[00:00] I checked by rmadison sphinx and I am getting that sphinx ver-0.6.6-1 is in maverick. but on running sudo apt-get install sphinx I am getting unable to find package. why so? [00:01] c2tarun: that's a source package [00:01] micahg: so what is the package for installation? [00:01] c2tarun: python-sphinx [00:03] can anyone please explain me this error. http://paste.ubuntu.com/567909/ [00:08] there is a doc_src folder in the prev version, and in new version there is doc folder. some files are same and some are different. I am getting the error that doc_src not found. I think renaming the doc to doc_src will do the job? [00:12] I checked, renaming the folder worked. Should I rename this folder? If yes in which changelog should I mention it? debian changelog or somewhere else. Please reply. [02:06] can anyone please explain me this error http://paste.ubuntu.com/567953/ [02:17] c2tarun, looks like a patch failed to apply to debian/rules... which shouldn't have patches touching it... [02:18] psusi: u mean we can't make changes to rules? [02:19] c2tarun: Just make the changes directly [02:19] Patches are for changes to upstream code. [02:19] StevenK: ok. [02:19] StevenK: Should I mention the change is rules file in debian/changelog? [02:20] yes [02:20] psusi: ok [02:28] I added a patch which is adding a file to the source tree. What should I write about this in changelog. Just added the patch? [02:32] and in rules file in one line I changed "doc_src" to "doc" its name of a folder. What should I mention about this in changelog? anything like changed line to will do or just change doc_src to doc? [02:32] Something like "- added fix_foo.patch: fix foo by doing bar (LP #xx)", maybe? [02:33] arand: but this error was not reported on LP yet, I was fixing an upgrade bug and found this error in new upstream version. [02:34] Reference by file is usually clear and compact: "- debian/rules: doc_src -> doc" [02:35] c2tarun: In that case just omit it, include reference if they are relevant... [02:36] arand: or I should just write "imported file filename.txt from previous version" [02:36] arand: will this be good? ^^ [02:40] c2tarun: If it is clear it's good ;) [02:41] hey hey hey [02:41] cam anyone spare a shell for me, strictly for irc use? [02:44] vorian: i could probably get you an account on irccloud if one of the devs is around [02:45] coolio [02:45] c2tarun: Mention version number, where the file goes, and reason for doing so... I guess, I can only give general hints I'm afraid [02:45] Someone else would probably know more specifics [02:57] if anyone free for sponsorship please look at bug 645138 thank you [02:57] Launchpad bug 645138 in spyder (Ubuntu) "update Spyder to Version 2" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/645138 [02:58] * vorian advocates for $20 us [03:58] limitfears.blogspot.com [04:06] eve/win 21 [04:06] arrg === fta` is now known as fta [07:21] good morning [07:38] zul: I know you're incredibly busy.. I was just hoping you maybe could explain why php-fpm was taken out in 5.3.3-2.. [07:39] MTecknology: it was because of the squeeze release, I believe the release team wasn't keen on having a new SAPI just before release [07:39] oh [07:40] at least that's what I recall from the mailing list [07:40] It seems it's not back in there yet [07:40] which mailing list was that? [07:41] debian php list & debian-release, I think [07:43] thanks [07:43] Do you know if they're planning on bringing it back? [07:43] as far as I can see, it's not even around in experimental [07:44] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-php-maint/2010-November/008033.html [07:44] yes [07:44] Do you mean php5-fpm? [07:45] ya [07:45] yay, thanks :) [07:46] MTecknology: In the changelog of php5 5.3.3-2 it was removed with "Don't build FPM SAPI now", though no further information on the why. [07:47] You might want to ask ondrej (on irc.debian.org), he signed off that changelog [07:47] Actually it php5-fpm seems to only have been built between 5.3.3-1 and 5.3.3-2, so a single upload. [07:49] Ah, that alioth mail explains a bit more [07:49] Rhonda: `the bug report that caused the mail ajmitch sent me a link to was perfect [07:49] basically a long version of what he just said though :P [07:50] Sorry for jumping in sideways. :) [07:51] :P [07:51] help always appreciated [07:52] Wasn't much help from what I can tell :) [08:27] Rhonda: I'm attempting to build a package with it added pack in :P [08:28] MTecknology: You can fetch the 5.3.3-1 source from snapshot.debian.org [08:28] To take a look at how it was incorporated there [08:29] ooh- another really neat website [08:30] I'll try that out if this doesn't work - fighting my pbuilder environment now - but I think it was just out of date [08:30] I've started to work on a download client, though haven't found the time to clean it up well enough to push it into the devscripts package yet. %-/ [08:31] Hey, anyone up for reviewing l2tp-ipsec-vpn? It's a little applet to configure and manage L2TP IPsec VPN connections. I've just uploaded a new candidate. http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/l2tp-ipsec-vpn [08:46] Rhonda: still building..... but have done something right :D [08:55] gah... this has been building for 1/2hr now [09:27] can anyone please tell me how can I convert copyright to dep-5 format? [09:44] anyone up for the sponsorship. please look at bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/medit/+bug/719725 [09:44] Ubuntu bug 719725 in medit (Ubuntu) "Newer Version Available" [Wishlist,In progress] [09:47] c2tarun: Looks like bhavi has handled it up to now. I think we should wait for him [09:51] mok0: ok :) but I dont know how to fix dep-5 problem. Can you please tell me how can I do that? [10:03] c2tarun: what dep-5 problem? [10:04] mok0: bhavi suggested me to convert copyright file format to dep-5 format. I dont know how to do that? [10:05] c2tarun: well, it's just editing the copyright file to conform to the spec [10:06] mok0: there is no tool to convert from one format to another? [10:06] c2tarun: TL;DR the full bug thread... [10:06] c2tarun: nope [10:06] c2tarun: vi or emacs :-P [10:06] c2tarun: the old format is purely text, not machine readable [10:07] licencecheck can give you an overview of the contents of the package [10:07] mok0: ok :) [10:07] tumbleweed: make that machine _parseable_ [10:07] mok0: yeah :) [10:08] c2tarun: TBH, I don't understand why you bother, since the package is already maintained in Debian [10:08] c2tarun: and your version will be zapped when Debian catches up [10:09] c2tarun: better to contact the Debian maintainer and offer your help [10:09] mok0: I am not getting what you are saying :( [10:11] he's saying bhavi is requesting things he shouldn't (we want to keep our packages as close to debian as possible) [10:11] c2tarun: you want to upload a new version of medit, right? [10:11] tumbleweed: how can i check whether a package is maintained in debian or not? [10:11] mok0: yup [10:12] c2tarun: ... that package is in Debian, version 0.10-4-1 [10:12] mok0: ya that is not latest thats why I tried to pack it. [10:12] you can also tell from the changelog, or by looking at packages.debian.org/$packagename or rmadison -u debian $packagename [10:13] c2tarun: ok, it's orphaned, but if someone takes it over, your ubuntu version will be overridden [10:13] c2tarun: I say, it's better to offer to help maintain it in Debian [10:13] c2tarun: if you want to, you can take it over in debian, or we can do a QA upload of it in Debian [10:14] (assuming the new version is something people will want) [10:14] tumbleweed: that's what bhavi said about a QA upload, but I dont understood that. I thought to upload it here first and then look into what QA is. [10:14] oh, someone already intends to adopt it [10:15] a QA upload is an upload to an orphaned package (i.e. to fix a bug, or upload a new version, but not much else) [10:15] you can poke the adopter and ask him what the status is [10:15] tumbleweed: ok, how can i check whether a package is orphaned? and how can i adopt it? [10:16] yeah, his message is from September 10 [10:16] mok0: there's some more recent retitling below that [10:16] c2tarun: http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/medit.html [10:17] tumbleweed: are you a DD? [10:17] mok0: as of pretty recently :P [10:17] tumbleweed: ah, congrats! [10:17] than you could sponsor c2tarun I suppose [10:18] hey guys, I just wanted to contribute via packaging (as I dont know much of coding) What is the best way to do that? by best I mean most effective way. [10:18] mok0: tumbleweed^^ [10:22] ping [10:32] c2tarun: go ahead and fix the package, then ping bahvi [10:32] c2tarun: and tumbleweed for sponsoring (?) [10:32] mok0: but you said, that my package will be zapped :( [10:33] c2tarun: not if you get it uploaded to Debian [10:33] c2tarun: but as we said, contact that guy who wanted to take over the package for maintenance, and ask if he still means it [10:34] c2tarun: it's great you want to contribute! [10:34] mok0: thanks, sorry, connectivity issues here... [10:34] c2tarun: and seemingly tedious stuff like writing emails to people is part of it :-) [10:34] c2tarun: happy to help, but please contact the person who has stated he's going to adopt it, first [10:35] mok0: yup very tedious :( [10:35] c2tarun: do you have interest in other packages? [10:35] c2tarun: have you done merges? [10:35] c2tarun: sync requests? [10:36] mok0: I am intereseted in other packages, but never done merges and sync. [10:36] mok0: but I would love to do them. [10:37] mok0: can you guide a bit, like from where to start. I am a quick learner ;) [10:46] mok0: ping [10:46] c2tarun: for merges, look here: https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html [10:46] c2tarun: you know what "merge" means? [10:47] mok0: little bit, like if any package has new version in debian than we can pack it as per ubuntu and merge it into our archive.? [10:48] c2tarun: not quite [10:48] c2tarun: a merge applies only to packages that have ubuntu changes [10:49] c2tarun: when a new Debian version of that package appears, we need to move those changes to the new version [10:50] c2tarun: that is, the ubuntu modfications need to be merged with the new Debian package [10:50] mok0: ok, and if no modification needed than we call it sync? (I guess) [10:50] c2tarun: ... and we add "ubuntu1" to the debian release string [10:50] c2tarun: exactly [10:51] c2tarun: syncs happen automatically up to a certain point in the cycle [10:51] c2tarun: after that, you need to make a "sync-request" [10:51] on LP [10:52] c2tarun, you should read sync and merge process [10:52] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess [10:52] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Merging [10:52] mok0: but for sync we need to know that no change is required. And I guess the only way to check that is to build it on ubuntu machine? [10:52] tips, look at latest chagelog both ubuntu and debian [10:52] *changelog [10:53] c2tarun: udienz said it. In addtion, all packages that do not have ubuntu* as part of the release string, have been sync'ed [10:53] c2tarun: ... and we don't like to introduce deltas unless there is a very good reason [10:54] (like bugfixes) [10:54] mok0: sorry to say this, but I never say any package without ubuntu as part of the release string :( can you name some. [10:54] say=>saw [10:55] c2tarun: dpkg -l on your system lists all installed packages. [10:56] c2tarun, do you want to make a sync request now? i'm ready [10:56] mok0: wow... there are many. [10:56] c2tarun: I have i.e. zip_3.0-2 [10:56] udienz: sync request for medit? [10:56] c2tarun: yep, 75% of them [10:56] c2tarun, no, i guesst xchm package. i want to sync last night but i'm sleepy :( [10:56] c2tarun: go to the bottom of this page: https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html [10:57] ah, not quite 75%... [10:57] more like 2/3 [10:58] mok0: ya approx 67% still many. ok so its not always necessary to pack. most of the time we request sync. for example as udienz said xchm package. [10:58] c2tarun: yes, but most syncs happen automatically [10:59] c2tarun: you see the little purple slice there, these are packages that need "manual" sync [10:59] (so including that, we're up to 3/4) [10:59] c2tarun: these may or may not be sync'ed for natty [11:00] c2tarun: depending whether someone requests a sync [11:00] mok0: ok. so first we should check that a package is in natty or not. If not then we should check whether best option is sync or merge. and then we go for that? [11:02] udienz: ping [11:02] c2tarun, yup [11:02] udienz: package xchm has newer version in debian. how can we check whether we need a sync or merge? [11:03] c2tarun, as mok0 saya, sync is no modified in ubuntu, and merge need some modified. so look at xchm in PTS [11:04] http://packages.qa.debian.org/xchm [11:04] and lp [11:04] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xchm [11:05] udienz: sorry I got disconnected. How can we check whether a sync will be better or merge? === tarun is now known as Guest87222 === Guest87222 is now known as c2tarun [11:05] c2tarun, as mok0 saya, sync is no modified in ubuntu, and merge need some modified. so look at xchm in PTS [11:05] http://packages.qa.debian.org/xchm [11:05] and lp [11:05] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xchm [11:06] you can see in LP that xchm not require merge, because no ubuntu delta [11:06] udienz: ya this thing I didn't understand, what is ubuntu delta? [11:07] c2tarun, ubuntu changes, you can check in ubuntu changelog [11:07] but from xchm version i believe there is no ubuntu delta [11:07] udienz: ok, just wait a sec, let me check please [11:09] udienz: ok, so last changelog entry is for changeing packaging format, control file and rules file. [11:09] nothing like ubuntu chagne [11:09] change* [11:10] udienz: ping [11:10] c2tarun: "delta" is slang for a difference, a patch [11:10] c2tarun, yes but it's debian change [11:10] * udienz agreed with mok0 [11:11] udienz: got it. so how can we request a sync? [11:11] it seems the remaining merges are either difficult or uninteresting [11:12] c2tarun: ah here is one: epdfview [11:12] c2tarun: wanna take a look? [11:12] mok0: sure [11:13] c2tarun: find it on that MoM page I gave you above [11:13] c2tarun: in the "updated merges" section [11:14] mok0: ya got it. [11:14] c2tarun: click on the name, and see the merge report [11:15] c2tarun: the merge generated 2 conflicts [11:15] mok0: oh.. I can see on PTS page, there is a patch fixing a bug [11:15] c2tarun: indeed [11:16] mok0: and ya in conflicts, there is a change in control file and a patch. control file is not delta but patch is :) [11:16] c2tarun: put that bug aside for a moment (we'll get back to that) [11:16] mok0: ok. [11:17] c2tarun: the merge is preprocessed in Ubuntu, but sometimes it can't do everything automatically [11:17] c2tarun: for example, when there is a conflict [11:17] c2tarun: which means, the Debian maintainer edited the same line in a file that was edited in the ubuntu version [11:18] c2tarun: so that needs to be fixed manually, so the merge can be completed [11:18] mok0: ok. [11:19] c2tarun: there is a script here to help doing the merge: https://merges.ubuntu.com/grab-merge.sh [11:20] mok0: you sure this script? I executed this script and it removed all the files from my folder. [11:20] c2tarun: yikes [11:20] c2tarun: I was about to warn you [11:20] c2tarun: it expects you to create a woring dir [11:21] mok0: woring? [11:21] working [11:21] mok0: oh :) [11:21] c2tarun: I actually edited that line from the script [11:21] in my local copy [11:22] mok0: what else this script do except deleting? [11:22] c2tarun: :-) [11:23] c2tarun: it fetches everything you need to do the merge [11:23] c2tarun: i.e. the debian version, the old ubuntu version and the attempted merged version [11:23] c2tarun: the latter is what you need to fix [11:24] mok0: ok, how to use this script? I mean any parameters required to pass? [11:24] c2tarun: the name of the package [11:26] c2tarun: so create a directory, cd into it, and run the script with the argument epdfview [11:26] mok0: ya did :) [11:27] mok0: its getting what required [11:27] c2tarun: yep. It creates 1 directory [11:27] c2tarun: with the merge-attempt [11:27] cd into that + debian/ [11:28] mok0: ya then. [11:29] c2tarun: so, it seems there is a problem with 2 files: control and patches/series [11:29] mok0: ya. [11:29] c2tarun: edit control [11:30] c2tarun: something with build-depends [11:31] mok0: yup, its like in red color, with <<<<<<<<< and >>>>>>> symbols. What are these? [11:31] c2tarun: it seems debian requires a package "hardening-includes" [11:31] c2tarun: they are markers delimiting the 2 versions. [11:32] c2tarun: the ubuntu version is from <<< to === [11:32] c2tarun: and the debian version is from === to >>> [11:32] mok0: sorry for this silly question :( but who put those markers? [11:32] c2tarun: the program attempting to do the merge [11:33] mok0: so there is an automatic program as well trying to merge each an every pacakge? what is its name? [11:33] c2tarun: diff3 I believe [11:33] c2tarun: mege-o-matic [11:33] mok0: oh :) [11:33] merge-o-matic [11:33] c2tarun: it uses varioous standard tools to do the job [11:34] mok0: ok. [11:34] c2tarun: but it can't figure out what to do if there are modifications to the same lines of a file [11:34] mok0: so what we can see is debian require hardening-includes while ubuntu req dh-autoreconf? [11:34] c2tarun: exactly [11:35] c2tarun: and you have to figure out what's going on [11:35] mok0: so we just update the build-depends according to ubuntu and save this control file [11:35] ? [11:35] c2tarun: yes, but you should end up with a control file without the <<<< === and >>> lines [11:36] mok0: I should end up, or I will end up? I mean should I remove those markers or leave them as it is? [11:37] c2tarun: when you figure out what the Build-depends: should look like, remove the marker lines [11:37] mok0: that's easy i guess, we just add line b/w <<< and === after libgtk2.0-dev in Build-Depends? [11:37] c2tarun: so there are 2 questions you should find out: A) is dh_autoreconf still needed? and B) should "hardening-includes" now be in ubuntu as well? [11:38] mok0: okay... [11:38] c2tarun: the other conflict has to do with patches. [11:39] c2tarun: to resolve that, you need to understand if one or both ubuntu patches are now redundant [11:39] (I'll leave that to you :-)) [11:39] mok0: in order to check this conflict we have to build the package with the possible build-depends? and for patch one i'll try :) [11:40] c2tarun: yes, when you've fixed all conflicts, build the source package (add changelog entry first, to say what the ubuntu diff is) [11:40] c2tarun: then build the binary package in your pbuilder [11:41] c2tarun: make sure the package builds [11:42] c2tarun: and if at all possible, test the program to see that it runs and works [11:43] mok0: sorry to ask this but you said both ubuntu patches, but here there are 6 patches. [11:43] c2tarun: then you make a debdiff between the new debian version and the new ubuntu version, attach that to a bug on LP, and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors [11:44] c2tarun: then the bug appears here: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-sponsors [11:44] c2tarun: and the MOTUs will tak a look at it [11:44] ... eventually [11:44] :-) [11:45] mok0: yup :) [11:45] c2tarun: I noticed.. [11:45] c2tarun: I noticed there are different pathces [11:45] c2tarun: ... and I could not at a glance see what's going on [11:46] mok0: sure, no prob. I'll try and in case i get stuck i'll ask back on channel :) thanks a lot [11:46] c2tarun: you probably need to consult the debian version and the old ubuntu version to figure out what has happende [11:46] mok0: yup, I was exactly proceeding in that direction only :) [11:47] c2tarun: great [12:05] how can i check the dependency of a library? [12:23] mok0: hey all the patches are already applied. should I remove them all? [12:24] c2tarun: yes if that's the case... then you need a sync request [12:24] c2tarun: and celebrate that we managed to drop 1 delta :-) [12:27] c2tarun: in package ubuntu-dev-tools, you will find the program requestsync, that makes it easier [12:27] but what about the issue with control file? [12:28] mok0: ^^ I removed dh_autoreconf and added hardening-includes. It was necessary [12:28] c2tarun: you didn't figure that out? [12:28] c2tarun: ok [12:28] mok0: so still this calls for a sync or merge? [12:29] c2tarun: if all deltas are gone, there is no reason to have a -*ubuntu1 package, that only carries forward changelog comments [12:29] c2tarun: then the merge becomes a merge [12:29] ah [12:29] then the merge becomes a SYNC [12:30] mok0: I am bit sceptic with my changelog file. Can you please take a look at it? [12:30] c2tarun: pastebin it [12:31] c2tarun: of course if the package is synced, you don't need it [12:31] mok0: http://paste.ubuntu.com/568156/ here is my changelog [12:33] c2tarun: there are two entries for natty, the first one was proposed by MoM. [12:33] c2tarun: did you create a debdiff? [12:34] mok0: sorry, :( I forgot. wait let me create [12:34] debdiff old new [12:34] old == debian [12:34] new == yours [12:35] c2tarun, you can use dch -e instead of dch -i to change "MOM " with your nam and email [12:36] c2tarun: if you look at the changelog, you can see that fabrice fixed a bug, and the patch was sent upstream. [12:36] c2tarun: so it makes sense that we can now request a sync [12:37] c2tarun: so unless you just want to learn, there is no reason to do more work on the package [12:37] mok0: here is my debdiff http://paste.ubuntu.com/568158/ [12:37] * mok0 looks [12:38] c2tarun: I am not convinced it is the right debdiff [12:39] c2tarun: I would expect it to be nearly empty [12:39] mok0: it is the one b/w the two dsc? [12:39] c2tarun: yes, but which two? [12:40] mok0: debdiff epdfview_0.1.7-4ubuntu1.dsc epdfview_0.1.7-5ubuntu2.dsc [12:40] c2tarun: thats not the one I want [12:40] mok0: than? [12:40] c2tarun: I want the debdiff that creates the newest ubuntu version (yours) from the newest debian version [12:41] mok0: ok [12:41] debdiff epdfview_0.1.7-5.dsc epdfview_0.1.7-5ubunt1.dsc === paissad_ is now known as paissad [12:46] mok0: http://paste.ubuntu.com/568162/ here is the diff u asked. [12:51] mok0: I did one mistake, dh-autoreconf and hardened-includes both are required, I checked on pbuilder and package build successfully :) [12:54] c2tarun: did you try to build epdfview_0.1.7-5 = [12:54] ? [12:54] mok0: I tried to build epdfview_0.1.7-5ubunt1.dsc and it build succesfully [12:54] c2tarun: I am convinced you can drop the delta [12:55] mok0: so changelog is fine or I need to create a new one? [12:55] c2tarun: i.e. the difference between 0.1.7-5 and 0.1.7-5ubuntu1 [12:55] is not worth carrying forward [12:56] c2tarun: you don't need to do more. Just request the sync. You can now try the requestsync program [12:57] mok0: ok, sorry but let me gather all this, I fixed the control file problem, removed patches as it was applied upstream. So no patches hence no deltas. right. hence it needs sync not merge. so no need to change changelog. All just mattered is fixing of control and calling for sync? [12:57] requestsync --lp epdfnew natty [12:58] c2tarun: during the course of your work, you discovered that all ubuntu changes were now incorporated in the debian version. Therefore, we can go back to sync'ing this package, and drop the ubuntu changes. [12:59] c2tarun: so you don't need to change anything [12:59] mok0: not even control file? [12:59] c2tarun: not even that [12:59] :-) [13:00] mok0: then why we started with control file? :/ we should have started with patch problem. :| [13:00] c2tarun: the archive admins will respond to the sync request by copying the package over from debian [13:00] c2tarun: so you could learn how to resolve a conflict [13:00] mok0: ok :) [13:01] mok0: and suppose one or more patches applies succesfully, than what? [13:01] c2tarun: yes, we should have started with the patch problem, but that was more difficult [13:02] c2tarun: when the sync happens, there won't be any patches. The ubuntu version will byte-for-byte be identical to the Debian version [13:02] mok0: and suppose one or more patches applies succesfully, than what? [13:03] c2tarun: if MoM has done something, it should be visible in the debdiff. [13:03] c2tarun: that's why I wanted you to check that [13:03] mok0: I got this error on requestsync :( http://paste.ubuntu.com/568170/ [13:04] micahg, around? [13:04] c2tarun: oh, I think it has to do with authentication with LP [13:05] c2tarun: you need to do something to get it to work [13:05] mok0: I am looking at the manpage of manage-credentials :( [13:06] c2tarun: good [13:07] Hm, wft is a consumer [13:08] Ah, its the program that needs access [13:08] c2tarun: manage-credentials create -c ubuntu-dev-tools -l 2 [13:08] mok0: I am not getting somethings in man page, like --service,--cache,-o,--level [13:09] c2tarun: try the line I sent [13:09] c2tarun: which is from the bottom of the man page [13:11] mok0: its asking for what level of access I do want. ?? [13:11] c2tarun: what are the options? [13:12] mok0: No Access, Read Non-Private Data, Change Non-Private Data, Read Anything, Change Anything [13:12] c2tarun: Change Anything sound good :-) [13:12] mok0: ok :) [13:12] c2tarun: I honestly can't remember. I've done it once years ago [13:13] mok0: wow... you didn't format your system since last one year? [13:13] (fwiw, I don't think that 0.1.7-5 can be synced, it probably ftbfs without the patch from 0.1.7-4ubuntu1, because debian doesn't have the newer poppler yet) [13:13] c2tarun: but you need to authenticate ubuntu-dev-tools with your LP account, so LP knows it's OK for a program to do stuff on your account (Like filing a bug) [13:14] mr_pouit: That seems to have been fixed [13:14] mr_pouit: ah [13:14] mr_pouit: new poppler, eh [13:16] mok0: I am at a vi text editor with a piece of changelog at bottom and some lines over it. :? [13:17] c2tarun: that text will be the description of the bug in LP. [13:17] mok0: Am I supposed to write anything there? [13:17] c2tarun: but hang on, mr_pouit has raised doubts if the package can be synced [13:17] mok0: why so? [13:18] c2tarun: wait a moment, I will check [13:18] mok0: sure [13:22] c2tarun: mr_pouit was right, we need a merge after all [13:22] mok0: anything I did wrong? [13:22] c2tarun: no, not you, me [13:22] mok0: what? [13:23] c2tarun: the version from debian 0.1.7-5 does not compile under natty [13:23]