[00:02] <mannyv> strycore, it looks like it has been fixed upstream but has not been packaged in debian yet
[00:04] <mannyv> that is a new version upstream so the fix won't make it into karmic. Your best bet, given it is a regression with a simple fix, would be trying to request a SRU i think
[00:04] <mannyv> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[00:04] <mannyv> im kind of new to this though so I might be wrong
[00:04] <strycore> yes this bug is fixed in convertall 0.4.3, I took just one line from it. But I know that were not going to have it before Lucid so it might be nice to patch convertall 0.4.2 so it actually works
[00:05] <strycore> and it's the smallest patch ever !
[00:07] <mannyv> so then get the fix in karmic: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates =)
[00:15] <strycore> ok i've subscribed the ubuntu-sru team and nominated the fix for karmic, but I'm not a motu, there are things I can't do
[03:57] <pmatulis> what is the equivalent pbuilder/pdebuild command for 'dpkg-buildpackage -sa -S' ?
[04:13] <jmarsden> pmatulis: pdebuild -S -sa  # should work fine, as should    pbuilder --build --debuildopts "-S -sa" foo.dsc
[11:14] <cemc> havp
[14:06] <bddebian> dtchen: Can you hit me up if you come around?
[14:41] <pmatulis> what is the equivalent pbuilder/pdebuild command for 'dpkg-buildpackage -sa -S' ?
[14:43] <bddebian> --debbuildopts -sa
[14:43] <geser> pmatulis: why would you need that? for pbuilder you need to have a .dsc file already
[14:44] <bddebian> I have to use -sa occasionally to ensure the .orig.tar.gz gets included in the .changes file
[14:45] <geser> yes, but you don't use pbuilder to build your source package, do you?
[14:46] <pmatulis> geser: my goal is to have PPA's for any release i choose
[14:47] <pmatulis> geser: and pbuilder provides that in general.  needless to say i'm quite new at this
[14:48] <geser> pbuilder takes your source package and builds the binary debs from it
[14:48] <bddebian> geser: No not usually, good point :)
[14:49] <geser> you don't need a lucid pbuilder to build a source package for lucid (in most cases)
[14:51] <pmatulis> geser: so if my host is jaunty how do i get LP to build karmic PPA's?
[14:51] <geser> you target karmic in your changelog entry
[14:52] <geser> that lets LP know that it should build it for karmic
[14:53] <pmatulis> geser: alright, easier than i thought then
[15:23] <bddebian> dtchen: OK, I just uploaded libsdl 1.2.14 to experimental if you get bored and want to test :)
[15:26] <sebner> heya bddebian  :)
[15:27] <bddebian> Hi sebner
[16:17] <hedkandi> fyi uploads to revu isn't working
[16:18] <hedkandi> it says "wrong password"!
[16:20] <Laney> revu is down
[16:38] <jjlee> i'd like to package this: http://www.pre-emptive.net/doco/w3cvalidator-command-line-html-validator
[16:38] <geser> ScottK: do you know if your changes to some r-cran-* packages are still needed? (Don't build with xvfb on Sparc to work around LP 410711)
[16:38] <ScottK> geser: That should be fixed now.
[16:38] <geser> so sync those packages again?
[16:38] <jjlee> at work we tend to produce native packages, but I know that's frowned upon
[16:38] <ScottK> geser: I have three R packages that should be able to sync now that the new r-base is in.
[16:39] <ScottK> geser: Yes.  If you want to file the syncs, I'm fine with that.
[16:39] <ScottK> (just let me know)
[16:39] <jjlee> I'd like to keep the original source code under version control
[16:39] <geser> I guess the ones I looked at to get some FTBFS of the list
[16:39] <jjlee> what's the best way to do that and comply with debian / ubuntu guidelines?
[16:41] <jjlee> seems like keeping original source under version control might make it awkward to comply with requirement to work from "original tarball"
[16:41] <geser> ScottK: I'll testbuild them and file sync request then
[16:41] <ScottK> geser: Thanks.
[16:41] <ScottK> jjlee: Keep it all in your VCS, but exclude the debian dir when you make the tarball for release.
[16:41] <jjlee> are there tools to generate patches (and even generate "original tarball") from a version control repository?
[16:41] <ScottK> Yes, there are, but it depends a lot on what you use for a VCS.
[16:42] <jjlee> git by preference, but bzr if it integrates better with LP (which I assume it does?)
[16:43] <ScottK> It does, but it really only matters if the project is hosted on LP.
[16:43] <jjlee> ScottK: how do I generate "original tarball" from repo?  does it have to be bit-for-bit the same as the real original tarball?  Does tar include timestamps in archives?
[16:43] <jjlee> I do want to use LP's PPAs
[16:43] <jjlee> don't care especially about the rest of LP's features
[16:44] <ScottK> jjlee: You want to look at pristine-tar as the tarball has to have a consistent md5sum.
[16:44] <jjlee> though I guess it's nice for issue tracking to be in the official place
[16:45] <jjlee> ScottK: thanks -- this binary delta that pristine-tar talks about contains the timestamp (&c.?) stuff extracted from original tarball, presumably?
[16:46] <ScottK> Something like that.  I don't know the details.
[16:46] <jjlee> ScottK: thanks anyway, looks promising!
[16:50] <jjlee> is there other LP stuff I should do other than just uploading my source package to PPA (other than getting it into {multi,uni}verse)?
[16:50] <jjlee> stuff that makes other maintainers / regular users lives easier?
[16:50] <jjlee> like using standard issue tracker?
[17:26] <geser> ScottK: sync requested for r-cran-time{date,series}: bug #489632 and bug #489636
[17:27] <ScottK> Good.  Thanks.
[17:35] <mannyv> i have been working my way down the universe list on M-o-M looking for and filing sync requests. I have not been asking or notifying the previous uploader as I just noticed geser doing. Should I not just go down the list filing syncs (when appropriate)?
[17:39] <geser> mannyv: it's good to at least let the previous uploader know it to avoid double work
[17:42] <mannyv> geser, ok will do. That'll be a chore, iv'e filed about 20 sync requests
[17:43] <ScottK> mannyv: If you look at the top of that page, it's the first thing that's suggested.
[17:47] <mannyv> ScottK, technically it says it before doing a merge. I am not trying to be pedantic but syncs (at least the ones i have been touching) are not much work and so not likely to be sitting in someone work log half done. But I take your point and will ask first
[17:48] <ScottK> mannyv: The other thing is that it isn't rare for the previous uploader to know something relevant about the package and if it can be synced, for example, I knew it was now OK to sync the packages that geser asked about due to following the bug I uploaded a workaround for and knowing that r-base had recently been synced.  It'd have been a lot tougher for someone who hadn't been following the packages to know.
[17:52] <mannyv> ScottK, ive been skipping over the packages with more complicated. I have focused on obvious easy changes like changing a Depends or renaming getline to get_line
[17:52] <ScottK> That's good, but still please ask.
[17:54] <mannyv> i will
[18:27] <jjlee> anybody know how to explicitly specify gpg key to use when signing a file?
[18:27] <hyperair> jjlee: -k
[18:28] <jjlee> hyperair: man gpg says that's the same as --list-public-keys
[18:29] <ScottK> jjlee: hyperair is correct.
[18:29] <hyperair> jjlee: sorry, i was talking about debsign. were you talking about something else?
[18:29]  * ScottK was too
[18:30] <jjlee> hyperair: sorry, I was referring to gpg itself
[18:31] <hyperair> jjlee: look for default-key in the manpage
[18:31] <pochu> jjlee: see --sign in the manpage
[18:31] <jjlee> hyperair: thanks, that led me to --local-user
[18:32] <hyperair> ah
[19:10] <Laney> yay
[19:48] <jjlee> is this a suitable name & version for my ppa package (from release 1.0.1 of http://www.pre-emptive.net/doco/w3cvalidator-command-line-html-validator)? w3c-markup-validator-commandline_1.0.1ubuntu1~ppa1
[19:48] <directhex> jjlee, that's still a native package version
[19:50] <jjlee> ah, thanks.  So 1.0.1-1ubuntu1~ppa1?  Do I need the ubuntu1?
[19:51] <directhex> 1.0.1-1ubuntu1~ppa1 means:
[19:51] <directhex> upstream version 1.0.1
[19:51] <directhex> debian version 1
[19:51] <directhex> ubuntu modification 1 of debian version
[19:51] <jjlee> So 1.0.1-1~ppa1 I guess
[19:52] <directhex> ppa package 1 based upon the above, but versioned to be "lower" than the non-ppa version
[19:52] <directhex> (should one exist)
[19:52] <jjlee> right, I want it to be lower
[19:52] <jjlee> (though none exists yet)
[19:52] <directhex> 1.0.1-0ubuntu1~ppa1
[19:52] <jjlee> it's not a modification of a big-D Debian package
[19:52] <directhex> unless you plan on targeting debian rather than ubuntu with a "real" package
[19:53] <directhex> use 0ubuntu1 for packages not based on debian versions
[19:53] <jjlee> this is a new package
[19:53] <jjlee> So 1.0.1-0ubuntu1~ppa1 ?
[19:53] <lfaraone> jjlee: you're still using 0ubuntu1 if you're going to upload to Ubuntu not Debian.
[19:54] <jjlee> I'm going to upload to ubuntu, not Debian, yes
[19:54] <jjlee> thanks
[20:19] <jjlee> This package has a perl module in it.  Not sure I want to take the obvious debian package name for that w3c-markup-validator-perl.
[20:19] <jjlee> Seems reasonable just to keep it all in a single "binary" package?
[20:19] <jjlee> it's not in CPAN
[20:24] <jjlee> Can anybody suggest an example perl debian package that's midway in the level of debian/rules auto-magic-ness between libwww-perl (only a couple of lines in debian/rules) and libuuid-perl (big ugly makefile)?
[20:30] <RainCT> DktrKranz: thanks for getting ubuntu-dev-tools into Debian :)
[20:31] <nhandler> DktrKranz: So are we going to continue to maintain u-d-t the same way and you will just "sync" it in Debian ?
[20:35] <DktrKranz> RainCT: hehe, np :)
[20:36] <DktrKranz> nhandler: I think it's safe, I only diverge in a dep (which it will be applied in Lucid too, as soon as dependency stack will be synced), and Maintainer (to avoid ML bouncing)
[20:37] <DktrKranz> now that we sync from testing, it's not worthy to wait 10 days
[20:38] <DktrKranz> the only issue I've encountered is some unicode issues in buildd script
[20:39] <RainCT> DktrKranz: btw, have you seen http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543315?
[20:40] <RainCT> looks like they want mk-sbuild-lv in the sbuild package
[20:40] <RainCT> kees: ^
[20:41] <ScottK> Even better.
[20:41] <ScottK> The less we have to maintain, it's good.
[20:43] <DktrKranz> RainCT: I agree some tools should be included in other packages (i.e. devscripts), and leave here only Ubuntu-specific ones
[21:56] <geser> DktrKranz: what unicode issues exist in the buildd script?
[22:13] <mihailikos> hi
[22:13] <mihailikos> im just strart
[22:14] <mihailikos> and i like so much that version of ubuntu
[22:14] <mihailikos> can some one hellp me
[22:15] <mihailikos> i want install ubuntu on my usb
[22:15] <mihailikos> is that keep me eny change i have made on setings
[22:15] <RainCT> mihailikos: #ubuntu is the place for support
[22:15] <RAOF> mihailikos: This is a development channel; your question would be better asked in #ubuntu.
[22:15] <mihailikos> aha
[22:15] <mihailikos> ok
[22:15] <mihailikos> sorry
[22:49] <jjlee> should the .changes file I upload to launchpad end in _source.changes, as this page suggests? https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading
[22:49] <jjlee> mine doesn't
[22:50] <jjlee> though the .changes file does point to an .orig.tar.gz
[22:50] <jjlee> (it also points to a .dsc, and a .diff.gz, and a .deb)
[22:58] <wgrant> jjlee: Launchpad only accepts source uploads. You need to pass '-S' to debuild or dpkg-buildpackage.
[23:00] <jjlee> I'm using git-buildpackage, didn't see any similar-looking options
[23:01] <jjlee> oh, it passes options along
[23:01] <jjlee> thanks