[00:02] <timClicks> hi all, i'm new to packaging and am currently working on bug #271260, i'm trying to get https://launchpad.net/sahana/trunk uploaded into REVU
[00:02] <timClicks> i have two questions
[00:02] <timClicks> 1) is there a guide on packaging programmes written in interpreted languages (PHP ideally)
[00:03] <directhex> does debian have a pkg-php team? they might have a guide
[00:03] <directhex> if not, look at another package & steal their packaging files
[00:04] <timClicks> 2) a debian/changelog, etc. has not been used so far - is it sufficient to have *first Ubuntu package in the log?
[00:04] <timClicks> directhex - cheers, will look into it
[00:05] <directhex> timClicks, yes. use "dch" to edit changelogs.
[00:07] <timClicks> ok - that's a relief, there's +3800 revisions already
[00:19] <maxb> timClicks: Yes, it's perfectly normal for the first debian/changelog entry to just say "* Initial package (LP: #number of needs-packaging bug)."
[00:35] <maxb> I see pbuilder-dist has the option to create i386 chroots on amd64, but it doesn't use linux32 when invoking things in them (afaics)
[00:35] <maxb> Does that matter?
[00:43] <directhex> maxb, in some cases, yes
[00:43] <directhex> maxb, exceedingly stupid cases, mind you
[00:49] <maxb> The only one I know of is uname
[00:54] <maxb> :-/
[00:55] <maxb> So far I've managed to cram all my pbuilder magic into .pbuilderrc, but it looks like there just aren't the hooks for this.
[01:53] <timClicks> debian/control question : is it possible to set an either/or dependency?
[01:56] <bddebian> foo | bar
[01:57] <timClicks> ta
[04:38] <ossud> hi!
[04:38] <nhandler> Hey ossud
[04:39] <ossud> i would like to compile software packages for the ubuntu universe repo ... where can i upload my .debs?
[04:39] <ossud> (mostly not my own programs)
[04:40] <timClicks> ossud: try googling REVU
[04:40] <nhandler> ossud: You can also upload them to your PPA on Launchpad
[04:42] <ossud> u shure? because i would upload programs of other people which i had compiled from source
[04:42] <ossud> (not the people)
[04:42] <nhandler> ossud: You would need to actually packagethe application before you could upload it to these locations
[04:43] <ossud> as .deb
[04:44] <nhandler> ossud: No, a .deb is a binary package. You would need to upload the source package
[04:44] <nhandler> ossud: Take a look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete for all the information you could ever want about creating the source package
[04:44] <ossud> thanks but i don't own the source
[04:45] <ossud> how can i be shure that's ok with the developer of this app?
[04:45] <nhandler> ossud: Check the license the code is released under
[04:46] <ossud> ah!
[04:47] <ossud> would this appear in a repo or just on the site?
[04:47] <nhandler> ossud: The license should be included in the .tar.gz that contains the source code
[04:49] <ossud> i ment: would the appilikation then be includet in a ubuntu repo where i can install it from?
[04:51] <ossud> because i saw that there are a lot of old versions of programs in the normal repos
[04:52] <nhandler> ossud: Your PPA is a repository. If you want it included in the official ubuntu repositories, follow https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages
[04:52] <ossud> thank you! you are very kind :)
[05:53] <calc> what is the proper Ubuntu MOTU line for maintainer field?
[05:54] <calc> Ubuntu MOTU Team <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com> ?
[05:55] <StevenK> Ubuntu MOTU Developers
[05:55] <jdong> https://wiki.edubuntu.org/DebianMaintainerField
[05:56] <jdong> see Design
[05:56] <jdong> (but in short StevenK is always right :D)
[05:58] <calc> ah ok
[05:58]  * calc is beating a package someone else created into revu clean
[05:59] <calc> what do i do for a package that has no original source location, eg just in a branch in lp bzr?
[06:18] <calc> grr i can't determine how to cause make to execute a grep after bzr checkout to determine the version number, it seems to do it immediately before the bzr checkout even happens
[06:18] <calc> trying to do something like this:
[06:18] <calc>         bzr co lp:~flimm/+junk/bash-ooo-thumbnailer && \
[06:18] <calc>         UPSTREAM_VERSION=`grep version bash-ooo-thumbnailer/setup.py | cut -f 2 -d \\"` && \
[06:18] <calc>         mv bash-ooo-thumbnailer ooo-thumbnailer-$(UPSTREAM_VERSION)
[06:19] <calc> is there a way to delay evalution until execution?
[06:29] <calc> got it working :)
[06:29] <calc> needed $$
[07:11] <calc> grr now its complaining about setup.py not having a copyright
[07:13] <calc> anyone have any ideas about this: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/report.py/legal?upid=5448
[07:20] <mrooney> calc: shouldn't setup.py have a copyright file? that seems like a legit complaint
[07:20] <calc> mrooney: its already listed as cc public domain in the header
[07:21] <mrooney> ah I see
[07:21] <calc> mrooney: i think maybe its a problem of the revu grepper not being good enough?
[07:21] <mrooney> that could be, if lintian is fine with it
[07:21] <calc> i fixed it up to say this and it is still complaining:
[07:21] <calc> +# Copyright 2009 - David D Lowe <DavidDLowe.flimm@gmail.com>
[07:21] <calc> +# Released into the public domain:
[07:21] <calc> +#   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
[07:21] <calc> yea lintian was clean long before revu got close to passing it
[07:22] <calc> the setup.py itself is what is public domain the script is licensed as gpl
[07:22] <mrooney> I assume you aren't the owner and can't just gpl the setup.py the same way?
[07:22] <calc> no
[07:23]  * calc is headed to bed, maybe someone will take a look at it later today :)
[07:25] <calc> once i get it approved i am going to send it back to the original author since he also made the debian packaging but it had lots of issues
[07:29]  * calc gone to bed now
[08:54] <savvas> hm..
[08:54] <savvas>  │ The configuration file /etc/default/console-setup specifies a keyboard    │
[08:54] <savvas>  │ layout and variant that are not supported by the configuration program.   │
[10:50] <Laney> What's the exception process for bugfix uploads now?
[10:51] <Laney> The mail that slangasek linked to implies that only one ack is needed. Is that right?
[10:55] <mok0> Laney: what mail are you referring to?
[10:55] <james_w> the freeze mail
[10:58] <mok0> Ha, just got it this second
[10:59] <james_w> there's also https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-October/004845.html
[10:59] <james_w> which confuses matters a bit more
[11:00] <james_w> perhaps motu-release would like to comment on whether that policy will be used again
[11:17] <Toadstool> hi all
[11:19]  * Laney mails the list
[11:19] <Laney> hi Toadstool
[11:20] <Toadstool> hi Laney
[15:05] <radix> hi guys, is there a good place to put instructions for future maintainers? i.e., for procedures on making updates to the package, version number conventions, and so on?
[15:06] <james_w> radix: debian/README.Source is the preferred place for that I think
[15:07] <james_w> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource
[15:07] <james_w> debian/README.source sorry
[15:07] <radix> okay, cool
[15:11] <bddebian> Heya gang
[15:28] <mehdid> general question: if a bug is found in a package (in a supported version of ubuntu, not current), what can I do to get it updated (if possible)? Can I make an updated package and send a link to the .dsc?
[15:29] <cjwatson> mehdid: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
[15:31] <joaopinto> !sru
[15:32] <mehdid> ubottu: thanks, that's what I was looking for
[15:32] <mehdid> :)
[16:03] <CarlFK1> why does pbuilder depend on postfix?  http://packages.ubuntu.com/jaunty/pbuilder
[16:04] <Pici> CarlFK1: I don't see that listed there.
[16:04] <CarlFK1> Pici: it must be in the tree somewhere
[16:05] <Pici> hm
[16:06] <CarlFK1> what's the d-foo command that shows the tree?
[16:07] <geser> I guess it's because pbuilder recommends devscripts which recommends bsd-mailx which depends on postfix | mta
[16:12] <CarlFK1> oh yeah...  something about now recommendeds get installed by default
[16:13] <jpds> --no-install-recommends.
[16:15] <CarlFK1> is there a way to not prompt "Hit <enter> to confirm:"  dh_make --single -f ../sphinx3-3.7.tar.bz
[16:16] <calc> anyone have time to revu a package? http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/ooo-thumbnailer
[16:17] <calc> its still complaining about a file but i think its just a bad test afaict
[16:17] <RainCT> calc: nevermind the legal thing, that's just the output of license-check
[16:17] <calc> RainCT: ok
[16:18] <RainCT> calc: is that for Jaunty?
[16:18] <calc> RainCT: yea
[16:18] <calc> RainCT: trying to get it in for jaunty to universe
[16:23] <RainCT> calc: No need to install the README as it doesn't say anything useful; e-mail of upstream is missing in the manpage (and it is a bit poor anyway, at least adding an example would be good); debian/copyright doesn't mention from where the source is; drop all changelog entries except for one with version -0ubuntu1.
[16:24] <RainCT> That's all I can find from looking at the diff
[16:25] <calc> ok
[16:25]  * calc didn't do the original packaging but is trying to beat it into shape
[16:26] <calc> RainCT: will dropping back to 0ubuntu1 work uploading to revu?
[16:26] <RainCT> calc: Yep, REVU doesn't mind about the version number
[16:26] <calc> ok
[16:27] <RainCT> It takes whatever you give it and achieves it labeled with the upload date
[16:27] <calc> ok
[16:28] <RainCT> *archives
[16:45] <fatal_> would be nice if someone would do the necessary massaging to get iproute synced from debian.... see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/iproute/+bug/335554
[16:46] <fatal_> ^-- filed by upstream himself.
[16:55] <cjwatson> fatal_: needs a freeze exception, and is far from guaranteed to get one at this point; "out of date with respect to upstream" isn't in itself enough
[16:56] <cjwatson> I understand it's missing some things but we also have to consider our fallback position if things break
[16:57] <cjwatson> james_w: ^- reminder for that bug, since you were looking at it earlier
[16:57] <cjwatson> fatal_: sorry we apparently forgot about this, I think it may have to wait for karmic at this point
[16:57] <james_w> ah, damn
[16:57] <james_w> thanks for the ping
[16:57] <cjwatson> (but will let james_w decide if he wants to go for a freeze exception)
[17:09] <directhex> i wonder if a pretty MOTU could tickle https://edge.launchpad.net/bugs/358558 before the next level of freeziness begins
[17:09] <fatal_> cjwatson: no need to say sorry. I'm just suggesting that it's a possibility to update it. I haven't seen any possible regressions and there has been no new issues reported since the lenny version = what you have....
[17:15] <fatal_> (personally I'm mostly here to poke around and see if there are any possibilities to hook up some nice ubuntu/debian collaboration contacts w.r.t. iproute. Don't really care if you update or not. :P)
[17:16] <fatal_> anyway, feel free to send me an email if there's anything I can help out with.... I'd be happy to.... ah-iproute@debian.org
[17:30] <bdmurray> Is there a MOTU release person around?
[18:26] <LaserJock> any MOTU Release people about?
[18:36] <iulian> LaserJock: A bit busy at the moment but I'm here.
[18:37] <LaserJock> the sugar team is wanting an FFe for the latest bug-fix releases of Sugar and I'd personally like to get it in, but I wanted to get some broader opinion from motu-release
[18:38] <iulian> LaserJock: I was looking at those packages right now.
[18:39] <LaserJock> iulian: ah, excellent
[18:47] <bdmurray> iulian: Can you help explain the type of freeze we are in right now?
[18:55] <iulian> bdmurray: We are in Final Freeze, two weeks from the final release.  Please see https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-April/025259.html.
[18:55] <iulian> LaserJock: I'd say go ahead.
[18:55] <LaserJock> iulian: awesome, thanks
[18:55] <iulian> LaserJock: Would you like to take care of sponsoring those packages?
[18:56] <bdmurray> iulian: I did so "more intrusive changes" are okay now since it just started right?
[18:56] <LaserJock> iulian: I don't have to, if you'd like me to I can though
[18:56] <bdmurray> iulian: and no motu-release approval is required now?
[18:57] <iulian> LaserJock: That would be great, I'd appreciate it.
[18:57] <LaserJock> iulian: will do
[18:58] <iulian> bdmurray: What do you mean by "intrusive changes"?  Could you upload a debdiff somewhere so I can see exactly what you're on about?
[18:58] <iulian> LaserJock: Thanks a lot.
[18:59] <bdmurray> iulian: that's the wording in the announcement you pointed me to.  Regardless my specific question is about sponsoring the debdiff in bug 349114.  It adds a patch system which may be inappropriate based off the wording in that announcement.
[19:00] <iulian> bdmurray: By the way, all uploads to universe and multiverse will need to be acked by motu-release.
[19:00]  * iulian looks
[19:02] <iulian> bdmurray: Yes, please go ahead and upload.
[19:02] <bdmurray> iulian: okay, thanks!
[19:03] <bdmurray> iulian: What's the correct process for getting an ack? asking in irc subscribing to the bug?
[19:03] <iulian> bdmurray: Subscribing motu-release is better IMHO.
[19:03] <iulian> I've just commented on that bug.
[19:04] <iulian> bdmurray: You could ask on IRC as well.  That would make things easier for us.
[19:06] <iulian> Blah, I cannot find the list of motu-release delegates. :(
[19:07]  * iulian is always forgetting!
[19:14] <iulian> Ah, got it.
[19:20] <ode> hi
[19:23] <ode> lintian is giving me an message about duplicate name for source and package in control
[19:24] <ode> how do I just name it once
[19:24] <ode> and then reference when I use it the second time?
[19:24] <geser> can you please pastebin your debian/control?
[19:26] <ode> http://pastebin.com/m39cf641
[19:30] <hyperair> ode: can you give the exact lintian error?
[19:30] <hyperair> verbatim
[19:30] <geser> what's the exact lintian message? as the control looks ok to me
[19:32] <bddebian> Is it complaining about the duplicate section: perl?
[19:32] <ode> http://pastebin.com/d6724f4b0
[19:32] <ode> i think it's the duplicate of the name of the package
[19:33] <bddebian> No, you don't need Section: perl in the binary if the sourc epackage is Section: perl
[19:33] <ode> I guess there is a way to reference the name
[19:33] <hyperair> ode: no you can omit Section: perl completely
[19:33] <hyperair> ode: in the binary package
[19:33] <hyperair> ode: just have it once in the source package section
[19:34] <LaserJock> bddebian: my favorite MOTU!
[19:34] <bddebian> Heh, your lame-ass MOTU! :)  How are you?
[19:35] <LaserJock> doin' OK
[19:35] <LaserJock> can't wait to get Jaunty out the door
[19:35] <bddebian> heh
[19:38] <ode> thanks, that fixed it
[19:38] <LaserJock> anybody seen something like this before:
[19:38] <LaserJock> dh_install -psugar
[19:38] <LaserJock> dh_install: sugar missing files (debian/tmp/usr/lib/*), aborting
[19:39] <geser> isn't sugar written in python?
[19:39] <LaserJock> there's a debian/tmp/usr/lib/* line in sugar.install
[19:39] <LaserJock> but it shouldn't bail I'd think
[19:40] <geser> does the directory exist after running the install target?
[19:41] <geser> dh_install complains that it should install files from that location but they aren't there
[19:42] <geser> as sugar build-depends on python-dev my guess it it didn't transitioned to python 2.6 yet and installs the files to usr/local/lib (missing --install-layout=deb to setup.py install)
[19:44] <LaserJock> geser: I missed what you said
[19:44] <LaserJock> stupid Jaunty is locking up on me
[19:46] <geser> dh_install complains that it should install files from that location but they aren't there
[19:46] <geser> as sugar build-depends on python-dev my guess it it didn't transitioned to python 2.6 yet and installs the files to usr/local/lib (missing --install-layout=deb to setup.py install)
[19:48] <LaserJock> geser: ah, yeah, that'd make sense
[19:50] <ode> when i package a perl app am i meant to just rename the orig tarball to the perl naming scheme e.g. orig=stockmonkey-2.9013.tar.gz package=libmath-business-stockmonkey-perl-2.13?
[19:51] <ode> just wondered since it's meant to be orig, unchanged tarball
[19:54] <LaserJock> my goodness this is a nasty CDBS package
[19:54] <LaserJock> what's the point of using CDBS if you're just going to build your own .mk files anyway
[20:18] <Laney> siretart: do you have any preview debs for screen-profiles for debian for the daring?
[20:18]  * Laney likes it too much
[20:21] <Laney> kirkland: good work on it btw \o
[20:49] <maxriskfactor> any MOTU here who manages eric?
[21:03] <MOKHTE> INA perian ki miharfe
[21:12] <geser> anyone here using vim and bicyclerepair?
[21:22] <bdmurray> iulian: Could you ack bug 254992?
[21:55] <ScottK> Other motu-release people: If there's stuff you've acked, that's been uploaded, but not accepted, please let me know and I'll accept it.