[00:02] chrisccoulson: I got the flag to work! Thank you for your support1 [00:02] qense - you're welcome :) === vorian is now known as obama === obama is now known as vorian [03:12] hello! maybe i shouldn't be here to take this kind of doubts, but people don't respond in #ubuntu-support or redirect me to some web pages that don't help me [03:15] i installed ubuntu9.10 and the sound worked well... then, after apt-get upgrade i lost sound... i thought it was because of the new kernel headers... i don't know if that's correct, but in fact sound started working again after i booted with previous version of linux kernel. then, after installing virtualbox the sound stopped working again.. [03:16] i tried to purge virtualbox, reinstall pulseaudio, add myself to audio group, modprobe.... nothing worked [03:17] help [03:18] Nahsei: this channel is for packaging issues...please see #ubuntu-bugs to get help filing a bug or #ubuntu for support [03:18] ok [03:19] sorry... they simply don't answer me in #ubuntu -.- [03:19] i'll try in #ubuntu-bugs [03:58] if the old prerm script fails, does it try to look for a prerm script in the new package? [04:02] micahg: Im not really in all this stuff, but I think the answer is in debian policy [04:02] thanks ChogyDan [04:03] micahg: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html [04:03] yep, I found it :) [04:03] cool [04:04] what's the view of adding a prerm script to a transitiona package? [04:18] seems really hackish [04:18] what condition are you trying to enforce? [04:21] crimsun: flash seems to have issues upgrading from hardy -> lucid [04:22] flashplugin-nonfree (not flashplugin-installer), I presume? [04:22] crimsun: right [04:22] what's bailing, and where? [04:22] prerm [04:22] bug 518263 [04:22] Launchpad bug 518263 in flashplugin-nonfree "package flashplugin-installer (not installed) failed to install/upgrade: " [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/518263 [04:24] seems to be an old issue [04:24] bug 429841 [04:24] Launchpad bug 429841 in flashplugin-nonfree "broken packaging: package flashplugin-nonfree 10.0.22.87ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: (breaks upgrade)" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/429841 [04:24] interesting. [04:24] update-alternatives: error: no alternatives for iceape-flashplugin. [04:25] update-alternatives: error: no alternatives for iceape-flashplugin. [04:26] hmm, well, a couple approaches at least. You could add a prerm to flashplugin-nonfree, or you could get rid of flashplugin-nonfree altogether with C+R+P [04:27] yeah, I remember that package being a beast [04:27] crimsun: you don't need the transitional package to provide the LTS -> LTS upgrade? [04:29] micahg: you probably do, unfortunately [04:29] that is indeed rather nasty. :( [04:29] crimsun: k, so I was thinking about adding the prerm script to the transitional package [04:29] crimsun: we had to add firefox-2 back to firefox for the LTS upgrade :( [04:30] yeah, without forcing an rdep elsewhere you'll need to add one to the transitional package [04:32] crimsun: I'll talk to asac about it later... [04:32] thanks [04:56] Quick question; for a new package's changelog, what should the distribution be? lucid? [05:02] mr_steve: Yes. [05:04] jmarsden, thanks. I thought so, but suddenly lintian is giving me an error about it. It didn't the last time I built this package.. wierdness [05:04] mr_steve: What does the error say exactly, and what version of lintian are you running and where did it come from? [05:07] E: cnetworkmanager_0.21.1-0ubuntu1_source.changes: bad-ubuntu-distribution-in-changes-file lucid [05:07] lintian 2.2.17ubuntu1.1 [05:10] If you are developing under Lucid, that would be very weird. if you are runing Karmic you may want to use the backports version of lintian [05:12] jmarsden, that makes sense. I am still on karmic on this machine. I must just not have noticed that E: before. [05:13] Right, the Karmic lintian by definition doesn't know about lucid. There's "always" a lintian version in backports within a few weeks of a reelase that "knows about" the next release... [05:18] good to know, thanks [05:49] jmarsden: no one did a karmic-backports upload of lintian [05:49] really? Is it in karmic-proposed then?? [05:50] jmarsden: nope [05:51] Hmmm. I wonder what I did here... I don't remember grabbing the Lucid lintian sources and compiling them on Karmic... but maybe??! [05:51] I was wondering about that, because I checked and I definitely have backports enabled on my machine [05:52] bug 504512 [05:52] Launchpad bug 504512 in karmic-backports "Please backport lintian 2.3.1ubuntu1" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/504512 [05:53] micahg, are you doing Hardy -> Lucid upgrade tests? I found a bug in upgrading firefox, and wanted to confirm [05:54] fabrice_sp: yes [05:54] mr_steve: Well, you could grab it from the PPA of bdrung, or grab the sources and build it yourself, I guess... but I'm confused, I must have done the latter of those "in my sleep" or something! [05:54] the dupe is appropriate I believe [05:54] I need to add ff3.0 transitional packages to the package [05:55] micahg, did you had problem to upgrade firefox-3.0? I'm having bug 518282 [05:55] Launchpad bug 518282 in firefox "firefox-branding: Upgrade to lucid from Hardy is broken because of firefox.desktop (dup-of: 513074)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/518282 [05:55] Launchpad bug 513074 in firefox "profile is corrupted on FF 3.0.17 to 3.6 upgrade (Hardy 8.04 LTS only)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/513074 [05:55] fabrice_sp: I believe it's the same problem [05:55] ah ok [05:55] mine is easier: a missing Replace/Conflicts [05:55] I'm trying to finish up TB3 this weekend... [05:56] ok: I'll upload a 'temporary' fix to my ppa, then (my goal is to test another upgrade, not Firefox :-D ) [05:56] fabrice_sp: it will do that also [05:56] fabrice_sp: we have transitional packages for everything else including firefox-2...somehow ff3 got overlooked [05:57] the strange part is that my chroot is brand new, installed yesterday, and it got firefox 3.0 [05:57] fabrice_sp: in hardy? that's normal [05:57] and not firefox 2.0 (by default, I mean) [05:57] FF3.6 won't be backported for a few months [05:57] fabrice_sp: FF3 was the default on hardy [05:58] oh: missed that in p.u.c [06:04] hmm. My cnetworkmanager package now refuses to build, because it's testsuite expects to have a running dbus system-bus. Should tests be run as part of a normal build? [06:07] mr_steve: If they can be, they should be. If they can't be, they should be disabled. [06:08] It's much nicer to get a FTBFS message due to failing tests than to have bug reports because something you didn't test broke. [06:09] RAOF, got it. So if possible, I should patch out impossible tests and leave the rest? [06:09] If they're still useful, probably. [06:09] If the patch is easy and trivially correct. [06:10] If it's too hard, just don't run the test suite. [06:11] Makes sense to me. [06:42] heh, bugmail elevation team is more like it. [06:43] :) [06:44] Okay, so I was installing pulseaudio's system wide equalizer and now I don't have sound for most everything... The only program I found still sounded was Hydrogen. Can someone help me please? [06:45] Wrong channel - #ubuntu+1 & #pulseaudio if you're using Lucid, or #ubuntu & #pulseaudio if you're not. [06:45] K, thanks. [06:52] Hey, I was just wondering how you find a sponser to upload packages through? [06:53] CoryThompson: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess [06:54] ok thanks, And I guess I just find things to package/update and fix bugs through the launchpad group? [06:54] jdong: It was created by someone who registered a LP account yesterday and is busy trying to join every single LP team. [06:54] CoryThompson: http://daniel.holba.ch/harvest/ [06:54] heh [06:55] jdong: He also made the mistake of making bug control an admin for the team, so I kicked him off his own team so he'd stop inviting other teams to join it. [06:55] *grins* [06:58] micahg, Thanks heaps.... It seems very hard to get started but also very awarding [09:08] I'm modifying an existing Ubuntu package to upload to my new PPA; should I overwrite the "XSBC-Original-Maintainer" field with my own info? Add another "XSBC-Original-Maintainer"? or... ? Don't want to strip the credit from the previous guy... ;) [09:16] up_the_irons, for a ppa package, I generally put myself as maintainer (to avoid motu's receiving false bugs) [09:17] fabrice_sp: ah ok, thanks [10:33] any developers awake here? :P [10:36] !ask [10:36] Please don't ask to ask a question, simply ask the question (all on ONE line and in the channel, so that others can read and follow it easily). If anyone knows the answer they will most likely reply. :-) [10:37] erm geser I dont really have a question but I do however want to start getting involved with the developement of ubuntu [10:37] ah [10:38] so I just want a developer that is working on ubutu atm to show me the ropes :) [10:38] have you read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing already? [10:38] yeah busy with that [10:38] got launchpad setup etc... [10:39] any specific questions? [10:40] geser: mind a pm? [10:41] sure [10:53] hello [10:55] my wifi range with nm is very small i have to keep the laptop near to the modem itself to get a signal detection and with wicd it worked fine but i upgraded my laptopand i m getting import gtk failed [10:55] daemon is failing [10:55] any help [11:08] coolbhavi: #ubuntu [11:11] even m not able to run wifi-radar http://ubuntu.pastebin.com/m4759d891 Liquid-Silence even i asked #ubuntu and #ubuntu+1 and googled and searched the ubuntu forums [11:11] no go so i came here [11:15] Even if you haven't been getting help elsewhere, here still isn't the right place to get help. [11:15] RAOF, sorry [13:18] what is this bug-elevation thing? [13:22] Laney: see https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-February/030173.html and responses [13:22] geser: ah thanks, didn't see that earlier [13:44] hello [13:47] is anyone there [13:48] Hello, anyone knows why I get this email "Invitation to revu-uploaders declined by sistpoty" ? [13:49] from Bug Elevation Team [13:52] AnAnt: see thread https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-February/030173.html [13:53] ok [13:53] SevenMachines: thanks [14:46] anyone know how i can get the metadata (from the DEBIAN/control file) on a package that's been built? [14:56] dpkg-deb -i package.deb (or was it -I?) [14:57] -I [14:57] capital 'I' [14:58] perfect, thanks === lukjad007 is now known as cabaret [15:29] Hi i just wanted to ask what kind of things i should learn if i want to become a motu. I can program in a couple of languages but i dn't knw how to program a gui and i am stil learning c++. Any help or links to tutorials would be great [15:30] angus_: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU [15:31] thx [15:31] the 'so you want to be a motu' section has handy links, and the packaging guide is top notch [15:32] thx [15:33] is there anything in the wider area of programming (like gui etc) i should also learn first [15:34] you can do an awful lot of work without knowing any programming [15:35] though a motu will no more about what are handy skills to have [15:35] s/no/know/ ! [15:35] ok [15:35] i will look into that link [15:35] thx a lot [16:09] hola === yofel_ is now known as yofel [16:20] guys, I have a webapp we developed at our office, we have it packaged for Fedora (.spec available and working). Any quick tips on how to generate an equivalent .deb for Ubuntu? === lukjad007 is now known as cabaret [16:39] Hello everyone! Anyone up to advocate/review qt-shutdown-p? (all I need is one more advocate) http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/qt-shutdown-p [16:40] ';.;' [16:58] hi! I need help with fixing my apport hook to attach a log file. [17:04] hello i have a peculiar error: dscverify is showing verification failed even though i have imported the key [17:12] here is the log [17:12] http://paste.ubuntu.com/371063/ [17:12] any help pls [17:16] coolbhavi: okay, you seem to have recived the key, but you still need to import it (I think). [17:18] coolbhavi: check man gpg for details [17:18] hakaishi, no i ve imported it.. is this a devscripts problem? I remember geser answering the same sort of query saying to add a line in .devscripts [17:19] coolbhavi: sorry, then I don't know (I'm not so familiar with this) [17:19] hakaishi, no problems [17:20] geser, please help me out [17:59] I'm trying to figure out how the grub-pc package applies it's patches, I don't get it, there's nothing relevant in rules, !? [18:00] arand: Try the what-patch program. Alternately, take a look at the output of lsdiff -z on the diff.gz. [18:01] ah, cdbs.. let's read some docs... [18:01] cdbs doesn't necessarily tell enough. Is simple-patchsys included? === micahg1 is now known as micahg [18:08] persia: I see nothing of that name in debian/ or debian/patches/ or rules [18:09] Odd. Pastebin the rules file? [18:11] persia: http://pastebin.com/f1abcab72 [18:11] coolbhavi: by default does use your gpg keyring: dscverify --keyring ~/.gnupg/pubring.gpg aeskulap_0.2.2b1-5.dsc [18:11] persia: oh, hang on it's there, sorry [18:12] arand: Cool. For simple-patchsys, use cdbs-edit-patch to add/change patches [18:12] or add DSCVERIFY_KEYRINGS=~/.gnupg/pubring.gpg to your ~/.devscripts.conf [18:12] persia: so I should just use cdbs-edit-patch for patching then? OK :) [18:12] ah thanks geser [18:42] Hi segler [18:42] I saw randomaction advocated your package [18:57] !sponsoring > segler [18:59] fabrice_sp: should I upload it, given that you advocated it previously? [19:03] It's generally best to get two advocates on the same revision, although exceptions can be made if the differences are entirely trivial (just be sure to check the debdiff against the last advocated revision) [19:07] that's what I thought [19:07] aha, it's done already, thanks fabrice_sp :) [19:11] randomaction, you mean uploading the package? (my computer froze before) [19:11] REVU entry should be archived now that the package is uploaded, right? [19:12] fabrice_sp: I mean giving second advocation and uploading [19:12] ah, yes ;-) [19:32] any developer resources on the net for ubuntu? i'm a total n00b [19:33] highfiver: The wiki has a bunch. Are you looking for something specific? [19:40] I've added a patch to grub 2 using cdbs-edit-patch, but when I do the debdiff only the changelog change shows up? How come; how fix? [19:41] arand: You ran cdbs-edit-patch, and exited properly, and your patch didn't appear in debian/patches? [19:42] persia: it's there, but running "debdiff grub2_1.97~beta4-1ubuntu4.1.dsc grub2_1.97~beta4-1ubuntu4.2.dsc | less" Doesn't show anything bu the changelog edit.. [19:44] arand: And you reconstructed grub2_1.97~beta4-1ubuntu4.2.dsc after adding the patch to debian/patches? [19:44] arand: rebuild the source package; make sure that you haven't overwritten *4.1.dsc [19:44] yep, did the debuild -S [19:45] Hrm. Does the patch appear if you re-unpack the latest version? [19:46] arand: if you did debuild after adding patch but before adding changelog entry, you have overwritten the first .dsc [19:46] I've used pbuilder on that dsc and even confirmed that that patch changes get into the system when I install the finished packages [19:47] randomaction: Ah! that might be it [19:48] Yeah, that's the next step: re-download the original :) [20:02] Would any of you nice people consider taking a look at sqlite3-pcre on revu? It's a very simple package that is a loadable extension for sqlite3. [20:22] Hi there, Im preparing an upstream package [20:22] but I need to get the COPYING file made [20:22] the project has gplv2 code and creative commons media assets [20:22] no binary blobs [20:22] You don't really need a COPYING file. [20:22] is there some example I could use as reference? [20:23] I was told I did if the media could not embed a license [20:23] It really depends on the license. Some licenses require this, others don't. [20:23] It's best practice to include the complete text of all applicable licenses somewhere in the upstream tarball. [20:23] ok, but I was asked by ubuntu packagers for this [20:23] yes, I am the upstream :) [20:24] Yes, but the person who asked you may have been mistaken :) [20:24] ok, well Im happy to comply even if they are being over zealous [20:24] More particularly, I'd suggest putting a copy of the licenses under which you are distributing your materials in the tarball. Just copy a text file. I'd probably name them "GPL-2" and "CC-MA" (or whatever) to be clear. [20:25] That way anyone downloading the tarball doesn't have to do anything special when they package it. [20:25] may as well include with the source, I dont mind [20:25] saves finding it each time [20:25] That's the idea. [20:26] We don't distribute these to end-users directly, because we have a known copy on the filesystem, but we do want to make sure we have the correct license from upstreams prior to packaging. [20:26] hrm. looked at supertux, they only have the GPL [20:26] Not all upstreams are as careful as you, nor as willing to ask what we prefer :) [20:26] I was told no package unless I did this [20:28] Ill just invent a template :) [20:29] No, just copy the upstream license files verbatim. [20:29] When packaging, we need to check to make sure they match the licenses we have, or we need to distribute to end-users. [20:29] If you copy the text directly from the license authors, we'll see no diff, and can save space on CDs, etc. [20:30] Ill paste what I have in a tic [20:31] OK. I'll just ask that you please don't combine the two licenses into a single COPYING file. [20:31] Please feel free to refer the person requesting the COPYING file to me, and I'll make sure they understand. [20:34] What is that Bug Escalation Team thing? [20:35] rainct: A mistake that folk are taking steps to fix [20:35] Or maybe have already taken steps to fix [20:35] * persia is a little vague on the matter [20:40] here is the header of the COPYING file [20:40] http://www.pasteall.org/10850 [20:40] the GPL stuff is all standard [20:40] but added a section regarding media [20:40] (Uhm, the X just magically restarted :S) [20:41] persia: I see, that's what I guessed it is :). Thanks for the info, [20:41] ideasman42: That paste doesn't quite render for me. The complete text of the GPL lies beneath the Preamble? [20:42] persia, yep [20:43] the exception for media is what I wanted to be varified [20:43] Aha. I understand then. [20:44] OK. I'd recommend you drop the text from the GPL from that, and add separate CC-MA and GPL-2 files (or whatever), with COPYING just providing the overview. [20:44] Because, ideally, we'd like to be able to use diff to verify that the license under which you're distributing matches some license we've already provided to end-users, so we don't have to give them another copy. [20:45] Im confused [20:45] COPYING_CC-MA ? [20:46] would this be one file [20:46] Sorry, I'll try to summaries everything all over again. [20:46] So, we'd like to see the licenses under which you are distributing included in the tarball. Since there are two, you probably want to differentiate by using names like GPL-2 and CC-MA. [20:47] so what would the file be? [20:47] "GPL-2" as a file name? [20:47] If some of your files (e.g. the .blend files) are in a format that doesn't lend itself to comments or other licensing meta-data, it would be nice to describe how those files are licensed somehow. You can do that in a COPYING file, if you like. [20:47] on the ticket I was asked to include a COPYING file [20:47] Right. Those are filenames. [20:47] Yes, that's fine, and misguided. Like I said, feel free to refer whoever asked that to me to be sorted. [20:48] Or give me a URL to the ticket, and I'll sort it proactively. [20:49] persia, I got this mail [20:49] http://www.pasteall.org/10851 [20:50] I still can't parse much of that pastebin :/ [20:50] Who sent it? [20:51] Benjamin Drung [20:51] bdrung seems to be offline right now, but I'll follow-up as soon as he returns. [20:52] persia, this is the ticket [20:52] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/311938 [20:52] Ubuntu bug 311938 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] Yo Frankie!" [Wishlist,Confirmed] [20:52] Anyway, please put a copy of the licenses, each in separate files, in the tarball, and, if you have files that cannot declare their own license, indicate how they are licensed somewhere (README, COPYING, LICENSE, or whereever) [20:54] oojah: I added some comments (didn't build it though) [20:55] ideasman42: I've commented in the LP bug, and will follow up with bdrung later. Thanks for the pointer. [20:56] thanks [20:56] Laney: Thanks. [21:01] ideasman42: Thanks a lot for asking here. We really appreciate it when upstream developers are willing to modify their release process to match our preferences. [21:04] Hello MOTU's -- I would like to join the ~ubuntu-bugcontrol team, and I'm looking for an Ubuntu developer to vouch for my "ability to triage bug reports" as described in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl (the line "Requirement 4 can be waived ..."). If you are familiar with my work and feel inclined to vouch for me, please let me know. :-) [21:04] persia, no worries, get the feeling this may take a couple of iterations [21:06] kamalmostafa: I've seen a fair bit of your work, but believe you ought apply the regular way anyway. [21:06] I'd be happy to endorse you for membership if you do that. [21:06] thanks for the help. Im off to bed [21:06] Good night. [21:10] persia: By "the regular way", do you mean by supplying the list of 5 bugs that I've triaged? The trouble there is that the majority of my work has been just fixing bugs outright -- virtually all of my work has gone from the FTBFS list straight through to"Fix Released" without ever really getting triaged. So all of my commentary in the bugs consists of "I have fixed this bug and forwarded the patch upstream". [21:13] kamalmostafa: Hrm. That gets trickier. I thought you'd also fixed some non-FTBFS stuff. [21:14] To me, the point of the process is to demonstrate that one is able to work with reporters (if required), and demonstrate that one is able to understand issues and set the status corectly. [21:14] If you're mostly chasing FTBFS, for what do you need bugcontrol? [21:17] persia: Oh, certainly I have fixed non-FTBFS bugs also -- but those too I'm just fixing without really triaging (or to say it a different way, I confirm it, fix it, and post the fix, without actually "triaging" it). I'm interested getting bugcontrol specifically because I'm actively working on the Amateur Radio bugs and I'd like to be able to at least triage the ones that I don't fix on the spot. (I am now an admin for the ~ [21:18] For my latest upload of cnetworkmanager, REVU is telling me "Warning! This package could not be extracted; there's no browsable directory for it on REVU." What causes this? [21:19] kamalmostafa: you got cut off after "(I am now an admin for the ~" [21:19] mr_steve: Probably you didn't include the tarball in the upload. [21:20] (lacking -sa when you built the source package) [21:20] persia: Your comment about demonstrating ability to work with reporters is well-taken. [21:20] geser: ooops... (I am now an admin for the ~ubuntu-hams-devel team, and I want to fix or triage 100% of the bugs in our pile). [21:21] ScottK, I just checked that, I did use -sa, and there's a .orig.tar.gz in the list on REVU [21:21] Odd. No idea then. [21:21] kamalmostafa: Just triage 5-7 of them, and get someone on #ubuntu-bugs to set the status/importance. You'll get your list quick, and likely sail through the process. [21:22] Hmm. I also have a .debian.tar.gz, which I didn't have on the previous upload. [21:23] I've only ever seen one person doing development work not get approved straight off with a list, and that was because they were unforgivably terse in their comments about bugfixes. They reapplied a week later, and were approved. [21:23] persia: Yes, I can do that. Do you mean that I should triage 5-7 arbitrary "new" bugs? Or 5-7 bugs that I'm particularly interested in (i.e from the Amateur Radio packages)? Or does it not matter? [21:24] It's always easier (and more fun) to triage bugs that interest you :) [21:25] persia: Well that's the trouble! It's even *more* fun to just fix 'em! ;-) Very good... Thanks for the advice -- I will spend a few cycles triaging. [21:26] kamalmostafa: Well, no reason to stop fixing them if that's what you enjoy, but if you want to do a sweep of triage, and then a sweep of fix, just publish the results of your first triage sweep to the ML, and the second time you probably won't have to ask in #ubuntu-bugs whilst you do it. [21:26] having a .debain.tar.gz is part of using source format 3/quilt, right? Does REVU not know how to handle it? [21:26] persia: Understood. Thanks again for the fine advice. [21:27] kamalmostafa: Good luck, and thanks both for asking and for helping fix so many ftbfs bugs. [21:30] mr_steve: Yeah, that's a source 3.0 thing; I don't know REVU's status on source-3.0, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had more bugs than 1.0 format :) [21:31] Can someone reference a known clean format 3.0 package? I'll check if REVU can deal. [21:32] Hmm. I might have misinterpreted the last comment on my package, I probably should have just added the quilt patch system and left source format alone [21:33] persia: quilt itself is [21:33] Laney: Thanks. Checking. [21:34] Yeah. REVU can't deal. "dpkg-source: error: Unsupported format of .dsc file (3.0 (quilt))" [21:35] If it doesn't already exist, someone could file a bug against REVU to request it. Extra points for a patch. Dunno how long it might take to roll out, and I know the machine can't be upgraded easily, but it may ease this sort of issue. [21:36] mr_steve: Don't worry too much about it: the comments section still works, and folk should be downloading the package anyway, to an environment where it is supported. [21:39] persia, sounds good. I'll just leave it as is. Lintian on my system runs clean, so I assume the package is in good form. [21:40] mr_steve: I'll recommend running both lintian -iIV and lintian --pedantic on both source.changes and ${arch}.changes. [21:40] The way REVU runs lintian only exposes a subset of issues. [21:41] Note that lintian isn't always right, but it's good to think about most of the issues it mentions. [21:46] -E too [21:47] persia: dpkg on Sparky doesn't support V3, so getting V3 support into REVU will be "non-trivial" [21:47] decidedly :) [21:47] I would think it would involve something like running dpkg in bind-mounted chroot or some such. [21:49] Assuming there's a release with a dpkg that supports V3 and works with Sparc, yes. [21:51] aha, I forgot about some of those lintian options. *now* lintian runs clean, and I am a happy mr_steve. [21:52] At least 1.15.4.1ubuntu1 built for sparc. I don't have sufficient access to any sparc boxes to have any idea if it also works, but I presume it does, or the buildds would cry. [22:15] Hi. I'd like to see celt 0.7.1 in Lucid, but it won't reach testing before the 11th. It changes the soname, meaning all rdepends needs to be rebuilt, and that didn't happen in time. Do I need to wait for the LTS import freeze to pass, or can I just go ahead and request a sync now? [22:17] slicer: Well, you could request a sync from unstable if you like. Are you prepared to rebuild all the rdepends? [22:18] persia: I did so in unstable already; the only "problematic" one is libopal, which currently FTBFS on HPPA, but Lucid already merged that one :) And since libopal's change is to remove the dependency on libcelt, that's not a problem at all. [22:19] And we don't have to care about hppa anymore either :) [22:19] If you're completely on top of this, just go ahead. [22:19] persia: Rgr that. [23:14] Should packages be completely lintian-clean to be advocated in REVU? [23:17] there is a package on debian which I would like to see on ubuntu? Do I have to open a bug request? Should I send it to revu? [23:19] Legendario: once it's in Debian testing, it'll be automagically synced to Ubuntu, usually. What's the package? [23:20] lfaraone, I guess it's only on sid yet. Thanks [23:21] Legendario: keep in mind Debian Import Freeze is Feb 11. After that date you'll need to file a sync request in launchpad, and get it ACK'ed by MOTU. [23:21] Legendario: and if that doesn't happen by Feb 18, you'll have to wait for lucid+1. [23:24] lfaraone, I have a doubt on how ubuntu revision number works. If the package is 8.3-2 on both debian and ubuntu and I want to update it to 8.10, what should be the new number: 8.10-0ubuntu1? [23:24] Legendario: if you're uploading the package only to ubuntu, yes. [23:24] Legendario: otherwise it'd be 8.10-1. [23:25] Legendario: the 0ubuntu1 indicates it was based of "Debian revision zero"; in other words, it was built ubuntu-only [23:25] *off of [23:26] lfaraone, yes. It's only to ubuntu so far: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/funcoeszz/+bug/518572 [23:26] Ubuntu bug 518572 in funcoeszz "Update funcoeszz version" [Undecided,New] [23:27] lfaraone, is everything ok with the bug report? That's the first time I try to update a program [23:29] Legendario: for a new upstream version, you attach the new orig.tar.gz file and the diff.gz, not a debdiff. [23:29] Legendario: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess , esp https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/PackageUpdate [23:32] lfaraone, thanks. I'll take a look at those [23:32] [23:32] Next MOTU Council Meeting (details) [23:32] [23:32] Thursday, 28th January 2010, 17:00 UTC [23:32] wtf? [23:32] Legendario: finally, you don't assign the bug to ubuntu-universe-sponsors, you subscribe them. I've fixed it for oyu. [23:33] when is going to next MOTU meeting? [23:33] ari-tczew: MOTU Meetings are scheduled on an ad-hoc basis, when there is something for discussion. [23:34] So, if you have something that ought be discussed at a MOTU Meeting, raise it on the mailing list, and set a time for the meeting. [23:34] But there doesn't tend to be much that requires a meeting: why do you ask? [23:34] persia: I'm giving Legendario correct advice, right? :) [23:34] persia: I want to join Universe Contributors [23:34] lfaraone: I don't see anything obviously wrong, but I'm not shadowing you carefully :) [23:35] ari-tczew: Don't need a MOTU Meeting for that. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers [23:36] persia: I haven't been following the archive reorg. Are MOTU and Ubuntu Universe Contributors the same? [23:36] No. [23:37] "Ubuntu Universe Contributors" is an incredibly misnamed group that represents Contributing Developers, who are those people who gain membership through their work in Development. [23:37] Personally, I think it ought just be abolished, and we ought let the DMB grant Ubuntu Membership directly, but I'm not currently in a mood to make noise to push that agenda. [23:38] persia: so do I have to use mailing list? [23:38] ari-tczew: Which mailing list? [23:38] Send an announcement of your application to the devel-permissions mailing list [23:39] ari-tczew: no, you should follow https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess [23:39] Oh, yes. You need to make sure your wiki page is in decent shape, write up the application wiki page, get some endorsements, and send a mail to that list. [23:39] scratch that, read the page, you're right, ari-tczew. [23:39] lfaraone: That's the place that has that instruction :) [23:39] lfaraone, thanks. [23:39] * persia just wrote that 6 weeks ago, and it fairly confident :) [23:40] Legendario: any time. make checks out to "lfaraone@ubuntu.com" ;) [23:40] persia: can I get other login for @ubuntu.com instead my LP login? [23:40] * persia notes that Ubuntu usually isn't quite that commercial :) [23:41] Um, it's tricky, but yes. You probably want to contact #canonical-sysadmins (or whichever is that channel), and ask how to arrange that sort of thing. [23:41] persia: if I maintain a package in Debian, and want to also be associated with it in Ubuntu, is there anything I should put in my control file? [23:42] lfaraone: Not especially, no. In Ubuntu, we don't have maintainers, but expect that those in the changelog are most likely good contacts for those with questions. As long as you're an active maintainer in Debian, you're likely to end up being such a person :) [23:43] If you're like me, and upload to Debian less than once a year, you might not be, but in that case, either your package is sleepy, or you aren't such a good maintainer. [23:43] persia: mk. people just keep complaining when I upload packages and don't change the maintainer field :P [23:43] hi [23:43] persia: (which is technically allowed, as long as the maintainer field contains an @ubuntu email) [23:43] lfaraone, what do you mean by "make checks out"? do you want me to send u updates on that? [23:43] lfaraone, sorry for my english... [23:43] did "00:36 * bremner learns from an Ubuntu user that he is the maintainer of syncevolution in Ubuntu." got discussed already? [23:44] Legendario: I was kidding. As in "write a cheque" for payment. [23:44] lfaraone: You don't have to change it, but we encourage the change to reinforce the idea that there aren't any maintainers in Ubuntu. [23:45] some packages seem to no longer have "MOTU" as maintainer on the Launchpad page, but the Original-Maintainer [23:45] lfaraone, haha. Ok. I'll send you soon. ;-) [23:47] azeem: Does the package have Ubuntu variation? [23:48] no [23:48] was it always like this? [23:48] Well then, the "Maintainer" line in the source package is still the same as it was in Debian. [23:48] It was always like this. [23:48] Version: 0.9.1+ds1-1 [23:48] The binary packages have the correct information (thanks to pkgbinarymangler) [23:49] euh [23:49] I hope this is considered a bug? [23:49] Launchpad seems to think "Maintainer" means something in the context of Ubuntu. I'm fairly sure it doesn't, but I tend to reserve complaints about Launchpad to things I think I can get fixed. [23:49]