=== asac_ is now known as asac [00:06] 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] maybe I need to copy it to an orig.tar.gz first === tuantub_ is now known as tuantb === tuantb is now known as tuantub [03:05] 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] oh and http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/slv2 [04:22] Hi Guys... [04:25] 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] I was able to create a basic pkg using that.. [04:27] 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] so how should I go about it? [04:29] BTW...Gurus..I followed the example given on this page..:"https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Basic" [04:41] no response guys?? [04:43] kamalnandan: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete#Packaging%20from%20Scratch [04:48] kklimonda: thanks for reply..i have gone through this guide...but let me go thru this once again..probably I have missed something.. === orac__ is now known as p3rror [05:30] a bit off topic..but...whats the difference between a configure.in file and configure.ac file? [05:35] ok..found it, configure.ac is the new name for configure.in [06:24] am writing a configure.in script for the first time for a helloworld program.. [06:25] i.e. hello.c [06:25] when i do "autoconf" i get the following error: [06:26] configure.in:2: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE [06:26] what does it mean? [06:27] or is there some other channel where i nust put this question? [06:29] 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] Your error probably means you forgot to put an AC_INIT macro invocation near the start of the file ? [06:32] 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] BTW, I have put AC_INIT macro at the start.. [06:32] kamalnandan: No, packaging does not require a configu8re script, just some way to build the software. [06:33] Any way the original software author chooses that works is fine. [06:35] infact i was going thru the following steps where it mentions that we must have a configure script too.. [06:35] http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=51003 [06:35] though i agree..even a makefile would do..since configure script is just used to generate a makefile.. [06:39] 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] 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] Yes, cmake should work fine. [06:40] Use whatever the software developers use when they build the software. [06:40] ok..thanks jmarsden..infact, i got distracated and started getting into configure which I was not required to..:-).. [06:41] thanks for your help .. [06:41] No problem. === micahg1 is now known as micahg [07:41] 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] How should I package them? [07:41] Maybe as multi binary or should I consider having those executables different projects? [07:42] Just want to know which is the best approach and giving the least hairloss for me.. [07:45] 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] ppzico: otherwise, don't split it [07:47] 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] here is the link to the rules script that I am using.. [07:48] http://paste.ubuntu.com/243401/ [07:49] hyperair: Do you mean now splitting the project or the binary? [07:50] binary. [07:51] hmm, then I might need help how to package a project with both C and Python, since I have found it complicated [07:51] Could try to think a bit more myself first though, if that is the right approach [07:53] Is the dh_make still usable for this or should I do packaging the hard way without any autotools? [08:11] ? [08:12] dh_make is usable for all cases [08:12] you just have to customize the debian/* files [08:12] and remove some template files [08:15] alright, thanks :) That's good to know that I don't go soloing with some worse techniques [09:30] Do we have a canned reply for "We usually only update packages in the development release. SRUs and backports blah blah blah.... " ? [09:31] I thought so, did you look in stock responses? [09:34] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses ? I don't see anything quite applicable. [09:40] maxb: hm maybe not, I'd certainly link to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates though === yofel_ is now known as yofel === pochu_ is now known as pochu === korn_ is now known as c_korn === orac__ is now known as p3rror [14:35] why is it so that when i build a package using "debuild -us -uc", the binary also gets installed? [14:35] i dont want to get it installed, i just want to create the package i.e. .deb file [14:35] i want to get it installed only when i do "dpkg -i " [14:36] experts, any idea? [14:41] er, the binary shouldn't be getting installed? [14:41] are you running a hook or something? [14:53] while doing "debuild -us -uc", i just want the *.deb file to be created and not to be installed.. [14:53] it must be installed only when i do "dpkg -i <*.deb>" [14:53] folks..any idea about this? [14:57] kamalnandan: Hobbsee already answered. [14:57] 1441.37 <@Hobbsee> er, the binary shouldn't be getting installed? [14:57] 1441.42 <@Hobbsee> are you running a hook or something? [15:00] hi there, any idea what's the difference between /lib/libc.so and /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so ? [15:02] iulian: infact, I had got disconnected for a while..perhaps Hobbsee answered within that time..sorry.. [15:03] thanks @Hobbsee for your reply...:-) [15:03] kamalnandan: long ping timeout, with 4 mins ;) [15:03] and you're welcome [15:03] can you plz reply once again.. [15:04] yes..thare was some problem... [15:04] because of which network got disconnected.. [15:08] @Hobbsee, can you plz copy and paste your last answer...thanks..and also sorry, if i am getting impatient...:) [15:09] kamalnandan: it's what iulian pasted? [15:10] oh..sorry..i thought it was for someone else.. [15:10] kamalnandan: debuild does _not_ install what it builds. You *must* have something additional on your system which is doing it [15:10] well..but the binary is getting installed..what could be the problem.. [15:11] pebkac, most likely. [15:11] of one form or another [15:11] i have "install" target in my makefile.. [15:11] would that be doing this.. [15:11] and moreover the deb file doesnt contain the binary.. [15:16] I have pasted the contents of my rules script here.. [15:16] http://paste.ubuntu.com/243950/ [15:16] and this is the makefile [15:17] http://paste.ubuntu.com/243951/ [15:18] it would be great, if someone takes a look...thanks..:-) [15:21] i also tried removing the "install" target from my makefile...but in that case "debuild -us -uc" fails.. [15:22] however, here is the output of "debuild -us -uc", after removing "install" target from my makefile.. [15:28] no response guys??? [15:28] is revu only for universe packages (but not multiverse)? [15:28] debfx: multiverse is fine too AFAIK [15:32] pochu: ah ok, the wiki only mentions universe [15:34] '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] kamalnandan: erm... [15:35] install: [15:35] cp ${TARGET} /usr/local/bin/ [15:35] The problem should be obvious [15:36] maxb: thanks for your response...:-).. [15:37] but when i remove the install targe, i get this error [15:37] http://paste.ubuntu.com/243958/ [15:38] moreover, even if install target is there in the makefile, one doesnt expect the binary to be installed while building.. [15:38] it must be installed only when one installs it using something like "dpkg -i <*.deb>" [15:39] maxb: am i right? [15:39] 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] You really shouldn't run builds as root, by the way, for exactly this sort of reason [15:41] but, the install target has to be executed while installing the package..isnt it? and not when I am building the package.. [15:41] maxb: sorry..I am new to packaging.. [15:42] 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] 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] maxb: thanks..perhaps I am getting it now..let me try fixing that.. [15:46] maxb: BTW, why doesnt the deb file contain the binary? [15:47] Because your install target malfunctioned and put it into the system root, rather than the package staging directory [15:48] oh..ok..so install target should be copying the binary in the $DESTDIR directory...am i right? [15:49] sorry..am a novice in packaging..thats why asking so many questions.. === cprov is now known as cprov-afk [15:58] maxb: now i can see that the binary gets included in the .deb file..thanks for you help.. [15:58] and when I do dpkg -i ..then it gets installed too.. [15:59] but I am wondering where the binary got installed..i mean in which directory.. [16:01] ok..it got installed in the "/" folder..which i think is not a good idea..i will need to install somewhwere else.. [16:01] but getting it now.. [16:05] what is the best location to install a binary? /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin? [16:06] for a package: /usr/bin, /usr/local is out of package space, it's for local installations [16:07] geser: thanks for response...:-).. [16:07] so, i need to create this dir /usr/bin inside debain folder ...right(when I am making a package)?? [16:16] yes [16:18] kamalnandan: man dh_installdirs [16:26] geser: thanks [16:27] StevenK: OK..let me have a look in the man page.. === micahg1 is now known as micahg === korn_ is now known as c_korn [18:30] 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] anyone there? [18:31] douwei: Please join #ubuntu for support. [18:32] oops sorry [18:35] 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] 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] what is the best way to handle package versioning when upstream employs a "-r3", "-r4", "-r5" scheme? [19:16] nevermind [19:19] jbernard: I would suggest appname-1.05.4.6r3 [19:20] simply add the letter and the number without - [19:20] what if there is no digit before the 'r'? [19:20] but maybe there exists a fixed naming-standard? [19:20] upstream is releasing -r5, for in instance [19:21] jbernard: What is the exact version of the application? [19:21] "r5" ;) [19:21] i would assume [19:21] only this? [19:21] the previous release was "r4" [19:21] yep [19:21] kinda weird [19:22] what is the name of the application? [19:22] lua-iconv [19:22] (I've never seen this strange release naming!) [19:22] http://luaforge.net/projects/lua-iconv/ [19:22] i haven't either [19:23] dh-make gets really upset [19:23] and i would assume other tools will have issues as well [19:25] They named it 0.r5 [19:25] where did you get the '0' from? [19:25] they only did the '0' for "r3", from what i can tell [19:25] The project provides DEB packages. [19:26] The version of those packages is 0.r5 ;-) [19:26] I see no '0' for the r5 release [19:27] they distributed a deb for "r3", but it needs work [19:28] okay, they named it 0.r3, so you can name your package version 0.r5, I think this is o.k. [19:31] cool, thanks [20:21] if I am working on a manpage, what is the easiest way to preview it? [20:23] mrooney: man ./ [20:24] nellery: haha wow, how silly of me, thanks! [20:24] mrooney: no problem [20:24] maybe that is too simple for the internet to solve, all I could find was creating a postscript file from it :) === vorian is now known as buttercup === buttercup is now known as vorian === Amaranth_ is now known as Amaranth === micahg1 is now known as micahg