[00:06] <lfaraone> crimsun_: re our discussion of building in tmpfs etc, is it feasible to use sbuild + aufs's setup with piuparts? Right now piuparts only works OOTB with pbuilder chroots.
[00:21] <SpamapS> ugh.. scons is.. weird
[00:43] <jo-erlend> sync-ui is not installable because of a dependency issue. This is the right channel for packaging issues?
[02:45] <ScottK> jo-erlend: If it's about packaging for Ubuntu Universe/Multiverse, yes.
[03:52] <gilbert> ScottK: i did mean maverick.  what should i do about #611446?
[03:52] <ScottK> gilbert: What was the bug again?
[03:52] <gilbert> 611446
[03:56] <gilbert> any thoughts?  i think the only solution is a rollback to lucid
[04:08] <ScottK> This is the xpdf one?
[04:08] <ScottK> It would be very unusual for us to do this.
[04:09]  * ScottK looks at the bug.
[04:11] <ScottK> gilbert: If I understand the bug correctly, 3.02-2 works and 3.02-11 doesn't, right?
[04:11] <ScottK> Have you reviewed the diff to see what might be the source of the problem?
[04:23] <gilbert> ScottK: i'm the debian maintainer, and i converted the package to use poppler.  that works just fine on debian, but will not work on ubuntu for some reason.  my best guess is that there are issues with your fontconfig
[04:23] <gilbert> ScottK: i'm just trying to help you all out so you don't ship a completely broken package
[04:24] <gilbert> ScottK: i've recompiled lucid's 3.02-2ubuntu1 on maverick, and it works fine.  if i uploaded that as version 3.02-9+reverted3.02-2ubuntu1, would it be possible to get a freeze exception to include that working version in maverick?
[04:36] <ScottK> gilbert: I appreciate your efforts on our behalf.
[04:37] <ScottK> gilbert: Sure.  Are there no changes from -2 through -9 you'd keep?
[04:37] <ScottK> gilbert: I'd just call it 3.02-9ubuntu1 and just describe the reversions in debian/changelog.
[04:38] <ScottK> (sorry, I'm a little distracted by people going to bed and an occasionally flooding kitchen here at home I'm trying to diagnose.
[04:38] <ScottK> )
[04:51] <ScottK> gilbert: I need to go, so please let's pick up this discussion tomorrow.  I definitely appreciate your interest in helping us avoid doing something dumb.
[05:03] <gilbert> ScottK: i would probably keep the patch that fixes slow scrolling in i386, but that would be all
[05:46] <dirgan> helo
[08:32] <jo-erlend> is there any particular way to file a bug on wrong dependencies for a package in universe?
[08:34] <jo-erlend> in Maverick, sync-ui depends on libedataserver1.2-11 (>= 1:2.6.1), but the only one available is libedataserver1.2-13, which makes sync-ui uninstallable.
[08:36] <jo-erlend> actually, it's syncevolution that depends on that one. sync-ui depends on syncevolution.
[08:38] <AnAnt> Hello
[08:38] <jo-erlend> perhaps this bug is related? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/syncevolution/+bug/602748
[08:39] <geser> jo-erlend: this sound like syncevolution needs a rebuild against the recent libs but it fails to build: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/53051951/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-i386.syncevolution_1.0%2Bds1~beta2a-1build1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[08:45] <jo-erlend> damn. I hope someone is able to fix that, because that'll prevent me from upgrading to maverick.
[08:46] <alkisg> Hi, I'm making a package with .exe binary files that depends on wine. I'd go for "Architecture: amd64 i386", but I see that the wine package uses "Architecture: all" instead, and leaves its  dependencies (wine 1.2, available only for amd64/i386) to prohibit the users from installing it to other architectures. Which of the two approaches sounds better?
[08:46] <poolie> alkisg: i'm not an expert but perhaps the second?
[08:47] <poolie> then if someone fixes it to work elsewhere with an emulator or something, it'll be ok
[08:47] <alkisg> Maybe there's also a possibility that sometime in the future wine will be available to other architectures via emulation, so maybe that's an additional reason to prefer "all"... thank you poolie
[08:47] <alkisg> Heh we were thinking the same thing :)
[09:39] <bilalakhtar> hyperair: go to LP and see the new LP theme! :D Its awesome!
[09:40] <AnAnt> is that a practical joke ?
[09:40] <bilalakhtar> AnAnt: Everyone is saying this sentence!
[09:41] <persia> Please don't propagate it.  Much better to say it's down for a while.
[09:41] <persia> Truly, we should be glad it's down: from what I've seen in the launchpad channels, it looks like it should be more robust when it gets back up (running lucid)
[09:42] <bilalakhtar> persia: yes, it should, and will certainly be
[09:42] <bilalakhtar> Probably the servers were running hardy before?
[09:43] <AnAnt> ah, hope REVU will upgrade too
[09:43] <persia> It won't.
[09:43] <bilalakhtar> REVU just fixed an important bug
[09:43] <persia> There's no Ubuntu kernel that can run on the hosting machine.
[09:43] <bilalakhtar> that 'Cannot unpack 3.0 (quilt) packages' bug
[09:44] <bilalakhtar> persia: wha? No ubuntu kernel can run on web servers?
[09:44] <persia> If anyone has a spare machine they want to donate to ubuntuwire for REVU, then it can be fixed relatively easily, but I'd suggest waiting to see what happens with the new applications process first: having integrated backports+new apps with lots of extra bits and a selected body responsible for ensuring the process goes smoothly wouldn't be bad.
[09:44] <geser> bilalakhtar: REVU runs on sparc
[09:44] <persia> bilalakhtar, It's not about what REVU does: it's about the machine behind REVU.  Nobody made sparc work for lucid, so it can't upgrade.
[09:45] <bilalakhtar> And SPARC support is ceased, right?
[09:45] <bilalakhtar> for maverick, I mean
[09:45] <AnAnt> yup
[09:45] <bilalakhtar> It was never supported, but
[09:45] <bilalakhtar> The port has been removed from ports.u.c
[09:45] <geser> yes, what I've heard hardy was the last release that worked on sparc
[09:46] <geser> therefore REVU was running hardy
[09:46] <persia> bilalakhtar, It is not true that sparc was never supported.
[09:46] <AnAnt> how about running Debian on REVU ?
[09:46] <persia> Jaunty worked for sparc.  karmic was mostly working, but getting weak.  lucid wouldn't go at all.
[09:46] <AnAnt> Debian does support sparc, right ?
[09:46] <bilalakhtar> persia: Is a new process going to be implemented for new packaged?
[09:46] <bilalakhtar> *packages
[09:47] <geser> a parallel process
[09:47] <persia> bilalakhtar, That's what I keep hearing.  I haven't heard great progress.  If something isn't clearer in the next six weeks, I'll hope we can find a way to revive and revitalise the old processes rather than adding a new one.
[09:47]  * bilalakhtar has 4 packages on REVU
[09:48] <bilalakhtar> REVU seems to be lonely nowadays
[09:48] <Laney> bilalakhtar: I suggest you try Debian
[09:48] <bilalakhtar> Laney: Ask AnAnt about my Debian story :(
[09:48] <bilalakhtar> Laney: Packages over there are also stuck
[09:48] <Laney> rather you should ask derivatives@debian.org ;)
[09:48] <geser> bilalakhtar: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/
[09:49] <bilalakhtar> It would have definitely been better if ubuntuwire was given the opportunity to host on revu.ubuntu.com
[09:49] <bilalakhtar> okay, hafta go now
[12:09] <kaushal> hi
[12:09] <persia> hey
[12:09] <kaushal> I have ran a OpenVAS Scan on Ubuntu Lucid Server 10.04.1
[12:10] <kaushal> and it reported Apache is prone to multiple vulnerabilities
[12:10] <persia> You might want to chat with the folk in #ubuntu-hardened.  I believe they try to stay on top of the CVEs, etc.
[12:10] <kaushal> persia: sure
[12:11] <persia> Thanks for helping make Ubuntu secure :)
[12:11] <kaushal> I have ran a OpenVAS Scan on Ubuntu Lucid Server 10.04.1, and it reported Apache 2.2.14-5ubuntu8 is prone to multiple vulnerabilities
[12:12] <soren> Yes. So you mentioned.
[12:12] <persia> Really, we can't help much.  The folk in #ubuntu-hardened mostly care for security stuff, and the folk in #ubuntu-server mostly care for server stuff.
[12:13] <persia> (some of them might be here, but really, there are places where folk who can make a difference are more concentrated)
[12:13] <persia> We mostly focus on random QA issues for packages that *aren't* so commonly used.
[12:14] <kaushal> persia: Thanks
[12:14] <kaushal> much appreciated
[12:14] <persia> Best of luck in getting the vulnerabilities confirmed as closed.
[12:51] <ScottK> gilbert: I'm not sure what tz you're in, but I'm around again.
[13:59] <ScottK> gilbert: Done.  Thank you again for letting us know about the problem and recommending a fix.
[13:59] <ScottK> "fix"
[14:27] <hakermania> Hello all, I am trying to find a way uploading something to Revu. I know, you'll tell me that ubuntu is "frozen" right now, but I have to know! I know how to develop a .deb package, but as i saw other uploaders in revu.ubuntuwire.com upload tarballs, .diff files .changes files and so on. I have no idea what these are.. I really like my prog and I want to include it into the Ubuntu Software Center but I don't know where to start....
[14:29] <Rhonda> If you know how to develop a .deb package you should have a resulting .changes file, too.
[14:30] <hakermania> Yeah, ok, and how about the .dsc and .diff files?
[14:38] <Rhonda> The .dsc and .diff gets generated if you do a full build, including source build.
[14:38] <Rhonda> Which is default anyway. Still no clue how you build without generating a .diff and .dsc :)
[14:40] <hakermania> Ok, will I have your support while trying to build the package and generate all the important files? i am not a full-n00b, I swear! :P
[14:41] <Rhonda> What tool do you use? debuild, pbuilder, cowbuilder - they all produce the complete set in the default usage, including source package and changes files.
[14:41] <Rhonda> If you mention what you use we might be able to tell you where things went wrong. :)
[14:45] <persia> Rhonda, There are a couple guides to be found on the internet that explain how to manually construct a binary .deb (yes, this is considered very poor practice, but often a source of confusion)
[14:45] <hakermania> persia (i found you name, you are a MOTU, right?) the online guides are confusing...
[14:46] <hakermania> I'll have a try and I'll tell you guys
[14:46] <hakermania> But in a bit
[14:46] <hakermania> I'll experiment myself for a bit
[14:46] <persia> hakermania, Really, tell us what you're doing, and how you're doing it, and we'll point you at stuff.  Random searching online is guaranteed to be less productive to you.
[14:47] <hakermania> I am trying to make a package and upload it to revu.ubuntuwire.com
[14:47] <hakermania> with the help of dput
[14:47] <hakermania> Let me experiment for a bit and if I need help I'll return back here
[14:47] <hakermania> ..
[14:48] <hakermania> ty anyway
[14:50] <persia> REVU doesn't accept .deb files anyway.
[17:23] <hakermania> Ok, I'm back. I've build the .deb package. It contains usr/sbin/Executable and a folder in /usr/share/ which will be copied in first app run. I used the command dpkg-deb --build myapp_1.0-1 to build the .deb package but no diff file was created. I want also by default to have a shortcut created fot the ubuntu menu. I know that his can be done by creating a shortcut at ~/.local/share/applications/ but, as the .deb package cannot do anyt
[17:35] <hakermania> persia, anybody?
[17:44] <hakermania> I've build the .deb package. It contains usr/sbin/Executable and a folder in /usr/share/ which will be copied in first app run. I used the command dpkg-deb --build myapp_1.0-1 to build the .deb package but no diff file was created. I want also by default to have a shortcut created fot the ubuntu menu. I know that his can be done by creating a shortcut at ~/.local/share/applications/ but, as the .deb package cannot do anything into the 
[18:49] <ari-tczew> ScottK: do you receive e-mails when someone has edit wiki page?
[18:49] <ScottK> If I'm subscribed to it, yes.
[18:49] <ari-tczew> [en] kangarooo, laney, voodoo-eu, kitterman, nhandler
[18:49] <ScottK> Yep
[18:50] <ari-tczew> ScottK: it's my page. can I check who has subscribed to my page?
[18:50] <ScottK> I'm not sure, but that list should tell you.
[18:50] <ari-tczew> ScottK: ah, right.
[18:51] <jpds> ari-tczew: "Info" → "Show General Page infos"
[18:51] <ari-tczew> ScottK: well, did you subscribe to my page? or it's automatically due to maintaining or something?
[18:51] <ScottK> I subscribed to it.
[18:52] <ScottK> It's not rare for me to subscribe to a page after I change it so I can see what changes come after.
[18:53] <ari-tczew> yes, yes
[18:53] <ari-tczew> I'm just amazed that someone is watching me. :P
[18:59] <nhandler> ari-tczew: Keep in mind, the wiki supports subscribing to pages matching a certain pattern. So many people are indirectly subscribed to your page
[19:00] <jpds>  /*
[19:01] <ari-tczew> ok thanks nhandler
[19:08] <hakermania> guys
[19:08] <hakermania> can anyone help me?
[19:09] <hakermania> where do I place the unistall script in the tree of the debian package?
[19:09] <hakermania> in DEBIAN folder?
[19:09] <hakermania> and If yes, with what name?
[19:16] <ScottK> hakermania: If you are looking at a DEBIAN folder, you are looking at a binary package and not a source package.  If you build a proper source package, it will take care of that for you.
[19:16] <hakermania> But I am building a binary package.
[19:18] <ScottK> OK
[20:08] <Rhonda> persia: You mean like "create a directory with content that should be extracted into /, add a DEBIAN directory containing a control file with … and call dpkg --build tmp .."?
[20:09] <ajmitch> morning
[20:12] <Rhonda> hakermania: Erm, usind dpkg-deb --build is definitely not the proper way to build a Debian package. You need a debian directory in the source and that has to at least contain a changelog, rules file, copyright and control files.
[20:12] <Rhonda> hakermania: dpkg-deb --build is used at the very end of debian/rules, and most of the times not even directly but through some helper tool.
[20:14] <hakermania> Rhonda: I have made an app in C++ (I have a good knowledge of this) and i want it to make a deb package with the purpose of including this program to the Ubuntu Software Center! Unfortunately i have no idea how to do this. I am 2 hours now trying to solve the errors lintian "provides" to me on every effort on building the package. So, i am a little disappointed. What do you suggest?
[20:15] <Rhonda> To use a guide that helps you to create a _source_ package, not a .deb package.
[20:15] <hakermania> a tarball for example?
[20:16] <Rhonda> I have no clue where you found the guide that suggests to go with dpkg-deb --build, this is the wrong approach.
[20:16] <hakermania> Yeah, OK, but I need help making a tarball or something like this.
[20:17] <hakermania> i don't care whether it is .tar.gz or .deb, i want it to be something :P
[20:17] <Rhonda> A tarball is only one part of a Debian source package. A Debian source package contains of 2 or more files. The .dsc which is the source description file, a tarball (recently can even be more than one), and optional either a debian diff or a debian tarball containing the changes required for creating the Debian binary packages.
[20:18] <hakermania> What do you mean "creating the Debian binary packages" ?
[20:18] <hakermania> the .deb files?
[20:19] <Rhonda> The .deb files are the binary packages, yes.
[20:20] <Rhonda> hakermania: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide seems to be an exhaustive guide that should be able to get you started.
[20:21] <hakermania> Ok, so the tarball must contain the configure file, the make file, with $1 = install or $1 = unistall, and all the files needed that makefile plays with
[20:22] <hakermania> thanks for the link by the way, but please answer me to this question to undewrstand a bit
[20:27] <Rhonda> The tarball contains all the files that are created by upstream, including makefiles or configure scripts. I'm not sure what you mean with $1 = install or $1 = uninstall.
[20:28] <ari-tczew> how can I rename the file through bzr?
[20:29] <ari-tczew> bzr mv got it
[21:03] <hakermania> Rhonda:  I can't understand the online source :( the things are simple and i think that you can help me a bit... I have a program. A simple program. This goes to /usr/bin/. Nice and cool. then, this simple program uses some files to run, perform some checks etc. These files go to /usr/share/ and then I copy them to ~/.config at the first app run. So, what else do I need to build the DEB package? I am really confused.... Is there any he
[21:12] <Rhonda> hakermania: For a start, your message got cut after "Is there any he".
[21:13] <hakermania> s there any helper that asks you about where to place the one and the other file and creates the package itself?
[21:13] <Rhonda> hakermania: The debian/rules file of a Debian source package is technicly just a makefile that has to have specific targets and in the end creates the .deb files.
[21:13] <Rhonda> debhelper takes you pretty much there.
[21:14] <hakermania> But we are talking about MY program! I haven't make any source package or something like this!
[21:14] <Rhonda> dh_make gets you a debian/ directory with a load of example files, most of which you can delete because they won't apply, like all the emacsen ones, I assume.
[21:14] <hakermania> where are these examples placed?
[21:15] <Rhonda> If you want a program to get packaged, you should consider producing a makefile to do so, or use autotools if it requires other libraries to check their availablility and things.
[21:15] <Rhonda> Inside the debian/ directory. :)
[21:17] <hakermania> Too much info for a day i think --_--
[21:46] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: would you like review my package on REVU?
[21:47] <Rhonda> Even if I would like I couldn't because you didn't hand a link. :)
[21:47] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: I prepare it for upload :P
[21:47] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: now it's available on bzr
[21:48] <Rhonda> Unfortunately I have given up digging into bzr years ago, but I guess I should give it a try again.
[21:48] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: till upload to REVU: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ari-tczew/clementine/REVU/files
[22:30] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=8603
[22:32] <Rhonda> Oh, I think REVU really should bump its lintian version …
[22:33] <ScottK> Rhonda: You can ask for that in #ubuntuwire.  That's the group that runs it.
[22:34] <Rhonda> Hmm, I thought, revu now supports source v3?
[22:34] <Rhonda> Someone mentioned that recently?
[22:35] <r4v5> Hey guys, I'm trying to figure out what's up with bug 601950 (modifiers fail to work on a particular bluetooth keyboard); is there a canonical way to try the latest upstream source and then revert if the bug's still there?
[22:36] <Rhonda> ari-tczew: Don't get me wrong, but I'm not confident enough with source v3 yet so I rather not dig into that one, especially since I'm really tired, too …
[22:36] <ari-tczew> Rhonda: ok no problem
[23:36] <RainCT> Rhonda, ScottK: Done (updating lintian on REVU)
[23:42] <ajmitch> oops, I'd forgot to do that with the backport I did recently
[23:44] <ajmitch> for REVU & v3 source packages, I hadn't gone through & unpacked all the uploads that had failed before the dpkg backport was put in place
[23:57] <gilbert> ScottK: thanks for uploading the "fix"!