/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2009/06/18/#ubuntu-motu.txt

=== asac_ is now known as asac
hggdhfolks, there is a binary package called timeout, and it seems the source points to tct, a completely different package. What to do?01:04
hggdh!info timeout01:04
ubottutimeout (source: tct): run a command with a time limit. In component universe, is optional. Version 1.18-2 (jaunty), package size 23 kB, installed size 84 kB01:04
hggdhTCT is The Coroner's Toolkit, has nothing to do with timeout01:05
hggdhbah, forget01:07
=== asac__ is now known as asac
=== dmb_ is now known as dmb
AnAntHello, I have filed a merge request for mutt, also I have submitted the changes to Debian, and the maintainer accepted them and said that they will be in the next debian release of the package04:34
AnAntso, should the debian bugs be attached to the merge request bug ?04:35
AnAntor what ?04:35
nhandlerAnAnt: I normally add a bug watch in the merge request bug04:35
AnAntok04:35
AnAntbut there are two bugs on Debian04:41
AnAntsince there are two changes now04:41
ScottKIt's not critical about linking bugs for a merge.04:41
AnAntok04:41
AnAntthanks04:42
nhandlerVery true. I like to do it mainly to make it easier for me to see what patches got forwarded upstream for a merge04:42
ScottKPersonally I think it's pretty pointless and I wouldn't worry about it.04:42
nhandlerIt is just something for organizational purposes04:43
AnAntok, thanks04:47
dholbachgood morning06:32
nelleryhi dholbach06:35
dholbachhey nellery!06:36
ajmitchmorning dholbach06:37
dholbachhey ajmitch!06:38
nelleryshould new packages be uploaded the same as packages already in the archive?07:10
dstansbyHi guys, just wondering if anyone can help me with a slight problem I'm having08:56
dstansbyI get this error message when trying to 'apt-get source' anything:08:57
dstansbyCan't locate Dpkg/Vendor.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.10.0 /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.0 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.10 /usr/share/perl/5.10 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/local/bin/dpkg-source line 21.08:57
dstansbyBEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/local/bin/dpkg-source line 21.08:57
dstansbyUnpack command 'dpkg-source -x qemu-launcher_1.7.4-1.dsc' failed.08:57
sorenYikes.08:59
sorenWhich version of Ubuntu are you running?08:59
dstansby9.1008:59
dstansbyIt might be something to do with me patching and installing my own version of dpkg the other day, but I only made changes to .po files.09:00
dstansbyActually come to think of it, I might have accidentally installed the latest git release from debian :S09:01
sorenYou think? :)09:01
dstansbyYes09:01
dstansbyHow would I replace it with the latest ubuntu release?09:01
soren"sudo apt-get install dpkg/karmic" and hope for the best.09:03
dstansbyHmm, Selected version 1.14.24ubuntu2 (Ubuntu:9.10/karmic) for dpkg09:03
dstansbydpkg is already the newest version.09:03
soren`which dpkg`?09:04
dstansbyWhat do you mean by which dpkg?09:05
sorenRun the command: which dpkg09:05
sorenAnd tell me what it says.09:06
dstansby/usr/local/bin/dpkg09:06
sorenYou're on your own :)09:06
dstansbyWhy, what have I done?09:06
sorenYou've installed a random version of dpkg in /usr/local.09:07
dstansbyWhere should it be installed?09:07
sorenHeh..09:07
sorenThis is going to sound rude, but it really isn't meant to:09:07
sorenIf you don't know the answer to that question, you shouldn't be installing it *at all*.09:08
dstansbyI've heard that kind of phrase several times in the forums09:08
sorenWhy were you installing dpkg from git in the first place?09:09
dstansbyBecause I was patching it for debian09:09
dstansbyI downloaded it, changed some files and then foolishly and accidentally installed it09:10
sorenWell.. Uninstall it somehow.09:10
sorenUntil you do, your (apparantly) broken version is likely to be causing you grief.09:11
dstansbyI presume I'm going to have to chroot from another install/liveCD then09:11
sorenOr change your PATH or use the correct dpkg explicitly (with full path).09:11
dstansbySo where should the correct dpkg be installed to?09:13
sorenI'm getting increasingly curious.. What exactly were you patching in dpkg?09:13
dstansbyI was just correcting a grammatical error.09:14
sorenAh.09:15
dstansbyhttp://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=533171 If you're interested09:15
ubottuDebian bug 533171 in dpkg "Grammar mistake in dpkg" [Minor,Open]09:15
sorenThe "real" dpkg is in /usr/bin/dpkg09:15
soren..but I'm not sure what you need that information for.09:15
ajmitchtaking an axe to /usr/local could be fun09:16
sorensudo mv /usr/local /usr/local.oh.dear.I.shouldnt.have.done.that09:17
sorenftw09:17
dstansbyAt the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, would moving the dpkg files from /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin (thus replacing my broken ones) help at all?09:18
sorenYes, but I really, really recommend removing the one in /usr/local instead.09:18
sorenOtherwise, dpkg updates will not take effect on your system.09:18
soren...because most people have /usr/local before /usr in their $PATH.09:19
sorenWel... /usr/local/bin, and /usr/bin, obviously.09:19
sorenIf dpkg is the only piece of software you've compiled and installed yourself, the above mentioned "sudo mv /usr/local /usr/local.oh.dear.I.shouldnt.have.done.that" would actually fix it for you.09:20
dstansbysoren: Thanks for helping me that fixed it. Sorry for my stupidity, but I'm learning all the time. And I am aware of the risks or fiddling with source and dev releases.09:23
soren*Especially* dpkg. You can really get yourself into trouble messing with dpkg.09:24
dstansbyNow I know :) So am I right in thinking that in moving my version of dpkg to oh.dear. that ubuntu falls back onto the other version that is installed?09:26
sorenYes.09:27
dstansbyGood, and thanks again for your help09:28
StupendoussteveWho is the person to contact to get a build added again when it was previously deleted?09:58
StupendoussteveSpecifically bug 198724 which was marked as fixed but was not, because the previous version was deleted in Hardy and the fixed version was never built later on09:58
ubottuLaunchpad bug 198724 in partimage "[amd64] partimage not synced" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19872409:59
Hobbseethat's a bit odd10:03
=== Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan
maxb!?!??! How on earth is partimage being built in debian *despite* the fact that it is P-a-s-ed?10:05
StupendoussteveWhat is P-a-s, btw?10:05
Hobbseemaxb: is it pas'd in ubuntu only, or both?10:06
HobbseeStupendoussteve: package arch specific - it's a list10:06
StupendoussteveAh10:06
StupendoussteveWell the old version was10:06
maxbIt still seems to be P-a-s-ed in debian git10:07
StupendoussteveThe old, deleted version would segfault when you started it, only worked if you used a static 32 bit. 64 support has been present since 0.6.710:08
Stupendoussteve0.6.6 I believe, actually10:08
Stupendousstevemaxb: As it appears they have no problem with building binaries, is getting P-a-s removed from git something that needs a bug, and would this most likely result in the amd64 version being pulled into Ubuntu?10:15
maxbWell, the procedure is approximately: (1) Figure out what on earth is going on with the current binaries in debian, (2) file a debian bug requesting P-a-s change, (3) ask cjwatson to pull changes and update ubuntu's, (4) it might then be necessary to ask cprov to run queue-builder if there isn't going to be another ubuntu upload soon10:18
Stupendousstevemaxb: Where can I see their list of P-a-s packages?10:30
maxbWell, oftc/#debian-devel can't seem to figure out how partimage/amd64 is present in debian either :-)10:30
Stupendousstevelol I see10:31
maxbStupendoussteve: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-December/027076.html10:31
maxbubuntu's version is here10:33
maxbhttps://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/packages-arch-specific/ubuntu10:33
cjwatsonmaxb: it's not getting autobuilt in Debian (see https://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=&pkg=partimage), so I assume somebody is building it by hand10:43
=== ShadowChild is now known as lukjad007
* cjwatson goes to update Ubuntu's P-a-s while he's thinking about it10:44
cjwatson(done)10:52
cjwatsonStupendoussteve: bugs on Debian P-a-s should go on the 'buildd.debian.org' pseudopackage, BTW10:53
joaopintokklimonda, ping10:53
StupendoussteveI'm double checking with the original reporters to see if they are able to use the one in Debian, then will file one10:54
binarymutantI would appreciate a revu on http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/pidgin-mbpurple if anyone has the time :)11:32
joaopintobinarymutant, why pidgin-mbpurle an not piding-miicroblogging or something else that matchs the software purpose ?11:34
binarymutantjoaopinto, I wanted to stick with the upstream's name11:35
joaopintothe tarball name is not upstream name11:36
joaopintoyou have a pidgin-microblog (.exe)11:37
joaopintoand from "microblog-purple", the microblog word is the most meaninfull, specially if you already have "pidgin" on it11:37
joaopintomeaningful11:38
joaopintoIMHO :)11:38
binarymutantthe dev's refer to it as mbpurple though11:39
joaopintoI alsoo see that there are fedora packages using pidgin-microblog11:39
binarymutantjoaopinto, see http://somsaks.blogspot.com/11:39
joaopintobinarymutant, package names are not for developers, they are for users :)11:39
binarymutantjoaopinto, right but essentially that is like packaging apache as http-server (or something to that effect), would it not?11:40
binarymutantwho am I to change their name?11:42
joaopintook ok :P11:42
juanjeanyone up to review this? -> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/mount-systray  ;-)11:48
juanjeor/and this -> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/backintime :-P11:49
slytherinbinarymutant: can you please point to the upstream url of this software?11:53
binarymutantslytherin, http://code.google.com/p/microblog-purple/11:53
slytherinbinarymutant: the upstream tarball is named mbpurple.11:55
slytherinI gather it is supposed to work with any libpurple based client. If you name it pidgin-mbpurple, it sounds like it will only work with pidgin.11:56
binarymutantI used the pidgin-* naming scheme as defined by the pidgin policy11:58
slytherinbinarymutant: where is the policy? Does it say you should also rename source package? And as I said what if the software if not pidgin specific but works with all libpurple based clients. Would you still keep pidgin in name?11:59
binarymutantslytherin, I found it here http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/collab-maint/deb-maint/pidgin/trunk/debian/README.Debian.dev12:00
slytherinbinarymutant: IMHO, this is not a policy. It is just a guideline doc created pidgin package maintainers in Debian. Further, it does not say that you should rename source package. Source package and binary packages can have different names. And my question about if the package only works with pidgin, still stands.12:03
kklimondajoaopinto: pong12:04
binarymutantslytherin, what would you name it?12:05
slytherinbinarymutant: I would keep source package name same as upstream and make binary package name as close as possible to the binary (or .so) it creates.12:06
=== asac_ is now known as asac
maxbslytherin: Hi. On the matter of those non-ascii characters causing the libjaudiotagger-java FTBFS, turns out it's merely a case of the debian/build.xml failing to declare which character encoding the source files use, which is dangerous if they are non-ASCII. (Well, technically dangerous full stop, but it's a rare system which has a default character set which isn't a superset of ASCII)12:42
slytherinmaxb: I will report all our findings when I file a bug in Debian.12:45
geserslytherin: any idea how we can bootstrap the build of maven-plugin-tools? (it build-depends on itself :( )12:58
slytheringeser: nope. haven't looked at maven packages in long time. You should perhaps ask Debian maintainer.13:01
geserok13:01
geserslytherin: perhaps I try the same trick as doko did with cup (uuencode the Debian deb and use it on the first "build")13:07
slytheringeser: that is nice trick. If it works you will probably need to apply it to few more maven packages13:19
VK7HSEI'm wondering if some kind ubuntu sponsor could please have a look at https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/me-tv/+bug/37970613:23
ubottuLaunchpad bug 379706 in me-tv "Me TV 0.9.3 into Karmic?" [Undecided,Fix committed]13:23
slytherinVK7HSE: why is it marked fix commited?13:39
VK7HSEslytherin: er.. cause I submitted a fix? i can revert if needed..13:39
slytherinVK7HSE: submitted where? You just attached the diff.gz. What you should do is mark the bug confirmed (because you attached .diff.gz), assign it to nobody.13:41
slytherinVK7HSE: also mark importance as wishlist.13:41
Hewvorian, bug 38723113:43
ubottuLaunchpad bug 387231 in revelation "revelation 0.4.11-4ubuntu1 FTBFS" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/38723113:43
* vorian tries again13:44
Hewthanks :-)13:44
VK7HSEslytherin: Ok.. have made changes, unable to set to wishlist it won't allow me ???13:45
slytherinVK7HSE: I will do that for you.13:45
VK7HSEslytherin: Thanks...13:46
vorianhew13:51
vorianI get the same fail on both i386 and amd6413:51
Hewvorian, it works for me locally and works in my PPA..13:52
vorianhttp://paste.ubuntu.com/198516/13:53
Hewthanks13:53
Hewvorian, I'm not sure what's going on there, it looks like a problem with pbuilder dependencies? It doesn't look like the same problem that fails to apply the patch. I used debuild on the source and it was fine. Again, it's fine in the PPA. Any ideas?13:56
ttxgeser: for the xmlbeans package (which also depended on itself) I uploaded it to multiverse (and kept using the oldxmlbean.jar bundled in source)... then fixed it to build-depend on itself... then promoted it to universe.13:57
ttxNot sure that would work for maven-plugin-tools though, since it's more than just a jar, I presume13:59
Hewvorian, I'm not familiar with pbuilder. Is it possible it's a problem with pbuilder itself, rather than the sourcepackage/debdiff?13:59
geseras I'm stuck at another build-dependency from that packages I seem to move it to the future :(13:59
ttxgeser: welcome to hell :)13:59
geserthe hell are the arch:all uploads in Debian :(14:00
Ampelbeinhew, vorian: revelation FTBFS because it depends on python-gdl, which in reverse depends on libgdl-1-0. when you look at https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdl/ you see that the soname and thus package name has changed in gdl, so python-gdl (meaning the source package, gnome-python-extras) has to be rebuilt against the new gdl.14:09
HewAmpelbein, thanks for your help. So, this is a problem with gnome-python-extras, and not with the revelation itself?14:20
AmpelbeinHew: from what i can tell: yes. gnome-python-extras does not build with the new gdl.14:21
=== dholbach_ is now known as dholbach
=== ripps_ is now known as ripps
=== jcfp is now known as Guest12357
=== Guest12357 is now known as jcfp
=== Nafallo_ is now known as Nafallo
bddebianHeya gang15:15
NCommanderhey bddebian15:16
=== ssweeny_ is now known as ssweeny
bddebianHi NCommander15:16
NCommanderbddebian, how goes it?15:16
bddebianNCommander: Same old shite, you?15:17
NCommanderbddebian, I learned a painful lesson in data backup and recovery15:17
bddebianDoh :(15:17
NCommanderWell, the irreplacables are safe15:17
NCommanderBut its still a PITA rebuilding everything else15:18
=== freeflyi1g is now known as freeflying
* mok0 is puzzled: if we are still in auto-sync mode what are all those sync request s doing on the sponsor queue?15:39
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
sorenmok0: If Ubuntu specific patches can be dropped...15:41
mok0soren: yeah but some of them are pure sync requests15:41
sorenmok0: Well, people are nuts.15:42
mok0soren: I guess15:42
Laneymok0: kill them please15:43
Laneythe queue is big enough as it is15:43
mok0Laney: I will15:43
mok0Laney: Queue is shorter now :-)15:48
Laneymok0: good work \o15:49
mok0Laney: of course we still have all those bogus entries at the top that we can't do anything about15:50
Laneypfft, who cares about those main jokers?15:50
mok0Laney: we ought to have an online session one day where we work in common to clean out that queue15:52
LaneyI think we could do with a few weekly "sponsorship days"15:52
Laneymuch like revu days15:52
mok0Laney: Indeed!15:52
mok0Laney: it would be nice to discuss some of the entries, and what to do about them15:53
mok0Laney: we can unsubscribe from the bugs "In Progress"15:56
Laneymok0: Sometimes people forget to change the status though15:57
mok0Laney: what about bug 319327 ?15:58
ubottuLaunchpad bug 319327 in guifications "Update pidgin_guifications to 2.16" [Wishlist,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/31932715:58
Laneythere's a diff there15:58
Laneybut he did change the status after he uploaded it, so a ping could be good15:59
voriansome people don't know to 1) set bug to confirmed and 2) unassign themselves15:59
mok0Laney: You're right15:59
vorianactually, a lot of people15:59
al-maisanHello there, can somebody explain what the '-s' arg for dh_shlibdeps does? It's not explained in the man page..15:59
mok0Laney: I'll ping him15:59
mok0al-maisan: It restricts the action to arch -dep packages, look at man debhelper16:00
LaneyI notice this bug was set to "In Progress" after the patch was attached. Are you ready for it to be reviewed for spnosorship? Please set the bug to 'Confirmed' or 'Triaged' if so.16:00
al-maisanmok0: thanks, will do.16:00
Laneysomething like that16:00
mok0Laney: oh, didn't see your sentence before the fact16:02
Laneyno worries16:02
=== proppy1 is now known as proppy
=== azeem_ is now known as azeem
dholbachcan somebody from motu-sru have a look at  https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/netbook-remix-launcher/+bug/358641 ?16:48
ubottuLaunchpad bug 358641 in netbook-launcher "Incorrect Translation in Spanish Network (ENG)->Red (SPA) ¿?-> Rojo (red colour)" [Undecided,Confirmed]16:48
=== YDdraigGoch is now known as WelshDragon
=== WelshDragon is now known as YDdraigGoch
bin1010howdy all, not sure which ubuntu IRC this should go on...17:16
bin1010I have a package dependency problem....Luckily they are development libraries, so not so bad.  Apparrently when I installed kompozer-dev and later mozilla-dev I have libnss3-dev: Depends: libnspr4-dev but it is not installed, xulrunner-1.9-dev: Depends: libnspr4-dev but it is not installed....If I run apt-get -f install, it tries to install that package, but fails with dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libnspr4-dev_4.7.3-0u17:16
bin1010k. tried sudo aptitude -f remove and sudo dpkg --configure -a and they don't seem to work either17:23
kb9vqfHey, would anyone be up for reviewing a few packages early? :)17:42
kb9vqfHey, would anyone be up for reviewing a few packages "early"? :)18:21
kb9vqfIt's for a rather old bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/2746318:21
ubottuLaunchpad bug 27463 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] Fedora Directory Server for Ubuntu" [Wishlist,In progress]18:21
kb9vqfThe packages are: adminutil, fedora-directory-server, idm-console-framework, jss, ldapjdk, libapache2-mod-nss, libmozilla-ldap-perl, mozilla-ldap-sdk, and svrcore18:22
=== dyfet_ is now known as dyfet
RainCTcan someone from backports please "won't fix" bug #286337 again?19:52
ubottuLaunchpad bug 286337 in hardy-backports "Please backport OpenSSH 5.1 to Hardy" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/28633719:52
siretart`RainCT: that would probably end in status ping-pong. please add a fitting comment first19:53
RainCTsiretart`: I'm on it19:54
* RainCT wonders why there are that many guys doing security audits who don't even know that distributions have something called "security updates" :P19:58
ScottKRainCT: Check my comment first.19:58
* kees wonders the same thing19:58
ScottKkees: It's pretty standard idiocy though.19:58
RainCTScottK: hah! nice comment :)19:58
keesyeah19:59
=== rmcbride_ is now known as rmcbride
=== DrKranz is now known as DktrKranz
ximionCould someone (who has the time ;-)) please look at my Smile-package on REVU? ( http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/smile ) I's waiting there for ca. 5 moths and the last two months I only updated to new upstream releases without changig the package code.20:11
RainCTximion: Have you seen the Warning smile gives you (about the GPL)?20:14
RainCTerr, s/smile/REVU/20:15
ximionYes, I have. The whole project is licensed under GPL, but no license file is included in the original source.20:16
ximionEvery code file of the smile project has a valid header, containing a link to the GPLv2.20:17
ximionSo, I think there's no licensing problem.20:18
ScottKximion: You absolutely MUST include a full copy of the license.20:18
ximionIs it okay if I include a copy of the GPLv2 in the debian directory?20:19
ximionOr must I modify the original source.tar.gz file?20:19
ScottKximion: No.  You need to ask upstream to add it to their tarball (perferred) or alternately repack the orig.tar.gz yourself and document what you did.20:19
ximionDo I need to use the get-orig-source rule, or can I simply include a copy directly to the orig.tar.gz? (I'll write an e-mail to the author, asking for adding the GPLv2)20:21
ScottKSince it should be a one time thing, I think as long as you document what you did and why (IIRC debian/copyright is the place to do it, but it's been a while since I needed to know that) doing it manually should be fine.20:25
RainCTximion: btw, I've given the package a quick review; see my comment on REVU20:35
RainCTScottK: you've got an answer on bug #286337 :)20:36
ubottuLaunchpad bug 286337 in hardy-backports "Please backport OpenSSH 5.1 to Hardy" [Wishlist,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/28633720:36
ScottKRainCT: I've subscribed to the bug now, so I should get any more responses in my inbox.  Thanks.20:39
ximion@RainCT: The license is now upstream, so the problem doesn't exists anymore!20:41
kb9vqfWould anyone care to give Fedora Directory Server a quick review?20:48
kb9vqfThe packages are: adminutil, fedora-directory-server, idm-console-framework, jss, ldapjdk, libapache2-mod-nss, libmozilla-ldap-perl, mozilla-ldap-sdk, and svrcore20:49
kb9vqf:)20:49
ajmitchit's not something that could ever be given a "quick review"20:50
kb9vqfOK, sorry about that.  I am still new to this whole process, and just know that FDS has been requested for quite some time.20:51
kb9vqfSo there's probably not much hope of getting it into Karmic then?20:51
ajmitchit's ok, it's just too big to be given a 5-minute lookever :)20:51
ajmitchno there's still hope if there's someone with enough time20:51
ajmitch& if you have time to fix up any problems that come up20:52
kb9vqfYeah, I should have the time to fix them--I just need to know what they are first ;-)20:52
ajmitchfirst things are getting versioning right, at a glance20:52
ajmitchpackages new to ubuntu generally get a -0ubuntu1 debian version20:52
kb9vqfOK20:53
kb9vqfAnything else glaringly wrong?20:54
ajmitchnot that I can look into in a 30 second glace before I run to work :)20:55
ajmitchespecially when there's a mix of java & perl, each with their own packaging policies20:56
kb9vqfOK :) I'll fix that and reupload by tonight; maybe then someone will have time to look a bit deeper.  Thanks!20:57
ajmitchthings like +Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}, libnss3-1d, libsvrcore0, libmozldap-0d, libsnmp15, libicu38, libdb4.6, libdirsrv0 (= ${binary:Version}), adduser, libmozilla-ldap-perl20:57
ajmitchall those should be picked up by ${shlibs:Depends}20:57
ajmitchnot all, but at least the lib*20:58
kb9vqfOK, and I'll run that change through a build/install just to be sure all the dependecies still work20:58
ajmitchwas this getting put into debian?21:00
kb9vqfajmitch: I'm not a Deian developer, unfortunately21:04
kb9vqfDebian21:04
kb9vqfIt would take some time before I could do that21:04
ajmitchno, but I saw mention of someone else's name throughout a lot of that, who I wondered if you were working with21:05
ScottKajmitch: kb9vqf's perspective on what's easy is probably warped by the fact that he repackaged all of KDE3 for Jaunty.  After that it's all easy.21:06
kb9vqfI took his initial (and apparently abandoned) packaging efforts, and fixed them up quite a bit to even get them to compile, as well as adding new packages for the missing Mozilla libs21:06
kb9vqfScottK: :-)21:06
* kb9vqf wonders what "easy" is...21:07
ajmitchdh 7 debian/rules21:07
* ajmitch also had an (outdated now) set of FDS packages that were missing a reasonable amouunt of the useful stuff21:10
kb9vqfajmitch: Those were probably the old alien-converted RPMs, right?21:11
ajmitchof course not21:11
kb9vqf??21:11
ajmitchthese were packages I was working on21:11
kb9vqfAhh...sorry about that...21:11
kb9vqfThe only thing I saw was the converted RPMs and the Debian attempt I worked off of21:12
kb9vqfthings21:12
* ajmitch had stopped with them after the need for trying out FDS at work sort of disappeared21:12
kb9vqfI always thought FDS and Samba 4 would be a powerful system21:12
kb9vqfHence my interest ;-)21:13
ajmitchyeah, I'd hoped to have the same21:13
ajmitchthough openldap picked up a number of the features which made FDS attractive at the time21:13
kb9vqfThe biggest one is multi-master support, though I can't remember if openldap now has that feature as well21:14
ajmitchI believe it does21:14
ajmitchbeen awhile now, I'd have to check :)21:14
kb9vqfThe other is that the FDS GUI is quite nice for everyday use ;-)21:15
ajmitchassuming you like GUIs, sure :)21:15
ajmitchwhen I was working on the packaging of it, only the core parts had been cut out & converted to an FHS-compliant layout21:16
ajmitchso that's what I was focusing on21:16
kb9vqfBTW it looks like they added multimaster to openldap in 2008 or so, but it is still a bit buggy21:17
ajmitchgiven my background with FDS packages, I probably ought to try & review what you've done when I find time21:18
kb9vqfSure, that'd be great!21:18
kb9vqfYou could poke me when you do have time...21:18
ajmitchI'll try & find time for it in the weekend, must run off to work now21:18
kb9vqfOK; thanks for the help so far!21:18
pingsweptI've written a Python library that I'd like to make easily installable on (at least) Ubuntu, but I'm confused by the different options for Python packaging.21:32
pingsweptDo I want a deb? Or an egg? or is setuptools falling out of favor?21:32
pingsweptOr am I asking in the wrong place?21:33
ScottKpingswept: For Ubuntu you want a debian package.21:34
pingsweptScottK: Thanks. I'll ask Google for the details.21:36
=== sdh is now known as the-old-sdh
ajmitchkb9vqf: quick question, where did you find the initial packaging you started from?21:43
=== nxvl_ is now known as nxvl
=== ivoks_ is now known as ivoks
Laneygeser: you here?22:13
Laneygeser: I think the lp api wrapper has broken requestsync(!)22:14
Laneyhttp://paste2.org/p/27161222:14
geserLaney: yes, I'm here and already encountered this problem today myself22:15
gesergive me a minute to commit my changes22:15
Laneycool22:16
geserLaney: with the two changes I just pushed to trunk you should be able to use requestsync again (at least I was)22:20
Laneygeser: let me try22:20
ScottKYou didn't take away the submit by email option did you?22:21
Laneybug 38921522:22
ubottuLaunchpad bug 389215 in avahi-sharp "Sync avahi-sharp 0.6.19-4 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)." [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/38921522:22
sorenScottK: Why do you prefer e-mail over lp's api?22:22
LaneyScottK: No, that's still there and is still the default22:22
Laneygeser: works, thanks22:22
sorenScottK: I'm just curious.22:22
ScottKsoren: It just works and isn't tied to how fast or slow LP is that day.22:22
ScottKLaney: Great.22:22
sorenScottK: "just works" is a bit of an exaggeration, IMO.22:22
sorenScottK: It depends on a working MTA, doesn't it?22:23
ScottKsoren: In my experience it's been pretty good.22:23
Laneywhat do you think to making LP the default?22:23
ScottKsoren: I generally have one of those, so that's not a problem for me.22:23
sorenScottK: When it comes to working MTA's, you're hardly the average user :)22:23
geserScottK: it was just an small error in the LP API code path that I introduced in my recent commits22:23
ScottKThe LP one may be better for most people, but for me I like the email version.22:23
ScottKsoren: certainly.22:24
Laneywe should probably resolve that manage-credentials bug before switching the default22:25
jacobgtksourcecompletion has a bunch of outdated copyright headers in source, but they are all of the LGPL [version] *or later* type. the overall project is LGPL3+. I've filed an upstream task, but in the event that this doesn't get fixed, is this technically still packagable?22:33
jacobhere's licensecheck and the bug for context: http://is.gd/15CvI22:33
kb9vqfajmitch: http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianFDSPackaging23:08
kb9vqfajmitch: There's not much there to go on, and quite a few items didn't work ( the FDS startup scripts, admin console, etc.)23:09
kb9vqfBut it was a good start ;-)23:09
ajmitchright, because I saw that the previous packager that you said was inactive was posting on the listrrecently23:10
kb9vqfajmitch: Well, maybe I was wrong...I just hadn't seen much progress when I pulled the packaging a couple of months ago.  I can be quite impatient at times! :-)23:18
directhexpfft. men! too impulsive23:20
* kb9vqf forgot to mention the dead giveaway of inactivity...the version numbers on that Wiki page23:21
kb9vqfWe're on 1.2.0 now! :)23:21
ajmitchbecause there's a big rename in progress23:22
ajmitchit's no longer fedora directory server23:22
kb9vqfYeah, but it hasn't reached a release yet23:22
kb9vqfThat is, the current release branding is still 1.2.023:22
kb9vqfThat is, the current release branding is still FDS23:22
ajmitchso it's probably better not to get packages in which will need a major renaming just yet23:22
ajmitchdepends on how long it takes them to rename23:23
kb9vqfAhh...what if I changed the naming to 389-directory-server in the packaging, even though the program branding is still FDS?  Would that suffice or maybe it's just too unstable for inclusion?23:24
ajmitchsuggestion there is to coordinate on the debian mailing list & work in SVN there23:25
kb9vqfWell, maybe I'll leave it in the PPA for now; the Debian approval process looks very lengthy and I probably won't be able to help for a while.23:26
kb9vqfThat is, Debian developer approval23:26
kb9vqfShould I just leave the packages on REVU or should I delete them?23:27
directhexthe problem being you need re-approval when things get renamed23:28
kb9vqfI would try renaming everything now, at 1.2.0, but I don't know if that's a big no-no23:30
ajmitchyou don't need to be a debian developer to work on them in debian23:30
kb9vqfI thought SVN access was restricted to Debian developers, no?23:31
ajmitchno23:31
kb9vqfAhh23:31
* kb9vqf looks over at Debian policies again23:31
ajmitchit's restricted to team members for the project, and you can join the team on alioth.debian.org23:31
ajmitchthis is separate from usual debian policies, though it's a service provided by them23:32
kb9vqfthat explains it23:32
kb9vqfI guess I'll create the upstream (Debian) bug report again as well23:33
kb9vqfThanks for the education!23:33
mrooneyanyone willing to mentor me on creating a ppa of a nautilus branch? I've got the branch running on my machine, I'm just not sure how to combine that branch with the current nautilus packaging23:34
ajmitchkb9vqf: reopen it23:34
ajmitchif there's not an ITP bug open23:34
kb9vqfall those bugs expired--I'll see if I have permissions to re-open or not23:35
ajmitchanyone does23:35
kb9vqfgood23:35
* kb9vqf is completely unfamiliar with Debian's policies, etc.23:35
ajmitchhttp://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386206 is that one I found23:39
ubottuDebian bug 386206 in wnpp "ITP: fedora-directory-server -- An LDAP server designed to manage large" [Wishlist,Closed]23:39

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!