[00:33] Hi, I've been working on my first patch, LP: #706271. [00:33] Reading about the sponsorship process, I think that I should now send email to ubuntu-sponsors? [00:33] grunthus: on IRC would be nice to use bug 706271 [00:33] Launchpad bug 706271 in synaptic (Ubuntu) "synaptic network proxy preferences doesn't capitalize "internet"" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/706271 [00:34] grunthus: nope, subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to bug [00:34] ah. Hi ari-tczew, you helped with this last week. I have added a patch for Natty. Took me a while, between work commitments! [00:34] or set ubuntu-sponsors as branch merge reviewer if you use bzr instead debdiff [00:34] I used debdiff [00:35] then subscribe to bu [00:35] g [00:36] grunthus: Thank you very much, your work is appreciated! ;-) [00:37] Great! [00:41] ari-tczew: The wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Patches says to sponsor a debdiff, subscribe the ubuntu-sponsors to the bug, which I think is what you are saying. Erm, not sure how to do that. [00:43] grunthus: log in to launchpad, go to bug 706271 and on the right side you have field Subscribers, do you see? [00:43] Launchpad bug 706271 in synaptic (Ubuntu) "synaptic network proxy preferences doesn't capitalize "internet"" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/706271 [00:50] Ah yes, so it is already subscribed by Ubuntu Review Team and I don't have to do anything. [00:50] grunthus: You have to subscribe ubuntu-sponsors. [00:52] Right! Done. [00:59] grunthus: OK. now you have to wait patiently for response. [02:11] chrisccoulson: ping [02:13] chrisccoulson: whenever you get time, please look at bug 713023 I fixed all the errors you commented. Thank you. [02:13] Launchpad bug 713023 in bibshelf (Ubuntu) "Newer Version Available" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/713023 [02:19] c2tarun: when you believe you're done, you should set it back to confirmed and (re)subscribe ubuntu-sponsors unless someone explicitly said they'd look at it for you [02:19] c2tarun: oh, and unassign yourself as well [02:20] micahg: how to subscribe to ubuntu-sponsors? [02:20] c2tarun: subscribe someone else, search for ubuntu-sponsors [02:21] micahg: there are three team for ubuntu-sponsors [02:21] micahg: one is ubuntu-sponsors team [02:21] micahg: second is ubuntu security sponsors team [02:21] c2tarun: Ubuntu Sponsors Team [02:22] micahg: ok thanks :) [02:25] micahg: by debian.tar.gz file how do ubuntu-sponsors member check that packing is proper or not? I mean is there any tool for that? [02:27] c2tarun: they compare it against the last version that was in the archive and verify the changes you made were proper [02:28] micahg: how do they do that? by diff? [02:28] c2tarun: debdiff [02:31] micahg: debdiff between both debian.tar.gz files? [02:31] c2tarun: no, between the .dsc files or source.changes files [02:32] micahg: then why do we upload debian.tar.gz and not the .dsc files? [02:32] c2tarun: well, you could upload a debdiff, which is actually what the wiki suggests, it's just huge for new versions usually [02:34] micahg: so what do you do of debian.tar.gz? do you build it again? [02:34] c2tarun: I generally use it to pull the latest upstream, build a source package, and compare [02:36] micahg: I was trying to work on this bug 713492. I made changes to the changelog and was trying to build it, but I didn't got the debian.tar.gz, why so? [02:36] Launchpad bug 713492 in ccscript (Ubuntu) "Newer Version Available" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/713492 [02:37] c2tarun: you shouldn't subscribe sponsors until there's something to sponsor [02:37] micahg: I didn't [02:37] it says you did [02:38] c2tarun: there's probably a diff.tar.gz since it's source format 1.0 [02:38] micahg: I am extremely sorry, I have to do that for bibshelf bug and I did it for ccscript one :( [02:38] c2tarun: no worries [02:38] micahg: how can i unsubscribe them? [02:39] c2tarun: you can't, I took care of it, if you subscribe accidentally, you can just ask here for it to be removed if it's going to be a while before you attach something [02:40] only team members can unsubscribe a team [02:40] micahg: sure, one more thing, in control file the standard version is 3.8 [02:40] micahg: sure, one more thing, in control file the standard version is 3.8.3 [02:40] micahg: should I change it to 3.9.1? [02:40] c2tarun: you have to verify that it's compliant with standards version 3.9.1 (assuming this is an Ubuntu only package) [02:41] micahg: ya this as well, how can i check whether a package is in debian or not? [02:41] c2tarun: rmadison -uqa PKGNAME [02:42] c2tarun: if it's in Debian, we generally won't touch the standards version as it's an unnecessary diff [02:43] micahg: I don't think this package is in debian as I am not getting anything on running 'rmadison -uqa ccsript-doc' [02:44] c2tarun: no, it's not [02:44] micahg: ok, I didn't got diff.tar.gz but I got diff.gz, should I attach this with the bug? [02:44] c2tarun: if you want to check if it's up to the new standards version, you can install the debian-policy package and check this file /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz [02:45] c2tarun: well, a tar'd version of the debian dir or a debdiff is preferable [02:45] I didn't have that package installed, what is the name of that debian-policy package? [02:46] c2tarun: debian-policy [02:46] micahg: ok, and i'll take the debdiff of both the .dsc files and attach that. will it be fine? [02:46] c2tarun: also, attaching a debian dir to a bug is assuming that you make no changes outside of the debian dir to the source [02:47] c2tarun: yes, that will be fine [02:47] thanks :) [02:47] c2tarun: thank you [02:51] micahg: wow... debdiff is huge. I uploaded the debdiff file, can you please take a look. [02:53] c2tarun: in a bit [02:53] micahg: thanks :) [03:45] !ops [03:45] Help! Hobbsee, Riddell, sladen, fbond, mneptok, gnomefreak, Seveas, dholbach, elkbuntu, PriceChild, or jpds! [03:45] YankeesFan: is there a problem? [03:46] BAN ME [03:46] micahg: He's doing that on multiple channels... [03:53] fucking yankees [03:53] Oh jesus, this is -motu [03:53] I totally thought this was -us-ma [03:53] sorry everyone [05:17] !ops [05:17] Help! Hobbsee, Riddell, sladen, fbond, mneptok, gnomefreak, Seveas, dholbach, elkbuntu, PriceChild, or jpds! [05:17] !staff [05:17] hey Christel, Dave2, Gary, KB1JWQ, Levia, Martinp23, SportsChick, VorTechS, jayne, jenda, marienz, nalioth, niko, nhandler, rob, stew or tomaw, I could use a bit of your time :) [06:02] micahg: I am trying to work packages in list http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/uehs/maintainer.php?package=moserial should we pack only those applications of which we know about the source code? [06:03] c2tarun: what do you mean know about the source code? [06:05] micahg: I mean know how the application is programmed, its logic, algorithms and all. [06:06] c2tarun: not required [06:06] generally an interest in the package is a good thing [06:06] as we dont want to just have people package things then disappear and not take care of them down the line [06:07] but there's lots of devs who arent programmers. just being ready & willing to talk to upstream authors to get things resolved is enough [06:07] maco: we can communicate with upstream if required? [06:08] can and SHOULD [06:08] maintaining a good relationship with upstream is important [06:08] maco: ya :) [06:47] if you don't communicate with upstream, you're creating an unnecessary barrier which is usually to the detriment of the package [07:41] micahg: u there? sorry I got disconnected. [10:38] there is a package of name freeimage in debian. That package is not in ubuntu + the version in debian is also old, upstream has a newer version. what should i do? [10:39] c2tarun: package is orphaned in Debian, that means you can pick it up and maintain it [10:40] otherwise, you can arrange for a one-shot QA upload to package new upstream release [10:59] DktrKranz: what is a one-shot QA upload? [11:02] DktrKranz: and how can i pick it for maintainance? [11:05] c2tarun: a QA upload is an upload to an orphaned package, without any intent to maintain it into the future [11:05] c2tarun: anyone can adopt orphaned packages [11:11] tumbleweed: how? [11:11] c2tarun: http://debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#adopting === tarun is now known as Guest97746 [11:37] tumbleweed, if i want to maintain a packages i must sending emails to debian-mentors? [11:40] udienz: mail debian-mentors if you want review / sponsorship. Is this a new package? orphaned package? [11:41] tumbleweed, orphaned packages named pdnsd [11:42] this packages usually sync from debian [11:42] but it's orphaned and upstream released new version [11:44] Bug 692879. If I install ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu in a Natty vm, how do I run it to confirm the bug? [11:44] Launchpad bug 692879 in ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu (Ubuntu) "Refers to Open Office, not LibreOffice" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/692879 [11:46] udienz: aah I see you've already announced intention to adopt and have it in collab-maint. Great. Yeah, go through debian-mentors for sponsorship [11:50] grunthus: there's a README that shows how to test it [11:52] tumbleweed, http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=pdnsd i will send an emails to debian-mentors [11:59] tumbleweed, if old patches files need updated, Author field must be changed or not? [12:00] udienz: no. Although you can add yourself if you made significant updates [12:22] according to FHS where would you store databases? [12:22] for a webapp [12:22] /var/lib/$package [12:23] tumbleweed: ty [12:23] I was working on packaging of schedio bug 710347. There was an issue that the source tarball doesn't include the COPYING file for license. I mailed them to update a tarball almost a week ago, but I didn't got any response from the upstream. What should I do? [12:23] Launchpad bug 710347 in Ubuntu "[needs-packaging] schedio" [Wishlist,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/710347 [12:36] c2tarun: I guess you could repack it including COPYING. However, many files don't have any copyright / licence statement at all. [12:39] tumbleweed: ok, where can I get the copying file for GPL version 3? [12:39] c2tarun: it's one of the ones you'd find in common-licences [12:41] tumbleweed: ok, and regarding adoption of any package, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=585421 this package is up for adoption. In order to adopt it I should mail the one who reported this bug? [12:44] c2tarun: take ownership of the bug, retitle it to be an ITA, and state your attempt to adopt [12:45] tumbleweed: how to take the ownership? there is no button or link for that. [12:46] c2tarun: the debian BTS is entirely e-mail driven. http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control === evilvish is now known as vish === tarun is now known as Guest92560 [13:53] what kind of version number is this: (1.1.8-2build1) [13:54] Is this a trick question? [13:55] build means that it got rebuilt, potential because of some library linking or similar [13:55] Rhonda: nope I found this in spyder's debian changelog [13:55] Can you describe better what puzzles you about it? [13:56] Rhonda: I was working on bug 645138 [13:56] Launchpad bug 645138 in spyder (Ubuntu) "update Spyder to Version 2" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/645138 [13:56] c2tarun: The changelog gives the hint. [13:56] c2tarun: http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/s/spyder/spyder_1.1.8-2build1/changelog [13:57] * Rebuild with python 2.7 as the python default. [13:57] Rhonda: actually never saw this 2build1 always packed only 2ubuntu1 or similar to that. [13:57] ubuntu means there are changes involved. build means no changes to source. === _iron is now known as i_ron [13:58] Rhonda: ok, so numbers preceding and following 'build' have the same meaning as they have in ubuntu? [13:58] Yes. [13:58] The 2 is the Debian-Revision, and the 1 is the number of the rebuild. [14:00] Rhonda: thanks :) === tarun is now known as Guest44930 === evilvish is now known as vish === tarun is now known as Guest98138 [17:08] What's the most right way to call lintian in order to display even the most little error/warning about your package? [17:10] hakermania1: -iIE --pedantic [17:10] hakermania1: at least, that's how I use it [17:11] paultag: Thanks, anybody else? [17:11] hakermania1: The manual page. [17:11] hakermania1: `man lintian' might help [17:11] iulian++ [17:12] Ok, thanks, I know, but I though that some experienced guys should know better. [17:12] hakermania1: what I gave you is correct [17:12] hakermania1: I just suggesting that others might use other flags, but that shows X, I, W, E, and P tags [17:12] paultag: OK, I am happy to see that still my package has no errors. [17:13] hakermania1: --show-overrides is nice, too [17:13] paultag: Hehe, nice, still nothing :) [17:13] hakermania1: then it looks good from lintian's perspective :) [17:14] hakermania1: remember to build it an run it on the .changes file [17:14] hakermania1: or do both the deb and the .dsc by hand [17:14] paultag: I place *deb *changes *dsc after setting the flags.. [17:15] OK [17:25] as for the copyright file: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333136/ i use oxygen icons (bsd i guess), jquery and soundmanager (bsd) in my softwarepackage. do i have to add anything to the copyrights file and if where? [17:26] Raydiation: you should consider DEP3 [17:26] dep3? [17:26] he means dep5 http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ [17:26] tumbleweed> grunthus: there's a README that shows how to test it [17:27] ty [17:27] ^thanks (Re: ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu bug 692879) [17:27] Ubuntu bug 692879 in ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu (Ubuntu) "Refers to Open Office, not LibreOffice" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/692879 [19:27] hm is that copyright file fine: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333209/ [19:27] i didnt get any error while running lintian [19:39] can i ignore: executable-not-elf-or-script [19:40] i mean: W: laudio: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/share/laudio/src/scrobbler.py [20:03] dh_fixperms doesnt correct the problem [20:05] Raydiation: you should fill in [20:06] license of first part should be GPL-3+ [20:07] Elbrus: what is version_format_url? [20:07] e.g. : http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ [20:08] or http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=REVISION [20:08] Elbrus: aah [20:08] not sure, but I think you should also join paragraphs in your license text with a single dot [20:10] I think the statement "All rights reserved." on line 26 is not located right and probably doesn't match the license (BSD) [20:10] line 57 should also mention the second license [20:11] (MIT) [20:11] consider adding a stand alone section for the GPL-3 or MIT license (you then don't need to repeat it) [20:12] line 105 should not mention GPL without version [20:13] like On Debian GNU/Linux systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License 3 can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL'. [20:13] ? [20:15] ah ok :D [20:15] found another paragraph above [20:16] exact: it should be a versioned GPL link [20:17] Elbrus: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333226/ [20:23] dapal: ive found a way to restart apache without killing requests: http://www.electrictoolbox.com/article/apache/restart-apache/ [20:23] /usr/sbin/apachectl graceful [20:23] is that ok for me to run in the postint script? [20:23] Raydiation: line 7: GPL-3+ [20:23] Elbrus: ty [20:24] between line 11-12 add one space, a dot and a newline [20:24] idem between line 15-16 [20:24] add a space and dot on line 18 [20:25] Elbrus: like http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333232/ [20:25] ? [20:25] Raydiation: no [20:26] Raydiation: use the same snippet I gave you yesterday, and use "reload" instead of "restart" [20:26] that should be the same [20:26] dapal: ty [20:27] dapal: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333234/ [20:27] Raydiation: something like that, but it is better readable if you align the dot with the text (so add multiple spaces) [20:27] Raydiation: err.. line 41? dbus? :D [20:27] dapal: i copied it 1:1 from the chan :) [20:28] Raydiation: heh, probably I forgot to edit it :D [20:28] dapal: hehe i guess i have to replace it with apache2 [20:28] yup [20:28] Elbrus: ah k [20:31] Elbrus: like http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333236/ [20:32] line 22 and 23 must be indented (I suggest the same amount as the paragraph above it) [20:33] line 30 to 53 must be indented [20:34] skip the second "Copyright" in all your "Copyright: Copyright " lines [20:36] Elbrus: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333240/ [20:38] do i have to fix the executable-not-elf-or-script outputs from lintian? http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333242/ [20:38] and how? a-x or in general every user -x [20:40] Raydiation: line 59: License: GPL-3 or other [20:41] don't indent line 79 and don't use MIT as license name [20:42] from the dep5 page: There are many versions of the MIT license. Please use Expat instead, when it matches. [20:42] Elbrus: just GPL-3? [20:42] no [20:43] GPL-3 or other [20:43] don't forget the word "or" [20:43] line 111 to 115 should also be converted to the proper style [20:44] Elbrus: inserting a .? [20:44] ah k [20:45] line 94 should mention the Qt exception [20:47] the copyright statement in lines 95 to 99 don't mention a version of the GPL. please help upstream to clarify this issue. (it must be clear AFAICT) [20:48] Elbrus: i copied it from the newest package in debian unstable [20:48] ill see if i can get an older version [20:48] Elbrus: hm, thats also the file in squeeze http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/doxygen/doxygen_1.7.1-2/doxygen.copyright [20:49] oops wrong package :P [20:49] thats the correct one http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/o/oxygen-icons/oxygen-icons_4.4.5-1/kde-icons-oxygen.copyright [20:51] Raydiation: Getting technical issues wrong just causes bugs; getting legal info wrong can cause... lawsuits! So be careful, go slowly, and get the copyright stuff 100% correct. [20:52] Raydiation: maybe I am wrong, or the issue was overlooked before (which doesn't make it right) [20:52] * Elbrus leaves [20:56] Elbrus: ty for your help [21:04] jmarsden: yeah, i just double checked all files and found 2 tiny files which ive forgotten [21:11] how do i get my package into ubuntu? [21:11] should i first get a repo on launchpad? [21:12] ppa* [21:14] Raydiation: http://askubuntu.com/questions/16446/how-to-get-my-software-into-ubuntu [21:14] jmarsden: ty [21:14] Raydiation: You're welcome [23:17] how long does it take until uploaded packages show up in a ppa? [23:25] It depends. It should be ≤ 15 minutes for the source packages to show up, then it depends on how busy the buildds are. [23:28] hm i got mixed uploads are not allowed error http://paste.pocoo.org/show/333349/ [23:28] maybe it complains about a flash player [23:28] whose source is already included though [23:29] if anyone is interested, heres the deb: https://github.com/downloads/Raydiation/Laudio/laudio_0.4-beta5-1_all.deb [23:37] ah, debuild -S [23:38] Right. No binary uploads allowed to Ubuntu :) [23:39] im new to debian packaging :) [23:41] woohoo, accepted :) === paultag is now known as crabbytag