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