[00:45] any hint here: http://ubuntu.pastebin.com/EJ3dPfKT ????????? [02:01] micahg: have you had a chance to look at http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/uwsgi again? [02:04] stevecrozz: you still need to run update-maintainer, but I'd like to chat with the ITP person a little more [02:05] micahg: i did run update-maintainer, does still look like I haven't? [02:05] stevecrozz: ah, maybe w/out an internet connection? [02:05] oh, hmm [02:06] hm, i don't think so... is something wrong with it? [02:06] nm, it's because it's not in the archive yet [02:08] micahg: I'll let leonid know you want to talk with him, maybe i can get him to pop in here again [02:09] stevecrozz: he's got almost everything [02:11] micahg: is there anything I can do to help? [02:12] I just don't see the need for dynamic build-deps [02:15] i have no strong feelings on that, i guess we'll see if leo can convince you [02:28] hey micahg: leo just arrived, he's onehundredthirty [02:29] hi again onehundredthirty [02:29] hi [02:29] I saw your modifications, why the need for build-deps being variable? [02:29] * micahg sees no evidence in control.in [02:31] yes, I didn't put it into control.in. but could you please try to clone repository and build it? it will fail because of Build-Depends [02:32] onehundredthirty: sure, but do you know what needs to be changed? [02:33] onehundredthirty: by the way, i was wrong yesterday when i said that other packages didn't support multiple interpreters. libapache2-mod-wsgi actually builds both a py2.6 and py2.7 module in the same package [02:36] So, if I had a Ubuntu package, could I recompile it twice? Once for and another time for ? There are some specific compile time flags I would need to set for a -dbg version of the package [02:36] ebroder: yes, i see it. yesterday I talk with member of Debian Python Modules Team on #debian-python and he pointed out this package. it was after I posted comment on REVU. and now I think to change the uWSGI package in something like mod_wsgi [02:36] onehundredthirty: excellent. sounds much better than a bunch of dynamically generated packages [02:37] sorry, wrong channel [02:38] micahg: d/rules looks into d/control and invokes different Python interpreter for different uwsgi-python* packages. and some of these Python interpreters aren't in Build-Depends [02:38] onehundredthirty: python-all-dev doesn't pull them in? [02:41] micahg: yeah. the same thought comes into my mind now. python-all-dev it really must pull all Python interprestes in. well, maybe my comment on REVU was wrong. but before posting it i tried to build 'control.in' branch on Maverick and it fails on wrong Build-Depends [02:42] onehundredthirty: you should be able to build-dep on python-all-dev, then use pyversions to figure out what to build against [02:45] ebroder: yeah, I saw pyversions usage in mod_wsgi package. I'll use it too. [02:45] onehundredthirty: awesome. sounds like you have things under control [02:47] ebroder: but there is one disadvantage in packing all pythonX.Y-related executables in package uwsgi-pythonX. Package will contain executables linked to different libpythonX.Y, but the package will Depends only on one libpython [02:47] ebroder: when user will try to invoke executable with missing libpython, it wil fails [02:47] onehundredthirty: that's not true. you should have a ${shlibs:Depends} in your depends: line, and call dh_shlibdeps in your rules file (or if you're using the %: dh $@ rules file, it'll do it for you) [02:48] dh_shlibdeps finds all of the executables and makes sure the libraries they link are substituted for ${shlibs:Depends} [02:49] ebroder: but then my package will pull-in ALL python interpreters. say, I 'apt-get uwsgi-python2' and it pulls in python2.6 and python2.7. is it good idea? mod_wsgi didn't so this [02:49] onehundredthirty: they don't pull in python2.6 and python2.7, just libpython2.6 and libpython2.7 [02:50] and yes, mod_wsgi does do this [02:50] in fact, it would be a bug in your package if you did *not* depend on the libraries needed to link the executables in the package [02:50] ebroder: libpythonX.Y Depends on pythonX.Y [02:50] huh. so they do. hadn't noticed that [02:51] in any case, yes, that's what mod_wsgi does as well [02:51] and mod_wsgi Depends on (only python-related): libpython2.6 (>= 2.6), python (>= 2.5), python (<< 2.7) [02:51] onehundredthirty: you're looking at maverick, not natty [02:52] ebroder: no I'm looking at Debian Unstable :) [02:52] onehundredthirty: unstable doesn't even have py2.7 yet, does it? [02:52] yeah, but nevertheless, mod_wsgi doesn't depends on all libpython [02:53] it does in natty [02:53] ebroder: just on libpython for default Python [02:55] ebroder: I see. it really depends on all available libpython in natty. well, [02:55] that's odd that it doesn't in sid, though, and seems like a bug [02:55] or possibly a change in how linking in an interpreter works between py2.5 and py2.6? [02:56] the mod-wsgi in experimental depends libpython2.6 and libpython2.7 but not libpython2.5 [02:56] i guess that's probably because there is no libpython2.5 [02:58] ebroder: I see. yes there is definitely no libpython2.5, so this is the reason. [03:00] so, I will try to change my package to something like mod_wsgi with uwsgi-python2 and uwsgi-python3. [03:01] \o/ [03:01] thanks onehundredthirty [03:01] guess, it takes away need for separate packages for Debian and Ubuntu [03:01] will see [03:02] onehundredthirty: if you run into issues, please come back, we'll be glad to help [03:02] micahg: thanks, I'll do [06:04] who manages revu these days? I've tried to use it for the first time today, and it seems to think I'm not a MOTU? [06:04] ah, wiki says contact an admin to be marked as a reviewer [06:05] persia: can I be a REVUer? [06:06] Absolutely. Please log into REVU to make sure your account is initialised so I can grant you rights. [06:08] Basic guidelines: be picky, so save the archive-admins work, be helpful, so folks can get it right. Everyone appreciates a licensing review. [06:10] OK. All set. Please review. Be sure to advocate that which warrants it. Best to get two pairs of eyes on things: everyone makes mistakes. [06:11] Oh, and REVU doesn't run lintian against binaries: if you want those results, run a test-build. [06:54] good morning === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === hannesw_ is now known as hannesw === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === apachelogger is now known as releaselogger [13:24] mr_pouit: I guess you might be interested in bug 705734 [13:24] Launchpad bug 705734 in xubuntu-docs (Ubuntu) "Xubuntu-docs for lucid are out-dated" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/705734 === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan [13:46] micahg: ping === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach [14:07] Daviey: ping? [14:36] ari-tczew: [ong [14:37] micahg: do you running natty? [14:37] ari-tczew: not yet [14:37] pabelanger, o/ [14:37] micahg: :( I have a problem with java on natty and I'd like to get in touch with someone who has a knowledge. === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [14:41] ari-tczew: have you tried #ubuntu+1? [14:41] micahg: perhaps in the past, but no response [14:47] ari-tczew: do you want to talk about it in there? [14:47] bdrung: ping [14:47] micahg: place doesn't matter, I just would like to fix problem [14:47] micahg: pong [14:48] bdrung: so, I missed the e-mail about upstream vlc EOLing the 1.0 branch, doesn't this cause an issue for us with Security support for Lucid? [14:49] micahg: probably no, because backporting the fixes from the 1.1 branch used to be easy. [14:49] bdrung: ok, so we should let this go? [14:50] I guess 1.1 will stay around for a while for squeeze? [14:50] micahg: upstream will EOLing 1.1 probably before squeeze EOL === yofel_ is now known as yofel [15:19] jdong, is the backporters team still looking for help? [15:20] ScottK too: ^ [15:20] dholbach: Yes. [15:21] ScottK, I was reaching out to some new contributors and asked about their experience - there was one who put a lot of work into backporting applications. Would it be OK if I passed him on to the team mailing list? [15:21] dholbach: We don't have a team mailing list. [15:21] oh, I thought that was what ubuntu-backports@lists.u.c was for? [15:22] It may be. I'm not subscribed to it though. [15:22] aha [15:22] ok [15:22] I'll clarify and say we aren't using a mailing lists. [15:22] dholbach: You can suggest he give me a ping on irc or email me. [15:22] sweet, thanks a lot Scott! [15:36] does anyone know the answer for this error: http://ubuntu.pastebin.com/EJ3dPfKT [15:41] Legendario: you mustn't install to /usr/bin, the package build happens as non-root (fakeroot) and the install should happen into debian/$packagename. You can achieve this via DESTDIR [15:51] Daviey: howdy! Figured I'd try and ping you about getting more active with the Asterisk packaging. === hanska is now known as dapal [17:11] hi I'm trying to package a cmake project with debhelper 7 [17:11] except that it has no CMakeList in it's package root, but only in one of the subdirectories [17:11] how can I point debhelper to that subdirectory === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away [17:15] pmjdebruijn: see --sourcedirectory in debhelper(7) [17:16] ok thanks [17:17] you might need --buildsystem too (without the CMakeList it won't autodetect cmake{ [17:20] but to which db_audo ? [17:20] I've only override configure thus far [17:21] to all of them. DH_OPTIONS can make that easier [17:21] well, to all of the dh_auto_* [17:21] * Laney thought it was to 'dh' [17:21] dh $@ --buildsystem=blah --sourcedirectory=bleh [17:22] dh, duh. [17:22] Laney: yes, but if he's overridding some of them [17:22] hmm? [17:22] or does it pass it through? I've always passed it to dh and dh_auto_x [17:22] it does [17:22] see man dh [17:25] Laney: that seems to work [17:25] thanks [17:26] :) [17:28] Laney: aah, it exports DH_INTERNAL_OPTIONS. Nice to know [17:29] I think that using DH_OPTIONS can be problematic in compat 8 mode [17:29] tumbleweed: see, now we've both learned something [17:29] * pmjdebruijn giggles [17:30] Laney: yes I can see that would be an issue [17:30] pmjdebruijn: that's one of the reasons this is fun :) [17:32] tumbleweed: hi, do you have time to review release-info? [17:32] bdrung: sure, I'll look in 10 mins [17:32] tumbleweed: pushed [17:52] Hello guys [17:53] Laney, tumbleweed thank again! [17:55] err, I how do I build a native package from bzr? [17:59] micahg: easiest way is to tell bzr-builddeb that it's native. echo -e '[BUILDDEB]\nnative = True' > .bzr-builddeb/default.conf [18:01] no go [18:01] still trying to run get-orig-source [18:02] micahg: add that file and commit it first [18:02] ah [18:04] tumbleweed: works, thanks [18:20] tumbleweed: pushed. [18:20] r962 [18:21] bdrung: thanks, just busy reading it [18:24] tumbleweed: bug #706010 [18:24] Launchpad bug 706010 in ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu) "[backportpackage] upload fails" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/706010 [18:39] tumbleweed: i'll be away for some hours. cul8r === _iron is now known as i_ron === releaselogger is now known as apachelogger [20:35] besides bug triaging and fixing how else can we contribute to ubuntu development? [20:39] pabelanger, still around? [20:41] c2tarun: what do you have in mind? there are a lot of bugs to fix... Areas: FTBFSs, important fixes to sync/merge from debian, security issues, upstream develompent of packages, etc. [20:42] tumbleweed: actually I was wondering that by learning packaging how can i contribute? [20:43] understanding packaging is important to solving many bugs [20:43] and obviously rather necessary for packaging up new software [21:01] tumbleweed: solving bugs often requires good programming skills. I am not familiar with GTK programming, so most of the time I m not able to fix bugs. [21:05] c2tarun: I'm not very familiar with GTK either (haven't written any in years). Most of the bugs I deal with day to day are either packaging issues, build failures, or simple bugs that I can fix without knowing too much about the codebase I'm fixing. [21:06] c2tarun: harvest.ubuntu.com has a good set of things to look at [21:06] tumbleweed: Can you please give me example of any packaging issue? I really want to understand how everything works. [21:12] c2tarun: follow the natty-changes list, see what people are doing. In natty we've had some big toolchain changes that make many packages fail to build, the fixes generally involve explicitly linking to libraries. [21:14] tumbleweed: sorry to say :( but I didn't understand most of what you said. I think I'll go through various source codes and do the fixing :) [21:20] tumbleweed: gotta go. Thanks for you help :) [21:58] Daviey: Yup [23:20] Hello, [23:20] I'm looking for a sponsoring about this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cairo-dock-plug-ins/+bug/704032 [23:20] Ubuntu bug 704032 in cairo-dock-plug-ins (Ubuntu) "Please update cairo-dock-plug-ins and cairo-dock metapackage to depend on libwebkitgtk-1.0-0" [Undecided,Fix committed] [23:20] I've proposed my branch for merging into lp:ubuntu/cairo-dock-plug-ins => https://code.launchpad.net/~cairo-dock-team/cairo-dock-plug-ins/ubuntu/+merge/46668 [23:21] And the (short) debdiff is available there: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/62602053/cairo-dock-plug-ins_2.2.0~4-0ubuntu4.debdiff [23:22] Currently, cairo-dock won't start on Natty. It's due to libwebkit, just need to be recompiled with libwebkitgtk. [23:22] Anyone can help me? :) [23:23] matttbe: about to go to bed, so can't help you, but don't mark a bug as committed if you want anyone to look at it. [23:24] tumbleweed: ok thank you [23:24] tumbleweed: but which status? [23:25] triaged is probably best [23:25] anyone knows about CMake? [23:25] tumbleweed: thank you [23:25] tumbleweed: (except that I can't change this status :) ) [23:25] (to this status) [23:26] matttbe: that merge is massive for just a rebuild [23:26] tumbleweed: yes, it seems there was a problem with the branch [23:27] ok, I recommend you delete the merge proposal then [23:27] ok [23:27] about the bug with the branch https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/704694 [23:27] Ubuntu bug 704694 in Ubuntu Distributed Development "import has failed with cairo-dock-plug-ins" [High,Confirmed] [23:28] unfortunatly there are a few of those... [23:32] matttbe: ok, a quick rebuild I can help with [23:33] tumbleweed: thank you for your help ;) [23:34] matttbe: editing your changelog entry to "Build-Depend on libwebkitgtk-dev instead of libwebkit-dev (LP: #704032)" [23:35] tumbleweed: thank you :) [23:36] tumbleweed: just another question: why can't the cairo-dock team change the importance of all bugs from "cairo-dock (Ubuntu)" and "cairo-dock-plug-ins (Ubuntu)" projects? [23:37] matttbe: only ubuntu bugcontrol members can, distribution wide [23:37] how ok :) [23:37] -how [23:40] matttbe: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl [23:43] So, I'm trying to setup schroot, following: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SbuildLVMHowto [23:44] $ mk-sbuild --vg=storagevg lucid ; fails because I don't have a LVM called storagevg [23:44] if I use my local LVM, I get back the following error: [23:44] Insufficient free extents (4) in volume group astpkglucid64: 1280 required [23:45] I don't understand what a extents is [23:45] pabelanger: that means you don't have any unallocated space in the volume group [23:45] it's all allocated to logical volumes [23:45] it may be easier to use the aufs support - don't pass --vg, just do "mk-sbuild lucid" [23:46] it'll create the chroot in /var/lib/schroot/chroots [23:46] ebroder: Okay, that looks better [23:46] Thanks, let me read up on the differences between LVM and aufs [23:54] tumbleweed: thank you for your help! ;)