[04:05] <zooko> ScottK: Hi there, I just checked IRC and saw your messages.  Investigating that file.
[04:07] <zooko> ScottK: I'm the copyright holder, and the original licence was a simple permissive licence, and I gave allmydata.com full rights to re-license, and they re-licensed it under the Tahoe-LAFS terms (GPL2+|TGPPL1+).
[04:07] <zooko> ... And I'm not updating the upstream Tahoe-LAFS trunk to reflect this...
[04:10] <zooko> Oh, wait, it was true of an earlier version of mathutil.py that it was under a simple permissive licence.  A more recent version -- http://allmydata.org/trac/pyutil/browser/pyutil/README.txt -- is under GPL2+|TGPPL1+ .  I don't know which version was copied into Tahoe-LAFS, but I guess it doesn't matter for various reasons. :-)
[04:16] <zooko> ScottK: s/I'm not updating/I'm now updating/
[06:02] <zooko> off to sleep..
[06:05] <sharms> wgrant: When will you run the ftbfs report again?
[06:05] <wgrant> sharms: The rebuild FTBFS report should be running every two hours.
[06:06] <sharms> wgrant: if it says superceeded then that means it can be safely ignored?
[06:06] <wgrant> sharms: Not necessarily. You would have to check if the newer version built properly in the primary archive.
[06:07] <wgrant> '(superseded)' just means that there is a newer version of the source in the primary archive.
[06:07] <wgrant> Not necessarily that the new one built OK.
[06:07] <sharms> thanks
[06:12] <sharms> that is a rather large list so soon to release
[06:13] <wgrant> It's not too much worse than normal.
[06:13] <sharms> I am taking a look at procmail now, and I just got minicom fixed the other day, but I could imagine if those were broken at release the internet would cry
[06:14] <sharms> this getline transition seems to be biting
[06:14] <wgrant> Few would notice unless an SRU or security update was required.
[06:17] <sharms> so we just ship the package as built before the ftbfs?
[06:18] <wgrant> Yes.
[06:19] <sharms> any idea how hard it would be to revert ncpfs to pre-jaunty for karmic?
[06:19] <wgrant> Why?
[06:19] <sharms> gcc changed its behavior of how it handles the packed attribute, so for all i386 users the only way to use it is to install the pre jaunty package
[06:20] <sharms> I fixed it for amd64 but I cant figure out how to fix it for i386
[06:20] <wgrant> Fix the struct definitions.
[06:20] <wgrant> Upstream has no fix?
[06:20] <sharms> I dont believe there is an upstream anymore
[06:20] <sharms> last updates were years ago
[06:21] <wgrant> Restoring the pre-Jaunty binaries is pretty much impossible. You'd have to rebuild it, in which case the benefit is probably lost.
[06:22] <sharms> oh well, maybe I will get lucky and figure out the i386 issue
[06:22] <wgrant> If not, ask around.
[06:22] <wgrant> Debian hasn't fixed it?
[06:22] <sharms> I think I am the only person who touched it in the last while
[06:23] <sharms> the code is a mess
[06:23] <sharms> I actually forked it and tried to fix all the compiler warnings
[06:23] <wgrant> Urgh.
[06:23] <sharms> then removed that fork after it was basically impossible
[06:24] <sharms> anyway, thanks for all the info, very helpful
[06:24] <wgrant> np
[06:37] <wrapster> while trying to build i get an error saying that GNU m4 is missing.. but even after apt-get install m4 i still get the same issue.. i'm getting this issue while building flex?
[06:37] <wrapster> is there a work around?
[06:42] <jmarsden> wrapster: What are you doing exactly?  I can do  mkdir -p ~/packages/flex && cd ~/packages/flex && apt-get source flex && sudo apt-get build-dep flex && cd flex-2.5.35 && debuild
[06:43] <jmarsden> Just works, here.
[06:44] <wrapster> oh...
[06:44] <wrapster> i did a apt-satisfydepends
[06:46] <wrapster> well it says 0 upgraded and 0 installed
[06:47] <jmarsden> All I know is that entire command set executed and build flex in under two minutes here :)  It "just works"
[06:47] <wrapster> jmarsden: http://pastie.org/632162
[06:49] <jmarsden> So, what does dpkg -l m4 |tail -1   output on your system?
[06:49] <jmarsden> (In other words, what version of m4 do you have installed?)
[06:50] <wrapster> 1.4.13-3
[06:50] <wrapster> i opened up the configure file .. and i can see that m4, gm4 and gnum4 are all different
[06:51] <jmarsden> Are you doing this in Karmic?  I see:
[06:51] <jmarsden> ii  m4                                         1.4.11-1                                  a macro processing language
[06:52] <jmarsden> In Ubuntu Jaunty 9.04 amd64.
[06:52] <lifeless> what does /usr/bin/m4 --version
[06:52] <lifeless> show
[06:53] <wrapster> :(
[06:53] <wrapster> usr/bin/m4 --version --> bad option
[06:54] <jmarsden> wrapster: How exactly did you install m4 ?  And what version of Ubuntu are you running?
[06:54] <wrapster> 9.04 and apt-get install m4
[06:55] <jmarsden> ... does not compute :)  Show me the full line of output from   dpkg -l m4 |tail -1
[06:56] <wrapster> http://pastie.org/632168
[06:57] <wrapster> m4 is the only one under dpkg -l |grep m4
[06:57] <jmarsden> wrapster: The initial r in your line means it is not actually installed...
[06:57] <wrapster> oh hold on
[06:57] <wrapster> yeah...
[06:57] <wrapster> but an apt-get install says its already installed?
[06:57] <jmarsden> And where on earth did you get 1.4.13-3 from, even Karmic only has 1.4.13-1
[06:58] <wrapster> hee hee!!
[06:58] <wrapster> this is a nexenta machine
[06:59] <jmarsden> Then go ask in a nexenta forum, this is #ubuntu-motu
[06:59] <wrapster> i know
[06:59] <wrapster> forget that...
[07:00] <wrapster> i think i can guess what the issue could be...
[07:00] <jmarsden> You are just wasting your time and mine asking questions in the wrong place.
[07:00] <wrapster> ok
[07:13] <lifeless> wrapster: it looks to me like m4 isn't GNU m4 ;)
[07:13] <lifeless> wrapster: you should file a bug on nexenta
[07:14] <wrapster> ok... But thats exactly what my question was...
[07:14] <wrapster> coz you open up the configure file you will see that there is a for $var in gnum4 m4 gm4
[07:14] <wrapster> which obviously means it cannot be the same
[07:19] <lifeless> gnu m4 can be installed under many different names
[07:19] <lifeless> thats all that code is for
[07:36] <wrapster> but i can only find m4 at packages.ubuntu.com
[07:37] <wrapster> so could i just do by creating symlinks to m4 under these names?
[07:42] <lifeless> wrapster: the nexenta m4 package is broken from the look of it
[07:42] <lifeless> wrapster: you should get that package fixed.
[07:42] <wrapster> hmm
[11:12] <sistpoty> hi folks
[11:12] <geser> Hi sistpoty
[11:12] <sistpoty> hi geser
[11:28] <iulian> Hey sistpoty, geser.
[11:28] <sistpoty> hi iulian
[11:28] <geser> Hi iulian
[11:33] <sebner> huhu iulian sistpoty geser :D
[11:33] <sistpoty> hi sebner
[11:33] <geser> Hi sebner
[11:33] <sebner> Another sunday with not that many people online but us *cough* :)
[11:35] <sistpoty> hehe
[11:37] <iulian> Hello sebner.
[12:40] <wrapster> i was playing around with binutils and changed a few things to create symlinks.. now after dpkg-buildpackage i am able to see the symlink created in the debian/<pkg>/usr/sfw/bin/ but upon installation /usr/sfw/bin does not reflect it?
[12:40] <wrapster> how is it possible?
[12:42] <lifeless> check debc
[12:42] <wrapster> lifeless: ?
[12:44] <wrapster> ok
[12:44] <wrapster> one moment
[12:44] <wrapster> lifeless: what should i be looking for in debc?
[12:45] <lifeless> your symlinks?
[12:46] <lifeless> debian/$pkg has very litt;e to do with what will be installed
[12:46] <wrapster> lifeless: no its not there
[12:47] <lifeless> then you're not packaing the symlinks
[12:47] <wrapster> the symlinks are not there
[12:47] <wrapster> hmm
[12:47] <lifeless> I thought nexenta was Ubuntu with Solaris kernel ?
[12:48] <wrapster> yes you are right
[12:49] <lifeless> so why are you changing the binutils package to install stuff in a nonstandard location?
[12:51] <wrapster> lifeless: there are a few modules that directly search for executables from these locations(solaris stuff) so instead of changing them it would be advisable to get them into a pkg so that all these essentials can be just an apt-get install away
[12:51] <lifeless> if you were to fix those modules, they would be more portable ;)
[12:51] <lifeless> just a thought
[12:53] <wrapster> i'll give you an eg... gcc actual path is /usr/sfw/bin/gcc(on solaris) but on ubuntu its in /usr/bin right!!!
[12:53] <lifeless> yes. It should be in /usr/bin
[12:53] <wrapster> so there are millions of pkg that search for gcc in /usr/sfw/bin/ and will fail how many can  you change?
[12:54] <wrapster> so instead if you can change the underlying issue..it will always serve the purpose in a better way..
[12:54] <wrapster> :)
[12:54] <lifeless> uhm
[12:54] <lifeless> ubuntu has 20K packages that look in /usr/bin
[12:54] <wrapster> so be it..
[12:54] <wrapster> a symlink wont harm either ubuntu or solaris right!!1
[12:54] <wrapster> :)
[12:55] <lifeless> if you fork such low level packages, you'll have more pain tracking Ubuntu
[12:55] <lifeless> and more bug reports.
[12:56] <wrapster> hmm.. let see when we encounter one.. coz till now there are no reports... no guarantees as yet though ..so hoping it wont turn out the way we dont want it to...
[12:56] <wrapster> let wait and see before ppl start complaing
[12:59] <lifeless>  shrug, its your time
[12:59] <lifeless> I suggest adding a compatibility package though rather than changing toolchain packages thenselves
[13:01] <sebner> sistpoty: du we have any agenda points regarding a MOTU meeting?
[13:02] <sistpoty> sebner: not yet, I guess
[13:02] <sistpoty> sebner: but maybe I'll add some during the week ;)
[13:04] <sebner> sistpoty: sounds mysterious :D
[13:04] <sistpoty> heh
[13:11] <joaopinto> wrapster, waiting for complains about something you know you are doing wrong is a bad pratice
[13:11] <joaopinto> like lifeless explains it makes much more sense to leave the base packages untouched, and introduce a -compat package as a dependency for the opensolaris specific modules
[13:11] <wrapster> lifeless: good idea. will look into that as well.
[13:12] <wrapster> joaopinto: well lets see about that but i liked lifeless's idea
[13:12] <wrapster> will try talking to my seniors regarding that
[13:18] <joaopinto> wrapster, also please note that you can use debian/links and just call dh_link on the rules
[13:19] <wrapster> oh.. i didnt know that..
[13:19] <wrapster> let me try.
[13:23] <wrapster> joaopinto: so should i create a separate file called debian/link or how is it?
[13:24] <wrapster> went through the man but it shows me the usage of the command
[13:24] <joaopinto> wrapster, you should create a file debian/links
[13:24] <joaopinto> yup, the manual is not clear about using a file
[13:25] <wrapster> then specify the links destination and just call dh_link from rulens?
[13:25] <joaopinto> If i am not mistaken on each line you do:source destination
[13:25] <wrapster> rules!!
[13:26] <joaopinto> yes, if is not beeing called already, it is called if you use cdbs
[13:29] <wrapster> ok will test it out
[13:35] <wrapster> so its like this... in the debian/links file --> <abs/path/to/source /abs/path/to/dest ;;;;; then in the rules file dh_link thats all
[14:57] <zooko> Morning, folks! (UTC-6)
[15:00] <Quintasan> zooko: hiho
[15:00] <sebner> sistpoty: what do you think about a FFe for xmoto (0.5.1 -> 0.5.2), some small bugfixes, polished graphics, improved camera, new levelpack
[15:03] <sistpoty> sebner: I'll take a look at it later... just about to leave and go voting ;)
[15:03] <sistpoty> cya
[15:33] <c_korn> how can I find out why dh7 decides to run automake ?
[15:33] <c_korn> the Makefile.in files already exist
[15:34] <c_korn> http://pastebin.com/d268b462c
[15:46] <ChogyDan1> I am following this guide: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/PackageUpdate     but instead of downloading new source code, I am editing the source myself.  The problem is, after I do the pbuild, I don't get new .deb files in /result.  Do I have to repack the source code? or do I need to run a different debuild command?
[15:49] <c_korn> ChogyDan1: what is the output ?
[15:50] <ChogyDan1> c_korn: here is some of the end of the pbuilder output: http://pastebin.com/d6125746f
[15:51] <ChogyDan1> I thought maybe the comments about not including source are important
[15:52] <c_korn> ChogyDan1: no, looks fine
[15:52] <ChogyDan1> hm, ok.
[15:53] <c_korn> ChogyDan1: are you sure the deb is not created ?
[15:53] <c_korn> dh_builddeb only prints a warning but does not fail
[15:54] <ChogyDan1> c_korn: yeah, no debs are in pbuilder/result, and there isn't any gnome-session.deb s anywhere on my machine
[15:55] <c_korn> ChogyDan1: you are sure this file does not exist anywhere ? gnome-session_2.26.0svn20090408-0ubuntu3_i386.deb
[15:55] <c_korn> find / -name gnome-session_2.26.0svn20090408-0ubuntu3_i386.deb
[15:56] <ChogyDan1> ah! that's it
[15:57] <ChogyDan1> it's in /var/cache/pbuilder/jaunty-i386/result
[15:57] <ChogyDan1> thanks!
[16:00] <sebner> ChogyDan1: sure? run "locate gnome-session_2.26.0svn20090408-0ubuntu3_i386.deb"
[16:00] <sebner> c_korn: regarding your problem, Have you tried to build the sources the old way (configure and make)? Doesn't it happen there too?
[16:01] <sebner> damn wifi
[16:02] <c_korn> sebner: no, I "fixed" the problem by removing the "missing" file and creating an empty one
[16:02] <sebner> c_korn: bad solution, why not running autoreconf?
[16:04] <c_korn> sebner: hm, would be better. I will do so and then add a autoreconf.patch to the build system
[16:04] <c_korn> sebner: thanks
[17:01] <lamalex> Hey guys. I still can't figure out why intltool is crashing, is there anyone around who can help me out?
[17:12] <ScottK> zooko: Then document it in debian/copyright.
[17:44] <zooko> ScottK: okay
[17:47] <zooko> ScottK: please see the end of this file and tell me if that's all right: http://testgrid.allmydata.org:3567/file/URI%3ACHK%3Agsecbsotjbtzn5uvn6p5de5qeq%3Arg263f6omsfus3pbn6lexes7d6mpcx6nkynzvoalbi6ta7fwloxa%3A3%3A10%3A15318/@@named=/copyright
[17:48] <ScottK> zooko: That's OK, but I'd add something about "The original author has stated that ..."
[18:07] <zooko> ScottK: how about this: http://testgrid.allmydata.org:3567/file/URI%3ACHK%3Aj4av74jsuf5jayz6w4ptwxnxxm%3Actcz62gfoia4rt24fdx76st7fhukscuehz7usyopscfe56fdryqa%3A3%3A10%3A15437/@@named=/copyright
[18:24] <zooko> ScottK: okay I uploaded a package with that addendum to the copyright file: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs
[18:30] <ChogyDan> how do I get my ppa to build a package for more than one release?  ie, it builds for karmic but I would like it to build for jaunty too
[18:51] <geser> ChogyDan: reupload with a different version targeting the other release (e.g. by appending the release name)
[18:52] <ChogyDan> geser: ok
[19:03] <ChogyDan> geser: ok, I don't think I understood that.  I thought maybe by changing the changelog?  but that didn't work.  How do I append the release name?
[19:03] <ChogyDan> geser: oh!, nvm, I get it
[19:08] <zooko> jdong: I fixed a licensing omission in Tahoe-LAFS and re-uploaded to REVU.  Could you please re-upload into the Karmic Queue?  http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/tahoe-lafs
[19:08] <zooko> Hello iulian.  I read the interview with you in Full Circle Magazine.  :-)
[20:44] <jdong> heh I wonder if it's worth trying to feature-freeze-except the new weechat
[20:49] <zooko> jdong: did you see my request about Tahoe-LAFS?
[20:50] <jdong> zooko: just saw it :)
[20:52] <jdong> zooko: uploaded
[20:53] <zooko> jdong: great!  Thanks!
[20:54] <zooko> So what happened to the tahoe-lafs that had been sitting in the Karmic Queue until a minute ago, I wonder...
[20:54] <jdong> I hope it gets overridden?
[20:55] <zooko> Me too.  Unfortunately they had the exact same name and version number...
[20:56] <jdong> well let's see what happens, if it gets rejected then we'll have to poke an archive admin to nuke the existing one
[20:57] <zooko> Okay, thanks.
[21:02] <jdong> zooko: got confirmation that it was accepted into the New queue; we should be good
[21:02] <zooko> jdong: great!  Thanks!
[21:02] <jdong> sure thing
[21:22] <dupondje> i386  	5  	 1742 jobs (34 hours)
[21:22] <dupondje> mmm :P
[21:33] <ryanakca> Can anybody think of a source package that builds two binary package, one patched and the other unpatched, using CDBS?
[21:34] <azeem> that's pretty tricky I think
[21:36] <ryanakca> azeem: *nod*
[21:48] <geser> I now only of mutt building a patched and a non-patched variant but it doesn't use cdbs, only debhelper
[22:36] <zooko> ScottK: please reconsider Tahoe-LAFS now.
[23:06] <andol> No xdialog in Karmic? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdialog
[23:06] <andol> (Recieved the question in the Swedish LoCo channel)
[23:07] <Laney> Deleted in karmic-release (Reason: (From Debian) ROM; old gtk1.2 application; alternative exist)
[23:08] <zooko> Laney: are you an Archive Admin?  Would you please consider moving Tahoe-LAFS from the Karmic Queue into Karmic?  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+queue
[23:09] <zooko> Okay, time for me to take my children for a walk/bike-ride/something.
[23:09] <Laney> I'm not
[23:09] <Laney> just wait, it will happen
[23:09] <zooko> Ah.
[23:09] <zooko> Okay.
[23:10] <andol> Laney: Thanks. Where would I have been able to find that information myself?
[23:10] <Laney> andol: yes, it's on launchpad
[23:10] <Laney> view full changelog on the right
[23:10] <andol> Laney: Now I see, thanks