[00:14] Hello, I'm hoping you guys can help me. I followed Daniel Holbach's videocast for setting up the tools. When I type in "pbuilder-dist natty create" I get an error, but when I type in "pbuilder-dist lucid create" it works. Is this because I'm running on Lucid? [00:15] Oops, sorry didn't realize the message above was partly cut off. I followed Daniel Holbach's videocast, and now I'm having the problem mentioned above. [00:20] jose: please pastebin the exact error [00:20] !pastebin| jose [00:20] jose: For posting multi-line texts into the channel, please use http://paste.ubuntu.com | To post !screenshots use http://tinyurl.com/imagebin | !pastebinit to paste directly from command line | Make sure you give us the URL for your paste - see also the channel topic. [00:22] http://paste.ubuntu.com/549182/ [00:24] Any ideas? [00:24] hmm, I'm using pbuilder directly, not with pbuilder-dist, so I don't know how you're supposed to get that script [00:25] is it in ubuntu-dev-tools ? [00:25] it's in the package debootstrap in natty, you should be able to download it from packages.ubuntu.com and install it, but that's a bit ugly [00:26] So, what do you recommend? [00:27] jose: debootstrap doesn't seem to know natty. Maybe there's a backport of debootstrap for lucid that adds support for natty or you can workaround it with: sudo ln -sf gutsy /usr/share/deboostrap/scripts/natty [00:27] I would recommend not using pbuilder-dist :p I'm not sure what it does but I'm doing fine without it [00:27] If I run "sudo pbuilder --create natty" it seems to work fine. Any problems with doing so? [00:28] you'll have a problem if you want to run several pbuilders (for different releases or architectures), the wiki has a nice .pbuilderrc that lets you do that with pbuilder [00:29] !pbuilder [00:29] pbuilder is a system to easily build packages in a clean chroot environment. To get started with PBuilder, see http://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto [00:29] jose: look in section 13 [00:31] there should be a working debootstrap for everything up to natty in lucid-backports [00:32] yeah, there is, I just checked [00:33] Okay, so what you guys are trying to say is if I do what I mentioned above, I'll only be able to work on natty? [00:33] cjwatson, so do I have to update something? [00:33] yes, upgrade your debootstrap package to the version in lucid-backports and the error you showed will go away [00:34] jose: http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid-backports/debootstrap you can get it from here, or enable the backports in your package manager [00:37] Okay, let's see if that works. [00:39] Thank you, that fixed it. Where is all that data landing? [00:53] happy new year [01:57] hello. I am packaging openteacher and would like to know which template to use to create manpage- manpage.1.ex, manpage.sgml.ex or manpage.xml.ex? is there some preference given to either of them? also how can i watch a bazaar branch? is it possible? [02:05] my suggestion for manpages would be to use whichever formatting language tou are familiar with [02:05] it's not clear what you mean by watching a bazaar branch [02:06] i'm writing man pages for first time and have not really worked with sgml/xml. what would you suggest? [02:06] "watch" in the sense check upstream for changes using 'uscan'. [02:07] ah, no, you can't watch a branch with uscan [02:08] so no way of adding it. great! [02:09] maxb, any suggestions/advice on man pages? i'm totally new to packaging :). [02:10] i read that having man pages is a plus and makes it easier to get it into debian and hence to ubuntu as well :). so just wanted a few opinions :). === yofel_ is now known as yofel [12:29] Happy new year! [12:30] Hey guys. Any tips about curing alcohol poisoning? === Amaranth_ is now known as Amaranth [16:34] kklimonda: around? [17:43] bdrung: yes [17:43] kklimonda: what do you suggest as name for dprintf? [17:44] bdrung: I'd suggest simple debug [17:44] or debug_print [17:45] debug is better [17:45] kklimonda: are you interested in reviewing it? [17:47] bdrung: sure, but not today :) [17:47] hey, what does mean last column on page http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/debcheck/debcheck.py?dist=natty&list=ALL ? [17:48] kklimonda: what do you think about the function names? [17:50] who is reponsible for debcheck/ubuntuwire? [17:51] bdrung: what happens if kibi_init isn't called before other kibi functions? [17:51] * tumbleweed prods bdrung with a code review reminder [17:52] kklimonda: it uses the packers default config [17:52] bdrung: mhm, great [17:53] we have three levels of configuration: user, system, and packager [17:53] bdrung: but kibi_init do have a warning that it should be called before any other kibi function. [17:54] bdrung: I'm asking because later there is a #define g_format_size_for display kibi_format_size... [17:54] bdrung: if other people are like myself someone will forget to add kibi_init call at some point ;) [17:55] kklimonda: the warning is there because the user and system configuration is ignore if you don't run kibi_init [17:56] kklimonda: there is an alternative: check in every function call if libkibi is initialized (one if(foo == NULL)) and drop kibi_init [18:00] bdrung: I wonder.. it makes sense, most _init functions, at least in the "G" world, are there because you pass some arguments to them. g_type_init is the only exception I can think of right now [18:00] ari-tczew: There are some people who maintain ubuntuwire, such as wgrant and ajmitch (I may be wrong) [18:01] (also, an additional condition check is a performance penatly of sort - even when you use UNLIKELY macro) [18:01] kklimonda: it's a trade of. what do you prefer? [18:08] bdrung: I guess it depends on how often the functions are going to be called - with correcly used UNLIKELY macro the overhead of the if check should be negligible.. [18:10] kklimonda: what do you mean with "unlikely macro"? [18:13] bdrung: gcc has __builtin_expect which is, by kernel and by glib, wrapped in LIKELY/UNLIKELY macros - when you use one you inform the compiler that the wrapped condtional is unlikely/likely to evaluate to something - gcc uses it for optimalization [18:14] kklimonda: can you give me an example? [18:14] or point me to one? [18:32] bdrung: there are quite a lot of examples in glib/gobject sources (sorry for the delay, got a call) [21:25] im using bzr bd and it required a version of gsettings-desktop-schemas, so i build that and used dpkg to install it.. (both the regular and -dev) so the version on my system were right.. but it still fails at the dep check. idk why [21:27] what do you think about merge package devscripts into ubuntu-dev-tools? [21:31] maybe the contrary ;) -- but a bad idea, introducing an unnecessary delta between Debian and Ubuntu [21:32] why doesn't bzr bd notice my package version changes ? [21:38] http://paste.ubuntu.com/549372/ [22:29] http://paste.ubuntu.com/549372/ i still can't figure out why its not recognizing the correct version.. any ideas? [22:57] Hi everyone. [22:58] I was here quite a long time ago asking about the Racket package for Ubuntu. I was told that Ubuntu cannot make packages and it leaves that to Debian. [22:58] I was told I should file a bug with Debian, and I did, here -- http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=592688 [22:59] That was on August 12, 2010, can Racket be in Natty now? [23:00] em: That bug report has not yet resulted in a finished package in Debian [23:01] That's incredible. [23:01] huh? [23:01] I filed that bug on August 12, 2010. I'm really surprised that Racket can't have any package in Ubuntu. [23:02] em: You are asking volunteers to do something, on their own time. They are doing it. [23:03] Yeah Im not complaining. Im just disappointed. [23:15] em: the only way to ensure that the software is package is either to do it yourself or to pay someone for it. [23:16] bdrung: okay how much would that cost? [23:16] bdrung: has anyone ever paid you? [23:16] because that would be sweet. [23:16] paultag: no [23:16] how much? [23:16] em: might want to pay someone @debian.org [23:16] em: you need to find someone. [23:17] bdrung: I s'pose most @canonical get that deal [23:18] em: the problem you will have if you pay someone for packaging it, you won't have someone who maintains it [23:18] there is already someone who maintains it. It makes no sense to me. [23:18] i found this: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/racket.git [23:18] look at this -- http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/racket.git;a=commit;h=86f39a16c0caf051cf9800b25858a156bd29b26d [23:19] it's in NEW -> http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html [23:20] what needs to happen so that it is in position so that Ubuntu can have a package for Racket? [23:20] em: we pull every six months from Debian. If it's in Debian, it's most likely it will migrate the next sync [23:21] unless there's a block, but I doubt that muchly. [23:21] em: a debian ftp-master has to accept the package. then someone needs to request a sync. [23:21] paultag: it targets experimental. so it won't get synced automatically [23:23] bdrung: roger. [23:23] I did not even look at it [23:53] kklimonda: the performance loss with removing the kibi_init function would be 1.3 %