[03:25] <ari-tczew> micahg: do you will upload barry's patch?
[07:10] <AnAnt> Hello, can someone help me with this FTBFS: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/62644475/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-powerpc.verilator_3.810-1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[07:10] <AnAnt> I am getting the same FTBFS on Debian sparc
[07:11] <micahg> AnAnt: just looks like it's trying to remove a file that's not there
[07:11] <AnAnt> micahg: ?!
[07:12] <AnAnt> micahg: what file ?
[07:12] <micahg> it's trying to remove a .exe file for some reason
[07:13] <AnAnt> micahg: that happens on all archs, but does not cause the FTBFS
[07:13] <AnAnt> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=verilator;ver=3.810-1;arch=powerpc;stamp=1295690749
[07:14] <AnAnt> personally I was suspecting something like toolchain difference
[07:15] <micahg> oh sorry, didn't see the next break
[07:16] <micahg> %Error: ../test_v/top.v:8: syntax error, unexpected $undefined
[07:16] <AnAnt> yup
[07:20] <micahg> it looks like the build hung
[07:20] <AnAnt> yes, this build error does hang the build if I was on an interactive shell
[07:21] <AnAnt> this "%Error: ../test_v/top.v:8: syntax error, unexpected $undefined" does not happen on other archs
[07:21] <AnAnt> upstream doesn't have a clue either
[07:22] <AnAnt> when I compared build logs on Debian, I noticed that successful builds used gcc 4.4.5, while sparc (the failing build) used gcc 4.4.4
[07:22] <micahg> AnAnt: well, we're on gcc 4.5.2 I think in natty
[07:23] <AnAnt> yup
[07:23] <AnAnt> and its building well with other archs on natty
[07:25] <micahg> yeah, but each arch has its quirks, you can try asking doko
[07:27] <AnAnt> hmmm, different binutils revision
[07:27] <micahg> ah
[07:28] <AnAnt> but I would suspect that this would be the reason
[12:53] <AnAnt> cdbs: new nickname ?
[12:53] <cdbs> AnAnt: yep, since 2 months I guess
[14:08] <nonix4> perl -pi -e 's/mantainance/maintenance/' jetring-0.*/debian/control # typos in first line of description are annoying, anybody want to fix that? :)
[14:17] <debfx> nonix4: please file a bug against the debian package :)
[14:42] <nonix4> debfx: for minor typo fix, maintonly@bugs.debian.org would be right place?
[14:48] <debfx> nonix4: I would just send it to submit@b.d.o with severity minor but maintonly seems appropriate as well
[16:17] <m4n1sh> Hi, for the changelog line -  zeitgeist-sharp (0.1.1.0~m4n1sh1~natty) natty; urgency=low
[16:17] <m4n1sh> and tarball name
[16:17] <m4n1sh> zeitgeist-sharp_0.1.1.0.orig.tar.gz
[16:17] <m4n1sh> I am getting this error
[16:17] <m4n1sh> dpkg-source: error: can't build with source format '3.0 (quilt)': no orig.tar file found
[16:17] <m4n1sh> what is wrong in it?
[16:17] <ari-tczew> almaisan-away: ping
[16:18] <directhex> m4n1sh, missing debian revision
[16:18] <ari-tczew> m4n1sh: filename is wrong
[16:18] <directhex> m4n1sh, 0.1.1.0-1 is the base, not 0.1.1.0
[16:19] <m4n1sh> directhex: debian revision is needed? I thought not
[16:19] <directhex> m4n1sh, you need a - in there, the bit before the - is the orig version
[16:19] <ari-tczew> directhex: this is a new package
[16:19] <m4n1sh> zeitgeist-sharp (0.1.1.0-1~m4n1sh1~natty) natty; urgency=low
[16:19] <m4n1sh> this is fine?
[16:19] <ari-tczew> no
[16:19] <directhex> m4n1sh, yes.
[16:19] <ari-tczew> m4n1sh: 0.1.1.0-0ubuntu1
[16:19] <ari-tczew> directhex: ?
[16:19] <micahg> ari-tczew: +1
[16:20] <micahg> it's not in Debian, so a fake Debian revision shouldn't be added
[16:20] <directhex> micahg, well, it's in NEW
[16:20] <micahg> directhex: oh, ok, well in that case :), if it's a backport of that version it's fine
[16:21] <m4n1sh> thanks everyone
[16:21] <ari-tczew> folks, conclusion: REVU or Debian?
[16:21] <micahg> ari-tczew: for?
[16:22] <directhex> debian. always.
[16:22] <ari-tczew> micahg: where m4n1sh is working for? new package for REVU or Debian?
[16:22] <directhex> ari-tczew, for his ppa. the packackage is already in debian NEW
[16:22] <ari-tczew> m4n1sh: aha, add natty1 rather for PPA
[16:22] <ari-tczew> then you can add more revisions natty2, natty3 etc
[16:23] <m4n1sh> ari-tczew: I was putting it in debian because dnielsen (banshee contributer) asked for natty package
[16:23] <m4n1sh> ari-tczew: means 0.1.1.0-0ubuntu1~natty1
[16:23] <ari-tczew> m4n1sh: for PPA looks fine
[16:23] <micahg> m4n1sh: you can use -1 if it's a straight backport of the Debian package
[16:24] <m4n1sh> micahg: means 0.1.1.0-1ubuntu1~natty1 instead 0.1.1.0-0ubuntu1~natty1
[16:24] <directhex> i wouldn't until it clears NEW, personally
[16:24] <ari-tczew> m4n1sh: what's the version in debian NEW?
[16:24] <ari-tczew> show us
[16:24] <m4n1sh> ari-tczew: directhex knows it better
[16:25] <micahg> m4n1sh: hmm, ok, well, go with 0.1.1.0-0ubuntu1~natty1~ppa1 that way there's no chance of conflicting with an official backport
[16:25] <m4n1sh> thanks
[16:25] <ari-tczew> +1 ^^
[16:25] <micahg> directhex: you're right again :)
[16:25] <directhex> yeah, i guess micahg has good advice there
[16:26] <directhex> it is possible for -1 to get rejected, in which case there's confusion over what the "real" -1 is
[16:26] <directhex> so 0ubuntu1 which is identical to -1 in new is a reasonable assumption. so go with micahg's suggestion
[16:26]  * ari-tczew has lunch
[17:42] <ari-tczew> almaisan-away: we need your help in  bug 675622. see comment 5
[17:44] <ari-tczew> nonix4: I can give +1 for backport w3m to maverick.
[17:44] <ari-tczew> nonix4: lucid needs changes in d/control
[17:46] <nonix4> ari-tczew: 'k. Regarding my patch, Tatsuya just confirmed that it looks correct.
[17:47] <ari-tczew> nonix4: there were opinions that patch works as new feature, no bugfix. what do you think?
[17:51] <nonix4> From viewpoint of w3m package, it indeed seems like a new feature, but for launchpad-foundations/canonical-identity-provider it is a bugfix imho.
[17:51] <micahg> nonix4: I would suggest -backports + an FAQ then
[17:52] <nonix4> (then again the rest of 0.5.2-2.1...0.5.2-10 difference is even more features)
[17:53] <micahg> right, but in -backports, that's fine :)
[17:56] <nonix4> tbh -backports is quite unknown to majority of normal users, so that FAQ would need careful choice of words. I'd rather prefer that in a default server installation, ubuntu-bug "just works" once normal upgrades have been installed.
[17:57] <ari-tczew> +1 ^^
[17:57] <ari-tczew> siretart: ping
[17:58] <micahg> nonix4: you could e-mail the tech board and ask for an exception
[18:00] <ari-tczew> waking up all developers for one button sounds like hardcore
[18:00] <micahg> ari-tczew: tech board isn't that many people
[18:02] <nonix4> 6 active members?
[18:02] <micahg> nonix4: right, you can send a request to the ML
[18:02] <ari-tczew> micahg: but it shows our bureaucracy
[18:02] <ari-tczew> we are not in the department
[18:03] <micahg> ari-tczew: we have procedures to keep stability in the Stable Releases
[18:03] <ari-tczew> micahg: "procedures"
[18:04] <ari-tczew> repeating bureaucracy
[18:04] <micahg> ari-tczew: we have more relaxed rules than Debian
[18:06] <nonix4> well, to be able to handle high volume of patches, some form of bureaucracy/hierarchy seems to be more or less necessary, however itchy it feels :-/
[18:06] <micahg> also, this is an exception
[18:09] <ari-tczew> micahg: please consider whether you are too inflexible, bureaucratic, official
[18:09] <siretart> ari-tczew: hi
[18:09] <ari-tczew> siretart: hello. have you got time to have a look for 2 packages?
[18:09] <siretart> ari-tczew: unclear, which ones?
[18:09] <micahg> ari-tczew: it falls outside the guidelines of a stable release update, so the options are -backports or TB exception, I didn't create the rules
[18:10] <nonix4> TB?
[18:10] <micahg> tech board
[18:11] <ari-tczew> siretart: want to sync libgcrypt11 and libgpg-error from experimental. only remaining changes are dirs - files *.install, *links
[18:12] <ari-tczew> siretart: one request is filed, bug 702765
[18:12] <ari-tczew> siretart: I'd like to get your feedback whether these changes are necessary or not.
[18:13] <ari-tczew> micahg: but you are keeping bureaucratic which is not good.
[18:15] <micahg> ari-tczew: It's *our* responsibility as uploaders to follow the guidelines that are in place, if you think something should be changed, you should propose it (not sure about the correct forum probably -devel ML)
[18:16]  * ari-tczew must go out.
[18:18] <nonix4> ari-tczew: btw I could do some proofreading of your QuickResponse writing some day, think I spotted some minor grammar issues there.
[18:43] <siretart> ari-tczew: okay, please hilight me with the other request as well, I'll do it when I find some more time
[19:51] <ari-tczew> nonix4: OK, I'm open for feedbacks.
[19:55] <paultag> Does anyone know how I can bump bug #703718 ?
[19:56] <micahg> paultag: you just have to wait for the archive admins to process
[19:56] <paultag> micahg: great. thanks!
[20:09] <ari-tczew> siretart: what do you think, is might be able for Ubuntu? http://paste.ubuntu.com/557346/
[20:10] <siretart> ari-tczew: what's the intention behind this change?
[20:10] <ari-tczew> siretart: the diff which I sent above is a Debian change.
[20:11] <siretart> ari-tczew: AFAIUI, debian is moving the libs from /usr to /, which we in ubuntu do for quite some time now
[20:11] <siretart> ari-tczew: ah, I see. Well, compare the file installation lists of the binary packages. what file locations did change?
[20:11] <siretart> if none, then everything is great :-)
[20:12] <ari-tczew> siretart: our delta: http://paste.ubuntu.com/557348/
[20:14] <siretart> ari-tczew: why do we still need the delta?
[20:15] <ari-tczew> siretart: we don't need delta. :-)
[20:16] <ari-tczew> siretart: I'm just making sure that we can drop delta. I noticed that you've some uploads related to /lib dir.
[20:16] <siretart> okay. - let me try it the other way: try building the unmodified source from debian in ubuntu. then compare the output of 'dpkg-deb -c $deb' from the new package with the existing packages
[20:17] <siretart> if all files end up in the same locations, then let's get rid of our local changes
[20:17] <siretart> if there are differences, then we need to review the changes
[20:17] <siretart> we need to look at the results here, I think
[20:17] <ari-tczew> siretart: let me build it - I'm on it!
[20:18] <micahg> ari-tczew: that change doesn't make sense, a -dev package shouldn't be putting anything in /lib
[20:18] <micahg> FYI, there was a whole discussion on debian-devel about this
[20:18] <ari-tczew> micahg: what do you think, the package from experimental is better?
[20:19] <siretart> micahg: there is, but we really had enough trouble with the divergence here. I'd prefer if we could finally get these two packages in sync again
[20:19] <micahg> siretart: indeed
[20:20] <micahg> I was just noting that the diff seems unnecessary for practical reasons
[20:30] <ari-tczew> micahg: +1 ^^
[21:12] <ari-tczew> siretart: odd error: my natty can't find binary libgpg-error0-udeb
[21:19] <siretart> uh?
[21:20] <ari-tczew> siretart: ok I know what is wrong. Section: debian-installer
[21:21] <ari-tczew> me sends thanks to yofel
[21:33] <ari-tczew> siretart: OK, compared. natty: http://paste.ubuntu.com/557392/     experimental: http://paste.ubuntu.com/557394/
[21:33] <ari-tczew> micahg: maybe you're interested ^^
[21:35] <micahg> yeah, I think that's better
[21:36] <micahg> but you should just verify with someone who uses the package, just because it fits the standards better, doesn't mean it won't break stuff :)
[21:37] <ari-tczew> micahg: but this is library, hard to find who uses it
[21:37] <micahg> ari-tczew: well, I meant, who "maintains" something that uses it, that or test build something that depends on the -dev package with it
[21:38] <ari-tczew> micahg: hmm, then I have to use PPA
[21:38] <ari-tczew> micahg: build test is enough?
[21:40] <micahg> ari-tczew: idk, I'm not a core-dev :), seems like StevenK did most of that work originally, maybe he has an opinion on the issue
[21:41] <siretart> ari-tczew: it's a bit hard to compare, but it looks great to me so far!
[22:11] <bdrung> micahg: you forgot to subscribe ubuntu-archive to bug #701536
[22:13] <micahg> bdrung: sorry, I thought I got better at that :-/
[22:13] <ari-tczew> bdrung: in future you should use in d/changelog "Sync on Debian" instead "Merge from Debian experimental, no remaining change."
[22:13] <ari-tczew> if no remaining changes, it can't be merge :)
[22:14] <bdrung> ari-tczew: i can do with my package what i want :P
[22:14] <ari-tczew> bdrung: :>
[22:14] <bdrung> ari-tczew: merge from debian, drop all changes, and add new ones.
[22:15] <ari-tczew> bdrung: I took this method from tumbleweed
[22:15] <bdrung> ari-tczew: i kept ubuntu's changelog entry, otherwise it would be a sync.
[22:15] <siretart> yay, my build recipe for ffmpeg/trunk packages finally works! https://code.launchpad.net/~motumedia/+recipe/ffmpeg-daily
[22:16] <ari-tczew> congratz siretart :)
[22:16] <siretart> so I can finally start testing upgrades by throwing natty sourcepackages at that ppa
[22:17] <siretart> but that's for later this week. good night!
[22:17] <bdrung> siretart: do you know wrap-and-sort?
[22:18] <siretart> bdrung: no, what's that?
[22:18] <bdrung> siretart: it sorts and wraps build-depends and co.
[22:18] <bdrung> siretart: wrap-and-sort; $vcs diff
[22:19]  * bdrung should blog about it.
[22:19] <siretart> sounds interesting, I'm looking forward to that blogpost
[22:20] <bdrung> siretart: you forgot to add an epoch to the daily build!
[22:21] <bdrung> siretart: recommendation: 0.7~~{revno}+{time} -> 4:0.7~daily~{revno}+{time}
[23:36] <ari-tczew> micahg, siretart: gnupg2 built fine on my PPA with libgcrypt11 and libgpg-error from experimental.
[23:39] <micahg> ari-tczew: great