[00:18] <Mewcenary> Hey everyone....
[00:18] <Mewcenary> I've got a package update trying to go through on Debian... but finding it hard to get a sponsor.  Is anyone here one who would like to help out... ?
[00:18] <Mewcenary> I'd like to get it done on Debian, so it flows down to Ubuntu naturally...
[00:45] <directhex> Mewcenary, what kind of package?
[00:47] <Mewcenary> I'll link:
[00:48] <Mewcenary> http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=siege
[00:51] <directhex> what a big diff
[00:51] <directhex> oh, autocrap. that explains it
[00:51] <Mewcenary> Yes, sadly so.
[00:51] <Mewcenary> Upstream running automake1.6
[00:52] <directhex> how handy
[00:52] <Mewcenary> Previous Debian release had a mixture of direct source code changes + use of quilt, which lintian did not like.
[00:52] <Mewcenary> So put everything into quilt, which feels a bit cleaner.
[00:52] <directhex> lintian has a point
[00:53] <Mewcenary> I have grown to love quilt.
[00:53] <directhex> IME, mentors can be a bit of a black hole - much easier to find a mentor for team-maintained packages
[00:54] <JontheEchidna> Quilt ftw
[00:54] <JontheEchidna> Once you get used to it it's real easy and convenient
[00:55] <directhex> quilt occasionally involves fighting IME
[00:55] <directhex> sadly
[00:55] <directhex> but computers hate me
[00:55] <directhex> also, anyone from motu-release about?
[00:55] <JontheEchidna> heh, it's just that it has a steep learning curve, and you can screw it up accidentally easily >.>
[00:56] <Mewcenary> Hopefully, a kind sponsor will step forward.  One step towards being a 'real' Debian developer etc!
[00:56] <directhex> iulian or ScottK appear to be connected, though not necessarily awake
[00:57] <directhex> Mewcenary, like i said, life would be easier if it were a team package - or perhaps of interest to a team (even if not technically 'theirs')?
[00:58] <Mewcenary> There's always bribery.
[01:00] <directhex> bribery?
[01:01] <directhex> seems you've worked with the debian cabal before!
[01:01]  * Mewcenary smiles.
[01:01] <Mewcenary> Yes, I did witness some of that.
[01:01] <Mewcenary> Someone trying to get a sponsor for a version already in Ubuntu, but got nigh-on shouted down re: YOUR PACKAGE IS WORTHLESS, UBUNTU HAVE DIFFERENT AIMS etc.
[01:01] <Mewcenary> I wnated to give him a hug.
[01:02] <directhex> it largely comes down to who you know, and who you work with. some teams have excellent cooperation, some have slight cooperation, some aren't on speaking terms
[01:03] <directhex> try the mono, kde, and mozilla teams in order for examples of the above
[01:04] <slangasek> I don't think what you're describing is "the debian cabal"
[01:06] <directhex> indeed
[01:06] <directhex> but like the illuminati, a diluted brand remains enigmatic
[02:07] <amikrop> Hello, how can I fix these lintian warnings/errors?
[02:08] <amikrop> W: webpage source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.3 (current is 3.8.0)
[02:08] <amikrop> E: webpage source: missing-python-build-dependency
[02:08] <amikrop> E: webpage source: missing-build-dependency cdbs
[02:08] <amikrop> E: webpage source: missing-build-dependency python-support
[02:08] <amikrop> W: webpage: extended-description-line-too-long
[02:08] <amikrop> W: webpage: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
[02:09] <JontheEchidna> any particular ones you need help with?
[02:09] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: Mainly the errors :-)
[02:10] <JontheEchidna> Could you paste your debian/control file please?
[02:10] <twb> I'd like to find out who is maintaining the Ubuntu midori package, so I can discuss the -fPIC issue with them.
[02:10] <JontheEchidna> in pastebin, of course :)
[02:10] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: http://dpaste.com/19785/
[02:11] <twb> Hmm, I guess I can get it from debian/changelog...
[02:11] <JontheEchidna> amikrop: Ok, the errors are quite simple to fix. Just add the packages specified to the Build-Depends line
[02:11] <JontheEchidna> (cdbs, python, python-support)
[02:11] <directhex> twb, yeah, that's the first place to look
[02:12] <directhex> twb, otherwise known as the "he who touched it last" issue
[02:12] <JontheEchidna> amikrop: Actually you probably would only need python-support rather than both
[02:12] <JontheEchidna> since python-support depends on python
[02:12] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: I manually changed Standards-Version to 3.8.0 after lindian's warning, and I added ${python:Depends} myself (I don't know if it was a right thing to do).
[02:12] <twb> directhex: thanks.
[02:13] <JontheEchidna> amikrop: You would want to add cdbs and python-support to Line 5
[02:13] <JontheEchidna> just put a comment after debhelper (>=7) and then put cdbs, python support
[02:13] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: any (>= x) things after them?
[02:13] <JontheEchidna> nah, just the package names
[02:14] <JontheEchidna> *python-support
[02:14] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7), cdbs, python-support
[02:14] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: like that?
[02:14] <JontheEchidna> amikrop: yup, that should do it
[02:15] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: Was it right to manually change Standards-Version and add ${python:Depends} myself?
[02:15] <JontheEchidna> Yes
[02:16] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: E: webpage source: missing-python-build-dependency <-- persists
[02:16] <JontheEchidna> hmm, maybe you do need to build-depend on both
[02:17] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: What do you mean?
[02:17] <JontheEchidna> add python to the build-depends is probably required
[02:17] <amikrop> I 've done it.
[02:17] <amikrop> And got this error.
[02:17] <JontheEchidna> python and python-support?
[02:18] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: http://dpaste.com/19789/
[02:19] <JontheEchidna> amikrop: You'd want that line to be like this:
[02:19] <JontheEchidna> Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7), cdbs, python-support, python
[02:20] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: Worked. Thank you very much, for everything. :-)
[02:20] <JontheEchidna> You're quite welcome. :-)
[02:24] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: OK, now, after running debuild the command ended well but did not prosuce any .deb file.
[02:24] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: http://dpaste.com/19791/
[02:26] <JontheEchidna> amikrop: To get the obvious out of the way, I'm guessing you've looked in the directory above where you debuild'd?
[02:26] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: Yes.
[02:26] <JontheEchidna> strange
[02:26] <JontheEchidna> it even says that it made a deb in the log
[02:28]  * JontheEchidna thinks
[02:28] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: Oh my God, it was a Nautilus problem. Although I changed directories with Nautilus, it didn't refresh. I had to manually refresh to see the .deb file. I am sorry.
[02:28] <JontheEchidna> Hehe :)
[02:28] <amikrop> :-P
[02:28] <JontheEchidna> It had me really going there for a minute, :P
[02:34] <amikrop> Me too ;)
[02:34] <JontheEchidna> I'm stepping out for 15 mins or so, if you have any further questions I'll get back to you then
[02:38] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: alright :-)
[02:38] <amikrop> JontheEchidna: for when you get back (or for anyone else): what is the standard way of distributing our packages? .orig.tar.gz .diff.gz .dsc <-- these 3 files?
[02:44] <dtchen> for non-native (specific to Debian and/or Ubuntu), yes, you'll want an orig, a dsc, and a diff
[02:44] <dtchen> sorry, to clarify: non-native == *not* specific to Debian and/or Ubuntu
[02:44]  * ajmitch is surprised at how few python packages have files in /usr/local after the recent transition
[02:44] <wgrant> ajmitch: They'll FTBFS if they do.
[02:44] <ajmitch> wgrant: sadly not
[02:44] <wgrant> ajmitch: And lots of them do FTBFS because of that.
[02:44] <wgrant> ajmitch: They did two weeks ago...
[02:44] <ajmitch> well they may FTBFS after a recent python upload
[02:45] <wgrant> And they'll only end up in /usr/local after a recent Python upload.
[02:45]  * ajmitch has fixed a package recently which had many files in /usr/local, python was changed that day for --prefix & the layout option to be mutually exclusive
[02:49] <amikrop> dtchen: ok, thank you
[03:06] <amikrop> anyway, thanks guys :)
[03:06] <amikrop> bye
[04:05] <amikrop> I have Architecture: any in debian/control. Why do I get an "i386" .deb and not a "any" one?
[04:07] <wgrant> amikrop: any means it will build a different binary for each architecture.
[04:07] <wgrant> You might be thinking of 'all', which generates one that installs on everything.
[04:08] <amikrop> wgrant: but it built a binary only for i386
[04:08] <amikrop> and not for each architecture
[04:09] <wgrant> amikrop: It can't exactly magically transform your computer into all of the other architectures and build them.
[04:30] <amikrop> wgrant: ok, I 'll use "all", then
[04:46]  * calc thinks amikrop didn't get it
[04:47] <calc> if/when he comes back someone should remind him to read the documentation, you can't just make an any package an all package for fun
[04:47] <calc> and expect it to work anyway
[04:54] <wgrant> calc: I know, but I only saw it after he left :(
[05:00] <calc> wgrant: yea, me too
[05:48] <dholbach> good morning
[05:51] <fabrice_sp> Hey dholbach :-)
[05:51] <dholbach> hiya fabrice_sp
[06:00] <slangasek> fabrice_sp: bug #348160> oh yay, then I don't have to worry about the yucky build failure I got when trying to migrate kmediafactory to libdvdread-dev :)
[06:02] <fabrice_sp> slangasek, yes: I'm fighting to have it build, and I'm just having a link error now (no compilation error), so the patch is close ;-)
[06:02] <slangasek> \o/
[06:03] <fabrice_sp> and guess what: the link error is because libavcodec ;-)
[07:47] <Toadstool> good morning!
[07:47] <Toadstool> yay free LWN subscription, mine is about to expire
[07:52]  * wgrant bought one just a couple of months ago :(
[09:37]  * directhex fills out FFe paperwork for Bug #346884
[09:41] <Laney> \o
[09:42]  * iulian takes a look at it.
[09:46] <iulian> directhex: What testing of the package have you done?
[09:46] <iulian> directhex: What about the rdepends?
[09:47] <directhex> iulian, there are 2 rdepends - banshee and monodevelop-boo
[09:48] <directhex> iulian, i don't know whether any banshee addins actually make use of boo, so i've not found a rational way to test that. and monodevelop-boo needs rebuilding anyway as the 1.9.2 in the archive is incompatible with monodevelop 1.9.3
[09:49] <directhex> and monodevelop-boo 1.9.3 needs boo 0.8.2+, which is how we got here in the first place
[09:49] <directhex> basic machine testing implies ABI compatibility, but not API, iirc. let me check my irc logs
[09:50]  * fransman wanna know what got to be done for solving Bug #330150 ?
[09:52] <Laney> fransman: is it not too late for this?
[09:53] <directhex> hm, no, ABI testing was inconclusive, as machine tools generate false positives for some internal types
[09:53] <directhex> 21-03-2009 13:34:22 > directhex: meebey, how did boo do in your abi testing?
[09:53] <directhex> 21-03-2009 13:34:37 < meebey!meebey@booster.qnetp.net: directhex: couldn't test
[09:53] <directhex> 21-03-2009 13:34:47 > directhex: so "sod it" approach?
[09:53] <directhex> 21-03-2009 13:34:51 < meebey!meebey@booster.qnetp.net: yeah
[09:53] <fransman> Laney: late because off?
[09:54] <Laney> because of the stage in the release cycle we're at
[09:54] <iulian> fransman: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyReleaseSchedule
[09:55] <Laney> I mean, it's up to the release managers but I'd say wait until karmic
[09:55] <directhex> "library transition" means "EEK!" btw
[09:55] <fransman> I did post it on 16 Feb 09
[09:55] <directhex> unless only 2 packages are affected. in which case it's fine & dandy. *cough*
[09:55] <Laney> fransman: the sponsors were never subscribed :(
[09:55] <iulian> fransman: Indeed, but you didn't subscribe nobody.
[09:56] <fransman> I am not able to do that Am I ?
[09:57] <iulian> directhex: I've just acknowledged it.  You'll need one more ack.
[09:57] <iulian> fransman: Actually, you can.
[09:57] <fransman> cool
[09:57] <fransman> I did add Tags: sync
[09:57] <directhex> iulian, thanks. depends on one of them materializing though, of course
[09:58] <iulian> fransman: You have some buttons above "Subscribers".
[09:58] <iulian> directhex: OK.
[09:59] <directhex> iulian, note that debian has 0.8.2 rather than 0.9.1 purely because to make a FFe easier to swallow ;)
[10:00] <fransman> iulian: yes I have subscribe someone else, thanks for pointing
[10:02] <iulian> You're welcome.
[10:04]  * iulian -> lunch, school. bbl
[13:01] <e-jat> may i know why this happened ? http://paste.ubuntu.com/138930/ <--
[13:03] <directhex> delete debian/files ?
[13:05] <e-jat> Build needed 00:00:02, 46548k disk space <---
[13:05] <e-jat> im building it at launchpad .
[13:05] <directhex> building what?
[13:05] <e-jat> my PPA
[13:05] <directhex> with your package?
[13:06] <e-jat> yeap ..
[13:06] <e-jat> by seing the log ..
[13:06] <directhex> and does your source package, as uploaded to your ppa, contain a debian/files file?
[13:11] <geser> it does: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24366527/mymeeting_2.2-ubuntu3.1.diff.gz
[13:12] <directhex> don't do that then
[13:12] <directhex> also, delete debhelper log
[13:12] <geser> e-jat: and why did you change it from arch:all to arch: i386 amd64?
[13:12] <geser> judging from the log your package doesn't support building arch-dependent packages
[13:14] <e-jat> just want to make it available to amd64
[13:14] <e-jat> or should i change it back to all ..
[13:15] <e-jat> that was my 1st package .. so need mo comment from guys in here ..
[13:15] <e-jat> more*
[13:15] <directhex> all means "architecture-independent package"
[13:15] <directhex> things like documentation, where cpu arch is irrelevant
[13:16] <geser> e-jat: arch:all packages are build on i386 but work on all archs (i386, amd64, lpia, etc.)
[13:17] <e-jat> geser: ic ..
[13:18] <e-jat> so i need to delete the package .. reupload changes n rebuild it with arch : all .. ?
[13:24] <directhex> e-jat, other things confuse me. you have a debian/ folder in the orig.tar.gz?
[13:35] <e-jat> owh misplace it .. deleting..
[13:35] <e-jat> directhex: thanks
[14:01] <bddebian> Heya gang
[14:01] <sistpoty|work> hi bddebian
[14:02] <bddebian> Heya sistpoty|work
[14:27] <Laney> Is there any point of a binary package conflicting on itself?
[14:27] <sistpoty|work> Laney: no
[14:27] <Laney> thought as much
[14:28] <sistpoty|work> Laney: otherwise almost every binary package would need to conflict itself, since it obviously would have file clashes ;)
[14:29] <Laney> sistpoty|work: Right, that was my thinking. I just wondered whether there was an edge-case
[14:32] <ScottK> There actually is.
[14:33] <ScottK> I remember seeing one package that did this.  It regenerated a bunch of symlinks and they'd be messed up if the old package was still around.
[14:33] <ScottK> Something like that.
[14:34] <sistpoty|work> that rather sounds like a workaround of buggy maintainer scripts than a proper use of conflicts... ;)
[14:38] <ScottK> I vaguely remember it being less bad than the other options, but it was a while ago.
[14:38] <ScottK> Wasn't my package either.
[16:35] <amikrop> Hello, debuild gives me this error: http://dpaste.com/20020/ Here is my debian/control: http://dpaste.com/20019/
[16:35] <amikrop> Any help would be appreciated much.
[16:36] <directhex> amikrop, you need a " ." as your spacer, not a blank line
[16:37] <amikrop> directhex: ok, thank you :)
[16:42] <amikrop> directhex: Also, I need to put an actual line break in the description (not an empty line).
[16:43] <amikrop> directhex: How can I do this? gDebi seems to ignore my line breaks. It doesn't break the lines, it only leaves empty ones when it sees " .".
[16:44] <directhex> amikrop, look at where "." is appropriate in http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-mono/monodoc/trunk/debian/control?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
[16:52] <amikrop> directhex: I understood the use of " .". It leaves an empty line (\n\n). I just want to do a single line break (\n). How can I do that?
[16:55] <amikrop> directhex: If I just press Enter, a \n doesn't get in the description.
[16:55] <amikrop> directhex: Wether I press Enter or not, the final result is the same.
[16:55] <amikrop> And I don't want that.
[16:55] <amikrop> What can I do to avoid that? To actually get a \n in the result?
[16:56] <amikrop> Anyone else, too, any help, please?
[17:03] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: I doubt you can do this, at least that's how I interprete 5.6.13 of debian policy
[17:06] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: I can't just leave a line break?
[17:06] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: All I want is to just change a line.
[17:06] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: imho, you can't do this... but take a look at 5.6.13 yourself ;)
[17:06] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: Actually, I have some example code at my description, so I do need to leave a line break.
[17:07] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: ah... then use verbatim formatting (two leading spaces)
[17:07] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: Can I do this to my whole description, too? (not just the code)
[17:08] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: I guess so
[17:08] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: if you think you'll need to have it verbatim *shrug*
[17:10] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: I read about verbatim, but I can't see where it says: "line breaks will actually take effect"
[17:10] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: it only says it will "hradly" wrap them
[17:11] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: if it wouldn't display line breaks, I guess the note about indenting wouldn't make too much sense?
[17:12] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: I hope so
[17:21] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: I made them verbatim, but still, my newlines were ignored.
[17:25] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: then I don't know
[17:25] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: ok, thanks, anyway
[17:38] <Technoviking> hi all, need some packaging help
[17:38] <Technoviking> trying to apply a debdiff to a source package with pbuilder
[17:40] <Technoviking> when I debuild -S -us -uc when source I get the following error
[17:40] <Technoviking> make: *** No rule to make target `/usr/share/gnome-pkg-tools/1/rules/uploaders.mk'.  Stop.
[17:40] <Technoviking> any ideas?
[17:43] <amikrop> My package is GPLed. I am the upstream author. I have a file named LICENSE, which contains the GPL 3. But it isn't placed anywhere by my deb. Should it be placed somewhere? What can I do about it? Here is my debian/rules http://dpaste.com/20049/
[17:44] <amikrop> I also have a file called README, which is places in /usr/share/docs/mypackage/README, but LICENSE is not placed anywhere.
[17:44] <amikrop> * placed
[17:46] <amikrop> So, what can I do, for my LICENSE file to be placed somewhere during my .deb installation?
[17:48] <tgm4883> amikrop, I don't think the LICENSE file needs to be installed, if it's like the COPYING files that I have in my source, they should just need to be in the source tarball
[17:48] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: you could mention it in debian/docs... but OTOH if LICENSE *only* contains the GPL-3, you don't need to have it in the .deb
[17:48]  * tgm4883 notes that I am not a MOTU
[17:49] <fabrice_sp_> slangasek, I've just uploaded the debdiff for kmediafactory. Waiting for a sponsor :-)
[17:49] <fabrice_sp_> Bug #348160
[17:49] <amikrop> tgm4883: So, I should rename it to COPYING and retry?
[17:51] <tgm4883> amikrop, read what sistpoty|work said, you shouldn't need it in the .deb, just in the orig.tar.gz
[17:51] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: why don't I need it in the .deb?
[17:51] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: the rationale is that you can use a .deb only on a debian/ubuntu system, and in the system there's always a copy of the GPL (in each major version) installed, hence this would be duplication
[17:52] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: but 3?
[17:52]  * sebner waves at sistpoty|work :)
[17:52] <amikrop> GPL 3?
[17:52] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: yep, /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3
[17:52] <sistpoty|work> hi sebner
[17:52] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: ok, so it will only be in .org.tar.gz
[17:53] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: yep... unlike the deb, the orig.tar.gz can be used w.o. having debian/ubuntu installed ;)
[17:53] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: ok, thanks ;-)
[17:53] <sistpoty|work> np
[17:53] <amikrop> tgm4883: thank you, too
[17:54] <tgm4883> np
[17:57] <slangasek> fabrice_sp_: <yoink>
[17:58] <fabrice_sp_> slangasek, yoink?! :-D
[17:59] <fabrice_sp_> ok. got it :-)
[18:21] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: Is -c gpl3 an option for dh_make?
[18:22] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: no idea... haven't used dh_make in a while myself
[18:22] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: Because, although my upstream program is licensed under GPL 3, I ran dh_make with -c gpl
[18:23] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: and now debian/copyright points to `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'.
[18:23] <amikrop> which has gpl 2
[18:24] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: /u/s/c-l/GPL will always point to the latest version (mine points to GPL-3, are you running an old release?)
[18:25] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: however you can (and should) always adjust debian/copyright to your liking (or let's say to your and the archive admins liking *g*)
[18:25] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: there is no gpl3 option
[18:25] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: but ok, it points to 3 for me, too
[18:25] <amikrop> :-)
[18:26] <sistpoty|work> amikrop: some people prefer to have debian/copyright point to the non-symlink, some the other way round... your choice (unless you have v3 only, then I guess pointing to GPL-3 directly seems better to me)
[18:28] <amikrop> sistpoty|work: no, I 'm OK with th symlink ;)
[18:28] <amikrop> * the
[18:28] <sistpoty|work> :)
[18:31]  * sistpoty|work calls it a day and heads home
[18:31] <sistpoty|work> cya
[20:33] <ahasenack> hi, I'm trying to build a source package (debuild -S). The package is for jaunty, and I'm on intrepid. I thought it should work, but it fails when trying to include a file from debian/rules that doesn't exist. Should it be possible? Here is the log: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/139178/
[20:33] <ahasenack>  /usr/share/python/python.mk doesn't exist on intrepid (or I don't know which package installs it)
[20:34] <sistpoty> ahasenack: that file isn't present in intrepid
[20:35] <ahasenack> sistpoty: correct. So while in general it could work, in this case I can't build a source package?
[20:35] <sistpoty> ahasenack: well, not without fiddling with it. (/me hasn't done a python package since ages, so I haven't too much clue about it)
[20:36] <ahasenack> sistpoty: so I have to install jaunty if I want to build this jaunty source package. I might as well build the binary then too, I was thinking about using ppa
[20:36] <sistpoty> ahasenack: or you could create a jaunty chroot
[20:37] <ahasenack> sistpoty: I tried using mk-sbuild-lv (which I use for other distros), but debootstrap knows nothing about jaunty and it fails
[20:38] <ScottK> ahasenack: That's a new file than only exists with Python 2.6.  You'll need to build the source package in Jaunty.
[20:38] <ScottK> ahasenack: You need the deboostrap from intrepid-backports.
[20:41] <ahasenack> so, get debootstrap which knows about jaunty, create the chroot, then build the source package and upload the source to ppa so I get the binary. I guess I can then skip the ppa part and just build the binary locally
[20:41] <sistpoty> yep
[20:42] <ahasenack> lots of stuff to build a source package, too bad the source build is not distro agnostic
[20:42] <Laney> I can see the whole sponsor queue without scrolling now
[20:44] <ScottK> ahasenack: True.  Generally it is, just sometimes new stuff has to get introduced.
[20:45] <ahasenack> I guess I thought the files would not be "run", just packaged, when a source package is built
[20:45] <ahasenack> like a tarball
[20:45] <ScottK> Generally the clean rule is called when the source package is built.
[20:45] <ScottK> That can sometimes needs lots of stuff.
[20:46] <ahasenack> well, I have time to walk the dog now that the jaunty chroot is being built and packages downloaded :)
[21:27] <_stochastic_> Hi room, I'm having some real troubles getting this package to build, can anyone give me a hand: https://launchpad.net/~stochastic/+archive/ppa/+build/916915
[21:37] <jcfp> _stochastic_: it's looking for avcodec.h and avformat.h in the wrong place?
[21:38] <_stochastic_> yeah, I think so
[21:38] <jcfp> libavformat-dev: /usr/include/ffmpeg/avformat.h   but the compile does this: -I/usr/include/ffmpeg//libavcodec -I/usr/include/ffmpeg//libavformat
[21:38] <_stochastic_> hmm, so I need to patch the source code?
[21:39] <jcfp> dunno, first test this is actually the problem as I'm not some gcc guru :)
[21:46] <ripps> I'm not getting alot of help from #launchpad, it seems somethings wrong with my team ppa, it can't find dependencies that have been the ppa for over a day. It just stopped working around 2 hours ago.
[21:46] <sbasuita> Hi! The last comment on this needs-upgrade bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cifer/+bug/342350 says that I need to follow the process documented here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess . However, under the relevant section (Universe->Bug fix only), it says that the bug should just be filed with changelog/justification (done) and a MOTU should just upload. Am I right in thinking I don't need to do anything more t
[21:46] <sbasuita> o push this bug along?
[21:58] <ScottK-desktop> ripps: PPA is a #launchpad thing.
[23:31] <Yasumoto> I'm trying to build a package using pdebuild, and it's telling me that the build dependency of python-cheetah is an uninstallable virtual package, although an apt-cache search seems to show that it isn't
[23:31] <Yasumoto> does anyone happen to know of a way I can check if it's actually a virtual package?
[23:40] <ripps> Yasumoto: I tend to get this when pbuilder is looking for a package in Universe, try adding "COMPONENTS="main restricted universe multiverse"" to your .pbuilderrc.
[23:41] <Yasumoto> ripps: thanks a million, I'll give that a try now
[23:46] <cody-somerville> you'll need to do a pbuilder update --override-config
[23:48] <Yasumoto> cody-somerville: ah, that's what it is
[23:48] <Yasumoto> ripps + cody-somerville: thank you