=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === Lutin is now known as Guest13856 === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [12:05] geser, i took your package (wavesurfer) thanks to mentions on m.u.c === lan3y is now known as Laney === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === yofel_ is now known as yofel === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan [16:46] was there a solution to the /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6: could not read symbols: Invalid operation [16:46] errors? [16:59] hyperair: what's the line before that? (or pastebin the whole error) [16:59] /usr/bin/ld: note: 'XFlush' is defined in DSO /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 so try adding it to the linker command line [16:59] i mean yeah, sure -lX11 should do the trick [16:59] yes [16:59] but why isn't that flag included in gtk's .pc file? [17:00] running something like ./configure LDFLAGS=-lX11 feels dirty [17:00] why should it when your application uses symbols from -lX11? [17:00] and you shouldn't put -l... to LDFLAGS [17:00] er sorry [17:00] where should it go then? [17:01] LIBS or something? [17:01] LIBS when it's used my the Makefile [17:01] LDADD? [17:01] =\ [17:01] or patching the Makefile.am and add it to ..._LDADD [17:02] does X11 have a .pc file? [17:04] yes, x11.pc [17:11] alright [17:35] hey, any idea if this http://pastebin.com/CpFaWxa9 is still a dfsg-compliant license? [17:36] kklimonda: sounds reasonable (although it really should include an explicit licence statement of some sort [17:38] I don't think "MIT style license" means anything [17:40] it's pretty clear that the author's intention is to let you do what you want, however "not enforcing" doesn't mean "you can" [17:42] tumbleweed: it does below [17:42] tumbleweed: I'm concerned about the second paragraph [17:42] kklimonda: that refers to contributions submitted to the author, not derivaties in general [17:43] tumbleweed: right - so it's like a copyright assignment without explicit assignment? :) [17:44] kklimonda: that is copyright assignment, I'd say [17:44] it's bonkers and he should be notified of the WTFPL [17:45] but without a meaningful license, so I'd say not DFSG, bit IANdebian-legal [17:45] I guess what's I'm wondering is if it's legally binding - I'm already not entirely sure how would Canonical's copyright assignment hold in the court and this one feels even less substantianal.. [17:45] Bachstelze: there is a normal MIT license below [17:46] kklimonda: copyright assignment is out of the scope of redistributability / DFSG-freeness [17:46] oh [17:46] basicalyl the same thing as the old Qt "GPL with exceptions" then [17:46] I guess I should have pasted a whole license instead of the interesting bits: http://pastebin.com/PypEWBZ9 [17:47] "here's the license, and here's how we modify it" [17:47] right [17:47] the copyright assignment has been the only thing I was unclear about :) [17:47] thanks for helping === siloxid` is now known as siloxid [20:31] I have a small doubt about how to version packages to supersede existing packages [20:32] means so that it makes it an update of the package [20:32] 0.6-0manish2~0ppa1~maverick is lower version than 0.6-0ubuntu2~0ppa1~maverick ?? [20:32] right? [20:32] manish: that would depend what the current version is [20:33] 0.6-0ubuntu1~0ppa1~maverick [20:33] is the current version [20:33] Bachstelze: so is 0.6-0manish1~0ppa1~maverick lower version? [20:34] manish: % dpkg --compare-versions "0.6-0manish2~0ppa1~maverick" "<" "0.6-0ubuntu2~0ppa1~maverick" && echo "yes, it is lower" [20:34] yes, it is lower [20:34] :) [20:34] because m < u [20:34] ah. Didn't know about this --compare-versions [20:34] yeah, that's what I was thinking [20:34] but obviouslt you shouldn't rely on it [20:34] but isnt ~ used for version resolution? [20:35] it's irrelevant, because the difference appears earlier [20:35] if not, then ~ is used for resolution? [20:35] there is a second issue [20:36] Bachstelze: in the .changes file the .orig.tar.gz file is not mentioned [20:36] manish: FYI, how the version works: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version [20:37] I can see in .changes file [20:37] Checksums-Sha1: [20:37] a9e77d01398045b64d6108bc9e01463cb1a9c171 1690 zeitgeist_0.6-0ubuntu1~0ppa2~maverick.dsc [20:37] b37853ce4adda8605d7fd56ea6843b4c55cd0243 4501 zeitgeist_0.6-0ubuntu1~0ppa2~maverick.debian.tar.gz [20:37] there is no mention of .orig.tar.gz so dput doesnt upload the orig tarball [20:37] yes [20:37] and the build system rejects the upload [20:37] you need to build it with -S -sd if you want to include the source tarball [20:38] (or is it -sa ?) [20:38] I can never remember [20:38] let me try [20:38] it's in the PPA help pages on LP [20:38] -sa (a like all), -sd is diff only [20:38] Bachstelze: geser I tried -sa works :) [20:49] evaluate: tonight I hope to give a look to CMS ;) [20:51] dapal, whenever you have the time. I'm pretty busy myself this week, so I didn't have much time to test it properly either, but I hope I can take some time in the weekend to review it again and maybe fix some more problems if I (or you) can spot any... [20:52] evaluate: ah. I have an exam next week -- better if I delay it altogether then :) [20:52] evaluate: so, back to my books now :/ [20:53] ok. good luck! :-) [20:55] dapal, also, I've put my eyes on another program that I'd find interesting to package, so I'll keep you busy for a couple more weeks :p [20:55] evaluate: sure, what is it? [20:57] dapal, it's called bbclone (www.bbclone.de), it's a counter/statistics software for websites. I use it on all of my sites actually... [20:57] ah, I don't know it. Seems like you're interested in web-app packaging :) [20:59] not necessarily, I just thought about these because I use them myself. btw, I just noticed that bbclone seems to be in stable already. Any idea why it isn't in testing/sid though? [21:00] maybe it was removed.. let's see [21:01] evaluate: it's been removed in July 2010 [21:01] evaluate: ROM; dead upstream, license issues, low popcon [21:02] dapal, I don't know what ROM is, but the latest update was done at "Sat, 01 Jan 2011 00:07:03 +0100", so upstream is far from dead, and the project is licensed under GPL3, so I don'tsee how that can pose any issues... [21:03] evaluate: Request Of Maintainer [21:03] uhum [21:03] evaluate: yes, I was looking at the website. Maybe it included some problematic thing, at the time [21:03] evaluate: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=590332 [21:03] ah, icons [21:04] evaluate: I'd say that, if you're able to cope with the icons issue (if it still holds), you could just get the old package from stable, and continue from that one [21:04] evaluate: so we also preserve the package history [21:06] hmm. I'll have a closer look at this. I'm interested in the package anyway and I also thought about sharing some patches with upstream... [21:10] btw, I just had a quick look at the local copy of the package that I have and I can't see any separate license for the images, so I'd guess they are also GPL3... [21:10] it's better if you ask upstream :) [21:12] or I guess I could talk to the former maintainer of the package, maybe he could tell me what the actual problems with the icons were... [21:12] :) === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away