[00:33] <bdrung_> does someone have time to sponsor the merge request in bug #383307? audacious was sponsored, but without the audacious-plugins it is useless.
[00:56] <binarymutant> still no revu ;(
[01:02] <directhex> 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] <binarymutant> does anyone know if the hashlib module for python errors silently or if it will print any problems?
[01:08] <directhex> Ng, has your "curiosity" about certain IRC channels been fulfilled?
[01:10] <james_w> nellery: congratulations
[01:10] <nellery> james_w: thank you :)
[01:11] <james_w> sorry I didn't leave a comment on your application, I wasn't expecting the meeting to be so soon
[01:12] <nellery> james_w: no problem at all
[01:16] <directhex> congratulations? nellery is the new BDFL?
[01:33] <nellery> could a u-u-s admin add me to the team?
[01:55] <ajmitch> nellery: I guess I can remove my copy of things I was looking at sponsoring for you :)
[01:56] <ajmitch> & welcome to the MOTU team
[01:56] <nellery> ajmitch: thanks :)
[01:57] <directhex> i for one welcome our new nellery overlords
[01:58] <nellery> hehe thanks directhex
[01:58] <ajmitch> directhex: get him hooked on mono drugs!
[03:50] <vorian> any java experts awake?
[04:01] <nellery> directhex: did you see linuxhaters reply to your mono post?
[05:12] <jmarsden> 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] <jmarsden> at it will show up in Add/Remove Programs?
[05:16] <j-dizzle> d'oh. stupid dput.cf
[05:32] <StevenK> jmarsden: Did you update in Add/Remove Programs? If so, perhaps the mirror your using is out of date.
[05:33] <jmarsden> 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] <jmarsden> Also, does Add/Remove programs use a different pacakge database than apt-get ??
[05:36] <jmarsden> Same issue with xiphos, another package recently synced into Karmic... it is visible to apt-get but not to Add/Remove Programs.
[05:40] <StevenK> jmarsden: That's odd.
[05:41] <StevenK> jmarsden: I'm not sure if it uses a different database to apt
[05:42] <jmarsden> OK, thanks.  I usually just use apt-get from the shell; I'll look at what Add/Remove Programs really does :)
[06:04] <Hew> 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] <Hew> -extras should have been dropped in the version Ubuntu has now, according to the Debian changelog and debian bug 485298
[06:06] <Hew> and -desktop seems to be an Ubuntu change that has been around for years, but I'm not sure why
[06:08] <fabrice_sp> Hew, in the changelog: depend on python-gnome2-desktop (>= 2.15.0) to be able to import
[06:08] <fabrice_sp>         gnomeapplet.Applet
[06:09] <fabrice_sp> in version 0.4.7-4ubuntu1
[06:09] <fabrice_sp> when looking for why a change has been done, the changelog is your friend :-)
[06:10] <Hew> 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] <Hew> perhaps the gnomeapplet.Applet change no longer applies, and the dependency is just leftover?
[06:11] <lifeless> Hew: just test it - remove python-gnome2-desktop and check it still works
[06:11] <lifeless> Hew: what makes you think gnomeapplet.Applet is a change?
[06:11] <fabrice_sp> Debian bug #377362 is mentioned. Did you had a look? (just ot see what's failing)
[06:11] <fabrice_sp> a FTBFS, so lifeless is right: drop the dependecy, and build it
[06:12] <fabrice_sp> s/dependecy/dependency/
[06:12] <lifeless> [and run it after building, to be sure]
[06:12] <fabrice_sp> right :-D
[06:12] <Hew> thanks fabrice_sp, lifeless, will do :-)
[06:13] <fabrice_sp> ;-)
[06:15] <Hew> 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
[06:16] <fabrice_sp> Hew, it's a build dependency?
[06:16] <fabrice_sp> if so, the same as before
[06:16] <fabrice_sp> yeah: the bug you mention speak about a FTBFS, so the same as before
[06:17] <Hew> fabrice_sp: it's a normal Depends, but I'm not sure why it's there in the current Ubuntu version
[06:18] <Hew> the -4 changelog says it was removed in -3.1, which Ubuntu already has
[06:18] <fabrice_sp> wrong merge, perhaps?
[06:18] <Hew> yea I dunno, I'll just drop it and see what happens :-)
[06:28] <fabrice_sp> 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] <lifeless> Once you have it fixed in karmic, nominate for jaunty and do the sru process
[06:32] <lifeless> I wouldn't close the bug report without starting the SRU process otherwise it could get lost
[06:33] <fabrice_sp> ok. I'll nominate it for Jaunty, then, before attaching my debdiff
[07:06] <fabrice_sp> wouah: in Karmic, we still have 57 packages that rdepends on python2.5
[07:07] <fabrice_sp> (just found 2 looking at ttp://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ )
[08:31] <wlx> Is there any problem with revu.ubuntuwire.org? I can not visit the site.
[08:50] <popey> directhex: fun?! :)
[08:51] <popey> 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] <AnAnt> is that about uupc ?
[08:52] <AnAnt> oh, you're Alan
[09:30] <AnAnt> Hello, I'm maintaining fsplib
[09:30] <AnAnt> and upstream used to support two build systems: autoconf & scons
[09:30] <AnAnt> now he released a version that removes autoconf support
[09:31] <AnAnt> so, should I re-add the autoconf support in debian packaging, or should I use scons ?
[09:31] <AnAnt> the problem with scons so far is that I cannot build shared libs with it
[09:31] <AnAnt> only static lib
[09:31] <AnAnt> seems that upstream didn't add necessary config options in the scons config files for shared libs
[09:33] <jmarsden> AnAnt: Probably better to patch the scons config stuff and feed that patch back upstream
[09:33] <AnAnt> ok, I hope I know how to do that
[09:34] <jmarsden> If not, you can enjoy learning more about it :) :)
[09:36] <jmarsden> 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] <AnAnt> ok, I was able to add shared library support easily
[09:45] <AnAnt> the problem is that it build libfsp.so instead of building libfsp.so.0.0.0 then symlinking libfsp.so to it
[09:59] <loic-m> 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] <azeem> loic-m: packages.ubuntu.com has copyright files extracted
[10:01] <loic-m> azeem: yeah, it just happen my internet is slow at the moment
[10:02] <loic-m> and my computer slows to a crawl too, so the web browser is more than slugish
[10:02] <azeem> I don't think there is another way
[10:03] <azeem> maybe some have package tags with the license, not sure
[10:03] <AnAnt> does a shared library have to be in this form: lib<name>.so.<number> ?
[10:03] <AnAnt> with a lib<name>.so symlink'ed to it ?
[10:04] <Madkiss> good morning folks
[10:04] <Laney> loic-m: look in /usr/share/doc/package
[10:06] <azeem> AnAnt: basically
[10:07] <azeem> note that the lib<name>.so goes into the -dev package
[10:09] <AnAnt> ok
[10:13] <loic-m> azeem, Laney, thanks
[10:30] <AnAnt> thanks, fixed it
[10:49] <AnAnt> *.la are static libs right ?
[10:51] <Madkiss> yes
[10:52] <Madkiss> ("file" on the file will tell you :))
[10:52] <lifeless> actually
[10:52] <lifeless> .la are libtool medatafiles
[10:52] <lifeless> *metadata*
[10:53] <lifeless> they can reference static or dynamic libraries, or even both
[10:53] <Madkiss> oops.
[10:53] <AnAnt> are they necessary in a library package file ?
[10:54] <Madkiss> they go to the -dev-package
[10:54] <lifeless> I think the overall consensus is to not package them
[10:54] <AnAnt> ok
[10:54] <lifeless> because often on linux they are more a problem than anything else
[10:54] <lifeless> if there is no package-config file though, a .la can be essential.
[10:54] <AnAnt> oh
[10:54] <AnAnt> how can I create that .la file?
[10:54] <Madkiss> lifeless: So this is one of the major differences betweendebian and ubuntu?
[10:55] <lifeless> if one isn't being made, the library doesn't use libtool and you definitely don't want a .la file
[10:55] <lifeless> Madkiss: no, no difference here.
[10:55] <lifeless> Madkiss: its not locked in stone in Ubuntu or Debian, and opinions still vary. There are upstream[libtool] bugs about this.
[10:56] <AnAnt> lifeless: the problem is that upstream switched from autoconf to scons
[10:56] <AnAnt> lifeless: previously .la was built, but with scons, I dunno how to build that
[10:56] <Madkiss> lifeless: I could have sworn the policy manual says something about it
[10:57] <Madkiss> lifeless: but obviously you are right. nevermind, then :)
[11:45] <directhex> popey, well, "fun". it's nice to feel vindicated!
[18:40] <AnAnt> Hello
[19:05] <nellery> any u-u-s admins around?
[20:31] <AnAnt> Hello, is there a DD here ?'
[20:34] <jpds> AnAnt: Some, but you're better off just asking your question and people will help if they can.
[20:34] <AnAnt> jpds: looking for someone to sponsor an updated package I've done for Debian
[20:35] <jpds> AnAnt: So, try asking #debian-mentors on OFTC.
[20:36] <AnAnt> ok
[20:47] <binarymutant> anyone know when revu will be back online?
[21:31] <geser> binarymutant: probably not before Monday when siretart gets time to look at it
[21:32] <binarymutant> thanks for filling me in geser :)
[22:00] <ebroder> Any motu-sru types around? I'm looking for advice on bug #371581
[22:03] <xnox> Any motu wants to sponsor a small fix in karmic? bug #386138
[23:36] <xnox> ls
[23:39] <directhex> Desktop Documents PDF Photos Pictures Podcasts Projects Public Templates Videos
[23:40]  * ebroder wonders how well that scales...
[23:40] <ebroder> sudo cat /etc/shadow :-P
[23:40] <azeem> directhex: I bet you realized after "Podcasts" in which channel you are and that the CoC applies
[23:42] <directhex> azeem, "Photos", duh!
[23:44] <azeem> Photos is before Podcasts
[23:44] <azeem> anyway, let's move on
[23:44] <directhex> so, how about that weather, huh?