[00:00] Hmm, it's an improvement with the new version, but only slightly, it (seemingly) crashes gnome-panel upon installation of the ttf-sil-doulus font that goes along with it to induce the crash, and it also makes the first entry in the window list have a title of two dots... And only if you open a second window does they expand to show the full title... [00:00] NMU fits if you still think the maintainer should stay maintainer [00:01] So this is definitely not a clear-cut fix [00:02] arand: you should write this to one of these bugs and mention that you tested it on ubuntu and not debian [00:02] Hmm, hang on the last issue might be unrelated... [00:04] Ah, yea, that it just gnome-panel being funky.. [00:04] (or something or other in maverick) [00:08] Hmm, that might've just been a solar flare.. I'm not seeing any issues now [00:11] arand: did firefox crash with the old version? [00:12] Hm, yea, can't reproduce the gnome-panel reset, now... [00:14] carstenh: Well on maverick I ended up with just the desktop background, no nautilus, no gnome-panel, etc. firefox crashed if i installed the combo "pango+ttf-sil-dou" and didn't log out, and it seems it *only* crashes many desktop apps on lucid, not affect base gnome stuff thus badly [00:14] Hrm, I'll try to make that more comprehensible.. [00:16] arand: and the new version fixes these issues? do you think the package is ready to be uploaded? [00:18] Hmm, yes, the issues I saw seems to have been either due to some other maverick issue (present with the packages removed) Or a random solar flare (the respawn of gnome-panel on install) which I have not been able to reproduce... [00:19] I would think it's ready for upload though... [00:20] When I just install the old version, and try starting applications, pretty much none of them starts at all.. [00:20] and if I then log out and login, I get no gnome-panel etc. [00:21] arand: I just try to reproduce it on sid [00:22] Hmm, you mean you are going to or that I should try? [00:22] ... and failed [00:22] I tried [00:23] Mind that you will need a font e.g. ttf-sil-doulos to go with it in order to get the crashing going. [00:24] [2] + segmentation fault command firefox "$@" [00:24] Hmm, so it is reproducible? [00:25] do you want me to test and upload your package? if so you need to upload it to revu, mentors.debian.net or any other webspace and tell me the uri of the dsc file [00:25] yes, it is [00:27] you would also need to write a mail to the bug (in this case after I uploaded it), the tool nmudiff helps you doing so [00:27] Ok, So it should be 0.9.3-0.1 for version, and then (Closes: #nnn) with the debian bug there, And "Non-maintainer upload", anything more that should go in the changelog? (Oh, and "New upstream" as well of course) [00:28] pbuilding in a lucid chroot is good enough? [00:28] yes, since i need to rebuild it anyway [00:29] Ok [00:29] the repackaging of the orig tarball could also be mentioned in the changelog [00:29] this is not obvious and not doucmented in README.Souce [00:30] +r [00:30] Ok (even though it follows the same procedure as earlier packaging? [00:30] "earlier packaging" is broken ;) [00:32] this should be written in a way the makes it clear that the unchanged original upstream tarball is included in the new one [00:32] Hmm, I have remade the package similarly, but it should be mentioned that I "remade it broken" just to point it out. [00:32] no [00:33] using /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/tarball.mk is perfectly ok, but it should be documented somewhere [00:33] the missing documentation is what i meant with broken [00:33] Ok [00:34] the next one who touches the package will need to open the changelog and see this and in case of a maintainer upload can create a file debian/README.Source to document this more in detail [00:36] just a short sentence, possibly only spawning one line is ok [00:36] "Unchanged original upstream tarball is included in the .orig.tar.gz" that ok? [00:41] "* Rebuild upstream tarball without win32 binaries." (tanken from an other package) sounds somehow better [00:41] it would be ok, this is just bikeshedding [00:42] I didn't know it did that... if it did? [00:43] arand: yours does not describe a change but a state [00:44] Ah, hmm... [00:44] * Create new orig.tar.gz including unchanged original upstream tarball due usage of cdbs' tarball.mk. [00:45] choose whatever you like, it does not matter at all [00:45] I'll just copy that I think :) [00:45] :) [00:49] Ok, and it builds, so I should upload it for you to get somewhere then? [00:49] Ah, pressed enter before confirming there [00:50] hang on... [00:57] carstenh: Ok, right, built installed and tested briefly the new one just to be doubly sure. It seems ok, would simply uploading to ubuntu-one and paste links or so suffice? [01:06] arand: if ubuntu-one speaks http, yes [01:06] http://pastebin.com/rVgUaz1t are the download links, hope they work. [01:11] arand: try dget http://stateful.de/~carsten/tmp/100612THdExm7CbqE/pango-graphite_0.9.3-0.1.dsc [01:12] arand: you can't do this with ubuntu one, thus ubuntu one is not appropriate for uploading debian packages. this time it is ok, I downloaded every file individually [01:13] Yea, I don't really have anywhere else to put files publicly though, unless I'd send them by email... [01:14] arand: mentors.debian.net? [01:15] Ah, I'll look at it. [01:16] arand: uploading is done using dput, though ftp should also work but is more work in this case [01:26] carstenh: Ah, up now, but some warnings of NMU, needing to be on the first line, important to fix? [01:27] arand: i fix this, no need to reupload because of this [01:27] (along with a whole lot of other warnings, which I'm not sure I can do much about atm): http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/maintainer-packages?action=details;package=pango-graphite [01:28] I don't have access to this URL [01:28] but I can check lintian warnings myself ;) [01:28] oops http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pango-graphite/ [01:28] That's the one to point at is it? [01:29] it'S a lot better than ubuntu one, perfect would be http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pango-graphite/pango-graphite_0.9.3-0.1.dsc :) [01:30] Ah, yea, true. First time i heard of this mentors place though :) [01:43] arand: everything looks fine, though I don't like the diff between the upstream versions ;) I'll upload it soon [01:44] carstenh: Thanks! Should I take to commenting on the debian & ubuntu bugs as well? [01:45] Should an email be sent directly to current maintainer? [01:46] 01:27:04 < carstenh> you would also need to write a mail to the bug (in this case after I uploaded it), the tool nmudiff helps you doing so [01:47] Oops, sorry, ok then. [01:47] if there is no diff between ubuntu and debian it should be sync automatically and you could close these bugs or however this is handeld in ubuntu [01:48] Right, needs to be some SRUs done I guess, and I think we've got at least five reports in need of merging.. [01:48] of course it must first migrate to ubuntu [01:49] SRU? how could this package migrate to lucid? [01:49] hmm, ok, it was in debian testing ... [01:51] Yea, and if reading the bug-log, it seems like the issue has been around since, well 8.04, so either removing it or trying to upgrade it, or even if they insist on finding a small diff for it... [01:52] i might have found it already ... [01:52] at least I saw some things in the diff that could fix segfaults [01:58] Aha! :) By the way, what should I put down as the DELAYED/XX value, what do you intend to upload it to? [02:00] arand: I prefer a longer interval, so 5 days should be ok in this case [02:05] carstenh: Ok, works for me. I'm mentioning you as the one to contact for a longer delay, that ok? [02:05] And also that you are the sponsor [02:05] what are you doing? [02:06] Trying to write the nmudiff mail [02:06] are you wrinting this mail by hand? [02:06] I'm editing the nmudiff template I'm given [02:06] oh, right ... there is this part I normally delete :) [02:07] Aha :D [02:07] yes, it's ok [02:07] thanks for fixing a release critical bug :) [02:09] I guess you need my email adress for doing so: "Carsten Hey " [02:09] I'm mentioning testing on ubu 10.10, should I mention aanything about sid? [02:10] I tested it on sid, if you mention testing on ubuntu you should also mention testing it on sid [02:10] carstenh: Hmm, this will show up on the bug report, right? Should I place emails in plain like that then? [02:10] yes, when I write a mail it is also plain [02:11] You've confirmed it working on sid then? Or just confirmed the bug? [02:11] both [02:12] Ok [02:13] and you don't need to write a novel. "I prepared a nmu fixing this rc bug by packaging the new upstream version, someone uploaded it to delayed/5, contact him if you want it to be moved to a different queue. arnad" [02:13] But I like novels :) [02:14] this would be enough, there is no comitee the reviews all bugs so similar [02:14] s/so/or/ [02:15] did I mention that I uploaded it a while ago? if not: i did [02:17] Ok, let's see if send-mail managed to work that out. [02:21] arand: http://stateful.de/~carsten/tmp/100612DPBdDKxsig8/fileVXtHBK [02:22] arand: try if this also fixes the bug [02:22] I'll do. [02:22] arand: this is just all the autofoo and documentation changes removed [02:28] arand: same with useless whitespace changes removed: http://stateful.de/~carsten/tmp/100612YXv6da2FrcI/fileKKZNX9 [02:29] Ok, cheers [02:29] arand: good night [02:29] Good, night, thanks for all the help! [02:29] you're welcome :) === \vish is now known as vish [10:12] For context in diff, does it have to be equal amounts on both sides? [10:29] at the beginning or end in a file, it obviously won't be [10:35] tumbleweed: Hm, well if I edit it down to just three prior lines of context (as opposed to eight) it does work, but I can't for the life of me figure out why, I don't see where it fails... anyways, I'll just keep it at three I guess [10:36] Why are you manually altering diffs at all? [10:37] What is the correct way to go about it? [10:37] ..trying to make a patch apply.. [10:37] I'm confused. I just... generate a diff with the 'diff' command. [10:38] So edit the file that are to be patched and generate a new diff rather? [10:39] I already have the diff from otherwhere. [10:47] I think you can use the --fuzz option to patch to do that. Or try the 'wiggle' command. [10:48] Hmm, fixed now, seems like a couple of lines from the original diff had gone missing mystersiously :/ === shadeslayer is now known as shadeslayer_ [11:35] hi i want to help with a ftbfs issue,whom do i approach? ( i know what caused this http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~lucas/ubuntu-nbs/64/plasma-widget-networkmanagement_0.9~svn1112085-0ubuntu4_lubuntu64.buildlog ) [11:36] shadeslayer: you are on the correct channel [11:37] lucas_: i know that,but after i correct the error what do i do? fix in bzr and ask for merge? [11:37] create a debdiff (or a merge proposal) and file a sponsoring request (in this case you might also try to look for a sponsor in #kubuntu-devel) [11:37] awesome... ill ask Riddell :D [11:39] geser: any idea why https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+source/plasma-widget-networkmanagement/+builds shows the builds are fine? [11:43] hmm so the versions are the same.. but buildlog shows failure? [11:43] shadeslayer: because it was build in lucid and copied to maverick [11:43] ahh... that is so wrong [11:44] the library should now install the 4.5.0 version instead of the 4.4.0 version [11:44] geser: so i should correct the packaging right? [11:44] yes [12:14] After uploading a package to revu, am I just supposed to wait until somebody notices it? Or should I ask for a review here, or do something else to draw attention to it? [12:17] geser: small question,suppose i want to find string in *.install file and list the file name as well,any command for that? [12:19] grep [12:19] geser: hmm.. i did cat *.install | grep something , but no filename [12:19] useless use of cat [12:20] grep something *.install [12:20] \o/ [12:20] nice :D [12:34] bug 592328, terribly sorry guys, accidentally subscirbed universe-sponsors to that bug report, just to make you aware there's no debdiff or patch, again sorry about that wrong bug report [12:34] Launchpad bug 592328 in xmakemol (Ubuntu) "please merge xmakemol 5.16-4 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/592328 [14:05] anoteng: you may request for reviews here, but please rate-limit your requests to at most once every 24 hours. === ubuntujenkins_ is now known as ubuntujenkins [14:52] ls [15:14] If someone gives all users of Debian and Ubuntu a patent license for a certain patent, requires fees for its use elsewhere, but the code covered under the patent is GPL'd, can it be included in Universe? [15:24] I'd like a review of http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/transgui, this is an application I and many others use daily and I'd like to see it included in Ubuntu. I'm sure the pro's will find a lot of things for me to fix in the package though... bug #332067 [15:24] Launchpad bug 332067 in Ubuntu "[needs-packaging] transmission-remote-gui" [Wishlist,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/332067 [15:25] lfaraone: best bet, there is a debian legal list or something [15:25] those folks are the pro at this, ask them [15:26] lfaraone: what about derivates from Debian or Ubuntu? do they need a license or are they covered by this license? [15:26] btw, you can have gpl *and* restrictions - that is not GPL [15:26] *cannot* [15:27] you *cannot* have gpl *and* restrictions - that is not GPL [15:27] nigelb: GPLv2 doesn't talk about patents, I don't think. [15:28] lfaraone: ugh, we need a lawyer [15:28] geser: I think the terms discussed with upstream would be something like "you can use this on Debian and Ubuntu desktop systems, as well as on its derivatives, but not on mobile devices" [15:29] lfaraone: hmm, that still might fail DFSG §8 (License Must Not Be Specific to Debian) [15:29] better ask debian-legal and/or the TB as the decision might differ for Debian and Ubuntu [15:30] lfaraone: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ [15:30] geser: mk. wasn't sure if DFSG covered patents. [15:30] patents get murky, since all countries don't support software patents [15:33] lfaraone: I don't know either. [15:34] nigelb: software patents are silly anyway because they patent an idea instead of a specific implementation, thus immensly hindering any progress - especially since they also grant almost trivial idea patents. [15:34] Rhonda: agreed, totally [15:35] Rhonda: if somone patented for loops, and another person patent while loops - image where we'd be :/ [15:35] * geser wants the patent for if :) [15:35] lfaraone: And yes, restricting it to Debian and Ubuntu, and also the devices on which it might get used, makes it clearly non-free. [15:36] nigelb: Well, there is also a patent for progress bars. Go figure. [15:36] geser: haha, I'm taking the '==' and '!' :p [15:37] But we have stuff in universe which clearly violates software patents outright. [15:37] And it was deliberately moved there because that was the only restriction. [15:37] Now let's see wether I manage a lenny-backports version for wesnoth-1.8 1.8.2 before the karmic-backports version (1.8) gets approved. :P [15:38] Rhonda: what the... [15:39] wgrant: Patents that aren't likely to be enforced or are explicitly known to _not_ get enforced usually are ignored. [15:40] oh, some good news, number of patches in ubnutu awaiting review has gone down from 1952 to 1583 in 8 days \o/ [15:54] can somone help me understand bug 491805? [15:54] Launchpad bug 491805 in loqui (Ubuntu) "loqui.desktop file in the wrong place." [Low,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/491805 [15:57] what you don't understand? [15:57] Rhonda: well, upstream mentiones on their site that there is "patent pending" on their work. [15:58] Rhonda: http://stereopsis.com/flux/ [15:58] nigelb: the file is in X, it should be in Y. [15:58] geser: how do I fix it. I didn't understand what I have to modify to fix it (actually I need to make sure if the patch there fixes things) [16:03] Also, it seems to be deleted from debian, probably because the package remains unchanged from 2005 :/ [16:03] nigelb: I have trouble to understand the last question from comment #3 but the last patch looks fine and is ready to get applied. [16:04] geser: is this worth fixing? with no active development? [16:05] Its copied from ubuntu dapper for all releases so far [16:05] Also, interesting page I ran into via google for this package http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/missing.html [16:06] Maybe sounds like an idea to get it removed. [16:06] What was the reaons it got removed from Debian? [16:06] Rhonda: how do I find that? btw? [16:06] *bts? [16:07] ftp-master.debian.org has the removal files [16:08] 10 MB text file, wow [16:09] I assume the package was never in Debian: http://www.mail-archive.com/dapper-changes@lists.ubuntu.com/msg11559.html [16:10] geser: see ubuntu changelog - we always too it from debian. I see unstable entries [16:10] Look at the Origin. [16:10] It's back from the dark days of syncing everything from everywhere. [16:11] From everywhere? What does that mean? [16:11] We've only synced from Debian I thought. [16:11] Once upon a time, we imported vast amounts of stuff from places like apt-get.org. [16:12] for no good reason that I know of, since it was somewhat before my time. [16:12] I just searched in the full removal list from debian, I don't see this package there. [16:12] nigelb: we usually sync only from Debian, but we can sync from any repository if we want [16:13] nigelb: because the package was never in Debian [16:13] geser: So, its synced from some other repository? [16:13] just because the changelog mentions unstable it doesn't mean that the package was in unstable [16:13] oh, I took that as indication till now [16:13] yes, see http://loqui.good-day.net/ [16:14] well, development seems to have stopped in 2005 [16:19] svn repo has activity 2009-12-23 [16:21] so, whats the take, push the fix and leave it at that? [16:22] Also, I suspect the bug tracker and svn web interface is in japanese [16:27] arand: man rediff might be interesting for you, i used filterdiff to filter the upstream diff [16:28] carstenh: nice, haven't come across that before [16:28] carstenh: Ah, cheers, It turned out that for some reason there was a chunk missing in the middle of the diff, hence the issues. I've tested the reduced patch on maverick, and it seems to work well. [16:30] tumbleweed: I also found those only per accident ;) there are more useful utilities in patchutils [16:30] yeah, I'm busy reading up on it [16:31] arand: the nmudiff was a bit big, seems to be a bug in nmudiff when used with cdbs' tarball.mk [16:32] arand: i'm not sure if everything even in the reduced diff is needed, but it should at least be a good base to prepare the SRUs [16:34] carstenh: lol @espdiff [16:34] :) [16:34] Yea, I've pasted it to the LP report, as well as cleaned up the duplicates. Seems like this was the one and only bug ever bug in pango-graphite in ubu, that's saying something I guess... [16:35] how could one report additional bugs when nobody could use it because of this bug ;) [16:35] Yea. [16:37] Trying to get nmudiff to send the contents to a sane place was a horror though.. [16:38] arand: you could just have pasted the changelog in this case [16:39] and skip the whole "attach diff" part [16:39] Ah, ok. I'll remeber that the next time.. [16:40] arand: debian is less about strict rules or policies than ubuntu, common sense works in most cases [16:41] (in those cases where people don't show the required common sense there are still policies to point to) [16:41] hello, oh great Masters of the Universe. I am looking for an Lpia architecture of GNOME Inform 7 for Linux. I would appreciate any help with getting this. [16:41] Hmm, I had always imagined kindof the opposite. [16:44] arand: if you depend on sponsors that reqiure you to adhere to more or less random policies before they sponsor your package "the opposite" might also be true ;) [16:45] Ah. :) [16:45] osieorb18: isn't lpia dead in ubuntu? (that's really a question, I'm not sure about this) [16:46] Yea lpia support was dropped recently, and a brief check shows that v7 isn't even in debian unstable yet.. [16:47] so is there any way of running the program on an lpia system? (I run Ubuntu Netbook Remix for the HP MIni) [16:49] You'll likely need to recompile as per the response you got over at linuxforums ;) [16:49] osieorb18: which version of ubuntu you run is also an important information [16:49] When i try and do that I run into various sorts of problems. [16:49] osieorb18: What kinds? [16:50] like the instructions say "run 'make'", but there are 2 makefiles (.am and .in) and neither of them run when I run make, and they run into other problems when I try changing the filenames [16:51] run ./configure first [16:51] You'll likely need to run some four of configure, aoutogen or similar first? [16:52] yeah. [16:52] after running ./configure, I'm supposed to run make [16:53] try ./configure || echo ./configure failed [16:53] osieorb18: But it seems the source is already setup for a debian package, so it should be a simple matter of debuild and then use pbuilder for convenience. [16:55] osieorb18: From the unpacked source directory, simply run "debuild -us -uc -S" [16:56] pbuilder? [16:56] osieorb18: And then just sudo pbuilder --build ../gnome-inform7_5Z71-0ubuntu1.dsc [16:57] hm [16:57] osieorb18: Make sure you have ubuntu-dev-tools installed, which should include pbuilder and the tools used by debuild [16:57] ok, installing that. [16:58] osieorb18: pbuilder is a template chroot, an environment to build debian packages in conveniently, automatically resolving dependencies. [16:58] ah I see. [16:59] osieorb18: You will need to create the environment first with "sudo pbuilder --create" [17:00] sudo: pbuilder: command not found [17:01] Hmm, it may be that pbuilder is not included in your version of ubuntu-dev-tools then, well just "sudo apt-get install pbuilder" should do I guess [17:02] osieorb18: Oh, and it seem like this package has build dependencies from the universe repository... [17:02] osieorb18: So you'l need to conifgure pbuilder slightly [17:03] osieorb18: As per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto#Universe%20support [17:04] osieorb18: only the first "COMPONENTS" bit will be neccessary if you just build for ubuntu [17:09] when I extract the .gz, I just get a single file. Is that supposed to happen? [17:10] Also, .pbuildererrc doesn't exist. [17:11] osieorb18: It's two parts, .tar to bunch it up, .gz to compress, so to decompress you need to pass it through both. Luckily you can do it automatically by just passing -z for gzip to tar, like so: "tar -xzf I7_5Z71_GNOME_Source.tar.gz" [17:12] osieorb18: Yes, that's the default, to add the manual configs (e.g. "use universe") you'll have to create it and add the COMPONENTS line given in the wiki link. [17:12] ah k [17:16] when I do the pbuilder create step, I get: W: Failure trying to run: chroot /var/cache/pbuilder/build/8879/. mount -t proc proc /proc pbuilder: debootstrap failed -> Aborting with an error -> cleaning the build env -> removing directory /var/cache/pbuilder/build//8879 and its subdirectories [17:18] osieorb18: Hmm, which version of ubuntu are you using? [17:19] I know it's Ubuntu Netbook Remix for HP Mini, maybe 9.04? I'm not sure of exact numbers. [17:19] osieorb18: Make sure you have the: pbuilder debootstrap devscripts -packages installed [17:20] yeah. [17:20] have all of them [17:23] Hrm, do you hapen to have a CD/DVD enabled as a source? [17:24] no, there is no CD/DVD drive [17:24] for which Ubuntu release do you try to build a pbuilder? maverick? [17:25] Ubuntu Netbook Remix for HP Mini 110 9.10, Hardy. [17:25] It's Ubuntu 9.10 [17:25] i think [17:25] and is hardy [17:25] Hmm, maybe if you also add "MIRRORSITE=http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/" to the ~/.pbuilderrc file? [17:26] osieorb18: "lsb_release -a" would tell you [17:26] No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: HP Mi (Mobile Internet) Description: HP Mi (Mobile Internet) Release: 1.2 Codename: None [17:27] Heh, seems like HP has actively removed it :/ [17:28] they did that for a lot of stuff. It's like they are trying to make a more "stupid-user"-friendly version of ubuntu. [17:28] by hiding everything [17:28] osieorb18: But anyways, hardy is 8.04 and karmic is 9.10.. [17:28] hm [17:28] it was compiling for hardy [17:29] osieorb18: Does adding that to your pbuilderrc make it happier? [17:29] no, it's still failing [17:29] wait oh must reconfig. [17:30] no, still need to create... [17:30] same failure: W: Failure trying to run: chroot /var/cache/pbuilder/build/10634/. mount -t proc proc /proc [17:31] apparently the 10634 directory doesn't exist. [17:32] osieorb18: If you use uname -a and match up with kernel version at https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux you should be able to tell.. [17:33] osieorb18: Could it be something weird like this: http://forum.ovh.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1942 [17:34] I'm thinking hardy, but I have 2.6.24-22-lpia, not any of what they have. hm [17:35] yeah, that looks similar, I hadn't checked the syslog tho [17:35] So that might indocate that HP has stuck their own custom kernel in there, which is conflicting with chroot, or mount(?)... [17:35] yeah, sounds quite likely [17:35] I've upgraded to Lucid Lynx 10.04 ltd and now the system doesn't recognise the external hard drive- Seagate Expansion USB 2.0 Hard Drive. Is there some code I can cut and paste to get to the contents of the drive? [17:36] !support > tina__ [17:36] tina__, please see my private message [17:37] is there any simple way to check if HP has done something like that? [17:40] osieorb18: I don't know of one no. [17:41] so I'm screwed unless I want to install a new version of ubuntu on here? [17:41] osieorb18: Well at this stage it will likely be more convenient mucking about with the dependencies outside of the chroot. [17:42] hm [17:42] osieorb18: so remove pbuilder (if you did install it manaually, and don't want it/intend to give up on that) [17:43] k [17:43] then have a look in the debian/control file in the source directory [17:44] arand: mails to control@bugs.debian.org do not show up in the main bug page, mails to bugnumber@bugs.debian.org do. you need to write to both if you want one mail to show up in the main bug page and also set the bug to pending or similar. [17:45] osieorb18: There under "Build-Depends:" it will list all the packages you need tom make sure you have installed to build it. [17:46] arand: man bts could be interesting if you just want to write a mail to control@... [17:46] carstenh: Ok, I tried sending to both at once, bcc:ing control@ but that just failed with no response at all, it did work is I sent two separately to each of them, it seems :/ [17:47] arand: ok installing [17:48] osieorb18: You may want to keep track of which of these packages you installed anew, and which were already installed before, so you can remove the new ones after you've completed building it. [17:50] But it may just be that I failed to setup mutt to send correctly to BTS... [17:51] arand: weird, this should have worked, maybe the bbc: was the problem. there is no reason to use bcc: since there is no reason to hide that you did _not_ forget to write the mail also to control@ ;) [17:51] s/bbc/bcc/ [17:51] ok, so those are installed. [17:52] Ah, well, nmudiff seemed to send that template to mutt, so I just went along with it... [17:52] osieorb18: Then in the source directory, just run "debuild -uc -us" [17:53] hm, says to install pbuilder again [17:53] ...I think, no -S will make it build and compile as well afaik.. [17:54] doing the weekly merges/syncs :) [17:54] héhé [17:54] arand: if bcc:ing control is default in nmudiff it does not seem to be the problem, someone would have noticed it already if there is such a misconfiguration in some mail filter that is trigered by default. [17:54] arand: so now what. [17:55] osieorb18: I guess you could try to install it and run it but.. [17:58] osieorb18: What is the error message it gives? [17:59] Use of uninitialized value in pattern match (m//) at /usr/bin/dpkg-source line 429. dpkg-source: warning: Version number suggests Ubuntu changes, but Maintainer: does not have Ubuntu address dpkg-source: warning: Version number suggests Ubuntu changes, but there is no XSBC-Original-Maintainer field dpkg-source: building gnome-inform7 in gnome-inform7_5Z71-0ubuntu1.tar.gz dpkg-source: building gnome-inform7 in gnome-inform7_5Z71- [18:00] osieorb18: If it's lengthy, use pastebin [18:00] !pastebin [18:00] For posting multi-line texts into the channel, please use http://paste.ubuntu.com | To post !screenshots use http://tinyurl.com/imagebin | !pastebinit to paste directly from command line | Make sure you give us the URL for your paste - see also the channel topic. [18:00] osieorb18: It got cut off at "building gnome-inform7 in gnome-inform7_5Z71-..." [18:01] What's up with "This package could not be extracted; there's no browsable directory for it on REVU." - seems to affect quite a lot of the packages on revu. [18:14] arand: I can't seem to set up pastebin easily, and I need to go and attend to some other business. I should be back on in an hour or less to struggle over it some more. [18:20] merge 5 :p [18:20] lol this goes fast [18:28] hi [19:29] hello everyone [19:29] i am thinking now on learnong packaging [19:29] is it a good start, trying to package a python script? [19:30] or should i focus on compiled software? [19:51] rlameiro, Hi [19:52] rlameiro: choose the one you know most about, if you program mostly in C you should package something written in C. another option is learning how to package software by fixing bugs in existing packages. [19:52] hi [19:52] you can also fix existing packages [19:52] i make some python, hence the question [19:52] fabrice_sp: are you working on the etherboot merge? [19:53] we still have some packages that are not installable / buildable with python 2.6 [19:53] this is for starting, my idea is to help the ubuntustudio project packaging things and send them to REVU [19:53] BlackZ, no, because I saw that actual package has a critical bug [19:53] fabrice_sp: which one? [19:54] let me check [19:56] bug 570870 [19:56] Launchpad bug 570870 in etherboot (Ubuntu Lucid) "pxe boot doesn't work with kvm" [Low,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/570870 [19:57] the proposed fix is in -proposed right now [19:58] BlackZ, [19:58] thank you fabrice_sp [19:59] Do you hace special interest in etherboot? [19:59] fabo: not really, I'd say more or less [19:59] ops, fabrice_sp [20:00] sorry fabo, tab mistake [20:00] ok: so you're not looking for merges :-) [20:01] fabrice_sp: I was looking for some packages to be merged and I've found it too [20:02] you can take the console-braille merge [20:02] (if it makes sense) [20:02] fabrice_sp: sure [20:05] cool :-) [20:05] I'm justtrying to see if a package now builds in armel, and I have to install qemu... [20:06] * fabrice_sp is just following armel for dumb wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM/RootfsFromScratch [20:09] fabrice_sp: done! bug #593143 [20:10] Launchpad bug 593143 in console-braille (Ubuntu) "Please merge console-braille 1.2 (universe) from debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/593143 [20:12] that fast! [20:12] :-) [20:12] you can check openturns meanwhile [20:13] fabrice_sp: looking [20:13] this is a package that builds in 2 hours... :-) [20:13] IIRC [20:13] a/b 2 [20:13] hmmm a=4? [20:15] hmm, anyone with a working armel qemu image? Mine doesn't seems to boot... :-/ [20:22] fabrice_sp: I installed a sid one a week or two back. Let me try maverick [20:25]