[00:02] MOTU SRU: please have a look at bug #367375 for me, thanks [00:02] Launchpad bug 367375 in userful-multiplier "SRU: cpu usage goes to 100%" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/367375 === Darren is now known as Guest637 [01:42] jdong: ping [01:42] LaserJock: sup? === tuantub_ is now known as tuantub [02:19] If I modify azureus to be only less spammy, will it be accepted into universe? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/azureus/+bug/434979 [02:19] Launchpad bug 434979 in azureus "vuze just asked me for money" [Undecided,New] [02:28] seeking -release folk [02:29] You rang? [02:29] hi [02:29] I have a couple of FFe's I'd like approve [02:29] d [02:29] OK. What bugs? [02:30] sec, evo being slow [02:30] 434927 [02:30] 434943 [02:30] bug 434927, bug 434943 [02:30] Launchpad bug 434927 in ubuntu "FFe: Sync libgetopt++ 0.0.2-p22-3 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/434927 [02:30] Launchpad bug 434943 in ubuntu "FFe: Sync config-manager 0.4-2 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/434943 [02:30] * ScottK looks. [02:32] huh, requestsync didn't use the right package [02:32] * lifeless fixes [02:32] Which one is wrong? [02:32] both were on 'ubuntu' [02:32] Ah. [02:32] bug 434927, bug 434943 [02:32] Launchpad bug 434927 in ubuntu "FFe: Sync libgetopt++ 0.0.2-p22-3 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/434927 [02:32] Launchpad bug 434943 in ubuntu "FFe: Sync config-manager 0.4-2 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/434943 [02:33] meh, anyhow fixed. [02:33] they are both low risk, packages that were incorrectly removed, which I've fixed and restored in Debian [02:33] OK. Ack #1 from me. [02:34] that's probably why they were put against 'ubuntu' rather than the package [02:34] lifeless: What's pqm and why don't we have it in the archive? [02:34] Yay for bzr 2.0! [02:34] ajmitch_: yes, I'm just filing a ubuntu-dev-tools bug :P [02:34] ... which, by the way, supports storing your repositories in a Tahoe-LAFS grid (through its ftp interface). [02:35] ScottK: its very awkward to package; its a cron script for doing merges. [02:35] Okay I need to go read bedtime stories to an 8-year-old and then I'm going to try to improve the licensing in Tahoe-LAFS in http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs . [02:35] ScottK: it may get packaged, but at the moment its much easier to drop it in a dedicated users homedir [02:35] OK. [02:35] do you still mostly drive PQM from procmail? [02:36] yes [02:36] zooko: ciao! [02:36] Oh, one more detail: a user named Nils Durner is writing an article entitled "distributed revision control in the cloud" about how he uses bzr 1.18 with Tahoe-LAFS. [02:36] Okay, back in a bit. [02:37] hey ajmitch_ [02:37] hi [02:41] hi ajmitch_ and zul [02:41] hey LaserJock [02:41] LaserJock! how is it going? [02:41] going pretty OK [02:42] been working [02:42] but glad to have the PhD done [02:42] one more needed :) [02:42] stupid thing took forever [02:42] Dr LaserJock, what a thought :) [02:42] ajmitch_: yes, it's very weird to see a Dr in front of my name on the office door [02:43] Hobbsee: ping [02:43] you're doing a postdoc at the moment, or working outside academia? [02:44] both [02:44] postdoc'ing at the Air Force Research Lab [02:44] I'm a rocket scientist now ;-) [02:45] RocketJock? [02:46] lol [02:46] uhhh, somehow that doesn't quite sound as good [02:46] didn't ogra once see a sign for a LaserRock concert? [02:46] StevenK: why aren't you in motu-release [02:47] ajmitch_: I still work with lasers, I'm just using them for the Department of Defense ;-) === Sp4rKy is now known as Guest91519 [03:18] OK, checkinstall page complete with a new warning. This one copied direct from the upstream README, so it ought to be hard to argue with. [03:20] 'dont use this' ? [03:21] I already put in don't use this on packages intended for distribution. [03:21] you suck if you use this? [03:21] If they want to explode their own systems, that's their business. [03:23] Good evening, all. I asked this question the other day, and it is likely that someone answered it while I've been idle and I can't seem to locate it in my buffer ... [03:24] Does anyone know if Launchy has been packaged for Ubuntu? If not, I'd be interested in packaging it myself. [03:24] I can't seem to find it in the standard repos ... [03:24] But I am, admittedly, a neophyte on this ... [03:26] back [03:27] ScottK: I am addressing the licensing questions listed in http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/report.py/legal?upid=6899 [03:27] Do I really need to add a copyright statement to every file? [03:27] Looking [03:27] I'm of the !citation perspective there [03:27] but I'm not an archive admin [03:28] I don't really mind. It's just a few minutes of work writing a script to do it or something... [03:28] if one considers the program as a 'work', then a full file is no more or less a part than a parapgraph is [03:28] so its rather odd to obssess about files [03:28] I think we've inherited this from RCS [03:28] zooko: They are not absolutely required, but they are a good practice. What is absolutely required is that a full copy of all licenses used in the package be shipped in the upstream tarball. [03:29] ScottK: how about in the copyright file which is included in the upstream tarball? [03:30] zooko: Does it have a full copy of the license? [03:30] Yes on TGPPL1, no on GPL2, no on MIT [03:30] It's all got to be there. [03:31] On something like MIT which may have the complete license cited in a program file, that's sufficient. [03:31] Hm, and there are also LGPL2 files. [03:31] There just needs to be a full copy, it's not required to be a separate file. [03:31] ScottK: what about asf 2, which explicitly wants a web reference? [03:31] lifeless: Then put a full copy of it in with the web reference. [03:32] heh [03:32] There's no other way to know the actual terms since web references can be changed. [03:47] So, there is a file in Tahoe-LAFS which says "It will be released under the BSD license." http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/browser/src/allmydata/util/figleaf.py [03:48] Subsequently new versions of that project have indeed been released under MIT: http://darcs.idyll.org/~t/projects/figleaf/doc/ [03:48] What should I do? I think the best answer is: remove that file and break that feature for now. [03:51] No, I'd just add a copy of the BSD license to the tarball. [03:51] If you can reasonably figure out which one they mean. [03:52] The modern version says "figleaf is available under the MIT license." in the announcements and "license='BSD'," in the python setup.py metadata. :-) [03:52] Whats included in the package is what counts. [03:54] What does "license='BSD'" mean in Python metadata? [03:54] I suppose it means the same thing that "License :: OSI Approved :: BSD License" means in the Trove Classifiers. [03:54] Which I guess is "BSD-new": http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php [03:55] How old is the old version of the package? [03:56] "BUILD SUCCESSFUL" [03:56] * Darxus dances. [03:56] (azureus) [03:56] ScottK: three years ago: http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/changeset/144/src/allmydata/util/figleaf.py [03:57] Then I think that's a reasonable assumption. 4 clause BSD was recinded in 1999. [04:05] So, should I also include the text of GPL2 in the copyright file, or is that one specially excepted? [04:05] The copyright file does say "On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'/". [04:07] Okay here is our new copyright file: http://testgrid.allmydata.org:3567/file/URI%3ACHK%3Ab4t7r43svbjrid2yaylg6bug5m%3Aacj7tzbq64us74rp2prg3okaptn6hnkhweupowp626o4wtsrw7kq%3A3%3A10%3A30075/@@named=/copyright [04:07] zooko: the upstream taball has to have the GPL [04:08] GPL2 I mean [04:08] lifeless: it does. [04:08] zooko: the debian binary can reference it [04:08] lifeless: okay [04:14] Hm, okay now I'm trying to build a new package with these changes but I don't know how to use debuild... [04:14] debuild -i -S [04:16] Hm, so before I can run debuild, I need to construct an ubuntuized directory out of .orig.tar.gz and the .diff from here, right? http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs [04:16] dget http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs [04:17] uupdate [04:17] Except with the full url to the .dsc [04:17] if the package has a correct watch file and you've published your new upstream [04:18] I haven't published my new upstream. [04:18] you should do that :) [04:18] I want to apply these patches to licensing statements just to the Tahoe-LAFS which was already reviewed by kirkland. [04:19] Our trunk has a few feature improvements that we haven't released yet. [04:19] so, conceptually the debian package has no business changing licence data from upstream [04:19] can you do a point release? [04:20] * zooko reviews his project's recent history. [04:21] v1.5.0 was released on 2009-08-01. Since then, we've edited the docs... [04:22] refactored a core component, updated the build scripts to build Debian/Ubuntu packages better, [04:22] zooko: btw [04:23] FTP is really slow; if Tahoe could offer SFTP or even a custom transport, the bzr integration would be orders of magnitude better [04:23] -> #bzr if you want more detail ;) [04:23] I do, but not right now. [04:23] you know where to find me :) [04:23] I actually think I need to give up on this project for tonight -- it is past my bedtime and I need to be patient while helping my boys get ready for school in the morning. [04:24] I don't think the Tahoe-LAFS project wants to make a new release of any kind before Karmic's Beta Freeze (which is imminent). [04:24] We've already committed these changes to trunk, but not made a release. [04:25] So it isn't so much that the Ubuntu packaging is changing these things as that it is applying these patches from trunk and not taking the feature-improvements and refactorings that are also on trunk more recent than the most recent stable release. [04:25] Anyway, thanks a lot for the help! [04:26] zooko: ok [04:27] * zooko makes a note to ask lifeless about better Tahoe-LAFS bzr integration. [04:27] By the way I'm not the author of the relevant patches, but I can learn. [04:27] Aha I figured out how to debuild this thing I downloaded from revu... [04:35] lifeless: I'm supposed to be? [04:35] StevenK: no but if you were I could nag you [04:36] * StevenK adds another reason to the list for not being in motu-release [04:36] Dang, debsign says my secret key is not available. However "gpg --sign $FILE" works. [04:37] zooko: Look that the name/email address in debian/changelog. It likely doesn't match what's in your key. [04:37] This can also happen if your key has a comment on it [04:37] That too. [04:38] Ah, it is probably that I have two uids... [04:39] Yay! [04:39] * zooko wonders what -i and -S mean. [04:40] * ScottK hands zooko man dpkg-buildpackage [04:40] The -i you didn't actually need. [04:41] Ah, for what it is worth I had already looked at man debuild before I said that... [04:41] Recall the debuild is essentially a wrapper for dpkg-buildpackage, lintian, and debsign. [04:41] Thanks. [04:49] Okay, now I'm going to try dput... [04:51] Hm, does this mean it worked? http://codepad.org/U1lT29It [04:54] Ah, I got a nice rejection letter in the mail. [04:54] The signer of this package has no upload rights to this distribution's primary archive. Did you mean to upload to a PPA? [04:54] It said. [04:55] Where did you to dput to? [04:56] dput ../tahoe-lafs_1.5.0-0ubuntu2_source.changes http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs [04:56] Upload package to host ubuntu [04:56] Howdy doko_! [04:57] zooko: Ah. dput doesn't take a URL to upload to like that, so it uploaded it to the master archive, and got rejected. Read 'man dput' [04:57] Thanks. [04:58] zooko: For further reference, you'll also get a message from the PPA system if your upload worked [04:58] and the mail address was right :P [04:59] Thanks! Darn, it looks like this failed attempt has left evidence of 0ubuntu2 already being there, so now dput says "Already uploaded" and won't reupload it. [04:59] Aha, there is a .upload file locally that has that in it... [04:59] dput -f, or remove the .upload file [05:04] * zooko waits for mail from the PPA system. [05:09] Hm, this time I said to upload to "revu.ubuntuwire.com" and I got the same rejection letter: "The signer of this package has no upload rights to this distribution's primary archive. Did you mean to upload to a PPA?" [05:11] zooko: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU [05:11] micahg: thanks. [05:18] * jdong looks at bug 434979 [05:18] Launchpad bug 434979 in azureus "vuze just asked me for money" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/434979 [05:18] do we have any Free-ness guidelines about money nagging? [05:19] It's distasteful at best. [05:19] wholeheartedly agreed [05:19] I don't think we should hesitate a moment about removing it. [05:19] furthermore looking at comment #2... [05:19] apparently it nags you FURTHER if you decline [05:19] and apparently loads ads? [05:20] heh definitely borders on ridiculous [05:59] Is this "nagging" not just a natural consequence of declaring bug #268447 invalid? :) Someone is apparently trying to push the envelope... once you open that door, all kinds of bad stuff will come in. [05:59] Launchpad bug 268447 in ichthux-meta "MOTD should not point to https://landscape.canonical.com if you are not a customer" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/268447 [06:02] Hooray for me! I have successfully uploaded a package to REVU! http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs [06:03] Tahoe-LAFS has already been reviewed and advocated by kirkland, so it hopefully doesn't require too much work to confirm that the changes since he advocated don't invalidate his advocacy. [06:03] Therefore, if I understand correctly, after such a review to make sure we didn't break anything, Tahoe-LAFS is ready to be uploaded into Karmic! [06:04] jmarsden: You'll notice MOTD doesn't do that anymore. [06:05] zooko: It takes two advocates. [06:05] ScottK: In Jaunty? Or in Karmic Alphas? In Jaunty with full updates here it still seems to do that. [06:06] My Jaunty doesn't do that anymore. [06:06] I'm reasonably certain I didn't change anything. [06:06] Well, mine doesn't because I added the appropriate lines to the config file to kill it off :) [06:07] ScottK: Okay, I will ask iulian and rainct and pox if they can advocate for its inclusion. [06:07] zooko: POX is not a MOTU, so his wouldn't count here (unfortunately). [06:08] Okay, I'll ask those other two. [06:08] ScottK: And my Karmic Alpha6 Server VM does still have that ad in the MOTD... so I don't think it has been silently fixed. [06:09] jmarsden: If it'd just been "Buy my proprietary add-on", then I think that would have been an appropriate precedent. [06:10] I think if I were the author/packager of vuze and you kill one and not the other, I'd declare that to be hypocritical... [06:12] I'm not a fan of either one, but the vuze one seems more in your face. [06:14] Okay, I've emailed iulian and rainct asking if they will advocate for Tahoe-LAFS. [06:14] Thanks for your help, folks. Good night! [06:18] ScottK: Definitely agreed... but the thing is, IMO if someone with authority declares the vuze one to be "bad" enough to kill it, either they must also declare the landscape-sysinfo one to be similarly "bad" too, or they are in effect setting some sort of hard to defend unwritten standard half way down a very slippery slope. [06:19] good morning [06:29] Hey dholbach ! [06:29] hola fabrice_sp! [06:29] :-) [06:30] Guten morgen Herr Daniel :-) [06:30] it's "Morgen" [06:30] but other than that it looks good :-) [06:30] I think I need another coffee before the "Morgen" is going to be "gut" :) [06:30] No German in more than 15 years... [06:31] Have a good coffee :-) [06:31] thanks muchly fabrice_sp :) [06:31] Good night from UTC-6. [06:59] im trying to build sun studio 12 but dont have the source so no .dsc or such default files.. im looking at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete to learn how to do it.. but when i run dh_make -e maintainer@address after the next display i get this "Hit to confirm: Could not find sunstudio_12.orig.tar.gz Either specify an alternate file to use with -f, or add --createorig to create one. [07:00] how do i resolve this issue? [07:01] can anyone please help me.. Im a newbie to this.. just started off [07:07] best to download the .tar.gz from the homepage and rename it to sunstudio_12.orig.tar.gz [07:07] dholbach: i actually used the --createorig from the dh_make [07:07] is that good or should i redo it? [07:08] dholbach: would need help so please assist me in this..just starting to learn [07:08] just ask in here [07:08] download the source from the homepage [07:08] and rename the .tar.gz file to sunstudio_12.orig.tar.gz [07:09] or repack it if it's a .zip or whatever [07:09] and then go from there [07:09] done.. [07:09] ok thanks will revert when i hit another bottleneck [07:09] thanks [07:09] rock on [07:09] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/devweek0909/PkgFromScratch might help too [07:10] dholbach: thanks. === porthose is now known as porthose|afk [07:22] dholbach: im using dh_make and asks me the type of pkg?(single/muti/....) what would it be.. [07:22] im thinking its multi. [07:22] could you please let me know what needs to be filled in? [07:22] start with single to get something working, then you can start splitting out stuff later on [07:22] ok [07:22] the package will get more and more complicated on its own :) [07:46] ok reached the rule file.... :) and based on my logic.. How its tarball works is that you just need to extract it into a dir called /opt/SUNWspro and dump the contents into it thats all so Im assuming that i dont need the default rules file that has been created automatically.. could i just do by writing a purpose served rule file? [07:51] Hi guys, I'm trying to learn how to package a kernel , following this guide https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Kernel/Compile [07:51] using the Alternate Build Method: The Old-Fashioned Debian Way [07:52] since i need to do a new kernel from kernel.org [07:52] i am hitting this problem http://pastebin.com/m4274f35b [07:52] obviously not doing something correctly but i'm not sure what. [07:52] any assistance would be appreciated. [07:53] <_ruben> mase_wk: if you just need a newer kernel, you could look in the kernelteam's mainline build 'ppa' [07:54] _ruben: i tried that but i didn't have the wireless package in order to satisfy the deps [07:54] and this is a hardy machine so it wasn't in the repos [07:55] wireles-crda [07:56] wireless-crda* [07:56] <_ruben> mase_wk: ah ok .. then i'd look at the kernelteam wiki instead of the community docs, they explain the latest and greatest methods [07:59] oh ok cool will have a look [08:50] dholbach: ping [08:51] freeflying: pong [08:51] dholbach: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ibus-pinyin/+bug/431823 [08:51] Launchpad bug 431823 in ibus-table-wubi "the dependent packages are too large" [Undecided,Confirmed] [08:52] dholbach: two fix are pending to be upload, both are in main, so I need your help :) [08:52] is ubuntu-main-sponsors subscribed? [08:53] dholbach: let me check [08:53] that's usually the way to get somebody to check the bug who can upload the fix :) [08:53] ... without relying on one person [08:53] dholbach: got you, thanks [08:54] dholbach: actually they were assigned to ubuntu-main-sponsors :) [08:54] ah good :) [09:02] TheMuso: Can you please look at bug #430937 when you get time and tell me what more information it needs? [09:02] Launchpad bug 430937 in pulseaudio "Too low volume in fully updated karmic installation" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/430937 === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach === asac_ is now known as asac [09:30] http://pastie.org/627139 [09:30] what does this error mean? [09:30] i was able to come this far!! how do i resolve it? [09:32] wrapster: what are you trying to do exactly? [09:33] slytherin: im trying to build sun studio 12 === Amaranth_ is now known as Amaranth [09:33] wrapster: and what command did you use? [09:34] dpkg-buildpackage [09:40] wrapster: you did that from inside the source package right? [09:40] yes [09:41] wrapster: Can you paste your rules file somewhere? [09:41] one moment [09:49] slytherin: http://pastie.org/627139 [09:49] slytherin: im a beginner learning my way through packaging so please let me know if ive made mistakes and why it wont work as well [09:49] thanks [09:50] wrapster: in your rules file, binary target depends on binary-arch and binary-arch target doesn't have any commands. [09:52] oops [09:54] binary-arch: <\n\t> @echo "nothing to do here as well" should suffice [09:58] wrapster: Does sunstudio use ant to build the source? [09:58] this is not the source [09:59] and im not very sure either... [09:59] anyway i still get the same result [09:59] dpkg-genchanges: failure: cannot read files list file: No such file or directory ; dpkg-buildpackage: failure: dpkg-genchanges gave error exit status 2 [10:06] wrapster: I don't understand your comment "this is not the source" [10:06] at least to figure out from where its coming is there a way i can run the rules file one rule at a time [10:06] yes its a tarball of precompiled sources... [10:06] all you need to actually do is to extract the tarball .place it where you want and set $PATH and start using it [10:07] what im trying to achieve is to build a .deb around it and when you install it will just copy from the current location to /opt/SUNWspro [10:07] thats it [10:10] wrapster: I believe you are doing it wrong way. You should remove leading / from opt/SUNWspro/. Also don't use /usr/bin/cp, just use cp. [10:11] hmm ok [10:20] wrapster: can you pastebin your complete build log please? === doko_ is now known as doko [10:30] geser: where is it located? [10:30] never looked at it thus far [10:30] wrapster: I mean the whole output from your attempt to build the package [10:31] ok [10:31] I assume what's wrong but want to check first [10:32] geser: ok one moment please [10:34] geser: http://pastie.org/627182 [10:34] thats the entire pastie [10:34] thanks [10:35] geser: can you please help me... [10:35] as I assumed: during the package build the "binary" targets gets called (line 23) but when you look at your rules files you see that binary only depends on binary-arch which does nothing [10:35] your whole work to build the package is in binary-indep which isn't used [10:36] ouch. [10:36] btw: is your "link" target not used by purpose as a dependency somewhere? [10:37] it is [10:37] not as a dependency but a seperate rule [10:37] change the dependency for binary from binary-arch to binary-indep (or list both) and you should come a little further [10:37] ubuntu keyserver is on its knees... [10:37] geser: yeah did that... hope it works now [10:39] ok thats resolved but ran into this.. http://pastie.org/627139 [10:40] replace line 19 in your rules with what needs to be done to "install" the package [10:41] s/the package/the software/ [10:41] ok [10:51] cp: cannot stat `READMEs:': No such file or directory ;;;dh_installdocs: command returned error code 256;;; make: *** [binary-arch] Error 1 ;;; dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2 [10:51] are these error coming from installdocs [10:59] Does anyone know if fPIC flag is needed with GCC 4.4? [11:15] slytherin: Why would it not be? [11:16] mok0: I am just asking. I searched on google and someone said it was present in old version of gcc (4.2). [11:16] slytherin: you mean on by default? [11:16] slytherin, better keep it around [11:17] There were failures in java3d on Debian buildd that were fixed by adding -fPIC flag. These failures were not seen on Ubuntu buildd. So I was wondering if it is because of gcc version difference. [11:18] slytherin: oh I see [11:19] slytherin: failures when running or failures during compilation? [11:20] mok0: FTBFS. :-) [11:20] slytherin: Hm, weird [11:21] slytherin: There can be many subtle differences in the compiler [11:21] slytherin: and perhaps the optimization setting was different [11:22] slytherin: Optimization might re-organize the code so it just fits within a segment [11:23] hmm, possible [11:23] (or the other way around) [11:24] slytherin: In that case, adding -fpic should be sufficient :-) [11:36] WFT? Icons are gone from Launchpad's home pages [11:37] I should say "branding" [11:37] mok0: LP 3.0 is being released today. [11:39] slytherin: Don't they usually shut the thing down for upgrades? [11:39] they usually make it read only [11:39] any PHP experts here? [11:40] !ask [11:40] Please don't ask to ask a question, simply ask the question (all on ONE line, so others can read and follow it easily). If anyone knows the answer they will most likely reply. :-) [11:40] :-D [11:41] I am looking for some help in solving the error seen at the top - http://ubuntu-in.info/wiki/index.php/Main_Page [11:42] slytherin: can you pastebin the code (relevant part)? [11:43] Very nice hp btw [11:44] mok0: http://paste.ubuntu.com/276316/ [11:44] hp? [11:45] homepage :-) [11:46] slytherin: I take it line 9 in the paste corresponds to line 78 in "Polyglot.php" [11:46] mok0: yes [11:46] I will be back [11:50] slytherin: obviously, $GLOBALS['wgLanguageNames'] is not an array === cprov-afk is now known as cprov [11:59] mok0: Solved the problem. Language.php file which defines the array was not included in LocalSettings.php [12:11] what's MIR ? [12:11] !MIR [12:11] mir is Main Inclusion Report - see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionProcess for more information. [12:12] ah [12:12] thanks [12:20] <`brandon`> hello, i have parallel plesk but it's .dev40.* [12:20] <`brandon`> i need to make it into a .deb file only can you help. [12:38] wiggle wiggle [12:44] * hyperair thanks cjwatson for syncing remuco [12:45] * slytherin congratulates hyperair :-) [12:46] =) [13:03] hyperair: that was sponsored by me, be prepared to receive tons of bugs! [13:03] DktrKranz: are you saying my work is lousy? ;-) [13:05] hyperair: no, but who knows what I added to your code before uploading ;) [13:05] DktrKranz: hah. i can verify that. =p [13:05] you didn't add anything did you? [13:05] * hyperair is lazy to check [13:05] hehe, joking :P [13:05] =p [13:06] ha ha there's an rc bug already [13:08] My debdiff got sponsored into karmic! [13:09] Laney: that was before he sponsored it. and i can't reproduce it [13:09] i should probably ask for more information [13:09] downgrade it and set the tag then [13:09] you shouldn't leave rc bugs alone, looks bad [13:10] okay [13:10] er [13:10] what tag? [13:10] unreproducible [13:10] ah [13:11] that's hardly grave anyway even if it were a real bug [13:11] hyperair: ask him to reproduce with recent gnome, that could help [13:11] one part of the package doesn't work [13:18] Laney: what should i set the severity to? [13:18] important a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone. [13:18] sounds right to me [13:18] ok [13:21] * ejat pokes hyperair [13:21] * hyperair pokes ejat back [13:22] hmm how do i send commands to control@bugs.debian.org in the same email as some other text? [13:22] do i indent the control commands or waht? [13:22] * hyperair finds the debian bts confusing and unintuitive [13:22] cc control [13:22] put your commands at the top [13:22]