=== traveller_ is now known as traveller
[02:52] <micahg> are merges still accepted as debdiffs?
[02:54] <persia> micahg: Most certainly
[02:54] <micahg> persia: great, I think I got my first merge right :)
[02:54] <RAOF> micahg: How's gjs riding?
[02:54] <micahg> RAOF: sorry, haven't had time yet...
[02:55] <micahg> RAOF: also haven't chatted with asac yet...
[02:55] <micahg> RAOF: do you think this is critical?
[02:56] <RAOF> Well, gjs *does* need to build from source.
[02:56] <micahg> RAOF: yes, but you said we can disable jit and it builds fine
[02:57] <RAOF> Yeah.  I'll make an upload disabling the JIT on armel and i386, and it can be lower-priority.
[02:57] <micahg> RAOF: is that something we can fix after release or no?
[02:58] <RAOF> Maybe not; as long as it builds, it's a pretty low-impact bug.
[02:58] <micahg> RAOF: does if affect the functionality of gjs?
[02:59] <RAOF> It makes it slower, but doesn't disrupt the functionality.  Also, gjs < 0.5 didn't enable the jit by default anyway, so it's not a regression from 0.4
=== plars` is now known as plars
[04:41] <wrapster>  i tried to dist upgrade and it failed at a pkg now.. 'sunwcsd' ..I manually tried to install to see why this is occuring.. and found out this... http://pastie.org/873299
[04:41] <wrapster> isnt that obvious coz when i perform a dist upgrade its evident that the machine is running older version of pkgs.. so shouldnt  dist-upgrade take this up and resolve the issue?
[04:42] <wrapster> or how do i resolve this now?
[04:42] <persia> nexenta  package upgrade failures are *definitely* off-topic here :)
[04:45] <wrapster> persia: sorry about that. But i thought i 'll ask as it was about packaging...
[04:45] <wrapster> sorry anyways
[04:46] <persia> While this channel talks about packaging a lot, and does a lot of training, the focus is really on improving Ubuntu, especially those packages that don't have someone looking after them.
[04:52] <micahg> persia: do you know if native PPAs are supposed to not get uploads right now since they build on the release builders?
[04:57] <persia> micahg: I'd recommend checking https://launchpad.net/builders for the queue sizes first, and using common sense.
[04:57] <micahg> persia: empty
[04:57] <micahg> except for ia64
[04:59] <persia> micahg: How long does your package take to build?
[04:59] <micahg> persia: it's thunderbird 2
[04:59] <micahg> so 45 min on normal archs
[04:59] <persia> If it's quick, I'd say there's little risk.  If it takes a week, now isn't the best time :)
[04:59] <micahg> 4.5 hhrs on armel
[04:59] <persia> Ought be relatively safe.
[05:00] <micahg> persia: it's for security updates...that are supposed to be released any day, but I don't know if I'll get someone to upload tonight
[05:00] <micahg> persia: but it's good to know anyways
[05:00] <persia> If it's security stuff, then it takes precedence over other stuff.
[05:01] <micahg> persia: k..if I can only get an uploader :)
[06:11] <ddecator> what kind of scripting in a makefile would cause "find -L" during debuild?
[07:22] <ddecator> got it figured out, and quilt is amazing =)
[07:32] <dholbach> good morning
[07:43] <ddecator> mornin'
=== hannesw__ is now known as hannesw
[10:39] <christoph_debian> hm how far is the freezing currently? would it be possible to sync from debian for adding a .desktop file + adding a build-dep to make some functionality work?
[10:40] <RAOF> christoph_debian: Absolutely.  Main is currently frozen for beta, but bugfixes can go in all the way up to RC (after that, only serious bugfixes go in).
[10:41] <christoph_debian> ok and RC is still a bit away?
[10:41]  * christoph_debian should look it up himself
[10:41] <christoph_debian> ah good
[10:42] <Laney> how can I get branch proposals to go away from the sponsoring list?
[10:42] <christoph_debian> (will go from debian/experimental -- not my decision to start using some experimental version in ubuntu)
[10:42] <Laney> I added a "Disapprove" review but that did nothing
[10:44] <dholbach> http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/cheatsheet.pdf
[10:44] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseSchedule
[10:45] <persia> dholbach: Shouldn't the first say "From Beta freeze"?
[10:45] <persia> dholbach: Nevermind.  I'm confused.
[10:46] <dholbach> in any case: http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/cheatsheet.odt - "patches" appreciated :-D
[10:46] <dholbach> brb
[10:47] <Laney> james_w: ^ do you know? I guess something has to happen with the Ubuntu reviewers review request, right?
[10:47]  * persia goes to fix that
[10:48] <Laney> ubuntu branches, that is
[10:54] <persia> james_w: Do you have access to the ubuntu-core-reviews@ mailbox?  Can you press the shiny button?
=== jussi01 is now known as o1
[11:13] <Daviey> persia: it's already been done.
[11:15] <persia> But I still can't do the other one :/
=== o1 is now known as jussi01
[12:19] <lfaraone> dholbach: persia and I were talking about freemind yesterday, apparently ant ignores the all-caps "BUILD FAILED" results of component builds.
[12:20] <dholbach> lfaraone: ok
[12:21] <lfaraone> (I was confused at first, and initially thought the build was successful :)
[12:22] <dholbach> gotcha :)
[12:31] <lfaraone> If a package requires an API key to work, and upstream tells you "don't share this with anyone", how can we build from source without disclosing the secret?
[12:52] <cody-somerville> lfaraone, Don't include the API key in the source package.
[12:52] <lfaraone> cody-somerville: well, the user has to go through an email loop to apply for the key, and it looks like the key is required at build time.
[12:53] <lfaraone> otoh, I ran `strings` and was able to find out their API key from their released binaries.
[12:55] <cody-somerville> lfaraone, Is this package open source?
[12:56] <cody-somerville> It sounds like this package doesn't qualify to be built in launchpad if it requires a secret API key.
[12:56] <lfaraone> cody-somerville: yes, it is open source.
[12:57] <lfaraone> cody-somerville: BSD, in fact. But to work with the webservice it is designed to use, it requires an API key, and they configured it to require the key at build time.
[13:16] <james_w> persia, Laney: what shiny button?
[13:16] <Laney> we were talking about different things
[13:17] <Laney> I want to make a branch merge proposal go away from the sponsoring page, but don't know how
[13:17] <james_w> Hi Laney
[13:17] <Laney> hi!
[13:17] <james_w> Laney: can you edit the status at the top?
[13:18] <Laney> james_w: no
[13:23] <james_w> Laney: I thought this was going to be covered by https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/504025 but evidently not
[13:23] <ubottu> Ubuntu bug 504025 in launchpad-code "LP doesn't show correct permissions for packaging branches for me" [High,Fix released]
[13:23] <james_w> please file a new bug
[13:24] <Laney> ok then
[13:27] <nigelb> is pbuilder broken for debian packages in karmic?
[13:27] <nigelb> i.e. debian dists
[13:28] <Laney> the apt error?
[13:28] <nigelb> yup
[13:28] <Laney> I thought there was an SRU for that
[13:28] <nigelb> I was working on the SRU, but the fix it not in Lucid yet
[13:28] <Laney> yes it is
[13:28]  * nigelb checks
[13:29] <nigelb> no it isn't
[13:29] <Laney> it was fixed in 0.196, which we have
[13:29] <nigelb> lucid has 1.0.20, the fix is in 1.0.22
[13:30] <james_w> persia: I'm about to expire from u-u-s, do I need to care under the new structure? and if so, could you please renew me? thanks.
[13:30] <nigelb> it was fixed it pbuilder? I thougt the trouble was debootstrap
[13:30] <nigelb> Laney: ah :)
[13:32] <Laney> james_w: filed #540250
[13:32] <james_w> thank you sir
[13:56] <dyfet> I have an interesting problem with unmet dependencies in lucid
[13:57] <dyfet> this relates to migrating from libsoup2.2 (karmic) to libsoup2.4
[13:58] <dyfet> And I was looking for some help on how to resolve this kind of problem
[14:05] <jayvee> okay, I'm officially confused
[14:05] <jayvee> am I right in guessing that 'debclean' unapplies all patches?
[14:05] <jayvee> well, this .diff.gz modifications fixes a bug in the python setup.py app that causes it to download all this crap whenever you run 'debclean'
[14:06] <azeem_> is that a command?
[14:06] <jayvee> now, I've been told to put this into a debian/patches format
[14:06] <jayvee> debclean is a command, yes
[14:06] <jayvee> I've been told to put this into a debian/patches format, but how can that work when the tree is cleaned, and it causes the bug to trigger?
[14:06] <azeem_> what is "this"?
[14:07] <jayvee> the package I'm working on — let me find the bug number
[14:07] <azeem_> also, I never heard of debclean before and never uesd it
[14:07] <jayvee> LP #529350
[14:07] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 529350 in tahoe-lafs "please upgrade Tahoe-LAFS in Lucid to v1.6.1 of Tahoe-LAFS" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/529350
[14:07] <jayvee> I bit off way more than I could chew when I started this.
[14:08] <azeem_> jayvee: there's no mention of debclean in that bug log
[14:08] <jayvee> debclean is automatically run when you run debuild or dpkg-buildpackage
[14:08] <jayvee> or dh_clean, maybe
[14:08] <jayvee> sorry, dh_client I meant in all the above
[14:08]  * jayvee is very tired
[14:09] <jayvee> dh_clean, I mean
[14:09] <jayvee> oh dear
[14:09] <azeem_> ok, that makes more sense
[14:09] <azeem_> dh_clean does not have anything to do with patches
[14:09] <jayvee> it does — whenever it's run, all the patches are deapplied
[14:09] <azeem_> how do you run it?
[14:09] <jayvee> I type debclean
[14:10] <azeem_> why?
[14:10] <jayvee> or I type debuild
[14:10] <jayvee> the reason why I type debuild should be more obvious ;)
[14:10] <azeem_> ok, so debuild might also run dh_clean
[14:10] <jayvee> yeah, it does
[14:10] <azeem_> I wonder why you think it's dh_clean that unapplies the patches, and not anything else it runs
[14:10] <jayvee> I can see it in the output
[14:11] <jayvee> bleh, it doesn't really matter *what* deapplies the patches
[14:11] <azeem_> then what is your question?
[14:11] <jayvee> the point being is that the 'clean' script is run while the patches are deapplied
[14:11] <azeem_> it's the other way round
[14:11] <azeem_> the patches are deapplied in the clean target
[14:11] <azeem_> or, rather, as a pre-requisite of the clean target
[14:11] <jayvee> yes, exactly
[14:12] <jayvee> which is perfectly reasonable for most use cases
[14:12] <azeem_> so what is your use case?
[14:12] <jayvee> this software has a stupid bug in it that makes it run amok when you run 'python setup.py clean', wildly downloading dependencies
[14:12] <jayvee> the bug has been fixed by the previous packager, which you can see in the .diff.gz for the software
[14:13] <jayvee> but I was told by fabrice_sp that I need to convert this into a debian/patches format instead
[14:13] <jayvee> but debian/patches get applied and deapplied, but this change needs to stay applied for the sake of sanity
[14:13] <jayvee> I'm in a catch-22
[14:14] <azeem_> I see
[14:14] <jayvee> I'm thinking maybe fabrice_sp didn't look too closely at what the patch the previous maintainer actually did, so he didn't realise this wasn't a simple functionality fix.
[14:14] <azeem_> one possibly option would be to no run python setup.py clean
[14:14] <azeem_> not*
[14:15] <azeem_> or to have a second target, like "real-clean", which does the work
[14:15] <azeem_> and clean depends on first real-clean and unpatch second
[14:15] <azeem_> (not sure whether that would work)
[14:16] <jayvee> I'm starting to think that the previous packager had this in the .diff.gz format for a reason.
[14:16] <azeem_> could be
[14:17] <azeem_> maybe inspect the changelog
[14:18] <jayvee> nope, nothing interesting in the log
[14:19] <jayvee> previous packager was Paul Hummer <paul@ubuntu.com> so I presume he knows what he's diong
[14:19] <jayvee> s/diong/doing/
[14:20] <jayvee> well I'm gonna upload the .diff.gz, explain my dilemma, and I'll see what fabrice_sp says in the morning
[14:20] <jayvee> it's 1:20 AM, and I need some zzzz's
=== traveller_ is now known as traveller
=== highvolt1ge is now known as highvoltage
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
[16:28] <bdmurray> siretart`: should the ogmrip bug task in bug 539555 be invalid?
[16:28] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 539555 in mplayer "mencoder crashed with SIGSEGV in x264_nal_encode()" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/539555
=== RoAk is now known as RoAkSoAx
[17:17] <siretart`> bdmurray: yes
[17:40] <hggdh> 18
=== kreuter`` is now known as kreuter
[18:48] <joaopinto> hell
[18:49] <joaopinto> is there a proper way for package-foo to change config files installed by package-bar without forcing the "config upgrade" prompt on package-bar upgrades ?
[18:49] <joaopinto> dpkg-divert ?
[20:16] <thopiekar> hi .I'm a member of the Canola project and atm almost the only person working on Canola.. I need more people here at #canola to improve the code.. the player is great and many plugins are available.. please help. the developters that where working on it in the past were paied to work on it - now they have other priorities so - we need you!
[20:17] <Myrtti> thopiekar: seriously
[20:17] <thopiekar> yes?
[20:17] <Myrtti> browniepoints--;
[20:18] <thopiekar> he?`:P
[20:18] <Myrtti> stop spamming?
[20:49] <xhaker> QUESTION: Is anyone working on getting bluefish 2.0 in Lucid?
[20:53] <Rhonda> xhaker: Isn't that a little late? feature freeze and import freeze are already in place?
[20:55] <Rhonda> xhaker: But upstream themself don't consider 2.0.0 fit for a release, see http://bugs.debian.org/570731 message #10
[21:01] <xhaker> Rhonda: thanks for the link.
[22:38] <sebsebseb> Anyone about?
[22:39] <crimsun> nope
[22:39] <Linux000> ignore the man behind the keyboard *whistles*
[22:48] <sebsebseb> I am here to report an issue with the multiverse repo well a package in it,  at the moment I am trying to type this properly.
[22:50] <sebsebseb> I hope this is a good enough place to do this?  Since I don't want to mess around trying to log into my old Launchpad account for example, and then do it on there some where. It's also not really a bug,  it's just a package that should be updated,  like what seems to of been done in Debian already.
[22:50] <RAOF> Launchpad's a much better place.
[22:50] <micahg> sebsebseb: just requesting a new version?
[22:51] <sebsebseb> micahg: no a bit more to it then just that
[22:52] <micahg> sebsebseb: yeah, launchpad then...if it was just a package update, I was going to say requestsync
[22:52] <sebsebseb> micahg: well I guess I should explain really what it is  here, and then whatever from there
[22:58] <sebsebseb> Ok this is to do with screensavers,  yes there are people who still care about screensavers :)  I am one of them.  Right Ubuntu used to be great for default screensavers, loads of nice ones by default,  but not anymore starting with Ubuntu 9.10.  I am not a developer so I thought,  oh well they will import the packages from Debian and the issue will probably get fixed. http://packages.debian.org/sid/xscreensaver-screensaver-webcollage  Now I
[22:58] <sebsebseb> am thinking with Lucid Beta 1 tommorow that no probably not,  and not any time soon either for any version of Ubuntu,  unless I or someone like me mention the issue.
[22:58] <sebsebseb> the problem is to install the aditional screensavers from the repo.  Got to install  xscreensaver-data-extra  which does have the webcollage warning,  but
[22:59] <sebsebseb> then it seems can't  easily remove that screensaver? or can I?
[22:59] <sebsebseb> I like having random screensavers, and I don't want it to have that screensaver come up as part of it.
[23:00] <micahg> sebsebseb: disabling an individual screensaver is possible, you can ask in #ubuntu
[23:01] <sebsebseb> micahg: right, but even so,  maybe  Ubuntu should do like Debian, when it comes to that one  and move it to it's own package
[23:01] <sebsebseb> Debian seem to of also done that with the BSOD  one for whatever reason
[23:02] <sebsebseb> ,but that one doesn't  effect me.
[23:03] <sebsebseb> micahg: also warning or not,  I guess things will be more family friendly  by either moving it to a seperate package, or  removing it from the repo.  As far as I know Ubuntu is meant to be family friendly.
[23:05] <micahg> sebsebseb: yeah, you should probably file a bug...idk why it's done this way in Ubuntu
[23:08] <micahg> sebsebseb: ah, it was just done in Debian...
[23:13] <sebsebseb> micahg: Bug report yeah maybe at some stage,  well messing around with accounts isn't fun you know resetting passwords that kind of thing.  However in a way :D, what kind of Desktop Linux user am I,  if I still haven't done a bug report for anything after  using Desktop Linux since Fedora Core 2 in 2004.
[23:14] <micahg> sebsebseb: request a merge from debian and explain why
[23:14] <sebsebseb> micahg: Well if  the issue gets fixed, I hope it gets fixed in that repo in all the supported verisons of Ubuntu at the time.
[23:15] <sebsebseb> oh I don't know how to do that?  You mean on the bug report or?
[23:17] <micahg> sebsebseb: yeah like this: Please merge <sourcepackagename> <debian-version> (repository) from Debian <repository> 
[23:22] <sebsebseb> micahg: hrm bug/merge report,  maybe tommorow
[23:24] <sebsebseb> bug report / merge request
[23:27] <sebsebseb> micahg: Thanks
[23:28] <sebsebseb> micahg: :)
[23:30] <micahg> sebsebseb: np, you should follow the general instructions here if you want it in Lucid though: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess#General%20Instructions
[23:31] <sebsebseb> micahg: oh the freeze is also for the repo's not just the user interface?
[23:31] <micahg> sebsebseb: yep
[23:31] <micahg> this is a feature change I would think
[23:31] <sebsebseb> micahg: well I guess I knew that, but  I been mainly thinking about the user interface freeze, and how some changes happended after woulds even so
[23:33] <sebsebseb> micahg: well ideally the change should go into the Hardy,  Jaunty, and Karmic repo's as well, since they will still be suppored for now as well, but of course it's more important to get it into Lucid.
[23:33] <micahg> sebsebseb: we don't make changes like that for stable releases
[23:34] <sebsebseb> micahg: oh?   and yeah that's what I thought, security updates only from the stable version repo's
[23:34] <micahg> sebsebseb: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[23:34] <sebsebseb> micahg: right so basically got to get it into Lucid before the final release, or it won't happen?
[23:34] <sebsebseb> for Lucid
[23:35] <micahg> sebsebseb: right
[23:36] <sebsebseb> micahg: ok thanks again
[23:36] <micahg> sebsebseb: np
[23:47] <Laibsch> I'm trying to compile a package in a karmic pbuilder chroot.  http://paste.debian.net/64687/ is what I get.  I don't quite understand what is the problem with a virtual package.  guile-1.6-dev seems to available just fine
[23:49] <geser> Laibsch: do you have universe enabled in your pbuilder?
[23:49] <Laibsch> hm, good question
[23:49] <Laibsch> I just recreated it from scratch
[23:49] <Laibsch> so probably no
[23:49] <Laibsch> I'll log in to pbuilder and see
[23:49] <Laibsch> thanks
[23:50] <Laibsch> geser: right on the money, thanks a million
=== gnomefreak76 is now known as gnomefreak
[23:51] <sebsebseb> micahg: By  the way Mandriva do something similar to Ubuntu at the moment when it comes to that,  but also no package warning :(