[04:49] <crimsun> siretart: hi, do you know of any reason not to sync openal-soft_1:1.10.622-1 from Debian testing?
[05:45] <suji11> hi, already i upload a package here http://revu.ubuntuwire.com for review with the version 1.3.6, now i have to upload the package with Upgrading it to latest upstream version(1.3.8), how to do it?
[05:48] <ScottK> suji11: Just upload it, it will replace the previous one
[05:52] <suji11> ScottK: using this command dput revu package_version_source.changes
[05:52] <ScottK> Yes
[06:05] <suji11> ScottK: my packae is here, http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=7253 but it shows some warnings. what to do to resolve that?
[06:15] <RAOF> suji11: Which warning in particular?  They seem fairly self-explanatory to me, but then I've got plenty of experience.
[06:16] <suji11>  RAOF: The Maintainer field is invalid. It has to contain an @ubuntu.com address (usually the Ubuntu MOTU Team's). The packager can leave his/her name as XSBC-Original-Maintainer.
[06:17] <suji11> RAOF:  I changed the maintainer field in control file as Ubuntu MOTU Developers <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>, and upload it again, but also it shows that warning again.
[06:19] <RAOF> suji11: I don't see that upload; the package I see still has you in the Maintainer: field.
[06:24] <suji11> RAOF: ya,but when i give this command dput -f revu iok_1.3.8-0ubuntu1_source.changes  it shows "Successfully uploaded packages"
[06:25] <suji11> RAOF: and i'm getting the mails also.
[06:26] <suji11> RAOF: when i go through the link in my mail, the same content there in the previous upload page.
[06:28] <siretart> crimsun: no idea, I have to admit that I haven't followed openal lately. I should probably have myself removed from the uploaders field
[06:29] <suji11> RAOF: on top of the files list Details for upload "iok" from user " suji87-msc" - 21 Dec 2009 06:57 this was changed every time
[06:33] <RAOF> suji11: How are you changing the maintainer?
[06:34] <suji11> RAOF: i edit the control file, in the maintainer field i put this Ubuntu MOTU Developers <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>
[06:35] <RAOF> And have you run dpkg-buildpackage again?
[06:35] <suji11> RAOF: no
[06:35] <RAOF> (Or debuild, or however it is you're building the source package)
[06:35] <RAOF> Well, that's the problem; you're uploading the same thing every time :)
[06:35] <RAOF> You need to rebuild the source package to pick up your changes :)
[06:35] <suji11> RAOF: oh! ok
[06:35] <suji11> RAOF: i will rebuild and upload it again
[06:36] <suji11> RAOF: in the maintainer list should i give this Ubuntu MOTU Developers <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>  or the mail id is enough
[06:37] <RAOF> That looks right to me.
[06:37] <suji11> RAOF: the mail-id only enough?
[06:38] <RAOF> "Ubuntu MOTU Developers <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>"
[06:43] <suji11> RAOF: ok, the warning was cleared http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=7255 . but have three warnings yet. what about that?
[06:45] <suji11> RAOF: in the first warning, i check the lintian file, it shows three warnings
[06:48] <suji11> RAOF:  I couldn't understand the first warning ,  second  should i change the Standard version as 3.8.3 in control file and  third should i remove the config.log file. am right?
[06:51] <RAOF> suji11: Have you checked out "Debian Policy Manual section 4.11", as suggested by the first warning?
[06:52] <RAOF> For the second one, yes.  You should have the Standards-Version as 3.8.3 (and you should also ensure that the package _complies_ with that standard version; it probably does).
[06:52] <RAOF> And, yes, as the warning suggests, you should remove the config.log file in the clean: target
[06:57] <suji11> The standard version is automatically generated, can i change it manually?
[06:58] <RAOF> Yes; it's not automatically generated, it's just that the template has an older version.
[06:58] <suji11> I checkout the debian policy manual now and here http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-dother.en.html also they said about the file watch.ex . but i remove the all the files with the extension .ex and .EX from the debian directory.
[06:59] <suji11> what should i do now?
[06:59] <RAOF> Write a new watch file; they're very easy.
[06:59] <RAOF> You can check out any number of source packages for examples - I know both specto & gnome-do have watch files, for example.
[06:59] <RAOF> "man uscan" also has information.
[07:00] <suji11> hmmm.. ok
[07:07] <suji11> RAOF: ok i will do it and let you know later. Thanks for the help:)
[08:32] <dholbach> good morning
[08:38] <geser> good morning
[08:38] <dholbach> hey geser
[09:06] <suji11> RAFO: i added the watch file, then again i upload my package? or do anything before that?
[09:15] <suji11> RAFO: i added the watch file and upload the package again http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=7256 now i have 1 warning yet. What is that?
[09:16] <slytherin> suji11: Have you read the warning?
[09:18] <suji11> slytherin: yes, it means the bug should fixed in launchpad which is this package is needed, am right?
[09:19] <slytherin> suji11: Is there a bug in launchpad corresponding to this package?
[09:20] <suji11> slytherin: couldn't get...
[09:20] <suji11> slytherin: i upload this package in launchpad ppa, is  there a bug in it?
[09:21] <slytherin> suji11: Is there a bug filed in launchpad that says 'Please package iok'?
[09:21] <suji11> slytherin: no, i think.
[09:22] <slytherin> suji11: It is preferable that you file such a bug before starting to work on a new package so that others know that you are working on it. Also this bug needs to be mentioned in debian/changelog using format - LP: #nnnnnn
[09:23] <suji11> slytherin: oh! should i file that? or some others should file that?
[09:26] <slytherin> suji11: see if there is already such a bug. if not then file it.
[09:27] <suji11> slytherin: ok, how to know or search already a bug is there relate to this or not?
[09:27] <slytherin> suji11: Just search for iok. :-)
[09:58] <lazka> Hi guys, I'm trying to automate my package build.. does anyone know how to pass my password to dpkg-buildpackage for signing?
[09:58] <lazka> or point me to examples
[10:06] <slytherin> lazka: Are you using some password agent like seahorse?
[10:07] <lazka> slytherin, yes, it picks up my key id and everything but asks me for the password
[10:10] <slytherin> lazka: You can use seahorse for password caching. You can check caching preferences from System -> Preferences -> Encryption and Keyrings.
[10:13] <lazka> slytherin, ok thanks, but I don't have that entry, do you meen in seehorse?
[10:14] <slytherin> lazka: Do you have seahorse package installed?
[10:14] <slytherin> Wait a minute, are you running GNOME?
[10:15] <lazka> yes, I have seahorse in accesories
[10:22] <lazka> slytherin, -p did the trick I think
[10:22] <lazka> thanks
[10:23] <lazka> hm.. no
[10:23] <lazka> damn
[10:50] <lazka> slytherin, the package was seahorse-plugins
[10:50] <slytherin> Ok.
[10:54] <lazka> but it's not caching anything
[11:01] <slytherin> lazka: I believe caching is disabled by default
[13:00] <bddebian> Heya gang
[13:21] <lucas> what's Maia Kozheva's nickname?
[13:21] <slytherin> lucas: LucidFox or sikon
[13:22]  * LucidFox raises a hand
[13:22] <lucas> thanks
[13:22] <lucas> LucidFox: you should use update-maintainer from ubuntu-dev-tools
[13:22] <lucas> LucidFox: you typoed Original-Maintainer in inform
[13:22] <LucidFox> What package is this about?
[13:22] <LucidFox> Oh.
[13:23] <lucas> also, if I remember correctly, you shouldn't use
[13:23] <lucas> Maintainer: Ubuntu MOTU Developers <ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com>
[13:25] <LucidFox> What should be used instead?
[13:25] <lucas> if I remember correctly, Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>
[13:25] <lucas> but now, I can't find the reference for that
[13:25] <LucidFox> Does update-maintainer do that automatically?
[13:26] <lucas>     target_maintainer = "Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com>"
[13:26] <lucas> yes
[13:28]  * LucidFox nods
[13:28] <ScottK> lucas: It was in the minutes of one of the tech board meetings.
[13:28] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebianMaintainerField
[13:29] <lucas> LucidFox: could you fix it for inform? I'm asking because Ultimate Debian Database sends email to me about unknown fields
[13:29] <LucidFox> Going to fix it now, thanks.
[13:29] <lucas> great, thanks
[13:33] <Laney> lucas: UDD carries information about Ubuntu packages too?
[13:34] <lucas> Laney: sure
[13:34] <Laney> cool, did not know
[13:34] <Laney> this could maybe replace MDT then
[13:34] <lucas> Laney: totally
[13:35] <lucas> Laney: I'm the original author of MDT, and this was one of the motivations for writing UDD
[13:36] <dktrkranz> lucas: I take the occasion to thank you for making UDD possible, it's really amazing!
[13:36] <lucas> heh, thanks :)
[18:22] <sharms> can someone review this debdiff for me for lucid?  Its a long standing issue I finally figured out: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+source/ncpfs/+bug/328020
[18:28] <sharms> oooh it actually showed up automatically on the sponsor queue link
[19:26] <dhillon-v10> hi all, I am trying to package a .jar file into debian package, what should I put in the debian/rules file
[19:32] <c_korn> dhillon-v10: as I told you. cp /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny debian/rules
[19:33] <dhillon-v10> c_korn, hi there sorry my client quit for some reason :D
[19:34] <c_korn> dhillon-v10: in ubuntu 9.10 you already have debhelper 7. you just need to make use of its features.
[19:34] <c_korn> dhillon-v10: change debian/compat to contain "7" and change the debhelper dependency in debian/control to debhelper (>= 7)
[19:34] <dhillon-v10> c_korn, alright, just a sec. then
[19:39] <ScottK> dhillon-v10: Java .jars are binary files.  You need to start from source.
[19:40] <dhillon-v10> c_korn, I did the changes you suggested now this happens: http://pastebin.com/d57cfd77d
[19:40] <dhillon-v10> ScottK, that bluej on the upstream website has a .deb and this .jar file that's it should I extract the jar file and continue as regular package
[19:41] <ScottK> No, you should get the source.
[19:50] <dhillon-v10> ScottK, hey I am getting errors on debuild why is that happening: http://pastebin.com/d57cfd77d
[20:04] <geser> dhillon-v10: line 22 of your paste
[20:05] <dhillon-v10> geser, ahh smart :D
[20:07] <dhillon-v10> geser, alright I made a change, I extracted the jar file and put the source in a directory with a debian folder. Now debuild works fine, but when I issue a pbuilder command, it builds a .deb that's only 1.8 kb while the jar file was 5.3 mgs
[20:10] <geser> I'm not an Java expert but doesn't a .jar file contain the compiled .class files and not the .java files?
[20:13] <maxb> geser, Correct, although sometimes .jar files containing .java files are used as input for IDEs to allow them to provide source browsing.
[20:14] <geser> dhillon-v10: you have the .java files, right? and from them you build the new .jar which you put into the .deb?
[20:15] <maxb> dhillon-v10, You need to clarify whether you're actually trying to produce a package for submission for Ubuntu, including actually building the software from source, or if you're just hacking up an encapsulation of prebuilt binaries into a .deb, which would not be acceptable for Ubuntu.
[20:16] <dhillon-v10> geser, I don't have the .java file for some reason
[20:17] <dhillon-v10> maxb, I am trying to build a package for Ubuntu, this was a bug that needed packaging, but the upstream website has a .deb package build for users.
[20:17] <dhillon-v10> geser, the package only has .class files
[20:17] <maxb> dhillon-v10: You must be able to build the software from source, if it is free software
[20:18] <geser> then that's not the source as you can't modify it (e.g. apply a patch)
[20:18] <dhillon-v10> maxb, this is what the website says: Currently, the full BlueJ source is not available. However, the source of the editor is.
[20:18] <maxb> Or is it not free software?
[20:19] <maxb> You would need to consult the guidelines for whether it is acceptable into multiverse, or is not distributable at all, then
[20:19] <dhillon-v10> wait alright I got the right package, sorry :P
[20:19] <geser> dhillon-v10: www.bluej.org?
[20:19] <ajmitch> did you get it from http://www.bluej.org/download/source-download.html ?
[20:19] <dhillon-v10> geser, yah, I got the wrong package
[20:19] <dhillon-v10> sorry guys, I did get the right package, it has a src folder and a bunch of .java files :D
[20:28] <punkrockguy3__> Hey, I'm a developer on the fceu project (nes emulator).  How can I get someone to package the newest version of my program for its universe inclusion?
[20:30] <Quintasan> punkrockguy3__: well, we would need tarball first, and list of dependencies would be nice :)
[20:34] <punkrockguy3__> Quintasan:  the old version of fceuX was called fceu, and that shouldn't be replaced.. But the new series is called fceuX and should be a seperate package.  Link to src: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fceultra/files/Source%20Code/2.1.2%20src/fceux-2.1.2.src.tar.bz2/download   Dependencies:  libz, libsdl, liblua, zenity
[20:34] <punkrockguy3__> there is also an optional GTK2 launcher (included in the tarbell) that is written in python and python-gtk2
[20:36] <randomaction> punkrockguy3__: you should contact fabrice_sp for that, he made a package for 2.1.2
[20:37] <punkrockguy3__> randomaction, oh i had no idea there was already a package
[20:38] <punkrockguy3__> randomaction, thanks, PM sent
[20:39] <randomaction> punkrockguy3__: and take a look at bug 254352
[20:53] <punkrockguy3__> thanks
[21:11] <fabrice_sp> punkrockguy3__, you can find it in revu, also: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/fceux
[21:12] <fabrice_sp> if any motu is willing to have anotehr look at it: i'd like to have another opinion before uploading it
[21:16] <fabrice_sp> have to go now. Bye
[22:37] <Lure> mok0: around?
[23:46] <mok0> Lure: whassup?
[23:46] <Lure> mok0: are you working on debian-science merge?
[23:47] <mok0> Lure, no actually not
[23:47] <mok0> Lure: Is it assigned to me?
[23:47] <Lure> ok, merges.u.c has your name listed
[23:47] <mok0> Lure, ah
[23:47] <mok0> You are welcome to take it over if you wish
[23:48] <Lure> mok0: I am doing opencv 2.0 transition, so I need to tuch it anyhow
[23:49] <mok0> OK