[00:25] can anyone tell me how stop packages building for lpia [00:26] I just want to build for amd64 and i386 no powerpc etc etc [00:27] X3lectric: If the package only builds (or is only useful) on amd64 and i386, then list those as the Architecture: of the package. [00:27] But it's unlikely for that to be the case. Why do you want to do that? [00:29] because I have no use for all other architectures [00:29] What if other people have use for them? [00:29] i just specifies karmic and lucid and it built for everythisng and their grandmothers [00:30] Why not? [00:30] ah well other people, very unlikly [00:30] this is platform specific builds [00:32] I can't reproduce this bug 696900 [00:32] Launchpad bug 696900 in readline6 (Ubuntu) "Typo in readline man page" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/696900 [00:32] What problem are you trying to solve by only building on i386 and amd64 [00:32] does it have to be a problem? [00:33] When I do (in the branch) man ./readline.3 I got no problems with menu-complete-backward [00:33] Im asking if thers a way to limit just for those and how, if you dont know, say I dont know [00:33] X3lectric, this is a package for yourself, or one you want in the distro? [00:33] Can anyone else please confirm it? [00:34] X3lectric, he already answered you btw, at 00:27. you were too busy being self-entitled to notice. [00:34] this is packags just for lucid and karmic used by other users but no need to build for all platforms especially lpia [00:34] Indeed. My *first* response contained the solution you're after :) [00:35] ok so where do I limit this? [00:35] rules? [00:35] debian/control [00:35] Again, this is a bad idea. [00:35] why? [00:35] Because it's pointlessly limiting your audience. [00:35] It doesn't cost you anything to build everywhere. [00:36] there is no audinece for the other packages, hence why its pointless [00:36] X3lectric, this is a package for yourself, or one you want in the distro? [00:36] no but since its a free service I rather keep the space used to a minimum [00:36] Should someone on powerpc later come and say “hey, why isn't this built for me”, you'll need to undo this work. [00:37] X3lectric: PPAs only build amd64 and i386 from Lucid on [00:37] mmm no [00:37] If you're running your own build-farm and mirror, just don't set up a PPC buildd? [00:38] X3lectric, PPA builds are only for i386 and amd64. regardless of how many additional arches are defined in debian/control [00:38] im not that experienced as you may have already guessed by stupid question so pls dont fuse my brain with stuff i dont understand or want to atm [00:39] its a hobby not full time job [00:40] X3lectric, i will try a third time to extract an answer. X3lectric, this is a package for yourself, or one you want in the distro? [00:40] I wanna keep uploads also to a minimal [00:40] directhex: its not just for myself but it not to be included in a distro, its optional [00:40] You only upload once anyway, because you only upload source. At least to any Ubuntu infrastructure. [00:41] X3lectric: What is your *goal* ? You would like $FILL_IN_BLANK to be available $WHERE for $SOME_UBUNTU_RELEASES ? [00:42] goal is to provide a specific package that compliments a post install script for karmic and lucid only [00:43] and available on ppa for easy access for users of script [00:43] Ok. [00:43] So, you don't have to worry. [00:43] ... if it's a script, why even have architecture as an issue? arch-less software such as scripts and java software don't need per-arch packages [00:43] jebus [00:43] You can't build for powerpc or arm or whatever in a PPA *anyway* [00:44] ask a simple question geta holy inquisition [00:44] Well, and also an answer, as the very first response :) [00:44] X3lectric, ask half a question, get the correct answer instantly - and requests for clarification. [00:45] ok [00:45] can I stp ppa building for lpia [00:46] Hello, is there some guidelines to follow or installation script for adding an application in the list of startup application? or should I simply put the .desktop file into the xdg/autostart directory? [00:46] lpia always fails to build and has no use soI would like to stop ppa from building for lpia [00:47] Rcart: Looks like it's correct here on natty. Feel free to mark as fixed. [00:47] X3lectric, sure. change debian/control's Architecture: line. [00:48] X3lectric, but a script shouldn't need *compiling*, in which case there's no need for an i386 script and an amd64 script - you should only need an "all" script. [00:48] as denoted by "Architecture: all" [00:48] ya thats what it is [00:48] rather than "Architecture: any" or "Architecture: i386 amd64 lpia powerpc sh4" [00:49] Rcart: it was fixed in the natty upload, check http://launchpadlibrarian.net/65041495/readline6_6.1-3_6.2-0ubuntu1.diff.gz [00:49] but when karmic packages build it automatically builds for lpia (on karmic) and it always fails to build cuse its not meant to [00:50] X3lectric, it will do if you have Architecture: any, yes. [00:50] i know since lucid lpia is dropped but I wanted to know if I could disabled it or override it for karmic as well [00:50] X3lectric: if it's 'Architecture: all' it will only build on i386 (for ubuntu), if it's 'Architecture: any' it will build on all. [00:50] mmm architecture is all [00:50] Great! Thank you both (: [00:51] and biulding for amd64 and i386 and lpia [00:52] X3lectric, link to ppa? [00:52] X3lectric: can you pastebin debian/control? [00:52] or that [00:52] X3lectric: and debian/rules [00:53] control it says Architecture: all [00:54] X3lectric, then pastebin it, so we can determine what other problems may be happening [00:54] er [00:55] thers no problems, I just dont wnat karmic to build for lpia [00:55] Please someone set the importance to low on bug 696900 [00:55] Launchpad bug 696900 in readline6 (Ubuntu) "Typo in readline man page" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/696900 [00:56] X3lectric, and if you really have Architecture: all, then it should not be building for lpia. so there's a problem. [00:56] Rcart: done [00:56] Rcart: bug setting should be in #ubuntu-bugs :) [00:56] directhex karmic will build for lpia cuase canonical still supports it after lucid its doesnt [00:57] so its not a "problem" [00:57] I just want to override it if thers a way [00:57] this conversation should move to #ubuntu-packaging [00:57] X3lectric: again, 'Architecture: all' packages will only build on the i386 builder because they are architecture independent. so if a package with Architecture:all builds on lpia there is a problem! [00:57] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzczOA [00:58] read what that says if you dont believe me [00:58] micahg: Sorry, I forgot that was in -motu T_T [00:58] GREAT [00:58] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-November/000643.html [00:58] Ampelbein: Thanks (; [00:58] i just broke my keyboard in sheer frustration [00:58] X3lectric: this should move to #ubuntu-packaging [00:58] at attempting to communicate with X3lectric [00:59] :/ [01:00] sorry to frsutrate you but its building lpia from karmic by design so thers is no problem [01:00] X3lectric, NO IT FUCKING ISN'T [01:00] X3lectric, BY DESIGN, IT WILL ONLY BUILD FOR ARCHES MANDATED BY Architecture: [01:01] what a nice person u are [01:01] read this https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-November/000643.html [01:01] X3lectric: PPAs are really off topic here, so this conversation should move [01:01] educate yourself and take a chill pill [01:02] X3lectric: If it's Architecture: all it will be *installable* on lpia, but it won't *build* on lpia. [01:02] X3lectric: If you think there's no problem, just pastebin the debian/control file [01:02] X3lectric: And I should be educated about it, considering I sent the mail to ubuntu-devel-announce. [01:03] not you [01:03] educate *myself*? [01:03] the guy with the efing words [01:03] that one [01:03] someone kick me, pronto [01:03] before i do something non-CoC [01:03] you aleady did [01:03] again [01:05] im off thx guys, ladies and germes [01:05] Whois X3lectric [01:05] Oops, soory [01:10] '[pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.kjjpo[''' [01:17] can anyone spot anything obviously wrong with this attempt to register to get a dbus signal? http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/577266/ [01:19] I end up getting GLib-GIO-CRITICAL **: g_dbus_connection_signal_subs [01:19] cribe: assertion `G_IS_DBUS_CONNECTION (connection)' failed [01:21] i have a k key! [01:22] . [01:22] psusi: you're mixing gdbus and dbus-glib [01:22] (one of them is dbus_g_; the other is g_dbus_. it's awesome) [01:23] s! [01:24] oh great... why are there two different but parallel apis? [01:24] psusi: dbus-glib came first. gdbus is the new hotness [01:24] gdbus is part of gio === ogra is now known as Guest2736 [01:27] so... what's the correct api I should be using to register without gio? [01:27] psusi: you should be using gdbus, because it is the Future === Guest2736 is now known as ogra_ [01:28] ok, gpm is already using dbus_g_bus_get(), so I just need to use what it returns to register the signal handler... [01:28] oh right. you asked me about this earlier [01:28] and i concluded it's using dbus-glib (i.e. hasn't been ported to gdbus yet) [01:28] so you should use dbus-glib. sorry [01:28] so... what's that mean? ;) [01:30] psusi: with dbus-glib you use dbus_g_proxy_new_for_name to get an object that proxies to the dbus object [01:30] then dbus_g_proxy_add_signal to tell the proxy about the signal you're watching for [01:30] then dbus_g_proxy_connect_signal to hookup a signal handler [01:32] sigh... that sounds far more complicated than just registering a callback function [01:32] and maybe deref the proxy when you're done - not really sure [01:32] it's not actually that bad, and requires the same number of pieces of information as you're already providing [01:32] line number count might even be about the same [01:33] a proxy is some kind of whole object I have to instantiate though isn't it? [01:33] the curse of a high-level interface, yes [01:34] i mean, the proxy doesn't cause it to go and probe the whole remote dbus object or anything [01:34] it only has the overhead of a local gobject [01:34] * psusi has no idea how to do that [01:34] use dbus_g_proxy_new_for_name to get an object that proxies to the dbus object> [01:35] and then how do I connect a callback to the signal? [01:35] dbus_g_proxy_add_signal, then dbus_g_proxy_connect_signal [01:35] hrm... [01:36] kitchen knife saves ; [01:40] more luck than skill: l restored [01:40] so what is the signal_name argument to dbus_g_proxy_add_signal? [01:42] is that just "Suspending" for org.freedesktop.UPower.Suspending? [01:45] yay, the F key i actually broke is on! [01:45] and the docs don't say what the signature of the callback is supposed to be... === MTecknology is now known as MT-TakinBreak [05:02] i have a question [05:05] for example [05:05] if i package a soft with gpl3 license y use dh_make -c licence [05:05] right? [05:05] but, if license is agpl? [05:06] You write debian/copyright yourself. [05:06] The standard licenses in dh_make are just for convenience. [05:07] RAOF: Its that the only way ? [05:07] Yes. [05:08] You should be editing debian/copyright yourself *anyway* - dh_make only puts in a skeleton file which won't be correct. [05:09] RAOF: but, why is not added.. it's a common and accepted license [05:10] Because no-one's done it yet? [05:10] RAOF: hahaha.. i understand [05:12] RAOF: Thanks for your help [07:07] chrisccoulson: ping [07:09] need help with last comment on bug 728853 , How can I know in which variable I have to make change? I mean , my change is also working fine but may be conventionally wrong. How can I know where to make changes? [07:09] Launchpad bug 728853 in bbmail (Ubuntu) "pacakge bbmail_0.8.3-6 failed to build from source" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/728853 [07:30] c2tarun: part is experience (when you fix a couple of similar FTBFS you "learn" where to look) and part of how autotools works (I'm not very experienced with it either) === menesis1 is now known as menesis [08:05] good morning [08:06] good morgon [08:06] s/good/god/ [08:07] Rhonda, which language is that? :) [08:08] swedish [08:08] ah ok :) [08:08] Jag Älskar Sverige! [08:10] was. [08:11] jpds: It's the title of a great song from Die Ärzte and means I love Sweden. The song is … well, typical for the band, with lyrics where you wonder what kind of drugs they are doing. [08:11] Most interestingly though is that Farin Urlaub (which means literally Driveinto Vacations) doesn't even drink alcohol, at all. [08:13] Rhonda: Oh, I really like that band. :) [08:13] jpds, how's your German coming on? :) [08:13] * dholbach hugs jpds [09:27] Morning. [09:52] Hey iulian [10:25] didrocks: FYI: zeitgeist (now with only zeitgeist-core) 0.7 is in unstable, and a new zeitgeist-datahub (with the Vala implementation) is in NEW for experimental [10:26] RainCT: thanks for the notice :) [10:33] I been advised to ask packaging question on proper channel but no one ever replies === ogra_ is now known as ogra [11:34] if anyone feels a need to help X3lectric, the information he'll refuse to tell you is the PPA url: (https://launchpad.net/~team-iquik/+archive/xbmc-svn/+packages), the reason he wants to eliminate lpia from his list of architectures (build-dep on nvidia-glx component which isn't for lpia), and why it's trying to build for lpia (xbmc-live is Architecture:any) [11:41] * X3lectric never refused ppa url and thats not it [11:49] karmic doesn't have libvdpau-dev [11:49] It's as simple as that. [11:51] Rhonda, lpia doesn't. it's part of nvidia-glx, which was never provided for lpia. even though lpia was entirely capable of using the i386 nvidia binaries [11:52] directhex: rmadison -u ubuntu libvdpau-dev says it isn't in karmic at all? [11:53] http://packages.ubuntu.com/libvdpau-dev says the same [11:53] Rhonda, oh, it's in one of his other PPAs. [11:53] Get:1 http://ppa.launchpad.net karmic/main libvdpau1 0.4-2~karmic~nvidiavdpauppa4 [24.9kB] [11:54] Ah, so the ppa uses other ppas to build? [11:54] That's … tricky to inspect then. [11:54] In debian/* files, what is the recommended line length, is there one specified? [11:55] arand: Depends, but lower than 80 is usually nice. [11:55] * is a very broad term actually [11:55] Copyright in this particular case [11:55] Like, the recommended line length of debian/compat is just a single digit :P [11:55] arand, keep the line length for descriptions in debian/control below 80 columns. otherwise it doesn't really matter [11:56] copyright file too, and changelog [11:56] oh, yes, 80 cols for changelog [11:56] copyright... some licenses aren't wrapped upstream, and i dislike doing that downstream [11:56] Ok, I've been doing 80 on a hunch, and since my terminal window default to that... [11:57] Yea, I wonder about that to, reformatting licenses... [12:04] Also, if upstream does state e.g. CC-BY-SA and just a short notice with a link to the cc homepage, should I insert the CC license in addition, or is their license text enough? [12:05] The license has to go in in full. [12:08] Right, thanks [12:12] or a link to the file in /usr/share/common-licenses [12:19] ppa requires some packages dependecies to exist in ppa itself otherwise it will fail due to missing deps [12:20] if the package depends on a specific package of courese [12:26] Ok so I have this situation: http://paste.debian.net/109997/ First of all, I would need to insert the CC-BY-SA license here then? The abbreviate version or the full one, and where do i find a plaintext version of it, since I can't seem to find on eon the CC homepage :/ [12:28] cant you destribute the licence with your packages and just mention it on each file pertainig to whatever pacge thhis is about [12:30] arand: What I would do is mention a part of license which specifies which license type and where the full license can be found [12:31] arand: the full license being one complete txt file or whateer format suits you best [12:31] arand, which version of cc-by-sa? [12:31] directhex: Unspecified by upstream :/ [12:31] Oh hang on [12:31] directhex: It's 3.0, my bad [12:32] it does say it on the paste you did ;) [12:33] it even says where to find full license [12:33] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ? [12:34] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [12:35] Which can't be found in plain plaintext. [12:35] like direchex says his link provides full license [12:35] you want that in plain txt just make it [12:36] I think its something like wget link -O >>license.txt [12:36] lemme try [12:38] Hmm, I don't know if there are any good ways to reformat html into txt... [12:38] w3m [12:38] But I am just thinking that surely there must be a plaintext version of it already available somewhere? [12:39] second [12:39] im looking for the corect code [12:41] w3m > seems to work well [12:41] X3lectric, arand: References to where the full license can be found is only valid for those stored in /usr/share/common-licenses - others have to be integrated in full in debian/copyright [12:42] directhex: And there is no CC in common-licenses, mind you. :) [12:43] arand: Actually, the "In the absence of an explicit license, content is considered" part sounds extremly fishy and might recieve a reject of the upload, at least within Debian, by the ftpmasters. [12:44] A reference in the copyright file to a website URL is definitely a no-go, because that one can change easily. [12:44] arand: wget http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode -O ~/Desktop/licence.txt [12:44] then you need to do some minimal cleanup and thats it [12:44] Hmm, where does the license as such actually start and stop, I was thinking start at "THE WORK..." and end before the CC notice at "...applicable law." [12:45] Like said, w3m http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode > license.txt [12:45] That's more like it. [12:45] Or should more be included in the license file? [12:46] Everything starting from License up to applicable law, yes. [12:46] depends on the needs specified by original person on attributions [12:47] attribution is on a different level, the license text is independent on that. [12:47] but the full licence has to be included [12:47] ya [12:47] Rhonda: It is unclear indeed, but that is what is stated from upstream, and I feel like I've already bugged them considerably, even though the license still doesn't completely reflect their intent I don't think... [12:48] the liceneing terms are fairly clear [12:48] I'd tell them that "In the absence of an explicit license this isn't distributable, sorry." [12:49] If they are not willing (or able) to clearly state which rules apply we don't have the right to use, distribute or modify it. It's as simple as that. [12:50] what package is this anyways [12:51] If their software is important enough, the peer pressure on getting this fixed should be there. If it's not, it's their own loss actually. [12:52] Rhonda what arand pasted is quite clear [12:52] http://paste.debian.net/109997/ [12:53] its says there [12:53] No, it is absolutely unclear [12:53] how so [12:53] It leaves everything open and states explicitly that there is no real license [12:53] In the absence of an explicit license, content is considered to be covered by [12:53] the CC-BY-SA license, you may use the content in Red Eclipse so long as you [12:53] obey individual licensing criteria. This does not apply to the Red Eclipse [12:53] logo or other trademarks unique to the project. [12:54] quite clear [12:54] i cant see a problem [12:54] Quite clear on that it's unclear. [12:54] That is only for certain bits though. It is a prospective game Red Eclipse Original license is http://paste.debian.net/109999/ [12:55] In the absence of an explicit license, content is considered to be covered by the CC-BY-SA license [12:55] that say it all [12:55] Yes, that says (explicitly) that it doesn't has an explicit license. Consideration is guesswork. [12:55] which in this case is V3 [12:55] The "Limited rights are granted to redistribute or recompress the entire distribution" Is key as well I guess. [12:56] where is that implied? [12:56] Which is a very un-free license, granted, but at least clear. [12:56] Full license text linked above. [12:57] look here [12:57] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [12:57] that is VERY clear [12:57] Yes, *that* is clear. [12:57] That the work is covered under that though is explicitly stated to be unclear. [12:57] lol [12:58] imo there is no spoon [12:58] !lol | X3lectric [12:58] X3lectric: Please don't use "LOL" and "OMG" and so forth on a regular basis. This is IRC, not IM, and using those lines on their own is not required, and it is rather annoying to the rest of the people in the channel; thanks. [12:58] mk [12:58] says not in regular basis [12:59] once is not regular [12:59] mk [12:59] If you don't have an explicit license for a work, you don't have any grounds of using it. [12:59] oh lord [13:00] as long as arnad doesnt suggest that ed eccliose endorses the chages he can do whatever [13:01] I think you guys are just finding complications where ther is none [13:01] For themself everyone is of course allowed to do as they wish. But having no explicit license terms means that the package shouldn't get uploaded to Ubuntu. [13:01] but it does [13:01] It directly states that it doesn't. [13:02] beg to differ [13:02] That's fine, but it doesn't change it. [13:03] its 100% clear tha in the absence of a explicit licence by Red eclipse that the normal license applies [13:03] no complications [13:03] Rhonda: Would the "you can distribute the whole package unchanged" clause at least make it distributable as "non-free" you think? [13:04] arand: unchanged is a clear trigger word for non-free/multiverse, yes. [13:04] * X3lectric knows enough law to know what is emplied here [13:04] arand read waht it says under adpatation [13:05] and destribute [13:05] and then licence grant [13:05] you can do whatever [13:06] Rhonda: And in that case an unclear CC designation would be able to pass? Or would it still be an issue. [13:06] arand: If you consider, the Red Eclipse logo "or other trademarks unique to the project" (whatever that might be) should definitely get stripped out, btw. [13:07] indeed the logo and mentions of that must be stripped [13:07] Second thought, if the work is all theirs and they have the rights to it, the unclear statement in that can be waived because actually it's within their rights to distribute it under cc-by-sa then. [13:07] as well as your only obligation is to make clear your not associated with red eclipse [13:07] But a "unchanged" part doesn't comply with cc-by-sa, it's an additional restriction on that. [13:08] Rhonda: Well no, there are several individual licenses for the graphics of the game. [13:09] Ah, that's then what they mean with the "obey individual licensing criteria" [13:09] other licenses have to respected same way [13:09] And actually, that's what they could refer to with the "in the absence of an explicit license". [13:09] Now it dawns to me that they mean with that everything contained that doesn't has an explicit license itself. [13:10] but as in this main one its very clear as long as you follow the attributions your ok and destribute under same license [13:10] Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). [13:10] What my current copyright looks like is so: http://paste.debian.net/110000/ but the full licenses are in many cases missing [13:10] that speaks volumes [13:10] the full licenses dot have to be included [13:10] just mentioned where they can be found [13:11] a link suffices [13:11] Somehow that doesn't flow. [13:11] "any changes beyond that require explicit permission" doesn't work together with their cc-by-sa claim for data/? [13:12] where is that? [13:12] It has to be included according to policy, X3lectric [13:12] Line 72 and onwards. [13:12] you complicating simpl e stuff again [13:12] No, I'm following the policy rules. [13:12] Rhonda: I know... [13:13] Rhonda: But that is what I gather the original is saying: http://paste.debian.net/109999/ [13:13] "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file `/usr/share/doc//copyright'." [13:13] he can do whatever he wants as long as license is same and doesnt specify hes associated or endorsed by original developers [13:15] arand: Ah, wait. That part should apply to the source then, and is fine. [13:16] That's actually the background behind DFSG #4. [13:16] As long as the orig tarball doesn't contain any non-free material that one would need to strip off that's fine. [13:17] Rhonda: Ah, ok... I don't see why it is even there though, since the source code should be covered by the zlib/mit already... [13:18] It's different parts. The source code can get patched, and one could theoretically also distribute an already changed tarball with patches in it. [13:18] The first thing is allowed through zlib/mit, the second part though is something they chose to disallow. [13:22] Rhonda: Ah, so that clause disallows distributing changed source along with everything else, however distributing changed source by itself is fine? [13:24] It disallows the tarball to be changed, but it allows distribution of the tarball and additional patch file [13:24] Which is actually what we do with non-native packages by default. [13:26] Ok... but then one wouldn't be allowed to make a dfsg orig tarball? [13:26] Yep. [13:27] So this is only possible if the orig tarball doesn't contain any non-distributable content. [13:27] Sauerbraten has a similar clause, which I think is what this one was modelled after: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-games/sauerbraten-data.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright;h=96d677bbe25dc795bc56339997d569088d8f3e20;hb=HEAD [13:27] If it does contain non-free stuff that is at least distributable, the package has to go to non-free/multiverse [13:27] But in this case it is used for the -data package === paissad is now known as lol === lol is now known as Guest14361 === Guest14361 is now known as paissad [14:21] hi === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach [17:43] Found files in /usr/local (must be in /usr). <- this is the error i got in my build ? should i copy it in /bin ? why /usr is forbidden ? [17:46] jetienne: /usr/local is for the local admin to install (unpackaged) software, packages should use /usr [17:47] geser: so replacbin /usr/local/bin by /usr/bin and all is ok ? [17:48] exactly [17:48] geser: thanks [17:49] many programs have an option to specify /usr as prefix (defaults to /usr/local). it's pretty common to those using configure [17:50] geser: im making the package, so i can put whatever path is needed :) waiting for ppa build during debug is the painfull part [17:55] jetienne, learn to love pbuilder, for quick testing? [17:55] jetienne: hint: use a pbuilder for local testing, with pkg-binary-mangler you can also have almost all tests the buildds do too (like the /usr/local one) [17:56] directhex: geser: i tried to setup pbuilder and failed. [17:56] oh [17:56] any good tutorial ? [17:57] !pbuilder [17:57] pbuilder is a system to easily build packages in a clean chroot environment. To get started with PBuilder, see http://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto [17:57] don't know if the wiki page is still up-to-date [17:57] this is a tutorial :) [17:58] and there is also "pbuilder-dist" in ubuntu-dev-tools which helps with creating and usage of multiple pbuilders (e.g. for different Ubuntu releases) [18:00] and it built!!! no need for pbuilder, houray :) [18:01] geser: directhex: thanks for the help === MT-TakinBreak is now known as MTecknology [19:15] Using dh7, what section would I override in order to run a "convert src/icon.png debian/icon.xpm" command? [19:34] arand: i'd override something like dh_auto_build, and just make it a rule which does your thing, then runs dh_auto_build [19:34] asusking dh_auto_build exists [19:34] you get the idea [19:46] directhex: cool, thanks === ajmitch_ is now known as ajmitch [19:58] can anyone please help in fixing [GCC_ERRORs]? [20:01] c2tarun: only if you tell us what the errors are ;) [20:08] Bachstelze: [GCC_ERROR] gui/calc/calc.c:589:4: error: 'GtkFunction' undeclared (first use in this function) here is the error [20:08] looks like you have an #include missing [20:09] but I'm not a Gtk expert === ogra is now known as Guest59853 [20:23] Bachstelze: is there any type of errors except LD_ERROR that I can attempt to solve? [20:24] Bachstelze: I doubt that there is something include missing. [20:25] often these cases are fixed by changes in functions, so it should be fixed by upstream. [20:26] ari-tczew: are there other errors except LD_ERROR on which I could work upon? [20:27]