[00:02] <LaserJock> MOTU SRU: please have a look at bug #367375 for me, thanks
[01:42] <LaserJock> jdong: ping
[01:42] <jdong> LaserJock: sup?
[02:19] <Darxus> If I modify azureus to be only less spammy, will it be accepted into universe?  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/azureus/+bug/434979
[02:28] <lifeless> seeking -release folk
[02:29] <ScottK> You rang?
[02:29] <lifeless> hi
[02:29] <lifeless> I have a couple of FFe's I'd like approve
[02:29] <lifeless> d
[02:29] <ScottK> OK.  What bugs?
[02:30] <lifeless> sec, evo being slow
[02:30] <lifeless> 434927
[02:30] <lifeless> 434943
[02:30] <lifeless> bug 434927, bug 434943
[02:30]  * ScottK looks.
[02:32] <lifeless> huh, requestsync didn't use the right package
[02:32]  * lifeless fixes
[02:32] <ScottK> Which one is wrong?
[02:32] <lifeless> both were on 'ubuntu'
[02:32] <ScottK> Ah.
[02:32] <lifeless> bug 434927, bug 434943
[02:33] <lifeless> meh, anyhow fixed.
[02:33] <lifeless> they are both low risk, packages that were incorrectly removed, which I've fixed and restored in Debian
[02:33] <ScottK> OK.  Ack #1 from me.
[02:34] <ajmitch_> that's probably why they were put against 'ubuntu' rather than the package
[02:34] <ScottK> lifeless: What's pqm and why don't we have it in the archive?
[02:34] <zooko> Yay for bzr 2.0!
[02:34] <lifeless> ajmitch_: yes, I'm just filing a ubuntu-dev-tools bug :P
[02:34] <zooko> ... which, by the way, supports storing your repositories in a Tahoe-LAFS grid (through its ftp interface).
[02:35] <lifeless> ScottK: its very awkward to package; its a cron script for doing merges.
[02:35] <zooko> 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] <lifeless> ScottK: it may get packaged, but at the moment its much easier to drop it in a dedicated users homedir
[02:35] <ScottK> OK.
[02:35] <ajmitch_> do you still mostly drive PQM from procmail?
[02:36] <lifeless> yes
[02:36] <lifeless> zooko: ciao!
[02:36] <zooko> 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] <zooko> Okay, back in a bit.
[02:37] <zul> hey ajmitch_
[02:37] <ajmitch_> hi
[02:41] <LaserJock> hi ajmitch_ and zul
[02:41] <ajmitch_> hey LaserJock
[02:41] <zul> LaserJock! how is it going?
[02:41] <LaserJock> going pretty OK
[02:42] <LaserJock> been working
[02:42] <LaserJock> but glad to have the PhD done
[02:42] <lifeless> one more needed :)
[02:42] <LaserJock> stupid thing took forever
[02:42] <ajmitch_> Dr LaserJock, what a thought :)
[02:42] <LaserJock> ajmitch_: yes, it's very weird to see a Dr in front of my name on the office door
[02:43] <lifeless> Hobbsee: ping
[02:43] <ajmitch_> you're doing a postdoc at the moment, or working outside academia?
[02:44] <LaserJock> both
[02:44] <LaserJock> postdoc'ing at the Air Force Research Lab
[02:44] <LaserJock> I'm a rocket scientist now ;-)
[02:45] <ajmitch_> RocketJock?
[02:46] <lifeless> lol
[02:46] <LaserJock> uhhh, somehow that doesn't quite sound as good
[02:46] <LaserJock> didn't ogra once see a sign for a LaserRock concert?
[02:46] <lifeless> StevenK: why aren't you in motu-release
[02:47] <LaserJock> ajmitch_: I still work with lasers, I'm just using them for the Department of Defense ;-)
[03:18] <ScottK> 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] <lifeless> 'dont use this' ?
[03:21] <ScottK> I already put in don't use this on packages intended for distribution.
[03:21] <zul> you suck if you use this?
[03:21] <ScottK> If they want to explode their own systems, that's their business.
[03:23] <captivus> 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] <captivus> Does anyone know if Launchy has been packaged for Ubuntu?  If not, I'd be interested in packaging it myself.
[03:24] <captivus> I can't seem to find it in the standard repos ...
[03:24] <captivus> But I am, admittedly, a neophyte on this ...
[03:26] <zooko> back
[03:27] <zooko> ScottK: I am addressing the licensing questions listed in http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/report.py/legal?upid=6899
[03:27] <zooko> Do I really need to add a copyright statement to every file?
[03:27] <ScottK> Looking
[03:27] <lifeless> I'm of the !citation perspective there
[03:27] <lifeless> but I'm not an archive admin
[03:28] <zooko> I don't really mind.  It's just a few minutes of work writing a script to do it or something...
[03:28] <lifeless> 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] <lifeless> so its rather odd to obssess about files
[03:28] <lifeless> I think we've inherited this from RCS
[03:28] <ScottK> 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] <zooko> ScottK: how about in the copyright file which is included in the upstream tarball?
[03:30] <ScottK> zooko: Does it have a full copy of the license?
[03:30] <zooko> Yes on TGPPL1, no on GPL2, no on MIT
[03:30] <ScottK> It's all got to be there.
[03:31] <ScottK> On something like MIT which may have the complete license cited in a program file, that's sufficient.
[03:31] <zooko> Hm, and there are also LGPL2 files.
[03:31] <ScottK> There just needs to be a full copy, it's not required to be a separate file.
[03:31] <lifeless> ScottK: what about asf 2, which explicitly wants a web reference?
[03:31] <ScottK> lifeless: Then put a full copy of it in with the web reference.
[03:32] <lifeless> heh
[03:32] <ScottK> There's no other way to know the actual terms since web references can be changed.
[03:47] <zooko> 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] <zooko> Subsequently new versions of that project have indeed been released under MIT: http://darcs.idyll.org/~t/projects/figleaf/doc/
[03:48] <zooko> What should I do?  I think the best answer is: remove that file and break that feature for now.
[03:51] <ScottK> No, I'd just add a copy of the BSD license to the tarball.
[03:51] <ScottK> If you can reasonably figure out which one they mean.
[03:52] <zooko> 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] <ScottK> Whats included in the package is what counts.
[03:54] <zooko> What does "license='BSD'" mean in Python metadata?
[03:54] <zooko> I suppose it means the same thing that "License :: OSI Approved :: BSD License" means in the Trove Classifiers.
[03:54] <zooko> Which I guess is "BSD-new": http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
[03:55] <ScottK> How old is the old version of the package?
[03:56] <Darxus> "BUILD SUCCESSFUL"
[03:56]  * Darxus dances.
[03:56] <Darxus> (azureus)
[03:56] <zooko> ScottK: three years ago: http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/changeset/144/src/allmydata/util/figleaf.py
[03:57] <ScottK> Then I think that's a reasonable assumption.  4 clause BSD was recinded in 1999.
[04:05] <zooko> So, should I also include the text of GPL2 in the copyright file, or is that one specially excepted?
[04:05] <zooko> 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] <zooko> Okay here is our new copyright file: http://testgrid.allmydata.org:3567/file/URI%3ACHK%3Ab4t7r43svbjrid2yaylg6bug5m%3Aacj7tzbq64us74rp2prg3okaptn6hnkhweupowp626o4wtsrw7kq%3A3%3A10%3A30075/@@named=/copyright
[04:07] <lifeless> zooko: the upstream taball has to have the GPL
[04:08] <lifeless> GPL2 I mean
[04:08] <zooko> lifeless: it does.
[04:08] <lifeless> zooko: the debian binary can reference it
[04:08] <zooko> lifeless: okay
[04:14] <zooko> 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] <lifeless> debuild -i -S
[04:16] <zooko> 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] <lifeless> dget http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs
[04:17] <lifeless> uupdate
[04:17] <ScottK> Except with the full url to the .dsc
[04:17] <lifeless> if the package has a correct watch file and you've published your new upstream
[04:18] <zooko> I haven't published my new upstream.
[04:18] <lifeless> you should do that :)
[04:18] <zooko> I want to apply these patches to licensing statements just to the Tahoe-LAFS which was already reviewed by kirkland.
[04:19] <zooko> Our trunk has a few feature improvements that we haven't released yet.
[04:19] <lifeless> so, conceptually the debian package has no business changing licence data from upstream
[04:19] <lifeless> can you do a point release?
[04:20]  * zooko reviews his project's recent history.
[04:21] <zooko> v1.5.0 was released on 2009-08-01.  Since then, we've edited the docs...
[04:22] <zooko> refactored a core component, updated the build scripts to build Debian/Ubuntu packages better,
[04:22] <lifeless> zooko: btw
[04:23] <lifeless> 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] <lifeless> -> #bzr if you want more detail ;)
[04:23] <zooko> I do, but not right now.
[04:23] <lifeless> you know where to find me :)
[04:23] <zooko> 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] <zooko> 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] <zooko> We've already committed these changes to trunk, but not made a release.
[04:25] <zooko> 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] <zooko> Anyway, thanks a lot for the help!
[04:26] <lifeless> zooko: ok
[04:27]  * zooko makes a note to ask lifeless about better Tahoe-LAFS bzr integration.
[04:27] <zooko> By the way I'm not the author of the relevant patches, but I can learn.
[04:27] <zooko> Aha I figured out how to debuild this thing I downloaded from revu...
[04:35] <StevenK> lifeless: I'm supposed to be?
[04:35] <lifeless> 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] <zooko> Dang, debsign says my secret key is not available.  However "gpg --sign $FILE" works.
[04:37] <ScottK> zooko: Look that the name/email address in debian/changelog.  It likely doesn't match what's in your key.
[04:37] <StevenK> This can also happen if your key has a comment on it
[04:37] <ScottK> That too.
[04:38] <zooko> Ah, it is probably that I have two uids...
[04:39] <zooko> Yay!
[04:39]  * zooko wonders what -i and -S mean.
[04:40]  * ScottK hands zooko man dpkg-buildpackage
[04:40] <ScottK> The -i you didn't actually need.
[04:41] <zooko> Ah, for what it is worth I had already looked at man debuild before I said that...
[04:41] <ScottK> Recall the debuild is essentially a wrapper for dpkg-buildpackage, lintian, and debsign.
[04:41] <zooko> Thanks.
[04:49] <zooko> Okay, now I'm going to try dput...
[04:51] <zooko> Hm, does this mean it worked? http://codepad.org/U1lT29It
[04:54] <zooko> Ah, I got a nice rejection letter in the mail.
[04:54] <zooko> 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] <zooko> It said.
[04:55] <StevenK> Where did you to dput to?
[04:56] <zooko> dput ../tahoe-lafs_1.5.0-0ubuntu2_source.changes  http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs
[04:56] <zooko> Upload package to host ubuntu
[04:56] <zooko> Howdy doko_!
[04:57] <StevenK> 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] <zooko> Thanks.
[04:58] <StevenK> zooko: For further reference, you'll also get a message from the PPA system if your upload worked
[04:58] <lifeless> and the mail address was right :P
[04:59] <zooko> 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] <zooko> Aha, there is a .upload file locally that has that in it...
[04:59] <StevenK> dput -f, or remove the .upload file
[05:04]  * zooko waits for mail from the PPA system.
[05:09] <zooko> 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] <micahg> zooko: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU
[05:11] <zooko> micahg: thanks.
[05:18]  * jdong looks at bug 434979
[05:18] <jdong> do we have any Free-ness guidelines about money nagging?
[05:19] <ScottK> It's distasteful at best.
[05:19] <jdong> wholeheartedly agreed
[05:19] <ScottK> I don't think we should hesitate a moment about removing it.
[05:19] <jdong> furthermore looking at comment #2...
[05:19] <jdong> apparently it nags you FURTHER if you decline
[05:19] <jdong> and apparently loads ads?
[05:20] <jdong> heh definitely borders on ridiculous
[05:59] <jmarsden> 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.
[06:02] <zooko> Hooray for me!  I have successfully uploaded a package to REVU!  http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs
[06:03] <zooko> 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] <zooko> 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] <ScottK> jmarsden: You'll notice MOTD doesn't do that anymore.
[06:05] <ScottK> zooko: It takes two advocates.
[06:05] <jmarsden> ScottK: In Jaunty?  Or in Karmic Alphas?  In Jaunty with full updates here it still seems to do that.
[06:06] <ScottK> My Jaunty doesn't do that anymore.
[06:06] <ScottK> I'm reasonably certain I didn't change anything.
[06:06] <jmarsden> Well, mine doesn't because I added the appropriate lines to the config file to kill it off :)
[06:07] <zooko> ScottK: Okay, I will ask iulian and rainct and pox if they can advocate for its inclusion.
[06:07] <ScottK> zooko: POX is not a MOTU, so his wouldn't count here (unfortunately).
[06:08] <zooko> Okay, I'll ask those other two.
[06:08] <jmarsden> 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] <ScottK> jmarsden: If it'd just been "Buy my proprietary add-on", then I think that would have been an appropriate precedent.
[06:10] <jmarsden> 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] <ScottK> I'm not a fan of either one, but the vuze one seems more in your face.
[06:14] <zooko> Okay, I've emailed iulian and rainct asking if they will advocate for Tahoe-LAFS.
[06:14] <zooko> Thanks for your help, folks.  Good night!
[06:18] <jmarsden> 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] <dholbach> good morning
[06:29] <fabrice_sp> Hey dholbach !
[06:29] <dholbach> hola fabrice_sp!
[06:29] <fabrice_sp> :-)
[06:30] <fabrice_sp> Guten morgen Herr Daniel :-)
[06:30] <dholbach> it's "Morgen"
[06:30] <dholbach> but other than that it looks good :-)
[06:30] <dholbach> I think I need another coffee before the "Morgen" is going to be "gut" :)
[06:30] <fabrice_sp> No German in more than 15 years...
[06:31] <fabrice_sp> Have a good coffee :-)
[06:31] <dholbach> thanks muchly fabrice_sp :)
[06:31] <zooko> Good night from UTC-6.
[06:59] <wrapster> 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 <enter> 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] <wrapster> how do i resolve this issue?
[07:01] <wrapster> can anyone please help me.. Im a newbie to this.. just started off
[07:07] <dholbach> best to download the .tar.gz from the homepage and rename it to sunstudio_12.orig.tar.gz
[07:07] <wrapster> dholbach: i actually used the --createorig from the dh_make
[07:07] <wrapster> is that good or should i redo it?
[07:08] <wrapster> dholbach: would need help so please assist me in this..just starting to learn
[07:08] <dholbach> just ask in here
[07:08] <dholbach> download the source from the homepage
[07:08] <dholbach> and rename the .tar.gz file to sunstudio_12.orig.tar.gz
[07:09] <dholbach> or repack it if it's a .zip or whatever
[07:09] <dholbach> and then go from there
[07:09] <wrapster> done..
[07:09] <wrapster> ok thanks will revert when i hit another bottleneck
[07:09] <wrapster> thanks
[07:09] <dholbach> rock on
[07:09] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/devweek0909/PkgFromScratch might help too
[07:10] <wrapster> dholbach: thanks.
[07:22] <wrapster> dholbach: im using dh_make and asks me the type of pkg?(single/muti/....) what would it be..
[07:22] <wrapster> im thinking its multi.
[07:22] <wrapster> could you please let me know what needs to be filled in?
[07:22] <dholbach> start with single to get something working, then you can start splitting out stuff later on
[07:22] <wrapster> ok
[07:22] <dholbach> the package will get more and more complicated on its own :)
[07:46] <wrapster> 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] <mase_wk> Hi guys, I'm trying to learn how to package a kernel , following this guide https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Kernel/Compile
[07:51] <mase_wk> using the Alternate Build Method: The Old-Fashioned Debian Way
[07:52] <mase_wk> since i need to do a new kernel from kernel.org
[07:52] <mase_wk> i am hitting this problem http://pastebin.com/m4274f35b
[07:52] <mase_wk> obviously not doing something correctly but i'm not sure what.
[07:52] <mase_wk> 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] <mase_wk> _ruben: i tried that but i didn't have the wireless package in order to satisfy the deps
[07:54] <mase_wk> and this is a hardy machine so it wasn't in the repos
[07:55] <mase_wk> wireles-crda
[07:56] <mase_wk> 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] <mase_wk> oh ok cool will have a look
[08:50] <freeflying> dholbach: ping
[08:51] <dholbach> freeflying: pong
[08:51] <freeflying> dholbach: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ibus-pinyin/+bug/431823
[08:52] <freeflying> dholbach: two fix are pending to be upload, both are in main, so I need your help :)
[08:52] <dholbach> is ubuntu-main-sponsors subscribed?
[08:53] <freeflying> dholbach: let me check
[08:53] <dholbach> that's usually the way to get somebody to check the bug who can upload the fix :)
[08:53] <dholbach> ... without relying on one person
[08:53] <freeflying> dholbach: got you, thanks
[08:54] <freeflying> dholbach: actually they were assigned to ubuntu-main-sponsors :)
[08:54] <dholbach> ah good :)
[09:02] <slytherin> TheMuso: Can you please look at bug #430937 when you get time and tell me what more information it needs?
[09:30] <wrapster> http://pastie.org/627139
[09:30] <wrapster> what does this error mean?
[09:30] <wrapster> i was able to come this far!! how do i resolve it?
[09:32] <slytherin> wrapster: what are you trying to do exactly?
[09:33] <wrapster> slytherin: im trying to build sun studio 12
[09:33] <slytherin> wrapster: and what command did you use?
[09:34] <wrapster> dpkg-buildpackage <with flags>
[09:40] <slytherin> wrapster: you did that from inside the source package right?
[09:40] <wrapster> yes
[09:41] <slytherin> wrapster: Can you paste your rules file somewhere?
[09:41] <wrapster> one moment
[09:49] <wrapster> slytherin: http://pastie.org/627139
[09:49] <wrapster> 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] <wrapster> thanks
[09:50] <slytherin> wrapster: in your rules file, binary target depends on binary-arch and binary-arch target doesn't have any commands.
[09:52] <wrapster> oops
[09:54] <wrapster> binary-arch: <\n\t> @echo "nothing to do here as well" should suffice
[09:58] <slytherin> wrapster: Does sunstudio use ant to build the source?
[09:58] <wrapster> this is not the source
[09:59] <wrapster> and im not very sure either...
[09:59] <wrapster> anyway i still get the same result
[09:59] <wrapster> 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] <slytherin> wrapster: I don't understand your comment "this is not the source"
[10:06] <wrapster> 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] <wrapster> yes its a tarball of precompiled sources...
[10:06] <wrapster> 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] <wrapster> 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] <wrapster> thats it
[10:10] <slytherin> 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] <wrapster> hmm ok
[10:20] <geser> wrapster: can you pastebin your complete build log please?
[10:30] <wrapster> geser: where is it located?
[10:30] <wrapster> never looked at it thus far
[10:30] <geser> wrapster: I mean the whole output from your attempt to build the package
[10:31] <wrapster> ok
[10:31] <geser> I assume what's wrong but want to check first
[10:32] <wrapster> geser: ok one moment please
[10:34] <wrapster> geser: http://pastie.org/627182
[10:34] <wrapster> thats the entire pastie
[10:34] <geser> thanks
[10:35] <wrapster> geser: can you please help me...
[10:35] <geser> 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] <geser> your whole work to build the package is in binary-indep which isn't used
[10:36] <wrapster> ouch.
[10:36] <geser> btw: is your "link" target not used by purpose as a dependency somewhere?
[10:37] <wrapster> it is
[10:37] <wrapster> not as a dependency but a seperate rule
[10:37] <geser> change the dependency for binary from binary-arch to binary-indep (or list both) and you should come a little further
[10:37] <mok0> ubuntu keyserver is on its knees...
[10:37] <wrapster> geser: yeah did that... hope it works now
[10:39] <wrapster> ok thats resolved but ran into this.. http://pastie.org/627139
[10:40] <geser> replace line 19 in your rules with what needs to be done to "install" the package
[10:41] <geser> s/the package/the software/
[10:41] <wrapster> ok
[10:51] <wrapster> 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] <wrapster> are these error coming from installdocs
[10:59] <slytherin> Does anyone know if fPIC flag is needed with GCC 4.4?
[11:15] <mok0> slytherin: Why would it not be?
[11:16] <slytherin> mok0: I am just asking. I searched on google and someone said it was present in old version of gcc (4.2).
[11:16] <mok0> slytherin: you mean on by default?
[11:16] <mok0> slytherin, better keep it around
[11:17] <slytherin> 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] <mok0> slytherin: oh I see
[11:19] <mok0> slytherin: failures when running or failures during compilation?
[11:20] <slytherin> mok0: FTBFS. :-)
[11:20] <mok0> slytherin: Hm, weird
[11:21] <mok0> slytherin: There can be many subtle differences in the compiler
[11:21] <mok0> slytherin: and perhaps the optimization setting was different
[11:22] <mok0> slytherin: Optimization might re-organize the code so it just fits within a segment
[11:23] <slytherin> hmm, possible
[11:23] <mok0> (or the other way around)
[11:24] <mok0> slytherin: In that case, adding -fpic should be sufficient :-)
[11:36] <mok0> WFT? Icons are gone from Launchpad's home pages
[11:37] <mok0> I should say "branding"
[11:37] <slytherin> mok0: LP 3.0 is being released today.
[11:39] <mok0> slytherin: Don't they usually shut the thing down for upgrades?
[11:39] <slytherin> they usually make it read only
[11:39] <slytherin> any PHP experts here?
[11:40] <mok0> !ask
[11:40] <mok0> :-D
[11:41] <slytherin> 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] <mok0> slytherin: can you pastebin the code (relevant part)?
[11:43] <mok0> Very nice hp btw
[11:44] <slytherin> mok0: http://paste.ubuntu.com/276316/
[11:44] <slytherin> hp?
[11:45] <mok0> homepage :-)
[11:46] <mok0> slytherin: I take it line 9 in the paste corresponds to line 78 in "Polyglot.php"
[11:46] <slytherin> mok0: yes
[11:46] <slytherin> I will be back
[11:50] <mok0> slytherin: obviously, $GLOBALS['wgLanguageNames'] is not an array
[11:59] <slytherin> mok0: Solved the problem. Language.php file which defines the array was not included in LocalSettings.php
[12:11] <AnAnt> what's MIR ?
[12:11] <geser> !MIR
[12:12] <AnAnt> ah
[12:12] <AnAnt> 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] <Laney> wiggle wiggle
[12:44]  * hyperair thanks cjwatson for syncing remuco
[12:45]  * slytherin congratulates hyperair :-)
[12:46] <hyperair> =)
[13:03] <DktrKranz> hyperair: that was sponsored by me, be prepared to receive tons of bugs!
[13:03] <hyperair> DktrKranz: are you saying my work is lousy? ;-)
[13:05] <DktrKranz> hyperair: no, but who knows what I added to your code before uploading ;)
[13:05] <hyperair> DktrKranz: hah. i can verify that. =p
[13:05] <hyperair> you didn't add anything did you?
[13:05]  * hyperair is lazy to check
[13:05] <DktrKranz> hehe, joking :P
[13:05] <hyperair> =p
[13:06] <Laney> ha ha there's an rc bug already
[13:08] <Darxus> My debdiff got sponsored into karmic!
[13:09] <hyperair> Laney: that was before he sponsored it. and i can't reproduce it
[13:09] <hyperair> i should probably ask for more information
[13:09] <Laney> downgrade it and set the tag then
[13:09] <Laney> you shouldn't leave rc bugs alone, looks bad
[13:10] <hyperair> okay
[13:10] <hyperair> er
[13:10] <hyperair> what tag?
[13:10] <Laney> unreproducible
[13:10] <hyperair> ah
[13:11] <Laney> that's hardly grave anyway even if it were a real bug
[13:11] <DktrKranz> hyperair: ask him to reproduce with recent gnome, that could help
[13:11] <Laney> one part of the package doesn't work
[13:18] <hyperair> Laney: what should i set the severity to?
[13:18] <Laney> important a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone.
[13:18] <Laney> sounds right to me
[13:18] <hyperair> ok
[13:21]  * ejat pokes hyperair
[13:21]  * hyperair pokes ejat back
[13:22] <hyperair> hmm how do i send commands to control@bugs.debian.org in the same email as some other text?
[13:22] <hyperair> do i indent the control commands or waht?
[13:22]  * hyperair finds the debian bts confusing and unintuitive
[13:22] <Laney> cc control
[13:22] <Laney> put your commands at the top
[13:22] <Laney> then "thanks"
[13:23] <Laney> then your reply
[13:23] <hyperair> aah
[13:23] <hyperair> okay
[15:29] <jtimberman> anyone able to look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libmixlib-config-ruby/+bug/420674 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chef/+bug/424576 and sponsor for sync (mixlib) and upload (chef) ?
[16:11] <zooko> Whoo-hoo!  Tahoe-LAFS is in the Karmic queue.  As soon as someone archives it and it becomes apt-gettable, I will ask Tahoe-LAFS users to test it out in Karmic.
[16:12] <zooko> Okay off to my day job -- I'll lurk on this channel.
[17:02] <directhex> is there a handy script to send an ubuntu bug to debian?
[17:04] <geser> forward a bug or a patch?
[17:04] <james_w> I've got the reverse, I wonder if run it backwards through python it will do what you want
[17:09] <c_korn> hm, what package is missing when a tcl script fails with "can't find package Tk". I installed tk8.5 but this made no difference
[17:18] <DaveMorris> via the control file, is there a way to specify that a package should be built with g++4.2 rather than g++4.3?  Since I'm guessing g++ is getting pulled in by default from one of my build depends
[17:21] <DaveMorris> or do I have to patch the build system to called g++4.2 rather than g++ and just have g++4.2 as a build dependancy
[17:22] <ubuntu_giant> I'm trying to follow the steps on [https://help.ubuntu.com/community/GnuPrivacyGuardHowto].  This is what I did: http://pastebin.com/m77e749c3.  Anybody know the problem?
[17:22] <ubuntu_giant> Thanks in advance.
[17:23] <danbhfive> ubuntu_giant: just keep doing work
[17:23] <danbhfive> eventually, it will complete once enough entropy is gathered (I don't know the exact details)
[17:24] <ubuntu_giant> So I just ignore what it says and wait?
[17:24] <ubuntu_giant> Okay, I see output now.  Thanks. :)
[17:24] <danbhfive> well, in theory you need to follow what it says
[17:34] <geser> DaveMorris: both, you need to add g++-4.3 to build-depends to get it installed and make sure that g++-4.3 is used (check if you can set an environment variable to the c++ compiler to be used else you need to patch)
[17:34] <DaveMorris> thanks geser
[17:35] <geser> don't remember right now if it was CPP or CXX which you need to set to g++-4.3 (depends also on the build system to honour it)
[18:40] <phreestyle-work> hello....have a question. I'm interesting in bugfixing for Ubuntu, and I'm a Windows (C#) developer during the day, but I'm learning Python and already familiar with programming concepts. How would I go about getting the source of an application, changing it, building and testing it?
[18:42] <chrisccoulson> phreestyle-work - you could perhaps start by taking a look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/ :)
[18:43] <phreestyle-work> well, I tried to packaging at one time, but it was too much to handle at once....and from what I've read, MOTU is basically just packaging, but I was directed here from #ubuntu-devel
[18:49] <randomaction> get-modify-build cycle is described here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToFix
[18:51] <phreestyle-work> randomaction: why does that page go straight from "before fixing a bug, make sure you can replicate it", to "Here's an example of how to create a patch"? It's all the stuff between those two sections is what I need to know
[18:53] <phreestyle-work> ok, nevermind, I just found the part about apt-get source
[18:54] <fabrice_sp> phreestyle-work, look at the 'Generating a patch' section in that page
[18:54] <randomaction> right, the "Generating the patch" section walks you through downloading source, appending the changelog, building etc.
[18:55] <phreestyle-work> yea, sorry, I read the first line and thought it was already trying to tell me how to change the package
[18:56] <dkurochkin> Hello. I have uploaded my first ubuntu package in REVU about a month ago: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/polygraph . No one has reviewed it since then. Is this a proper place to ask for REVU package review?
[18:57] <fabrice_sp> dkurochkin, yes. I can a look later on
[18:57] <fabrice_sp> How long will you be connected ?
[18:57] <fabrice_sp> (just in case _I have questions)
[18:59] <dkurochkin> Thanks! I am in russia, so I will go to bed soon. Feel free to send comments and questions to my email address from debian/control.
[19:00] <fabrice_sp> I'll comment in review then
[19:11] <fabrice_sp> dkurochkin, this is a quite huge package (3,5Mb). Isn't it possible to make several binary packages?
[19:11] <fabrice_sp> better said: doses it make sense to do several packages
[19:21] <loic-m> Where does one look to see past requests for removal in Debian?
[19:22] <Laney> requests or actual removals?
[19:22] <loic-m> actual ones
[19:22] <loic-m> just to know the reason(s)
[19:23] <fabrice_sp> loic-m, you can see it in the package page in launchpad
[19:23] <loic-m> thanks fabrice_sp, I'll have a look
[19:24] <fabrice_sp> loic-m, which package?
[19:24] <loic-m> slim (just trying to answer a port in -devel-discuss
[19:24] <Laney> in debian..
[19:24] <Laney> ftp-master.d.o/removals.txt
[19:24] <Laney> afaik
[19:25] <fabrice_sp> this is what you ahve in launchpad: Deleted in karmic-release  (Reason: (From Debian) RoM; unmaintained)
[19:25] <sharms> so can I pretty much take any packages that FTBFS and fix them, or is there a priority to them?
[19:25] <loic-m> yes, indeed
[19:26] <loic-m> i got a new maintainer/uplaod in August, that's what happened, and wasn't synced since past DIF
[19:26] <loic-m> Is there a possibility to get it back in Karmic (since the package was in Jaunty, it would be preventing a regression)
[19:27] <sharms> just apt-get dist-upgraded my kvm jaunty to karmic, no apparent issues
[19:27] <sharms> that is good news
[19:27] <directhex> Your account 'directhex' has just been created in the central LDAP
[19:27] <directhex> database of the Debian project.
[19:27] <sharms> directhex: congrats
[19:28] <Laney> :D
[19:28] <Laney> sign my key pls
[19:29] <directhex> come to oxford!
[19:29] <Laney> hmmmmmmm
[19:30] <Laney> I'll be at LRL ¬_¬
[19:31] <sharms> I will be at Ohio Linux Fest
[19:31] <sharms> this weekend actually
[19:35] <directhex> i think i'm in san antonio during LRL
[19:35] <geser> sharms: there is no priority in FTBFS fixing, you may fix any package you want
[19:38] <fabrice_sp> I usually check with popcon, just to see if there is at least one user :-)
[19:47] <fabrice_sp> One question: the general consensus is not to add a patch system to a package if Debian does not have one?
[19:47] <geser> yes, as you easily end with patch applied directly and patches applied through the patch system
[19:57] <fabrice_sp> thanks geser
[20:13] <sharms> if I fix a FTBFS what should I tag it with
[20:13] <sharms> or do we still do that
[20:33] <geser> I don't know of any tagging
[20:38] <jpds> sharms: Attach the patch, and subscribe the correct sponsorship team.
[20:56] <toabctl> hi all
[20:58] <toabctl> there's a problem with trac in karmic. the debian/rules file tries to chmod a file in debian/trac/usr/lib/... , but the file is in debian/usr/local/lib . can anybody help? see http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32316783/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.trac_0.11.5-2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[20:59] <sharms> if someone gets a chance can a motu review https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cryptonit/+bug/435477
[21:02] <POX> DktrKranz: can you update stani's FFe bug (#434972) with build logs and whatever else is needed and sync it from Debian unstable?
[21:04] <DktrKranz> POX: I haven't Ubuntu box hany ATM, I can build it in a pbuilder, though
[21:04] <DktrKranz> *handy
[21:04] <POX> heh, /me didn't think he's that good in stealing Ubuntu developers
[21:05] <POX> pochu uses Debian these dats, same for DktrKranz....
[21:05] <POX> s/dats/days
[21:06] <POX> ScottK: you're next ;)
[21:06] <POX> how's your NM process, btw
[21:08] <jpds> directhex: Congrats.
[21:08] <directhex> 8D
[21:09] <DktrKranz> hey directhex! :)
[21:09]  * jpds pinches directhex's ear and forces him in #ubuntu-uk
[21:09] <directhex> more channels? :o
[21:17] <Daviey> directhex: go'an
[21:18] <jpds> Daviey: He has?
[21:18] <Daviey> hmm.. ETOOMANYCHANNELS fail
[21:23] <fabrice_sp> sharms, do not assign the bug to MOTU Reviewers Team, subscribe Universe sponsors
[21:23] <geser> sharms: on a quick look (don't have time right now for more) it looks good, but as fabrice_sp said
[21:24] <sharms> thanks, appreciate it
[21:24] <geser> else your bug don't get reviewed by anyone
[21:25] <mruiz> hi all
[21:25] <fabrice_sp> hi mruiz
[21:25] <mruiz> what is the difference between debian/control and debian/control.in ?
[21:25] <fabrice_sp> sharms, not assign
[21:25] <fabrice_sp> :-)
[21:25] <mruiz> fabrice_sp, hello!
[21:26] <fabrice_sp> sharms, on the right, you have the Subscribe someone else link
[21:26] <sharms> haha ok got it
[21:26] <fabrice_sp> :-)
[21:27] <fabrice_sp> that's funny: I downloaded cryptonit yesterday, but didn't had time to work on it :)
[21:27] <fabrice_sp> thanks for you contribution
[21:27] <sharms> thanks for the help with the process, a bit rusty
[21:27] <fabrice_sp> that's fine now ;-)
[21:28] <geser> mruiz: control.in is a template to generate control, you should find there some placeholders
[21:28] <geser> some packages use it to generate the correct build-depends on e.g. cdbs or put in the list of uploaders
[21:31] <mruiz> geser, then ... what should I modify?
[21:32] <geser> both to be on the safe side
[21:35] <mruiz> :D
[21:35] <micahg> do I have to do anything special to request a sync now after feature freeze?
[21:35] <micahg> it's for a package with security updates
[21:36] <micahg> I'm reading the FFe process wiki page
[21:36] <micahg> since it's a sync, do I need an actual diff
[21:37] <geser> micahg: it depends on the other changes: if it's a just a patch applied then a normal sync request is enough
[21:37] <micahg> or is a link to the securtiy fixes enoug?
[21:37] <micahg> no
[21:37] <micahg> it's a version bump
[21:37] <micahg> with bugfixes as well
[21:38] <mruiz> I'm getting this error during a build "`Depends' field, reference to `epiphany-webkit': error in version: version string is empty"
[21:38] <geser> then you need to check if it's only a bug fix release -> sync request as normal (noting that's it's only a bug fix release would be helpful)
[21:38] <geser> else you need a FFe
[21:38] <micahg> geser: only bug fix (i.e. minor revision)?
[21:39] <geser> depends on the upstream, some are only bug fixes others not
[21:40] <micahg> seems like they added one thing as well
[21:40] <geser> look at the changelog from upstream
[21:40] <micahg> ok
[21:41] <micahg> geser: just says new upstream relase
[21:41] <c_korn> how are spaces been escaped in an install file properly ?
[21:41] <geser> micahg: :( then you need to look at the diff between the new versions
[21:45] <micahg> geser: is there a debian site that'll show the diffs between versions like LP?
[21:46] <geser> not that I know of
[21:53] <micahg> thanks geser, I'll have to come back when I have more time
[22:29] <irvingpop> MOTU team,  thanks for your packaging help yesterday.   I need one more bit of packaging advice
[22:29] <irvingpop> I've created a package infrastructure for a program which has never been packaged for Debian/Ubuntu before,  but I'm stuck on one bit
[22:30] <irvingpop> The package includes a kernel module for Jaunty.  this was fine until I moved it into Launchpad,  now it cannot build
[22:32] <irvingpop> I'm guessing I need to split the kernel module bit out somehow, right?
[22:33] <tisepti> i produced some .deb files by apt-get source;  applying some changes and then making it; the names however is a bit off - it should be package-7:4.3.5..suff...deb; what i got was package-4.3.5..stuff...deb; which basicly has the effect of making the 'bad' one 'newer'; can i simply rename my file to what it is 'supposed' to be and have everything work?
[22:42] <Darxus> tisepti: Unlikely.
[22:42] <Darxus> tisepti: The version is probably determined by debian/changelog.
[22:45] <tisepti> Daraxus: hmm - the changelog this was generated from is long gone; i think ill just add (= version) dependencies on the other things
[22:45] <tisepti> or regenerate - though that would be a bit difficult at this point
[22:49] <Darxus> Er, I don't think a .deb will build without a changelog.
[22:50] <Darxus> The command "dch -i" is used to update the changelog.  It might also generate one for you if it doesn't exist.
[22:52] <Darxus> There's a --create option for that.
[22:53] <tisepti> er no - the .deb was created; and the sources folder was deleted a bit ago
[22:55] <tisepti> im not sure if this channel is even interested but its the 9.04 version of libmagick (and friends); if compiled with openMP (which they are in the repo) there are cases where you can get a deadlock; i think its resolved in 9.10; this simply redoes the package without openMP
[23:38] <tisepti> im recompiling the libmagic 9.04 libraries with different options; however the produced .deb files are all of the form NAME_6.4.5.4...3.2; from the repository however the files are NAME_7:6.4.5.4...; that should just be part of the debian/changelog?
[23:39] <tisepti> i duplicated an older changelog entry only altering the ..3.1 to ..3.2
[23:46] <tisepti> how is the epoch set
[23:48] <nicklas_> ( . Y . )
[23:50] <lifeless> nicklas_: please don't, that is unnecessary and offensive to many
[23:50] <nicklas_> sorry :-P just bored