[00:00] <JanC> Rhonda: you can try running an x86 guest OS with qemu on your PowerPC notebook  ;)
[03:43] <micahg> can someone please give back minitube on armel and powerpc: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/minitube/1.1-1
[03:47] <funkyHat> I'm stuck trying to run debuild on a package I grabbed using bzr ( bzr branch lp:ubuntu/gnome-system-tools )
[03:48] <funkyHat> dpkg-source: error: can't build with source format '3.0 (quilt)': no orig.tar file found
[03:48] <micahg> funkyHat: you need to use bzr-builddeb
[03:49] <funkyHat> micahg: ah thanks ⡈)
[03:49] <micahg> funkyHat: np
[03:51] <funkyHat> ooh, that's a little broken (or I'm doing something else wrong)
[03:52] <funkyHat> bzr-buildpackage on its own failed, and bzr-buildpackage -S has no way to specify that I don't want to sign it, so that fails too
[03:52] <funkyHat> But it's ok, running bzr-buildpackage pulled down the orig.tar.gz so I can do it with debuild now ;D
[03:53] <micahg> funkyHat: it should actually generate the .orig.tar.gz from the bzr repo if pristine-tar is used
[03:53] <funkyHat> Oh, well it did perhaps do that
[03:54] <funkyHat> But the orig.tar.gz was there, which is the important thing ;D
[04:00] <ScottK> micahg: lamont will run a script to resurrect all the failed builds once gcc 4.5 is done building on both archs.  Probably tomorrow or monday.
[04:01] <micahg> ScottK: k, I won't worry about it then, thanks
[04:08] <funkyHat> ScottK: does that only apply to those archs, gnome-system-tools needs a rebuild I think, just testing
[04:09] <funkyHat> ?
[04:09] <ScottK> funkyHat: Just powerpc and armel.  We had a breakage yesterday and today in gcc that made almost all builds on those two archs fail.
[04:10] <funkyHat> ScottK: ok, I'll carry on filing this bug+branch then ⡈)
[05:36] <Laibsch> anybody here using pbuilder together with custom hooks?  I'm trying to use the $BUILDRESULT variable in one of my hooks, but for some reason the variable is empty or not set to any value.  The script itself is called just fine.  /usr/lib/pbuilder/hooks/B10-test: http://paste.debian.net/87862/
[05:37] <Laibsch> Output of that script from a pbuilder run is just "BUILDRESULT is set to ", so the variable seems to be not set to any value.  I thought it was one of the "official" variables that I could use freely?
[05:54] <ScottK> The pbuilder package has some example scripts in it.  I'd check those.
[05:55] <Laibsch> ScottK: good suggestion
[05:55] <Laibsch> In fact I already looked at them
[05:55] <Laibsch> But there are none that use the BUILDRESULT variable, it seems
[05:56] <Laibsch> Actually, I have specified what BUILDRESULT should be in /etc/pbuilderrc and that's where the resulting debs are indeed put.
[08:59] <Rhonda> JanC: Sure, and learn to appreciate the speed of a c64 again?
[09:14] <geser> funkyHat: bzr bd -S -- -us -uc (or any other debuild options you need)
[09:33] <bilalakhtar> tumbleweed: Thanks for that merge!
[12:54] <OwaisL> Hey everyone, I just uploaded my package to REVU. Would anyone check it out please.
[12:56] <micahg> OwaisL: what package?
[12:56] <OwaisL> gmailwatcher
[12:56] <OwaisL> it's in a ppa too
[12:56] <OwaisL> ppa:loneowais/ppa
[13:28] <st__> why ubuntu maintainers never generate a .pot files in source packages?
[13:45]  * 52AACAD66 is away: Zurzeit abwesend
[14:03] <Laney> DktrKranz: ping re: gtk-sharp-beans
[14:03] <Laney> and congrats on the point release ;)
[14:07]  * 52AACAD66 is back.
[14:07] <st__> why ubuntu maintainers never generate a .pot files in source packages?
[14:09] <Laney> we don't translate universe packages in ubuntu
[14:12] <lucidfox> I have a question, since I'm writing my own app using GSettings
[14:13] <Rhonda> st__: Because there is nothing generated in the source package by ubuntu maintainers - that would be an upstream job to do.
[14:13] <lucidfox> At what stage are GSettings schemas compiled into the binary format? I've looked at evince, but the debs only install the XML files
[14:13] <lucidfox> and I can find no postinst commands or anything
[14:57] <DktrKranz> Laney: will do after dinstall run is finished
[14:57] <Laney> cheers
[15:27] <bilalakhtar> AnAnt: السلام علئكم Thanks for that endorsement! But its incomplete!
[15:28] <AnAnt> bilalakhtar: yes, that is my first, I still didn't finish it
[15:45] <DktrKranz> Laney: done
[15:46] <Laney> DktrKranz: thanks so much!
[15:46] <Laney> didrocks: we are nearly over the finish line
[16:13] <kklimonda> can someone sponsor bug 629495?
[16:17] <nigelb> kklimonda: don't you need Ffe?
[16:17] <nigelb> or is it just bug fix :)
[16:19] <Laney> Yes, I'd say that needs a freeze exception
[16:22] <kklimonda> Well, it's part of gnome and I've asked seb128 whether it's fine to go with it but I can always request an official FFe
[16:22] <Laney> please post that in the bug then
[16:23] <Laney> (that it has been approved)
[16:25] <kklimonda> mhm, done
[17:46] <Elbrus> I just added a debdiff to bug 621905, and subscribed ubuntu-sponsors, but I am not sure if that is correct with regard to any freeze
[17:47] <Elbrus> or if ubuntu-sponsors was the right group to subscribe (the subscription went one step to quick where I wanted to verify)
[18:04] <OwaisL> hey, I uploaded my first ever package to REVU today. Got some errors warnings, anyone got time to guide me through? http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=858
[18:07] <Rhonda> Hmm, now I wonder why it says lucid and not maverick?
[18:08] <Rhonda> OwaisL: You sure about that number? It's archived since may 2008?
[18:09] <OwaisL> what's happening to me...
[18:09] <OwaisL> today
[18:09] <OwaisL> here it is
[18:09] <OwaisL> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=8582
[18:16] <Rhonda> Which warning are you wondering about?
[18:17]  * RainCT updates REVU's config file (lucid->maverick)
[18:17] <Rhonda> RainCT: That's helpful indeed. :)
[18:17] <RainCT> ok, the warning is gone now
[18:18] <Rhonda> Or wait a month and switch it directly to nattie? ;)
[18:18] <RainCT> Heh. Hey, things don't change by themselves if nobody complained about them :P
[18:19] <RainCT> OwaisL: Cool. You could start by looking at the warnings REVU is showing you
[18:24] <RainCT> OwaisL: are you upstream for that app?
[18:26] <OwaisL> RainCT: Oh, I didn't notice.
[18:26] <OwaisL> Yes, I am.
[18:38] <RainCT> OwaisL: Okay, I've left a review. By the way, are you aware that you can't get the package into Ubuntu until Maverick is released?
[18:38] <OwaisL> RainCT: yes, i know that.
[19:41] <OwaisL> RainCT: Just two warnings left now.
[19:42] <OwaisL> RainCT: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gmailwatcher
[21:01] <AlanBell> o/ Laney
[21:01] <Laney> hoi
[21:02] <AlanBell> ok, bit of context for others before we carry on
[21:02] <AlanBell> !blogtk
[21:02] <AlanBell> !info blogtk
[21:03] <AlanBell> blogtk does not run in maverick, it fails because of a lack of python-gtkhtml2 which has been deprecated
[21:03] <micahg> AlanBell: ugh, I should fix that, we missed that in Lucid
[21:03] <AlanBell> the dependency was removed, but not the code, which left it non-starter in lucid and maverick
[21:03] <AlanBell> upstream is on launchpad here https://launchpad.net/blogtk
[21:04] <AlanBell> and the dependency is properly fixed, it runs, seems nice.
[21:05] <AlanBell> The upstream bzr and tar.gz includes a /debian directory and does not seem to be quite as expected when following the python packaging guide
[21:11] <micahg> thanks tumbleweed
[21:12] <tumbleweed> micahg: np
[21:12] <AlanBell> would it be best to create a new branch from lp:blogtk/2.0 without the /debian directory? or try to use what is there? I am not sure how to proceed
[21:14] <tumbleweed> AlanBell: why does it matter what thye have in bzr? Is there no release since fixing this?
[21:15] <AlanBell> tumbleweed: the tar.gz has /debian in it too
[21:15] <AlanBell> http://launchpad.net/blogtk/2.0/2.0/+download/blogtk-2.0.tar.gz
[21:15] <tumbleweed> AlanBell: source format 3 deletes /debian in upstream source when unpacking
[21:16] <tumbleweed> (3.0 quilt, that is)
[21:16] <AlanBell> ok, so that could be a good .tar.gz to start from then, excellent
[21:16]  * AlanBell is new to this packaging stuff
[21:17] <tumbleweed> yes, you should be able to use it
[21:19] <AlanBell> ok, should I be following the python packaging guide or is there a better document I should use?
[21:19] <AlanBell> s/better/more appropriate/
[21:20] <tumbleweed> AlanBell: are we abandoning the existing packaging?
[21:21] <tumbleweed> oh, I see it was removed from debian
[21:21] <AlanBell> hmm, not sure. I checked the debian/patches directory and looked at the current source, most seem to have been applied upstream (or rewritten differently)
[21:21] <AlanBell> yeah, it is no longer in debian
[21:21] <micahg> tumbleweed: only because it was abandoned upstream
[21:21] <micahg> debian 551005
[21:21] <micahg> and debian 443133
[21:22] <tumbleweed> yeah, just read those
[21:23] <tumbleweed> ok, the existing packaging isn't *that* bad
[21:23] <tumbleweed> AlanBell: python-support's  README is a reasonable guide for what's needed
[21:23] <AlanBell> so is the way forward to try and get it back in debian? or put it directly in Ubuntu?
[21:24] <Laney> is the project really alive again?
[21:24] <tumbleweed> last commit 12 weeks ago...
[21:24] <AlanBell> trunk was last touched 12 weeks ago
[21:25] <AlanBell> the maintainer has ppa packages https://launchpad.net/~jayreding/+archive/ppa
[21:26] <Laney> I'm just sceptical about including something which has been removed before
[21:26] <AlanBell> the 2.0 release was a year ago
[21:27] <AlanBell> it looks to me like development moved from sourceforge to launchpad and debian was waiting for the sourceforge one to be updated
[21:27] <micahg> Laney: we should either update it to 2.0 or drop it from maverick
[21:27] <tumbleweed> Laney: it's currently in maverick, so if an update can save it from deletion, that sound sensible
[21:28] <Laney> micahg: right
[21:28] <AlanBell> http://blogtk.jayreding.com/blog/
[21:28] <tumbleweed> but yes, longer term it should either get back into debian or go away
[21:28] <Laney> tumbleweed: is it? No sense reviving unmaintained stuff
[21:29] <tumbleweed> Laney: depends how unmaintained and how much revival is required
[21:30] <Laney> something which manages to release broken and then remain in that state for a further 3 months doesn't seem particularly maintained to me
[21:30] <AlanBell> at the moment in maverick it is unstartable
[21:30] <Laney> but yes if someone is actually volunteering to take care of it
[21:30] <micahg> the problem is updating to 2.0 is that MOTU or its replacement would be obligated to support it for 18 months even if upstream is dead
[21:30] <Laney> then I'm all for fixing it…
[21:31] <AlanBell> the blog has quite a lot of posts about development updates going back to 2008 on a fairly regular basis
[21:31] <Laney> it's not just upstream, there has to be a distribution maintainer too
[21:32] <tumbleweed> which is a continual problem with MOTU packages that we don't get from debian
[21:32] <Laney> right
[21:32] <Laney> I don't know if you're aware of my views on this. :)
[21:33]  * tumbleweed isn't. but personally I'm impressed by how bad they are whenever I come across one of those
[21:33] <Laney> basically don't do it
[21:34]  * micahg would suggest dropping from maverick, if someone is interested, go through the RFP in Debian, sync to natty and backport
[21:40] <tumbleweed> erk. if any ubuntu-release people are here, please unsubscribe your team from bug 367990
[21:42] <AlanBell> so the RFP is debian bug 551005 and the latest on that in January was that they were waiting for a 2.0.1 release
[21:43] <AlanBell> that being after the 2.0 release from 2009-09-22 I guess means they were not happy with the state of the 2.0
[21:43] <tumbleweed> AlanBell: ask DktrKranz
[21:47] <AlanBell> DktrKranz: we are looking at blogtk which is currently broken in Ubuntu and not in Debian, you mentioned on debian bug 551005 that you were waiting for a 2.0.1 release, is that a blocker for the RFP?
[22:22] <tumbleweed> any core devs? here's a main package that looks good (but listed under unseeded): https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~rsalveti/ubuntu/maverick/x-loader/fix-628243/+merge/34325
[23:07] <mario-kemper> Hi there, I am the author of Shutter. Is there anything I can do to get an update of Shutter into maverick? I've already requested an update here: Bug #626704
[23:07] <Laney> mario-kemper: I suggest you mail the Debian maintainer
[23:08] <mario-kemper> Already done - he is not responding currently
[23:10] <mario-kemper> I'll open another bug in the debian bug tracker to get his attention
[23:48] <kklimonda> bah, I like pixelize from 0.86.0 release but at this point it would require a Feature Freeze exception and a good soul to sponsor it ;)
[23:49] <micahg> kklimonda: that's newer than 1.0.0-1?
[23:50] <ScottK> kklimonda: I well reasoned FFe that include "Upstream asked us to update" and a good draft package has a reasonable chance of getting an FFe for Universe.
[23:50] <kklimonda> ScottK: I can probably prepare one then
[23:51] <kklimonda> micahg: what do you mean?
[23:52] <ajmitch> kklimonda: even dapper has pixelize 0.9.2, 1.0.0-1 has been around since karmic
[23:53] <kklimonda> ajmitch: pixelize as in the feature of 0.86.0 release where you can hide parts of screenshot unde.. pixels ;)
[23:53] <kklimonda> I was just checking the changelog of shutter :)
[23:54] <ajmitch> ok, shutter.. you hadn't mentioned the package name, so we assumed that you meant pixelize :)
[23:54] <kklimonda> ajmitch: yeah, I can see that now :)