[04:15] <fabrice_sp> micahg, did you get the sru ack, and did you subscribed u-u-s for your SRU?
[04:35] <micahg> fabrice_sp: I thought it was already subscribed...let me check
[04:35] <jdong> ack jdong has been pummeled by schoolwork this past week....
[04:36] <jdong> if anyone has urgent SRU requests please feel free to kick me repeatedly in IRC until I respond.
[04:36] <micahg> fabrice_sp: yes, u-u-s is subscribed
[04:36] <fabrice_sp> micahg, bug number?
[04:36] <micahg> bug 477513
[04:36] <fabrice_sp> hey jdong is back :-)
[04:36] <jdong> aaaah!
[04:37] <jdong> "back" but shhhhh don't tell anyone
[04:37] <micahg> jdong: I still don't have a test case though
[04:37] <fabrice_sp> lol
[04:37] <micahg> all I know is that it crashes after some time of use for some people
[04:37] <jdong> heh I'd really love to have a testcase, but for some kinds of bugs that's really all you can get.
[04:37] <micahg> jdong: my other sru has a test cae
[04:37] <jdong> considering the patch looks correct and reasonable to me, I've got no objections
[04:45] <fabrice_sp> micahg, do you plan to work on the merge/sync of 1.5.7 from Debian?
[04:46] <micahg> fabrice_sp: I can if you want
[04:47] <fabrice_sp> it would be nice, but it's as you want
[04:47] <fabrice_sp> as you already knows the pacakge, it would easier for than for another
[04:49] <fabrice_sp> but I can take care of it, anyway :-D
[05:05] <micahg> fabrice_sp: I only added a patch from upstream :)
[05:06] <fabrice_sp> Ohh: I saw you was subscribed to the bug report. I thought you had a special interest in it :-)
[05:06] <fabrice_sp> np :-D
[05:06] <micahg> fabrice_sp: only because it causes firefox problems :)
[05:07] <fabrice_sp> limited interest, then :-D
[05:07] <micahg> yes
[05:42] <wrapster> install -m 755 -t debian/pkgname/usr/bin debian/somefile ; this will install somefile in the target dir specified by the -t option right?
[05:45] <jmarsden> What is it about the debuild environment that causes warnings about not checking return values of read() and write() and turns them into errors?  I have a package (written in C++) I can build only with a large patchset to check all these calls... but a manual build from the unpacked upstream tarball does not have this issue.
[05:48] <wrapster> guys why is this install format not working? http://pastie.org/726993
[05:50] <fabrice_sp> jmarsden, it's about the compilation flags that has been hardened in Ubuntu
[05:50] <jmarsden> fabrice_sp: OK... is there a Wiki page explaining this... esp how to get a non-Ubuntu machine to generate the same set of warnings?
[05:50] <fabrice_sp> this warning should be fixed
[05:50] <fabrice_sp> hmmm, you could grab the log and see the options
[05:51] <jmarsden> fabrice_sp: I know, but upstream doesn't want to accept my patchset, and right now they do not even see the warnings ...
[05:51] <fabrice_sp> with gcc 4.4?
[05:51] <jmarsden> Yes.  With -Wall -Werror, they say they see no warnings...
[05:51] <fabrice_sp> did you tried in Debian?
[05:52] <fabrice_sp> Debian should have the same set of errors/warning
[05:52] <fabrice_sp> wrapster, no idea. sorry
[05:52] <jmarsden> No, I could try.  But I want to be able to get the same warnings in Fedora...
[05:52] <fabrice_sp> do you have the log sowehere?
[05:52] <fabrice_sp> so that I can have a look at it?
[05:53] <jmarsden> Yes...  http://crosswire.org/~jmarsden/sword/sword-r2480-buildlog.txt
[05:55] <fabrice_sp> did you run also the configure command with the same variables? The line is quite long
[05:56] <fabrice_sp> you ahve also to be sure that the gcc version is exactly the same (not only 4.4, but also sub-version) and glibc
[05:56] <jmarsden> Well, in Fedora 12 the gcc version is 4.4.2 which is newer than Ubuntu's ...
[05:56] <wrapster> fabrice_sp: well i found a work around.. it was just a python script that i had to place in /urs/bin/ so i manually copied it to debian/pkgname/usr/bin and chmod 755 it.. good enough... ?
[05:57] <jmarsden> wrapster: If you are just installing one file why did you use -t  ??
[05:57] <fabrice_sp> wrapster, you really want to install it in debian/pkgname, and not in $DESTDIR or similar?
[05:58] <fabrice_sp> jmarsden, the configures flags are also important
[05:59] <jmarsden> fabrice_sp: OK, I'll check them all out... but surely somewhere Ubuntu documents its hardening stuff??
[05:59] <fabrice_sp> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CompilerFlags ?
[06:00] <fabrice_sp> the file mgt errors seems linked to -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 with -O2
[06:00] <jmarsden> fabrice_sp: Yes... looks like it is the  -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
[06:01] <jmarsden> Now I need to see if Fedora has that option too :)  Time to create a Fedora12 VM...
[06:01] <fabrice_sp> :-D
[06:01] <fabrice_sp> a chroot won't work in that case?
[06:02]  * fabrice_sp doesn't have any idea on that, and it could be a dumb suggestion
[06:02] <jmarsden> I don't know.  I have 10Mbps down Internet connection, so it won't take that long to grab an ISO and create a VirtualBox VM.  I don't know how to install Fedora into a chroot.
[06:02] <fabrice_sp> ok :-)
[06:03] <xnox> And the sword upstream test everything in VM's
[06:03] <xnox> =)
[06:03] <fabrice_sp> in this case, it's just for compiling hte app
[06:03] <fabrice_sp> :-)
[06:03] <jmarsden> xnox: Hmm, then they could test in a Debian VM too... but I think I need to do the work and "prove" the issue is real, at this point.
[06:05] <xnox> Well they fire up VM's and tell you it doesn't work after this change in f7 and never try to help you debug. Simply revert commits or not apply patches.....
[06:06] <xnox> or any other f*
[06:06] <xnox> Is that the same 6months+ patch you are trying to get accepted?
[06:08] <jmarsden> xnox: Yes, from back in May.  1200 line diff, 100+ individual patches...
[06:11] <xnox> Oh well.... Are they gonna do a release any time soon?
[06:14] <jmarsden> Yes, that's what got this started again... Troy asked for all my patches and applied some of them... 1.6.1 coming soon, it seems.
[06:14] <xnox> Hmm interesting =)
[06:15] <kees> jmarsden: -Werror turns warnings into errors.  that's not a default.
[06:16] <jmarsden> kees: No, but it is part of the upstream autotools stuff; I could patch that back out, I suppose.  But I already have the patch for all the warnings... I just would prefer upstream to apply it rather than carry it as a packaging patch.
[06:17]  * xnox is happy finished building 1st package flavor - 2 to go 
[06:19] <kees> jmarsden: ok, cool.  I only skimmed the scrollback when I saw mention of the hardening flags.  was anything missing from the CompilerDefaults wiki page?  I've tried to make that as useful as possible.
[06:20] <jmarsden> CompilerFlags you mean?  Looks fine to me, I just didn't know it existed until fabrice_sp pointed me to it earlier.
[06:20] <jmarsden> Is it mentioned in the Packaging Guide?  if not, should it be?
[07:45] <^arky^> hi, any help with bug 491327 ?
[07:48] <micahg> ^arky^: idk python
[07:49] <^arky^> thanks micahg, I'll try to look up for python guys
[07:49] <micahg> ^arky^: oh, sorry, I thought this was the bugs channel...
[07:49] <micahg> :)
[07:50] <micahg> someone in here might have an idea
[07:52] <^arky^> :)
[07:52]  * ^arky^ heads back ubuntu-bugs
[07:59] <dholbach> good morning
[08:00] <^arky^> morning dholbach
[08:00] <dholbach> hi ^arky^
[08:01] <^arky^> dholbach: if you have time please have look at bug 491327
[08:02] <dholbach> ^arky^: I doubt I will have the time for it right now in this moment, if it's urgent try asking in #ubuntu-desktop
[08:03] <^arky^> yes, will do that thanks dholbach
[08:03] <dholbach> err
[08:03] <dholbach> what is there to sponsor?
[08:04] <dholbach> is there any patch/diff/branch/something?
[08:04] <micahg> dholbach: please unsubscribe sponsors
[08:04] <dholbach> will do
[09:58] <Rune> How do I see whether any changes have been made to a package compared to the debian version? (other than downloading the debian version and running diff)
[10:00] <micahg> Rune: if there's an ubuntu in the version, we have modifications
[10:01] <Rune> Do I have to diff the debian version to see what kind of modifications?
[10:02] <tsimpson> Rune: 'aptitude changelog <package>' will download the changelog and display it for you (from http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/)
[12:12] <shankhs> what is a template for packaging? Please.
[12:12] <shankhs> i know dh-make is used to create template
[12:12] <shankhs> i am a noob
[12:12] <soren> Do you know what a template is?
[12:14] <shankhs> soren: c++ template yes, other than this no
[12:15] <soren> As per wikipedia, a template is a standardized file type used by computer software as a pre-formatted example on which to base other files, especially documents.
[12:16] <soren> dh-make creates a template for packaging. It creates a bunch of files that you can edit until it does what you expect it to.
[12:17] <shankhs> a pre-formatted example ?
[12:17] <shankhs> How will i get this format?
[12:17] <soren> You already know this.
[12:17] <soren> 13:12:30 < shankhs> i know dh-make is used to create template
[12:18] <shankhs> ya i know about dh-make
[12:18] <soren> So what is your question? I don't quite understand.
[12:19] <shankhs> i can go on wihout knowing template . My question is what template is used by ubuntu packages and how this templates are decided?
[12:19] <directhex> of the approximately 18,000 source packages in the archive, a vast variety of templates & helpers are used
[12:20] <soren> I'm sorry, I don't think I can help you. I don't understand your question. Perhaps someone else can.
[12:20] <directhex> based entirely on the whims of the packager
[12:20] <shankhs> so ubuntu doesn't force the templates?
[12:20] <directhex> no, of course not
[12:21] <soren> Depends on what you mean by templates.
[12:21] <shankhs> soren: i am not getting you , for me template is a pre-formatted file(as u mentioned before)
[12:21] <shankhs> if it doesnt then how come different packages interoperate?
[12:22] <soren> 10 seconds ago you didn't know what a template was, so I'm not convinced you're using the word correctly here.
[12:22] <shankhs> soren: t think so
[12:22] <soren> Ubuntu forces a specific directory structure of the filesystem (known as the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, FHS).
[12:22] <soren> Is that what you mean?
[12:22] <soren> Do we force one specific way to generate packages? No.
[12:22] <shankhs> soren: i need to read from somewhere can you please give me some resources? I am getting confused
[12:23] <soren> Do we force a specific format of binary packages? Sure, otherwise dpkg would have to be magic.
[12:23] <shankhs> soren: i guess so
[12:23] <soren> shankhs: What are you trying to do?
[12:23] <shankhs> soren: i am learning packaging in ubuntu
[12:24] <slytherin> shankhs: Did you read the 'Contributing' link available in channel topic?
[12:24] <soren> Then you should ask about that instead.
[12:24] <shankhs> slytherin: i am reading https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Basic
[12:25] <shankhs> soren: ya any advice?Please
[12:25] <soren> shankhs: I advice you to read that link and ask questions when there's something you don't understand.
[12:26] <slytherin> shankhs: That is a good starting point. If you have any specific questions then ask them.
[12:27] <soren> Hm... The intro on that page claims that "[f]irst, we will use no build helper. This approach is usually the most difficult and is not often used in practice but gives the most straightforward look at the packaging process."
[12:27] <soren> I don't see that anywhere in the body, though.
[12:28] <shankhs> soren: very frankly i am not understanding dh-make . The only thing thats neccessary is : Type of package: single binary, multiple binary, library, kernel module or cdbs? [s/m/l/k/b] s
[12:28] <shankhs> soren: me too found that one
[12:28] <shankhs> what the package has to do with the personal info of dev?
[12:28] <soren> That will create the template packaging. Keep reading, it will all be explained. You are supposed to edit the files it creates.
[12:29] <soren> shankhs: "personal info"?
[12:29] <shankhs> soren: like email id,name
[12:30] <soren> I don't understand your question at all.
[12:30] <shankhs> soren: i will first read the complete doc...thanx anyways
[12:30] <shankhs> Everybody thankyou very much
[12:30] <shankhs> soren: thanyou
[12:30] <soren> shankhs: sure
[12:32] <slytherin> shankhs: how are others supposed to know who packaged the software if you don't provide name/email
[12:34] <shankhs> slytherin: i am getting it , it seems logical thanx
[13:12] <SWAT> what's a good/simple packaging example for python software using the setup.py install method? (which should be the preferred one, right?)
[13:13] <qnix> I would say that mercurial could be a good example
[13:17] <slytherin> Does anyone know any particular reason why autosyncs are happening with less-than-usual frequency?
[13:27] <LucidFox> \o/ http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/clang
[14:40] <shriekout> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/happytimer
[14:40] <shriekout> Please advise.
[15:17] <LucidFox> shriekout> commented
[15:17] <shriekout> LucidFox, thanks :)
[15:20] <shriekout> LucidFox, thank you for your suggestions.
[15:24] <LucidFox> Now speaking about my packages... who will have the bravery to review the great and mighty clang, mortals? [insert thunder]
[15:24] <LucidFox> Or perhaps one would prefer to review 2mandvd, juffed, or the simplest of all, fuse-zip?
[15:31] <highvoltage> dholbach: http://www.miafrica.co.za/product1.html
[15:32] <slytherin> LucidFox: What is fuse-zip?
[15:32] <LucidFox> A console utility to mount zip archives as read-write directories.
[15:33] <slytherin> Ok
[15:33] <maco> is that how the archive manager works?
[15:34] <LucidFox> In Nautilus?
[15:34] <slytherin> maco: Manager or mounter?
[15:34] <maco> the gnome equivalent of ark
[15:34] <maco> whatever it's called
[15:34] <LucidFox> file-roller
[15:35] <LucidFox> The archive mounter mounts them read-only.
[15:35] <maco> yes that
[15:35] <nigel_nb> maco: hey  :)
[15:35] <maco> nigel_nb: im at work right now
[15:35] <nigel_nb> unfortunately, I'm leavin for work
[15:36] <nigel_nb> oh, k
[15:37] <jdong> no I don't think ark uses that
[15:38] <LucidFox> What, fuse-zip? No, nothing in DEs uses that.
[15:40] <LucidFox> Heh, norsetto advocated his own package.
[15:40] <LucidFox> Maybe I should do that for mine to get them reviewed sooner?
[15:41] <ScottK> LucidFox: You can.
[15:43] <ari-tczew> hello
[15:43] <ari-tczew> I have a question
[15:44] <ari-tczew> pbuilder = pdebuild ?
[15:45] <LucidFox> man pdebuild\
[15:45] <LucidFox> :)
[15:46] <LucidFox> Basically, as I understand it, the difference is that pbuilder is invoked on the .dsc file, while pdebuild doesn't need a source package, only an unpacked directory.
[15:48] <dholbach> highvoltage: hehe, yeah - I saw the MOTU music equipment brand before :)
[15:51] <LucidFox> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Universe <-- Aww, no logo.
[18:54] <jmarsden> How long does it normally take for packages to autosync from Debian Testing into Lucid?  Hours?  Days?  Weeks??
[19:03] <geser> depends on how often the archive admins start their autosync script
[19:03] <geser> and with the new format 3.0 package it fails more often than in the past :(
[19:08] <jmarsden> geser: Thanks. I was imagining some autosync script in a cron.{daily/hourly/whatever} doing the syncing.  I'll just be patient, it's not important :)
[19:27] <ScottK> It's not cronned.  It has to be manually run
[20:03] <fabrice_sp> porthose: bug 492155
[20:03] <fabrice_sp> I think it should be a sync as the package is not in main anymore
[20:03] <fabrice_sp> so no need to change dependency from recommend to suggest
[20:03] <fabrice_sp> (I think)
[20:44] <LLStarks> hey. i was wondering how i can request a package removal? libass3 isn't needed anymore since libass4 was added.
[20:48] <bddebian> LLStarks: File a bug.  Subject should be:  RM: <package> -- ROM; <reasons for removal>  And file it against Package: ftp.debian.org
[20:49] <bddebian> Oh sorry, wrong channel, I thought I was still in a Debian channel :)
[20:55] <randomaction> LLStarks: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/PackageArchive#Removing%20Packages
[21:37] <shiki-> !help
[23:42] <kklimonda> is Eclipse Public License DFSG compatible?
[23:48] <ScottK> kklimonda: Is Ecplise licensed under it?
[23:48] <kklimonda> ScottK: that's the question - I just thought abo ;)
[23:49] <kklimonda> ScottK: looks like it is
[23:49] <ScottK> Look and see which component of the archive Ecplise is in then.
[23:50] <pochu> main