[02:55] <rhpot1991> hey guys building a new package now, can anyone fill me in on the purpose of cdbs's makefile.mk?
[02:56] <RAOF> rhpot1991: That hooks up the magical unicorn to a generic "make; make install" upstream build system.
[02:57] <rhpot1991> RAOF: ok so what is the best way to only have it do make and not make install?
[02:57] <rhpot1991> I have a .install file that puts the files where they need to be
[02:59] <RAOF> rhpot1991: There's probably some magical CDBS variable you can frob.  I wouldn't bother; I'd use debhelper.
[03:01] <RAOF> It would go something like: "%:\n\t dh $@ \n\n override_dh_auto_install:\n\t# do nothing, because we install ourselves"
[03:03] <rhpot1991> RAOF: ya someone else is trying to convince me to give dh7 a try for this instead, gonna take a stab at that I think
[03:03] <RAOF> It's all the best bits of cdbs without the infuriating arcana.
[05:19] <machina> If I'm packaging a new upstream release, should the copyright file state that it was "debianized" by me, or should it stay as the debian maintainer?
[05:20] <RAOF> Stay as the debian maintainer; that's the _initial_ debianisation.
[05:21] <machina> ah, thanks
[05:22] <RAOF> Incidentally, good work on actually looking at debian/copyright when packaging the new release.
[05:23] <machina> heh thanks, I'm just trying to get everything right
[05:23] <machina> speaking of the copyright file,
[05:23] <rhpot1991> RAOF: dh7 works much better :)
[05:24] <RAOF> rhpot1991: It does, doesn't it :)
[05:24] <rhpot1991> yep, got everything working now, just gotta sort out the patches
[05:25] <machina> RAOF: the previous contained an excerpt of GPL-2, but when I generated a blank one in lucid it looks like I can just reference the license on the system
[05:25] <machina> is that correct?
[05:26] <RAOF> You can include the preamble + "you can find the full licence in /usr/share/etc...", but I wouldn't change that when updating the package.
[05:28] <machina> ok, ...the debian-policy isn't very clear on it. thanks!
[07:05] <dholbach> good morning
[07:06] <fabrice_sp> good mornind dholbach !
[07:06] <dholbach> hey fabrice_sp
[08:07] <HIDID> hi i want to upload my first package how to find one
[08:13] <iulian> G'morning dholbach.
[08:14] <dholbach> hiya iulian
[08:15] <HIDID> where i will find task to (package)
[08:16] <dholbach> try https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/TODO
[10:04] <Quintasan|Szel> hello
[11:28] <c_korn> are there some information around how to build a package which makes use of dkms for kernel modules ?
[11:53] <ScottK> c_korn: apt-cache rdepends dkms and pick from the examples.
[11:58] <shriekout> please advice... :)
[11:59] <shriekout> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/happytimer
[14:05] <dholbach> Quintasan: thanks a bunch - posted :)
[14:07] <Quintasan> dholbach: :)
[14:09] <Quintasan> dholbach: oh my, I really messed up that photo, I forgot to set correct resolution >_<
[14:09] <dholbach> Quintasan: if you want a new one there, mail it to me
[15:07] <falktx> anyone has a little time for a revu?
[15:07] <falktx> swh-lv2 and zyn
[15:07] <falktx> the zyn is missing *.desktop files, but I'll check that later
[15:11] <dnivra_> can someone enlighten me about the sponsorship process? i read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess and understood what is sponsoring and why sponsoring. but how I put up my patch for review?
[15:11] <persia> dnivra_: Which bug?
[15:11] <dnivra_> i uploaded two patches in launchpad. how do I know if it's being reviewed or not?
[15:11] <dnivra_> just a sec let me retrieve the bug numbers
[15:12] <m4rtin> dnivra_: the section that says "Requesting Sponsorship" tells you all you need to do
[15:12] <dnivra_> persia: LP #1994472 and LP #401692
[15:12] <m4rtin> "Subscribe ubuntu-main-sponsors, ubuntu-universe-sponsors or ubuntu-security-sponsors as appropriate" and set status Confirmed, assigned to: nobody
[15:13] <dnivra_> persia: LP #194472
[15:13] <dnivra_> m4rtin: subscribe the sponsors to what?
[15:14] <geser> to your bug
[15:14] <m4rtin> on the right there's a section listing who is subscribed. Press "subscribe somebody else" (or whatever it says) and attach the sponsor
[15:14] <dnivra_> geser, m4rtin, persia: thanks
[15:14] <persia> dnivra_: In the case of 401692, you've gotten a review by a developer, who firstly asked you to send the patch to the upstream bugtracker, and secondly reports that the suggested patch could cause confusion.  I'd recommend following up on those points.
[15:15] <dnivra_> m4rtin: well I didn't know what to subscribe them too
[15:15] <dnivra_> persia: will look into it; thank you
[15:16] <persia> dnivra_: For 194472, you'll want to subscribe ubuntu-main-sponsors, as suggested by geser and m4rtin.
[15:16] <dnivra_> geser, persia, m4rtin: thank you very much
[15:18] <m4rtin> np :)
[15:25] <falktx> anyone here is using Lucid?
[15:25] <falktx> I cannot copy-paste correctly sometimes...
[15:26] <persia> falktx: You might want to ask in #ubuntu+1, which is the user-support channel for the development release.
[15:26] <falktx> ...
[15:26] <falktx> lol
[15:26] <persia> (note that few people there have *the* answer: it's a peer-coordinated system to collectively learn and provide effective support when the release happens)
[15:27] <falktx> thanks again persia
[15:43] <Go> hi everyone (:
[15:44] <falktx> hi
[15:46] <machina> anyone know where I can find out about having a debian/patches directory?
[15:47] <persia> machina: There's some info inthe packaging guide.  Let's see if the bot knows a better link.
[15:47] <persia> !patches
[15:47] <persia> Guess not :(
[15:48] <machina> lol i'll take a look
[15:48] <persia> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/PatchSystems
[15:48] <quadrispro> !patch
[15:49] <persia> quadrispro: Thanks :)  Next time I won't have to actually check the wiki :)
[15:49] <quadrispro> eh eh
[15:53] <machina> thanks all
[16:48] <gabriel__> buenas tardes a todos
[17:25] <fabrice_sp> Hi. Anyone willing to have a look at fceux in REVU (http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/fceux)?It's the evolution of fceu (a NES emulator), and I'm hosting it in my ppa for the moment
[17:59] <falktx> I'm waiting for qtsixa for over 3 months...
[17:59] <falktx> I know you'll wait a while...
[17:59] <om26er> how can i help ubuntu.
[18:03] <randomaction> om26er: see links in channel topic and http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate
[18:04] <machina> hi, I'm trying to update this copyright from this http://pastebin.com/d5200e964 to this http://pastebin.com/d1fafa456
[18:04] <machina> but I don't know if it's right for me to put a copyright under the debian maintainer's name?
[18:05] <om26er> randomaction, what should i know to start developing..? any language?
[18:06] <om26er> randomaction, i mean to join motu
[18:06] <randomaction> see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing, it has information on how to join
[18:21] <machina> anyone know how to reference a debian bug in an Ubuntu changelog?
[18:22] <EzraR> i would think ubuntu fixes ubuntu bugs and debian fixes debian bugs
[18:22] <randomaction> any way you want, it won't autoclose it anyway
[18:22] <ScottK> If someone wants to package http://www.mangler.org/ I will promise you it gets reviewed.
[18:23] <EzraR> wow, nice
[18:23] <machina> It wasn't for a fix, it's just to show why I reverted a patch
[18:24] <EzraR> vent has been "woring" on a linux client forever
[18:25] <falktx> I could package mangler
[18:25] <falktx> the site looks nic
[18:25] <falktx> *nice*
[18:25] <ScottK> Go for it.
[18:25] <falktx> I wonder if the app itself is as good
[18:26] <EzraR> it already has a deb
[18:26] <falktx> i'll try it next week
[18:26] <falktx> busy with some other packages now
[18:27] <machina> so no real way to reference a debian bug?
[18:29] <falktx> ScottK: if you remember me next week, I promise I'll package it
[18:31] <falktx> haha
[18:31] <falktx> because a package name includes "++", firefox can't open the revu page
[18:31] <falktx> lol
[18:32] <falktx> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/lv2-c%2B%2B-tools
[18:32] <falktx> "%2B" is suppose to be "+"
[18:32] <EzraR> i have some free time I could do it unless your really set on doing it falktx
[18:32] <falktx> no, you go
[18:33] <falktx> i'm busy already with qtsixa,zyn,swh-lv2,fst & lv2-c++
[18:33] <falktx> but hey,
[18:34] <EzraR> heh
[18:34] <falktx> the lv2-c++-tools page can't be displayed
[18:34] <falktx> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/lv2-c++-tools
[18:34] <falktx> WTF
[18:36] <falktx> I guess I'll depend on gmail for this
[18:59] <fabrice_sp> anyone knows why cdbs with pysupport still install python packages in site-packages ? Is there a way to force cdbs to install in dist-package? This is the second package I had to patch so that test run fine because of that
[19:08] <fabrice_sp> hmmm, it seems site-packages is hardcoded in /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/python-distutils.mk, so no way to use dist-package. Will have to patch the package :-/
[19:08] <dktrkranz> fabrice_sp: re python-multiprocessing, you probably uploaded by mistake :( I asked removal because it's already part of python2.6 (see bug #418280). I'll reopen it.
[19:09] <fabrice_sp> dktrkranz, no: I wanted to fix a FTBFS, as this package appears in the FTBFS page :-/
[19:09] <fabrice_sp> it was FTBFS on purpuse, then. Sorry about that
[19:10] <dktrkranz> It was removed ten days ago, strange it was still there. Don't worry :)
[19:10] <fabrice_sp> this also mean that the package should be blacklisted, then
[19:10] <EzraR> if upstream includes a debian dir should i remove it?
[19:11] <EzraR> or work with it
[19:11] <ScottK> EzraR: You're choice.  Generally depends on if it needs a little or a lot of work.
[19:13] <EzraR> ScottK: hardly any but i would rather use cdbs and do i change orig maintainer or not? do i need to recopyright the package in my name?
[19:13] <dktrkranz> fabrice_sp: all done, thanks.
[19:14] <ScottK> EzraR: If upstream has produced a reasonable quality Debian package, why would you do it other than the way they prefer?
[19:15] <fabrice_sp> dktrkranz, It seems like this package has been synced after being deleted from Lucid. Thanks to you! :-)
[19:16] <fabrice_sp> I need to also cancel the bug I reported to Debian because of the FTBFS :-)
[19:16] <EzraR> 989
[19:16] <EzraR> 4+/
[19:16] <EzraR> /*7*/
[19:16] <POX> fabrice_sp: pysupport doesn't use site-packages nor dist-packages
[19:17] <POX> just don't touch anything and it will work
[19:17] <POX> (dh_pysupport will do the right thing)
[19:17] <fabrice_sp> POX, I know, but a test is run to check the python lib is ok before generating the package, and it's using get_python_lib(), that return dist-pacakges
[19:18] <fabrice_sp> but the lib is in usr/lib/python2.6/site-package not in  dist-packages. So I have to add a "addsitedir(join(root, "usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages"))" line in the test script
[19:18] <fabrice_sp> which is a kind of 'ugly'
[19:19] <POX> hint: PYTHONPATH
[19:19] <fabrice_sp> it's python-netaddr, if you want to check
[19:21] <fabrice_sp> ok: I can use PYTHONPATH in debian/rules, but it's still ugly to have python2.6/site-packages :-D
[19:27] <machina> I'm packaging a source (xsensors 0.60) that has autoconf generated files left over. Do I need to make a separate patch for a 'dist-clean'ed version of the source, or is it good enough that the clean target in debian/rules gets rid of them?
[19:29] <fabrice_sp> machina, try to keep the debdiff as small as possible, so a clean target should be enough
[19:30] <POX> fabrice_sp: I will add a fix in DPMT repo
[19:32] <fabrice_sp> DPMT ?
[19:32] <POX> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam
[19:32] <machina> fabrice_sp, is there documentation on how the rules file is used (the order it's targets are called)?
[19:33] <fabrice_sp> ohhh. Thanks POX ! :-)
[19:43] <fabrice_sp> machina, you cna have a look at http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-dreq.en.html
[19:44] <POX> fabrice_sp: http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-modules/packages/python-netaddr/trunk/debian/runtests.py?r1=10078&r2=10823
[19:45] <fabrice_sp> POX: cool: I'll apply the same patch in Ubuntu, and we'll sync the package after
[19:54] <POX> dktrkranz: heh, looks like someone really likes multiprocessing (and one copy is just not enough for him ;)
[20:00] <machina> fabrice_sp, thanks  ( :
[20:10] <dktrkranz> POX: :D
[20:11] <tgpraveen122> hi i dont know if this is the right channel but a package barrybackup after installation needs to be started with sudo for it to run properly. is this something that should be handled in ubuntu or by the developers of that app
[20:11] <tgpraveen122> ?
[20:11] <tgpraveen122> this prob exists in karmic and the one before that
[20:11] <POX> oh, it's fabrice_sp (I received a mail because I reported initial mail)
[20:11] <maco> so whats the problem then?
[20:11] <maco> are you saying it shouldnt require sudo to run?
[20:12] <maco> or are you saying it should be a service?
[20:12] <fabrice_sp> POX, yes :-)I'm fixing FTBFS in python modules, and python-multiprocessing was FTBFS. I even opened a bug report in Debian :-D
[20:12] <POX> s/mail)/bug)/
[20:13] <POX> fabrice_sp: #debian-python @ OFTC
[20:14] <tgpraveen122> maco: the app is basically to sync data with blackberry phones. unl;ess i run it with sudo it doesnt work. so yes it should run without sudo
[20:15] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/PythonModulesTeam
[20:15] <maco> tgpraveen122: i'd ask upstream then
[20:16] <tgpraveen122> maco: so its surely not a packaging thing right.
[20:16] <fabrice_sp> ScottK, yes: POX pointed me there ;-)
[20:16] <maco> tgpraveen122: shouldnt be... its not in /sbin or /usr/sbin/ is it?
[20:16] <tgpraveen122> upstream is basically hard to contact i think. meh guess will have to live with it
[20:16] <maco> tgpraveen122: check and see who owns it and the permissions on the executable
[20:18] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: No, he pointed you to the Debian wiki page.  I pointed you to an Ubuntu wiki page about the Debian team.
[20:20] <fabrice_sp> ScottK, ohh, right: I read to quickly (and see wiki.<somestuff>/PythonModulesTeam)
[20:20] <fabrice_sp> thanks for the link
[20:20] <tgpraveen122> maco: ok thanks for tip will check ltr. thx
[20:20] <fabrice_sp> s/to/too/
[23:24] <quentusrex> Help. How do I get a config file that if it is deleted, the package won't reinstall it.
[23:24] <quentusrex> treat a delete as as modification
[23:40] <RAOF> quentusrex: purge the package, then reinstall it.
[23:43] <persia> Um, that tests whether it will happen.
[23:48] <persia> Right.  Looks like if the package marks a file as a conffile, and the user deletes it, the user will be prompted on upgrade to confirm that the deletion is intentional.
[23:48] <quentusrex> aah, ok. good.
[23:49] <persia> But test that :)  I've just reconfirmed by reading the maintainers guide, but I didn't run a test.
[23:52] <quentusrex> how do I find out if a directory was installed by the package?
[23:52] <quentusrex> I am moving folders to be more debian/ubuntu proper
[23:53] <quentusrex> but I need a way to move the folders from the 'old way' to the new way
[23:55] <persia> quentusrex: You're attempting to make a system be a functional Ubuntu install _without_ reinstalling?  Or is this just a couple of pieces of software?
[23:56] <quentusrex> this is just one package...
[23:57] <quentusrex> and I screwed up the directory locations and a bunch of people are using the package...
[23:57] <quentusrex> and I'd like to be able to fix my mistake rather then have them purge, then reinstall...