[17:19] <neurobuntu> when specifying the build-depends in the control file can you use wild card characters or does each package have to be specified individually?
[17:19] <persia> neurobuntu, You need to specify packages individually.
[17:20] <neurobuntu> thank you persia
[17:58] <loic-m> Once a patch has been applied upstream, can I erase the patch from debian/paches in the merge that ships the relevant upstream tarball.
[18:00] <persia> loic-m, Yep.
[18:00] <loic-m> persia: thanks again
[18:00] <persia> (in fact, that's why some people recommend the use of debian/patches: it makes it easier to track what to drop.)
[18:01] <pace_t_zulu|work> is the LGPL adequate licensing to get a software package into ubuntu?
[18:02] <persia> pace_t_zulu, Yes.  LGPL is completely acceptable.
[18:03] <pace_t_zulu> persia, thank you
[18:24] <dupondje> hello, I checked https://merges.ubuntu.com/a/audacious/REPORT, downloaded the ubuntu.tar.gz, fixed it, but how to upload it now ?
[18:27] <persia> !sponsoring
[18:27] <hyperair> hmm how does one copy a package from ubuntu directly into a PPA?
[18:27]  * persia glares at Nuku-Nuku and considers kicking
[18:28] <hyperair> persia: why?
[18:29] <persia> hyperair, Because it complains at me whenever I use an ubottu command.  I want it to do one of the following: 1) use a different attention character, 2) not complain when another bot is doing what I asked, or 3) follow the Ubuntu IRC policy and not be here, because we have bots enough.
[18:29] <persia> Anyway https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperGuide/Sponsorship
[18:29] <persia> I'm just not yet annoyed enough to kick
[18:29] <hyperair> heheh
[18:32] <jpds> !test
[18:52] <dupondje> could somebody plz check https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/audacious/+bug/383271
[18:52] <dupondje> Its the first time I fixed a merge, so hope all is ok :D
[18:59] <stefanlsd> oh, you did
[19:00] <stefanlsd> dupondje: i cant make out whats happening in that attachment.  did you  debdiff previous.dsc new.dsc > file.diff ?
[19:05] <dupondje> stefanlsd: yep I did that
[19:06] <stefanlsd> dupondje: mm. file doesnt have any new lines for me - http://launchpadlibrarian.net/27463987/debdiff
[19:08] <dupondje> weird
[19:08] <dupondje> stefanlsd: www.dupondje.be/deb.diff ?
[19:09] <stefanlsd> dupondje: yeah. that works.
[19:09] <dupondje> its the same :p
[19:09] <dupondje> but ok
[19:09] <dupondje> :)
[19:09] <dupondje> need to add it to the bug or ?
[19:10] <stefanlsd> yeah, delete what you have there and try re-attach
[19:11] <dupondje> ok done
[19:13] <dupondje> gtg now, back in 20mins :D
[19:14] <bencrisford> Ok this is gonna be a really nooby question.  And I'm a little embarrassed I am asking :P.  I have edited the debian/control, but as it is read-only I cannot save even with :wq!...   Help?
[19:15] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: why is it read only? did you download the file originally with sudo?
[19:15] <bencrisford> stefanlsd: Erm...  Probably :/
[19:15] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: if you haven't done much, start again without using sudo...
[19:15] <bencrisford> stefanlsd: I just spent best part of an hour adding depends to all the packages :'(
[19:16] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: ok, well then maybe you can work around it.  something like   chown username filename   (your username)
[19:17] <bencrisford> stefanlsd: Hang on, i've had an idea.... :)
[19:18] <bencrisford> stefanlsd: Is it possible to save the changes to a different file
[19:18] <bencrisford> im using vim
[19:18] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: yeah.  :w /tmp/newfile
[19:19] <bencrisford> stefanlsd: Oooh, thanks.  Do I replace newfile with a filename?  or what?
[19:19] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: yes. filename
[19:21] <bencrisford> stefanlsd: Thank you so much!  You saved my hours work!
[19:21] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: np :)
[19:33] <bencrisford> Changelogs have always confused me
[19:34] <bencrisford> stefanlsd: Do I just change the line with the bullet points?
[19:34] <bencrisford> The top line makes no sense to me :(
[19:34] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: Im not quite sure what you are trying to do?  Best is to edit the debian/changelog with the dch command.  So for a new entry,  dch -i   or to edit an entry,  dch -e
[19:35] <bencrisford> i did dch -i
[19:35] <bencrisford> is the changelog .dch?
[19:36] <bencrisford> i think i sorted the rest stefanlsd, but its asking me what to save it as, is it debian/changelog.dch
[19:36] <bencrisford> ?
[19:36] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: the changelog is the file  debian/changelog. debian/changelog.dch is the temporary file it makes while editing.  just save and quit and it will do the right thing
[19:37] <bencrisford> well im in nano
[19:37] <bencrisford> i did ^X, and it says
[19:37] <bencrisford> save as debian/changelog.dche and i dont know what its meaning
[19:37] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: no sure about nano.  try and just push enter and see what it does. check the contents of debian/changelog for your entry
[19:38] <bencrisford> i did
[19:38] <bencrisford> and it seems to have worked
[19:38] <bencrisford> cheers stefanlsd :)
[19:38] <bencrisford> now i'll just do a diff, and submit my patch?
[19:40] <stefanlsd> bencrisford: yeah
[19:41] <dupondje> stefanlsd: back :D
[19:41] <fabrice_sp> siretart, sorry to bug you again :-D I'm not able to build the mplayer package as you need to delete the build-indep-stamp target (not created anywhere, but needed for install-indep-stamp)
[19:41] <fabrice_sp> in debian/rules
[19:42] <stefanlsd> dupondje: sorry. havent had a chance to look properly. im busy working on something atm
[19:42] <dupondje> ok:)
[19:42] <dupondje> maby somebody else can get a look ? :D
[19:52] <fabrice_sp> dupondje, what do you want to get reviewed? Maybe I can help
[19:52] <fabrice_sp> By the way, any brave MOTU willing to have a look at bug #283208?
[19:54] <dupondje> fabrice_sp:  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/audacious/+bug/383271
[20:05] <fabrice_sp> dupondje, you shouldn't have ko.po in your debdiff, except if it's within the original ubuntu changes
[20:05] <fabrice_sp> dupondje, the same for all the .po files and the .pot ones
[20:06] <dupondje> how can I solve that its not included ?
[20:07] <fabrice_sp> how do you generate your debdiff?
[20:07] <fabrice_sp> also, in your changelog, you should reference which Ubutnu changes are still applicable
[20:08] <dupondje> debdiff debian.dsc ubuntu.dsc > deb.diff
[20:09] <fabrice_sp> hmmm, should be ok. what you can do is edit the debdiff, us a clean source directory, with debian version, and apply your debdiff
[20:10] <fabrice_sp> this is what a MOTU would do to check your debdiff is correct, and the resulting package builds fine
[20:14] <dupondje> so I need to get the debian source, and apply my debdiff on it, and try to compile right ?
[20:15] <fabrice_sp> dupondje, yes, but use a pbuilder to build it: this will avoid having some generated source updated
[20:15] <fabrice_sp> so the sequence should be:
[20:15] <fabrice_sp> - get a clean debian base source (expand the debian.dsc)
[20:15] <fabrice_sp> - apply your debdiff
[20:15] <fabrice_sp> - build the ubuntu.dsc
[20:16] <fabrice_sp> - check that the package builds with pbuilder
[20:16] <fabrice_sp> this way, you should get a clean debdiff
[20:16] <fabrice_sp> before doing that, update your changelog as requested before
[20:17] <dupondje> There werent any Ubuntu changes to the package ? Or do I misunderstand the questions :)
[20:18] <fabrice_sp> I think my English is not so good at that time :-)
[20:18] <dupondje> ;)
[20:19] <fabrice_sp> what I mean is that a merge by definition contains some specific Ubuntu changes (otherwise, it's a sync). This changes should be referenced in you changelog entry
[20:19] <fabrice_sp> something like
[20:19] <fabrice_sp>   * Merge from debian unstable (LP: #383271). Remaining changes: ...
[20:20] <fabrice_sp> you can use the sebner entry (1.5.1-4ubuntu1) as an example
[20:22] <dupondje> ok :) i'll give it a look
[20:22] <dupondje> but it seems my deb.diff doesn't want to apply :s
[20:22] <dupondje> wtf :)
[20:26] <dupondje> fabrice_sp: enabling SSE2 on x86_64 is in fact the only change I did  + removing the patches that are obsolete ...
[20:26] <fabrice_sp> in the debdiff you attach, I don't see any change appart the po files...
[20:27] <fabrice_sp> so even enabling SSE2 enabling is not there... :-/
[20:28] <dupondje> +  * Enabled SSE2 on x86_64
[20:28] <dupondje> it is ?
[20:28] <fabrice_sp> the comment, yes
[20:28] <fabrice_sp> but the change in debian/rules?
[20:28] <fabrice_sp> or wherever it is?
[20:28] <dupondje> its in rules
[20:28] <dupondje> mmm
[20:28] <dupondje> i'll check
[20:28] <fabrice_sp> but not in the debdiff
[20:28] <fabrice_sp> ok ;-)
[20:29] <xenocampanoli> Subject:  trying to compile libldap-ruby I get ldap.c:424: error: ‘LDAP_OPT_X_TLS_PROTOCOL’ undeclared (first use in this function).  This is shown as a macro only in my /usr/include/ldap.h.  Another told me it is commented out in his /usr/include/openldap.h, but I do not have one of those.
[20:30] <xenocampanoli> I am using Ubuntu Server 9.04 for my testing.
[20:31] <dupondje> fabrice_sp: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/27467532/deb.diff
[20:31] <dupondje> should be better
[20:35] <alefteris> hi all! Can I use pbuilder to build the source package also?
[20:36] <fabrice_sp> dupondje, it's better. As there is no changes left, put "Merge with Debian unstable. No remaining changes " in your changelog
[20:36] <fabrice_sp> dupondje, also, get rid of all the .po files changes to send the debdiff
[20:37] <alefteris> or a way to build the source package with bzr builddeb?
[20:38] <alefteris> nevermind, found bzr bd --quick :)
[21:00] <dupondje> fabrice_sp: I downloaded the debian.dsc applied debdiff, builded the dsc
[21:00] <dupondje> but the debdiff result is the same ;)
[21:01] <fabrice_sp> which debdiff you applied? The one with the modifications on the .po files, or one without that?
[21:01] <siretart> fabrice_sp: well spotted
[21:01] <fabrice_sp> siretart, ;-)
[21:01] <dupondje> fabrice_sp: I need to manually remove the .po files ?
[21:01] <fabrice_sp> siretart, I've just built the mplayer-nogui packages with that change, so it should be ok
[21:01] <dupondje> from the diff ?
[21:01] <fabrice_sp> dupondje, in the debdiff, yes
[21:02] <dupondje> oh ok
[21:02] <dupondje> is there a 'lazy' way to do that ? ;)
[21:02] <fabrice_sp> hmmm, I can tell you that all the changes after the debian/rules files are .po changes, so you can delete all the line after
[21:06] <siretart> fabrice_sp: okay. I think I'll update the debian/get-orig-source.sh script to do something similar like the ffmpeg one before actually uploading it. then it should be easy to add an mencoder package and upload to ubuntu
[21:11] <fabrice_sp> siretart, what do you mean by similar to ffmpeg? the 2 get-orig-source.sh looks similar to me :-/ By the way, in Debian, will you still drop the mencoder.c source?
[21:12] <fabrice_sp> (this is done in strip.sh)
[21:19] <fabrice_sp> have to go. Bye :-)
[21:31] <dupondje> fabrice_sp: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/27469484/deb2.diff
[21:31] <dupondje> :p
[21:34] <dupondje> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/audacious/+bug/383271
[21:34] <dupondje> should be ok now !
[21:47] <ausimage> I am looking for some help in getting an app I am developing into Karmic universe hopefully...
[21:48] <ausimage> https://edge.launchpad.net/soovee, https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~ausimage/soovee/trunk
[21:49] <ausimage> I really need some packaging advice on how to build multiple packages from a python distutils package....
[21:50] <ausimage> then anyother suggestions I can manage to improve the app and get it in ;)
[21:50] <persia> ausimage, While I can't comment usefully on python specifically, the basic model for multiple binaries from a single source is fairly straightforward.
[21:51] <persia> One runs the build system (in this case, distutils), and ends up with a filesystem tree containing all the provided files.
[21:51] <dupondje> Need review of:
[21:51] <dupondje> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/audacious/+bug/383271
[21:51] <dupondje> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/audacious-plugins/+bug/383307
[21:51] <persia> One then creates a set of ${binary-package}.install files in debian/, with each listing the path of the files that belong in that binary package, selected from the set of files constructed by the build system.
[21:52] <ausimage> yeah, persia I guess I was unclear how this is accomplished with distutils...
[21:52] <persia> dupondje, You mentioned that 20 minutes ago.  You may do better to make sure it's in the sponsors queue, and wait a bit.
[21:52] <ausimage> cause distutils does all the magic usually AFIAK
[21:53] <persia> ausimage, Separate the concepts in your mind.  distutils does all the magic to construct the target filesystem, putting stuff in /usr/bin, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man, etc.
[21:53] <persia> Then, dh_install extracts specific files from that target filesystem, and distributes them into the binary packages.
[21:53] <ausimage> hmmm....
[21:54] <persia> ausimage, So, when you run distutils from within debian/rules in any of the suggested ways, you end up with debian/tmp/usr/...
[21:54] <ausimage> k
[21:54] <persia> Then, when you run dh_install, it pulls from there into debian/${binary-package}/usr/...
[21:55] <persia> And those are turned into the tarballs that get inserted into the .deb files.
[21:55] <ausimage> so the *.install would be names of packages to build with its on manifest based on the tree under debian/tmp/usr ?
[21:56] <ausimage> that is just a flat file of one file per line?
[21:58] <dupondje> persia: its in the SponsorQue :) sorry for bothering :)
[21:59] <persia> ausimage, debian/*.install would be named to match the binary packages, and contain file lists to match the desired contents.  Some classes of wildcards are acceptable.  man dh_install.
[21:59] <persia> Yes, just a flat file.  One file (or glob) per line.
[22:00] <ausimage> hmmm... I will attempt this...
[22:00] <persia> ausimage, Good luck.  If you get stuck, just ask back here.
[22:00] <ausimage> persia anything else I need to get this package moving into the repos?
[22:03] <ausimage> persia: is there a method to get the magic directory for python modules?
[22:05] <persia> ausimage, That's where we get into python-specific stuff, and I can't help you very much.
[22:05] <persia> (because I don't know myself)
[22:05] <ausimage> ahh
[22:05] <ausimage> hopefully a pythonista will share their knowledge
[22:07] <persia> As for getting the package into the repos, the best means are either to get it into Debian, or push it to REVU.  Some people find each of them faster or more effective, so it's hard to recommend one over the other.
[22:13] <ausimage> persia: can I have duplicate files in multiple packages?
[22:15] <persia> ausimage, You can, but then the packages must conflict.  I doubt this is what you want.
[22:15] <persia> Better is to abstract out a -common package, and have other packages depend upon it.
[22:16] <ausimage> no... k... I am particularly thinking of my docs
[22:16] <ausimage> which also has licencing et al...
[22:16] <persia> For docs, a foo-doc package is recommended.
[22:17] <persia> And it's generally considered good practice to only Suggests: or possibly Recommends: the -doc package.
[22:17] <ausimage> I plan to have cli, gui, lib and core
[22:17] <persia> (so users can install it or remove it as they like, rather than forcing it to be present)
[22:17] <persia> Add -doc to your list, and you're good.
[22:18] <persia> -core vs. -common is up for debate, depending on the details of what would be included.
[22:19] <ausimage> persia: how do I show the dependcies?
[22:20] <ausimage> a new package section in control?
[22:25] <didrocks> mdeslaur: nice :)
[22:28] <persia> ausimage, debian/control consists of one Source stanza and some number of Package stanzas.  If you want to generate multiple binary packages, you need multiple Package stanzas.  You'd just add your Depends, Recommends, Suggests, etc. in the Package stanzas, as appropriate.
[22:29] <ausimage> that is what I thought just wanted confirmation....
[22:52] <ausimage> I am wondering why it suggested to Python-Version and Replaces when they generate warnings :?
[22:57] <persia> ausimage, Could you rephrase that as a question, perhaps with more context and detail?
[22:58] <ausimage> persia in the dpkg-buildpackage output I notice that Python-Version and Replaces seem to raise warnings that indicate the tag is not valid
[23:00] <persia> ausimage, for replaces, review http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html  For Python-Version, I think you want XS-Python-Version, and I think that's permitted to be a warning.
[23:00] <persia> (but look for a python person to confirm that last bit)
[23:01] <ausimage> I will check... other than those... it did build the packages correctly :)
[23:01] <persia> Congratulations.  One's first multiple-binary package is always an adventure.
[23:02] <ausimage> Yeah reading the web was not helpful imho...
[23:04] <persia> The answers are all on the net.  The trick is that most of the good information is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and assumes you already know what you're doing, but just need to check to confirm it's correct.
[23:04] <ausimage> ahh ;)
[23:05] <ausimage> I found nothing to indicate the simplicity of multiple packages till you explained it ;)
[23:07] <persia> The EXAMPLE section of dh_install(1) outlines it very clearly, but I agree that this isn't necessarily the first place people look.