[14:31] stgraber: ping [18:01] stgraber: Pingaling [18:38] bencrisford: sort of there [18:38] my bug fix went a bit wrong stgraber :( [18:39] i changed added a dependency to fix a bug, then did dch -i and updated the changelog and then debuild -S [18:39] when i did my debdiff [18:39] all that appeared in there [18:39] was the changes to the changelog :'( [18:39] and ive tried and tried and tried [18:39] was up late last night fiddling around [18:40] and early this morning [18:41] hmm, that's weird. [18:41] so you: [18:41] - changed debian/control [18:41] - dch -i [18:41] - debuild -S -sa [18:41] - debdiff old.dsc new.dsc [18:41] ? [18:41] -sa ? nope [18:41] but i did the rest yeah [18:42] * LaserJock thinks he stepped into a debuild question [18:42] you did :) [18:42] yeah [18:42] just after you went last night, my debdiff got totally screwed up [18:42] when i change the control file [18:42] all i get in my debdiff [18:43] is the changelog entry [18:43] :( [18:43] no matter what i do it seems [18:43] i was up late last night, and early this morning fiddling around [18:43] did you figure it out? [18:43] nope [18:44] my guess would be that you accidentally overwrote your original source package [18:44] so what you think is the pure Ubuntu package actually includes your control file changes [18:45] and so when you debdiff it, it doesn't see any difference there [18:45] ohhh crapppp [18:45] i might be able to fix this :/ [18:46] just re-download the current Ubuntu source package and re-diff [18:48] i have done [18:48] seeeveral times [18:49] ok, so what steps do you do? [18:50] apt-get source pessulus [18:50] vi debian/control [18:50] dch -i [18:50] debuild -S [18:50] cd .. [18:50] debdiff old.dsc new.dsc > new.debdiff [18:52] well, that should do it [18:53] it doesnt =( [18:53] ill try again though [18:56] you might verify that your changes were actually saved in debian/control [18:57] there's got to be some simple thing [18:57] I did a few times :) [18:59] still dont work :( [19:04] bencrisford: what is the dependency you're adding? [19:19] bencrisford: I think I found your problem [19:19] :-) [19:21] hi LaserJock [19:21] hi nubae [19:21] did u get a chance to see Sugar? [19:21] not yet, no [19:21] I need to find some time to download it [19:22] ah... u should give it a spin... its really looking very nice now... its pushed the debian folks to get their ass in gear and get 0.84 working [19:22] bencrisford: couple things. 1) make sure you get the karmic source package, not the jaunty one and 2) you actually need to edit debian/control.in because that is used to automatically build the debian/control file when you run debuild -S [19:22] unfortunately, the ubuntu folks are just waiting to take what debian does, and aren't doing anything on their own initiative... I get the feeling the debian packager is resentful because of that [19:23] what Ubuntu folks? [19:23] heh, well those signed up as sugar team [19:23] bencrisford: so your debian/control file was getting overwritten each time you ran debuild -S [19:23] of which morgs was really the only one doing any work... [19:23] nubae: right [19:23] sounds familiar [19:23] ;-) [19:23] and he's not around anymore [19:24] right [19:24] so basically there are no Ubuntu folks [19:24] ergo they aren't waiting ;-) [19:24] well, I offered Jonas (debian packager) whatever help he needs [19:24] well, there are a bunch of folks claiming to be the ubuntu sugar team [19:24] and they are 'waiting to see what happens with debian' [19:24] ;-) [19:27] are you sure? [19:27] did they send an email somewhere? [19:28] in Sugar, lfaraone claims he, Sacha Silbe, and 3 others are the ubuntu sugar team [19:28] #sugar that would be [19:28] and that they made a decision to wait and see what happens with debian [19:28] I have a feeling this is because they simply have no idea what else todo [19:29] anyway, please do take a look at the suse offering so I can get going on working on the ubuntu side [19:30] why do I have to look at it? [19:31] cause u are edubuntu council and u make decisions on what goes in and what doesnt? [19:31] I'm certainly interested in what you've done, but I don't know why that'd block Ubuntu [19:31] I'm sure I can come up with other reasons... [19:31] well, is Debian getting back on track? [19:31] basically so u can discuss with me how we move forward with putting it into ubuntu [19:31] they are... like I said, I'd work with Jonas [19:32] but how its presented is an ubuntu thing [19:32] ok, well bottom line is if Debian get's things in order we mostly get things for free [19:32] ah [19:32] ie... how many/which activities to show, how to categorise [19:32] how to include in the cd/dvd [19:32] I think we might consider having an edubuntu-sugar metapackage [19:32] do we make a just sugar ubuntu cd/usb stick= [19:32] ? [19:33] yeah that goes without saying... [19:33] well [19:34] I can imagine having an official unofficial Sugar-on-a-Stick image [19:34] we're not going to have enough official hosting for it [19:34] we're going to be lucky if we get the DVD [19:34] yeah since the other distros do it, e/dubuntu kind has to too [19:34] it has a big advantage there [19:35] and that is that it can carry binary drivers [19:35] other distros as in? Fedora and openSUSE? [19:35] where Fedora and openSUSE cannot [19:35] I'm thinking about net connectivity here [19:35] its quite a pain on both Fedora and openSUSE... [19:35] ah, because Ubuntu has pretty good network/wifi hardware support? [19:36] yep [19:36] so that is a very big advantage, that might even tip the balance as to which SoaS is used [19:36] well, I would think as long as we can find some hosting for it [19:36] and we say that we don't explicitly support the image itself [19:36] right now people are doing crazy stuff like virtualising Sugar on an ubuntu image [19:37] it would be really fairly easy for us to do [19:37] virtualising fedora on ubuntu to get networking working... [19:37] pretty crazy [19:37] I'm just not sure we have resources to have it as an official, fully supported offering, if that makes sense [19:37] yucky [19:38] yeah yucky but there is no other way.... this is where the entire policy crap shoots us linux users in the foot [19:38] so the things we'd want would be: [19:38] 1) metapackage that puts everything together [19:38] 2) image building script [19:38] and metapackages that seperate by subject perhaps [19:38] well [19:38] as in the next version of sugar, u can launch individual activities straight through gnome [19:39] Sugar on a Stick is a live version isn't it? [19:39] wouldn't we just want everything installed? [19:39] yeah [19:39] thats the question [19:39] what's the reason not to? [19:39] sugar 'policy' (I hate that term now) says users should only have the core activities [19:40] ah, I see [19:40] and that all the rest should be downloaded from activities.sugarlabs.org [19:40] I disagree completely [19:40] which is why I packaged all the activities [19:40] so in showing off Sugar we want to make sure to show off the official Sugar packages [19:40] I would say no... I would say we show off the best possible sugar [19:40] its up to us what we package [19:41] but thats why I want u to look at suse sugar [19:41] so u get an idea of what is packagable [19:41] but in the case of Sugar-on-a-Stick it's a demo'ing thing so you really want to show off the full capabilities [19:41] and from that we can choose what to do [19:41] yeah indeed, I think so too [19:41] but the sugar 'policy' is not that [19:42] well, we can do whatever we want [19:42] the sticking point would be if we wanted our image to be like officially blessed or something [19:42] by whom? [19:42] Sugar Labs or something [19:42] bah, they'd bless it regardless [19:42] ok, well then I don't see much of a problem [19:43] at least they did with opensuse, where that offering is currently considered to be the best ;-) [19:43] it's kinda like Ubuntu shipping Firefox extensions [19:43] or binary drivers [19:43] except more so in this case I think [19:43] as for sure for a image the usefulness of the image is in having everything there out of the box [19:43] yeah [19:44] actually activities.sugarlabs.org is based on mozilla extensions api [19:44] I need to run [19:44] yep [19:44] ok.. well take a look when u get a chance [19:44] but I think if you maybe could put together a "this is what needs to be done in order to produce a USB image" and send it to the list it'd help get the ball rolling [19:49] LaserJock: you're a ruddy genius!!! it worked!!! [19:49] you should do like a phd or something ;P [20:03] a phd in package management... heh that would actually be quite an interesting position, with some possible job opportuntiies at the end of the line [22:04] does someone know how to fix the WIRELESS WEAK SIGNAL PROBLEM on ubuntu 9.04 [22:04] ? [22:05] no [22:05] compusec, do you mean Ralink problem? [22:05] i got [22:05] a problem with any wireless connection on any laptop that i install ubuntu 9.04 [22:06] i have read that there are a lot of people with this problem, but i haven't found a solution yet [22:07] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/293946 [22:07] Launchpad bug 293946 in linux "realtek rtl8187 weak signal, occasional slow performance" [Undecided,Confirmed] [22:08] a [22:11] yeah, alrealdy readed that, no help at all === nubae1 is now known as Nubae