[05:09] <fabrice_sp> micahg, if you are still interested in dolphin-emu: I advocated it yesterday, so it's only missing another look from a sponsor. You can find it at http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=8783 (this apply to other sponsors as well :-) )
[05:09] <micahg> fabrice_sp: well, I can review everything except the licensing, that I'm still not sure on
[05:10] <fabrice_sp> micahg, licensing is the hard part of new packages
[05:10] <fabrice_sp> and this one mix a lot of different ones
[05:11] <mase_wk> i am packaging up some PHP libraries which are used with a framework.  I  have src( .php ) XSL and documentation. I was wondering where  each is meant to live
[05:13] <glennricster> fabrice_sp:  I must agree.  Licensing is the hard part for sure.
[05:16] <fabrice_sp> hey glennricster ! You can speak about it :-)
[05:16] <fabrice_sp> mase_wk, have a look at a similar package to be sure you install the files in the right places
[05:17] <glennricster> Yeah.  I still don't think I have it right though.  dolphin-emu has such a mess of licensing in its files.
[05:17] <fabrice_sp> oh: I'll check in detail this week end, then: it's a huge work, with all that file with different licenses
[05:18] <glennricster> I told the other dolphin-emu devs I would work on getting it into Ubuntu.  After this I think I will stick with coding.
[05:18] <fabrice_sp> please don't disappear after having your package into Ubuntu
[05:18] <mase_wk> fabrice_sp: that doesn't help me. None of the libraries have yet been packaged and i haven't foudn any other packages within ubuntu / debian that have the sort of dependance between xsl and php files
[05:19] <glennricster> I will maintain it.  That won't be as hard as getting the copyright file set up.
[05:19] <mase_wk> i can find other php projects so i  can copy that, just not sure where to jam the xsl libraries
[05:19] <glennricster> I won't disappear.  Don't worry.
[05:20] <glennricster> fabrice_sp:  I learned some new things from you in the process.  The dh.tiny format is quite nice.
[05:21] <fabrice_sp> glennricster,  :-) Yeah, and easier to maintain than the full dh format, IMHO
[05:21] <glennricster> Yeah, it would seem so. :)
[05:22] <fabrice_sp> mase_wk, perhaps ask in ubuntu-server: they may know better than me or wait here until someone else answers you
[05:22] <mase_wk> k
[10:13] <Rhonda> Something seems to be going awkwardly wrong with planet.ubuntu, I see a big grey area at the top blocking out the first someting blog entries?
[10:49] <cdbs> Rhonda: Its fine for me
[10:50] <cdbs> I can't see any gray area
[10:50] <azeem_> Rhonda: maybe that is your spam blocker which removed buxy's latest post
[10:51] <Rhonda> azeem_: haha. not. And strangely, it works again. The theme seems to be switched back also, so I guess someone was working on it.
[10:52] <Rhonda> When inspecing with firebug the footer div did cover the top of the page in very big parts.
[12:28]  * ari-tczew is listening to: The Underdog Project - Summer Jam | put your hands up!
[18:28] <ScottK> tumbleweed: Could you look into what's up with Debian bug 575581?  In the bug it claims a fix has been uploaded to Debian, but I don't see it.
[19:35] <djeenan> hello
[20:44] <sistpoty> hm... we need more ppl. working on http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_ftbfs.cgi
[20:50] <ScottK> We do.
[20:51] <ScottK> sistpoty: There's some ongoing work to produce better documentation on how to deal with the linker issues that should be available around new years.  Hopefully that will help.
[20:55] <hakermania> Hello :)
[20:58] <sistpoty> ScottK: excellent :)
[21:05] <evaluate> more people for?
[21:06] <sistpoty> evaluate: look at the link, these are packages that fail to build on ubuntu/natty
[21:08] <evaluate> sistpoty, so I get it you need people to fix those build issues? (btw, I'm new to packaging myself, I'm just trying to get more involved with ubuntu/debian)...
[21:08] <sistpoty> evaluate: exactly
[21:10] <evaluate> sistpoty, is there any place I could actually download a package that is listed there? (source + debian)
[21:11] <sistpoty> evaluate: if you're on natty, it's just apt-get source <package>... otherwise I'm usually using packages.ubuntu.com/src:<source package name>
[21:12] <sistpoty> evaluate: of course launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/<source package name> should also lead you to a link
[21:12] <evaluate> sistpoty, unfortunately I need a stable system for my work, so I'm still on maverick (and will probably be for the time being)
[21:12] <sistpoty> heh
[21:13] <evaluate> sistpoty, say I make some changes to a package and believe that it may build correctly, is there any place I can upload it to test a build or do I need to build it locally?
[21:14] <sistpoty> evaluate: you could use a PPA (certainly described in the wiki somewhere), however I prefer to build locally using pbuilder
[21:15] <sistpoty> (PPA=personal package archive)
[21:16] <evaluate> sistpoty, yes, I have a PPA myself, I know what that is :p I don't have any experience with pbuilder though...
[21:16] <sistpoty> !pbuilder > evaluate
[21:16]  * sistpoty pets ubottu
[21:16] <evaluate> sistpoty, ok, and I guess I will have to do that on natty, right?
[21:16]  * evaluate opens virtualbox
[21:17] <sistpoty> evaluate: you should be able to create a pbuilder-chroot on an older version. Also you can use a ppa to build for natty while on lucid for example
[21:19] <evaluate> yeah, but as far as I could see (at least on my PPA), sometimes it takes up to one hour of waiting for a package to be built, I wouldn't have the nerves to wait for that while debugging a package. I guess I'll go with the virtualbox option...
[21:19] <sistpoty> evaluate: yeah, that's why I build locally. however pbuilder (which essentially creates a chroot) could be used to build for a different distribution...
[21:20] <sistpoty> (build locally for me means to use pbuilder btw)
[21:20] <evaluate> sistpoty, I like my main system to be neat & clean, and I guess that pbuilder would also install all dependencies that a package needs, everytime I do a test run, I wouldn't want that on my main system...
[21:21] <sistpoty> evaluate: no, it uses a chroot for this, not the main system
[21:22] <hakermania> evaluate: After installing a package and "apt-get remove" it you can see which packages are not longer required (where dependencies of uninstalled programs)
[21:22] <evaluate> I'll do it in a VB anyway, I've got the processing power :p
[21:22] <sistpoty> heh, you lucky one :)
[21:24] <evaluate> sistpoty, it's just a laptop, so if you have a desktop computer, you probably got more processing power than me anyway :p
[21:25] <sistpoty> heh
[21:28] <evaluate> hmm. Virtualbox 4 doesn't let me attach any iso images to my machines.
[21:30] <evaluate> sistpoty, I did read something about a 'natty weekly build' somewhere. Does something like this exist, or did I just understand wrong?
[21:32] <sistpoty> evaluate: I'm not aware of that, tbh.
[21:33] <evaluate> ok then, I'll just use the alpha image I have laying around here...
[21:35] <sistpoty> evaluate: there should be daily images though: http://cdimages.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current/
[21:36] <sistpoty> evaluate: however I'm not too sure of what quality these are at the current phase in the development cycle
[21:36] <sistpoty> (bug reports are always appreciated *g*)
[21:38] <evaluate> hmm, nice
[21:38] <evaluate> virtualbox 4.0 beta won't let me choose a iso to add to a virtual machine and the virtualbox that ubuntu comes with, restarts my X session :-\
[21:39] <sistpoty> *whispering pbuilder at evaluate*
[21:40] <evaluate> there seems to be a new beta4 of the 4.0 version, if that doesn't work either, I'm going to go with pbuilder :p
[21:41] <ScottK> sudo apt-get install ubuntu-dev-tools, pbuilder-dist natty create, then pbuilder-dist natty build <pkg_version>.dsc to build.
[21:42] <sistpoty> s/,/;/ s/then// might almost work as a shell script :)
[21:47] <evaluate> there is still hope!
[21:47] <evaluate> beta4 actually works. I'm installing it right now and will be ready to go in ~15 min :-)
[22:26] <evaluate> ok, I've managed to setup pbuilder and tried downloading and building clutter-gtk.
[22:28] <evaluate> and I've got a totally different error than what is on ftbfs: http://pastebin.com/xpxR9NkK
[22:29] <evaluate> (I imagine though that I might just eat up your time instead of actually helping, in which case you can just ignore me)
[22:30] <sistpoty> evaluate: looks like the package that clutter-gtk build-depends on changed
[22:31] <sistpoty> from a quick glimpse, I'd probably mark gir1.0-clutter-1.0 as the package causing b-d's not to be installed correctly
[22:31] <ebroder> bdrung: It seems a little weird for a script called "update-maintainer" to start mucking with things other than the Maintainer field
[22:32] <bdrung> ebroder: really? i think it belongs together.
[22:32] <evaluate> sistpoty, btw, I got the package from here: http://pastebin.com/gDBGyZXD . Not sure if it's the correct/latest one...
[22:32] <bdrung> ebroder: changed maintainer => changed development location
[22:33] <ebroder> bdrung: I'm not saying they shouldn't be the same tool. I'm musing about whether we should rename the tool
[22:33] <bdrung> ebroder: do you have a better name?
[22:33] <ebroder> bdrung: Uh... "update-control"? Not really, though
[22:34] <bdrung> yes, not really
[22:35] <bdrung> ebroder: btw, thanks for the backportpackage script
[22:35] <hakermania> update-maintainer-and-other-things
[22:35] <hakermania> xD
[22:35] <bdrung> update-maintainer-in-debian-control-and-update-vcs-fields-too
[22:36] <evaluate> sistpoty, is there anything I need/can do about that package, or should I choose another one?
[22:37] <sistpoty> evaluate: actually, it looks like the package you installed is the correct one
[22:38] <sistpoty> evaluate: I'm not entirely sure if depending packages have been rebuilt to pick up the new version already, which might explain the failure you got
[22:38] <sistpoty> evaluate: I'd suggest to pick another package
[22:38] <evaluate> sistpoty, ok :-)
[23:04] <tumbleweed> ScottK: sure, will do
[23:59] <evaluate> what would be the correct way to make a change to a source file?