[02:19] <imbrandon> evening all
[05:39] <MTecknology> lfaraone: hi, how's it going?
[05:42] <MTecknology> lfaraone: I had a question about your pianobar ppa - It won't install - pianobar: Depends: libfaad0 (>= 2.6.1) which is a virtual package.
[06:42] <jetienne> q. is there a way to prevent dh_make from interative prompting ?
[08:29] <suji> hi
[08:29] <nigelb> I'm getting a build failure, can someone take a look? http://paste.ubuntu.com/437710/
[08:29] <suji> In ttf-indic-fonts some fonts has bugs, i cleared that, now how can update that package?
[08:30] <fabrice_sp> suji, open a bug report, generate a debdiff, attach it to the bug report and subscribe sponsors
[08:31] <suji> fabrice_sp: where to do the things?
[08:32] <fabrice_sp> suji, bug report: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ttf-indic-fonts/+bugs
[08:33] <nigelb> suji: is your package in debian?
[08:34] <nigelb> suji: if so, fix it there and it will get synced
[08:34] <suji> nigelb: Already the ttf-indic-fonts debian package in ubuntu upstream, i just download the tar.gz and clear the bug in 2 fonts from that
[08:34] <fabrice_sp> you can check http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=ttf-indic-fonts
[08:34] <fabrice_sp> the package has been modified in Ubuntu
[08:35] <nigelb> suji: the bug is fixed in debian?
[08:35] <fabrice_sp> !info ttf-indic-fonts
[08:36] <fabrice_sp> debian is at 1:0.5.8, so older
[08:37] <nigelb> fabrice_sp: shouldn't we be giving the delta back to debian about now?
[08:37] <suji> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=441901 this bug i thought to say.
[08:38] <nigelb> suji: so, fix in debain first I'd say
[08:39] <nigelb> and you can send the ubuntu changes back, make it 1:0.5.9 and just sync it
[08:39] <fabrice_sp> nigelb, yes: we should forward the patch to Debian, if it has not already been done
[08:39] <suji> but i cleared that, i correct the encoding.
[08:39] <nigelb> suji: where did you clear it? in ubuntu or in debian?
[08:40] <suji> just i bring the font and map the characters to their proper unicode, now am having that fonts only, from that what i do next?
[08:40] <fabrice_sp> the diff between Ubuntu and Debian is quite huge
[08:41] <suji> i got the source tarball from ubuntu
[08:41] <fabrice_sp> and it's in main, so only a core dev can sponsor it
[08:42] <nigelb> suji: right now, I'd say, get the ubuntu specific patches that are not in debian and open a bug in debian bts and send them there
[08:42] <nigelb> and if you have more fixes, open in debian bts
[08:42] <nigelb> once it has been fixed there, you can request a sync
[08:43] <nigelb> fabrice_sp: do we have documentation for this sort of thing? If not, its high time we wrote one
[08:43] <fabrice_sp> nigelb, you mean about what to do with patches?
[08:44] <nigelb> fabrice_sp: yeah, sending to debian, how, when, etc
[08:44] <fabrice_sp> I remember some wiki page on how to contribute to Debian for Ubuntu dev
[08:44] <fabrice_sp> let me check
[08:44] <nigelb> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/ForUbuntuDevelopers
[08:44] <nigelb> got it!
[08:45] <fabrice_sp> this one, yes :-)
[08:46] <fabrice_sp> in this case, the bug has been opened in 2007, and not fixed since then....
[08:47] <fabrice_sp> so sending the patch to Debian may not have the effect we expect :-)
[08:47] <nigelb> im pretty sure if we give them a patch will have an effect + I know the debian maintainer
[08:47] <fabrice_sp> in this case, ok :-)
[08:48] <fabrice_sp> I still have some patch I forwarded some month/year ago that haven't been adopted
[08:48] <fabrice_sp> so I generally report to Debian and if no news in one or 2 weeks => I upload in Ubuntu
[08:48] <nigelb> You could mail the maintainer or take permission to do nmu
[09:08] <nigelb> fabrice_sp: around?
[09:09] <nigelb> if someone can take a look at this build failure to figure out whats going wrong, would be much appeeciated
[09:09] <nigelb> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48910943/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-amd64.cdrdao_1%3A1.2.3-0ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[09:35] <fabrice_sp> nigelb, I'll check
[09:57] <fabrice_sp> TocParser.cpp is generated from TocParser.g, so it's not so easy
[09:59] <fabrice_sp> you can check in the upstream cvs, if the problem is solved or not
[10:07] <geser> fabrice_sp: partly solved in #ubuntu-packaging
[10:08] <geser> upstream included a patch to TocParser.cpp yet patch managed to apply it a second time (at a wrong location) breaking TocParser.g
[10:21] <fabrice_sp> ok
[10:22] <fabrice_sp> byt the way geser, did you my message on vtk?
[10:22] <fabrice_sp> see
[10:23] <geser> yes, I saw it
[10:23] <fabrice_sp> ok. I have a working package in my ppa, if you want to test something
[10:23] <geser> is the fixed boost-defaults package independent from the vtk merge or would it also work with the current vtk (and make it installable again)?
[10:24] <fabrice_sp> it would work with current one
[10:24] <fabrice_sp> boost-defaults is broken in lucid also
[10:24] <fabrice_sp> and I'm waiting for the upload to Maverick to follow the sru process
[12:19] <nigelb> "dh_install --fail-missing --sourcedir=debian/tmp" in rules causes the build to fail.
[12:19] <nigelb> I should be investigating it or just remove --fail-missing?
[12:23] <carstenh> nigelb: investigate of course
[12:31] <G> nigelb: check for *.dirs files
[12:32] <G> nigelb: you may have entries surplus to requirements
[12:32] <nigelb> G: looks like I didn't add the required entires
[12:40] <arand> Would anyone mind sponsoring hardy..lucid in Bug #581331 ?
[12:48] <nigelb> Is there a reason why a package cannot be 'debuild -S -sa' a second time?
[12:56] <G> nigelb: what error message do you get?
[12:56] <nigelb> G: hold on, let me debuild again
[12:57] <nigelb> http://paste.ubuntu.com/437747/
[13:01] <G> nigelb: does conf/config.sub still exist?
[13:02] <nigelb> G: inside the package?
[13:03] <G> nigelb: also, you are patching configure.ac, are you rerunning autoreconf.sh somehow?
[13:03] <G> nigelb: inside the exploded tree, yeah
[13:03] <nigelb> I dont see a conf/config.sub anywhere
[13:05] <nigelb> G: No autoreconf.sh file anywhere either
[13:06] <nigelb> There is a configure.ac file in the main package tree
[13:07] <G> oh sorry, autogen.sh
[13:07] <nigelb> no autogen.sh either
[13:08] <nigelb> btw, I'm not patching configure.ac, at least not that I know
[13:08] <G> Line 29
[13:09] <nigelb> oh
[13:10] <G> nigelb: is a copy of the current source .deb/.dsc file etc available somewhere that I can maybe take a look at, I can't guarrantee anything but I might be able to work it out
[13:10] <G> nigelb: I had similar issues
[13:10] <nigelb> I can put it up somwhere and you can take a look at the whole tree
[13:11] <nigelb> Now, it works once and built the package, but I expect debuild to work second time too
[13:11] <G> agreed, so would I :)
[13:12] <nigelb> copying, should get copied in a few minutes
[13:17] <nigelb> great, its going to take 35 minutes :/
[13:17] <G> eek
[13:17] <nigelb> people.ubuntu.come is slow
[13:17] <G> nigelb: do you have a copy of the debian.tar.gz file somewhere (or diff.gz)?
[13:18] <nigelb> I wonder if I should put it up on mentors.debian.org
[13:18] <nigelb> I do, but its a new upstream version
[13:18] <nigelb> so you want the whole thing anyway
[13:18] <G> I can grab the upstream tarball myself
[13:19] <nigelb> so what do you want? the new diff.gz?
[13:19] <G> yeah
[13:20] <nigelb> http://people.ubuntu.com/~nigelbabu/cdrdao_1.2.3-0ubuntu1.diff.gz
[13:20] <nigelb> G: ^
[13:27] <G> nigelb: giving it a ago now
[13:28] <nigelb> G: debuiild works first time
[13:28] <nigelb> give it a second go and it gives you trouble
[13:32] <G> hmmmm that is odd
[13:32] <G> I've got a feeling I know why
[13:34] <nigelb> ooh, why?
[13:34] <G> nigelb: there is a 'make -C' statement in the clean stuff
[13:34] <G> going to give something a go
[13:34] <nigelb> oh
[13:35] <nigelb> ah, that is changing things post build!
[13:37] <G> and prebuild
[13:38] <nigelb> so those lines have to go right?
[13:38] <G> nigelb: I think so, but just looking at something now
[13:44] <G> nigelb: I've got a feeling, that you could replace the whole debian/rules with the new standard simplified version
[13:45] <nigelb> G: where do I find that?
[13:49] <G> nigelb: http://stats.nigelj.com/debian.rules
[13:50] <G> can't believe I had to shuffle the file around about 5 times because all the subdomains i use either have funky rewrite rules or I forgot to change the DNS records :S
[13:50] <nigelb> heh
[13:51] <G> nigelb: hmmm, it doesn't fully work it seems, it may need an override :S
[13:51] <nigelb> hm :(
[13:52] <G> nigelb: I think you could get away with removing those make rules in clean
[13:53] <nigelb> G: the ones we thought were problematic?
[13:53] <G> yeah
[13:53] <nigelb> lemme try
[13:54] <G> yeah, seems to work for me
[13:56] <G> nigelb: looks like you'll need to replace it with several manual rms in the clean part though
[13:56] <G> based on diff.gz after the second build
[13:57] <nigelb> well, now it debuild -S -sa works twice
[13:58] <bilalakhtar> bdrung: EMERGENCY! The package gnome-media-player which you sponsored failed to build due to chroot problem in powerpc. see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-media-player/0.1.2-0ubuntu1/+build/1744204/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-powerpc.gnome-media-player_0.1.2-0ubuntu1_CHROOTWAIT.txt.gz
[13:58] <maco> bilalakhtar: there should be a "try again" button if a build fails i think
[13:58] <bilalakhtar> maco: Ohk
[13:59] <nigelb> G: several rms? how do I figure which ones?
[13:59] <bilalakhtar> But this was my  very first package that I got into Ubuntu. A disappointment for me,though it is a problem with the buildd machines
[13:59] <bilalakhtar> maco: Its not there
[13:59] <G> nigelb: hold on... something is weird here
[14:00] <G> nigelb: there is: clean: clean-patched unpatch,  cleaned-patch is: clean-patched: patch ....
[14:00] <bilalakhtar> Wierd. The same package built properly on amd64, armel and i386 architectures
[14:00] <maco> bilalakhtar: in maverick?
[14:00] <bilalakhtar> maco: Yes
[14:00] <nigelb> G: that definitely wierd
[14:00] <maco> the weirder architectures sometimes do that ;-)
[14:01] <bilalakhtar> Can a MOTU get the package gnome-media-player built?
[14:01] <bilalakhtar> I mean rebuilt?
[14:01] <bilalakhtar> maco: See this. http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48903998/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-powerpc.gnome-media-player_0.1.2-0ubuntu1_CHROOTWAIT.txt.gz
[14:01] <maco> thats what im trying
[14:01] <G> nigelb: also, it looks like some files have been modified outside of the patch system
[14:01] <maco> ive hit the try again button on packages in the kubuntu ppas. trying to find where it is in non-ppas because im pretty sure we have access to that too
[14:02] <nigelb> G: thats strange. that happens during build time?
[14:02] <G> nigelb: remove the patch part out of clean-patched, and then examine diff.gz
[14:02] <G> nigelb: ahhh maybe
[14:02] <G> let me see
[14:02] <ScottK> maco: If you can upload the package, you should have a rety button.
[14:02] <maco> there was one day when every amd64 build for like an hour just fell over with a chroot problem. that was interesting
[14:03] <maco> ScottK: how do i find it in non-ppas?
[14:03] <bilalakhtar> maco: I think 3 months ago. I faced that problem as well.
[14:03] <maco> i am getting lost in launchpad
[14:03] <G> nigelb: oh wait, my mistake
[14:04] <maco> oh im dumb
[14:04] <maco> im not logged in
[14:04] <nigelb> hah
[14:04] <ScottK> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-media-player/0.1.2-0ubuntu1/+build/1744204
[14:05] <nigelb> G: /me bows to DMs and DDs.
[14:05] <maco> its before breakfast time! i have an excuse!
[14:05] <bilalakhtar> ScottK: Yeah that ine
[14:05] <geser> bilalakhtar: it's a known bug that some powerpc builds fail with a chroot error
[14:05] <bilalakhtar> *one
[14:05] <G> nigelb: debian/rules for me now looks like: http://stats.nigelj.com/cdrdao.rules
[14:05] <bilalakhtar> Thanks! maybe maco or ScottK did it
[14:06] <G> nigelb: I'm neither :P
[14:06] <maco> i clicked it after i logged in
[14:06] <bilalakhtar> geser: Why does Ubuntu build packages for PowerPC, anyway?
[14:06] <bilalakhtar> I think its unsupported
[14:07] <ScottK> bilalakhtar: It's community supported.
[14:07] <ScottK> It works pretty well and has a significant user base.
[14:07] <nigelb> G: neither am I, but I understand the daunting task
[14:07] <nigelb> G: my rules file looks the same too
[14:07]  * bilalakhtar understands why PowerPC is important
[14:08] <xelister> hi guys, I would like to provide recent compcache for ubuntu. Anyone want to lead me?
[14:09] <xelister> compcache (compressing swap in ram) exists in lucid, but a bit older version and without the userspace tool
[14:09] <xelister> the package does not yet exist in debian (but work is in progress afaik)
[14:10] <nigelb> in that case, I'd guide you to be a DM for that package
[14:11] <xelister> ok, so what to do?
[14:12] <nigelb> xelister: http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-first.en.html#s-choose
[14:14] <carstenh> xelister: is the name of the package compcache-tools?
[14:14] <xelister> yes
[14:15] <xelister> so far I build that program from source (trivial) and it works, in creates an .ko to be loaded and user space tool
[14:18] <carstenh> xelister: tomorrow the last response from daniel to this bug ( http://bugs.debian.org/495386 ) is five month ago and the bug itelf is nearly two years old ...
[14:19] <carstenh> xelister: I didn't find information about how to handle this situation, just to point to when you highjack the itp
[14:19] <nigelb> the package compcache-tools?
[14:19] <nigelb> 09:14 < xelister> yes
[14:20] <xelister> btw Im not any "debian developer" or something yet
[14:20] <nigelb> xelister: you can be a maintainer
[14:20] <carstenh> xelister: that a two years old itp bug is old enough to be highjacked seems to be obvious
[14:20] <carstenh> nigelb: not that fast if you think about "Debian maintainer"
[14:21] <nigelb> well, not that fast, but you can start maintaining it and then later be a DM officially
[14:21] <carstenh> xelister: not being a DD or DM doesn'T prevent you from maintaining a package, you just need to find sponsors
[14:22] <carstenh> and if your sponsor begins to hate you you become DM
[14:22] <nigelb> lol
[14:22] <nigelb> same way you become MOTU
[14:23] <carstenh> xelister: the first step seems to search for ITP in the developers reference manual and hope that there are some rules you can point to
[14:23] <ScottK> The usual way to take over an ITP is to email the bug and the submitter asking if it's OK and then going ahead in a week or two if you don't hear back.
[14:24] <carstenh> xelister: you should do what ScottK suggests :)
[14:29] <xelister> hmm but that was debian's bug not ubuntu
[14:29] <carstenh> xelister: if you get the package into debian you need to maintain it there as you are responsible for it. if it is in debian it gets synced to ubuntu automatically.
[14:30] <carstenh> xelister: maintaining it in ubuntu when debian possibly has its own version doesn't sound that efficient since everything must be done twice
[14:40] <carstenh> xelister: if you don't like to get reach more people with the same amount of work you could also just prepare a new version for ubuntu and ask for a sponsor
[14:40] <carstenh> s/get //
[14:40] <arand> Would anyone mind sponsoring hardy..lucid in Bug #581331 ?
[14:50] <xelister> hmm actually, that ramzswap did not work perfectly
[14:50] <xelister> perhaps this is because it is supposed to be rather used with .33 kernel
[14:50] <xelister> can I easly upgrade Lucid to .33 kernel?
[14:52] <xelister> and if it turns out it works with .33 kernels only, then does it make sense
[14:53] <carstenh> you can't get a new upstream version to lucid anyway
[14:53] <carstenh> but getting it into maverick is easy
[14:54] <xelister> overall.. it was not so good tu use .32 in lucid.. things like btrfs suck on .32
[14:56] <arand> xelister: You can get mainline build of the kernel for ubuntu for testing purposes: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/MainlineBuilds?action=show&redirect=KernelMainlineBuilds
[14:56] <xelister> yeah I just ofund that... would be nice to have ppa of kernels like .33 but WITH ubutnu specyfic stuff (drivers)
[15:22] <fabrice_sp> Hi. A small question: where should be installed the .egg-info file in a python package? A patch I sent changed it from /usr/lib/python2.5/site-package to /usr/lib/python2.5/site-pacakge/vtk (it's for python-vtk pacakge)
[15:27] <geser> fabrice_sp: try asking the python packaging experts in #debian-python@OFTC
[15:28] <fabrice_sp> ok. Thanks geser
[19:57] <ScottL> it appears that i found the problem with the ardour mute buttons bug #581786
[19:58] <ScottL> sorry, wrong channel :P