[04:15] <machina> hey i'm attempting to package xsensors 0.60 for debian and I noticed that the author of the upstream source package had run ./configure
[04:15] <machina> is it all right if i run "make distclean"
[04:16] <machina> and I guess that would be a patch as well from the original version?
[04:16] <machina> http://linuxhardware.org/xsensors/
[04:24] <machina> actually nvm, I know what to do know
[04:24] <machina> *now
[04:42] <LucidFox> Nafallo, when you return, I'd like to offer some suggestions about the gajim package.
[05:37] <rhpot1991> not the right place to ask this, but is there an irc channel for community wiki support?
[06:26] <contrast> Greets, everyone...
[06:27] <contrast> Could someone point me in the direction of information on building packages for stuff that doesn't need to be compiled (e.g., wallpapers, scripts, etc.)?
[07:20] <fabrice_sp> contrast, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/School/PackagingWithoutCompiling
[07:21] <contrast> fabrice_sp: Gorgeous, thanks. I [foolishly] assumed the terms would be too generic to search for. Much appreciated. :)
[07:33]  * David-T wonders whats so difficult about trying a search first...
[07:46] <dholbach> good morning
[09:41] <l00nr> Hello MOTUs! I want to get involved in Ubuntu Packaging and have a question regarding version numbers for release candidates of upstream versions
[09:42] <l00nr> can someone help me on this?
[09:42] <persia> l00nr: Lots of people can help, but they'll find it easier if you ask a specific question :)
[09:42] <dholbach> l00nr: best just ask :)
[09:44] <l00nr> ok. i want to help packaging "opensc". there's a tar.gz opensc-0.11.12-rc1...
[09:45] <l00nr> with an old .diff  as the base i now can "debuild" packages
[09:46] <l00nr> what do i have to write in changelog to make it "right"
[09:46] <l00nr> opensc-0.11.12~rc1~0ubuntu1 was my first guess
[09:47] <persia> The version string in the changelog doesn't need the package name, so first start with the upstream value.
[09:47] <l00nr> is that correct?
[09:47] <persia> Not quite.
[09:47] <persia> You probably want 0.11.12~rc1-0ubuntu1
[09:48] <persia> Or 0.11.12~rc1-0ubuntu0+tryX where X is an increasing series until you get something ready for distribution.
[09:48] <persia> The difference is that you *do* want to use a hyphen to separate the version from the revision.
[09:49] <persia> Although I think you've made the right choice to replace upstream's hyphen with a tilde, as this allows later release of opensc-0.11.12-0ubuntu1
[09:49] <persia> That said, I think I saw some opensc packaging in the past.  There may be something you can use as a base.
[09:50] <l00nr> yes, it's my plan to get this clean and not to interfere with final releases.
[09:50] <l00nr> I've already contact to a member of the opensc-project who has already done packaging in the past. I want to help on that.
[09:51] <persia> Ah, yeah, that's only at 0.11.9.  I see.
[09:51] <persia> If you're specifically interested primarily in working with opensc, I'd recommend you contact the Debian opensc maintainer(s).
[09:52] <persia> Just because you'll want to understand what they've been doing for the past few years, and keep aligned to that
[09:52] <l00nr> 0.11.5 to < 0.11.12 have a problem (a bug fix) which makes it impossible for us to use it. 0.11.12 fixes this.
[09:52] <l00nr> no... not fixes it: workaround it...
[09:52] <persia> Well, that's going to be hard to backport.
[09:52] <persia> If you can extract the patch specifically, fixing the 0.11.8 in karmic might be interesting.
[09:53] <persia> But getting both lucid and squeeze up to 0.11.12 sounds like the right solution.
[09:53] <persia> Some information about the state in Debian is available at http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/opensc.html
[09:54] <persia> And it may be worth following up on Debian bug #552516 to indicate that 0.11.11 isn't ideal for various reasons, and it's worth moving directly to 0.11.12.
[09:54] <l00nr> if the new version is contained in lucid we would be happy. no need (for us) to backport to karmic
[09:58] <l00nr> ok. i will have a look at this bug and contact the debian maintainer. thank you for the help.
[10:04] <persia> l00nr: That said, if you've wider interests, or want to work on other stuff, we're here to help :)  I just think that's the best strategy for the specific issue you mentioned.
[10:07] <l00nr> persia: i'm sure i'll have more questions in the future as we are starting to use ubuntu on our enterprise desktops... :-)
[10:07] <persia> Excellent :)
[10:33] <ari-tczew> debuild on lucid creates packages by *.debian.tar.gz, how can I use debuild if I except *.orig.tar.gz ?
[10:35] <ari-tczew> ppa reply: format '3.0 (quilt)' is not permitted in lucid.
[10:35] <persia> ari-tczew: Could you restate that question more verbosely?
[10:36] <ari-tczew> ok, so I'm working on merges and today I can't get source package by debuild -S, ppa doesn't accept my package because: format '3.0 (quilt)' is not permitted in lucid
[10:37] <persia> ari-tczew: Ah.  I hear that format: 3.0 support is coming soon.  Potentially in the next week or so.
[10:37] <ari-tczew> persia, ok thanks, but I need do build test of package, how can I test it using pbuilder?
[10:38] <persia> I'm not familiar with pbuilder.
[10:38] <persia> I'd presume you could just use pdebuild.
[10:38] <ari-tczew> ok
[10:40] <geser> ari-tczew: if you have a pbuilder setup: "pbuilder build your_merge.dsc"
[10:41] <ari-tczew> geser, ok I'll try to use your propose, but I sent "debuild -us -uc" before your answer, I must  wait
[11:04] <ari-tczew> how can I change mirrors which using pbuilder? I got E: Failed to fetch http://pl.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/g/glib2.0/libglib2.0-0_2.22.1-0ubuntu1_i386.deb: 404  Not Found
[11:05] <geser> did you run "pbuilder update"?
[11:05] <ari-tczew> no, I didn't
[11:05] <geser> your pbuilder is probably using old Packages files therefore this error
[11:05] <hyperair> ari-tczew: to change your mirror, you have to do pbuilder --update --mirror "http://newmirror/ubuntu" --override-config
[11:06] <hyperair> but yeah, updating your pbuilder should fix the issue
[11:06] <ari-tczew> ok, I'll try these commands
[11:41] <ari-tczew> it works! thanks devs!
[13:38]  * Laney nibbles
[13:38] <Laney> afternoon
[15:23] <persia> Does anyone happen to know which architectures end up getting ddebs on ddebs.ubuntu.com?
[15:24] <slytherin> persia: As far as I know only i386/amd64
[15:24] <superm1> the Release file says otherwise: http://ddebs.ubuntu.com/dists/lucid/Release
[15:24] <persia> slytherin: OK.  There are Release files for other architectures though, but I don't see the associated ddebs (and get 404 errors trying to install them)
[15:25] <persia> superm1: Yeah, but the files aren't there (e.g. http://ddebs.ubuntu.com/pool/main/b/binutils/ )
[15:25] <persia> I was thinking they might end up somewhere else (something like archive.u.c vs. ports.u.c)
[15:25] <superm1> persia, bug pitti to double check i'd say
[15:26] <superm1> although launchpad is supposed to grow proper support for them $SOON I thought
[15:27] <persia> with $SOON defined, in part, by how many people jump up and code the support?
[15:28] <superm1> i thought there was already work going in on it
[15:28] <persia> Well, I'll let it wait a bit.  -devel backscroll says pitti isn't around today.
[15:29] <persia> I suspect there is.  I'm just never confident about LP features until they show up on edge.
[15:30] <persia> After that, they usually drop into production in a month or two unless they get a lot of contention.
[18:31] <bjsnider> siretart, what's the deal on the ffmpeg issues. i've followed the "upgrade trouble" thread with you and niedermayer, but i have no idea what you two are talking about
[19:00] <norax_> hi. Is there a similar webpage for lucid of http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~wgrant/rebuild-ftbfs-test/test-rebuild-20090909-karmic.html ?
[19:03] <ScottK> norax_: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ is the actual state of the archive for Lucid.
[19:03] <m4rtin> evening all; I submitted a patch for sponsorship review (regression fix) over a month ago and haven't heard anything. Any ideas? (it's in bash-completion)
[19:04] <c_korn> I used quilt shell in a chroot to make some changes. now how do I get the patch ? do I have to `exit 0` or will this just end the chroot ?
[19:21] <fabrice_sp> Hi. Could someone else have a look at fceux in Revu (http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/fceux)? it's a nes emulator, and the evolution of fceu
[19:22] <randomaction> c_korn: just exit
[19:22] <c_korn> randomaction: I tried Ctrl+D and it worked. I think exit would have worked, too. thanks
[19:41] <norax_> Thanks, ScottK
[19:43] <Quintasan> hiho
[20:01] <siretart> bjsnider: well, have you tried installing libavutil50 and dependencies from e.g. the openshot PPA and wondered why vlc and almost all other ffmpeg using packages get instantly broken by that?
[20:02] <bjsnider> siretart, i'm subscribed to the tiresome bug report for it
[20:02] <siretart> bjsnider: that's the problem. currently the libavutil50 package would need to add a Conflicts: libavutil49 in order to prevent the situation
[20:02] <siretart> bjsnider: unfortunately, I fail to contact the ppa maintainer, intuitivenipple for that
[20:03] <siretart> still, many user just install those packages and happily break their systems
[20:03] <siretart> the symbol versioning I've proposed would prevent that problem
[20:03] <bjsnider> siretart, no, i wasn't asking about the nature of the problem as much as a rough ETA on a solution, if you have one
[20:04] <bjsnider> i understood from the last message in the thread that you were implementing a solution
[20:04] <siretart> bjsnider: it takes me finding some hours of spare time to create a patch, plus the reviewing and integration time for ffmpeg upstream. I'd guess a couple of weeks
[20:05] <bjsnider> i see
[20:05] <bjsnider> you can't disable the openshot ppa in the meantime, especially if the owner is incommunicado?
[20:06] <siretart> I can, many angry bug reporters obviously fail to diagnose the problem
[20:06] <siretart> and I cannot ask the launchpad admins either to have his ppa removed
[20:07] <bjsnider> why not?
[20:07] <siretart> on what grounds? we have never supported 3rd party sources exactly for these reasons
[20:08] <bjsnider> on the grounds that he is unaware of the problem, cannot or will not warn people about it and will not or cannot change things
[20:09] <siretart> feel free to do so
[20:09] <siretart> still, simply not using his packages and trying to contact him seem better options to me, but obviously, YMMV.
[20:10] <bjsnider> you already know about the issue though
[20:10] <siretart> you do so as well, now.
[20:11] <siretart> I prefer spending my time with fixing packages rather than hunting broken ones from others
[20:15] <bjsnider> what's the bug number for the broken mplayer issue?
[20:19] <siretart> bjsnider: you said you where already subscribed to that bug
[20:21] <bjsnider> i think i deleted the messages
[20:22] <bjsnider> they had nothing to do with my ppa and i couldn't say anything more than you did to help anybody
[20:23] <bjsnider> i don't understand how it happened. i didn't subscribe myself. i just all of a sudden started getting emails from launchpad about it
[20:25] <bjsnider> 461966
[20:53] <Whoopie> siretart: Hi, if you have time, could you have a look at bug 392115? I attached a debdiff to enable DV support.
[21:04] <fabrice_sp> Hey RainCT ! Could you please add me to Revu as reviewer?
[21:18] <RainCT> fabrice_sp: done :)