[04:06] <Hobbsee> YokoZar: ah, right.  excellent
[13:30] <randy_> hello.I package fffmpeg but it only package it /usr/share not /usr/bin or /usr/lib shall I paste i rules?
[13:35] <ScottK> randy_: Did you start from our existing package or do it from scratch?
[13:36] <ScottK> If the latter, I suggest trying the former.
[13:38] <randy_> ScottK, No.I only read debian's package book
[13:43] <randy_> ScottL, For some season ,I sholud package my package because I compile myself
[13:43] <randy_> ScottK, where can get other's debian rulers?
[13:44] <ScottK> apt-get source [packagename] should do it.
[13:51] <randy_> ScottK, I know ,thank you.Do you know one speak chinese?
[14:29] <ScottK> No.  Sorry.
[17:33] <daker> hi folks
[17:35] <daker> i want to create a deb package
[17:35] <daker> i was reading the packaging guide but i feel lost
[17:36] <daker> i looking to create a package for shoutcast server
[17:36] <daker> i know there one for icecast-server
[18:28] <fabrice_sp> Hi. I think that cairo-dock-plugins and cairo-dock-plug-ins are the same source (one comes from Debian ans the other one comes from Debian). Does it makes sense to remove the outdate Debian one? or it is too late for package removal?
[18:29] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: The one from Debian never built, so there aren't any extra binaries (I checked this)
[18:30] <ScottK> In Natty, someone should merge the two packages and have the Ubuntu one removed.
[18:30] <fabrice_sp> ScottK, I saw that after trying to solve the FTBFS :-/
[18:30] <fabrice_sp> ok, so nothing to do for Maverick then. Thanks !
[18:30] <ScottK> I don't think so.
[18:32] <fabrice_sp> there is a lot less FTBFS in Maverick than in Lucid  for i386 and amd64 (38 and 28 for Lucid, 20 and 18 for Maverick), so seems good!
[18:35] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: Did you see my post on p.u.c about this?
[18:35] <fabrice_sp> 65 packages are not installable for amd64. I have to check how many it was for lucid
[18:35] <fabrice_sp> ScottK, no. I'll look now
[18:36] <fabrice_sp> agree!
[18:38] <fabrice_sp> That's impressive
[18:39] <fabrice_sp> even powerpc is a lot better ! What would be the explanation? More active developpers? More quality in Debian?
[18:40] <ScottK> More attention from core develpers to ports in part.
[18:40] <ScottK> Debian freezing probably helped.
[18:40] <ScottK> More attention overall to FTBFS.
[18:41] <ScottK> Not a lot of fundamental changes to cause new breakage.
[18:41] <ScottK> If we'd added Python 2.7 to the supported versions, that would have hurt (for example)
[18:41] <fabrice_sp> right: I still rememeber the python 2.6 transition...
[18:41] <ScottK> Yep.
[18:42] <fabrice_sp> let's hope we will do a better and more collaborative work with Debian this time
[18:42] <ScottK> Over the last couple of years, cooredination has really improved a lot too.
[18:42] <fabrice_sp> since hardy, the change is really impressive!
[18:43] <ScottK> When then froze the archive for Feisty's release, there were still packages in the build queue for Universe so some things ended up built on one arch and not another.
[18:43] <ScottK> Gutsy was the first release where we had any kind of Universe release coordination beyond FF exception processing.
[18:44] <fabrice_sp> and it's only 3 years ago...
[18:45] <fabrice_sp> I don't know if we will ever had a no FTBFS release
[18:45] <fabrice_sp> s/had/have/
[18:46] <ScottK> I think having no depwaits is unprecedented.
[18:46]  * ScottK needs to go.
[18:46] <fabrice_sp> bye
[18:47] <fabrice_sp> hmmm, I think they were not correctly detected (see libjavascript-perl => E: Unable to locate package libmozjs-dev)
[18:48] <ScottK> Did that then fail or depwait?
[18:48] <fabrice_sp> fail
[18:48] <Rhonda> ScottK: I think I really should apply for PPA for logcheck. :)
[18:48] <ScottK> Rhonda: Sorry about that one.  It just got missed.
[18:48] <Rhonda> It's a bit disappointing that this hasn't got through. :/
[18:49] <fabrice_sp> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/56360933/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-i386.libjavascript-perl_1.16-2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[18:49] <ScottK> Undertandable.
[18:49] <Rhonda> Maybe I should pester a bit more next time then, but that's not my style.
[18:49] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: So that counts against FTBFS then.
[18:49] <Rhonda> Ah, gitolite also seems to had been to late?
[18:49] <fabrice_sp> ScottK, yep: that would explain why there is no depwait
[18:49] <ScottK> Rhonda: People who contribute (and you qualify) are entitled to pester.  Please do.
[18:50] <ScottK> fabrice_sp: Why things fail and why they depwait is a bit mysterious.
[18:50] <ScottK> I think only wgrant and one or two other people understand it.
[18:51] <Rhonda> ScottK: Alright. bug #656238 hasn't marked invalid yet, is there still hope? (I know that it's little)
[18:51] <ScottK> Rhonda: No.  It's too late.
[18:52] <ScottK> Rhonda: We can backport it after it syncs to Natty.
[18:52] <Rhonda> I think the change might qualify for SRU.
[18:52] <ScottK> OK.
[18:52] <ScottK> Work on those can start now.
[18:53] <Rhonda> Will check the procedures next week.
[22:40] <wgrant> ScottK, Rhonda: apt's output changed, so launchpad-buildd no longer detects all depwait cases.
[23:02] <ScottK> wgrant: It would be nice if it would grow the build-dep uninstallable state that Debian has now.
[23:02] <Laney> I filed a bug about that
[23:02] <wgrant> Indeed.
[23:02] <wgrant> But that is a little more difficult for LP.
[23:03] <Laney> Actually, presenting the installability of packages might be interesting in other cases too
[23:04] <ScottK> Laney: Yet another QA page of stuff to work on.
[23:04] <Laney> yes
[23:15] <church1> suuuuup