[00:13] <crimsun> nixternal: need to rickroll jon r a birthday card
[02:36] <hyperair> is there an example of a package with manpages written by the debian maintainer that i can take a look?
[07:39] <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
[07:52] <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?
[07:55] <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
[07:56] <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
[10:42] <Hobbsee> RAOF: ping?
[10:43] <Hobbsee> hrm.  unping.  seems gnome-do is behaving ish
[10:43] <RAOF> Heh.
[10:43] <RAOF> 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] <Hobbsee> no :P
[10:47] <slytherin> persia: ping
[10:48] <RAOF> Hobbsee: Soft! :)
[10:48] <Hobbsee> RAOF: no, 'sane' :)
[10:48] <Hobbsee> or 'not quite that insane' ;)
[10:49] <RAOF> It's really very simple and sweet!
[12:55] <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.
[12:56] <persia> Thanks for the update.
[14:01] <pmjdebruijn> lo
[14:01] <pmjdebruijn> I'm the upstream about of a GNOME theme
[14:02] <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
[14:08] <slytherin> pmjdebruijn: too many questions
[14:12] <pmjdebruijn> heh
[14:12] <pmjdebruijn> s/about/author
[14:13] <pmjdebruijn> slytherin: rephrase... are there any guidelines to packaging gnome/gtk themes?
[14:14] <slytherin> pmjdebruijn: not that I know of. take a look at existing packages. for ex. community-themes package in jaunty
[14:21] <pmjdebruijn> slytherin: those are usually collection...
[14:31] <bddebian> Heya gang
[14:34] <geser> Hi bddebian
[14:35] <iulian> Hey bddebian.
[14:36] <iulian> Hi geser.
[14:38] <bddebian> Hi geser, iulian
[14:45] <slytherin> anyone using dial up/GPRS connection on hardy here? I am having trouble with NM not detecting connection status.
[15:43] <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
[15:51] <james_w> Hello everyone
[15:52] <bobbo> hey james_w
[15:52] <james_w> hey bobbo
[15:56] <bddebian> Hi james_w
[15:57] <james_w> hello bddebian
[16:01] <DRebellion> Could a REVU admin please nuke monkeystudio? I'm no longer packaging it.
[16:23] <foobarmus> hey guys... I was told to come here and ask this question https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/webpy/+question/55344
[16:25] <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
[16:31] <Pici> foobarmus: Have you read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages yet?
[16:35] <foobarmus> yeah, a few times
[16:35] <foobarmus> I am not yet up to the stage of filing my bug
[16:36] <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
[16:37] <Pici> I don't see python-webpy in debian yet, but IANAMOTU
[16:38] <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
[16:39] <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
[16:40] <foobarmus> but looks like it didn't make it into universe
[16:42] <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
[16:48] <iulian> Once it's uploaded to Jaunty you can start working on your new package which depends on python-webpy 0.31.
[16:49] <iulian> Then you'll just need to follow the steps described on that wiki page.
[16:49] <iulian> foobarmus: ^
[16:53] <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
[17:08] <rrittenhouse> What are the limitations for the description field in the debian/control file? I can't find them
[17:11] <rrittenhouse> under 80 I would assume?
[17:12] <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?
[17:13] <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
[17:14] <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
[17:15] <rrittenhouse> thank you :)
[18:26] <foobarmus> iulian: done (the webpy bug, at least)
[19:59] <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?  :)
[20:00] <azeem> why ~upstream?
[20:00] <Nafallo> mterry: I would say upstream1, in case they made a mistake and want to have upstream2.
[20:01] <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
[20:02] <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
[20:03] <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.
[20:04] <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
[20:05] <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?
[20:06] <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
[20:07] <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?
[20:08] <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)
[20:09] <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
[20:10] <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
[20:11] <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
[20:12] <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
[20:13] <crimsun> mterry: is upstream creating their own repository (ala google for picasa)?
[20:13] <mterry> crimsun: No
[20:15] <crimsun> mterry: ok, then you can probably get away with version~0ubuntu1 or something
[20:16] <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
[20:17] <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?
[20:18] <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
[20:19] <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
[20:21] <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
[20:22] <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
[20:23] <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
[20:24] <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
[20:25] <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
[20:26] <mterry> crimsun: Hmm?
[20:26] <crimsun> -0ubuntu1~0fedora1
[20:26] <crimsun> or heck, ~0ubuntu1~0fedora1
[20:28] <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.
[20:30] <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
[20:31] <crimsun> ia: (which generates, by default, hardy-base.tgz, intrepid-base.tgz, etc.)
[20:40] <savvas0> mterry: I guess they could use the epoch increase, i.e. 1:0.1-0fedora1 :)
[20:41] <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
[20:46] <crimsun> mterry: as certain notable Ubuntu devs have mentioned, it's not such a bad thing if epochs are bumped
[20:52] <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
[20:54] <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 ?
[21:12] <xnox> Heya! I've used git-buildpackage in the past. How does bzr-buildpackage measures up to the git version?
[22:46] <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