[00:08] Questions for lucid [00:08] Would it be possible to 1) Get the latest libproxy (0.4) into Lucid and 2) Get a MIR for it? [00:09] It fixes a ton of bugs and I personally know the upstream lead developer [00:12] You don't need an MIR: libproxy is in main. MIR is just for transitioning between "universe" and "main" [00:13] * persia looks forward to when the distinction no longer exists [00:13] persia, Ah ok. Would it be possible to get the latest in for Lucid? [00:13] As 0.2.3 is a pretty old version and has many fixed bugs [00:14] Doing the update is potentially possible, but Needs someone to test and investigate, and if it's likely to break anything, will probably be rejected. [00:14] persia, Ok I'm willing to test and have av, a buddy who is an UD and DD who will help me [00:14] It looks to me like you'd want to test the python bindins, and the interaction with libsoup-gnome2.4-1 [00:15] What is the best way to go about this? I'll be working directly with upstream [00:15] Well it changed from c to c++, but the bindings and api are identical [00:15] That's the kind of change that's hard to review, and makes it more difficult to get approved. [00:16] I'd recommend contacting pochu in #ubuntu-desktop for guidance on a test strategy, etc. Something that works for some folks is to do a test transition in a PPA and test against that. [00:16] persia, How about "Upstream suggests you upgrade to fix the bugs and support the package in the future"? Especially in a LTS? [00:16] persia, Perfect. Thanks [00:17] SEJeff: Well, it depends. It's a risk/reward analysis. I personally like to follow upstream advice, but you really want to work with the Desktop team to come to a safe conclusion. If there's some end-user software that doesn't work and needs porting, that might be more than we can accomplish in time. [00:17] persia, Absolutely understood [00:17] If the ABI is truly unchanged, it ought be a fairly easy discussion. If the ABI changed but the API didn't, not so much worse. if the API changed, that's more complicated. [00:17] Good luck. [00:19] persia, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think it is ABI compatible. The API is the same however [00:19] Just a few rebuilds and we're on our merry way [00:19] Looks like just a rebuild of the python bindings and libsoup-gnome2.4 to me, but again, it's really a Desktop Team decision. [00:20] (and that's one of the areas of Ubuntu which I track the least) [00:20] persia, Thanks a bunch for the pointers [00:20] pochu left right after I pinged him. Must be busy :) [00:21] Well, and it's 2am there :) [00:21] sleep is for the weak [00:31] pochu, Do you have a minute or two? [00:32] SEJeff: You really want to ask in the other channel, as other people who idle there may also be interested. It's also better to just ask the question rather than asking to ask. [00:33] persia, Ok [00:53] I have a package that uses OCAML_ABI in rules and it is incorrect. I can't find out how it is set. What sets it? [02:14] persia: I finally got that boa thing fixed :) [02:14] took me a lot of pain to get the X stuff working but it was worth the trouble learning that stuff :) [03:39] * Zarel places an offering on the offering of the Ubuntu MOTUs. [03:39] altar* [03:39] But anyway. [03:39] I was wondering. [03:39] I noticed the icon here was outdated: http://blackhalt.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ubuntu-software-center.png [03:40] I was wondering who I would contact to get it updated. [04:10] guys, i 've uploaded temporary a deb package (foo) in my personal repository .. & i don't want other people who already have my repository in their sources.list to download "foo" when the version of "foo" is higher than an official ubuntu/debian repository [04:11] i have to do a sort o pinning if i understand correclty ... [04:11] sort of* [04:18] No MOTUs at this time of day? :| [04:18] I guess I'll try morning. [04:20] Zarel: You'd contact people by filing a bug. [04:20] That's the general way to have changes made. [04:23] RAOF: Link to a tracker? [04:23] launchpad.net [04:24] Or, run “ubuntu-bug warzone”, I think. [04:24] (Or whatever the package name is.) [04:24] Hm.. getdeb? [04:25] What does getdeb have to do with Ubuntu repositories? o_O [04:25] Indeed! The version of warzone in that screenshot isn't from the Ubuntu repositories; it's from getdeb. [04:26] ...really? [04:26] Check out the version. [04:26] Oh, I see. [04:26] Thanks. [04:27] :) [04:27] Can you check to see if the one in the Ubuntu repositories has the updated icon? [04:27] New one looks like this: http://developer.wz2100.net/browser/trunk/icons/warzone2100.large.png [04:27] (I don't have an Ubuntu partition around to check) [04:29] Well, it appears launchpad is still using the old icon, too. [04:29] https://launchpad.net/warzone2100 [04:30] Time to go further upstream and see if Debian needs to be yelled at. :P [04:30] Zarel: Software centre uses the new icon. [04:31] Man, Launchpad is _really_ out of date [04:31] https://launchpad.net/warzone2100 [04:31] Latest version 2.1 RC2? o_O [04:32] You'd need to take that up with the owner of that project; it's not Ubuntu. [05:18] hi motu's -- Does bug 521190 need an actual FFe? This sync would fix an FTBFS in a package that has never built successfully in Lucid. [05:18] Launchpad bug 521190 in nauty "Sync nauty 2.4-2 (multiverse) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/521190 [05:19] I think it qualifies as a "bug fix only update" [05:41] hi, why i type "debuild -S". it just generate a new tarball, but not a orig tarball + diff.gz? [05:51] rawang: debuild -S shouldn't generate a new tarball; it should use the existing orig tarball and put the diff in .diff.gz. [05:52] rawang: If you don't have an existing orig tarball, there's no way for debuild to work out what should be in the orig tarball & what should be in the diff. === xeros2 is now known as xeros [08:14] randomaction: did you see my note about gmetadom / lablgtkmathview? [08:15] yes, I'll rebuild lablgtkmathview when gmetadom is synced [08:16] this transition looks much easier now that I have a mass-rebuild script :) [08:17] good morning [08:18] good morning dholbach [08:18] hi randomaction === hannesw__ is now known as hannesw [09:52] whats the difference between pbuilder and debuild? [09:53] both of them create .debs,one in a chroot environment other in the users own machine [09:53] so whats the basic difference [09:57] shadeslayer: as I understand it, using a clean chroot environment is better because you might find out that you haven't declared the correct dependencies for your application [09:57] shadeslayer: debuild does in your current system, pbuilder uses a chroot environment and builds in there. [09:57] And if you happened to have them in your own machine, debuild wouldn't "tell" you that [09:57] alkisg: thats the only diff? [09:58] shadeslayer: The basic difference is exactly what you wrote. :) [09:58] shadeslayer: no, I'm sure there are lots of other differences. [09:58] Rhonda: ok,i just wanted to know if theres any other difference [09:58] c_korn: oh hi :) [09:58] hello shadeslayer [09:58] alkisg: so which is preffered? [09:58] shadeslayer: Usually you want to build for a specific target, like lucid. Your system though might run karmic. So you do _need_ a chroot for building for lucid. [09:58] -f [09:59] Rhonda: oh.. and also debuild just build for 64 bit or 32 bit depending on your machine [09:59] i guess pbuilder makes .debs for all systems [10:00] i have a slow internet connection so i only use debuild [10:00] It's prefered to build inside such a chroot for various reasons: It also requires proper Build-Depends whare with debuild you can't be sure wether you have the packages "just installed". [10:00] hmm [10:00] Not sure what you mean with "for all systems". [10:00] Rhonda: 32 bit,64 bit,lpia [10:01] There is no difference with debuild/pbuilder with respect to internet connection. [10:01] Erm, no, you don't build for 32 and 64 bit in pbuilder. [10:01] You build for the same system that your system is, you don't cross-compile. [10:01] ah [10:02] What does "dpkg-source: unrepresentable changes to source" mean? That it can't represent the symlink I put in the sources? And if so, is there any way around it? [10:02] shadeslayer: pbuilder really is just a "clean" build for a specific target, well defined. [10:02] alkisg: No it can't represent symlink. Why do you want to add symlink? [10:03] Rhonda: ok [10:03] slytherin: I have LTSP 5.2 as a starting point, and I put one plugin in the debian-plugins dir, and a symlink from ubuntu-plugins/file to debian-plugins/file (standard practice in ltsp source). [10:04] alkisg: The question is 'what problem are you trying to solve by putting symlink'? [10:05] shadeslayer: And to confuse you even more, I would rather suggest cowbuilder (from the cowdancer package) instead of pbuilder. :) [10:06] Rhonda: 0_o [10:06] It's more friendly to your harddisk, and if you have low I/O. pbuilder works with tarballs it extracts all the time, cowdancer just creates hardlink trees and uses copy-on-write (thus cow) facilities. [10:07] slytherin: I'm trying to add a new feature (=plugin). That feature is common to both debian and ubuntu, so (as usual in LTSP) I need to put the file in the debian-plugins dir and symlink it to the ubuntu-plugins dir. I don't know how else to answer the "what problem are you trying to solve by putting symlink" question... [10:07] Rhonda: but it still downloads all the build depends like pbuilder [10:08] Then don't do an apt-get clean. :) [10:08] alkisg: Ok. Now think aboout it this way. If the feature is common to both Debian and Ubuntu, do you need to have it in two separate folders? [10:09] slytherin: see the tree in http://paste.ubuntu.com/384259/ [10:10] There are lots of symlinks there in the original tarball [10:10] So I just want to add another plugin like the 100 existing plugins, by following the same practice... [10:11] slytherin: the symlink practice is for both the debian + ubuntu developers to maintain the same code [10:11] The different folders practice is for each distro to have its own plugins [10:12] And all folders are shipped in the tarball/deb because one might want to make a cross-distro chroot... [10:12] alkisg: The issue is that your modifications will end in diff.gz and the symlink is not representable in that file. What you can try is convert the package in source 3.0 format. In that case the packaging files are archives in a tar.gz which may be able to encapsulate a symlink. [10:13] got to go now. I hope someone else will be able to help. [10:13] Got it. So I'd need to create a new source tarball in any case [10:13] Thank you [10:14] arddisk, and if you have low I/O. pbuilder works with tarballs it extracts all the time, cowdancer just cre [10:14] geh [10:15] If a build failed, can I upload the same version to launchpad? Or do I have to increase the debian/changelog? [10:16] c_korn: btw what does this mean ? : E: joschy source: not-binnmuable-all-depends-any libjoschy-dev -> libjoschy1 [10:18] shadeslayer: From a Ubuntu point of view you can ignore that because Ubuntu doesn't do binNMUs. When it comes to Debian though … [10:18] shadeslayer: you can run lintian -i *.dsc to see a more detailed description of the problem. mostly also with a fix proposal. [10:18] alkisg: once LP knows about a version (independent if it build or not) you need to bump it for a new upload [10:19] Thank you geser [10:22] c_korn: so if i change Architecture: any in the third stanza to all itll work right [10:25] shadeslayer: erm, I highly doubt that that will be proper. [10:26] shadeslayer: Because the library files most probably are architecture dependent and thus can't be arch:all [10:28] It is more suiting to set the -dev package to arch:any, and I'm not sure if there is any -dev package that is _not_ arch:any [10:30] hmmm, but there are. [10:31] Rhonda: so,what do you suggest? [10:31] Ah. shadeslayer, if you want to have the -dev package Arch:all you need to make it Depend on libjoshy1 (>= ${source:Version}) instead of (= ${source:Version}) [10:31] ill just pastebin the control file [10:31] oh ok [10:33] Rhonda: http://pastebin.ca/1811608 [10:33] ill be back in like 10 mins.. === shadeslayer is now known as shadeslayer_ [10:35] shadeslayer: Should fit, binary:Version or source:Version doesn't matter in that case because it's just the same at the time the all package is generated, but source:Version would be more correct. :) === shadeslayer_ is now known as shadeslayer [10:53] Rhonda: like : http://paste.ubuntu.com/384278/ ? [10:54] No. Arch:all in the libjoshy1 [10:54] That should be Arch:any there [10:54] oh yeah right [10:55] http://paste.ubuntu.com/384283/ [10:55] i guess thats correct then? [10:55] And about Maintainer field, that's you I expect? Where do you plan to upload it to? [10:55] Looks correct, yes. [10:55] Rhonda: my PPA [10:56] Rhonda: i dont have a @k/ubuntu.com email id ;) [10:56] i want one though :P [10:57] Me neither. [10:57] What's @k? [10:58] kubuntu [10:59] Rhonda: like rohangarg@kubuntu.org ;) [11:00] * Rhonda is happy with @debian.AT (instead of .org, they won't change my "login") [11:00] Rhonda: this is what ill be using : http://paste.ubuntu.com/384287/ [11:00] Rhonda: nice :0 [11:00] *:) [11:00] What for do you use debhelper >= 7.0.50~? Any special feature? [11:01] Rhonda: yeah debuild -S -sa printed out that error [11:01] Rhonda: more of a warning :P [11:01] Especially since I don't find that version mentioned in a changelog? [11:02] 7.0 only went to .17? [11:02] Oh, wait, found it [11:02] Rhonda: found what? [11:03] The changelog and the reason why one would want to use that. :) [11:03] Rhonda: this is the intial release... [11:03] Rhonda: well c_korn just told me what had to be done,im yet to learn why we did that :P [11:04] Yeah, perceived that part. :) [11:04] Rhonda: its my first library... so im all in for suggestions ;) [11:04] libs are difficult :P [11:05] Rhonda: i can package small apps fine.. [11:05] Right, I dumped the two library packages that I had over the time and I'm sure I made a lots of mistakes therein. [11:05] :D [11:06] Actually, thinking about, I still maintain sort-of a library. It surely is totally wrong. But only a single package of mine is using it. [11:06] Rhonda: well im just doing this so that there are no suprise questions for me tommorow in the packaging session [11:07] Oh, so you are heading for MOTU at fullspeed? :) [11:08] Rhonda: :D [11:08] All the best wishes on that. :) [11:08] Rhonda: more like kubuntu member at full speed :P [11:08] doing upstream work and bug triaging in lp :P [11:08] I'm still not sure wether I should take that step at this point in time. [11:09] I sorta postpone that thought to at least summer, maybe even fall. [11:09] Rhonda: hmm.. well im gaining experience... so meh.. [11:10] Rhonda: i also do irc support on #kubuntu ;) [11:11] I don't want to sound arrogant, but experience is not the piece I ponder about. ;) === Knightlust is now known as Igorots [12:11] duanedesign: See if you've got all the package tools from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete . If you do you're good to go [12:12] duanedesign: I suggest you start creating a pbuilder now, coz thats going to take some time. In the meanwhile you can get the source and make changes :) [12:13] duanedesign: for pbuilder choose a mirror near you,its *much* faster [12:13] yes, that too ;) [12:14] duanedesign: and ask here generally, lots of people will reply (as I learned :) ) [12:15] duanedesign: you can just copy the pbuilderrc file from http://pastebin.ca/1811712 << change the mirror to a local one ;) [12:16] duanedesign: also the debmail.. :P [12:16] shadeslayer: shouldn't the distribution be lucid? [12:16] nigelb: i created it for karmic ;) [12:17] ah :) [12:17] duanedesign: well if your packaging for lucid change the distro to lucid :P [12:27] thank you shadeslayer [12:40] duanedesign: sure no problem [12:57] duanedesign: ill probably be holding a PPA session tommorow at 1700 UTC,you can attend if you want ;) [12:58] shadeslayer: in #ubuntu-classroom? [12:58] duanedesign: yes :)] [12:59] duanedesign: oh its confirmed : http://people.ubuntu.com/~nhandler/classroom.html [13:01] dholbach: a one hour session? isnt that a bit big? [13:02] dholbach: i was thinking more on the lines of a 30 min session :P [13:02] shadeslayer: you can stop early [13:03] nigelb: hehe :) [13:03] nigelb: btw theres a command to authourize uploading to your PPA right? i keep forgeting that :P [13:03] ugh, wait, I saw that a few days back [13:05] shadeslayer: dput [13:05] nigelb: nah.. its something with ubuntu-dev-tools [13:07] shadeslayer: nothing in dev tools https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevTools [13:07] nigelb: http://pastebin.ca/1811767 [13:08] shadeslayer: that is because you get to mark set-lp-dup etc [13:09] nigelb: whut? [13:09] shadeslayer: a couple of dev tools work directly with lp and need permission, I feel that is because of that [13:10] nigelb: yes,and theres a specifc command for that... [13:10] hold one [13:27] kamalmostafa1: Use your best judgement on when something needs an FFe. If you don't have one and a sponsor thinks you do, you'll be corrected. If you apply for one and the release team thinks you shouldn't have done so, you'll be corrected. Along the way, you'll learn the best balance. If you're unsure, err on the side of bothering the sponsors over bothering the release team (but really try best before submitting to either queue). [13:38] Any python experts can take a look at failure to build I fixed? bug 527084 [13:38] Launchpad bug 527084 in boa-constructor "Cannot be installed in Lucid" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/527084 [13:38] oh hai persia :) [13:38] Hi, is there a way to build multiple packages with different versions out of one source? (I know how to build multiple packages, but they get all the same version number...) [13:39] hakaishi: Yes, but you really, really, really, really don't want to do that unless you know so much about how the archive works that you can be absolutely certain there isn't a better way to address the issue. [13:39] What problem are you trying to solve? [13:39] hakaishi: this is for a PPA? [13:39] shadeslayer: no, it's for debian [13:40] hakaishi: ah no idea then ;) [13:41] shadeslayer: Why is the answer different depending on the target archive? [13:41] persia: isn't there a simple way to do this in the changelog file? [13:41] hakaishi: No, but like I said, you don't want to do it anyway, really. [13:41] Again, what problem are you trying to solve? [13:42] hakaishi: It would help if you mentioned why you want to do it this way. [13:43] persia: I have two similar programs, that I want to put in one tarball, but they have two different version numbers... [13:44] hakaishi: Are they two different upstreams? [13:44] öhm... no [13:46] originally I wanted to make two program with each one package, but my Sponsor meant that it would be better to put them in one tarball... [13:47] OK. Is there a really, really good reason why the next release of both programs (which would be that tarball) shouldn't end up with both version numbers bumped to the same value? [13:48] -.- I guess not. I just wanted to know if there is a way... [13:49] hakaishi: There is. Don't use it :) [13:49] There is. If you have to ask for it you know to little about it to use it. :) [13:50] persia: XD okay [13:50] Rhonda: -.-' [13:50] Rhonda: is there some kind of command to authorize ubuntu-dev-tools to upload to a PPA? [13:50] or can i upload directly? [13:50] * Rhonda unfortunately doesn't know much about PPA or ubuntu-dev-tools yet. :) [13:50] Well, or rather, the chances of making a mistake that one can't get out of is high enough that it's generally not safe to use it unless there is no other option (and even the best of us ought have a high level of peer review before using it) [13:50] aw.. [13:51] * shadeslayer wonders if persia knows... [13:51] shadeslayer: ubuntu-dev-tools ought be completely unrelated to PPAs. If you have authorisation issues, ask in #launchpad. [13:51] persia: they dont have a idea :P [13:51] shadeslayer: If you have general questions like these, just ask them regularly without hilighting anyone in particular. It might turn out that someone knows the answer, and the people you hilight might feel being singled out if it's a general question. :) [13:52] any idea about authorizing ubuntu-dev-tools on LP? [13:52] shadeslayer: If #launchpad doesn't understand PPAs, wait. They know more than us. [13:53] afaik : http://pastebin.ca/1811767 : is needed,but i dont remember the command i used [13:53] hakaishi: I am packaging for Debian since 10 years with well over 30 source packages that I touched - I hadn't had a single need to use different version numbers for binary packages built from a source. Go figure. You might be trying to fix the wrong issue with the wrong approach. :) [13:53] shadeslayer: Really, you need to ask in #launchpad. [13:53] persia: ok [13:53] persia: btw launchpad said i need to ask here :P [13:53] shadeslayer: Or file a question against launchpad. That paste is unrelated to the clients. [13:54] Rhonda: okay, thank you [13:54] shadeslayer: Then they were wrong. Please give me the timestamp of the redirect, and I'll sort it. [13:54] persia: 18:52 < wgrant> shadeslayer: ubuntu-dev-tools help is more likely in #ubuntu-motu. [13:55] since the authorization refers to ubuntu-dev-tools === Igorots is now known as Knightlust [14:38] followiing the guide for generating a patch at /Bugs/HowtoFix i noticed in the command to create a patch file that ' xicc_0.2.2ubuntu1.debdiff' is used instead of ' xicc_0.2-2ubuntu1.debdiff' [14:39] changing the '-' to a '.', is that correct? [14:39] Doesn't matter in the least bit. [14:39] persia: thank you [14:39] Personally I liked revision 16 of that page, and intend to go put it back that way sometime in the next couple months. [14:40] creating a debdiff is the *wrong* way to do it if you're just fixing a bug, because most bugfixes need the patch extracted back out of the debiff to send upstream anyway. [14:40] Mind you, a debdiff is a good way to request a sponsored upload, so it's not entirely wrong to suggest doing them somewhere. [14:48] persia: good point. You anticipated my next question [14:48] persia: i am working on bug 497923 [14:48] Launchpad bug 497923 in binutils "typo in "man ld"" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/497923 [14:50] That's really the kind of thing that should be fixed upstream directly. [14:50] so what would be the proper way to fix the bug to allow sending it upstream [14:50] branch from their VCS, hack, test, send patch [15:04] the debian virtualbox-ose package has introduced a new binary package (virtualbox-ose-fuse) in 3.1.4 [15:05] I want to merge 3.1.4 (ubuntu currently has 3.1.2) to lucid. should I remove the virtualbox-ose-fuse package for now? === ikt_ is now known as ikt === kamalmostafa1 is now known as kamalmostafa [15:37] persia: thanks for your comment about FFe's -- sounds like i left it in the right state then (subscribed to u-u-s, since I think it doesn't need FFe) -- we'll see what happens === ShadowChild is now known as lukjad86 [16:07] when a package in binary-dep is removed from the archives, do we shift it from Depends: to Recommends: or Suggests:? [16:08] Hi everybody! [16:09] hello [16:09] hyperair: why not remove it all as we can't satisfy it anyways (independent on if it's depends, recommends or suggests)? [16:09] geser: i think it's a temporary thing. [16:10] geser: this is an ubuntu-specific change for boa-constructor, since pychecker which exists in debian has been removed from lucid [16:10] hyperair: then you can note it in changelog [16:10] it depends on python2.5, see? [16:10] I want to localize netbeans package but don't want to create new packages (like openoffice does).. is it acceptable to include localized files in the existing package via patch? [16:11] randomaction: noting it in the changelog is besides the point. i want to know what's the preferred course of action, with regard to package installation behaviour [16:11] hyperair: so you prefer to have an uninstallable recommends instead of an installable depends? [16:11] hyperair: we can undo this change later when the package comes back (either with a new upload or a sync) [16:11] geser: well, if it was previously in depends, it would mean the package was pretty important, and should be installed by default if at all possible, yes? [16:11] http://launchpadlibrarian.net/39783936/boa-constructor_0.6.1-9ubuntu1.debdiff [16:11] the debdiff is there [16:12] i'm just wondering whether it should be in Recommends rahter than Suggests [16:12] if Suggests is the way to go then i'll sponsor it [16:12] nigelb: i think this concerns you. [16:12] nigelb: which do you think would be better? [16:13] hyperair: I agree that it's best to remove it completely [16:13] LP #527084 for reference [16:13] Launchpad bug 527084 in boa-constructor "Cannot be installed in Lucid" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/527084 [16:13] hyperair: and what do you can by moving it to recommends? that package won't magically reappear [16:13] geser: er i don't know, maybe it might reappear from some third party repository [16:14] geser: or since python2.6 is undergoing transition in debian right now, maybe pychecker will be fixed up nicely and reuploaded to lucid? [16:14] hyperair: yes [16:15] hyperair: boa constricutor is already patched up to work without pycheker [16:15] hyperair: I have my doubts that it will reappear in lucid [16:15] I read the source [16:15] hyperair: I'm hoping someone would work to get it to not depend on python 2.5 [16:16] nigelb: well you could always do that, right? =p [16:17] hyperair: my knowledge it too shallow for that, or I would have tried [16:17] hyperair: and as boa-contructor is maintained by a MOTU and DD, I'd at least talk to DktrKranz before uploading it [16:17] geser: hmm right. good idea. [16:17] hyperair: but, if you're willing to help and it is manageable I'm willing to put the effort [16:18] nigelb: i provide no guarantees, but if you're going to make it installable with python2.6, how about contacting the debian python team? [16:19] hyperair: I'll check out 2morrow (me is about to leave for work) [16:19] hyperair: btw, is the workflow correct? what I did... moving to suggests [16:20] nigelb: well, i'm not really sure. i haven't dealt with rdeps of packages removed from ubuntu before.. [16:20] nigelb: like geser said, it's probably better off removed from Suggests even [16:20] hyperair: oh [16:21] nigelb: and we should wait for DktrKranz's input, since he maintains it in debian as well. =) [16:21] hyperair: lemme know if you want me to change something in the debdiff :) [16:21] nigelb: sure [16:24] hyperair: DktrKranz is pretty sharp :) [16:24] ? [16:24] hyperair: I think he made those changes to the source to make sure it works without pychecker :) [16:25] perhaps [16:25] I'm not sure though. the source is synced from debian [16:25] he maintains it there [16:25] geser, may be you know? what is localization politics in packaging? Is it acceptable to include all localized files in the package of the application or I have to create a new one for each language? [16:27] juli_: don't know of any localization policies. so you can include them in the package itself (but you might split them off into an own arch-indep package if they are large) [16:30] \sh: are you planning on uploading zf 1.10.2? [16:30] geser, thanks! I'm not sure about "large".. in terms of NetBeans they are small:) How do you think I can do this now, after FF? I want to add a patch with the sources for localization and build them right after IDE [16:30] nigelb: by the way, the right way of marking the bug as "done and awaiting sponsors" is to leave yourself assigned and mark status as "confirmed" or "triaged" [16:31] hyperair: thank you. I wasn't sure of that. Sorry ;) [16:31] np =) [16:32] juli_: adding a patch should be no problem, and adding localization probably doesn't count as a new feature [16:36] geser, thanks! [16:39] <\sh> micahg: somehow yes :) I'm a bit busy with work...but wanted to do the package during this weekend...and as it is a bugfix release, I don't even need an FFe [16:39] \sh: cool, yeah, I was wondering about the FFe [16:39] \sh: I'll keep an eye out [16:40] <\sh> micahg: hehe :) thx for the backports :) and yes, we get the latest Zend crack in ;) === Nafallo_ is now known as Nafallo [17:08] * hyperair has sponsored his first package! \o/ [17:09] hyperair: it doesn't make much sense to leave pychecker in Suggests if it has been removed from Lucid, I'd say drop it and also exclude ExternalLib/pychecker_custom.py from the resulting package. Other part of the code already handles missing pychecker module. [17:10] DktrKranz: would you like to take care of it or let nigelb handle it? [17:10] either way is fine to me [17:10] perhaps you should talk to him directly. maybe drop a message on the bug report =) [17:11] I won't change it in Debian for the time being, it will be probably material for Squeeze + 1 [17:11] (in Debian we're close to drop 2.4 :) [17:11] Is it possible to make a patch that replaces a binary file? [17:13] MTecknology: yes, in v3 it's easy, in v1 you have do uuencode it [17:14] geser: is there a howto anywhere for it? [17:14] hyperair: commented [17:14] =) [17:14] for which case v3 or v1? (I don't know of any for either case) [17:15] ok, I'll look around - v3 [17:15] geser: you can in v3? [17:15] hello .. I'm porting a package from git.debian.org to karmic with git-buildpackage and I get this error : http://paste.ubuntu.com/384497/ but the an in the file debian/source/include-binaries there is the file debian/powered_by_debian.png help!!!!! [17:15] geser: i know you can put the binary file in the debian.tar.gz, and manually copy it over, but as a patch? [17:16] you are probably right, but with v3 it's much easier to get a new binary file into the debian.tar.gz [17:17] hyperair, MTecknology: you just replace the file, and list it in debian/source/include-binaries [17:17] randomaction: ooh interesting. [17:18] I've never done it, but man dpkg-source says so [17:18] thanks :) [17:20] leonel: where is this package and what exactly does debian/source/include-binaries say? [17:20] leonel: You need to make sure you have it as a version 3 source package. [17:20] leonel: actually take a look at this: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=554612 [17:20] Debian bug 554612 in dpkg-dev "/usr/bin/dpkg-source: include-binaries doesn't work" [Normal,Fixed] === ScottK changed the topic of #ubuntu-motu to: Lucid Alpha 3 Released! | Want to get involved with the MOTU? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing | Sponsor queue: http://is.gd/2y76G | http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs | http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/NBS/ | http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/debcheck | latest rebuild failures: http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_ftbfs.cgi | Outstanding merges: merges.ubuntu.com or http://people [17:21] you got truncated. [17:21] hyperair: leonel@vaio:/tmp/c/cherokee/debian/source$ more include-binaries [17:21] debian/powered_by_debian.png [17:21] http://people [17:22] ScottK: Hello .. Long time no ircing .. version 3 .. checking [17:25] hyperair: that's all the contents for include-binaries [17:28] ScottK: dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)' [17:28] Yeah, that's good [17:29] so I guess I've been bitten by the debian bug 554612 ,, [17:29] Debian bug 554612 in dpkg-dev "/usr/bin/dpkg-source: include-binaries doesn't work" [Normal,Fixed] http://bugs.debian.org/554612 [17:31] * hyperair kicks git-buildpackage for not supporting source v3. [17:32] damnit where's that new shiny git-buildpackage? [17:33] hyperair: what version ?? [17:34] hyperair: it's being merged, bug 525116 [17:34] Launchpad bug 525116 in git-buildpackage "please merge git-buildpackage 0.4.65 from Debian unstable (full patch included)" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/525116 [17:34] oh it has? [17:34] i mean being merged [17:35] * hyperair looks [17:37] hyperair: so upgrade to lucid then do the backports ?? [17:37] leonel: yes, i suppose. [17:39] hyperair , scottk thanks === yofel_ is now known as yofel [17:44] hmm [17:45] so whats the difference b/w indep binary and multiple binaries? [17:45] c_korn: are you free in 20 mins? [17:46] shadeslayer: I am already here and also will be here in 20 mins [17:46] c_korn: ok :) [17:46] i just need to upload some stuff and then you can start explaining to me what we did yesterday :P [18:27] i can define Section: multimedia in control right? [18:31] check the Debian policy manual for all valid sections (I don't know them from top of my head) [18:32]