[00:33] does someone have time to sponsor the merge request in bug #383307? audacious was sponsored, but without the audacious-plugins it is useless. [00:33] Launchpad bug 383307 in audacious-plugins "Please merge audacious-plugins 2.0.1-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/383307 [00:56] still no revu ;( [01:02] popey, been having fun on certain IRC channels i see [01:03] * directhex wonders if he's going to be moaned about on the podcast again [01:03] does anyone know if the hashlib module for python errors silently or if it will print any problems? [01:08] Ng, has your "curiosity" about certain IRC channels been fulfilled? [01:10] nellery: congratulations [01:10] james_w: thank you :) [01:11] sorry I didn't leave a comment on your application, I wasn't expecting the meeting to be so soon [01:12] james_w: no problem at all [01:16] congratulations? nellery is the new BDFL? === asac_ is now known as asac [01:33] could a u-u-s admin add me to the team? [01:55] nellery: I guess I can remove my copy of things I was looking at sponsoring for you :) [01:56] & welcome to the MOTU team [01:56] ajmitch: thanks :) [01:57] i for one welcome our new nellery overlords [01:58] hehe thanks directhex [01:58] directhex: get him hooked on mono drugs! [03:50] any java experts awake? [04:01] directhex: did you see linuxhaters reply to your mono post? [05:12] I have a package bibletime 2.0-1 that was synced from Debian into Karmic, rmadison shows it is there... but I just downloaded the Karmic Alpha2 CD and using Add/Remove programs it finds only a much older 1.6.5 package... is this expected behaviour? sudo apt-get -s install bibletime finds bibletime 2.0-1 -- why are the two install tools inconsistent, and does this indicate anything I should change in my package so th [05:12] at it will show up in Add/Remove Programs? [05:16] d'oh. stupid dput.cf [05:32] jmarsden: Did you update in Add/Remove Programs? If so, perhaps the mirror your using is out of date. [05:33] I did, and I'm using whatever the default mirror is... I was deliberately emulating a user who doesn't know how to edit /etc/apt/sources.list :) [05:33] Also, does Add/Remove programs use a different pacakge database than apt-get ?? [05:36] Same issue with xiphos, another package recently synced into Karmic... it is visible to apt-get but not to Add/Remove Programs. [05:40] jmarsden: That's odd. [05:41] jmarsden: I'm not sure if it uses a different database to apt [05:42] OK, thanks. I usually just use apt-get from the shell; I'll look at what Add/Remove Programs really does :) [06:04] Hi MOTUs. I'm having a look at merging revelation, and I'm trying to work out if I can drop dependencies on python-gnome2-extras and python-gnome2-desktop as they are not in the latest Debian version. I've had a look at the Debian and Ubuntu changelogs, but still can't work out what's going on. [06:05] -extras should have been dropped in the version Ubuntu has now, according to the Debian changelog and debian bug 485298 [06:05] Debian bug 485298 in revelation "Useless dependency on python-gnome2-extras" [Unknown,Closed] http://bugs.debian.org/485298 [06:06] and -desktop seems to be an Ubuntu change that has been around for years, but I'm not sure why [06:08] Hew, in the changelog: depend on python-gnome2-desktop (>= 2.15.0) to be able to import [06:08] gnomeapplet.Applet [06:09] in version 0.4.7-4ubuntu1 [06:09] when looking for why a change has been done, the changelog is your friend :-) [06:10] fabrice_sp: Yes I saw that, it's quite old and I'm not sure what that means. gnomeapplet.Applet is no longer mentioned in the recent changelogs, so I'm wondering if the Ubuntu-specific change is still required? [06:11] perhaps the gnomeapplet.Applet change no longer applies, and the dependency is just leftover? [06:11] Hew: just test it - remove python-gnome2-desktop and check it still works [06:11] Hew: what makes you think gnomeapplet.Applet is a change? [06:11] Debian bug #377362 is mentioned. Did you had a look? (just ot see what's failing) [06:11] Debian bug 377362 in revelation "revelation: FTBFS: IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/pygtk/2.0/defs/applet.defs'" [Serious,Closed] http://bugs.debian.org/377362 [06:11] a FTBFS, so lifeless is right: drop the dependecy, and build it [06:12] s/dependecy/dependency/ [06:12] [and run it after building, to be sure] [06:12] right :-D [06:12] thanks fabrice_sp, lifeless, will do :-) [06:13] ;-) [06:15] any ideas about python-gnome2-extras? I'm not sure why it's in revelation 0.4.11-3.1 as debian bug 485298 seems to say it isn't [06:15] Debian bug 485298 in revelation "Useless dependency on python-gnome2-extras" [Unknown,Closed] http://bugs.debian.org/485298 [06:16] Hew, it's a build dependency? [06:16] if so, the same as before [06:16] yeah: the bug you mention speak about a FTBFS, so the same as before [06:17] fabrice_sp: it's a normal Depends, but I'm not sure why it's there in the current Ubuntu version [06:18] the -4 changelog says it was removed in -3.1, which Ubuntu already has [06:18] wrong merge, perhaps? [06:18] yea I dunno, I'll just drop it and see what happens :-) [06:28] I found a bug report in Jaunty that is worth a SRU (a Fail To Install), but is not yet fixed in Karmic. I have a debdif fixing this bug for Karmic and closing this bug report. is it ok? Or should I already create the SRU data? [06:31] Once you have it fixed in karmic, nominate for jaunty and do the sru process [06:32] I wouldn't close the bug report without starting the SRU process otherwise it could get lost [06:33] ok. I'll nominate it for Jaunty, then, before attaching my debdiff [07:06] wouah: in Karmic, we still have 57 packages that rdepends on python2.5 [07:07] (just found 2 looking at ttp://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ ) === mypapit_prob is now known as mypapit [08:31] Is there any problem with revu.ubuntuwire.org? I can not visit the site. [08:50] directhex: fun?! :) [08:51] directhex: I stayed out of that on the podcast because I am not anti-mono and didnt want to get into a lengthy heated debate about it [08:51] is that about uupc ? [08:52] oh, you're Alan [09:30] Hello, I'm maintaining fsplib [09:30] and upstream used to support two build systems: autoconf & scons [09:30] now he released a version that removes autoconf support [09:31] so, should I re-add the autoconf support in debian packaging, or should I use scons ? [09:31] the problem with scons so far is that I cannot build shared libs with it [09:31] only static lib [09:31] seems that upstream didn't add necessary config options in the scons config files for shared libs [09:33] AnAnt: Probably better to patch the scons config stuff and feed that patch back upstream [09:33] ok, I hope I know how to do that [09:34] If not, you can enjoy learning more about it :) :) [09:36] http://www.scons.org/doc/HTML/scons-user/c593.html#AEN641 may help with the basics? (I'm not an scons user, that's from Googling) [09:44] ok, I was able to add shared library support easily [09:45] the problem is that it build libfsp.so instead of building libfsp.so.0.0.0 then symlinking libfsp.so to it [09:59] I need to check if some libraries are GPL2 or GPL2+ - is there any way to do it from command line short of apt-get the source? apt-cache show doesn't give me any license information. [10:00] loic-m: packages.ubuntu.com has copyright files extracted [10:01] azeem: yeah, it just happen my internet is slow at the moment [10:02] and my computer slows to a crawl too, so the web browser is more than slugish [10:02] I don't think there is another way [10:03] maybe some have package tags with the license, not sure [10:03] does a shared library have to be in this form: lib.so. ? [10:03] with a lib.so symlink'ed to it ? [10:04] good morning folks [10:04] loic-m: look in /usr/share/doc/package [10:06] AnAnt: basically [10:07] note that the lib.so goes into the -dev package [10:09] ok [10:13] azeem, Laney, thanks [10:30] thanks, fixed it [10:49] *.la are static libs right ? [10:51] yes [10:52] ("file" on the file will tell you :)) [10:52] actually [10:52] .la are libtool medatafiles [10:52] *metadata* [10:53] they can reference static or dynamic libraries, or even both [10:53] oops. [10:53] are they necessary in a library package file ? [10:54] they go to the -dev-package [10:54] I think the overall consensus is to not package them [10:54] ok [10:54] because often on linux they are more a problem than anything else [10:54] if there is no package-config file though, a .la can be essential. [10:54] oh [10:54] how can I create that .la file? [10:54] lifeless: So this is one of the major differences betweendebian and ubuntu? [10:55] if one isn't being made, the library doesn't use libtool and you definitely don't want a .la file [10:55] Madkiss: no, no difference here. [10:55] Madkiss: its not locked in stone in Ubuntu or Debian, and opinions still vary. There are upstream[libtool] bugs about this. [10:56] lifeless: the problem is that upstream switched from autoconf to scons [10:56] lifeless: previously .la was built, but with scons, I dunno how to build that [10:56] lifeless: I could have sworn the policy manual says something about it [10:57] lifeless: but obviously you are right. nevermind, then :) === goshawk is now known as goshawk_confsl === vuilzak is now known as GrimKo [11:45] popey, well, "fun". it's nice to feel vindicated! === sbasuita_ is now known as sbasuita === sbasuita_ is now known as sbasuita === sbasuita_ is now known as sbasuita === sbasuita_ is now known as sbasuita === cprov is now known as cprov-afk === ejat is now known as e-jat === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === DrKranz is now known as DktrKranz === yofel_ is now known as yofel [18:40] Hello [19:05] any u-u-s admins around? === ejat is now known as e-jat [20:31] Hello, is there a DD here ?' [20:34] AnAnt: Some, but you're better off just asking your question and people will help if they can. [20:34] jpds: looking for someone to sponsor an updated package I've done for Debian [20:35] AnAnt: So, try asking #debian-mentors on OFTC. [20:36] ok [20:47] anyone know when revu will be back online? [21:31] binarymutant: probably not before Monday when siretart gets time to look at it [21:32] thanks for filling me in geser :) [22:00] Any motu-sru types around? I'm looking for advice on bug #371581 [22:00] Launchpad bug 371581 in erlang "erlang-base conflicts with old erlang-doc-html" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/371581 [22:03] Any motu wants to sponsor a small fix in karmic? bug #386138 [22:03] Launchpad bug 386138 in gmsh "FTBFS: Gcc4.4 missing includes classic fail" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/386138 === DBO is now known as MiniReeves === MiniReeves is now known as MiniReeve === MiniReeve is now known as DBO [23:36] ls [23:39] Desktop Documents PDF Photos Pictures Podcasts Projects Public Templates Videos [23:40] * ebroder wonders how well that scales... [23:40] sudo cat /etc/shadow :-P [23:40] directhex: I bet you realized after "Podcasts" in which channel you are and that the CoC applies [23:42] azeem, "Photos", duh! [23:44] Photos is before Podcasts [23:44] anyway, let's move on [23:44] so, how about that weather, huh?