| psusi | is there a way to have apt-get force version to a specific distro for all packages? I seem to have accidentally gotten a number of natty package versions installed under maverick and need to downgrade them back to the maverick versions | 00:08 |
|---|---|---|
| ari-tczew | psusi: rmadison | 00:16 |
| crimsun | psusi: yes, apt_preferences(5); see apt-pinning | 00:16 |
| psusi | ari-tczew, don't see what that has to do with my situation | 00:17 |
| psusi | crimsun, the thing is, I added natty as a source, and set my preferences file to default to maverick to prevent any natty packages from being installed without an explicit -t natty.. but while apt obeyed, it seems the gui update manager did not | 00:18 |
| psusi | and now I have a number of packages installed from natty.... I can use synaptic to force version on each of them back to maverick, but there are a lot so that will take a long time doing one at a time | 00:18 |
| psusi | hoping I can do them all at once from the command line | 00:18 |
| crimsun | ari-tczew: if that's cecilia is valid, then yes | 00:23 |
| ari-tczew | crimsun: how can I check whether cecilia is valid? do you mean run command from /usr/bin? | 00:25 |
| crimsun | psusi: are you using pin priorities? Use something > 1000 for maverick. | 00:26 |
| crimsun | ari-tczew: no, I assumed you knew what mimetype to use. | 00:26 |
| psusi | crimsun, I set Apt::Default-Release: to maverick then added the natty repos to sources... that seemed to prevent update to natty packages when I ran apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, but then I started getting updates from the update-manager and noticed today I have natty versions of a bunch of packages installed | 00:31 |
| paissad_ | guys, i'm confused about some postrm, postinst, prerm ... actually i have this message "Warning: pms-linux is NOT running !" which is in the /etc/init.d/pms-linux script ( and i got the message during the run of -> apt-get remove pms-linux) | 01:14 |
| paissad_ | does this mean that 'apt-get' try to stop init.d scripts before removing packages ? | 01:14 |
| paissad_ | but the thing that bother me the most is that when i run "apt-get install pms-linux" ... i have "Warning: pms-linux is already running !" | 01:17 |
| paissad_ | that looks like "apt-get" tried to start twice the init.d script ! | 01:17 |
| paissad_ | i don't understand the reason why it try twice ! | 01:17 |
| paissad_ | it tries* | 01:17 |
| paissad_ | nobody knows ? | 01:29 |
| crimsun | paissad_: you should read the contents of those maintainer scripts to see how invoke-rc.d is used | 02:50 |
| === fabo_ is now known as fabo | ||
| === thekorn is now known as th3k0rn | ||
| === th3k0rn is now known as thekorn | ||
| === fabo__ is now known as fabo | ||
| === warp10 is now known as af_warp10 | ||
| === af_warp10 is now known as dp_warp10 | ||
| === dp_warp10 is now known as warp10 | ||
| === warp10 is now known as dp_warp10 | ||
| === bilalakhtar_ is now known as bilalakhtar | ||
| BlackZ | bilalakhtar: are you merging/will you merge the "courier" package? | 13:11 |
| bilalakhtar | BlackZ: I am making attempts of fixing an FTBFS in it | 13:12 |
| bilalakhtar | BlackZ: But you are free to take it | 13:12 |
| BlackZ | bilalakhtar: do you have a build log of the FTBFS? | 13:12 |
| bilalakhtar | I tried over 10 builds with it | 13:12 |
| bilalakhtar | yes, just a sec | 13:12 |
| BlackZ | thanks | 13:12 |
| bilalakhtar | BlackZ: Wait a sec, my latest build on a PPA succeeded and I didn't even notice that :) I am merging it | 13:14 |
| bilalakhtar | BlackZ: Do you want to, or should I go ahead | 13:14 |
| bilalakhtar | ? | 13:14 |
| BlackZ | bilalakhtar: go ahead with the merge then ;) | 13:15 |
| bilalakhtar | BlackZ: uploaded | 13:19 |
| BlackZ | bilalakhtar: thanks | 13:22 |
| ari-tczew | tumbleweed: do you have any bluetooth device to use in Ubuntu? | 13:50 |
| tumbleweed | ari-tczew: Yes, but my bluetooth often isn't working (suspend related, I seem to recall there being a bug, but can't remember) | 13:54 |
| ari-tczew | tumbleweed: sad to hear that. I'd like to ask you about test bluez 4.70 from Debian unstable on natty. | 13:54 |
| tumbleweed | ari-tczew: I can look | 13:56 |
| ari-tczew | thanks | 13:58 |
| hrw | hi | 14:05 |
| geser | Hi | 14:06 |
| geser | hrw: btw the vim merge is almost done, just waiting on main sponsors coming back from UDS | 14:06 |
| hrw | geser: cool | 14:07 |
| ari-tczew | lucas: how often does your merge script is updating? | 14:29 |
| lucas | ari-tczew: every few hours | 14:33 |
| === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach | ||
| ari-tczew | lucas: it seems to not updating about 14 hours | 14:39 |
| tumbleweed | ari-tczew: had a quick play with it, seems fine. But haven't reviewed the diffs and that package has been forked for a while... | 14:40 |
| ari-tczew | tumbleweed: I'll look into diffs tomorrow. | 14:40 |
| lucas | ari-tczew: the ubuntu-natty sources/packages info is updated at: (UTC times) | 14:41 |
| lucas | 30 2,14 * * * $UAR ubuntu-natty | 14:41 |
| lucas | so it's due to be updated in <1h | 14:41 |
| ari-tczew | lucas: so, something is wrong. package python-scipy has been merged 14 hours ago and it exist on the list. the same thing with denemo. | 14:42 |
| lucas | 0.7.2-2ubuntu1 is the merged version? | 14:43 |
| TeTeT | ScottK: as discussed at breakfast I added a bug to lucid-backports, see bug 667285. If anything is missing let me know | 14:43 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 667285 in lucid-backports "Please backport ibm-3270 from maverick/natty to 10.04 LTS" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/667285 | 14:43 |
| lucas | (for python-scipy) | 14:43 |
| ari-tczew | lucas: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-scipy/0.7.2+dfsg1-1ubuntu1 | 14:44 |
| lucas | ari-tczew: it will be updated during the next UDD data update | 14:47 |
| lucas | ari-tczew: apparently it wasn't there yet during the previous mirror sync | 14:47 |
| lucas | ari-tczew: I'm not sure how often mirror syncs happen | 14:47 |
| ari-tczew | lucas: where is next UDD data update? | 14:47 |
| lucas | ari-tczew: (mirror sycs to UDD) | 14:47 |
| lucas | 30 2,14 * * * $UAR ubuntu-natty | 14:47 |
| === dp_warp10 is now known as warp10 | ||
| psusi | boy this is really odd... I'm seeing a binary package with two different source packages... there is tads, and there is frobtads... both claim to build the binary packages tads3-dev and tads3-common, and tads2-dev... what gives? did someone screw up and repackage something that was already packaged? | 18:47 |
| === bilalakhtar_ is now known as bilalakhtar | ||
| geser | psusi: it happens sometime when a source package got renamed that we have both: the old and the new one | 19:10 |
| Laney | both appear to be in debian | 19:12 |
| geser | psusi: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/f/frobtads/current/changelog | 19:12 |
| psusi | yea, debian appears to have both... but they both output some of the same binary packages, which isn't allowed right? so the old one should be dropped? | 19:17 |
| === bilalakhtar_ is now known as bilalakhtar | ||
| psusi | it seems that ubuntu does not have frobtads | 19:19 |
| geser | it only gives problems, when you need to upload the old package | 19:19 |
| geser | check if the other binaries from tads are r(build)depends somewhere | 19:20 |
| psusi | why? | 19:20 |
| geser | and asking the Debian maintainer of both packages could be a good idea too | 19:20 |
| psusi | yea, I sent him an email | 19:21 |
| psusi | bug we have a bug asking for it to be updated to a new upstream release... it seems that was done, but the name changed, causing all this mess so now I'm not sure what to do with the bug, heh... | 19:21 |
| geser | if you drop tads, then the binaries tads2, tads3 and tads3-doc are deleted too and I don't see them in frobtads | 19:21 |
| geser | (but I didn't check if something provides them) | 19:22 |
| geser | and it would be a bad idea to remove something that is needed as a (build-)dependency | 19:22 |
| psusi | hrm... how would you check for that? | 19:23 |
| geser | apt-cache rdepends tads2 | 19:23 |
| geser | and ubuntu-dev-tools has a script for rbuilddepends | 19:23 |
| psusi | doesn't that only check the packages I have installed on my system? | 19:25 |
| geser | no | 19:26 |
| psusi | how does it do that then? don't you have to have the package to get the depend info from the control file? or is it listed in the repository Packages.gz? | 19:27 |
| micahg | geser: does the checkbuilddepends script work? I haven't been able to get anything from it | 19:29 |
| benste | hi, what was the name of the meta package includin dbuild ... for all these tasks - e.g. got a deb from google code, and wanted to add it into my own PPA - changed version to ...ubuntu1 and now having the files only, but need the source.changes | 19:30 |
| benste | is $ sudo apt-get install build-essential fakeroot dpkg-dev enought ? | 19:30 |
| psusi | hrm... I wonder why the frobstads package has not been synced to ubuntu? | 19:31 |
| geser | micahg: I use an other one and not the one from u-d-t. And the one I use works so far | 19:31 |
| micahg | psusi: I don't see that on pqda | 19:32 |
| micahg | *pqdo | 19:32 |
| psusi | micahg: eh? | 19:33 |
| micahg | psusi: I don't see that in Debian | 19:33 |
| ajmitch | micahg: frobtads, not frobstads | 19:33 |
| micahg | ajmitch: ah | 19:33 |
| ajmitch | I was confused as well :) | 19:34 |
| psusi | hehe | 19:34 |
| ajmitch | it probably wasn't synced because it's in non-free | 19:34 |
| geser | ajmitch: is syncing new packages already done? | 19:35 |
| psusi | ajmitch: why does that matter? | 19:35 |
| ajmitch | geser: it's been in debian for over a year now | 19:36 |
| micahg | geser: I think the issue is that it should have been sync'd last cycle | 19:36 |
| ajmitch | psusi: I don't believe that automatic syncing is done for contrib/non-free | 19:37 |
| ajmitch | an archive admin can clarify it | 19:37 |
| psusi | so you need to explicitly request it eh? | 19:37 |
| ajmitch | I think so | 19:37 |
| psusi | ok... we'll see if the dd drops the old source package then I can request syncs to drop the old and sync the new to ubuntu | 19:38 |
| ElementGreen | I have question concerning a PPA package version which has never been in Debian or Ubuntu. I tried using libinstpatch-1.0.0-0~maverick1~ppa1 but this fails to satisfy >= 1.0.0 for some reason, which another package in my PPA is dependent on. Help appreciated! | 19:50 |
| Laney | make it -0ubuntu1 instead of -0 | 19:52 |
| ElementGreen | Ok. So even though its not yet officially part of Ubuntu, that is the way to go? | 19:53 |
| Laney | it's the -0~ which makes it less than 1.0.0 | 19:54 |
| Laney | you can compare with dpkg --compare-versions a ge b && echo yes | 19:54 |
| Laney | which tests if a >= b according to dpkg | 19:54 |
| ElementGreen | Ok. Thanks! | 19:55 |
| === zul__ is now known as zul | ||
| bdrung | tumbleweed: i don't like the '-u' parameter of syncpackage. my brain associates -u with --upload | 22:10 |
| tumbleweed | bdrung: ok, in fact I have a fix for that (it broke fakesync for ack-sync), so I need to do a commit anyway | 22:12 |
| tumbleweed | bdrung: suggestions? | 22:12 |
| bdrung | tumbleweed: --dont-sign | 22:12 |
| tumbleweed | ok, so no short option, that's fine | 22:13 |
| bdrung | tumbleweed: i have no better idea | 22:13 |
| bdrung | tumbleweed: do we want that: "env = os.environ"? | 22:27 |
| tumbleweed | If env is not None, it must be a mapping that defines the environment variables for the new process; these are used instead of inheriting the current process’ environment, which is the default behavior. | 22:28 |
| tumbleweed | if we want to extend the environment, we start with the current one | 22:28 |
| bdrung | tumbleweed: we don't do that for dch | 22:30 |
| tumbleweed | bdrung: I do that so that we generate Launchpad-Bugs-Fixed | 22:32 |
| tumbleweed | it's only really needed for things calling dpkg-genchangelogs | 22:32 |
| tumbleweed | (err, the above when running on Debian, which is what I do) | 22:32 |
| bdrung | tumbleweed: setting env['DEB_VENDOR'] = 'Ubuntu' is a good idea, but i don't know if it useful to pass all env settings | 22:33 |
| tumbleweed | we also need things like PATH | 22:34 |
| Laney | tumbleweed: seems we are NM buddies! | 23:14 |
| Laney | ps. changing the interface of a tool like that might not be the best idea | 23:15 |
| Laney | you don't know who/what relies on it | 23:15 |
| tumbleweed | Laney: heh | 23:15 |
| tumbleweed | which interface are we talking about? | 23:15 |
| Laney | this -u thing | 23:15 |
| ajmitch | flags for requestsync? | 23:15 |
| tumbleweed | I only added that yesterday | 23:15 |
| Laney | oh ok | 23:16 |
| Laney | if it's not in a release then cool | 23:16 |
| Laney | btw ack-sync has no manpage | 23:16 |
| tumbleweed | oh, I see I have an AM assigned | 23:16 |
| tumbleweed | Laney: so, taking bets who finishes first? :) | 23:17 |
| Laney | whoever has the more sensible AM | 23:17 |
| tumbleweed | yeah that's what I heared | 23:17 |
| Laney | i.e. who asks only the appropriate questions | 23:17 |
| Laney | and not the whole template | 23:17 |
| bdrung | Laney: that's one reason why it's not in the binary package | 23:18 |
| Laney | :) | 23:18 |
| bdrung | you guys remind me to ping my AM | 23:18 |
| bdrung | Laney: feel free to write one (or better integrate the functionality into sponsor-patch) ;) | 23:19 |
| tumbleweed | now that it's not going ot offend archive-admins, I suppose a manpage is in order | 23:19 |
| Laney | no i don't use such tools :P | 23:19 |
| * Laney really hopes that LP functionality will actually happen | 23:19 | |
| Laney | upload-from-branch is sexy | 23:19 |
| bdrung | tumbleweed: ack-sync doesn't upload changes files by default | 23:20 |
| bdrung | it shouldn't offend archive-admins | 23:20 |
| tumbleweed | bdrung: it used to | 23:20 |
| bdrung | yes | 23:20 |
| ajmitch | Laney: right, the whole build-from-branch stuff is nice, it does lose the trust path of the signed .changes file though | 23:22 |
| tumbleweed | that's what caused 3.0 (git) to be nacked in debian | 23:22 |
| Laney | depends if you trust your browser cookie as much as a gpg signature :P | 23:22 |
| ajmitch | but it means less duplication of commiting changes to a branch, pushing & then still having to dput | 23:22 |
| ajmitch | tumbleweed: though git revisions can also be signed | 23:22 |
| tumbleweed | err actually it was reviewability of the distributability of branches, IIRC | 23:22 |
| ajmitch | because of the non-DFSG-free stuff in branches? | 23:23 |
| Laney | in the history | 23:23 |
| ajmitch | yeah | 23:23 |
| Laney | you can't review the entire history | 23:23 |
| tumbleweed | becaus ftp-masters wouldn't be able to review the entire history of a branch | 23:23 |
| * ajmitch remembers reading that one | 23:23 | |
| ajmitch | especially if you're merging in the upstream branches, rather than importing a tarball each time | 23:23 |
| ajmitch | sure, you could rebase all the time, but that screws up history | 23:24 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!