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