[01:00] <RoAkSoAx> vorian, ping
[02:15] <stochastic> anyone feel like helping me troubleshoot this package build error from pbuilder: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/218445/  I have both libboost-dev and libboost_thread-dev installed but it looks like it can't find them
[02:17] <bddebian> stochastic: You need to make it use libboot_thread-mt if you are using the newest boost libs
[02:17] <stochastic> bddebian, okay I'll hunt that down.  thanks.
[02:18] <bddebian> NP, just wherever it is linking use -lboost_thread-mt
[02:22] <binarymutant> I've got a normal 'dh $@' package, but for some reason it can't copy to debian/<package> . Why is this happening?
[02:23] <pochu> what do you mean with "can't copy"?
[02:25] <binarymutant> pochu, erm not copy but it can't build into debian/<packagename>
[02:25] <binarymutant> pochu, dh_auto_install: command returned error code 512
[02:27] <pochu> well, that alone is not very helpful
[02:27] <pochu> how about a pastebin with more context?
[02:28] <pochu> how many binary packages your package builds?
[02:28] <binarymutant> pochu, just 1
[02:29] <directhe`> if it only builds one, wouldn't it not use debian/packagename? isn't that reserved for foo.install (rather than just install) situations?
[02:30] <pochu> directhe`: if it only builds one, debhelper defaults to debian/<packagename> rather than debian/tmp, which is used when there are more than one
[02:30] <RoAkSoAx> can anyone please review/advocate: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gnome-gmail-notifier http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/lekhonee  thank you :)
[02:30] <binarymutant> pochu, http://paste.ubuntu.com/218457/ if this helps
[02:30] <bddebian> Maybe it doesn't support DESTDIR?
[02:32] <binarymutant> bddebian, I think it does
[02:33] <binarymutant> this is my Makefile http://paste.ubuntu.com/218463/
[02:35] <pochu> binarymutant: did you create usr/lib first?
[02:36] <pochu> it seems you didn't
[02:38] <directhe`> dirs?
[02:43] <binarymutant> awesome thanks everyone :)
[02:49] <stochastic> I'm trying to build a deb for this software that builds but doesn't install system wide (i.e. it just creates an executable in the local build file)  How do I make the deb install it system wide?
[02:56] <TheMuso> stochastic: If there are no commands in a makefile etc to install the binary, you just ahve to copy the binary into place.
[02:57] <stochastic> TheMuso, in a deb that would be done by "cp name /usr/bin/name" in debian/rules?  or is it more/less complex than that?
[02:57] <TheMuso> Thats what you would have to do, yes.
[02:58] <TheMuso> If you are using cdbs however, you have to do it a different way.
[02:58] <stochastic> cdbs?
[02:59] <stochastic> I just did dh_make to get the basic deb started
[03:00] <a|wen> stochastic: look at dh_install
[03:07] <TheMuso> stochastic: ok then you just copy the file.
[03:08] <TheMuso> a|wen: Thats really only useful if there are many many files to copy. If there is only one file, then its probably pointless using it.
[03:08] <TheMuso> stochastic: Mind you, using dh_install would be useful if there is ever likely to be more files that need to be put into place.
[03:09] <a|wen> TheMuso: dh_install and then just point to the single file in rules works well ... i'd say use dh_install always
[03:11] <stochastic> TheMuso, a|wen, but whichever method I use, the correct path should be /usr/bin/name
[03:11] <TheMuso> a|wen: Right, but I always think that if you use dh_install, its much better to use debian/$packagename.install files.
[03:11] <TheMuso> stochastic: right
[03:11] <vorian> RoAkSoAx: yo
[03:12] <a|wen> TheMuso: with multiple files it is ... if we are talking one file, i would just use it in rules
[03:12] <vorian> rules shmules
[03:12] <vorian> who needs em
[03:12] <stochastic> a|wen, TheMuso, thanks.
[03:13] <a|wen> vorian: you almost get your wish ... getting close to doing without the file with dh7 ;)
[03:14] <TheMuso> a|wen: Yes but using install files from the get go allows for much less work when more files need to be copied.
[03:14] <a|wen> TheMuso: true ... but using cp in rules instead of dh_install doesn't help on that :)
[03:15] <TheMuso> Yeah I know. So use whatever you wish stochastic.
[03:30] <stochastic> TheMuso, when I try to use "cp name /usr/bin/name" I get a "Cannot create /usr/bin/name: Permission Denied" error while building.  Here's the full build output if that helps: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/29030820/buildlog_ubuntu-jaunty-i386.xwax_0.5-0ubuntu1~ppa~jaunty3_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[03:30] <stochastic> is that because it's using cdbs?
[03:31] <stochastic> a|wen ^ (looks like TheMuso just left)
[03:34] <a|wen> stochastic: it is not located in /usr/bin/name when building, but in (build-dir)/debian/name-of-package/usr/bin/name
[03:34] <a|wen> stochastic: dh_install takes care of all that automatic ... another reason for using that over cp
[03:35] <stochastic> a|wen, if I use dh_install how do I format the specification of which file to move?
[03:36] <stochastic> is it just like "dh_install name /usr/bin/name"
[03:36] <a|wen> that should work
[03:36] <a|wen> or "dh_install name usr/bin/"
[03:43] <RoAkSoAx> vorian, heya hwo's it going?
[03:58] <a|wen> stochastic: have to go now ... if you haven't got it working, just speak up in here; there is probably some other people who can help out
[04:50] <AnAnt> Hello, is CC-BY-ND a non-free license ?
[04:50] <AnAnt> Attribution-No Derivative
[04:51] <evanrmurphy> pochu: I was asking about the virtual machine so I could try and fix my first bug, I'm a prospective MOTU. Is this really the wrong channel?
[04:51] <RAOF> Sounds non-free to me.
[04:51] <RAOF> Also, CC licenses are crap.
[04:51] <evanrmurphy> Thanks for the help though, I'll try #ubuntu-server.
[04:51] <RAOF> They point towards this totally vague and incomplete motherhood license.
[04:52] <ScottK> RAOF: One of the reasons a package has to include a full copy of the license in the tarball.
[04:54] <RAOF> AnAnt: ND is definitely going to make it non-free; we're unable to alter it.
[04:54] <ScottK> AnAnt: Absolutely what RAOF said.
[04:54] <AnAnt> ok
[04:55] <RoAkSoAx> evanrmurphy, what do you wanna do?
[04:58] <evanrmurphy> RoAkSoAx: I was trying to decide whether to set up KVM or VirtualBox to run a VM of a different Ubuntu release. I noticed that KVM seemed to be preferred for various reasons, but that it always comes with the warning of needing a processor with VT extensions.
[04:59] <RoAkSoAx> evanrmurphy, I'm running KVM in a non VT processor and works fine but kinda slow
[05:00] <jmarsden> evanrmurphy: I use VirtualBox for the same reason... no VT here... so it seems different folks take different approaches to this :)
[05:01] <evanrmurphy> RoAkSoAx: Ah, that's good to know. Do you remember choosing between running paravirtualization and full virtualization (or something like that)?
[05:02] <evanrmurphy> jmarsden: I appreciate the response, glad I'm not the only one. :)
[05:02] <RoAkSoAx> evanrmurphy, I actually don't remember :) sorry :(
[05:02] <evanrmurphy> RoAkSoAx: Don't worry about it. Thanks all for the help! (Off to bed.)
[05:03] <AnAnt> how about CC-BY ?
[05:04] <AnAnt> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
[05:04] <AnAnt> Attribution
[05:04] <RAOF> AnAnt: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
[05:05] <AnAnt> RAOF: thank !
[05:05] <AnAnt> RAOF: thanks !
[05:05] <RoAkSoAx> evanrmurphy, night :)
[05:07] <RAOF> AnAnt: Note the bit under the "CC-BY-SA 2.5 is DFSG incompatible" has a statement that the ftpmasters are OK with CC-BY-SA 3.0
[05:07] <AnAnt> RAOF: and CC-BY 3.0 too
[05:08] <AnAnt> Ftpmasters have already accepted CC-by and CC-by-sa 3.0
[05:08] <RAOF> Right.
[05:09] <AnAnt> thanks for that wiki link
[05:12] <porthose>  nhandler: would you please have a look at bug 389654 when you have time and leave a comment
[05:13] <nhandler> porthose: Yeah, although it might need to wait until tomorrow, I'm heading to bed soon
[05:14] <porthose> nhandler: works for me gnight
[06:04] <fabrice_sp> good morning! While merging a package (pilot-link), I've found a .udev file in debian directory, but it doesn't seems to be installed in any package. What is it for?
[06:20] <fabrice_sp> other question: what should I do if the changelog's entries for Ubuntu has been lost in previous merge? Should I restore them or respect the previous merger choice (pitti)?
[06:27] <btm> Is there a way to tell why ganglia-monitor wasn't auto-synced into karmic before DIF? (Bug #302640)
[06:28] <wgrant> btm: We don't sync from experimental by default.
[06:28] <btm> wgrant: it's in testing now actually.
[06:28] <btm> wgrant: although the date of that change may have something to do with that.
[06:29] <btm> wgrant: it was just in experimental six months ago when I opened that bug.
[06:29] <wgrant> btm: You mean the 'ganglia' source, not 'ganglia-monitor-core'?
[06:30] <wgrant> It entered unstable a day under two weeks ago.
[06:30] <wgrant> After DIF.
[06:30] <btm> word, yeah, that makes sense.
[06:31] <micahg> IS the perl artistic license compatible with Ubuntu?
[06:31] <lifeless> I believe we have lots of perl code under said licence in Ubuntu already
[06:32] <btm> wgrant: so I should track someone down who'll issue an FFE?
[06:33] <wgrant> micahg: The Perl license isn't really a license of its own, IIRC.
[06:33] <wgrant> But Artistic License 1.0 and 2.0 are DFSG-free.
[06:34] <wgrant> btm: No - you just have to request a sync.
[06:34] <wgrant> btm: DIF is just when automatic imports stop. No exception is needed until FF.
[06:36] <btm> wgrant: got it. i'll edit that bug
[06:38] <stochastic> Hey everyone, I've found a tutorial that walked me through writing my first man page for this package I'm working on, but now I'm wondering if there's any adjustment to debian/rules that's needed to make sure the binaryName.1 files are installed to the right place?
[06:41] <porthose>      stochastic: dh_installman, if using dh 7 should be automatic
[06:42] <stochastic> porthose, and as long as the binaryName.1 files are inside the debian/ subdirectory everything will be golden?
[06:42] <porthose> stochastic: yes
[06:47] <porthose> stochastic: you may need to add binaryName.manpages file to the debian dir
[06:48] <stochastic> porthose, do you know of any howto or help page in the wiki that can walk me through this?
[06:48] <porthose1> have a look at man dh_installman
[06:54] <stochastic> Does anyone want to do a revu of http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/a2jmidid ?  The latest update fixes all the issues fabrice_sp had touched on last time.
[06:59] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, did you test build the package and run lintian on the deb?
[06:59] <stochastic> fabrice_sp, pbuilder is working away right now
[07:00] <stochastic> fabrice_sp, would you like me to upload the latest to my PPA for a more public build/test ground?
[07:02] <fabrice_sp> just run lintian on the resulting deb: that would throw all 'basic' errors. Any reviewer should build the package, anyway, so no need to upload to a ppa
[07:04] <stochastic> fabrice_sp, now lintian is telling me that binary-idep is a required target, but you had told me to delete those targets...
[07:04] <\sh> moins
[07:05] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, hmm, I think I told you you to empty them
[07:05] <fabrice_sp> \sh, moins
[07:05] <stochastic> my misunderstanding
[07:06] <fabrice_sp> statik, before writing my comments, I thought about it, but remember that they should exist :-)
[07:06] <fabrice_sp> You just confirmed me that :-)
[07:06] <fabrice_sp> sorry statik, , not for you
[07:06] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, ^
[07:10] <stochastic> fabrice_sp, lintian is also telling me that there's no manpages for items I have manpages for, and that it doesn't have a copyright file when clearly it does.  Any hints on how to fix these warnings?
[07:14] <fabrice_sp> check that you have dh_installman called, the file <package>.manpages in debian. For copyright, perhaps you miss a dh_installdocs call?
[07:14] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, ^
[07:18] <stochastic> fabrice_sp, you told me to get rid of dh_installdocs because there were no docs to install
[07:19] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, my bad: it installs automatically the copyright file. sorry
[07:19] <fabrice_sp> (checked with man dh_installdocs
[07:20] <stochastic> fabrice_sp, in the <package>.manpages, is it just a listing of the manpages to install or is there further formatting that is needed?
[07:20] <fabrice_sp> this is the proff that I still have a lot ot learn!
[07:20] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, just the list
[07:20] <fabrice_sp> but the full path
[07:20] <fabrice_sp> for example: debian/man/pilot-undelete.1
[07:21] <fabrice_sp> well, the relative path
[07:21] <stochastic> one path per line?
[07:22] <fabrice_sp> yes
[07:22] <fabrice_sp> path + file per line
[07:23] <dholbach> good morning
[07:24] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, actually, of you want to check what this command is doing during the build, you can export DH_VERBOSE=1 at the beginning of your rules file
[07:24] <fabrice_sp> Hey dholbach !
[07:24] <fabrice_sp> stochastic, have to go now, but you can still ask questions here. bye
[07:25] <dholbach> hey fabrice_sp
[07:59] <stochastic> can someone help me get dh_installman to work for me?  it's man page is not helping me and thats all anyone has been able to point me to so far.  I just need to get four simple man pages installed but it's not working.
[08:07] <TheMuso> stochastic: Whats happening exactly?
[08:10] <stochastic> TheMuso, this is the latest error: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/218642/
[08:11] <TheMuso> stochastic: what does a2jmidi.manpages contain
[08:12] <stochastic> TheMuso, the contents of debian/a2jmidid.manpages  http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/218644/
[08:12] <TheMuso> Hrm ok my guess is the manpges themselves are not written properly/malformed.
[08:13] <TheMuso> one or more of them
[08:14] <stochastic> TheMuso, here are the contents of the four manpages: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/218645/
[08:15] <stochastic> ahh, I think I see the last one is missing the .TH header
[08:15] <stochastic> wait, nope, it's there
[08:16] <stochastic> could it be that I'm calling dh_installman improperly?
[11:34] <warp10> If an app works both from terminal and from GUI, what's the best option for the needs: field in debian/menu?
[11:46] <slytherin> warp10: is debian/menu still used?
[11:48] <warp10> slytherin: maybe on some kind of very old machine. In any case, I'm packaging a software for Debian, and a menu file doesn't hurt
[11:48] <slytherin> warp10: what does 'old machine' have to do with it?
[11:50] <warp10> slytherin: I just mean that a tipical machine uses a .desktop files based menu system, and I expect that menu files based ones are more common on machines that are not that recent
[11:53] <slytherin> warp10: Your choice. I wouldn't create menu file if I was packaging from scratch.
[12:07] <therm> could someone have a look at my packages? Would like to have them in karmic:
[12:08] <therm> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/swtcalendar
[12:08] <therm> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/willuhnutil
[12:09] <therm> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/h2database
[12:09] <therm> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/willuhndatasource
[12:37] <hhb> how do i deal with patches that need to modify autotools files (configure.in, Makefile.am etc)?
[12:38] <hhb> do i need to include the resulting changes to "configure" in the patch, or is there a way to trigger regenerating this one via boostrap / autogen.sh ?
[12:45] <Laney> Are the MC going to send a coordinated response to the new application process?
[12:45] <Laney> hhb: There are two common ways - include a patch with the results of rerunning the autotools stuff, or running it at build-time (make sure your clean target works properly if you do this)
[12:47] <hhb> hm, i think i'll try the first option first. thanks.
[12:47] <geser> Laney: I guess will we discuss it today on our weekly MC call
[12:50] <Laney> geser: cool. Might be nice to invite wider comment?
[12:53] <geser> Laney: will mention it, but feel free to comment on your own
[12:54] <Laney> might just do that
[12:59] <didrocks> just a stupid question on revu: the Warnings telling "The GPL is mentionned in debian/copyright, but ... not in source ..." is not a showstopper? (some packages are uploaded without it. I reckon this is because we have the copy in our debian FS). And this is an added check to lintian (lintian file size is 0 and we still see this warning)?
[13:00] <Laney> I thought that upstream were supposed to include a copy of the GPL
[13:01] <didrocks> yes, I think that, but some package are accepted without having it. That's why I wanted to be sure about the policy we have (and I'm surprised that this is not a lintian check)
[13:02] <Laney> ask an archive admin ;)
[13:03] <didrocks> yes, that's a possibility :)
[13:03] <geser> every source package is required to have a verbatim copy of the license text
[13:04] <didrocks> conquently, some packages are wrongly advocated
[13:09] <slytherin> didrocks: No, some packages simply name the license file differently. Or they are located in a sub folder.
[13:10] <slytherin> didrocks: revu checks for presence of LICENSE or COPYING file AFAIK.
[13:11] <didrocks> slytherin: ok, thanks for the update. Are there somewhere listed the additionnal control made by revu compared to lintian?
[13:17] <slytherin> didrocks: You can ask revu hackers, or if you are brave enough check revu code on launchpad.
[13:18] <didrocks> slytherin: I will have a look, thanks :)
[13:26] <_andre> would anyone like to review/recommend the following packages? http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/watchcatd http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/libwcat http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/libapache2-mod-watchcat
[13:27] <_andre> they're lintian/revu clean
[13:28] <_andre> i finally managed to convince my boss to move our servers to ubuntu, and these packages are fundamental for our web servers
[13:28] <_andre> :)
[13:33] <alkisg> Hi, I'm using reprepro to manage a repository, and I'm getting "gpgme gave GPGME error: Bad passphrase". I don't have GUI access to use seahorse, and it seems that I'm unable to get gpg-agent to cooperate with reprepro... Any help?
[13:46] <alkisg> OK, got it :)
[13:50] <RainCT> james_w: I've just uploaded Zeitgeist again, I'd appreciate if you could take a look at it :)
[13:51] <james_w> RainCT: I'll take a look after lunch
[13:51] <RainCT> james_w: Great, thanks.
[13:54] <LarstiQ> what is this Zeitgeist I keep hearing of?
[13:59] <RainCT> LarstiQ: http://bloc.eurion.net/archives/2009/zeitgeist-is-out/ :)
[14:00] <LarstiQ> RainCT: thanks!
[15:01] <slytherin> ttx: ping
[15:02] <ttx> slytherin: pong
[15:02] <slytherin> ttx: pm?
[15:02] <ttx> slytherin: sure
[16:02] <gnomefreak> nn/win 20
[16:17] <DktrKranz> has anyone familiar with intltoor ever happened to see something similar to http://launchpadlibrarian.net/29048481/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.kupfer_0%2Bc3-0ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz?
[16:51] <Laney> dholbach: Need to move my UDW talk to friday, going to be at a conference the rest of that week
[16:51] <Laney> anyone want monday 1800?
[16:52] <dholbach> Laney: are you happy with any of the slots still available?
[16:52] <Laney> Friday's ones are fine
[16:52] <dholbach> Laney: then just move it
[16:52] <dholbach> that's fine
[16:52] <Laney> alright
[16:52] <dholbach> I'll update it in the booklet thingie
[16:53]  * Laney goes cross-eyed at wiki table syntax
[17:24] <cpscotti> Hey.. what means the "Done" queue on lunchpad? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+queue?queue_state=3&queue_text= . Done means accepted by the archive admins? rejected??
[17:30] <Ampelbein> cpscotti: "done" means that processing of the file is finished, i.e. accepted, built and published.
[17:31] <cpscotti> Ampelbein: thanks!
[18:14] <Laibsch1> Hi
[18:14] <Laibsch1> How do I teach pdebuild about karmic until a proper fix is released? -> bug 399830
[19:01] <evanrmurphy> I'm browsing the harvest list because I want to fix my first bug. Would any bug I work on be for the development release, or does it depend? Thank you.
[19:07] <Laibsch> evanrmurphy: Bugs are usually fixed first in the development release (i.e. Karmic right now)
[19:07] <Laibsch> They may later be backported to stable releases
[19:07] <evanrmurphy> Laibsch: Thank you!
[20:40] <therm> Hello @all
[20:41] <therm> is there someone who likes reviewing http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/h2database ?
[20:52] <therm> Sorry that I ask this, but is it really the right way here to get packages in Ubuntu?
[20:55] <directhex> therm, yes. but auditing packages is lengthy and boring work, so you need to rely on someone with the appropriate knowledge to take their free time and spend it reading copyright
[20:58] <directhex> broadly speaking it looks okay, given i have no java skill - but i'd strongly recommend relicensing your debian/ to something else, i.e. the same license as the app itself, to eliminate the big revu warning
[20:59] <therm> directhex: I know that this is much work, but I have feeling that no one really cares about the packages uploaded on revu. I would like to help later when my experience is greater, but for now I am waiting every day that some on gives a comment for my packages so that this might be in karmic
[21:00] <ScottK> therm: The other option is to get it into Debian and then we sync from there.
[21:01] <directhex> therm, there's your comment. due to the licensing of debian/ you now have to worry whether the contents of debian/patches/ which are GPL can be linked against the rest
[21:01] <directhex> which just causes issues
[21:01] <directhex> oh, and the current standards version is 3.8.2
[21:01] <therm> directhex: thank you very much
[21:02] <Laney> therm: the best option IMHO is to find a team in Debian/Ubuntu that cares for the area your package is in
[21:02] <therm> ScottK: I heard of that but never found a website wich is telling the process, like revu for ubuntu
[21:02] <Laney> you are likely to get faster and better reviews then
[21:02] <ScottK> therm: Look at mentors.debian.net
[21:03] <therm> ScottK: thanks I will read it
[21:03] <Laney> I've found that to be an even worse black hole, fwiw
[21:04] <directhex> "talk to the java team" is what Laney is saying
[21:04] <Laney> yes sir
[21:05] <therm> Laney: would like to do that but dont now how^^, the only one I had contact to was https://launchpad.net/~onkarshinde
[21:06] <Laney> therm: google "debian java team" and find an IRC channel or mailing list
[21:06] <Laney> or ubuntu java team
[21:07] <therm> ok thanks
[21:22] <Zhenech> nellery, ping
[22:07] <RoAkSoAx> Hey guys. I'm updating a package. The new version contains hidden folders: ".svn". Should I remove those hidden folders from the source directory and tarball?
[22:07] <sebner> RoAkSoAx: yes and tell upstream
[22:09] <Laney> sebner: you'd remove them from the orig?
[22:09] <RoAkSoAx> sebner, Ok. will do thanks :). What about the debian directory provided by upstream? (It's adding entries to the changelog for Hardy, because they have seen to be doing their tests in a Hardy box)
[22:09] <Laney> urgh
[22:09] <sebner> Laney: sure, you donÄt?
[22:09] <Laney> no I wouldn't repack for that
[22:09] <sebner> Laney: gnah see. Upstream debian folder too
[22:09] <sebner> lovely upstream
[22:10] <RoAkSoAx> sebner, So i should remove upstream debian directory too in this case to not have those changelog entries?
[22:11] <sebner> RoAkSoAx: Upstream *should not* provide a debian directory. That's packagers job
[22:13] <RoAkSoAx> sebner, right. They also provided the debian dir on the previous version. I just don't know how to handle that in this case, because it seems that in the previous version, Debian has removed the debian/ dir to create their own. I'm updating ipvsadm btw
[22:14] <sebner> RoAkSoAx: that's the prefered way. You can do that by implementing a get-orig-source rule in debian/rules but collaborating with debian is the most prefered way :)
[22:15] <RoAkSoAx> sebner, Ok. Will talk to debian maintainer then :). Thanks a lot
[22:17] <sebner> np. let's have fun =)
[22:18] <fabrice_sp> Hi. gpiv is building fine in a clean chroot (using sbuild). Is it possible to relaunch the building of this package?
[22:18] <fabrice_sp> According to http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/, it's failing to build
[22:20] <geser> yes, a "give-back" to the buildds
[22:21] <sebner> geser: \o/
[22:21] <fabrice_sp> and who can do that? Motus or it has to be an archive admin?
[22:22] <geser> anyone who can upload to that component
[22:22] <geser> so MOTUs for universe/multiverse and core-devs for everything
[22:22] <fabrice_sp> ok
[22:23] <geser> fabrice_sp: done
[22:23] <fabrice_sp> as gpiv is in universe, shall I assume you will do it? :-D
[22:23] <fabrice_sp> great! tahnks :-)
[22:25] <fabrice_sp> 6 hours to go for amd64 build, but only 8 minutes for i386 ?!
[22:26] <geser> PPA or main archive?
[22:28] <fabrice_sp> main archive: gpiv
[22:28] <fabrice_sp> by the way: this error is suppose to be fixed ,right? : dpkg: error processing ca-certificates-java (--configure):
[22:29] <geser> yes
[22:29] <fabrice_sp> so could you please force the rebuild of jabsorb package? :-D
[22:29] <geser> hmm, the queue doesn't look that long for both i386 and amd64:
[22:30] <geser> https://edge.launchpad.net/builders/
[22:30] <geser> fabrice_sp: have you checked that it builds not and not fails due to an other reason?
[22:31] <fabrice_sp> good point geser: I'll sbuild it locally before
[22:32] <RainCT> Can someone point me to any docs about package configuration (ie. how to have something show up when dpkg-reconfigure is run)?
[22:41] <fabrice_sp> geser, you were right: it FTBFS because of a missing dependency (it seems to miss package javax.servlet). Will have a look tomorrow. bye
[22:49]  * RainCT tries debconf-doc
[23:34] <kwadronaut> i'm not aware of the right procedures, who to poke etc. basically silc-* in hardy has a security vulnerability, debian old-stable has a version which fixes this issue, there's a bug on launchpad and no action.
[23:34] <kwadronaut> so, what's next?
[23:37] <ScottK> kwadronaut: Make a patch (debdiff preferred) and attach it to the bug.
[23:37] <ScottK> Make sure the ubuntu-security team is subscribed to it and mark it in progress after it has the patch.
[23:39] <kwadronaut> ScottK: pulling from 'upstream' debian is not an option?
[23:40] <Laney> we need a minimal patch to fix the issue
[23:41] <ScottK> kwadronaut: If you look at the diff between the old-stable version that's fixed and the one before that's not fixed you should be well on your way to having a minimal patch.
[23:48] <kwadronaut> ok, thanks for the info