| AnAnt | barry: do you think that the git-buildpackage FTBFS is actually a pychecker+python2.7 problem ? | 06:28 |
|---|---|---|
| ari-tczew | hello | 15:04 |
| ari-tczew | wgrant: this page seems to be hanged: http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/multidistrotools/all.html | 15:04 |
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| achiang | if i say override_dh_auto_build, and pass a -I/path/to/include on the make line, is that additive, in addition to the paths autotools already know about? or does it replace any existing values? | 19:23 |
| === bcurtiswx_ is now known as bcurtiswx | ||
| simar | Hi | 21:06 |
| simar | I have a question.. If I create a chroot using pbuilder-dist for natty like | 21:06 |
| simar | $sudo pbuilder-dist natty create | 21:07 |
| simar | can I have another chroot pbuilder using say .. pbuilder-dist maverick create and maintain them side by side?? | 21:07 |
| geser | yes | 21:08 |
| ScottK | Don't call pbuilder-dist with sudo. It handles escalation and using sudo when needed. | 21:08 |
| ScottK | But yes. | 21:08 |
| simar | Thanks | 21:19 |
| simar | ScottK, But I have already called it with sudo and its building my enviroment for natty. I hope it will not cause any harm..?? | 21:20 |
| simar | I used this sudo pbuilder-dist natty create | 21:21 |
| ScottK | simar: Should be fine, but it's not the best way to do it. | 21:21 |
| ScottK | pbuilder-dist natty create would have worked too. | 21:21 |
| simar | ScottK, ok, so I will try this in future .. and for the one that I'm going to build for maverick.. | 21:22 |
| simar | ScottK, But do I need to rebuild for natty or it will work for my purpose. i'm a beginner | 21:22 |
| ScottK | simar: I think it will. Worst case it puts some files in the wrong place and you have to move them a bit. | 21:23 |
| ScottK | You won't need to redo it. | 21:23 |
| simar | ScottK, ok I will hope it will work.. if it don't I will ping you then.. | 21:24 |
| simar | ScottK, Thanks for help :)) | 21:24 |
| ari-tczew | siretart: I have prepared a patch for you - libva ;-) | 23:13 |
| broder | i'm putting my first dep-5 copyright file together. there's a COPYING file at the top-level. most files have copyright/license headers (that match the COPYING file), but a few short ones don't. i know the author and know that his intent was for the COPYING file to apply to all files. can i just do a single Files: * block? | 23:19 |
| broder | also, did the papercuts guys (vish?) ever come up with guidelines on how package descriptions should be written? | 23:30 |
| persia | broder, When dealing with that sort of thing, I usually make an estimate about whether the content of a file is worth copyrighting (short files without expression may not be). | 23:34 |
| persia | If it is, best to get upstream to fix it (people failing to add copyright/licensing information to XML is the most common case I see). | 23:34 |
| persia | In the case of autotools files, I've seen a number of folk add extra clauses to a DEP-5 copyright. | 23:35 |
| persia | But the important thing is that you are representing the state of the files *as they are published*, rather than by a guess at author intent (some folk embed email from authors in debian/copyright to clarify things). | 23:35 |
| persia | And that requirement isn't different between DEP-5 and other types of debian/copyright files. | 23:36 |
| broder | *nods* | 23:36 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!