/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2009/12/20/#ubuntu-motu.txt

lifelesshmm00:15
lifelessanyone know when dh added the '--without' option ?00:15
lifelessTrying to do a backport of subunit to hardy & getting an error about that00:16
micahglifeless: 7.2.900:18
micahglifeless: which is karmic and later00:20
lifelessarhh - thanks00:21
=== tuantub_ is now known as tuantub
=== asac_ is now known as asac
=== Whoopie_ is now known as Whoopie
MTecknologyI just tried to package for the latest openbox but it'll only build for i38605:04
MTecknologyhttps://edge.launchpad.net/~mtecknology/+archive/ppa/+packages05:04
MTecknologyoh......05:05
wgrantIt's arch-indep?05:06
wgrantHm, no.05:06
wgrantIt's arch: i386.05:06
wgrant== wrong05:06
MTecknologyya, I just changed that to any05:06
MTecknology!info openbox lucid05:06
ubottuopenbox (source: openbox): standards compliant, fast, light-weight, extensible window manager. In component universe, is optional. Version 3.4.7.2-5 (lucid), package size 266 kB, installed size 1432 kB05:06
matti;]05:07
MTecknologymaybe this will work right now :)05:09
MTecknologywaiting for the new build to start now..05:10
MTecknologyrejected...05:11
MTecknologyapparently it lacks common sense for >05:11
MTecknology:P05:11
wgrant?05:12
MTecknologyI changed from 3.4.9-ppa0 to 3.4.9-1ubuntu105:13
MTecknologyI deleted the ppa0 one05:13
MTecknologyI'm trying to upload it again05:14
=== nhandler_ is now known as nhandler
=== nhandler is now known as Guest95780
=== nhandler_ is now known as nhandler
MTecknologyWhat's going on with this? https://edge.launchpad.net/~mtecknology/+archive/ppa/+packages05:39
MTecknology"Dependency wait"05:39
MTecknologyeh... I'll just bug somebody to get 3.4.9 into 10.0405:43
wgrantMTecknology: Did you just manually retry that?05:54
wgrantAnd on what did it depwait?05:55
MTecknologyI didn't knwo I could check that..05:55
wgrantThe email will probably tell you, and so does the page (until it's retried).05:55
wgrantDid you retry it?05:55
wgrantI wonder if it was retried automatically in error.05:56
MTecknologyno; no email either; but i wound up deleting it05:56
wgrantOh, right, no email for depwait.05:56
wgrantBut did you retry it or not05:56
wgrant?05:56
MTecknologyno05:57
wgrantSo there is a bug :(05:57
MTecknologyI broke something :D05:57
wgrantOh, no, I was just looking at the wrong build.05:58
wgrantxlibs-dev hasn't existed for a Long Time.05:59
MTecknologyI'll try to pull the current version and look at the debian/* files and compare05:59
MTecknologyI was trying to build from what they already had05:59
MTecknologygit clone git://git.icculus.org/mikachu/openbox openbox05:59
MTecknologywgrant: this is weird... I was doing apt-get source openbox and apparently there's this too - svn://svn.debian.org/svn/collab-maint/deb-maint/openbox06:03
wgrantMTecknology: Is that weird?06:03
MTecknologywgrant: well - they use git..06:04
MTecknologywgrant: as far as their wiki sayd06:04
MTecknologysays*06:04
wgrantMTecknology: Upstream might use git now, but the Debian package use(s|d) svn.06:05
wgrantNot an uncommon situation.06:05
MTecknologyok; I'll just try to make this work using git06:06
MTecknologyI know git is upstream06:06
MTecknologyI was told the fix I'm after is in git06:08
MTecknologywgrant: I'm thinking I might need to try out dh_make even though most of the stuff is already there .. idk06:11
MTecknologywgrant: app_version-karmic0; is that the right format?06:13
wgrantMTecknology: That does not match any of the commonly accepted version conventions. Have a look around at packages, PPAs and documentation.06:14
MTecknologywgrant: I'm probably too tired to be doing this if I'm not finding any of that :P06:15
ScottKProbably.06:16
MTecknology0ubuntu106:16
MTecknologyI see that one06:16
ScottKthat's for the archive, not for PPAs06:16
MTecknologyI was looking at https://edge.launchpad.net/~doctormo/+archive/ppa06:16
MTecknologyI saw app_version-ppa0 earlier06:17
ScottKHe's not an Ubuntu developer, so consider the source.06:17
MTecknologytrue06:17
MTecknologyI'd like to make sure this gets into 10.04; but that comes later; for now I just use -ppa0 ?06:17
ScottKNo.06:18
MTecknologyI'06:18
MTecknologyI'll look around more06:18
crimsunfoo_1.0-0ubuntu1~ppa1, foo_1.0-0ubuntu1~mktecknology1; foo_1.0-0ubuntu1+ppa1; foo_1.0-0ubuntu2~ppa106:19
crimsuneach of those has a specific use06:20
crimsunthe first set (delimited by semicolon) is for a PPA version not yet in Ubuntu proper06:20
crimsunthe second set is for a PPA version newer than what's in Ubuntu proper that you wish to denote is explicitly based on 1.0-0ubuntu106:21
=== nigel_nb_ is now known as nigel_nb
crimsunthe third set is for a PPA version newer than what's in Ubuntu proper that you wish to denote may not be based on what will be in the next Ubuntu version06:21
crimsunand, of course, there are variations06:21
crimsunthe importance of proper versioning is that you don't want override the next version in Ubuntu proper06:22
MTecknologyhow do I see how it's named in Ubuntu?06:22
MTecknologyopenbox-3.4.7.206:22
crimsunrmadison06:23
crimsunso, rmadison -uubuntu openbox06:23
crimsun(you can omit -uubuntu for sufficiently new versions of rmadison)06:23
crimsunlikewise, -uqa for what's in Debian06:23
MTecknologylucid = 3.4.7.2-506:23
crimsunmake sure you pass source package names to rmadison (or at least be aware that you should read the corresponding 'source' output line)06:24
MTecknologyhardy has the ubuntu word in it - 3.4.6.1-0ubuntu206:24
crimsunnamely, you can pass binary package names to rmadison, but the output can be confusing unless you're fairly familiar with the packaging (e.g., linux, linux-meta{06:25
crimsun)*06:25
MTecknologyotherwise it goes -2, -3, -4, -506:25
MTecknologyI hope to be familiar enough with it someday06:25
MTecknologyso openbox_3.4.9.0-0+ppa1 ?06:27
crimsunwhat's the actual upstream version?06:27
MTecknology   openbox |  3.4.7.2-5 | lucid/universe | source, amd64, i38606:27
MTecknologyoh..06:27
MTecknology3.9.406:27
MTecknology3.4.9 **06:28
crimsunso, it's a good idea to get 3.9.4 into Debian unstable06:28
crimsun3.4.9, then06:28
crimsunsince sid only has 3.4.806:28
MTecknologypackaging is the same isn't it? I just need to submit to that other place06:29
crimsun(a somewhat Ubuntu-centric dev would use 3.4.9-0ubuntu1~foo1, but again, getting it into Debian sid is the better choice)06:29
MTecknologyhttp://mentors.debian.net/06:29
crimsunyes, mentors06:30
crimsunanyhoo, offline for toodles06:30
MTecknologywhich is why it lacks the ubuntu1 part?06:30
MTecknologyok, thanks - I'll try to package it with openbox_3.4.9-0+ppa106:31
MTecknologyor s/0/1/ ..?06:32
wgrantIs it derived from the first Debian version of 3.4.9?06:32
MTecknologynot afaik06:33
wgrantThen -1+* would be a lie.06:33
MTecknologydebian doesn't have 3.4.906:33
MTecknology-0+* would be honest then?06:33
wgrantYes.06:34
MTecknologythat's the people telling me arrays should start at 1 :P06:34
MTecknologywgrant: so after I build iti I should rename karmic to lenny and submit to debian mentors?06:39
wgrantMTecknology: If you want to submit it to Debian mentors, yes.06:40
MTecknologythanks06:40
ScottKYou'll want to follw the Debian scheme for revision numbering on mentors though.06:42
MTecknologyScottK: it looks like that means just omittint the +* for this06:44
MTecknologythis doesn't look like a good package to practice on...06:49
LLStarkshi.08:07
LLStarkswhy is adobe-flashplugin used for restricted extras instead of flashplugin-installer?08:07
surfzoidHi10:39
surfzoidon the web, is there deb pkg of mono more recent than the 2.4 ?10:39
surfzoiddirecthex: you are the Mono expert :-) ?10:40
ikoniaif there is why would you want it ?10:40
surfzoidikonia: weired question, but, because i m developper and want to folow some bug fix, new feature and so one, also at least if there isn't one i plane to build one throug open suse build service10:42
ikoniaif it's outside the ubuntu repo's it doesn't seem with it as it won't be packaged for ubuntu, so your testing may not be valid10:42
ikoniaeg: you test it , it works, ubuntu package it slightly different (patches etc) and your testing is void10:43
surfzoidso once time is the ubuntu mono pkg more recent than the old 2.4 ?10:43
* surfzoid is there10:44
ikoniasurfzoid: is it in the repo ?10:44
surfzoidikonia: is there a way to contribute in packaging or the actual maintener of Mono pkg work on it ?10:44
surfzoidyes in the repo = 2.410:45
ikoniasurfzoid: so then the version in the repo is the latest version10:45
ikonia(assuming you're checking all the repos)10:45
surfzoid2.4 is pretty old10:45
ikoniasurfzoid: what version of ubuntu ?10:45
surfzoidikonia: 9.10 , but i m new in ubuntu word, perhap s i miss an repo10:45
ikoniasurfzoid: also - you're in the right place to contribute, lots of guys in here are part of the packaging world10:46
surfzoidikonia: so how to process, i already have my own ubutu repo, but is not "oficial"10:46
ikoniaikonia: if you go to "system->administration->software sources" you can see what repos you have10:46
ikoniasurfzoid: I guess it depends where the package you want to update is, (what repo)10:47
surfzoidikonia: my repo live at opensuse OBS10:47
ikoniaerrrrr I mean what ubuntu repo the package you want to update is in10:48
surfzoidikonia: i'm not sur it could help since is in french, but here it is my repo http://picpaste.com/pics/Capture-3.1261306191.png10:50
surfzoidi will look for mono source10:50
surfzoidikonia: mono is from this repo : http://picpaste.com/pics/Capture-4.1261306333.png10:52
ikonia!info mono-runtime10:53
ubottumono-runtime (source: mono): Mono runtime. In component main, is optional. Version 2.4.2.3+dfsg-2 (karmic), package size 1223 kB, installed size 3432 kB (Only available for i386 lpia kfreebsd-i386 powerpc amd64 kfreebsd-amd64 ia64 arm armeb armel sparc s390 all)10:53
ikoniasurfzoid: ok - so it's in the core main repo10:53
surfzoid!info mono10:53
ubottuPackage mono does not exist in karmic10:53
ikoniasurfzoid: you'd have to get a launcpad.net account and contribute to the package that way, it's developers will be in #ubuntu-devel10:53
surfzoidhum i have reqested a build pkg of my softwares at lauchpad so my account is enought ?10:54
ikoniaI'd gues s so10:55
ikoniaoops, guess so10:55
surfzoidso after i build the pkg somewhere and mail directly to the actual maintener ?10:55
ikonialog an update request and link your package to it10:56
ikonia(the one in your ubuntu branch) talk the maintainers, most are really gratful for help, speak to directhex also, he's put in a lot of effort for mono and ubuntu / debian10:56
surfzoidlike the !info, there is an query to know the actual guy who package mono ?10:56
surfzoidoki10:56
ikoniasurfzoid: it's normally not one guy (but can be) if you log a bug/upgrade against in launchpad it will contact the maintainers10:57
surfzoiddamed i m logged at LP, but it is where i post new bug !!11:00
surfzoidikonia: i m complety unable to find how to post a new bug !! https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/44339811:03
ubottuUbuntu bug 443398 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] MonoOSC" [Wishlist,New]11:03
ikoniasurfzoid: if there is an existing bug - add to it11:04
surfzoidi used the search engine but no result11:04
surfzoidso i guess i need to add, but where ?!! it is amazing to have a so complicated system !11:04
ikoniathen log a new bug,11:05
ikoniawhy did you post that bug (443398) if it's not the bug you're interested in11:05
surfzoidthat s what i try ,and finally find a link from my old bug, but from home page if you click on "bug" there isn t link to report a new one !!11:06
surfzoidiko see date of the bug please11:06
ikoniaI don't need to see the date of the bug11:06
surfzoidikonia: "why did you post that bug (443398) if it's not the bug you're interested in" because we spoke about an Mono release today and the old 443398 is an MonoOSC bug for release of my software, so yes , see the dates !!11:08
ikoniawhy ???11:08
ikoniait's either the bug you want to update, or it's not11:09
ikoniain which case log a new one11:09
surfzoidcomon, of course not : bug 443398 = MonoOSC/MonoOBSFramework, the new bug we are speaking = Mono Framework11:10
ubottuLaunchpad bug 443398 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] MonoOSC" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/44339811:10
ikonia????11:10
ikoniaeither update the bug if you feel it's relevant, or log a new bug that is what you need/want11:11
surfzoidFinaly i will not report a release query, ubuntu is really to mutch complicated for me, i will simply and badly duplicate efort by building Mono in my OBS repo !!11:11
ikoniaa release query, ???11:11
ikoniayou don't want a query, you want it updated, so to get it updated you need to log a bug/feature request11:12
surfzoidi know my english is poor, but realy at this level11:12
ikoniaI don't understand why that is a problem11:12
surfzoidrelease/update query/log okidoki !!11:16
surfzoidsame thing11:16
ikonia???11:17
=== tgm4883 is now known as jim127
geserdktrkranz: re debian bug #560758: this it not due the LP debian mirror being out-of-sync (as no --lp switch got used) but due to rmadison now listing several "source" lines and the requestsync code not using the most recent one (I found it now too and looking into it)13:01
ubottuDebian bug 560758 in ubuntu-dev-tools "False: The versions in Debian and Ubuntu are the same already during requestsync" [Normal,Open] http://bugs.debian.org/56075813:01
dktrkranzgeser: mmh, that's probably the real issue, I checked on some packages and I was unable to reproduce anymore, maybe I was just unlucky to pick those with a single source entry13:20
adhordeninside a package is there any way to stop it from building the documentation? I am building and packaging a cross compiler based on gcc-4.4.2 but I do not need the docs, so was curious if you can stop this in the configure arguments13:34
geserdepends on upstream's configure script13:36
adhordengeser, the upstream package is gcc-core-4.4.2 and I just apply a patch to build a cross compiler, I am guessing the GCC configure script does not allow you to disable building of docs13:38
adhordenI just have an rm -rf /usr/man in my rules but i though there might be a better solution13:39
surfzoidso i m trying to build an ubuntu pkg with the folowing dsc : http://pastebin.com/d71362a6714:19
surfzoidbut i already get the folowing error14:20
surfzoiddpkg-source: error: Files field contains bad line `c87d9fdb04a3233cd89512dbf816cc5a mono-2.6.1.tar.gz'14:20
surfzoidi really don't see what is wrong in format or other !14:20
surfzoidanybody have an clue ?14:21
ari-tczewsurfzoid, are you trying to build changed by you package? or original package?14:22
surfzoidchanged by me after calculate again the md514:23
surfzoidari-tczew: ^14:24
surfzoidok14:27
ari-tczewit looks like you did change in orig tarball14:27
ari-tczewbtw. why this is not .orig.tar.gz ?14:28
surfzoidari-tczew: no clue ?14:31
ari-tczewsurfzoid, do you want to update mono to 2.6.1 version?14:32
ari-tczewit would be nice to report bug @ bugs.debian.org14:32
gesersurfzoid: where did you got this .dsc? the Files line looks broken14:32
surfzoidyes 2.6.1, i got it from 2.4 one14:33
geseryou constructed this .dsc by hand?14:33
ari-tczewif you did all changes what are needs by 2.6.1, you must put "debuild -us -uc"14:33
ari-tczewif built will fine, get debuild -S14:34
surfzoidgeser: i modify it by hand yes14:34
ari-tczewlol14:34
surfzoid!!14:35
geserwhy? why not used the tools intended for it?14:36
surfzoidhum, which one ?14:36
surfzoidgeser: i m more rpm and just discover the deb world14:37
ari-tczewsurfzoid, maybe you should read some articles on wiki.ubuntu.com ?14:37
geserdebuild -S or dpkg-buildpackage -S14:37
surfzoidsome gui exist for those command line tools ?14:38
geserI don't know any14:40
surfzoidfinaly damed, the problem was only "-" rather "_" !!14:53
ari-tczewsurfzoid, great, but please don't handly changing dsc file in future, just use debuild ;-D14:55
surfzoidyes now i know, the puzle sound like really more easy14:57
surfzoidin fact, if you have existing source, the only stuff is to change the log and debuild do all the stuf :-)14:58
=== RainCT_ is now known as RainCT
surfzoidhum using the tool give me new error : http://pastebin.com/d52de1cc315:18
surfzoidi did something wrong or foprget something ?15:19
surfzoidthe funny is if i go in my source dir and do the autogen.sh all is okay15:21
ari-tczewmyabe someone is wrong with debian/rules?15:21
ari-tczewmaybe15:21
ari-tczewI guess you should add autoconf patch15:22
surfzoidhum where it is ?15:22
ari-tczewcreate folder, unpack there .orig.tar.gz15:22
ari-tczewand copy unpacked folder15:22
surfzoidwhere15:23
ari-tczewlol, are you in folder with mono, right?15:23
ari-tczewhere is *.orig.tar.gz right?15:23
surfzoidyes15:24
ari-tczewso, for example please create folder, e.g. call it "diff", so put in console: mkdir diff15:25
ari-tczewthen unpack *.orig.tar.gz with mono in diff folder15:25
ari-tczewif you have unpacked orig.tar.gz, please copy it, because you need 2 folders for compare15:26
ari-tczewin efects you should have in diff folder e.g. mono-2.6.1 and mono-2.6.1 (copy)15:27
surfzoidoki now i see better you would like i compare the 2 dir15:27
ari-tczeware you understand15:27
ari-tczewyes, compare two dirs15:27
ari-tczewin one dir you need to run command: autoconf15:28
ari-tczewthen go back and compare these dirs15:28
ari-tczewcd .. && diff -pruN dir1 dir2 > autoconf.patch15:28
surfzoidsorry i said a mistake, i don't have an orig tarball15:30
ari-tczewjust I saw in your pastebin15:30
ari-tczewehh surfzoid, you must rename to .orig.tar.gz15:31
ari-tczewso, e.g.: mv mono_2.6.1.tar.gz mono_2.6.1.orig.tar.gz15:31
surfzoidha oki15:31
surfzoidat the same time i see other posible mistake of the tool, my source dir is "mono-2.6.1" but the tool make an "mono_2.6.1.tar.gz" with inside "mono-2.6.1" so "_" vs "-" will make trouble ?15:33
ari-tczewsource dir is ok15:33
ari-tczewcontinue work ...15:34
surfzoidif i rename to .orig.tar.gz i must change that also in the dsc file ?15:34
ari-tczewLOL don't change handly dsc file !15:34
ari-tczewdsc will change by debuild15:34
ari-tczewautomatically15:34
surfzoidhum weird pointer :-)15:35
adhordendo not change the dsc by hand, use debuild15:37
surfzoidon a side debian is stric , really amazing stric, and it permit this lol15:38
surfzoidvery long to build this 35 Mega of sources :D15:45
surfzoidari-tczew: i have followed you by renaming to orig.tar.gz, but of course ! :15:48
surfzoiddpkg-source: error: cannot fstat file /usr/src/packages/SOURCES/mono_2.6.1.tar.gz: No such file or directory15:48
surfzoidit confuse me to have checsum of file name with only tar.gz, but use an orig.tar.gz rather15:50
surfzoidari-tczew: oki, you was right, i know understand, renaming in ori.tar.gz, but lunch the tool in mono-2.6.1 dir, detect the new origi.tar.gz and adjust the dsc file :-)16:02
ari-tczewexactly16:03
surfzoidi just forget the step to rerun the tool :-)16:03
ari-tczewas you see themselve surfzoid, changing dsc file is no sense16:03
ari-tczewsurfzoid, do you have patch autoconf ?16:04
surfzoidno yet, now i have clean many thing, i would like to check again before16:05
directhexoh lord16:53
directhexanyone uploads a new mono to ubuntu, heads will roll. FYI.16:53
sebnerrdirecthex: uhuhuhu \o/ .. what happened?16:54
Laneynobody would ever sponsor it16:54
sebnerrLaney: archive admin wise?16:55
surfzoid directhex : you mean, a new release of mono is now available in ubuntu 9.10 ?16:57
sebnerrsurfzoid: 9.10 is frozen and security upload only16:57
surfzoidsebnerr there isn't something like backport ?16:58
sebnerrsurfzoid: yeah but hardly used (for mono)16:58
directhexanything with lots of rdepends is effectively blacklisted from being backported16:59
directhexthings like new gcc releases or new python releases or new mono releases have too high a risk of breaking existing apps16:59
joaopintodirecthex, you became afraid ? :)16:59
surfzoidyes, on other side you should upgrade one day :-)17:00
sebnerrdirecthex: what about the sponsoring stuff? No auto-sync for 2.4.3? I'll choose 2.6 though, poor meebey17:00
surfzoid2.717:00
* Laney is confused17:00
sebnerrsurfzoid: ?? there is no 2.717:00
surfzoidsebnerr mono -V17:01
surfzoidMono JIT compiler version 2.7 (17:01
sebnerrsurfzoid: trunk then?17:01
surfzoidyep :-)17:01
sebnerrsurfzoid: we're talking about ubuntu versions ;)17:02
directhexsebner, 2.4.3 should sync in at some point. but we're making changes to stuff which will cause breakage, and that transition really needs to be completed17:02
sebnerrLaney: what's no with that: No one will sponsor it?17:02
directhexsebner, i'd rather get it finished in debian then have the whole lot come into ubuntu in one go17:02
sebnerrdirecthex: ah the -cil stuff?17:02
directhexsebner, right17:02
directhexsebner, and getting rid of /usr/bin/csc17:02
sebnerrdirecthex: isn't everything with mono-csc already?17:03
directhexnot everything.17:03
sebnerrkk17:03
directhexit all *needs* to be done though17:03
sebnerrdirecthex: I doubt meebey targets 2.6 for lucid?17:04
directhexi'm still waiting on meebey to give me the goahead to break stuff like gtk#17:04
directhexsebner, meebey intends to taregt 2.4.x for squeeze (march freeze) with 2.6 in experimental17:04
sebnerrso, ubuntu too. Ic17:04
directhexsebner, 2.4.x is upstream's LTS branch17:04
directhexsurfzoid, 2.6 will likely appear in a PPA in january. probably17:08
surfzoidthanks, but i m trying now to build it at OBS :-)17:08
surfzoidi just have an compile error17:09
sebnerrdirecthex: does meebey already know what changes with 2.6? Anything important to mind?17:09
directhexsebner, 4.0 classlib17:09
sebnerrdirecthex: that means?17:10
directhexnot sure yet. it means *something* though. new corlib, new compiler, etc17:10
surfzoiddirecthex: have you got few minutes to help : https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=Mono&project=home%3Asurfzoid%3ADebianUbuntu%3AMono    ?17:10
surfzoidplease :-)17:11
sebnerrdirecthex: uhh, I smell another transition + breakage :P17:13
directhexsebner, if everything uses mono-devel and -cil-dev packages, then it should be rebuild-only17:14
directhexsurfzoid, looks like your .install files need massaging. there's only 99 of them to tweak. chop chop.17:14
sebnerrdirecthex: heh, we'll see17:14
directhexdh_install: libmono-c5-1.0-cil missing files (debian/tmp/usr/lib/mono/gac/Mono.C5/1.0.*/), aborting17:14
surfzoiddirecthex: the build of the deb is different of ./autogen.sh && make && make install ??17:16
surfzoiddirecthex: you mean, i need to change all the 99 files one by one, ?17:18
surfzoidthe problem is more here , no : ERROR: ld.so: object 'libfakeroot-sysv.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored.17:20
directhexsurfzoid, you certainly need to change libmono-c5-1.0-cil.install since that's where it's bailing out17:20
directhexsurfzoid, no, libfakeroot messages aren't real errors & should be ignored.17:20
surfzoidand the .so missing is not so important ?17:20
surfzoidoki17:20
surfzoiddirecthex: libmono-c5-1.0-cil.install is a file generated or provided by mono source ?17:21
directhexsurfzoid, it's in debian/ along with 188 other files/folders which make up the mono source package17:22
directhexcloser to 229 including patches etc17:24
surfzoiddirecthex: not sur, but, in Mono2.6 the Net1.0 stuff was dropped ?17:26
directhexi thought that was happening in 2.8 not 2.617:32
directhexbut i could be wrong17:32
surfzoiddirecthex: in fact i m complety sure it is dropped in 2.717:33
sebnerrdirecthex: sounds familiar17:33
surfzoidi had the problem last week with the trunk version17:33
bjsnidersiretart, ping18:18
cratylusis there a place, either in ubuntu or debian where one can filter the list of packages to see which source format their in (either command line or on the web somewhere). i'm trying to find examples of 3.0 (quilt) formatted packages to study18:39
MTecknologycratylus: now there's different formats I need to learn? :(18:59
cratylusMTecknology, tell me about it. apparently there's a new craze every now and then19:01
cratylusyou don't HAVE to change formats as the others are supported, though19:01
MTecknologycratylus: I'm just learning basics when I have a little spare time; I'll get it eventually19:02
cratylusMTecknology, i'm in the same boat right now. so many docs to read!19:03
joaopintoI coudn't find much documentation about debsrcr3.0 either, the best resource I could find was man dpkg-source19:09
cratylusjoaopinto, yep, i'm basically using that and Hertzog's doc. along with apt-get source for such packages whose debian/source/format file has "3.0 (quilt)" as it's content19:11
cratylusfound a few so far19:11
crimsunI remember there are some posts on planet Debian about it19:16
crimsuna few people have blogged about "converting" to it19:17
cratylusit's still just getting started with 466 packages to date: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/dpkg-v3/19:29
=== nhandler_ is now known as nhandler
cratylusi think i found the answer to my earlier question about seeing which packages have that format. seems the ultimate debian database has a format field one can query: http://udd.debian.org/schema/udd.html#public.view.all-sources20:09
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
tritiumI'm trying to use requestsync to request the syncing of ng-spice-rework (20-1) from Debian testing.  I'm sshed into my server, performed the manage-credentials step, but am now geting an error "Could not find cookie file for Launchpad...", and so on.  Must I ssh -X and run firefox graphically to complete the requestsync?20:16
ScottKtritium: Or use the email option20:17
ScottKtritium: Or copy the cookie from another box20:17
tritiumScottK: the email option, meaning don't use the "--lp" switch?  I've tried that.20:19
ScottKYes.  That shouldn't need the cookie20:20
gesertritium: which ubuntu-dev-tools version do you have installed on your server?20:20
tritiumgeser: 0.72, on a jaunty box20:21
tritiumgeser: any ideas?20:27
geserlooking at the code from this version20:27
tritiumThanks.20:27
tritiumLet me try copying ~/.cache/lp_credentials/ubuntu-dev-tools-write_public.txt to ~/.lpcookie.txt.20:29
geserthis version still used the firefox cookie at some places20:29
tritiumWell, I can wait until I get home in January.20:31
geser.lpcookie.txt is the LP cookie from firefox20:32
tritiumNo luck with that.20:33
geserif it doesn't exist, it tries to find it in cookies.sqlite or cookies.txt from firefox20:33
gesertry copying it from your desktop and placing in a location matching ~/.mozilla/*/*/cookies.sqlite20:34
geserrequestsync (or more precisely a module from u-d-t) should extract it from there and store it in ~/.lpcookie.txt for future use20:35
tritiumTry copying ~/.cache/lp_credentials/ubuntu-dev-tools-write_public.txt to ~/.mozilla/*/*/cookies.sqlite?20:37
geserno, your firefox cookie database20:38
geserscp ~/.mozilla/*/*/cookie.sqlite server:~/.mozilla/foo/bar/cookies.sqlite20:39
tritiumOh, I see.  Well, I'm on my wife's MacBook.  Let me see if that works.20:39
geseror wherever the firefox cookie database is for you20:41
tritiumgeser: perhaps I'll just file a bug on Launchpad, following https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess.20:41
tritiumI appreciate your help trying to get it working.20:42
geserthat's also a way (if it's easier for you)20:42
tritiumOK, I'm getting somewhere.  Now it's not complaining about the cookie, just about $DEBEMAIL.20:46
geserexport DEBEMAIL="your@mail.address"20:46
tritiumyep, thanks20:46
tritiumIt appears to possibly be working...20:47
tritiumexcept that my gnupg key is on my desktop, whichs is turned off, not this server20:50
tritiumOh well, thanks for your help!20:50
tritiumHave a good day, geser.20:51
geserhave you tried "requestsync --lp ..." to file it directly into LP and not mail it?20:51
tritiumEarlier, but not since fixing the cookie issue.  Let me try again.  Thanks for the reminder.20:52
tritiumSweet!  Thanks, geser.20:53
tritiumFiled as bug 49887120:54
ubottuLaunchpad bug 498871 in ubuntu "Sync ng-spice-rework 20-1 (universe) from Debian testing (non-free)." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/49887120:54
crimsungeser: thanks for fixing requestsync20:54
tritiumSweet tool!20:55
tritiumHello, crimsun.20:55
crimsunhi, tritium20:57
tritiumcrimsun: I'm out here in your neck of the woods, enjoying all this snow.20:58
crimsunah, whereabouts?20:59
tritiumLoudon County, VA21:00
tritium~15 minutes from Dulles airport.21:00
crimsunouch21:01
crimsunyeah, it has been pretty nice21:01
crimsunI'm in town until Christmas Day (on assignment afterward)21:01
tritiumAh, really?21:02
tritiumAre you far from the 20152 zip code?21:02
crimsunI'm [living] in DC presently21:02
tritiumAh, ok.  I knew you were in the general area.21:03
bddebianHey wait, crimsun is crimsun again?21:13
ScottKApparently21:13
ScottKtritium: I'm kind of NW of DC and west of Baltimore.  Not so far away either.21:13
tritiumScottK: wow!  :)21:14
tritiumScottK: snowed in?21:16
ScottKYep.21:16
ScottKDriveway is shoveled, but the street isn't plowed yet.21:16
ScottKI've heard the plows on the nearest main road, so there's hope.21:16
tritiumWe arrived from NM just in time on Thursday night (early Friday morning, technically).21:16
tritiumI did a fair amount of shoveling this morning.21:17
tritiumHey there, bddebian!21:17
* ScottK is waiting for the Ibuprofen to kick in.21:17
tritiumWhat ails you?21:18
ScottKBack pain from the shovelling.21:18
tritiumAh, but of course.21:19
crimsuna few people from my complex cleared our street21:21
crimsunI feel like an old man now21:21
bddebianHi tritium21:27
bddebianPfft, you guys don't know the meaning of old.. :)21:28
crimsundoes anyone else see abysmal response time for rmadison -uubuntu queries?21:28
crimsunbah, and as soon as I say that, it returns immediately21:28
bddebianheh21:29
ScottKcrimsun: Routinetly21:30
* dhillon-v10 says UBUNTU IS AWESOME, especially PPA's21:32
ScottKdhillon-v10: PPAs aren't Ubuntu21:32
dhillon-v10ScottK, lol, but the build process it sooo easy21:32
dhillon-v10ScottK, and people can easily install .deb21:33
ScottKYes, but those aren't part of Ubuntu.21:33
ScottKThey are built ON Ubuntu, but not part of it.21:33
dhillon-v10ScottK, okay :D that was very precise21:33
dhillon-v10ScottK, hey I know you, you are that person who made merge-o-matic website right21:34
ScottKNope.21:34
ScottKThat was Keybuk21:34
dhillon-v10ScottK, ahh, I saw your last name so :D21:34
dhillon-v10* irc nick21:34
dhillon-v10ScottK, hey what happens to a package that has symlinks. Does it build differently from others or is it just rejected from the build queue21:39
crimsunwhat do you mean by "has symlinks"?21:39
tritiumDaddy duty calls.  Talk to you later!21:41
crimsunbye21:42
quidnuncIs there a way to look up the information for a given GPG key ID?21:49
crimsunas in "use a keyserver"?21:49
LLStarkswhy is adobe-flashplugin used for restricted extras instead of flashplugin-installer?21:49
crimsunbecause it's the blessed package.21:50
quidnunccrimsun: Sorry? I assume it is listed on keyserver.ubuntu.com but I don't know how to go from key ID -> metainfo21:50
crimsunquidnunc: depending if you've imported it locally, you can query using gnupg21:51
geserquidnunc: what kind of meta-info are you looking for?21:51
quidnuncgeser: I want to know who it belongs to.21:51
quidnunccrimsun: I'm trying to decide whether I should import it. The first question was, "Who's is it".21:52
geserquidnunc: either import the key into your keyring or use the web-interface of some keyservers, e.g. http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/21:52
gesermany other keyservers have a web interface too21:52
quidnunckeyserver.ubuntu.com does not seem to.21:53
geseryes, it does too (if you know the port)21:53
geserhttp://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/21:53
quidnuncgeser: thanks21:54
quidnuncgeser: Can you search by key ID? I'm not getting any results.21:55
gesersure, I does it regularly, prefix it with "0x"21:55
quidnuncgeser: Thanks that worked.21:56
quidnuncThe info for my key is blank. What is the policy for signing sources uploaded to archive.ubuntu.com?21:57
geseryour gpg key must be attached to your LP account21:58
quidnuncgeser: How can I find that out for 21B2133D?21:59
geseropen your LP page and look at the "OpenPGP keys" field22:00
quidnuncgeser: That's for my keys. This is not my key.22:03
geserah22:03
quidnuncAnyway, never mind. I'm not going to import it into my keyring. I'll trust the integrity.22:04
LaneyI just googled for "ubuntu keyserver" and there it was22:05
Laneyoh you alredy got it :)22:05
ajmitchactually searching on google for 'gpg 21B2133D' showed me whose key it is22:05
quidnuncajmitch: Does it? Maybe I don't understand how to read that page. Is it Steve's?22:07
ajmitchyes, it looks to be a subkey of his22:07
quidnuncajmitch: Alright thanks.22:08
geserquidnunc: you can also look at the signature a key has and decide on the amount of signatures, signatures from "trusted" persons, etc. if you trust this key or not22:08
geserfrom a LP point-of-view any dev could create new gpg key (without any other signatures besides the self-signature), attach it to his LP account and use this key for signing uploads22:11
David-Tum.... anyone could create any number of keys and sign their own key with them... amount of signatures is not a very useful indicator22:11
wgrantDavid-T: Right, you need to trust the signatures. That's the OpenPGP trust model.22:12
dhillon-v10guys I have a real quick question: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/486903 there is already a .deb on the bluej website so what should I do there22:38
ubottuUbuntu bug 486903 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] Create package: BlueJ" [Wishlist,New]22:38
RAOFdhillon-v10: Check out their source package; it may be a good start.22:39
dhillon-v10RAOF, so what happens to the bug report, should I package it again from the source and make a new .deb for ubunut22:40
siretartbjsnider: really short pong22:40
RAOFdhillon-v10: You can't upload binary packages to Ubuntu, so unless they _also_ have a source package for download (this is not the same as their program source), you'll need to package it independently.22:41
dhillon-v10RAOF, alright thanks so this would just be another regular package rihgt22:41
dhillon-v10*right22:41
RAOFdhillon-v10: Or, contact them & collaborate on brining their source package up to archive standards; it's almost certainly going to be missing some policy nicities.22:41
RAOFYes.  It's going to be just a regular package.22:42
dhillon-v10RAOF, thanks :D22:42
dhillon-v10RAOF, alright so what happens after the I package, where should I upload it ? REVU ?22:45
bjsnidersiretart, have yet another question about mplayer. somebody wrote me asking if it could play wmapro files. should the karmic version be able to?22:49
jcastroRAOF: ping!23:24

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!