[00:06] <mrooney> lifeless: oh okay, I can't get a diff to generate but, I'll try to find one, I know there is a youtube video I think
[00:06] <mrooney> maybe I need to copy it to an orig.tar.gz first
[03:05] <stochastic> Does anyone have a free minute to REVU either http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/a2jmidid or http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/xwax or http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/xjadeo
[03:16] <stochastic> oh and http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/slv2
[04:22] <kamalnandan> Hi Guys...
[04:25] <kamalnandan> I am learning basic ubuntu packaging and also went thru the basic guide..but this guide makes me download some already existing "tar.gz" using "apt-get source"...and doing this creates some dsc file as well..
[04:25] <kamalnandan> I was able to create a basic pkg using that..
[04:27] <kamalnandan> but I want to do packaging from scratch..say, I have my own "hello world" program, in a file called "hello.cpp", and a makefile that compiles that..
[04:27] <kamalnandan> so how should I go about it?
[04:29] <kamalnandan> BTW...Gurus..I followed the example given on this page..:"https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Basic"
[04:41] <kamalnandan> no response guys??
[04:43] <kklimonda> kamalnandan: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete#Packaging%20from%20Scratch
[04:48] <kamalnandan> kklimonda: thanks for reply..i have gone through this guide...but let me go thru this once again..probably I have missed something..
[05:30] <kamalnandan> a bit off topic..but...whats the difference between a configure.in file and configure.ac file?
[05:35] <kamalnandan> ok..found it, configure.ac is the new name for configure.in
[06:24] <kamalnandan> am writing a configure.in script for the first time for a helloworld program..
[06:25] <kamalnandan> i.e. hello.c
[06:25] <kamalnandan> when i do "autoconf" i get the following error:
[06:26] <kamalnandan> configure.in:2: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
[06:26] <kamalnandan> what does it mean?
[06:27] <kamalnandan> or is there some other channel where i nust put this question?
[06:29] <jmarsden> kamalnandan: This is a build system question not a packaging question.  See http://mij.oltrelinux.com/devel/autoconf-automake/ for one tutorial, and http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_toc.html for a book all about these tools.
[06:30] <jmarsden> Your error probably means you forgot to put an AC_INIT macro invocation near the start of the file ?
[06:32] <kamalnandan> jmarsden: sorry to put this question here..but I have to do packaging..and got to know that it will require configure script too...so learning to write configure script..and thats why this question..
[06:32] <kamalnandan> BTW, I have put AC_INIT macro at the start..
[06:32] <jmarsden> kamalnandan: No, packaging does not require a configu8re script, just some way to build the software.
[06:33] <jmarsden> Any way the original software author chooses that works is fine.
[06:35] <kamalnandan> infact i was going thru the following steps where it mentions that we must have a configure script too..
[06:35] <kamalnandan> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=51003
[06:35] <kamalnandan> though i agree..even a makefile would do..since configure script is just used to generate a makefile..
[06:39] <kamalnandan> however, i believe i must not get distracted and try to learn too many things at a time.:-)..so now I am not going to get into configure script writing and concentrate on packaging only...:-)..its more important to complete the given task at hand..infact, they are already using some cmake utility and have written a file that for cmake that probably works similar to configure..
[06:39] <jmarsden> The forum post you linked to is not at official guide, it just uses an example project that has a configure file.  I do not see it saying "you must have a configure script" anywhere in that forum thread.  You will be better off using the official documentation instead.
[06:39] <jmarsden> Yes, cmake should work fine.
[06:40] <jmarsden> Use whatever the software developers use when they build the software.
[06:40] <kamalnandan> ok..thanks jmarsden..infact, i got distracated and started getting into configure which I was not required to..:-)..
[06:41] <kamalnandan> thanks for your help ..
[06:41] <jmarsden> No problem.
[07:41] <ppzico> Hi, I have a question about packaging. I have a single project having 2 different executables. Another is made with C and the other with Python. Those executables communicate through TCP/IP on localhost.
[07:41] <ppzico> How should I package them?
[07:41] <ppzico> Maybe as multi binary or should I consider having those executables different projects?
[07:42] <ppzico> Just want to know which is the best approach and giving the least hairloss for me..
[07:45] <hyperair> ppzico: you should only split a package if there is something that's very large if unsplit -- i.e. dependency chain, or package size.
[07:45] <hyperair> ppzico: otherwise, don't split it
[07:47] <kamalnandan> if I dont have to use a configure script in my package and have to simply use a makefile what should i remove from the rules file?
[07:48] <kamalnandan> here is the link to the rules script that I am using..
[07:48] <kamalnandan> http://paste.ubuntu.com/243401/
[07:49] <ppzico> hyperair: Do you mean now splitting the project or the binary?
[07:50] <hyperair> binary.
[07:51] <ppzico> hmm, then I might need help how to package a project with both C and Python, since I have found it complicated
[07:51] <ppzico> Could try to think a bit more myself first though, if that is the right approach
[07:53] <ppzico> Is the dh_make still usable for this or should I do packaging the hard way without any autotools?
[08:11] <hyperair> ?
[08:12] <hyperair> dh_make is usable for all cases
[08:12] <hyperair> you just have to customize the debian/* files
[08:12] <hyperair> and remove some template files
[08:15] <ppzico> alright, thanks :) That's good to know that I don't go soloing with some worse techniques
[09:30] <maxb> Do we have a canned reply for "We usually only update packages in the development release. SRUs and backports blah blah blah.... " ?
[09:31] <mrooney> I thought so, did you look in stock responses?
[09:34] <maxb> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses ?   I don't see anything quite applicable.
[09:40] <mrooney> maxb: hm maybe not, I'd certainly link to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates though
[14:35] <kamalnandan> why is it so that when i build a package using "debuild -us -uc", the binary also gets installed?
[14:35] <kamalnandan> i dont want to get it installed, i just want to create the package i.e. .deb file
[14:35] <kamalnandan> i want to get it installed only when i do "dpkg -i <package i.e. .deb file>"
[14:36] <kamalnandan> experts, any idea?
[14:41] <Hobbsee> er, the binary shouldn't be getting installed?
[14:41] <Hobbsee> are you running a hook or something?
[14:53] <kamalnandan> while doing "debuild -us -uc", i just want the *.deb file to be created and not to be installed..
[14:53] <kamalnandan> it must be installed only when i do "dpkg -i <*.deb>"
[14:53] <kamalnandan> folks..any idea about this?
[14:57] <iulian> kamalnandan: Hobbsee already answered.
[14:57] <iulian> 1441.37 <@Hobbsee> er, the binary shouldn't be getting installed?
[14:57] <iulian> 1441.42 <@Hobbsee> are you running a hook or something?
[15:00] <Abd4llA> hi there, any idea what's the difference between /lib/libc.so and /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so ?
[15:02] <kamalnandan> iulian: infact, I had got disconnected for a while..perhaps Hobbsee answered within that time..sorry..
[15:03] <kamalnandan> thanks @Hobbsee for your reply...:-)
[15:03] <Hobbsee> kamalnandan: long ping timeout, with 4 mins ;)
[15:03] <Hobbsee> and you're welcome
[15:03] <kamalnandan> can you plz reply once again..
[15:04] <kamalnandan> yes..thare was some problem...
[15:04] <kamalnandan> because of which network got disconnected..
[15:08] <kamalnandan> @Hobbsee, can you plz copy and paste your last answer...thanks..and also sorry, if i am getting impatient...:)
[15:09] <Hobbsee> kamalnandan: it's what iulian pasted?
[15:10] <kamalnandan> oh..sorry..i thought it was for someone else..
[15:10] <maxb> kamalnandan: debuild does _not_ install what it builds. You *must* have something additional on your system which is doing it
[15:10] <kamalnandan> well..but the binary is getting installed..what could be the problem..
[15:11] <Hobbsee> pebkac, most likely.
[15:11] <Hobbsee> of one form or another
[15:11] <kamalnandan> i have "install" target in my makefile..
[15:11] <kamalnandan> would that be doing this..
[15:11] <kamalnandan> and moreover the deb file doesnt contain the binary..
[15:16] <kamalnandan> I have pasted the contents of my rules script here..
[15:16] <kamalnandan> http://paste.ubuntu.com/243950/
[15:16] <kamalnandan> and this is the makefile
[15:17] <kamalnandan> http://paste.ubuntu.com/243951/
[15:18] <kamalnandan> it would be great, if someone takes a look...thanks..:-)
[15:21] <kamalnandan> i also tried removing the "install" target from my makefile...but in that case "debuild -us -uc" fails..
[15:22] <kamalnandan> however, here is the output of "debuild -us -uc", after removing "install" target from my makefile..
[15:28] <kamalnandan> no response guys???
[15:28] <debfx> is revu only for universe packages (but not multiverse)?
[15:28] <pochu> debfx: multiverse is fine too AFAIK
[15:32] <debfx> pochu: ah ok, the wiki only mentions universe
[15:34] <maxb> 'main' and 'universe' are sometimes meant in ways which include their less-free counterparts - e.g. there's no separate sponsors teams for restricted and multiverse
[15:35] <maxb> kamalnandan: erm...
[15:35] <maxb> install:
[15:35] <maxb> 	cp ${TARGET} /usr/local/bin/
[15:35] <maxb> The problem should be obvious
[15:36] <kamalnandan> maxb: thanks for your response...:-)..
[15:37] <kamalnandan> but when i remove the install targe, i get this error
[15:37] <kamalnandan> http://paste.ubuntu.com/243958/
[15:38] <kamalnandan> moreover, even if install target is there in the makefile, one doesnt expect the binary to be installed while building..
[15:38] <kamalnandan> it must be installed only when one installs it using something like "dpkg -i <*.deb>"
[15:39] <kamalnandan> maxb: am i right?
[15:39] <maxb> One expects commands to do what you tell them to do. You told cp to put the binary in /usr/local/bin/, so that's what it did
[15:40] <maxb> You really shouldn't run builds as root, by the way, for exactly this sort of reason
[15:41] <kamalnandan> but, the install target has to be executed while installing the package..isnt it? and not when I am building the package..
[15:41] <kamalnandan> maxb: sorry..I am new to packaging..
[15:42] <maxb> kamalnandan: Your rules file includes the DESTDIR variable in the "make install" command. This is not a feature of make, it is a convention for how people write makefiles. Your install target does not pay attention to the DESTDIR variable.
[15:45] <mzz> how do I get sbuild to produce a .ddeb file (or at least I think that'd be preferable for debugging this)? Alternatively: how do I get it to not strip binaries?
[15:46] <kamalnandan> maxb: thanks..perhaps I am getting it now..let me try fixing that..
[15:46] <kamalnandan> maxb: BTW, why doesnt the deb file contain the binary?
[15:47] <maxb> Because your install target malfunctioned and put it into the system root, rather than the package staging directory
[15:48] <kamalnandan> oh..ok..so install target should be copying the binary in the $DESTDIR directory...am i right?
[15:49] <kamalnandan> sorry..am a novice in packaging..thats why asking so many questions..
[15:58] <kamalnandan> maxb: now i can see that the binary gets included in the .deb file..thanks for you help..
[15:58] <kamalnandan> and when I do dpkg -i <deb file>..then it gets installed too..
[15:59] <kamalnandan> but I am wondering where the binary got installed..i mean in which directory..
[16:01] <kamalnandan> ok..it got installed in the "/" folder..which i think is not a good idea..i will need to install somewhwere else..
[16:01] <kamalnandan> but getting it now..
[16:05] <kamalnandan> what is the best location to install a binary? /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin?
[16:06] <geser> for a package: /usr/bin, /usr/local is out of package space, it's for local installations
[16:07] <kamalnandan> geser: thanks for response...:-)..
[16:07] <kamalnandan> so, i need to create this dir /usr/bin inside debain folder ...right(when I am making a package)??
[16:16] <geser> yes
[16:18] <StevenK> kamalnandan: man dh_installdirs
[16:26] <kamalnandan> geser: thanks
[16:27] <kamalnandan> StevenK: OK..let me have a look in the man page..
[18:30] <douwei> I am having trouble with compiz and the animation add-ins....it is installed and I can go to preferences and they look to be checked but they are not working
[18:31] <douwei> anyone there?
[18:31] <iulian> douwei: Please join #ubuntu for support.
[18:32] <douwei> oops sorry
[18:35] <ximion> Could someone recheck the http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/libqtintf4 package? I think it's fine now. I added the missing README file also. (With instructions to change the version in rules for on new upstream versions)
[19:04] <alefteris> how can i use the config file with pbuilder, i tryed with no luck: sudo pbuilder build ./opensc_0.11.4-5ubuntu1.dsc --configfile /home/thanos/dev/packaging/pbuilderrc-jaunty
[19:09] <jbernard__> what is the best way to handle package versioning when upstream employs a "-r3", "-r4", "-r5" scheme?
[19:16] <alefteris> nevermind
[19:19] <ximion> jbernard: I would suggest appname-1.05.4.6r3
[19:20] <ximion> simply add the letter and the number without -
[19:20] <jbernard__> what if there is no digit before the 'r'?
[19:20] <ximion> but maybe there exists a fixed naming-standard?
[19:20] <jbernard__> upstream is releasing <package-name>-r5, for in instance
[19:21] <ximion> jbernard: What is the exact version of the application?
[19:21] <jbernard__> "r5" ;)
[19:21] <jbernard__> i would assume
[19:21] <ximion> only this?
[19:21] <jbernard__> the previous release was "r4"
[19:21] <jbernard__> yep
[19:21] <jbernard__> kinda weird
[19:22] <ximion> what is the name of the application?
[19:22] <jbernard__> lua-iconv
[19:22] <ximion> (I've never seen this strange release naming!)
[19:22] <jbernard__> http://luaforge.net/projects/lua-iconv/
[19:22] <jbernard__> i haven't either
[19:23] <jbernard__> dh-make gets really upset
[19:23] <jbernard__> and i would assume other tools will have issues as well
[19:25] <ximion> They named it 0.r5
[19:25] <jbernard__> where did you get the '0' from?
[19:25] <jbernard__> they only did the '0' for "r3", from what i can tell
[19:25] <ximion> The project provides DEB packages.
[19:26] <ximion> The version of those packages is 0.r5 ;-)
[19:26] <jbernard__> I see no '0' for the r5 release
[19:27] <jbernard__> they distributed a deb for "r3", but it needs work
[19:28] <ximion> okay, they named it 0.r3, so you can name your package version 0.r5, I think this is o.k.
[19:31] <jbernard__> cool, thanks
[20:21] <mrooney> if I am working on a manpage, what is the easiest way to preview it?
[20:23] <nellery> mrooney: man ./<manpage>
[20:24] <mrooney> nellery: haha wow, how silly of me, thanks!
[20:24] <nellery> mrooney: no problem
[20:24] <mrooney> maybe that is too simple for the internet to solve, all I could find was creating a postscript file from it :)