[00:14] <didrocks> kklimonda: sure
[00:14] <didrocks> kklimonda: can you open a bug for that? (on maverick, of course)
[01:47] <Amaranth> What is a good example package for something using cmake? Please no cdbs :)
[03:17] <imbrandon> most any kde app
[03:39] <Amaranth> imbrandon: I thought they all used cdbs
[03:47] <Amaranth> ooh, nice, they use dh 7 stuff
[06:31] <bilalakhtar> lfaraone: Are you there?
[06:32] <bilalakhtar> Oh, you are not there
[07:15] <bilalakhtar> Anyone here to review my package? its here http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/liboauth
[07:32] <bilalakhtar> People, I have been facing a problem with building package pino in maverick chroot. The zlib.pc file is not found by the configure script. in which package is it?
[07:51] <bilalakhtar> Anyone here?
[08:03] <bilalakhtar> Can anyone review my package http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/liboauth
[08:05] <bilalakhtar> Amaranth: Hi there! Can you review my package?
[08:13] <crimsun> bilalakhtar: please be patient
[08:13] <bilalakhtar> crimsun: ok
[08:30] <bilalakhtar> .quit
[11:45] <mok0> I need a quick hint. How can I tell what date I upgraded?
[11:46] <yofel> check the dates of the files in /var/log/dist-upgrade/ maybe?
[11:47] <mok0> yofel: thanks I'll look
[11:47] <mok0> yofel, yep.
[11:47] <geser> you could also look at /var/log/dpkg.log
[11:48] <mok0> geser: Indeed!
[11:48] <bilalakhtar> is alien recommended to convert packages from rpm to deb? or is it better to install from source?
[11:49] <geser> make a proper deb?
[12:01] <bilalakhtar> People, if I run lintian with -I -E --pedantic tags on a binary package and still get no errors, does it mean my package is ready to go into the archives?
[12:01] <kklimonda> no, it just means that lintian finds no problems with it
[12:01] <bilalakhtar> kklimonda: thats good, right?
[12:02] <bilalakhtar> kklimonda: Can I ignore the binary-without-manpage tag ?
[12:02] <bilalakhtar> since its an upstream error
[12:03] <kklimonda> you should still write one yourself
[12:04] <bilalakhtar> kklimonda: is that important? I am uploading package gconjugo with that tag to revu right now
[12:06] <kklimonda> there are quite a few programs without manpages but is it good enough reason not to provide one yourself? man page is a first place after --help that people use to get info about executable
[12:28] <mok0> kklimonda: you should definitely provide a man-page
[12:29] <mok0> kklimonda: as you say, it's the first place to look for info about a program.
[12:30] <mok0> kklimonda: man pages are great. It's the only standardized way of documentation that actually works
[12:30] <mr_pouit> except for graphical programs, they are not that useful
[12:32] <mok0> mr_pouit: That depends how much effort the author puts into it
[12:32] <imbrandon> !sru
[12:34] <mr_pouit> mok0: many graphical programs have only --help (and e.g. gtk specific switches), and a manpage is rather useless in this case
[12:34] <mok0> mr_pouit: I respectfully disagree
[12:34] <mr_pouit> a well written package description is probably better
[12:36] <mok0> mr_pouit: if it's well written, it can be wrapped into a man-page :-)
[12:38] <mr_pouit> mok0: of course, but why?
[12:41] <mr_pouit> (it's time that could be used better)
[12:43] <mok0> mr_pouit: the short answer is that it's policy
[12:48] <mr_pouit> mok0: it's a "should", not a "must"
[12:50] <astraljava> mr_pouit: I think that's what has been said all along: [14:28] < mok0> kklimonda: you should definitely provide a man-page
[12:52] <mr_pouit> astraljava: yeah, but it's not a reason not to sponsor the package, nor to to override the tag
[12:52] <mr_pouit> most of the time they are useful, but for some graphical programs without options, not really
[12:57] <bilalakhtar> Uploaded a new package gconjugo to revu (http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gnome-medai-player ) and needs-packaging bug #569687
[12:57] <astraljava> mr_pouit: Debian policy begs to differ: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html third paragraph
[12:57] <bilalakhtar> Anyone here to sponsor it?
[12:58] <mr_pouit> astraljava: I know that, but nowhere is the word "must" ;)
[12:59] <astraljava> mr_pouit: True. :) But one should strive towards a bugless package anyway. :)
[12:59] <astraljava> bilalakhtar: That link says Package does not exist.
[13:02] <bilalakhtar> astraljava: sorry wrong link. correct one http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gconjugo
[13:06] <bilalakhtar> astraljava: got it?
[13:07] <astraljava> bilalakhtar: Yeah, that one works. However, I'm not a MOTU, was just helping you out to reduce any confusion. :)
[13:07] <bilalakhtar> astraljava: ohk
[13:09] <bilalakhtar> hyperair: Hi there! Are you there?
[13:11] <bilalakhtar> This chap has sponsored one of my packages, so I am calling 'im
[14:11] <JontheEchidna> persia: We have Colin over here, so we're good
[14:14] <highvoltage> hi, I need some help on SRU
[14:14] <highvoltage> I followed the instructions on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates as closely as I could
[14:15] <highvoltage> (for bug 474156)
[14:16] <highvoltage> I first uploaded the fixed package to maverick for testing as the wiki page suggested, then when I tested it and it passed I uploaded the same package to lucid-proposed
[14:16] <highvoltage> but I received an e-mail back saying that the package was already in the archive
[14:16] <highvoltage> the package I uploaded to lucid-proposed is the same as the version I uploaded to maverick
[14:16] <highvoltage> should the version be different?
[14:17] <bilalakhtar> can any motu be kind enough to review my package http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gconjugo and point out mistakes?
[14:19] <JontheEchidna> persia: Though, we would like to hear a few of your opinions on the matter ;)
[14:19] <ari-tczew> highvolate: I don't see any patches and ACK from SRU team
[14:19] <ari-tczew> s/highvolate/highvoltage
[14:20] <JontheEchidna> persia: though seeing as you have a different username in the uds channel, I am probably talking to your home pc
[14:21] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: so I should put the patch on the bug report and get an ack first before doing the upload?
[14:21] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: of course
[14:22] <highvoltage> ok
[14:22] <ari-tczew> no without reason is delegated team to deciding about SRUs
[14:22] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: is it bug 512096 ?
[14:24] <geser> highvoltage: yes, the version should be different: lucid version < SRU < maverick version
[14:27] <highvoltage> the original version in lucid was 0.71, so the SRU version should be 0.71ubuntu0.1 right?
[14:27] <geser> yes
[14:30] <bilalakhtar> lfaraone: Hi there! Did you see the latest liboauth I uploaded to revu (http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/liboauth ) ?
[14:30] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: patch attached
[14:30] <bilalakhtar> lfaraone: I fixed all the ones you mentioned
[14:31] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: what's the bug?
[14:31] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/edubuntu-artwork/+bug/574156
[14:32] <lfaraone> bilalakhtar: I'm a little bit busy right now, I'll take a look at it in two hours.
[14:32] <bilalakhtar> lfaraone: fine, no problem at all
[14:34] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: you gave a wrong bug numer at start question. you can remove useless attachments
[14:35] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: ok
[14:36] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: how do I remove useless attachments, I don't see an option for that in LP
[14:36] <highvoltage> (ah got it)
[14:36] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: click on (edit)
[14:38] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: all cleaned up, only error log and debdiff now attached
[14:39] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: ok, now if you want get this SRU process ASAP, ask jdong and give him a SRU's bug number
[14:40] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: thanks for your tips and advice!
[14:41] <highvoltage> jdong: could you perhaps take a look at bug 574156 for an SRU?
[14:41] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: you're welcome
[14:43] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: and once again... you can give a patch by bzr branch, not necessairly debdiff :) just information
[14:50] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: ok. I assume that requires us to have the packaging in bzr inthe first place :)
[14:50] <highvoltage> (which we're planning to do for this release)
[15:04] <ari-tczew> highvoltage: head packaging in bzr is future planned. now you can attach a debdiff, but it's high time to learn and get used to bzr
[15:08] <highvoltage> ari-tczew: ok
[15:45] <Breaking_Pitt> I'm trying to do a debian package from a setup.py
[15:46] <Breaking_Pitt> when I run make builddeb it stops saying that make[2]: *** No rule to make target `distclean'.  Stop.
[15:46] <Breaking_Pitt> some advice?
[15:46] <ChogyDan> Breaking_Pitt: I have no advice, but I think you need to add that to the makefile, right?
[15:47] <c_korn> Breaking_Pitt: what is your debian/rules file ?
[15:47] <Breaking_Pitt> one momento please i'll pastebin it
[15:47] <Breaking_Pitt> http://pastebin.com/J8tB4FT4
[15:49] <c_korn> odd, I thought dh_auto_clean checked for the existance of a distclean target
[15:50] <Breaking_Pitt> Am I missing something?
[15:51] <c_korn> just for testing purposes add: override_dh_auto_clean:
[15:51] <Breaking_Pitt> where?
[15:51] <Breaking_Pitt> in rules?
[15:52] <c_korn> yes
[15:52] <Breaking_Pitt> where exactly?
[15:55] <Breaking_Pitt> ?¿
[16:03] <c_korn> Breaking_Pitt: http://pastebin.com/R0Y2zQBP
[16:06] <c_korn> Breaking_Pitt: pastebin the entire debuild output.
[16:53] <ppannuto> Hi MOTU! I'm new to packaging / REVU / etc; I wrote a replacement for the gmail-notify package a little while back, and it was suggested that I try to package and release it so that others may enjoy it too.  I think I've gotten a hold of all of this, and I was wondering now that lucid is out and things have hopefully started to settle down what the best practice/policy is for getting a package reviewed?  ( link here: http://revu
[16:53] <ppannuto> .ubuntuwire.com/p/gmail-notifier )
[16:53] <ppannuto> link again not split across two messages: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gmail-notifier
[16:57] <jcfp> ppannuto: looking
[17:05] <Breaking_Pitt> hello i have finished my first package
[17:05] <Breaking_Pitt> how can i know if this is correctly signed?
[17:10] <mannyv> cjwatson, around?
[17:34] <bulldog98> I try to package an package with source format 3.0 quilt but I get an error:
[17:35] <bulldog98> Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Skipping patch.
[17:35] <bulldog98> 1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file src/CMakeLists.txt.rej
[17:35] <bulldog98> what does that means?
[17:35] <azeem_> bulldog98: it means the patch didn't apply
[17:36] <bulldog98> azeem_: what could I’ve done wrong?
[17:36] <bulldog98> because quilt applys it
[17:36] <bulldog98> and it’s not the error in the debian wiki
[17:37] <azeem_> what command are you running when you get the error?
[17:38] <bulldog98> debuild -S -sd -kMYKEYID
[17:38] <azeem_> so the clean target does not work?
[17:38] <bulldog98> azeem_: seems so
[17:39] <azeem_> hrm
[17:39] <azeem_> and quilt pop -a does work?
[17:39] <bulldog98> after running the command yes
[17:40] <azeem_> maybe dpkg-source's quilt gets confused if you run quilt manually  behind its back
[17:40] <bulldog98> azeem_: I did quilt pop -a before running the command
[17:40] <bulldog98> but it happend again
[17:41] <azeem_> probably because dpkg-source thinks the patches are still applied and tries to unapply them
[17:41] <azeem_> check the output
[17:41] <azeem_> or pastebin it
[17:47] <bulldog98> azeem_: http://pastebin.de/6461
[17:49] <ppannuto> jcfp: thanks for looking, any progress?
[17:49] <kklimonda> is there a good documentation how to use new deb format with full tree bzr branches?
[17:50] <jcfp> ppannuto: almost, real life just keeps intruding
[17:51] <ppannuto> I understand completely, no hurry -- I'm actually going to grab lunch, back in ~40; thanks again
[17:51] <jdong> highvoltage: looked at your SRU; ACKed.
[17:51] <ppannuto> hi john
[17:51] <ppannuto> SRU?
[17:51] <jdong> hey Pat!
[17:51] <jdong> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/edubuntu-artwork/+bug/574156
[17:51] <jdong> yup, update to lucid
[17:52] <jdong> highvoltage: on that note I'm kinda surprised plymouth artwork doesn't have an actual alternatives system?
[18:00] <kklimonda> hmm.. it doesn't?
[18:01] <kklimonda> there is /etc/alternatives/default.plymouth and text.plymouth
[18:01] <jdong> the debdiff led me to assume it didn't
[18:01] <jdong> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48390096/edubuntu-artwork.debdiff
[18:02] <jdong> "FIXME: Will be accomplished with alternatives in Lucid+1"
[18:02] <kklimonda> interesting
[18:02] <kklimonda> maybe it got added later in lucid cycle?
[18:02] <jdong> maybe
[18:05] <bulldog98> anyone else able to tell me what I did wrong http://pastebin.de/6461
[18:06] <ari-tczew> jdong: could you open a task on lucid then bug 574156?
[18:07] <maxb> bulldog98: You have a patch in the quilt which does not apply
[18:08] <jdong> ari-tczew: opened
[18:09] <ari-tczew> jdong: sorry for taking your time, but I need open a task on hardy; bug 297933
[18:10] <jdong> ari-tczew: done.
[18:10] <jdong> (and wow, ubottu is slow today)
[18:10] <ari-tczew> jdong: thanks!
[18:14] <jcfp> ppannuto: commented
[18:58] <Amaranth> wow the new compiz stuff has a bunch of problems :/ http://pastie.org/958987
[18:58] <ari-tczew> maverick still doesn't exist on packages.ubuntu.com :(
[18:58] <Amaranth> stupid rpath
[19:15] <ppannuto> jcfp: Thanks, I'll start fixing these
[19:20] <bulldog98> maxb: but quilt push -a doesn’t says anything
[20:54] <highvoltage> jdong: plymouth didn't at the time of packaging
[20:54] <highvoltage> jdong: plymouth only started to use alternatives close to the end
[20:58] <Turl> hi all
[20:58] <Turl> I have a question
[20:59] <Turl> gufw, the ufw ui, currently has a bug with rule deletion
[20:59] <Turl> and I've talked with the devel and he will fix it
[20:59] <Turl> what would be the next move to get that fix published for ubuntu users?
[20:59] <Turl> gufw is in universe
[21:05] <Laney> if it's a serious bug you can get it updated with an SRU
[21:06] <Laney> looks like the person to talk to is devfil
[21:09] <Laney> Turl: ^^^^
[21:11] <Turl> Laney: would you consider this bug serious? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gui-ufw/+bug/578404
[21:12] <Turl> when you click on a rule and delete it, gufw deletes some other rule sometimes
[21:13] <Turl> I guess it's kind of serious, a normal user would say 'the app is broken', and if they don't pay attention they might be opening another port or something
[21:13] <Turl> without even noticing, who knows what a user might do :P
[21:14] <jdong> Turl: yes, that's a serious bug
[21:14] <jdong> is there a fix for it?
[21:14] <Turl> I'll talk with devid then, thanks Laney and jdong
[21:15] <Turl> jdong: we know where the bug is, but there's no patch exactly now
[21:15] <Turl> I guess Marcos (Gufw's devel) will commit a fix soon
[21:16] <jdong> Turl: ok once a patch is available, it should be cherrypicked for a SRU
[21:17] <jdong> I'd approve a SRU for an issue like this
[22:44] <bulldog98> found my problem
[22:56] <kklimonda> can I get a list of packages that has diverged from debian but has not been touched in lucid and debian has had an upload during lucid cycle? :)
[22:56] <kklimonda> hmm, probably MoM
[22:57] <Laney> what are you after?
[22:57] <ajmitch> packages outdated in lucid that could have been synced
[22:57]  * ajmitch is seeing if mdt has info for lucid
[22:58] <kklimonda> Laney: I'm wondering how bad shape universe is in :)
[22:58] <Laney> sounds like merge o matic
[22:58] <ajmitch> http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/mdt/all.html has those sort of stats for maverick
[22:58] <kklimonda> Laney: interesting blog post btw :)
[22:58] <Laney> UDD has a lot of stuff you can query too
[22:58] <jpds> kklimonda: Sounds like the package culling session we had earlier today.
[22:58] <Laney> http://udd.debian.org
[22:58] <Laney> kklimonda: *hides* :)
[22:59] <kklimonda> jpds: probably - I've just read about Universe QA session on Laney's blog ;)
[22:59] <ajmitch> jpds: it sounds more like the default state of universe - not touched by us, but had changes after DIF
[22:59] <kklimonda> for some reason I find it impossible to actually participate remotely in UDS sessions :/
[23:00] <ajmitch> it is rather hard to do when you're not in the same timezone
[23:00] <Laney> this all started in a conversation with ajmitch
[23:00] <Laney> blame him!
[23:00] <crimsun> it's difficult even if you're in the same building, darned plethora of tracks
[23:00] <ajmitch> who me?
[23:00]  * ajmitch is innocent of all wrongdoing
[23:01] <kklimonda> ajmitch: well, that's actually not the problem - it's just that I can't get around using IRC to participate in discussion when the rest can see each others :)
[23:01] <ajmitch> there is that
[23:01]  * ajmitch isn't even trying to keep up with UDS this time
[23:02] <kklimonda> neither do I - all I've listened to were three or four discussions.. and I've almost fallen asleep on Upstart QA ;)
[23:02] <kklimonda> Laney: ajmitch is there a gobby document from universe qa ?
[23:02] <ajmitch> why ask me? :)
[23:02] <kklimonda> erm.. jpds :)
[23:02] <Laney> yes
[23:03] <Laney> community-m-universe-qa, i believe
[23:03] <kklimonda> ajmitch: your nick has a nice color in my weechat :)
[23:03] <ajmitch> Laney: was anything useful written down, or was it mostly just discussion that wasn't recorded?
[23:04] <Laney> I can't get on gobby :(
[23:04] <Laney> but I think I remember it being quite decent
[23:05]  * ajmitch wonders how the debian health check went
[23:07] <crimsun> it was interesting. The most useful thing for me was learning that we should file RFAs for packages not in either U/D
[23:07] <ajmitch> RFA for something not in debian?
[23:07] <crimsun> err, for packages that U devs don't wish to maintain. Yeah.
[23:08] <ajmitch> I suppose it makes more sense than an ITP, but I thought maybe an RFP, pointing to the ubuntu package
[23:08] <ajmitch> but I don't deal enough with debian :)
[23:09] <ajmitch> the debian/ubuntu crossover is an area I ought to work on more
[23:10] <kklimonda> hmm.. I have this weird feeling that MOTU is supposed to be "the janitors of unseeded packages" after reorganization, or am I completely wrong? :)
[23:11] <Laney> That's pretty correct
[23:14] <ajmitch> those that clean up the mess