[10:08] <ari-tczew> can someone take a look what happens with Debian Import?
[10:31] <geser> what you mean?
[10:32] <ari-tczew> geser: http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/multidistrotools/universe.html#outdatedinB
[10:32] <ari-tczew> packages from Debian are not coming
[10:33] <geser> ari-tczew: Debian Import is only semi-automatic. An archive admin has to run a script for it.
[10:34] <ari-tczew> geser: so who is responsible to this script?
[10:34] <ari-tczew> any archive admin?
[10:34] <geser> yes
[10:34] <geser> or more precisely the archive admin of the day
[10:35] <geser> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveAdministration has the rotation
[10:37] <ari-tczew> heh, not works on weekend
[11:26] <dupondje> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pygobject/2.21.2-0ubuntu1/+build/1787577
[11:26] <dupondje> can somebody check this
[11:26] <dupondje> 'failed to upload'
[11:29] <jpds> Hmm, odd. wgrant ↑.
[11:32] <wgrant> jpds, dupondje: Ah, well, you see, this is what we call a rejection that makes absolutely no sense.
[11:33] <wgrant> I suggest retrying the build.
[11:36] <dupondje> I have no permission :)
[11:37] <geser> dupondje: find a core-dev of your choice and let him give the package back to the buildd
[11:38] <ari-tczew> dupondje: we need to finish prepare a fix for asterisk
[11:38] <geser> or simply ignore the problem (as sparc is most likely to get abandoned for maverick)
[11:40] <dupondje> i'll note it to seb128 when he's online :)
[11:40] <dupondje> ari-tczew: ?
[11:40] <ari-tczew> dupondje: do you forgot? you tried to fix security issue for asterisk in dapper
[11:42] <dupondje> err right :)
[11:42] <dupondje> had a buzzy week, my brain is in stand-by
[11:42] <dupondje> :)
[11:42] <dupondje> http://ubuntu.dupondje.be/asterisk3.debdiff this was the latest :p
[11:43] <ari-tczew> dupondje: I know, I have this patch on my disk
[11:43] <ari-tczew> we can continue review, but not now
[11:43] <shadeslayer_> wow.. 14 hours of uptime and my mem is idling at a cool 1 GB.... go go maverick!
[11:45] <shadeslayer_> most of it is xorg and quassel :P
[12:01] <ari-tczew> why DebianImportFreeze is always before FeatureFreeze? can't we set DebianImportFreeze and FeatureFreeze in one time?
[13:20] <Respawner> hello
[13:23] <Respawner> I'm currently working on a package to have it reviewed and uploaded. But I do have a question. When using debuild, do I have to sign the source package or not?
[13:26] <JontheEchidna> Respawner: Signing the source is required
[13:27] <JontheEchidna> (for security purposes)
[13:27] <Respawner> JontheEchidna: ok, thank you
[14:24] <BlackZ> bdrung: it can be synced directly, see bug #596265
[14:33] <bdrung> BlackZ: done and marked the other two bugs as duplicates
[15:28] <bdrung> BlackZ: you have my endorsement now
[15:29] <BlackZ> bdrung: thanks!
[16:29] <ScottK> Respawner: It's required to upload it.  If you are just using it locally, it doesn't need to be signed.
[16:30] <ScottK> lucas: This coming Thursday is Debian Import Freeze for Maverick.  Doing a rebuild test next weekend would be a good time I think.  Would this be possible?
[16:59] <ari-tczew> bdrung: thanks for very quick response!
[17:00] <ScottK> I'd be really interested if someone can figure out the reason for https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dnsruby/1.47-1/+build/1764845
[17:00] <ScottK> The build-deps are perfectly installable in a local Maverick chroot.
[17:01] <bdrung> ari-tczew: you're welcome.
[17:06] <geser> ScottK: I wonder how you could resolve this as I can reproduce it. Digging a little more shows: ruby: Conflicts: rdoc
[17:06] <ScottK> geser: Odd.  I just apt-get build-dep and it installed.
[17:07] <geser> hmm
[17:07] <ScottK> rdoc didn't get pulled in for my test.
[17:07] <ScottK> So that would explain why it installed.
[17:07] <geser> ruby provides also rdoc
[17:08] <ScottK> Ah, so it's an install sequence issue.
[17:09] <geser> apt-get -s build-dep works for my too
[17:09] <geser> s/my/me/
[17:09] <ScottK> Sounds like it's a matter of dropping the rdoc depends from pkg-ruby-tools.
[17:09] <geser> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/NBS/rdoc
[17:09] <geser> could perhaps also help
[17:10] <ScottK> No doubt.
[17:11]  * ScottK looks at lucas to find out if Debian is doing this transition too?
[17:12] <geser> only rails, right-aws and right-http-connection have a versioned build-dependency. And rails is only an alternative
[17:13] <geser> once the real deb "rdoc" is gone it should work
[17:13] <ScottK> Nice.
[17:13] <geser> it's similar to the texlive 2009 transition in lucid where a stale deb blocked some packages to build
[17:14]  * ScottK wonders if there's an archive-admin with sufficient access around to kill it?
[17:14] <ScottK> james_w maybe?
[17:16] <geser> ScottK: I just confirmed that this would fix it. I edit the Packages file inside my pbuilder and droped the rdoc package and apt-get install the build-dependencies works again
[17:16] <ScottK> Cool.
[17:21] <ScottK> I'm fixing right-aws
[17:23] <ScottK> Looking at right-http-connection too.
[17:24] <ScottK> It makes sense then that the two problematic packages aren't in Debian.
[17:29] <geser> I guess dropping the version from rdoc (make the build dependency unversioned) is enough as even dapper has a newer rdoc
[17:29] <ScottK> Heh.  I didn't look at it that closely.  I just made them like rails.
[17:40] <ScottK> geser: I filed a bug to ask for rdoc to be removed.  Thanks again for your analysis.
[17:42] <ari-tczew> geser: you aren't a core developer?
[17:42] <geser> ari-tczew: nope, only MOTU
[17:44] <ari-tczew> geser: heh, I'm amazed, because I think that you're in DMB and you've a large knowledge
[17:44] <sebner> ari-tczew: he is just too lazy to apply :P
[17:44]  * sebner waves at geser :)
[17:45] <ari-tczew> sebner: I think that it would be nice if I'll block some requests on you
[17:45]  * ScottK notes to sebner that there is precedent for filing a core-dev application on behalf of someone else.
[17:46] <sebner> ari-tczew: hmm?
[17:46] <sebner> ScottK: hahaha :D
[17:46] <ScottK> No.  It's true.
[17:46] <sebner> ScottK: really? O_o
[17:46] <ScottK> Yes.  That's how Hobbsee got core-dev.
[17:47]  * geser waves back at sebner
[17:47] <sebner> ScottK: well, you can't do anything as long as the person in question is strictly against it though I think?! You can force anything over someone
[17:47] <ari-tczew> sebner: you've only 1 bug sponsored for me. I think that number should grow
[17:48] <ScottK> No, but you can solve the lack of motivation to fill out the application problem.
[17:48] <sebner> ScottK: ah, good point
[17:48] <sebner> geser: are you too lazy? :P
[17:48] <sebner> ari-tczew: ah, heh. maybe ;D
[17:49] <ari-tczew> sebner: one merge is remaining to universe. are you interested?
[17:49] <sebner> ari-tczew: hmm, why not. link
[17:50] <geser> ari-tczew: there is no requirement for being a core-dev for being in the DMB; and having a certain level of knowledge doesn't force you to core-dev
[17:50] <sebner> ScottK: speaking about motivation, remember the core-dev application of sistpoty? ;)
[17:51] <ScottK> Yes.
[17:51] <geser> sebner: no, it's just that I don't see the need for myself for being a core-dev. For the occasional uploads to main I do, sponsoring is enough.
[17:51] <sebner> heh
[17:52] <sebner> That's it, it seems :)
[17:52] <ari-tczew> sebner: can you wait 5 minutes? I have to update description in patch
[17:52] <sebner> ari-tczew: sure, I can't promise I'll look at it right now anyways
[17:53] <sebner> ScottK: speaking about Hobbsee, has she disappeared? :(
[17:53] <sebner> ScottK: wow, that was pretty bad englisch but you understand it anyways :P
[17:54] <ScottK> sebner: Consult the channel Nick list.
[17:54] <ari-tczew> her english wasn't good enough?
[17:54] <sebner> ScottK: well, haven't seen any activity/uploads from her and besides,  [Hobbsee] idle 199:13:59 ..
[17:55] <ScottK> sebner: So she's around, just quiet.
[17:55] <sebner> ari-tczew: nah, I wrote "has she disappeared" instead of "did she disappear"
[17:55] <geser> sebner: do you miss the LPSOD™?
[17:55] <sebner> geser: definately :)
[17:55] <ScottK> ari-tczew: The comment was on the quality of sebner's own English.
[17:55] <ari-tczew> aha ok
[17:55] <sebner> ScottK: well, being around means something different /here imho
[17:56] <ScottK> She does speak every now and then.
[17:56] <sebner> ScottK: oh, Ic. thx for the info
[17:57] <ari-tczew> I ask of english level, because I want to know what about of my english level
[17:57] <ari-tczew> it's good or not good
[17:57] <sebner> ari-tczew: no problems so far imho
[17:58] <sebner> geser: was it you who wrote there is a lack of LPSOD some days ago? :)
[17:59] <geser> sebner: no, I didn't try to summon the LPSOD for a very long time
[18:00] <geser> ari-tczew: it's good enough that I don't have any problems to understand you
[18:00] <ari-tczew> hehe, well, I'm glad, because my comments on my application says, that I have more problems with english than packaging skill :P
[18:02] <sebner> hohohoho
[18:02] <sebner> Jun 15 14:01:52 *	ScottK finds an insufficiency of longpointysticksofdoom lately.
[18:02] <sebner> logs ftw! :)
[18:05] <coolbhavi> hi after installing the latest perl I get the following output E:Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages.' on sudo apt-get install -f
[18:05] <ari-tczew> hi coolbhavi, nice to meet you on IRC
[18:06] <coolbhavi> hi ari-tczew
[18:16] <coolbhavi> got it resolved through aptitude -f
[18:38] <ari-tczew> slangasek: why did you merge iputils, ignoring my patch?
[18:38] <ari-tczew> it's not fair
[18:40] <ari-tczew> 2010-06-07  	core branches  	merge-lp-591029  	 	iputils  	 	 	 	lp:~ari-tczew/ubuntu/maverick/iputils/merge-lp-591029
[18:40] <ari-tczew> sebner: sorry, but now my patch now is useless ^^
[18:41] <sebner> heh, kk
[18:41] <sebner> ari-tczew: I'm avoiding branches till maverick+1 anyways :P
[18:42] <ari-tczew> sebner: I don't understand, why?
[18:43] <sebner> ari-tczew: still not working 100%, besides I have to make changes, then push, then debuild and upload to ubuntu. Still too troublesome for me
[19:06]  * geser warns of opening the buildlog for https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mozart/1.4.0-5build1/+build/1776421
[19:07] <ScottK> geser: sparc is about to go away.  Don't waste your time with it anyway.
[19:09] <geser> I just noticed earlier that artigas (sparc buildd) seemed to got stuck on this build. And wondered now about the build log as I saw that it's building an other package again.
[19:09] <sebner> geser: woo, firefox froze xD
[19:10] <geser> sebner: I warned you :D
[19:10] <sebner> geser: It would be the same if you told me: "no sweets before meal" :P
[19:11] <geser> sebner: it's a 278MB build log compressed to 309 kB
[19:11] <sebner> geser: that's a nice compression algorythm then :D
[19:11] <geser> gzip :) but highly redundant data
[19:12] <sebner> heh, true
[19:12] <geser> ScottK: I know, I wait on wgrant updating qa.ubuntuwire.org so he can merge my branch for the FTBFS page dropping sparc
[19:13] <ScottK> Oh, right. I forgot it was you that had done that.
[19:53] <t0bias> hi everybody. my name is tobias and i would like to upload one of my applications to ppa, but so far i didn't figure out the proper way to package a qt-application (that obviously comes without a "configure"-script and no "make install" target). is there any documentation on how to correctly package a qt-application for ubuntu?
[19:55] <ScottK> t0bias: PPA packaging is better discussed in #ubuntu-packaging
[19:55] <t0bias> oh, ok, thank you!
[20:17] <BlackZ> ScottK: if a comment in the debian/changelog file is broken (I can't find the changes in the ubuntu package merging) I should drop it, shouldn't I?
[20:18] <slangasek> ari-tczew: hrm, apparently because I failed to check the bug list for that package before working on it - sorry
[20:19] <slangasek> ari-tczew: for some reason the bug page also doesn't show me a link to your branch?
[20:19] <slangasek> er; because you've deleted the branch, I guess?
[20:20] <slangasek> ari-tczew: I would be happy to review and merge your branch in place of mine if you want to re-publish it
[20:21] <ari-tczew> slangasek: I've deleted the branch, because today I've updated the patch description
[20:21] <ari-tczew> slangasek: so do I need to reupload and you'll merge it?
[20:21] <slangasek> if you reupload it, I can merge it, yes
[20:22] <ari-tczew> ok
[20:22] <ari-tczew> wait 5 minur
[20:22] <ari-tczew> minutes
[20:24] <ari-tczew> slangasek: I prefer to use bzr as you saw, but what I can to do it, if you've uploaded your changes?
[20:24] <ari-tczew> use debdiff instead bzr?
[20:25] <slangasek> ari-tczew: I can uncommit the changes from bzr
[20:25] <ari-tczew> slangasek: so what we will deal with it?
[20:25] <ari-tczew> s/what/how
[20:25] <slangasek> bzr please
[20:26] <slangasek> just publish a branch based on revision 14 of the package branch
[20:26] <slangasek> or 15, if you're satisfied with the upstream merge and don't want to redo it :)
[20:29] <ari-tczew> slangasek: hmm, what do you think if I'll use my debian/changelog and patch for typo based on 18 revision?
[20:29] <slangasek> ari-tczew: that's also ok
[20:29] <ari-tczew> nice! then uploading
[20:36] <ari-tczew> slangasek: done
[20:44] <slangasek> ari-tczew: and package uploaded - thanks!
[20:45] <ari-tczew> slangasek: thanks also!
[20:46]  * slangasek goes back to ripping dpatch out of aptitude
[20:59] <ali1234> does anyone know what prevents nspluginwrapper 1.2 from being backported to hardy? (it has been backported everywhere else)
[22:16] <mmc> let's say there is a standard package  P, and I have a patched version of it, with added features. And then I have a package B which uses some added feature of that P.  Is there any way to express this dependency, using suitable  versions.  I want to avoid binding B to exact version of P. I would like to be able to upgrade (my patched) P without releasing B just to change the = dependency.
[22:20] <Bachstelze> mmc: maybe make a P-patched package instead of changing P's version number?
[22:21] <Bachstelze> and make P-patched Replace P, so that it will (I think) be automatically installed instead of P when someone wants to install B
[22:21] <shadeslayer> quick question,can we rename upstream tarballs?
[22:21] <Bachstelze> shadeslayer: yes, but only if you really can't do otherwise
[22:21] <Bachstelze> actually
[22:21] <Bachstelze> you *have* to rename it to add orig.tar.gz anyway
[22:22] <Bachstelze> so more specifics, maybe?
[22:24] <rehan> Dear all how 2 install yahoo messanger
[22:25] <Bachstelze> rehan: this is not really the place to ask this, try #ubuntu :)
[22:37] <shadeslayer> Bachstelze: also upstream ships the source with their own debian/ can i safely delete it and start over as this will be a new package in the archives?
[22:52] <Bachstelze> shadeslayer: in this case it's recommended to first talk to upstream and see if they could remove the debian/ dir from their tarball
[22:52] <Bachstelze> ptherwise you can move it away with get-orig-source I think, no need to repack it
[23:14] <shadeslayer> is there a procedure of sorts to get new packages into ubuntu universe?
[23:23] <arand> !newpackage | shadeslayer I guess here
[23:23] <shadeslayer> ok found it via google ;)
[23:34]  * shadeslayer wonders if someone is in the mood to advocate a revu package
[23:34] <shadeslayer> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=8319
[23:35] <shadeslayer> apparle: \o