[12:05] <udienz> geser, i took your package (wavesurfer) thanks to mentions on m.u.c
[16:46] <hyperair> was there a solution to the /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
[16:46] <hyperair> errors?
[16:59] <geser> hyperair: what's the line before that? (or pastebin the whole error)
[16:59] <hyperair> /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] <hyperair> i mean yeah, sure -lX11 should do the trick
[16:59] <geser> yes
[16:59] <hyperair> but why isn't that flag included in gtk's .pc file?
[17:00] <hyperair> running something like ./configure LDFLAGS=-lX11 feels dirty
[17:00] <geser> why should it when your application uses symbols from -lX11?
[17:00] <geser> and you shouldn't put -l... to LDFLAGS
[17:00] <hyperair> er sorry
[17:00] <hyperair> where should it go then?
[17:01] <hyperair> LIBS or something?
[17:01] <geser> LIBS when it's used my the Makefile
[17:01] <Laney> LDADD?
[17:01] <hyperair> =\
[17:01] <geser> or patching the Makefile.am and add it to ..._LDADD
[17:02] <hyperair> does X11 have a .pc file?
[17:04] <geser> yes, x11.pc
[17:11] <hyperair> alright
[17:35] <kklimonda> hey, any idea if this http://pastebin.com/CpFaWxa9 is still a dfsg-compliant license?
[17:36] <tumbleweed> kklimonda: sounds reasonable (although it really should include an explicit licence statement of some sort
[17:38] <Laney> I don't think "MIT style license" means anything
[17:40] <tumbleweed> 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] <kklimonda> tumbleweed: it does below
[17:42] <kklimonda> tumbleweed: I'm concerned about the second paragraph
[17:42] <tumbleweed> kklimonda: that refers to contributions submitted to the author, not derivaties in general
[17:43] <kklimonda> tumbleweed: right - so it's like a copyright assignment without explicit assignment? :)
[17:44] <tumbleweed> kklimonda: that is copyright assignment, I'd say
[17:44] <Laney> it's bonkers and he should be notified of the WTFPL
[17:45] <Bachstelze> but without a meaningful license, so I'd say not DFSG, bit IANdebian-legal
[17:45] <kklimonda> 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] <kklimonda> Bachstelze: there is a normal MIT license below
[17:46] <tumbleweed> kklimonda: copyright assignment is out of the scope of redistributability / DFSG-freeness
[17:46] <Bachstelze> oh
[17:46] <Bachstelze> basicalyl the same thing as the old Qt "GPL with exceptions" then
[17:46] <kklimonda> I guess I should have pasted a whole license instead of the interesting bits: http://pastebin.com/PypEWBZ9
[17:47] <Bachstelze> "here's the license, and here's how we modify it"
[17:47] <kklimonda> right
[17:47] <kklimonda> the copyright assignment has been the only thing I was unclear about :)
[17:47] <kklimonda> thanks for helping
[20:31] <manish> I have a small doubt about how to version packages to supersede existing packages
[20:32] <manish> means so that it makes it an update of the package
[20:32] <manish> 0.6-0manish2~0ppa1~maverick is lower version than  0.6-0ubuntu2~0ppa1~maverick ??
[20:32] <manish> right?
[20:32] <Bachstelze> manish: that would depend what the current version is
[20:33] <manish> 0.6-0ubuntu1~0ppa1~maverick
[20:33] <manish> is the current version
[20:33] <manish> Bachstelze: so is 0.6-0manish1~0ppa1~maverick lower version?
[20:34] <Bachstelze> manish: % dpkg --compare-versions "0.6-0manish2~0ppa1~maverick" "<" "0.6-0ubuntu2~0ppa1~maverick" && echo "yes, it is lower"
[20:34] <Bachstelze> yes, it is lower
[20:34] <Bachstelze> :)
[20:34] <Bachstelze> because m < u
[20:34] <manish> ah. Didn't know about this --compare-versions
[20:34] <manish> yeah, that's what I was thinking
[20:34] <Bachstelze> but obviouslt you shouldn't rely on it
[20:34] <manish> but isnt ~ used for version resolution?
[20:35] <Bachstelze> it's irrelevant, because the difference appears earlier
[20:35] <manish> if not, then ~ is used for resolution?
[20:35] <manish> there is a second issue
[20:36] <manish> Bachstelze: in the .changes file the .orig.tar.gz file is not mentioned
[20:36] <micahg> manish: FYI, how the version works: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version
[20:37] <manish> I can see in .changes file
[20:37] <manish> Checksums-Sha1:
[20:37] <manish>  a9e77d01398045b64d6108bc9e01463cb1a9c171 1690 zeitgeist_0.6-0ubuntu1~0ppa2~maverick.dsc
[20:37] <manish>  b37853ce4adda8605d7fd56ea6843b4c55cd0243 4501 zeitgeist_0.6-0ubuntu1~0ppa2~maverick.debian.tar.gz
[20:37] <manish> there is no mention of .orig.tar.gz so dput doesnt upload the orig tarball
[20:37] <Bachstelze> yes
[20:37] <manish> and the build system rejects the upload
[20:37] <Bachstelze> you need to build it with -S -sd if you want to include the source tarball
[20:38] <Bachstelze> (or is it -sa ?)
[20:38] <Bachstelze> I can never remember
[20:38] <manish> let me try
[20:38] <Bachstelze> it's in the PPA help pages on LP
[20:38] <geser> -sa (a like all), -sd is diff only
[20:38] <manish> Bachstelze: geser I tried -sa works :)
[20:49] <dapal> evaluate: tonight I hope to give a look to CMS ;)
[20:51] <evaluate> 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] <dapal> evaluate: ah. I have an exam next week -- better if I delay it altogether then :)
[20:52] <dapal> evaluate: so, back to my books now :/
[20:53] <evaluate> ok. good luck! :-)
[20:55] <evaluate> 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] <dapal> evaluate: sure, what is it?
[20:57] <evaluate> 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] <dapal> ah, I don't know it. Seems like you're interested in web-app packaging :)
[20:59] <evaluate> 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] <dapal> maybe it was removed.. let's see
[21:01] <dapal> evaluate: it's been removed in July 2010
[21:01] <dapal> evaluate: ROM; dead upstream, license issues, low popcon
[21:02] <evaluate> 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] <dapal> evaluate: Request Of Maintainer
[21:03] <evaluate> uhum
[21:03] <dapal> evaluate: yes, I was looking at the website. Maybe it included some problematic thing, at the time
[21:03] <dapal> evaluate: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=590332
[21:03] <dapal> ah, icons
[21:04] <dapal> 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] <dapal> evaluate: so we also preserve the package history
[21:06] <evaluate> 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] <evaluate> 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] <dapal> it's better if you ask upstream :)
[21:12] <evaluate> 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] <dapal> :)