[02:55] can anyone please help me with this error [02:55] http://paste.ubuntu.com/572898/ [03:00] c2tarun, are you upgrading a package here? [03:01] artfwo: fixing FTBFS [03:02] well, the patch fails to apply here [03:03] artfwo: that is something I dont understand :( I just created a patch refreshed it and poped it and now whn I am building I am getting this error. :( [03:04] could you show your patch as well? [03:04] artfwo: let me tell you few things then may be you understand, the package I am fixing has no patches, I added 3.0 (quilt) to debian/source/format and then I added a new patch by quilt new and then the usual steps [03:05] artfwo: here is the patch http://paste.ubuntu.com/572900/ [03:06] * artfwo is looking [03:19] c2tarun, weird the patch fails to apply indeed [03:20] artfwo: why so? i used 3.0 quilt so I didnt made any changes to rules and control file. do you think its right? [03:20] that's certainly not right [03:22] artfwo: so here is the error :( ok, i'll try to read again an make changes to rules and control file [03:23] artfwo: thanks for you time [03:23] I'm not done with the problem yet :) [03:24] artfwo: is there anything else :) [03:26] c2tarun, I cannot figure out what's happening [03:26] I just tried to patch chaplin.c (simply add a comment to the beginning of the file) and managed to build the package [03:27] but if I create a patch against makefile, if breaks up [03:27] artfwo: oh i think I got this, make file ha no write priviledges except root [03:27] wait let me try again [03:30] artfwo: sorry I was wrong chaplin.c file is also the same privileges as Makefile :( [03:30] privileges shouldn't normally be a problem [03:30] artfwo: yup :| [03:31] it works fine when I patch the makefile in maverick [03:31] trying in a natty chroot [03:32] artfwo: hey on this page its written that we dont have to make any changes to rules and control file in case of 3.0 quilt http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/howto/quilt.html#integrating_with_the_package_build_process please take a look [03:33] c2tarun, that's right [03:33] artfwo: ok so I did right :) there is some other problem if Bachstelze faces the same than something wrong with package [03:35] c2tarun, I think I found the solution [03:35] artfwo: grt... what is it? [03:35] quilt pop -a [03:35] while quilt push; do quilt refresh -p ab; done [03:35] do you mean executing [03:35] quilt refresh -p ab [03:36] no [03:36] I mean executing the whole line "while quilt push; do quilt refresh -p ab; done" [03:36] artfwo: just like that, on terminal? [03:36] yes [03:37] artfwo: what will it do? [03:38] artfwo: its not working, I executed the line and then poped the patch, then I tried to build the source package and hunk failed [03:38] it will refresh the patches and make them ignore context lines [03:38] c2tarun, you should execute the command AFTER you've popped the patch [03:38] and then don't pop your patch again [03:38] artfwo: ok wait [03:39] but just run debuild -S [03:39] there's a quilt faq on debian wiki. read about your problem here: http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0#Iconvertedmypackagebutitfailstobuildorfailstounpackonallbuildds [03:41] artfwo: actually what is happneing, the script is refreshing the patch and applying it, after we apply the patch manually its building properly, the problem is occuring if we pop the patch and then try to build the source package [03:41] but why are you popping the patch when building source package? [03:42] because debuild automatically applies it, so it should work both ways, patch pushed and poped. [03:43] artfwo: and earlier also if you push the patch then source package was building properly, so I dont find anything new after that script :( [03:43] oh [03:43] did you look at the original diff.gz by the way? [03:44] artfwo: nope, why? [03:44] it has its own patch for the makefile [03:44] artfwo: can you please tell me how to look at diff.gz? [03:45] ah ah [03:45] that's probably why [03:45] c2tarun, I usually look at them with midnight commander (package: mc) [03:45] I got the source with apt-get source, so it already applied the .diff.gz [03:46] c2tarun, perhaps it would be easier to fix the FTBFS by editing diff.gz [03:47] artfwo: never done that :( let me try once. [03:47] c2tarun, I've just opened http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/ and I don't see chaplin there [03:48] artfwo: check this http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_ftbfs.cgi [03:49] another ftbfs tracker? [03:49] artfwo: yup [03:50] didn't know about this one :) [03:50] yeah, that's it [03:50] (and that, my friend, is why patching source files in .diff.gz is Evil™) [03:51] Bachstelze: hmm... any suggestions on what should I do? [03:52] how did you get the source? [03:53] Bachstelze: pulled it from natty archive. [03:53] how? just downloaded the .tar.gz and uncompressed it with tar xzf? [03:53] Bachstelze: pull-lp-source chaplin [03:54] hmm [03:55] it seems to do tha tsame thing as apt-get source, so you did have a copy with .diff.gz applied [03:55] the same thing* [03:55] Bachstelze: yup [03:55] just a sec, I'm waiting for my natty chroot to upgrade [03:55] Bachstelze: sure. [04:03] I don't think it's reasonable to use quilt together with diff.gz here [04:03] indded [04:03] but at least it should work [04:03] the patch is exactly one-line [04:03] so if it doesn't, something else is wrong [04:03] one thing at a time :) [04:04] yes, but I think it will be okay, if c2tarun edits diff.gz by adding +LIBS= to the existing Makefile patch [04:04] it will make things easier for sponsoring, etc. [04:05] no, that would be even dirtier, ultimately, it would be best to get rid of patching in .diff.gz [04:05] and put everything in quilt [04:05] then c2tarun's job is to move everything from diff.gz to debian/patches :) [04:06] yes, but as I said, one thing at a time :) [04:07] well, it works fine here in natty too [04:09] artfwo Bachstelze: sorry I am not getting what you are exactly saying, the patch in diff.gz is the one line updated in Makefile precisely line number 7? [04:10] what I am seeing in the source code folder is the second line, it means first line is updated by second. but I guess since this change is not due to any patch in quilt, should I first make a patch that make the change in diff.gz and then my binutils patch? [04:12] c2tarun, unpack your diff.gz and open it in a text editor - you'll get it. [04:12] or just open it with midnight commander [04:12] or zless :) [04:13] I opened it in vi and i got it :) [04:14] what I am not understanding is what do you mean by move everything to patches? [04:15] c2tarun, your diff.gz contains patches to Makefile and chaplin.c [04:15] that's considered bad practice [04:15] right now, .diff.gz modifies some source files [04:15] artfwo: ya [04:15] that's wrong [04:16] ^ [04:16] so i should get the orig tarball, make patches for the changes in diff.gz and then pack it? [04:17] like Bachstelze said, one thing at a time :) [04:18] artfwo: one thing at time means like one patch for the change in diff.gz and other for my change? [04:18] yes [04:18] and also that first we're trying to figure out why yours doesn't apply [04:18] then we can move on to the others [04:19] Bachstelze: i guess mine and patch in diff.gz are changing the same line, I followed the quilt so it failed. [04:19] no [04:19] as fat as quilt is concerned, .diff.gz does not even exist [04:19] Bachstelze: then? [04:20] quilt comes after .diff.gz has been applied [04:20] hmm....' [04:22] c2tarun: how are you building your package? [04:22] Bachstelze: debuild -S [04:23] not the source package, the binary [04:23] debuild -b [04:23] Bachstelze: but source is failing first why go for the binary? [04:24] yeah, never mind :p [04:27] hmm, what's this .pc dir it creates [04:27] ? [04:27] first time I see it [04:27] quilt uses it [04:32] I mean [04:32] .pc should be removed when it's not needed, so it shouldn't be there anymore when you run debuild -S [04:33] first time I see it when I run a debuild [04:33] is what I meant [04:33] normally it's always removed before [04:34] maybe the fact that you have source file spatched in .diff.gz is confusing quilt, I guess you should remove those first [04:34] well its gets removed automatically I guess, I never removed it in any packages [04:34] me neither [04:34] that's wwy I wonder why it's stil here now [04:35] Bachstelze: you created any new patch? [04:35] same as yours [04:36] hmm... will it be right if I untar fresh orig.tar and copy debian into it, then I create two patches, first one will fix the change in diff.gz and other one will fix mine (or just one patch with appropriate changes) [04:37] that should work, yes [04:37] perhaps, dpkg-source has a conflict of 1.0 format and 3.0 format, when packing the package? [04:37] you should do a separate quilt patch for the Makefile and chaplin.c thouhg [04:38] Bachstelze: why so? I mean one patch can handle everything [04:38] it's bad practice to put unrelated changes in the same patch [04:39] because what if one of them becomes irrelevant, but the other is still needed? [04:39] ok I'll do that :) [04:45] I think it's the fact that the same file is patched both in .diff.gz and in quilt [04:45] that is making dpkg-source fail [04:49] Bachstelze: I always struggle in what to write in changelog :( can you please help me a bit, I created two patches one is for chaplin.c and other is for Makefile [04:52] something like "Converted changes in Makefile and chaplin.c from .diff.ge to quilt patches." [04:53] Bachstelze: I changed the Makefile in such a way that it includes the change in diff.gz and FTBFS bug simultaneously [04:53] Bachstelze: in a single patch :( [04:53] it's best to make separate, they are probably unrelated [04:55] Bachstelze: but both the patch will change the same line, do you still think it is necessary to separate them? [04:55] yes [04:56] that's exactly what quilt is for [04:56] ok, i'll do it [04:56] since the parches are nicely ordered on a stack, you are sure of the order they will be applied in [04:56] so no problem editing the same line several times [05:05] tumbleweed, around? [05:11] Bachstelze: I changed as you directed, can you please take a look at bug 725645 [05:11] Launchpad bug 725645 in chaplin (Ubuntu) "Package chaplin-1.10-0.1build1 failed to build on natty machine" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/725645 [05:11] Bachstelze: I mean take a look at upload I made in that bug [05:12] c2tarun, which log contain ftbfs? [05:13] udienz: sorry I didn't uploaded that log, wait i'll upload [05:13] c2tarun, it's better when you write short log that contain error's in bug [05:14] udienz: sorry, I'll keep in mind from next time :( [05:14] udienz: I uploaded it. [05:15] c2tarun, but if an error in other place you can put links at bug. usually i do it when fixing ftbfs [05:15] udienz: If you are looking at it than I should'nt subscribe ubuntu-sponsors? [05:15] c2tarun, np [05:15] c2tarun: it'as also beter to attach a debdiff rather than your .debian.tar.gz [05:16] c2tarun, no, please subscribe ubuntu-sponsors. because i'm not ubuntu-motu right now [05:16] udienz: sure, [05:16] Bachstelze: I thought to do so but since I changed the diff.gz it was weird. but I'll do it :) wait [05:16] it seems to build fine [05:17] Bachstelze: done :) debdiff is uploaded [05:19] c2tarun, take a look at bug 715625, i reported eggcups in lp. i attched an error and debdiff. so other developer can checked very fast [05:19] Launchpad bug 715625 in eggcups (Ubuntu) "[FTBFS] Source eggcups 0.20-0ubuntu4 in Natty" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/715625 [05:20] ubottu: wow :) no comments uploaded directly :) cool I'll also post an error log and debdiff from next time [05:20] Error: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent :) [05:20] udienz: opps ^^ [05:22] c2tarun, seems like it was caused by binutils-gold [05:22] chaplin [05:22] udienz: yup and hey I didn't made an entry for updating standards-version in debian/control file in changelog. :( [05:23] c2tarun, i change standrs version because eggcups come from ubuntu [05:23] and not from debian [05:23] c2tarun: standards shouldn't be bumped on packages we import from Debian [05:23] udienz: chaplin is also not in debian. [05:25] c2tarun: it originally came from Debian [05:25] micahg: but I think now its not in debian :( because rmadison didn't display anything on debian call [05:26] right [05:26] * micahg is checking why it was dropped [05:26] c2tarun, right. chaplin isn't in debian yet [05:26] udienz: no, it was originally from Debian 5 years ago [05:27] er, almost 7 actually [05:27] * c2tarun wow 7... that time I never heard about linux :( [05:27] micahg, ah.. ok.. [05:27] micahg: so I shouldn't change the standards-version? [05:27] c2tarun: you should change the version to 1.10-0.2 [05:28] not 1build2 [05:28] no, it should be 1.10-0.1ubuntu2 [05:28] *1.10-0.1ubuntu1 [05:28] buildX is added when a package is rebuilt without having been modified [05:29] * micahg can't find the removal note either [05:29] c2tarun: no, you can [05:29] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/chaplin/ give me 404 [05:29] it's like all traces of its very existence in Debian has been removed [05:30] ls [05:30] oops , sorry [05:30] the package builds fine, in any case [05:31] but if the package is not in debian anymore, maybe you could take the liberty of fixing all the lintian warnings [05:33] Bachstelze: lintian warnings? where are they? [05:34] lintian -I in-file-with.changes [05:34] c2tarun: http://paste.ubuntu.com/572935/ [05:34] last one is "normal" [05:35] Bachstelze: I am very sorry, I dont know why the first two lintian warnings are there, can you please give me any hint? [05:36] c2tarun: http://lintian.debian.org/tags.html [05:43] how can i get the debhelper compatibility version? [05:43] c2tarun, it's in debian/compat [05:44] artfwo: actually its not there :) I got the lintian warning and I have to put in there [05:45] c2tarun, are you still working on chaplin? [05:45] artfwo: yup [05:45] I have a freshly unpacked source here, and debian/compat is there [05:46] chaplin-1.10$ cat debian/compat [05:46] 4 [05:46] yes [05:46] and the warning tells you that it's deprecated [05:46] latest is 8 [05:47] Bachstelze: ok, so I'll update it to 8 and is there anything wrong with this syntax "Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}" [05:48] that's right syntax [05:48] original package didn't have {misc:Depends} [05:48] artfwo: what do you mean? I am not getting [05:49] what does lintian say to you? [05:49] artfwo: W: chaplin source: debhelper-but-no-misc-depends chaplin [05:49] there [05:50] you don't have ${misc:Depends} in debian/control [05:50] it's all described in http://lintian.debian.org/tags/debhelper-but-no-misc-depends.html [05:51] c2tarun, also make sure to read debhelper manpage, before you bump debian/compat to 8 [05:52] it describes all the compability levels in detail [05:53] can someone makes sure the package still works before putting all this work into it? [05:55] micahg, is fixing ftbfs allowed now? [05:55] udienz: yes [05:56] artfwo: I am not sure that this package satisfies the compatibility level of more than 4. What should I do? [06:00] c2tarun, I'd suppose you should set debian/compat to the maximum possible value, but CHECK with debhelper(7) first, that all is okay [06:06] micahg, what is rpath? (i see your comments in gkamus @revu) [06:10] I think maximum possible value is 4 :/ I made some changes and uploaded a new debdiff on bug 725645 Can you please take a look [06:10] Launchpad bug 725645 in chaplin (Ubuntu) "Package chaplin-1.10-0.1build1 failed to build on natty machine" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/725645 [06:14] c2tarun, looks good [06:14] I see you've bumped Standards-Version to 3.9.1 [06:14] but why do you think maximum value for debian/compat is 4? [06:17] udienz: it's where the executable hard codes a path to a library [06:20] artfwo: man chrpath # for a utility to let you see rpaths and mess with them after the fact. [06:21] oops, that was udienz ^^ [06:27] micahg, jmarsden, thanks. i change gkamus library location into /usr/lib rather than /usr/share/gkamus in d/rules [06:50] artfwo: honestly I am not actually getting this facts about debhelper, I tried to increase the version and on each increase I was getting more lintian warning :( [06:52] a good chance to fix 'em all, eh? :) [06:52] ask specific questions about your warnings, and we will try to help ;) [06:54] artfwo: this warning I got while building source package W: chaplin source: dh-clean-k-is-deprecated [06:55] that's pretty obvious one [06:55] http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dh-clean-k-is-deprecated.html [06:55] replace it with dh_prep and you're set [06:56] (and don't forget to document every change in debian/changelog) [06:56] sure [07:03] artfwo: I got this warning W: chaplin: copyright-without-copyright-notice how can I get the copyright info? [07:03] c2tarun, have you read http://lintian.debian.org/tags/copyright-without-copyright-notice.html ? [07:04] artfwo: yup, but I dont knw how to get unicode C symbol and other informations? [07:04] you don't need the unicode symbol at all [07:05] artfwo: and YYYY-YYYY information? [07:05] Copyright 2004 Firstname Lastname will be sufficient for lintian [07:05] woah [07:05] BTW what is 2004? [07:06] year 2004 [07:06] A year :) [07:06] I mean year of what :) [07:06] The year the thing was copyrighted :) [07:07] AD, Anno Domini, or CE is assumed :) [07:07] c2tarun, I picked the date from chaplin.c [07:07] but you can contact the upstream author to be sure [07:11] artfwo: what about binary-without-manpages? What can I do? [07:12] c2tarun, a) ignore the warning or b) write a manpage [07:12] artfwo: I'll choose a) :) and after this there is no other warning [07:19] artfwo: I uploaded a new debdiff can you please take a look bug 725645 [07:19] Launchpad bug 725645 in chaplin (Ubuntu) "Package chaplin-1.10-0.1build1 failed to build on natty machine" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/725645 [07:20] c2tarun, looks good to me [07:21] artfwo: can you sponsor? [07:21] I cannot, I'm not even a MOTU yet :) [07:36] !dpatch [07:38] which patching system is better? quilt or dpatch? [07:39] c2tarun, dpatch is considered deprecated to my knowledge [07:40] artfwo: if any package is using it, should we convert it to quilt? [07:40] generally, yes [07:41] ok [07:41] but if you're working on an existing package, try to keep difference to a minimum [07:42] its weird there are two folder inside debian, one is patched and other is patches. patched contains pa .h.patch file with information of which file to patch and patches is somewhat similar to quilt's debian/patches [07:42] which package it is? [07:43] ivtv-utils [07:45] well, this package is maintained in debian and doesn't have an ubuntu version [07:45] yup, I got this from one ftbfs tracker. [07:45] artfwo: it failed to build natty machine [07:45] I'd keep the patch as tiny as possible then [07:47] hmm.. since it is maintained it debian we cannot change it to quilt? I have to learn using dpatch? [07:47] we can, but this will be a sponsored upload [07:48] it is easier for a sponsor to work with simple patch, rather than a fully converted package [07:48] you can also patch the package in debian [07:48] artfwo: what if debian released a new version. our different patch system may create problem for autosync [07:48] right [07:49] artfwo: so I'll read dpatch manual first :0 [07:49] :) [08:16] artfwo: can you please look at this error http://paste.ubuntu.com/572968/ [08:17] looking [08:18] why do you think it fails to build? :) [08:18] in line 27 -lm should be at the end [08:18] artfwo: ^^ [08:18] in fact, the error is in lines 29-30 [08:19] -lm is only an instruction to link with libm [08:19] it can be anywhere in the linker command line [08:20] artfwo: thats the prob :( I am not able to find where it is [08:20] you cannot locate the function 'log'? [08:20] artfwo: nope :) I cannot locate the Makefile in which I have to make change to remove this error [08:22] but what are you going to do once you find the Makefile? [08:23] artfwo: the error is because ivtv-pcm-tester.c is using log function from libm library. its linker is -lm. I just have to move linker to the end of the line and it will compile [08:24] your makefile is test/Makefile [08:25] but it already includes LDFLAGS=-lm [08:25] but where is this LDFLAGS is used :( that will the place where I have to make change [08:26] well, make uses it automatically [08:26] what? than how can I solve this error? [08:27] don't know, let's try to figure out :) [08:27] sure :) [08:27] Did you successfully compile utils/ivtv-ctl.c? [08:28] it throws almost the same error on my system [08:28] ivtv-utils-1.4.1/utils/ivtv-ctl.c:192: undefined reference to `ceilf' [08:28] collect2: ld returned 1 exit status [08:28] artfwo: yup, I moved -lm to the end in utils/Makefile line number 23 [08:29] so you may as well create a simular rule in test/Makefile [08:30] something like: [08:30] ivtv-pcm-tester: ivtv-pcm-tester.o [08:30] $(CXX) -lm -o $@ $^ [08:31] artfwo: hey can you please tell me what is @ and ^ here? [08:32] c2tarun, http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/internalvariables.html#APPREF2 [08:32] * c2tarun reading [08:33] sorry, missed your last line :) [08:33] I'm affected by bug 60527 [08:33] Launchpad bug 60527 in language-pack-gnome-de (Ubuntu) "xchat-gnome /me misbehaviour" [Low,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/60527 [08:38] c2tarun, this makefile just worked for me http://paste.ubuntu.com/572977/ [08:38] but I still don't understand why LDFLAGS have been ignored [08:39] artfwo: cool :) shall I use it? [08:39] of course, but I think it's not the best solution [08:39] artfwo: why so? [08:40] LDFLAGS=-lm is present in the Makefile, but it's ignored at the linking stage [08:40] something surely is wrong [08:41] it must be LIBS to adding library linker [08:41] udienz, I tried to build it with LIBS, it also failed [08:42] artfwo, is the package have configure.in? some package declaring LIBS/LDFLAGS,etc in configure.in [08:42] udienz, no it only uses handwritten Makefiles [08:42] artfwo: what do you mean LIBS not working? [08:43] artfwo: I mean after using LIBS did you remove LDFLAGS? [08:43] artfwo, which package? [08:43] udienz, ivtv-utils [08:43] c2tarun, right [08:43] artfwo: why? [08:43] * udienz looking ivtv-utils [08:44] c2tarun, it's a convention to enumerate libraries like -lm in $LIBS [08:45] artfwo: this makefile is working http://paste.ubuntu.com/572982/ [08:45] artfwo: in this I commented LDFLAGS, how come yours not working? [08:45] of course, since you explicitly put $LIBS in the end of your linking rule [08:46] artfwo: well we have to do that isnt it? without using LIBS how can it compile? :/ [08:46] forget about LIBS :) [08:47] your program isn't using autotools, so LIBS is irrevelant here [08:47] artfwo: autotools? :( what are they? [08:47] c2tarun, autoconf, automake, libtool, etc. [08:48] artfwo: so what final Makefile do you suggest? [08:48] artfwo: the one with LIBS or one with LDFLAGS? [08:48] artfwo, $(CXX) -lm -o $@ $^ it must be $(CXX) -o $@ $^ $(LIBS) [08:48] LIBS is not commonly used with Makefiles [08:48] or $(CXX) -o $@ $^ -lm [08:49] http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html [08:49] udienz: that is the first error, fix it and you'll get other one, that is our problem [08:49] c2tarun, what an error then? [08:50] udienz: you are right, go on fix your first error. U'll get another one on building [08:54] artfwo: I'll stick with your makefile than, but what about the problem that why LDFLAGS is ignored? [08:56] udienz: you found other error? [08:59] c2tarun, not yet, i'll uploading it into my ppa [09:01] c2tarun, http://paste.ubuntu.com/572984/ [09:03] udienz: why u changed all lines of utils/Makefile? [09:04] c2tarun, because a library must placed after object [09:04] udienz: your patch is really good, I think you should file a bug and upload this patch. [09:07] * c2tarun dpatch really is annoying :( quilt is really good. all the compiles I did after applying the patch are recorded in patch ^_^ [09:08] hrm? [09:10] c2tarun, feel free to take. but o still got an errors. seems like we must adding LIBS into Makefile [09:10] c2tarun, to make/edit dpatch you can use edit-patch in ubuntu-dev-tools package [09:11] udienz: what error is still there? [09:11] c2tarun, http://launchpadlibrarian.net/65227773/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-amd64.ivtv-utils_1.4.1-1ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [09:14] udienz: you are getting the same error which I was talking about, here this makefile fixes your error http://paste.ubuntu.com/572982/ but I am not sure about the variable naming convention. [09:16] c2tarun, very good. do you tested? and building is fine? [09:16] udienz: yup its working :) [09:17] I just have to make the whole patch again, can you believe whole application is of 800KB and my patch alone is of 3.0+ MB :/ [09:17] c2tarun, great! [09:18] c2tarun, maybe you make a mistake during make a patch [09:18] udienz: I just compiled countless times inside the patch :( [10:53] Is it a bug for a program to be setuid-root when it does not need that? For example rephrase drops privs after mlock(for less than 64k) and setreuid at beginning. === yofel_ is now known as yofel [11:39] what do you think about upgrading QA stuff in FFe? [11:39] Standards-Versions, debhelper, lintian errors etc. [11:40]