[06:28] <AnAnt> barry: do you think that the git-buildpackage FTBFS is actually a pychecker+python2.7  problem ?
[15:04] <ari-tczew> hello
[15:04] <ari-tczew> wgrant: this page seems to be hanged: http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/multidistrotools/all.html
[19:23] <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?
[21:06] <simar> Hi
[21:06] <simar> I have a question.. If I create a chroot using pbuilder-dist for natty like
[21:07] <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??
[21:08] <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.
[21:19] <simar> Thanks
[21:20] <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..??
[21:21] <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.
[21:22] <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
[21:23] <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.
[21:24] <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 :))
[23:13] <ari-tczew> siretart: I have prepared a patch for you - libva ;-)
[23:19] <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?
[23:30] <broder> also, did the papercuts guys (vish?) ever come up with guidelines on how package descriptions should be written?
[23:34] <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).
[23:35] <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).
[23:36] <persia> And that requirement isn't different between DEP-5 and other types of debian/copyright files.
[23:36] <broder> *nods*