[00:02] i am sorry, that wasnt meant as an offense, just a joke, didnt know people would get so angry, wont do it again [00:03] thank you [00:08] Hello guys! I'm looking for some information on how I could compile a source to be installed just as a version from ubuntu's repo. If I compile it using the default options it will use other folders for binaries, libraries and won't make menu shortcuts [00:13] Hm, is there anything I can do to accelerate the process of getting tahoe-lafs popped from this queue -- https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+queue -- and put into the Karmic apt-repo so that I can ask Tahoe-LAFS users to test out the Karmic package? [00:16] zooko: unfortunately for you the friendly archive-admin that would be on rotation right now is on vacation, so it might be a while before someone gets to it [00:17] zooko: so accelerated processing requires asking someone nicely [00:18] james_w: would *you* be so kind as to archive-admin that package? I've been careful to document all the licensing. [00:18] hey, you know my rule! ;-) [00:18] I figured that we're going ... Ah, yes I do. :-) [00:18] I'll ask you politely tomorrow morning after your coffee. [00:19] but after I go and be horizontally in a dark room for 8 hours I'll try and remember to look [00:19] I figure that we Tahoe-LAFS devs are going to be supporting the version that is in Karmic for many years, so I would like to give it a good workout before Karmic goes gold. [00:19] you would focus on the karmic version over the LTS one? [00:19] Tahoe-LAFS has thorough unit tests (TDDFTW!), but obviously "real world with users using it in strange ways" tests cannot be skipped. [00:19] (nice attitude though :-) [00:20] That totally depends on user demand. [00:20] My perspective so far is that Hardy is super popular among servers, but that we still support edgy, feisty, and gutsy. [00:20] given that support is 18 months for karmic, and 5 years for lucid on the server you can happily tell karmic users to upgrade before too long [00:20] We dropped dapper finally. [00:21] Hm, I hadn't really thought of it that way. [00:21] well, *we* don't support edgy feisty and gutsy [00:21] so it's probably better you don't [00:21] The whole point, or most of the point, of Tahoe-LAFS is long-term storage and reliability and safety and so on. [00:21] tell them to get on to hardy where they get security updates for the base packages [00:21] So we have a general attitude that we have to maintain backwards compatibility as well as we can. [00:21] cool [00:21] Although now that you mention it, this attitude might not apply to the underlying OS. [00:22] yeah, we limit the number of versions we will support people running for a long time [00:22] As far as I know all of our actual current users are on Hardy or newer or a similarly new other OS. [00:22] You make an excellent point about security updates of base packages. [00:22] I guess most people don't run too much on their machines beside tahoe? [00:23] but still, the kernel doesn't get support for longer than anything else [00:23] There are two classes of Tahoe-LAFS user: the corp which runs hundreds of servers doing nothing but Tahoe-LAFS, and the "friendnet" [00:23] a group of hackers who run Tahoe-LAFS on their personal machines or personal servers. [00:23] There is only one element in the first set, so far. [00:23] There are several "friendnets". [00:24] Anyway, Karmic will be supported for 18 months, right? [00:24] yep [00:24] (I hope, or I look silly now) [00:24] That's a long time that all the software we write will have to be fully bidirectional compatible with whatever is in Karmic. [00:24] true [00:24] So please remember to archive Tahoe-LAFS tomorrow so I can get more days of testing in before Karmic goes gold. :-) [00:25] I will! [00:25] Thanks! [00:25] no thank you [00:25] See you later. [00:26] For example I'm trying to compile postgresql 8.4.1 on Jaunty. If I do ./configure --help | more I get a section that' called "Fine tuning of the installation directories:". Is there a general rule on which these directories should be in Ubuntu? [00:26] depends on what they are [00:26] init scripts in /etc/init.d/, config files in /etc/software_name/ and so on... [00:26] NoReflex: see the File Hiearachy Standard [00:30] azeem, does Ubuntu respect the standard guidelines from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard? [00:36] I need to install postgresql-8.4.1 on Ubuntu Jaunty server and pgadmin3-1.10.0 in Ubuntu Desktop. Neither has been updated in Jaunty repository so I believe I must compile them manually and build a deb file with checkinstall. The thing is I want them to be configured as close as possible as the older versions from the repository. [00:38] then just update the older version manually [00:38] or simply try to rebuild the Debian package (for postgresql) [00:40] azeem how do I update the older version manually? using uupdate? [00:40] karmic appears to ship pgadmin3-1.10 so you could just try to rebuild that package on your target Ubuntu system as well [00:40] NoReflex: you could try to backport the karmic version [00:40] NoReflex: that'd be a starting point [00:42] azeem how do I rebuild pgadmin3-1.10 from karmic? do I have to get the source and the compile on m jaunty machine? [00:47] NoReflex: you can build the sources in a Launchpad PPA [00:54] micahg, on Launchpad i see this "We will not accept uploads of packages that are unmodified from their original source in Ubuntu or Debian, only packages that include your own change" [00:54] I believe I'm not eligible for a PPA and must compile the software on my own computer [00:56] NoReflex: everyone can have a personal PPA [00:56] they're free [00:56] if you have a user account on LP, you can create a ppa [00:57] you can even have multiple ones now [00:57] NoReflex: you update the changelog [01:13] micahg, I don't think I'm skilled enough to set up my PPA. I tried uupdate but that didn't retain the debian specific configuration options of the older version [01:14] NoReflex: add the karmic deb src line, apt-get -t karmic source PKGNAME [01:15] If I'll succeed compiling on my own computer I probably set up a PPA with postgresql-server and related tools [01:15] NoReflex: Why would you want a special version of postgresql? [01:16] wgran, I want the latest version of postgresql not a special one. jaunty only has 8.3.7 [01:16] NoReflex: There are already PPAs with 8.4 [01:17] wgrant I knwo that 8.4 is in karmic's repo and sid's repo but I've been told not to mix repositories between releases [01:18] NoReflex: it's already been done: https://edge.launchpad.net/~pitti/+archive/postgresql [01:25] micahg, it seems to work but now I need pgadmin3 1.10.0 which is compatible with postgres 8.4 and for that I didn't find a PPA on Launchpad. This is why I believe it's better if I learn how to compile the sources myself first. [01:30] NoReflex: so you can backport it to a ppa [01:34] micahg, I downloaded the source for pgadmin3 1.10.0 from karmic's source repository [01:35] NoReflex: are you familiar at all with packaging? [01:35] I used before ./configure, make, make install (or checkinstall) make uninstall [01:36] ok [01:36] well, if you use a ppa, you don't need to do that, but you do need to add a changelog revision set for the version of ubuntu you want it to compile for [01:39] NoReflex: you need to pay attention to the version number as well [01:40] so that if you upgrade to karmic, you get the karmic packages [01:40] and any updates [01:41] So basically the PPA compiles the sources I upload (./configure, make and checkinstall?) [01:41] yep [01:41] with the proper dependencies for that version (assuming they exist) [01:42] if they don't you have to backport the dependencies [01:42] you can also, add other ppas as dependencies for your ppa [01:45] I have created a new version of libmagick; how can i cause all of the dependencies of the packages produced to be the packages I am producing; there was a security patch which did this http://packages.ubuntu.com/jaunty/libmagick++-dev [01:46] in that patch all the dependencies are (= 7:6.4.5.4.dfsg1-1ubuntu3.1) [01:46] for my stuff my dependencies are simply stuff like 7:6.4.5.4.dfsg1-ubuntu3 [01:47] which means that old stuff satisfies [01:48] that seems to be controled in the debian/control file with some things such as ${shlibs:Depends}, [01:53] On a more general level [01:53] ...is the whole PPA idea a good thing? [01:54] What if someone modifies the source and puts in some malware code (like a keylooger) and uploads it to his PPA? How can the users know that PPA is trustworthy? [01:55] Does someone verify the sources or the generated binaries? [01:58] NoReflex: You need to trust the owner of the PPA, or verify the sources yourself. [01:58] You always know that the binaries are generated from the sources that you see, as Launchpad builds them itself. [02:00] hi guys, i'm looking for a straight forward way to package a new kernel.org kernel with ubuntu. Is checkinstall ok for packages which will be used internally only ? [02:29] mase_wk: check out kernel-package and the make-kpkg checkinstall is not a good idea at all [02:29] zul: i tried using make-kpkg however that did not work with 2.6.31 on hardy [02:30] at least not with the kernel from kernel.org [02:35] zul: what are the disadvantages of checkinstall ? [02:36] assuming i am only using the packages on my systems [02:36] mase_wk: it could break your system [02:36] ok, in what particular way ? [02:45] POX: Progressing, but both my AM and I are pretty busy. === santiago-ve is now known as foursixnine [04:04] hi all [04:49] Would someone from the release team please check bug #435626 to see if it needs an FFe. [04:49] Launchpad bug 435626 in pylirc "Sync pylirc 0.0.5-2 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)." [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/435626 [04:49] mase_wk: checkinstall is no worse than make install. It just runs make install and keeps track of the files that get created so they can be easily removed. [04:51] porthose: is that even in the repos? [04:51] yes :) [04:51] hrmm, i can't dl it [04:52] interesting [04:52] don't rely on 'apt-cache' I guess when looking for packages :/ [04:53] pull-lp-source didn't work either [04:53] nixternal: rmadison is better [04:53] derr, if I could only speeeel [04:54] pythn-pylirc isn't going to cut it [04:54] Heh. Damn picky computers. [04:55] The "o" key on my phone is terrible, so that looks familiar :/ [04:55] Darxus: the way you describe checkinstall makes me think that the GNU stow approach is more robust. [04:55] zooko: stow? [04:56] Darxus: ya, I have an issue with 'i' on my phone [04:57] GNU stow! A beautiful piece of work. One nice simple hack which is very useful. [04:57] * zooko finishes singing the "Praise We Now GNU Stow" song [04:58] hehe, haven't used stow in probably 10 years [04:58] zooko: Okay, more robust how? [05:00] Darxus: GNU stow never lets the installer script, i.e. the software's Makefile or whatever, write into your system. [05:00] Instead it gets to write into a special-purpose empty directory created just for it, by telling it ./configure --prefix=$YOUR_INSTDIR [05:00] for example. [05:01] Ahh. [05:01] So that's the first way that it is more robust is that the installer script can't overwrite things. It doesn't run under sudo. [05:01] Well, there's nothing keeping you from running ./configure --prefix before checkinstall, right? [05:01] The next way is that you can safely and completely uninstall everything that it ever had permission to write, with the following command: "/bin/rm -rf $YOUR_INSTDIR". [05:02] Heh. [05:02] And then there's the final piece, which is how GNU stow cleverly uses symlinks to make the previous two pieces convenient and useful. [05:02] There's something I love about using an old, pre-existing, lower-layer tool like the filesystem and rm and symlinks to achieve a higher-layer goal like uninstallable software installation. [05:03] It sounds nice if you don't trust the make install, but if you don't trust the make install you shouldn't be installing the software at all. [05:03] Obviously it doesn't do everything you might want, but when you need something like GNU stow, GNU stow makes a very good tool. [05:03] Darxus: are you familiar with the notion of "Principle of Least Authority"? [05:04] If I didn't know about checkinstall I'd almost certainly use it the next time I had to install something from source. [05:04] zooko: I can infer well enough. [05:04] * zooko nods. [05:04] It applies to this case. [05:04] The most common problems with installing software from source isn't malice on the part of the packager, but accident. [05:04] Running "make install" without root privs helps a great deal against that problem. [05:05] But even if you think of the malicious case, you can imagine installing and using some software from source without ever giving it sudo power, using GNU stow to install it. [05:06] True. As long as the installed software isn't then run by root ever. [05:06] Hopefully checkinstall does something to prevent existing files from getting clobbered. I don't know. Never used it. [05:21] zooko: Where do I find the full copy of the BSD license in the upstream tarball? [05:22] * wgrant yells out one final call for Launchpad Bugs/Soyuz priorities, before declaring that none can be submitted. [05:23] wgrant: How about the smarter retry stuff that we discussed? [05:24] I'd also go for put the old PPA page back. [05:24] What's wrong with the new PPA page? [05:24] Besides the hiding of useful information behind an extra layer of links. [05:24] That's it. [05:25] And doing it in a way that's totally unobvious how to get it back [05:25] I believe the front page will eventually display more user-specific information (eg. about the applications, rather than source packages), but it's not there yet. [05:26] I only eventually figured it out from reading bug reports [05:26] ScottK: oops [05:26] There is no full copy in the upstream tarball. [05:26] zooko: I'm going to reject this one. Please fix that and ask your sponsor to upload again. [05:26] The BSD licence applies only to this one file, which isn't even needed, so perhaps it would be easier to remove that file. [05:26] ScottK: That's a separate issue. Have you seen the new (admittedly far too small) link at the top right of the package list? [05:26] That was added recently. [05:26] Will do, but please advise me on how to fix it. [05:27] ScottK: You use +queue to do that, I presume? [05:27] zooko: It needs to be added to the upstream tarball. You can repack the tarball to do it. [05:28] wgrant: I saw the link after reading a bug report about it. [05:28] ScottK: Even after the second link was added later on? [05:28] wgrant: Whatever is there now. Yes. [05:28] Okay, so just add a file, perhaps named COPYING.BSD, with license text therein, and mention that file from the part of the "copyright" file that refers to the BSD licence, and reupload? [05:28] ScottK: Urgh. [05:28] I'll have to be careful not to undo RainCT's fixes to my Ubuntu changelog when I do that. [05:29] zooko: Yes. But it needs to be in the tarball, not patched in in the diff.gz. [05:29] Hm. [05:29] So, uh, [05:29] Sorry, it is late. [05:29] there are two different issues under discussion [05:30] one is 'can we ship this code' [05:30] wgrant: On the archive management page whenever you accept or reject a package it always says OK:packagename. It always throws me if I rejected and the response I get is OK. [05:30] the other is 'how we present metadata about the code to our downstreams and our users' [05:30] ScottK: Right, that UI sucks. That's known. [05:30] zooko: What lifeless says is exactly correct. [05:30] OK. [05:31] So, is it that there is something about the current packaging that makes you not confident that you can ship it? [05:31] zooko: Yes. The absence of a full copy of one of the licenses it relies on in the upstream tarball. [05:32] I'm confident that without that, I can't ship it. [05:32] Okay, so you need a new upstream tarball to be created. Now here's where I get confused: what version number, if any, should be in the filename of the new upstream tarball? Does it matter? [05:32] The current one is named tahoe-lafs-1.5.0.tar.gz [05:32] wgrant: Is the ability to explicitly unsubscribed from bugs one is implicitly subscribed to (e.g. via a team) on the list? [05:33] zooko: you could append .1; bump the 0 to 1, or call it 'muppets forever', we'll be happy. [05:33] ScottK: Ah, no. That's a good one. [05:33] lifeless: Ok. [05:33] ScottK: That's on other lists already, but I'll add it to the MOTU one if nothing else comes up. [05:34] Next question: RainCT uploaded something to the Karmic Queue while fixing some bits over the "0ubuntu3" that I had uploaded to REVU. Where can I get a copy of RainCT's version? [05:34] wgrant: The standard "too slow" complaint shouldn't be forgotten. [05:34] zooko: I've got it here locally. I'll upload it to revu. [05:35] ScottK: That's not app-specific, unfortunately. [05:35] wgrant: soyuz u/i too slow [05:35] ScottK thanks! [05:36] wgrant: Make the bug status AJAX stuff go away. Far too many status changes with no comment now. [05:38] zooko: Uploaded to REVU. It should be there in a few minutes. [05:41] ScottK: thanks [05:43] wgrant: Where do I click to edit a bug? [05:44] ScottK: 'edit a bug'? [05:44] What aspect of it? [05:44] The description [05:44] The drunken exclamation mark in the tab at the top right of the description. [05:44] Where? I don't see it. [05:45] The only one of those I see is connected to bug affects me. [05:45] Which browser? [05:45] Konqueror, of course [05:45] I'll try FF. [05:46] I see it. [05:47] ScottK: you won't mind if I give you a tarball which just doesn't have the BSD-licensed file in question, will you? [05:47] The little line that draws around it is present in Konqueror, but no icon to edit. [05:47] zooko: That's work too, but if you're rolling a new tarball, it seems it'd be easy enough to add. [05:47] I mean if I upload a package containing such a tarball to REVU. [05:48] Yes, I just started adding it but then I realized that I would be happier as upstream maintainer if I just did't have this file nor its licence... [05:48] There are a couple of missing icons in WebKit-based browsers. Looks like KHTML is the same. [05:48] Though that particular icon *is* there in WebKit. [05:48] WTF. And that's release ready? [05:49] KHTML isn't widely tested. [05:49] WebKit is, and those bugs were fixed. [05:49] People still use KHTML? [05:49] I thought most had moved on. [05:49] But Konqueror continues to use it, unfortunately :( [05:50] It's used in the default browser in Kubuntu. [05:50] We considered switching to Arora (webkit), but it wasn't enough better to be worth it. [05:50] Not being abandoned wasn't sufficient? [05:51] It's not abandoned. [05:51] It's not particularly robustly maintained, but enough web sites had problems with arora that it didn't get users past the need to install firefox. [05:52] konq doesn't either [05:52] Does gmail work with konq yet? [05:52] I don't recall. It does at least in non-ajax mode [05:53] Right, last I heard konq didn't support ajax [05:54] I see opera has problems in this particular area too. [05:54] It does, some. [05:55] asac, ping [05:55] I've been using konqueror in Jaunty. [05:55] Haven't tried with gmail. [05:55] * ScottK too [05:56] wgrant: That's now 435648 [05:57] wgrant: I guess "switch back to the LP beta tables based U/I to improve usability" hasn't much of a chance. [05:57] ScottK: Thanks. [05:57] ScottK: You mean LP 0.0? [05:57] Yep [05:57] That was the best one so far from a user perspective IMO. [05:58] I know the tables stuff was unmaintainable though [05:58] 3.0 is much better than 2.0, and possibly 1.0. [05:58] I liked the look at a glance. [05:58] So far I have a lot of trouble finding stuff. [05:59] ScottK: our copyright file currently says: The files mac/fuse.py and mac/fuseparts/subbedopts.py are licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public Licence. In addition, on 2009-09-21 Csaba Henk granted permission for those files to be under the same terms as Tahoe-LAFS itself. [05:59] zooko: I saw that. [05:59] So, we don't need to include a copy of LGPL2, since those files are under the other licences, right? [06:00] A copy of the LGPL would be good too. [06:00] Okay. [06:00] Does the file containing LGPL need to be referred to from copyright or from anywhere? [06:00] Or can I just drop it into the source tree. [06:01] Just drop it in. [06:01] Ok. [06:01] wgrant: On top of it, I can't even actually edit the bug in FF. [06:02] Something in tiny, tiny print about not being well formed json. [06:03] ScottK: That affects some people some times with some types of input. It is under investigation. [06:04] wgrant: I didn't add anything, I just deleted text. [06:04] ScottK: Right. It's a very strange bug. [06:06] It's total crap. [06:06] That too. [06:09] wgrant: How about adding "Have it working before release" to the list. Apparently that needs to be asked for special [06:10] Since I see opera bugs too, I guess they must just test with IE. [06:10] ScottK: It does mostly work! Sure, there are a few AJAX bugs, and some big big design issues with the new UI... [06:11] It works less than the previous release did. [06:12] That's generally considered not good. [06:12] Perhaps. [06:12] But it is a major new revision, and everyone knows they will never be perfect. [06:12] Particularly when it was as large a job as LP 3.0. [06:13] Editing a bug description is not an obscure function. [06:13] It's not. [06:13] Perhaps the AJAX should have been disabled. [06:13] Basic stuff like that should work. [06:13] Certainly. And in all but a few cases it does. [06:14] I'm zero for one so far. [06:14] And I tried it multiple times. [06:14] Yet I've not experienced the failure. [06:15] I can only form my impression of the release based on my experience. [06:16] Of course. [06:16] I do think the U/I is cleaner in some respects, but that is much more than offset by my not being able to find things. [06:16] Things should be in more obvious places. [06:17] Part of it was moving the actions that were semi-randomly scattered around the page into the global actions menu in the top right. [06:17] So if an action doesn't modify some value on the page, it should be in the top-right. [06:17] Otherwise it's next to the value, which should be fairly obvious. [06:17] But linking to a CVE does modify a value on the page. [06:17] So does linking to a branch [06:17] Ah, yes, those are a bit special. [06:18] So does marking as duplicate and converting to a question. [06:18] That's all the stuff in there. [06:18] Converting to a question does not. [06:18] Marking as a duplicate, linking to a CVE, and linking to a branch do not act on anything on the page if they haven't already been used. [06:19] I see, so making something blank, not blank doesn't count? [06:19] wgrant: I'm confused. didn't they just try to do away with a global bar, and stick things around the page? [06:19] Hobbsee: They did. [06:20] Hobbsee: That was LP 2.0™ [06:21] wgrant: Is the way the bug information on the right side is the same level as the navigation stuff (Overview/Code/Bugs/etc) on purpose? [06:21] wgrant: right [06:21] ScottK: That's only on the person page, and was a rather late (and unfortunate, in my opinion) addition. [06:21] * Hobbsee pictures launchpad 4.0 in a complete tag cloud [06:21] wgrant: No. It's on the bug page too. [06:21] ScottK: Note that the same sort of thing is used more appropriately on the project, distribution and source package pages. [06:22] ScottK: Maybe I'm not understanding what you're talking about? [06:22] The Bug number/reported by is at the same level as the navigation stuff [06:22] ScottK: 'bug information'? [06:22] Ah. [06:22] Right. [06:22] I disagree with that too! [06:22] That change was made less than 24 hours ago. [06:22] It doesn't make sense. [06:23] But it was previously below there, which meant it forced the bug summary to wrap. [06:23] That whole 'registered' line was only added a few days ago. [06:23] It was rather rushed. [06:24] wgrant: Make the U/I work again withough CSS would also be nice. Unsubscribing without CSS has been broken since they ajax'ed it. [06:25] ScottK: It will degrade if you have JS off, but not sure about CSS. [06:25] On my phone I use neither. [06:25] It used to work fine. [06:25] can you guys move this discussion to #launchpad or somewhere more appropriate? [06:25] It makes the U/I actually tolerable. [06:26] superm1: He was asking for input as MOTU rep for LP stuff. [06:26] If anyone else has inputs, they should give it too. [06:30] ScottK: I gues 403 Forbidden on http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/revu1-incoming/tahoe-lafs-0909240639/tahoe-lafs_1.5.0-0ubuntu1_source.changes [06:30] zooko: That's correct. You just need to dget the .dsc. [06:30] Ah. [06:30] If you had the .sources file signed by me you could upload it to Ubuntu and it would be accepted. [06:31] Nice. :-) [06:31] That's why it's not available. [06:32] Good night everyone. [06:32] Night ScottK. [06:34] ScottK: goodnight! [06:34] Anyone else: can you help me debuild this package? [06:35] I did it successfully (mostly) last night, but now I can't figure out how to make a package just like the previous one except with a different orig tarball. [06:39] Oh, I think I got it... === micahg1 is now known as micahg [07:41] good morning [07:42] hi dholbach [07:42] hola mruiz! [07:42] guten morgen dholbach [07:43] :-) [07:43] how are you doing? [07:43] fine, and you ? [07:44] good :) [07:44] upgrading my laptop to Karmic [07:45] good luck ;-) [07:46] good morning [07:46] hi randomaction [07:46] does BetaFreese affect universe? [07:46] dholbach, have you ever read something as "`Depends' field, reference to `epiphany-webkit': error in version: version string is empty" ? [07:47] randomaction: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess should clarify that [07:47] mruiz: where did you see that? can you pastebin a longer part of the log? [07:48] dholbach, sure ... wait a sec [07:48] dholbach, http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32146411/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.epiphany-webkit_2.27.92-2ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [07:52] I guess that (>= ${gnome:Version}) is not substituted [07:53] although I can't tell why it breaks there [07:54] "line 7 package 'epiphany-browser'" does not really exist [07:54] I found something related -> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=528777 [07:54] Debian bug 528777 in epiphany-extensions "epiphany-extensions: FTBFS (hppa/unstable): `Depends' field," [Serious,Closed] [07:54] maybe it's about the "," at the end [07:54] I though the same [07:55] but the package was built in Debian [07:55] weird [07:55] maybe ask seb128 [07:55] indeed [07:55] :D [07:55] he should know the /usr/share/gnome-pkg-tools/1/rules/gnome-version.mk stuff a bit better [08:04] dholbach, thanks :-) [08:05] dholbach, I've been fixing RC bugs on Debian :D [08:13] yawwwn === asac_ is now known as asac === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach === johe|work is now known as johe [10:47] hi ScottK: thanks for the build log! === doko_ is now known as doko [11:29] stani: You're welcome. Thank you for your interest in making Ubuntu better. [11:36] hi === cjwatson_ is now known as cjwatson [11:37] when i run pbuilder for my package it shows the following error http://pastebin.com/m6c269637 [11:40] suji: you missing the build-dependency on pkg-config and probably libgtk2.0-dev too [11:41] geser: oh! ok, i will add them now [11:54] geser: after i add those packages in build dependencies again it shows this error http://pastebin.com/m64c66f18 [12:03] suji: The error lies at the top of the text you pasted. [12:04] slytherin: what? [12:05] suji: E: Failed to fetch http://mirrors.kernel.org/ubuntu/pool/main/j/jasper/libjasper1_1.900.1-5.1_i386.deb: Size mismatch [12:05] slytherin: what to do for that? it happen because of Internet problem? [12:06] suji: I may be because of problem in the mirror you are using. [12:06] Or you can simply retry again. [12:06] slytherin: how to change that mirror? [12:06] suji: pbuilderrc file. [12:07] slytherin: in my ~/.pbuilderrc file i have this COMPONENTS="main universe multiverse restricted" [12:07] suji: after you modify the file, you will need to do sudo pbuilder --update --override-config [12:07] slytherin: what should add in that file [12:08] suji: Do you have something called MIRRORSITE ? [12:08] slytherin: no, i have that one line only in ~/.pbuilderrc file [12:09] suji: then add it, something like MIRRORSITE=http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu [12:10] slytherin: should i add this line which you gave here? [12:10] yes [12:14] slytherin : now also i got the same error like this [12:14] E: Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/j/jasper/libjasper1_1.900.1-5.1_i386.deb: Size mismatch [12:14] E: Unable to correct for unavailable packages [12:15]