in pbuilder's base.tgz file without unarchiving it or chroot'ing in it? i mean, maybe there is something pbuilder config file, which contains info about existing base.tgz files in /var/cache/pbuilder dir. | 20:28 |
| crimsun | ia: err, not easily other than simply including the distro name (version?) in the filename | 20:30 |
| crimsun | ia: cf /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/pbuilder-distribution.sh | 20:30 |
| crimsun | ia: (which generates, by default, hardy-base.tgz, intrepid-base.tgz, etc.) | 20:31 |
| === asac_ is now known as asac | ||
| savvas0 | mterry: I guess they could use the epoch increase, i.e. 1:0.1-0fedora1 :) | 20:40 |
| mterry | savvas0: :) But again, that means they lose out on new packages. There's a reason ubuntu didn't up the epoch for all packages -- they like getting overridden by new upstream debian packages | 20:41 |
| savvas0 | noone forces them to track their packages that they're derivatives of Ubuntu, but perhaps they have to keep something in the copyright file | 20:41 |
| crimsun | mterry: as certain notable Ubuntu devs have mentioned, it's not such a bad thing if epochs are bumped | 20:46 |
| directhex | when numbering a package, consider 1) which version is this package based on? 2) which version do i want to override 3) which version wants to override me | 20:52 |
| directhex | if it's not based on anything else, then you should be using 0's. i think 1.0-0.0foo1 would be fairly traditional | 20:54 |
| DasKreech | Hello :) | 20:54 |
| DasKreech | Can I get the bots to query non x86 repos ? | 20:54 |
| xnox | Heya! I've used git-buildpackage in the past. How does bzr-buildpackage measures up to the git version? | 21:12 |
| === cprov is now known as cprov-out | ||
| Jpdota | i asked this question in #ubuntu-java but nobody seems to be there, so i'll ask here. i'm trying to package a java program i'm writing for ubuntu and i wanted to know if anyone knows how to properly handle the classpath for the program's jarfile? it has two other libraries it needs | 22:46 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!