[01:14] Is there a tool on end-user (not developer/build) PCs to determine the package architecture in use (i386/amd64/ppc) ? [01:24] IntuitiveNipple: do you mean a friendly version of dpkg --print-architecture? [01:24] Yes. I kinda found a way: ARCH=$(apt-get -v | head -n1 | cut -d" " -f 4) [01:24] err, I don't know if I'd recommend the latter over the former ;-) [01:25] Something that will 'just work' on a user PC that hasn't had dev tools installesd [01:25] well, dpkg will always work if it's a standard Ubuntu system. [01:25] It's only for some instructions for a bug report for users to download a correct .deb from a PPA [01:25] (and pretty much Debian, too) [01:25] is the Ubuntu release at least 9.10? [01:26] if so, why not just recommend using add-apt-repository? [01:26] To avoid adding the PPA to apt sources since there's *lots* in there, I'm just giving some instructions including some 'wget ...' lines and wanted to ensure they're generic [01:27] I'm not sure why you would recommend doing that instead of getting the necessary package into the repo proper [01:28] Because it is for testing, and the package I've put in my PPA is in the process of going into the repos. It's on Debian mentors right now [01:28] what is the oldest supported Ubuntu version for your target package? [01:28] Lucid [01:29] really, it makes more sense to use dpkg --print-architecture [01:29] that is its function, after all [01:30] Oh kick me! I was misreading 'dpkg' as one of the dev tools, not the generally available tool, doh *blush* [01:30] yeah, so, that'd work :p [01:30] I knew I'd done it before but couldn't find it when I needed it === JanC_ is now known as JanC [06:40] how pbuilder use packages in /var/cache/result as rep? [08:55] is it too late to have a new package pulled from debian for lucid? [08:56] http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/zeromq [09:21] desrt: yes (unless you have a really good reason to get an exception) [10:24] * sebner giggles at Maverick Meerkat === hannesw_ is now known as hannesw [13:40] LucidFox: Are you using the quassel Qt packages on Lucid? [13:43] Is there anyone that cares about evolution-mapi, it looks like it may have to be removed from Lucid. [13:44] ScottK> No, I don't have them installed [13:44] OK. [13:47] What's the matter? [13:53] LucidFox: bug 553906 [13:53] Launchpad bug 553906 in quassel "cannot select any text (i.e. select text to copy and paste)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/553906 [15:24] please sponsor bug 262235 [15:24] Launchpad bug 262235 in clutter "[SRU] Does not work on 64bit properly" [Unknown,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/262235 [16:04] bdrung: thanks for sponsoring obexd, could you get sponsorship @ bug 262235 as well? [16:04] Launchpad bug 262235 in clutter "[SRU] Does not work on 64bit properly" [Unknown,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/262235 [16:15] ari-tczew: please add the required information to both of these bugs. [16:21] ari-tczew: borked date [16:21] Sat, Sun [16:21] I've got a fix for a gnome-settings-daemon bug (bug 484186), I've linked to a branch, but when I go to nominate it for a release it says there's no release manager [16:21] Launchpad bug 484186 in gnome-settings-daemon "Cannot switch Monitor configuration CRTC 58" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/484186 [16:22] is this the right approach? [16:24] cnd: you don't nominate a bug for the development release. nomination is for stable release updates. [16:24] bdrung: ok [16:30] Hi, I'm looking at fixing bug 541951 by applying the supplied patch, but I'm not sure how to deal with the .tar.bz file in lp:ubuntu/firefox. Could anybody point me in the right direction? [16:30] Launchpad bug 541951 in firefox "Firefox 3.6 does not honour lockPref " [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/541951 [16:31] dutchie: I think this is being discussed in #ubuntu-mozillateam ATM [16:31] oh, does that exist? [16:31] I'll go and ask there [16:31] bdrung: so do I need to reupload revision? [16:32] ari-tczew: yes, would be nice [16:33] bdrung: after this, do you will upload? [16:34] ari-tczew: i will check it and probably upload it [17:09] bdrung: reuploaded === yofel_ is now known as yofel [17:29] ari-tczew: you could push a new revision instead of reuploading [17:31] bdrung: I asked: reupload? you: yes... [17:31] ari-tczew: "upload" interpreted as general term. ;) [17:32] but anyway [17:36] ari-tczew: done [17:38] thanks [18:23] Hello [18:24] I need to know how do I get the Ubuntu package manager to know that a new version to my software is available and it needs to update it [18:26] Is there something i need to specify in my debian package [18:26] ??? [18:27] no [18:28] So I have a debian package which can be downloaded and installed [18:28] is it going to be in ubuntu/debian or in a ppa? [18:30] its on a website [18:30] just like google chrome [18:30] as a deb? [18:30] yes [18:31] in that case, you cannot have package manager show that there is a new version, sorry [18:33] So how does google chrome does it [18:33] ?? [18:33] I haven't tried, so I dunno. probably someone else knows the answer [18:34] Doe anyone know the answer [18:35] AJ_: google chrome just checks back with google whether there's a new version I guess [18:37] But i can see google chrome on synaptic package manager listing [18:37] so this means package manager checks to see if a new version is available [18:38] package manager checks only if a line is added to your sources.list file [18:39] AJ_: do you have a special chrome APT repository activated in synaptic? [18:40] How do I check that [18:43] so when i open synaptic package manager and i search for chrome it gives me a list entry with google-chrome-beta installed-version current -version description [18:44] AJ_, go to system > Administration > software sources [18:44] in the second tab, see if there are more than 2 lines [18:45] yes there is a google listing available there [18:45] ah, so thats how you get updates to chrome via package manager [18:45] you need to have an apt repository [18:45] aha [18:46] how do i manage to do that [18:46] as a user or as a developer? [18:46] having an apt repository for my application [18:46] it's probably easiest to have a PPA [18:46] as a developer [18:46] and publish/advertise it to your users [18:46] +1 to the PPA suggestion [18:47] ok [18:47] is there a good tutorial available for setting up PPA [18:47] help.launchpad.net should have some [18:48] ok [18:48] will check it out [18:48] thanks a ton guys for ur help [18:49] AJ_: the chrome deb works by dropping a google sources.list in /etc/apr/sources.list.d [18:50] that should bet /etc/apt I mean [18:50] jcastro, yeah, thats what we figured out too. He's going to set up a PPA for his app :) [19:40] what's the name of that tool that helps you update debian/control? [19:41] stevecrozz, what do you want to update? [19:41] nigelbabu: I'm building an experimental package from an existing one, i was going to add a dependency for one thing [19:42] stevecrozz, no, I meant what do you want to update in debian/control.. [19:42] the dependencies [19:43] ah, you have to do that manually I guess [19:43] nigelbabu: ok, what about the changelog? isn't there a util for that? [19:44] dch -i [19:44] ah that's right, thanks [19:44] and to update maintainer 'update-maintainer' [19:53] nigelbabu: I'm updating nginx to add http://projects.unbit.it/uwsgi/wiki/RunOnNginx [19:54] so I need to add a new line to debian/rules, which needs to reference uwsgi [19:54] do I need to build a package for uWSGI also? or should I just copy the uWSGI source files into the nginx source folder? [19:55] stevecrozz, sorry, I don't know enough to help you.. hang around and see if others can help === traveller_ is now known as traveller [21:47] Hello. Who maintains the package irssi? In apt-cache show it tells me "Ubuntu Core Developers" [21:49] That would be who it is. In Ubuntu almost all packages are team maintained [21:49] mcurrington: "aptitude changelog irssi" and see who does the most changing? [21:50] Thanks [22:42] after uploading a package with dput is there anything special I need to do to get the builder to build it? [22:44] stevecrozz, no, as long as it was accepted [23:46] Laney: mind taking a look at bug #550191? Especially if we should follow debian and drop haskell support on ia64 [23:46] Launchpad bug 550191 in haskell-utils "please remove haskell-utils (binary, source) (rm'd in unstable)" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/550191 [23:49] sistpoty: you can fix that by syncing hmake [23:50] assuming it builds [23:50] Laney: *nod*, haven't checked it yet, still on my list ;) [23:54] sistpoty: I should look at the remaining packages [23:54] we are close now [23:54] I saw your bugs about the doc package renaming not providing an upload path, that's disappointing [23:55] s/upload/upgrade/ [23:56] Laney: actually I only found that out since that lead to a FTBFS in ubuntu... the arch:all package with the old name was still available and got drawn in, however it had a versioned dep on haddock that couldn't get fulfilled [23:56] urgh [23:57] Laney: I don't think the upgrade path is too much of a problem though, it'll only mean that the new -doc package won't get upgraded to, however it doesn't result in installation failures [23:57] sistpoty: Yes, it's not a big problem, just a bit careless. [23:57] well, things happen, like /me preparing an upload before dinner, uploading it after dinner and forgetting to change anything but changelog :) [23:58] haha [23:58] I wonder when pandoc will be finished [23:58] yeah, it's starting to get late for lucid