[00:03] <michas> hi, an "apt-get source resolvconf" does not give orig.tar.gz/diff.gz, only a single tar.gz and a directory name containing the whole ubuntu1 part. what is the reason for this? (never saw this on other packages before.)
[00:05] <c_korn> michas: because the package is ubuntu specific: http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/resolvconf
[00:05] <maxb> This is called a "native" package. It means there is no upstream that is not the distro itself
[00:05] <directhe`> michas, it's called a "native package", it means ubuntu is upstream
[00:05] <maxb> snap :-)
[00:08] <c_korn> native - that was the word I was looking for :)
[00:10] <michas> If I understood the naming scheme correctly, 1.44ubuntu1 means it was in debian before, and is essentially the same in ubuntu, right?
[00:10] <maxb> For some value of "essentially"
[00:13] <michas> ok, do I have to handle those packages differently? dch for example complains about the missing orig tarball.
[00:13] <maxb> Why is dch even looking for an upstream tarball?
[00:15] <michas> "dch -i" says: dch warning: your current directory has been renamed to:../resolvconf-1.44ubuntu2 warning: no orig tarball found for the new version.
[00:17] <maxb> I would say that that warning is spurious and a bug
[00:18] <michas> ok, I'll just ignore it for now. ;)
[00:22] <michas> one more small thing: apt-get source complains "gpgv: Can't check signature: public key not found". Did I forget to configure something correctly?
[00:25] <michas> (even explicitly recv-ing the key before does not change it...)
[00:28] <ScottK> michas: That's a normal warning to get for a native package.
[00:34] <michas> ScottK, you're referring to the dch warning, right?
[01:17] <ScottL_> after talking to nedko about the zynjacku /usr/lib/python2.6/sites-package he suggested I set  PYLIBDIR but I don't know how to set it while using pbuilder, can anyone suggest something?
[01:25] <ScottL_> or better, how can I set an environ1
[01:26] <ScottL_> or better, how can I set an environment variable while building a package using pbuilder?
[01:30] <nano4ever> Hey guys I made debdiff Bug #206862
[01:30] <nano4ever> can anyone take a look at it?
[01:32] <maxb> ScottL_: Don't. It is evil for packages to only build if they have certain envvars set external to themselves. You should be setting anything like this in debian/rules
[01:34] <ScottL_> maxb, how can I accomplish setting it in the debian/rules?   can you tell me how or point me to a manual/guide?
[01:35] <maxb> debian/rules is just a Makefile with special targets. No black magic there
[01:36] <ScottL_> unfortunately, I'm still pretty ignorant about makefiles though :(
[01:36] <ScottL_> i've bought the GNU make manual from FSF though which should be here in a few days :)
[01:38] <ScottL_> this must be incrementally painful for you to help me but I appreciate it greatly
[01:41] <azeem> ScottL_: the Makefile knowledge you need for debian/rules is miniscule compared to the GNU make feature set
[01:42] <ScottL_> azeem, can you point to a succinct guide for makefiles then?
[01:44] <maxb> "info make"
[01:46] <ScottL> !make
[01:47] <ScottL> i've read that page but I don't remember it discussing moderating makefile or rules files, but I'll look at it again
[01:50] <ScottK> michas: Yes, I was.
[02:01] <ScottL_> I think I have it:   ./configure $(CROSS) --prefix=/usr --mandir=\$${prefix}/share/man --infodir=\$${prefix}/share/info CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" PYLIBDIR="/usr/lib"
[02:02] <ScottL_> now if I can figure out the right PYLIBDIR ;P
[10:12] <shiki-> !revu
[10:38] <shiki-> hi all btw
[10:38] <shiki-> last time I didnt get an answer. So. HOW should I prepare a package for revu?.. From scratch source... debianize it..and ..thats all?
[11:02] <fabrice_sp__> !packagingguide | shiki
[11:02] <shiki-> ty fabrice_sp__
[11:02] <fabrice_sp__> yw ;-)
[11:35] <oussama> hello everybody
[11:36] <shiki-> hi
[11:36] <oussama> what does the motu team do ?
[11:39] <fabrice_sp> !motu | oussama
[11:39] <shiki-> :)))
[11:39] <oussama> ok thanks
[11:40] <oussama> and how to get involved ?
[11:41] <fabrice_sp> oussama, see the topic: "Want to get involved with the MOTU? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing"
[11:41] <fabrice_sp> :-D
[11:41] <shiki-> :D
[11:43] <oussama> interesting
[11:44] <oussama> but need a lot of work
[11:45] <shiki-> hah.. sadly
[11:46] <shiki-> Im still trying to force myself to prepare those packages..
[11:47] <fabrice_sp> Preparing a new package is a lot more complex than fixing one
[11:48] <directhex> depends on how broken things aee
[11:48] <directhex> are
[11:49] <shiki-> hmm.
[11:49] <fabrice_sp> and for new package, it depends the build system and how bad the copyright is
[11:50]  * fabrice_sp is still trying to get a pakcage into debian that is a copyright nightmare, with stuff stolen from others projects!
[12:11] <oussama> how to find tasks to do ?
[12:13] <etali1> Oussama: You could look on launchpad for bugs tagged with [Needs Packaging], and pick one that you're interested in working on (perhaps something you already use?)
[12:13] <etali> That's what I've done (not a MOTU yet, but want to apply next year).
[12:13] <oussama> ok
[12:14] <randomaction> oussama: check out https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/TODO
[12:26] <BLUG_Fred> hey guys! coming back for another issues with a package not working by default after a fresh install. Package is labyrinth and bug is documented here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/labyrinth/+bug/327174 . How can we get this working out of the bix?
[12:26] <BLUG_Fred> box
[12:46] <oussama> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/blender/+bug/451449
[12:46] <oussama> how to fix it ??
[12:52] <oussama> how to upload a package ?
[12:53] <BLUG_Fred> oussama: it seems like a lot of bugs into one report
[12:56] <BLUG_Fred> oussama: talk to the package maintainers to ask for a backport
[12:58] <shiki-> if one package's been requested for inclusion... should I still mess with REVU?
[15:06] <^arky^> hi any help with bug 491327
[18:20] <oussama> how to upload a package in universe or multivers ??
[18:20] <randomaction> oussama: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
[18:54] <oussama> what is dfsg
[18:54] <oussama> blender_2.49a+dfsg.orig
[18:54] <randomaction> Debian Free Software Guidelines
[18:55] <oussama> thanks
[18:55] <randomaction> it means that the original tarball was repackaged to remove some non-free files
[18:55] <oussama> and how to do it
[18:56] <oussama> i want to upgrade the package from 2.49a to 2.49b
[18:56] <randomaction> I think it's repack, delete, pack :)
[18:56] <randomaction> no wait; unpack, delete, pack
[18:57] <oussama> in cmd
[18:57] <oussama> command line
[18:58] <randomaction> 2.49b is already in Debian
[18:59] <oussama> but in ubuntu 2.49a
[18:59] <randomaction> so if you want to get in into Ubuntu you should do a merge or a sync
[18:59] <randomaction> !merge
[19:00] <oussama> ok thank you
[20:00] <jjlee> how do I parse the latest version out of a debian/changelog?
[20:00] <Laney> dpkg-parsechangelog
[20:01] <jjlee> Laney: thanks
[20:03] <jjlee> hmm, is there a convenient way to just print the version, not all the other stuff?
[20:05] <chrisccoulson> jjlee - dpkg-parsechangelog | egrep '^Version:' | cut -f 2 -d ' '
[20:06] <chrisccoulson> example in /usr/share/gnome-pkg-tools/1/rules/gnome-get-source.mk
[20:06] <jjlee> chrisccoulson: I was afraid you'd say that ;-)  But thanks anyway
[20:06] <chrisccoulson> why?
[20:08] <jjlee> it's awkward.  The way git log does this kind of thing is better.
[20:19] <oussama> what is the use of "patch" ??
[20:20] <jmarsden> oussama: man patch to find out.  It says   patch - apply a diff file to an original
[20:21] <DktrKranz> geser: debian #560758 seems due to some changes in LP, which seems not publish unstable anymore
[20:51] <oussama> is it possible to upgrade vlc from 1.02 to 1.04
[20:53] <oussama> ???
[20:54] <etali> oussama: The upgrading VLC question might get answered more quickly in #ubuntu - this channel isn't really for support questions.
[21:26] <jjlee> If I want both a *.deb and a *_source.changes (to upload to a PPA), I have to run dpkg-buildpackage twice -- is that right?
[21:29] <diwic> jjlee: you just need to upload source.changes
[21:29] <diwic> jjlee: launchpad builds it for you
[21:29] <jjlee> diwic: yes
[21:29] <jjlee> diwic: but I also want to test locally
[21:30] <diwic> jjlee: I always run both -S and -b
[21:30] <jjlee> and that generates both the .deb and the _source.changes?
[21:31] <diwic> jjlee: I run it twice
[21:31] <jjlee> oh
[21:31] <diwic> jjlee: once with -S and once with -b
[21:31] <jjlee> fair enough
[21:31] <diwic> jjlee: but I guess it's worth a try to specify both :-)
[21:36] <jjlee> debuild says: cannot combine dpkg-buildpackage options -S and -b
[21:38] <diwic> jjlee: have you tried none of them?
[21:38] <jjlee> yes, doesn't build _source.changes
[21:38] <diwic> ok
[21:38] <diwic> I guess it's twice then
[21:48] <jjlee> irritatingly, the second run, when using git-buildpackage, complains about the output of the first
[21:49] <jjlee> perhaps I'm supposed to tell dh_clean about those generated files, so that it can remove them again?
[21:50] <diwic> jjlee: they should be removed on clean
[21:50] <diwic> jjlee: exactly if that means dh_clean is beyond my knowledge
[21:50] <jjlee> on debian/rules clean
[21:51] <diwic> jjlee: seems reasonable
[21:52] <diwic> btw, is the PPA system down? I dput a file maybe half an hour ago and yet to receive an email (accepted or refused)
[22:07] <popey> if someone wants to file a bug against the file-open dialog in their browser, what package would that go against? Nautilus?
[22:08] <chrisccoulson> popey - depends on which browser
[22:09] <chrisccoulson> but it's probably the GTK file chooser
[22:09] <popey> firefox and chrome
[22:09] <popey> http://www.flickr.com/photos/osde-info/4177039855/
[22:09] <popey> see that screenshot
[22:09] <popey> if it's the gtk file chooser, what package should it go against?
[22:10] <chrisccoulson> popey - that would be gtk+2.0
[22:13] <popey> thanks
[22:15] <popey> chrisccoulson: which package though?
[22:16] <joaopinto> libgtk2.0-0
[22:16] <popey> yay, found an existing bug
[22:16] <popey> bug 219385
[22:18] <chrisccoulson> popey - yeah, i was just looking for an existing bug too (i was sure i'd already seen it reported somewhere)
[22:18]  * popey hugs his google skills
[22:18] <popey> http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=launchpad+flickr+upload+bug+dialog&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
[22:18] <popey> :)
[22:18] <popey> first hit
[22:19] <popey> says something about launchpad that it's easier to search via google than via lp itself :S
[22:19] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i find that searching for duplicates in launchpad really sucks
[22:21] <JontheEchidna> not as bad as bugzilla, let me tell you
[22:21] <nigel_nb> +1 chrisccoulson
[22:22] <JontheEchidna> bugzilla's search tool is more of a way to get custom lists than to find bugs, imo :s
[22:23] <nigel_nb> JontheEchidna: bugzilla is extremely frustrating, I agree
[22:39] <hggdh> and the replcement for simple-dup-finder... sucks
[22:40] <martoss> hey folks - two questions. First: What could be wrong if in my ppa - for a specific package - just the i386 version has been built. 2nd I've packaged two programs. So after having tested them, what's the best way to transfer them to revu?
[22:41] <dhillon-v10> hi all, I want to file a sync/merge report for a package, but Debian PTS says that the package has 1 error and 1 warning: http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fonttools.html should I proceed with the request or choose a different package
[22:42] <diwic> dhillon-v10: I think most motus would accept those errors
[22:43] <dhillon-v10> diwic, so just proceed :)
[22:44] <diwic> dhillon-v10: the source format error is, I guess, contradictory to recent Debian recommendations of upgrading.
[22:45] <diwic> dhillon-v10: lucid has autosync of Debian packages if they're unchanged in ubuntu
[22:45] <dhillon-v10> diwic, so does that mean i don't have to file a sync report then
[22:46] <diwic> dhillon-v10: fonttools is changed in ubuntu
[22:46] <diwic> dhillon-v10: you'll have to merge it
[22:49] <jjlee> thanks everybody for your tips over a couple of weeks
[22:54] <dhillon-v10> diwic, hey I tried building fonttools in lucid chroot and it says: E: Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python2.6/python2.6_2.6.4-1ubuntu1_i386.deb: 404  Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.31 80] why would that be
[22:54] <diwic> dhillon-v10: is your chroot updated?
[22:55] <dhillon-v10> diwic, yah its for lucid, that's what its supposed to be right
[22:57] <dhillon-v10> diwic, here: http://pastebin.com/d2f23af0e
[22:57] <diwic> dhillon-v10: according to http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/python2.6 the correct version is 2.6.4-1ubuntu2
[22:58] <diwic> dhillon-v10: try a pbuilder update for lucid
[22:58] <dhillon-v10> diwic, alright :)
[23:00] <dhillon-v10> diwic, is this the right command:  sudo pbuilder --update --basetgz /home/vikram/pbuilder/lucid.tgz --distribution lucid
[23:02] <diwic> dhillon-v10: eh, I have configured .pbuilderrc so I run it in another way, so I don't know
[23:03] <dhillon-v10> diwic, okay, anyways what does this mean: W: --override-config is not set; not updating apt.conf Read the manpage for details.
[23:04] <diwic> dhillon-v10: I don't know more than you do about that error
[23:05] <dhillon-v10> diwic, lol alright never mind, thanks for the information though its updating python so that must have been the problem
[23:05] <diwic> anyway I need to go to bed now
[23:05] <dhillon-v10> diwic, good night