[01:14] <doctormo> lfaraone: hey, you want me on linked-in?
[01:19] <lfaraone> doctormo: yessir.
[01:27] <doctormo> lfaraone: Done sir, how are you?
[01:27] <lfaraone> doctormo: quite fine, thank you.
[01:27] <lfaraone> doctormo: yourself?
[01:28] <doctormo> lfaraone: Seemingly busy all the time, but not much to show for it. Must be background work.
[01:28] <lfaraone> fair enough.
[01:29] <doctormo> lfaraone: Any fine projects?
[01:30] <lfaraone> doctormo: nothing "fine", per se. wrote a replacement for purity, ugly ugly code. wrote a tiny application for multifactor authentication via cellphones, but didn't yet have time to dos o securely.
[01:32] <doctormo> lfaraone: Sounds fancy, for Debian?
[01:35] <lfaraone> doctormo: for Science, actually. But I'll put it in Debian when I'm done with the project
[01:35] <doctormo> lfaraone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgR3N8y4boQ
[08:01] <dholbach> good morning
[09:19] <bdrung> dholbach: you could put the harvest script in a separate branch (and add the license header). then everyone can improve it until it can go into ubuntu-dev-tools.
[09:20] <bdrung> dholbach: 2) i made some changes to the sponsors-overview.
[09:22] <geser> good morning
[09:24] <bdrung> good morning
[09:26] <dholbach> hi bdrung, hi geser
[09:26] <dholbach> bdrung, maybe later - this week I'm pretty slammed with other stuff
[10:11] <Laney> ScottK: If you have 2 minutes today, could you look at haskell-utf8-string in natty/binary NEW? Thanks.
[10:40] <kklimonda> is it just me or is the test rebuild being done on ppa builders
[10:40] <kklimonda> :
[10:41] <Laney> what's wrong with that? That seems like a reasonable thing to do.
[10:41] <kklimonda> are they being done with a lower score, or will I have to wait 4 days to build my stuff? :)
[10:42] <kklimonda> Laney: sure, but I was surprised when I saw 16k jobs in the builders queue
[10:42] <Laney> i would hope they are scored down
[10:44] <kklimonda> yeah, they have to have lower score
[10:47] <sebrock> can someone help me create a backport?
[10:51] <kklimonda> sebrock: sure, just ask
[10:51] <kklimonda> (the questions :))
[10:52] <sebrock> kklimonda: its the package openswan. The current lucid package has a bug which makes it useless with L2TP. So basically my VPN service which utilizes IPSec/L2TP does not work. Err.. it works for one login thereafter it has to be restarted. version 2.6.26 in Maverick solves this. Oh and I have a AMD64 arch.
[10:53] <sebrock> kklimonda: so the question is if someone can build openswan 2.6.26 for 10.04 amd64?
[10:55] <sebrock> kklimonda: did that cover it?
[10:56]  * persia idly wonders what was wrong with the answer in #ubuntu-packaging
[10:56] <kklimonda> sebrock: sure
[10:57]  * kklimonda wonders why there are no binaries for openswan 1:2.6.28+dfsg-1
[10:57] <kklimonda> for maverick*
[10:57] <persia> !backports
[10:58] <sebrock> sorry persia, I was suggested to post in both these channels on #ubuntu
[10:58] <persia> sebrock, Quick overview: read the wiki page, file a bug, do a test (prevu tends to be good for this), and report your results to the bug.
[10:58] <sebrock> kklimonda: would you be able to do it for me?
[10:58] <persia> Doesn't suprise me.  The distinction between them isn't always clear.  This one is dedicated to work *on* Ubuntu, and the other is about Packaging with Ubuntu, Ubuntu derivatives, etc.
[10:59] <sebrock> ok
[10:59] <kklimonda> sebrock: I can see if package builds without changes, and if so upload it to ppa:kklimonda/backports
[10:59] <sebrock> kklimonda: that would be great
[10:59] <persia> Ought still work towards proper backports so people don't have to find arbitrary PPAs :)
[10:59] <sebrock> kklimonda: 2.6.26 is the version I'm looking for
[11:00] <sebrock> I've tried to contact the maintainer but he does not answer me
[11:00] <kklimonda> persia: sebrock can request an official backport, but I can't upload to the backporters ppa anyway, and he has to test it somehow.
[11:00] <kklimonda> sebrock: can it be 1:2.6.28+dfsg-1?
[11:00] <persia> Makes sense :)
[11:01] <sebrock> dunno, possibly there are more new dependencies on that one
[11:01] <sebrock> but I can always try it
[11:01] <sebrock> kklimonda I would suggest 2.6.26
[11:03] <kklimonda> sebrock: 2.6.28 builds fine, but I can't do a one magic command trick for 2.6.26 :)
[11:03] <sebrock> kklimonda you mean 2.6.26 does not build?
[11:03] <kklimonda> there seems to be a problem with openswan in maverick
[11:03] <sebrock> oh
[11:03] <kklimonda> sebrock: well, it should build but I'd have to dig out source from LP
[11:04] <sebrock> there is no source for it?
[11:04] <kklimonda> persia: also, when backporting is there a rule to backport the newest version available in concurrent releases, or can we backport any version we choose?
[11:04] <sebrock> 2.6.26 is the version in maverick right now no?
[11:05] <sebrock> or am I missing somethig
[11:05] <kklimonda> sebrock: yes - but there has been 2.6.28 upload, which didn't build for some reason
[11:05] <sebrock> hmm.. I'm confused. You have built .26 or .28?
[11:06] <persia> kklimonda, My understanding is that we're supposed to backport something current in the archives, but I'm not sure that blocks maverick->lucid backports during natty development.  That said, I'm not a backporter: if the backport policy on the wiki page posted above doesn't say, you'll want to ask someone on the backporters team.
[11:08] <sebrock> kklimonda: which package did you manage to build?
[11:09] <kklimonda> 2.6.28+dfsg-5 from natty
[11:09] <sebrock> oh
[11:09] <kklimonda> I think I can also build 2.6.28+dfsg-1 from maverick
[11:09] <sebrock> but 2.6.26 from Maverick is a no go?
[11:10] <kklimonda> well, it can be done, but it would have to wait a while. Plus, I'm not sure if we can backport it.
[11:10] <persia> sebrock, The 2.6.26 in maverick doesn't have accompanying source, sadly.
[11:10] <kklimonda> persia: well, it can be fetched from LP
[11:10] <persia> kklimonda, Oh, good.  I was very worried for a bit there.
[11:11] <sebrock> persia: ok
[11:11] <kklimonda> it's actually an interesting problem
[11:11] <sebrock> kklimonda so how shouls we proceed? In "wait for a while", is that weeks?
[11:11] <kklimonda> I wonder what did happen with 2.6.28 for maverick
[11:12] <kklimonda> ScottK: can we backport a package from maverick that got superseeded by a never version that was never published in maverick? the package is openswan
[11:12] <sebrock> if you managed to backport 2.6.28 to 10.04 amd64 I can try it out
[11:12] <sebrock> you got a link?
[11:13] <sebrock> brb, telephone
[11:13] <sebrock> there
[11:13] <sebrock> kklimonda I can try out 2.6.28
[11:14] <kklimonda> it has 3 dependencies, so they should also be checked if we are actually backporting it
[11:15] <kklimonda> sebrock: can you make an official backport request for openswan from natty to lucid?
[11:15] <kklimonda> sebrock: I've uploaded it to https://launchpad.net/~kklimonda/+archive/backports, it should build in an hour or so (depending on how busy builders are)
[11:17] <kklimonda> (when you report it we can actually track testing somewhere - it should help a little)
[11:17] <sebrock> kklimonda I can do that. LP handles that right?
[11:18] <kklimonda> sebrock: yes - https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports#How%20to%20request%20new%20packages outlines the process
[11:18] <sebrock> ok great
[11:19] <sebrock> in order to get your package I add it to my sources or is it possible to manually get the deb?
[11:19] <sebrock> ah right I see now
[11:19] <sebrock> I'll report back
[11:54] <sebrock> kklimonda: are you able to also build 1.2.6 of xl2tpd for 10.04? Seems the current version does not cooperate with openswan 2.6.28 very well
[12:01] <kklimonda> sebrock: I'll see
[12:07] <kklimonda> sebrock: it built fine, I've uploaded it to the same location
[12:07] <sebrock> thanks will check it out
[12:16] <sebrock> kklimonda: do I have to do something special to get it into my sources, apt-get update does not do anything
[12:16] <sebrock> ie, I already have your PPA in there
[12:17] <sebrock> yeah its ignoring your repo
[12:19] <kklimonda> sebrock: it shouldn't
[12:20] <kklimonda> sebrock: what do you mean by ignoring?
[12:20] <sebrock> it is, I guess the diff is null
[12:20] <sebrock> [Ign]
[12:20] <kklimonda> sebrock: xl2tpd hasn't yet built, so nothing has been published yet
[12:20] <sebrock> oh I thought it had
[12:21] <kklimonda> it may not yet have been published
[12:21] <sebrock> no indication when it has?
[12:21] <kklimonda> see the result of apt-cache policy openswan
[12:21] <kklimonda> it should show that there are two versions available - one of them from ppa
[13:36] <sebrock> kklimonda: got it. However I'm sad to say that it still has the same bugs
[13:36] <sebrock> I should file a bug for that first :(
[13:36] <kklimonda> sebrock: there is a newer version in natty, you can test it
[13:37] <sebrock> Yeah, but I'm certain the actual bug is in openswan
[13:37] <kklimonda> ah, I see
[13:38] <sebrock> Thank you very much for your help
[13:38] <kklimonda> no problem
[13:38]  * kklimonda hugs backportpackage
[13:38] <sebrock> Its people like you who makes this so great :D
[14:13] <ari-tczew> bdrung, tumbleweed: could you have a look on http://paste.ubuntu.com/559009/
[14:14] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: so did you install debian-keyring?
[14:14] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: not yet
[14:14] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: but error message is ugly :)
[14:14] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: that's true :)
[14:16] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: report bug for it?
[14:17] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: sure
[14:20] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: with debian-keyring works fine. is it in depends or something?
[14:22] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: suggests, IIRC
[14:22]  * ari-tczew is off to doctor.
[14:46] <sebrock> so how do I remove a PPA from lucid?
[14:47] <al-maisan> sebrock: remove ppa? look in /etc/apt/sources.list.d
[14:47] <sebrock> yes I saw that, but will removing the file remove the PPA completely?
[14:47] <kklimonda> there is also ppa-purge in lucid-backports
[14:48] <sebrock> seems ppa-purge is not available on lucid
[14:48] <sebrock> kklimonda: I could not find it
[14:48] <kklimonda> sebrock: you still have to remove all packages (or downgrade them) manually
[14:48] <al-maisan> sebrock: do a "apt-get upgrade" afterwards?
[14:48] <sebrock> I've removed them
[14:48] <kklimonda> sebrock: then you are all set
[14:48] <sebrock> I mean I want to remove the source
[14:48] <kklimonda> just delete the file, and do apt-get update
[14:48] <kklimonda> source of what?
[14:49] <al-maisan> sebrock: oh sorry yes s/upgrade/update/
[14:49] <sebrock> I figured that out myself :P
[14:49] <sebrock> alright it seems to have worked...
[14:49] <sebrock> strange there is a command to do that small task
[14:50] <kklimonda> well, there is a ppa-purge :)
[14:50] <kklimonda> (you have to install it by hand in lucid though, or enable backports)
[14:51] <sebrock> ok Im trying to build a package here. it says I should set: --disable-md5 --disable-sha1 --disable-sha2
[14:51] <sebrock> where do I set that?
[14:52] <sebrock> debian rules or whatever...
[14:52] <Laney> what's 'it'?
[14:52] <Rhonda> In the configure switches in debian/rules
[14:52] <sebrock> so I invoke configure with them switches?
[14:53] <Rhonda> Most probably, but that still depends on what "it" is and the likes. It's just a guess based on the minimum information that you offered us.
[14:53] <Rhonda> You see, the more information, the mor accurate the answers could be. :)
[14:53] <sebrock> it is a blog post
[14:53] <sebrock> http://blog.coombabah.net/wiki/strongswan
[14:54] <Rhonda> It is pretty explicit on what to change.
[14:54] <Rhonda> "Now edit debian/rules and change … to …"
[14:54] <sebrock> explicit would be the name of the file to edit
[14:54] <sebrock> this assumes knowledge of editing debian rules
[14:55] <Rhonda> But it carrys the name of the file to change.
[14:55] <Rhonda> No, it doesn't.
[14:55] <sebrock> am I blind?
[14:55] <sebrock> :D
[14:55] <Rhonda> debian/rules is a filename.
[14:55] <sebrock> ah I see
[14:55] <sebrock> I thought it was a name
[15:23] <AnAnt> Hello
[16:06] <RainCT> bdrung: http://paste.debian.net/105852/
[16:31] <udienz> ari-tczew, alive?
[16:32] <udienz> about merge firestarter. i found that a desktop file contained errors
[16:32] <ari-tczew> udienz: nope
[16:32] <udienz> i'have checked with desktop-file-validate
[16:32] <udienz> can i patching it?
[16:34] <udienz> http://paste.ubuntu.com/559084/
[16:38] <ari-tczew> udienz: if you have right fix, please patch and note in d/changelog in separate star *
[16:39] <ari-tczew> under information about merge
[18:02] <udienz> ari-tczew, bug 694413 ready to review
[18:04] <ari-tczew> udienz: News accepted.
[18:04] <ari-tczew> will take a look when have a time
[18:04] <udienz> ari-tczew, okay. i will wait
[18:15] <ari-tczew> udienz: do you know how fix that FTBFS? [LD_ERROR] misc.c:229: undefined reference to `log10'
[18:16] <ScottK> kklimonda: You want to backport 1:2.6.26+dfsg?
[18:16] <udienz> ari-tczew, that must be a libs not placing after object
[18:16] <udienz> or a needed libs placed to end
[18:16] <ScottK> kklimonda: If nothing else it can be done as a direct upload.
[18:17] <ari-tczew> udienz: I got similiar error during build erlang (main)
[18:17] <ari-tczew> you can try to merge it from unstable and fix ftbfs
[18:17] <udienz> ok, i'll loking
[18:18] <kklimonda> ScottK: not anymore as it doesn't work as it should but the question remains - can I backport from any newer release, or should I backport from the most recent release/development one?
[18:19] <kklimonda> ScottK: If I can backport from any more recent release what happens in situation when (for example) I want to backport to lucid package from maverick that enables feature A, and then someone else wants a release from natty that enables feature B, and disables a feature A? ;)
[18:24] <cjwatson> undefined reference to `log10'> as the log10(3) man page explains, "Link with -lm"
[18:24] <ari-tczew> udienz: ^^
[18:40] <shadeslayer> hi
[18:41] <shadeslayer> im a bit confused about : " usr/lib/mono/* debian/tmp/opt/project-neon/usr/lib/mono/* "
[18:41] <shadeslayer> is that the right way to move files from usr/lib/mono to other dirs?
[18:41] <ScottK> kklimonda: You can backport from any newer release.
[18:56] <ari-tczew> udienz: if you like, try to link -lm as cjwatson suggested on package tstools
[18:57] <udienz> ari-tczew, okay. still downloading :(
[18:57] <ari-tczew> udienz: ah, right, king size
[18:57] <udienz> and my connections is very bad tonight
[19:46] <broder> ScottK: if you have a moment, could you glance at bug #708757? i think this should be an easy one
[19:46] <ScottK> Sure
[19:48] <ScottK> broder: Approved.
[19:48] <broder> thanks
[20:28] <bdrung> RainCT: please pull the latest version of lp:ubuntu-dev-tools and test again.
[20:29] <ari-tczew> udienz: new comment added on firestarter
[20:29] <ari-tczew> needs fixing
[20:29] <bdrung> ari-tczew: please file a bug requesting a nicer looking error message.
[20:29] <ari-tczew> bdrung: ah yea, I forgot
[20:34] <ari-tczew> bdrung: for this time while I'm reporting bug, you could take a quick work on bug 708695 :>
[20:35] <bdrung> ari-tczew: in a few minutes after sqeezing the last performing bits out of my buddy implementation
[20:35] <ari-tczew> :>
[20:36] <ari-tczew> bdrung: bug 708862
[20:37] <ari-tczew> bdrung: I guess that there are more bad looking errors in scripts.
[20:37] <bdrung> probably
[22:22] <bcurtiswx> doctormo, what would you think of allowing ground control to work when you have nautilus open with another server.. i.e. I connect-to-server to my desktop which is where i store all the bzr gets, groundcontrol still works since i've got nautilus up... or would it if i have ground control on the desktop?