[00:32] <jmarsden> Is it expected behaviour that (for example) /usr/lib/libexpat1.a in Maverick is now /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libexpat1.a in Natty?  Is there a wiki page somewhere that explains this change?
[00:36] <RAOF> jmarsden: Welcome to multiarch!
[00:37] <jmarsden> Ah... *that's* how it does it.  Can you point me to docs?  It is breaking a package I am trying to update to a new upstream version, it seems...
[00:37] <jmarsden> I may need to re-run autoconf or something to fix that, I suppose.  the ./configure is not finding the .a file...
[00:39] <RAOF> The linker (and loader) have been changed to search in the appropriate multiarch paths.  I guess it depends on how ./configure is checking for that static library.
[00:39] <RAOF> Also, urgh.
[00:39] <jmarsden> Yes, I was hoping I didn't have to wade through a bunch of autotools stuff to find the problem...!
[00:40] <RAOF> Why is it statically linking expat anyway?
[00:40] <jmarsden> I don't know... package is trustedqsl from the ARRL.  Ham radio software.
[00:41] <jmarsden> I'll poke at it some more.  At least now I know the move was by design, so I *do* need to fix the packaging!  It builds fine on Lucid and Maverick as it now is...
[07:27] <\sh> moins
[07:40] <Gryllida> Hi.
[07:41] <Gryllida> Can someone confirm the unconfirmed bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/739173 ? Is it relevant here?
[07:42] <Gryllida> Hrms, odd, it wasn't new initially; but I would appreciate a review of all that though.
[08:16] <dholbach> good morning
[08:24] <Gryllida> Hi.
[08:38] <kim0> Morning folks, got a little problem with my ppa
[08:39] <kim0> https://launchpad.net/~kim0/+archive/ppa .. is picking up some wrong signing key (My real pub key is https://launchpad.net/~kim0/+archive/ppa like on my LP page)
[08:41] <geser> kim0: what key is it using instead?
[08:42] <kim0> geser: 1024R/51D678E8
[08:42] <kim0> As seen on https://launchpad.net/~kim0/+archive/ppa ..
[08:42] <kim0> that key doesn't even exist
[08:42] <kim0> and I never made any 1024r key!
[08:47] <geser> kim0: LP auto-generates a key it uses for signing your PPA
[08:48] <kim0> duh
[08:48] <kim0> so it's not my key
[08:48] <geser> kim0: it can't use your GPG key as LP only knows your public key and it needs the private key for signing
[08:48] <kim0> yeah makes sense
[08:48] <geser> kim0: no, it's an auto-generated key
[08:48] <kim0> so .. it's non-existent because this ppa is 20 mins old ? :)
[08:49] <kim0> actually more like an hour now
[08:49] <geser> could be, I don't know exactly the timing for generating the key for fresh PPAs (ask in #launchpad)
[08:52] <kim0> geser: thanks
[08:52] <Gryllida> geser, hi, can you tell me what I need to do with https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/739173  please?
[08:55] <geser> Gryllida: as you are already working on getting the package into Debian, not much more needs to be gone for the bug. Once the package is in Debian and got synced into the next developement version, the bug can be closed.
[08:56] <Gryllida> geser, I am not sure whether you have any experience with Debian sponsors at all, but they seem all dead to me so far.
[08:58] <geser> Gryllida: no, I don't have experience with Debian sponsors but finding an Ubuntu sponsor isn't easy either. We prefer to have the package in Debian instead in Ubuntu only. That way both Debian and Ubuntu benefit from the package and we hope it's less likely that the package will not bitrot in Ubuntu as nobody has time to update/look after it in future.
[08:59] <Gryllida> Alright, thank you for the clarification.
[09:07] <Laney> Gryllida: did you ask on debian-mentors@lists.debian.org? If you come to #debian-ubuntu on OFTC the people there can help you too.
[09:08] <Laney> and... if it's a python application then there is a team just for that
[09:08] <Laney> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonAppsPackagingTeam
[09:08] <Gryllida> I did both.
[09:09] <Laney> I gave you three options there
[09:10] <Laney> trying PAPT in the first instance and maintaining your package there is probably your best chance. I know there are other Ubuntu developers who also do work in that team
[09:15] <Gryllida> 1) debian-mentors@lists.debian.org 2) #debian-ubuntu on OFTC 3) debian-python@lists.debian.org <-Did a few days ago.
[09:16] <Gryllida> 4) PAPT - doing now.
[09:16] <Laney> IRC might give you more luck
[09:17] <Gryllida> They're not voiced or anything, I don't even know when one shows up
[09:17] <Gryllida> Yes, I'm idling there.
[09:18] <Laney> just ask your question and someone will get to you when they can
[09:37] <Gryllida> Laney, I largely appreciate that the Ubuntu MOTU team members list is public, and all the project spirit in general.  I asked about the package in the #debian-mentors @ OFTC channel directly and will go from there. Thanks for your time.
[10:44] <les123> Hello, I would like to put a game demo in multiverse. I have deb package ready.
[10:44] <les123> It's not open source
[10:45] <les123> any ideas where to start? Thanks
[10:45] <mok0> les123: can't have it in multiverse then
[10:46] <les123> too bad :-(
[10:46] <les123> so where is the best place to deploy it?
[10:46] <les123> ppa?
[10:46] <mok0> les123: your own website?
[10:46] <les123> already have
[10:46] <mok0> les123: you can't use a launchpad ppa either
[10:46] <les123> ?
[10:47] <les123> why is that? license?
[10:47] <mok0> les123: yes
[10:47] <mok0> les123: https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse
[10:49] <les123> bad :-( I thought I could get some exposure :-)
[10:50] <les123> I guess other distros have similar policy?
[10:50] <mok0> les123: you'll have to get that the same way other closed-source software vendors do
[10:51] <les123> mok0: what they do? only through their own www?
[10:51] <mok0> les123: I guess they advertise
[10:52] <les123> mok0: if you have budget then you advertise :-D
[10:52] <mok0> les123: if you want to develop games for ubuntu, you might contact canonical though
[10:52] <les123> canonical?
[10:52] <les123> I thought they ale olny open source?
[10:53] <mok0> les123: the company behind ubuntu
[10:53] <mok0> http://www.canonical.com/
[10:54] <les123> thanks
[10:54] <mok0> les123: np
[10:54] <les123> I guess I am too small for that :-)
[10:54] <les123> one more question - how did the codecs get there
[10:55] <les123> they are without source
[10:55] <les123> some approval process?
[10:55] <mok0> les123: canonical pays license
[10:55] <mok0> les123: they are in the restricted distribution
[10:56] <les123> mok0; why restricted/
[10:57] <les123> they are available in universe?
[10:57] <les123> there are packages like bad, good, ugly
[10:57] <les123> (I don't remember correctly)
[10:57] <les123> let me check :-)
[10:57] <les123> That's interesting :-)
[10:58] <mok0> les123: closed-source software can't get into multiverse
[10:59] <mok0> multiverse is open-source but with a non-DFSG-compliant license
[11:01] <mok0> les123: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats
[11:01] <les123> yeah - I am reading those
[11:01] <les123> makes sense - nobody want unchecked code in repository
[11:03] <soren> mok0: Not necessarily open source.
[11:03] <soren> mok0: ...but distributable.
[11:03] <les123> "distributable"?
[11:03] <les123> what do you mean/.
[11:04] <les123> every package is distributable?
[11:04] <RAOF> Exactly that; where we have a license to distribute.
[11:04] <soren> Open source means that you can see the source from which it was built. That's not necessarily the case. Distributable just means that the copyright holder allows for the software to be distributed.
[11:04] <les123> game demo will be by default distributable?
[11:04] <mok0> soren: ok
[11:04] <soren> les123: There's not such things as "by default".
[11:05] <RAOF> les123: By default, no-one is able to copy it.
[11:05] <les123> ok, so if I gave a license to distribute a demo it will be ok?
[11:05] <RAOF> Yes.
[11:05] <les123> if it's not open source?
[11:05] <les123> :D
[11:05] <RAOF> Yes.
[11:05] <lifeless> soren: actually open source means remixable; - see the 'shared source' abominationf or something where you can see but not remix
[11:06] <RAOF> (Although that means multiverse, of course)
[11:06] <les123> ok, so where I can post a package for multiverse?
[11:07] <les123> also - is there any standard for distributable license?
[11:07] <RAOF> No, not really.
[11:09] <RAOF> les123: revu is where packages generally get reviewed; it's going to be pretty quiet at this time of the cycle, as feature freeze is a while ago and we're not really adding new packages at this point.
[11:11] <les123> https://help.ubuntu.com/6.10/ubuntu/packagingguide/C/ubuntu-upload.html
[11:11] <les123> seems to be only for universe
[11:11] <RAOF> les123: You might want to check out the application review board.
[11:11] <Laney> that requires Freedom
[11:11] <RAOF> (By contacting Canonical)
[11:11] <RAOF> Ah.
[11:11] <RAOF> I'm being confused by the many and varied.
[11:12] <les123> jeez :-) It's getting complex :-D
[11:12] <RAOF> les123: We generally only work with open-source stuff (although there's no *barrier* to proprietary stuff in multiverse), so few people will notice when docs don't cover multiverse :)
[11:13] <mok0> les123: open-source your game and your troubles are gone
[11:13] <les123> maybe some day :-)
[11:13] <les123> look - it's jsut for fun really (there are no real money involved in games today)
[11:14] <les123> but I would like to check how high that can go ;-D
[11:14] <mok0> les123: so what's the point of closed source?
[11:14] <les123> well, it's javas :-)
[11:14] <les123> you can decompile it whatever you want
[11:14] <les123> i am not obsfuracting it even
[11:14] <RAOF> Presumably you'd like to get money from your game at some point, that's why it's closed-source?  If so, talking to someone from Canonical about getting it into the software centre might be a good idea.  Although I'm not sure quite how good our processes are around that at the moment :)
[11:15] <mok0> les123: here's a free business model: 1) make great open source game 2) get lots of players via Ubuntu 3) make version for iPhone 4) Profit!
[11:15] <les123> yeah :-)
[11:15] <les123> iPhonr - 1-2USD :d
[11:15] <les123> Apple does not like java anyway
[11:16] <mok0> les123: Android
[11:16] <RAOF> Steam is translating that to PC games, too.  It's extremely tempting to drop $5 on a game, and steam makes it ridiculously easy to.
[11:16] <les123> could be :-)
[11:17] <les123> but look at that
[11:17] <mok0> RAOF: "Steam"?
[11:17] <les123> 18 months of almost full-time work
[11:17] <RAOF> I'd *like* software centre to be that sort of market on Ubuntu. :)
[11:17] <les123> for developer is like a 100k USD minimum
[11:17] <les123> how many copies to sell to break even? ;-)
[11:18] <les123> no-way :-)
[11:18] <les123> better write business Orcale-forms
[11:18] <les123> sorry - games are not profitable :-)
[11:18] <les123> it;s just for fun
[11:19] <RAOF> You'd only need to sell 20,000@$5 to break even; a good game should be able to sell that many, particularly at that price-point.
[11:20] <RAOF> Anyway, *ever* so slightly off topic :)
[11:20] <mok0> les123: so contact canonical like RAOF said or opensource it. Those are your options
[11:20] <les123> yes - probably my www will be enough ;-)
[11:21] <les123> mok0 - actually - there is great game - Battle of Wesnoth
[11:21] <les123> it's free and guy is porting that to iPhone
[11:21] <les123> I think it's in universe anyway
[11:21] <les123> we can check your theory :-)
[11:21] <RAOF> Yup.
[11:21] <artfwo> I'm looking for a friendly DD, which is interested in multimedia/sound to sponsor a couple of my uploads (1 new and 1 updated package). anyone interested?
[11:22] <mok0> les123: I hardly ever play games
[11:22] <les123> http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/battle-for-wesnoth/id340691963?mt=8
[11:22] <les123> mok0 - me too
[11:22] <les123> but I wanted to create something :-)
[11:22] <mok0> les123: Your investment in learning will pay off, the game itself might not
[11:23] <les123> oh  -no problem with that. I am professional Jee developer :-)
[11:24] <les123> but anyone can be bored with some-else stuff
[11:24] <mok0> les123: indeed
[11:24] <les123> fixing broken code, corporate bull-shit policy, etc ;-)
[11:25] <les123> and you know - there is fun of creating something ;-)
[11:25] <mok0> les123: how can Java be closed source?
[11:25] <les123> why not?
[11:25] <les123> it's license thing
[11:25] <les123> practically it cannt be
[11:25] <mok0> les123: you can decompile it
[11:25] <les123> yes, but everthing can be decompiled
[11:25] <les123> so in that terms - nothing is closed source ;-)
[11:26] <mok0> les123: but java is particularly easy, you get the source back
[11:26] <les123> java is interpreted - so it's just easier
[11:26] <les123> you can use some tricks - but you are right - it's really like open code
[11:26] <RAOF> Rather, java is introspectable, so you get a reasonable faximile of the source back.
[11:27] <soren> I can hardly even read Java before it's compiled, let alone after it's been compiled and decompiled again.
[11:27] <les123> whatever the smart names - you can get your fingers on the source quite easily :-)
[11:27] <les123> soren: it's object oriented - it can be hard to read, especially with adnotations
[11:28] <RAOF> Unless you've got an open-source license on it you can't do anything with that source, though.
[11:28] <mok0> les123: so by closed-sourcing you don't prevent anyone ripping off your code, you just prevent anyone from discovering it
[11:28] <les123> why discovering?
[11:28] <les123> look - it will be ripped this way or another - it's legal thing
[11:28] <mok0> les123: because if the source is open, many eyes can spot if the code has been ripped of
[11:29] <les123> if I publish it as open source I will probvably lose all interest in it
[11:29] <mok0> les123: I don't understand that
[11:29] <RAOF> Well, if they care.  I'm not sure that crowd-sourcing your copyright enforcement is a winning plan :)
[11:29] <mok0> RAOF: what other options do you have?
[11:30] <RAOF> (That said, it *sounds* like an open-source license would be appropriate; encouraging patches from other people can be wonderfully interesting)
[11:30] <mok0> plus all the debugging you get for free
[11:31] <les123> heh ;-)
[11:31] <les123> look - maybe some day I will release it
[11:31] <les123> but for now I would like to experience whole process :-)
[11:31] <les123> including marketing
[11:32] <les123> it won't be gain financially - that's for sure
[11:32] <mok0> les123: most likely you'll be spending :-)
[11:32] <les123> and if someone wants to have look at algorithms - no problem - he can ask me - i will give him source with notes :-)
[11:33] <mok0> les123: what IS the game, anyway?
[11:33] <les123> mok0 - not so much - only my time
[11:33] <les123> if you wanna: www.age-of-feat.net
[11:33] <les123> but there is nothing to download yet
[11:33] <les123> it's still in beta-tests
[11:34] <les123> strategy
[11:34] <les123> it won't sell more than 200 copies
[11:34] <les123> above that I am going buy champage
[11:34] <mok0> les123: looks like it could fit on a smartphone
[11:35] <les123> not really - smartfones usually do not support fully JSE
[11:36] <mok0> what do I know
[11:36] <mok0> -> nothing
[11:36] <mok0> I don't even own a smartphone
[11:36] <les123> well -
[11:37] <les123> I was told I shoukld update myself - so I updated :-)
[11:37] <les123> I can check email and play tetris :D
[11:37] <mok0> OK, but I'm seated at a computer or my laptop most of the day.
[11:38] <mok0> I have no need for checking email when I'm walking my dog
[11:38] <mok0> :)
[11:38] <les123> gmail has nice applet for phones - your dog will be happy ;D
[11:39] <mok0> heh
[11:40] <les123> anyway - it mmight be a good idea to build some app-shop for Linux
[11:40] <mok0> les123: like RAOF said, canonical is working on that idea
[11:41] <mok0> (strangely, the app-store concept was INVENTED by Debian
[11:41] <les123> not sure if Steam-like
[11:42] <mok0> The app-store concept was brought to iPhone via the unlocking community
[11:42] <mok0> Apple saw it was a great idea
[11:42] <les123> hmmm... interesting ;-)
[11:42] <mok0> Finally, Microsoft copied it
[11:43] <les123> however, I am not sure if people will buy anything there - they are too used to free repositories
[11:43] <mok0> ... and will probably claim they invented it
[11:43] <les123> M$ copies everything :-)
[11:43] <mok0> les123: amen to that brother :-)
[11:43] <les123> but they have army-like laywers department
[11:44] <les123> however I have to say they have good code quality
[11:44] <les123> there was tcp-ip stack somethere leaked from M$
[11:44] <les123> it was quite good
[11:44] <mok0> les123: they used the bsd one for years
[11:45] <les123> BSD was copied everywhre
[11:45] <les123> especially crypto
[11:45] <les123> well, that was their license
[11:45] <mok0> les123: You couldn't get onto the Internet with a Windows machine before Windows95
[11:47] <les123> ? Internet Explorer was on 3.11
[11:47] <les123> I think up to version 5.0
[11:48] <mok0> les123: Maybe. I never used Windows, but I remember being on the Internet YEARS before my friends could
[11:48] <mok0> With Unix, and Macs
[11:49] <mok0> The first browser I ran was Mosaic on the SGI
[11:49] <les123> I think there was some lynx-like thing for dos
[11:49] <les123> whaever ;-)
[11:50] <mok0> les123: gopher?
[11:50] <les123> don't know :-)
[11:50] <les123> we played Doom then :-d
[11:52] <les123> whatever - it seems to be too much issues with releasing non-open source on Linux :-)
[11:52] <les123> I guess my page will do :-)
[11:52] <mok0> les123: yeah
[11:52] <les123> and never more any games to develop - it's takes too much time!
[11:52] <les123> but try if you have time - you will learn a lot :D
[11:53] <mok0> les123: I'm sure
[11:53] <les123> Ok, thanks!
[11:53] <les123> Cee yaa!
[11:53] <mok0> good luck
[11:54] <les123> come to page in 4-weeks - maybe you will like it ;-)
[11:54] <mok0> :)
[12:07] <arand> Licensing issue: Is this ubuntu-restricted compliant: http://redeclipse.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/redeclipse/license.txt?revision=2265&view=markup if not, what kind of requests would I make to the developers in order to make it, with as few modifications as possible? Are binary packages even possible for this, since that implies modification?
[12:09] <arand> Also, a debian.tar.gz would use the name of the game, however I'm not sure it can be definitely claimed to be "redistribution of the game" since it is independent metadata?
[12:10] <mok0> arand: looks problematic
[12:11] <mok0> arand: "Limited rights are granted to redistribute..."
[12:11] <arand> However, I know that sauerbraten and warsow use a very similar license, and they are both in debian/ubuntu non-free
[12:12] <mok0> arand: anyway, that license looks like a sorry hodgepodge
[12:14] <arand> mok0: I know, and already some things have changed as per me nagging about them...
[12:15] <JackyAlcine> o/
[12:16] <mok0> arand: they advertise that it's a free and open game, but not really
[12:16] <arand> For reference http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/w/warsow-data/current/copyright warsow-data has almost the exact same wording: "unchanged recompressed"
[12:16] <mok0> arand: what's the point of that clause?
[12:19] <mok0> arand: I don't understand how warsow made it in
[12:19] <arand> mok0: I am not completely sure, but I consider it to be a way to accomodate for specific items which are otherwise under a restrictive nondistributable license, to be redistributed if accompanied as a whole with the game.
[12:19] <mok0> arand: looks like it's forbidden to patch it
[12:19] <arand> mok0: Indeed.
[12:20] <mok0> arand: which means we can't fix bugs
[12:20] <mok0> arand: that is unacceptable in my view
[12:21]  * mok0 wonders why we get all these questions about non-FLOSS games today
[12:21] <arand> sauer/warsow manageds that by splitting into data and a engine-dfsg
[12:21] <mok0> I see
[12:21] <arand> Although as I have poked about at them for reference, I'm not sure if they actually hold up...
[12:22] <mok0> arand: you might try debian-legal
[12:22] <arand> oftc?
[12:22] <arand> Or a mailing list?
[12:22] <mok0> arand: I was thinking of the ml
[12:51] <ari-tczew> how can I fix this FTBFS? ../libs/uti/sge_edit.c:67:9: error: ignoring return value of 'chown', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
[12:52] <ari-tczew> source line:    chown(fname, myuid, mygid);
[12:55] <ari-tczew> geser: around?
[13:26] <chrisccoulson> ari-tczew, the error message is self explanatory isn't it? ("ignoring return value of chown")
[13:26] <ari-tczew> chrisccoulson: sorry, I'm noob. do you want to see full buildlog?
[13:27] <chrisccoulson> ari-tczew, no. it means that the program ignores the return value of chown (ie, it doesn't check for success)
[13:27] <chrisccoulson> you either need to fix that (or work around it by dropping -Werror, but that is wrong)
[13:28] <ari-tczew> chrisccoulson: -Werror is in actual Ubuntu delta and I want to get it fixed right.
[13:28] <ari-tczew> chrisccoulson: I'd like to fix it, but I don't have an idea how.
[13:28] <chrisccoulson> ari-tczew, http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/chown.html
[13:30] <chrisccoulson> you basically need to check that chown doesn't return -1. if it does, you need to check errno, and retry if errno=EINTR
[13:30] <chrisccoulson> and then figure out what to do if it does fail
[13:30] <ari-tczew> chrisccoulson: black magic :O
[13:30] <chrisccoulson> but i don't know what package you are building, or what it does. you'd need to figure out how to handle the error
[13:31] <ari-tczew> package calls gridengine
[13:32] <ari-tczew> chrisccoulson: how about use int chown(const char *fname, uid_t myuid, gid_t mygid) ?
[13:33] <chrisccoulson> ari-tczew, well, that is the prototype of the function
[13:35] <ari-tczew> chrisccoulson: could you help me fix this one? this package has got a lot of errors, I have done fixed loads of them. I'd like to finish,
[13:35] <chrisccoulson> ari-tczew, i can't at the moment, i'm pretty busy with a lot of other work
[13:35] <ari-tczew> understand
[13:38] <ari-tczew> hyperair, Ampelbein: about geany: bug 739373
[13:39] <ari-tczew> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/geany/+bug/739373
[13:39] <ari-tczew> chrisccoulson: look, I found this: http://old.nabble.com/copy-file.c-vs-ignoring-chown%27s-return-value-td31041001.html
[13:39] <ari-tczew> is it may be useful?
[13:49] <hyperair> ari-tczew: wrong bug number?
[13:50] <ari-tczew> hyperair: it's private.
[13:50] <ari-tczew> hyperair: couldn't you see this if you're motu?
[13:51] <hyperair> ari-tczew: no, it's not. that bug doesn't exist.
[13:51] <ari-tczew> hyperair: do you want to see screenshot?
[13:51] <hyperair> private bugs are shown as private bugs by launchpad
[13:51] <hyperair> yeah why not
[13:53] <hyperair> http://img40.imageshack.us/i/screenshoterrorpagenotf.png/
[13:53] <hyperair> ari-tczew: ^^
[13:53] <hyperair> either launchpad's acting up, or the bug really doesn't exist
[13:53] <hyperair> did you mistype the number?
[13:55] <ari-tczew> hyperair: http://img138.imageshack.us/i/launchpad.png/
[14:02] <ari-tczew> hyperair: and?
[14:03] <Laney> why don't you unmark it as private?
[14:04] <ari-tczew> Laney: I'll but we are investigating in odd case.
[14:11] <hyperair> ari-tczew: it appears now. maybe the stuff didn't get saved properly to the database? =\
[14:11] <hyperair> bug 739373
[14:11] <hyperair> hmm ubottu still can't find it
[14:11] <hyperair> ari-tczew: interestingly, apport has marked your bug as invalid.
[14:12] <hyperair> ari-tczew: could you send me your core dump, please?
[14:13] <hyperair> if you feel paranoid you could gpg-encrypt it with my key -- it's 0x588752a1
[14:36] <ari-tczew> hyperair: where it is?
[14:36] <ari-tczew> is it*
[14:37] <hyperair> where is what?
[14:37] <hyperair> my key?
[14:37] <hyperair> oh you mean the core dump?
[14:37] <hyperair> well it's inside the .crash file
[14:37] <hyperair> which is in /var/crash
[14:38] <hyperair> you can unpack it using apport-unpack
[14:38] <ari-tczew> might be it helpful for you? (coredump)
[14:44] <ari-tczew> hyperair: apport is pretty buggy :) http://paste.ubuntu.com/583335/
[14:47] <ari-tczew> hyperair: done, check your mail box
[14:47] <ari-tczew> hyperair: ah, still sending... I've only 1Mb/s upload ;)
[14:50] <ari-tczew> hyperair: ok sent
[14:56] <dholbach> Laney, do you think we should try to get a FFe and get the packaging guide into natty or should we wait for a few more submitted articles and get it into oneiric?
[14:57] <dholbach> Laney, also was I thinking if it'd make sense to rename it? there's content in there already that's not exclusively related to packaging
[14:57] <dholbach> also... can somebody please review my merge proposals for lp:ubuntu-packaging-guide? :)
[15:01] <Laney> dholbach: Would you recommend it generally yet? I think we should have an alpha/beta period where it bakes in a PPA or something.
[15:01] <Laney> and what's not about packaging in there?
[15:01] <dholbach> ok, fine with me
[15:02] <Laney> and I just read it a bit and saw that it talks about looms. Do we recommend those for general use now?
[15:02] <dholbach> well, there's a lot of ubuntu infrastructure stuff, there's a upstream guide ready almost ready to be merged
[15:02] <dholbach> and I guess there'll be more stuff about "developing ubuntu (the platform)"
[15:02] <dholbach> Laney, barry would know about looms
[15:03] <Laney> hmm
[15:03] <Laney> I thought that stuff would be out of scope for this guide
[15:03] <dholbach> Laney, there's one branch of mine up for review that moves a lot of UDD stuff into the knowledge dataabase
[15:03]  * barry takes notice
[15:03] <dholbach> so not up there on the "I want to solve a specific task" mainpage
[15:04] <dholbach> I think it's fine to put that kind of stuff (in-depth articles about tools, etc.) into the knowledge database
[15:04] <barry> Laney: looms are a great feature, but as far as the workflow described in docs, i think we're still trying to work out how they all fit together
[15:04] <dholbach> (the 'restructure' branch)
[15:05] <dholbach> it'd be nice if more folks joined the ~ubuntu-packaging-guide-team mailing list and took notice of the merge proposals
[15:05] <Laney> dholbach: yeah I agree with this approach; task-driven main interface and then a reference section
[15:05] <Laney> I probably ought to do that. :-)
[15:05]  * dholbach nods
[15:05] <dholbach> yeehaw
[15:05] <dholbach> WIN!
[15:05]  * dholbach hugs Laney
[15:06] <Laney> barry: Yeah, I just wonder if there's some over-generalisation here
[15:07] <Laney> in an ideal world, of course ;-)
[15:07] <Laney> mainly in that it assumes 3.0 (quilt)
[15:07] <dholbach> Laney, barry: thanks for your help
[15:09] <barry> Laney: definitely.  it could use some discussion of other patch systems, and a critical eye on how patch systems work with bzr.  i think we have a commitment from the bzr dev team to pull looms into the core, make them rock (i.e. fix the warts and smooth the ui out), and concentrate on the story for working with packages that have patch systems.
[15:14] <dholbach> if anyone is bored: https://code.launchpad.net/ubuntu-packaging-guide/+activereviews :)
[15:15] <barry> dholbach: saw that, but i'm massively behind on post-pycon catch up ;)
[16:08] <AnAnt> Hello, I get a UnicodeEncodeError message when I try to login on wiki.ubuntu.com, where should I report that ?
[19:19] <c2tarun> I got this error while building a package http://paste.kde.org/7836/ manual.pro is missing, I guess manual.pro should be generated when we run qmake -project in manual folder. What is wrong here?
[19:51] <ari-tczew> iulian: does FFe needs 2 ACKs?
[19:54] <iulian> ari-tczew: No.  Just one.
[19:55] <ari-tczew> iulian: hmmm, I was wondering which thing in the past needed 2 ACKs.
[20:03] <geser> REVU still needs two ACKs from MOTUs
[20:04] <geser> I'm not sure if FFe needed two ACKs in the past and was changed later to only one ACK
[20:07] <ari-tczew> geser: I think MOTU Release Team needed 2 ACKs.
[20:08] <ari-tczew> Then it was merged into Ubuntu Release Team and now only one ACK is needed.
[20:09] <geser> might be (too lazy to check the archives now)
[20:21] <ScottK> What geser says is correct.
[20:44] <ari-tczew> geser: do you know how to fix it? ../libs/uti/sge_edit.c:67:9: error: ignoring return value of 'chown', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
[20:44] <ari-tczew> code: chown(fname, myuid, mygid);
[20:44] <geser> int unused = chown(fname, myuid, mygid);
[20:45] <geser> might perhaps work, but it's not a proper fix as we still don't check the value but only "quieten" the warning/error
[20:45]  * ari-tczew is checking
[20:46] <geser> not sure if gcc can be tricked that easy
[20:51] <ari-tczew> geser: ../libs/uti/sge_edit.c:67:8: error: unused variable 'unused'
[20:52] <geser> :(
[20:54] <ari-tczew> pretty logical, unused variable unused ;D
[20:58] <Bachstelze> ari-tczew: you could compile with -Wno-unused-result
[20:59] <ari-tczew> Bachstelze: is it really different than -Wno-error  ?
[20:59] <ari-tczew> (which actual package has got and I'm going to drop it by fix)
[21:00] <Bachstelze> it only ignores this particular warning
[21:00] <Bachstelze> otherwise you have to actually use the result, like if (result == -1) return -1;
[21:01] <Bachstelze> the second one being obviouly better, error codes exist for a reason
[21:05] <RoAkSoAx> win 9
[21:11] <ari-tczew> Bachstelze: anyway, thanks, I'll check it later.
[21:14] <ari-tczew> kklimonda: are you going to sponsor this one? bug 685710
[21:16] <ari-tczew> if Debian maintainer has added missing libraries to LDFLAGS instead LIBS and package builds fine, shall we sync it or point out maintainer to fix it right?
[21:17] <ari-tczew> at natty's start we've sent patches to Debian where are patched LDFLAGS cause LIBS has been used later in toolchain.
[21:19] <kklimonda> ari-tczew: last time I tried I couldn't build the package due to segfault in python-dbg
[21:20] <ari-tczew> kklimonda: so, are you going to try again?
[21:20] <kklimonda> ari-tczew: I would unsubscribe sponsors if I were to fight with it but I don't have much time recently - the patch is fine, it just needs someone to upload it :)
[21:20] <ari-tczew> kklimonda: did you test it?
[21:22] <ari-tczew> kklimonda: I can upload this one.
[21:25] <kklimonda> ari-tczew: I didn't test it but it's a trivial and logical fix that comes from the upstream. You can test it by installing matplotlib and running
[21:25] <kklimonda> python -c 'from matplotlib.projections import polar; help(polar)'
[21:26] <kklimonda> there is actually a test in the bug
[21:26] <ari-tczew> kklimonda: You ACK is enough for me. ;)
[21:28] <ari-tczew> I will do it tomorrow. Now I'm off to learn some russian language.
[21:31] <kklimonda> ScottK: heh, I've managed to backport evo 2.32 to lucid - I wonder if anyone actually cares about it enough to test it though - the bug got quiet after you closed it :)
[21:31] <ScottK> Feel free to ask.
[21:31] <ScottK> Did you backport it in a way that isn't going to make me cringe?
[21:34] <kklimonda> ScottK: well, that depends - what makes you cringe usually? I didn't do much evil stuff so far. :)
[21:34] <ScottK> kklimonda: OK.  As long as you warped evo to fit lucid and not the other way around it should ~be OK.
[21:40] <kklimonda> ScottK: I've updated a few libraries where it was required but none of them broke ABI/API. I've also tried not to update anything user visible (like gnome-icon-theme)
[21:42] <kklimonda> I wonder how will Red Hat handle Evolution updates for RHEL6
[21:42] <kklimonda> they also have 2.28
[21:42] <kklimonda> and they are going to be around for a little longer then 10.04
[21:43] <kklimonda> ScottK: btw, wrt backports - would that be feasible to backport parts of API when it makes sense to support newer versions of software?
[21:44] <kklimonda> or would that create a mess so big no one could support it? :)
[22:24] <arand> Can I in packaging use something like "this packaging (i.e. everything debian/*) is GPL, except for the name of the game which is only to be used with unmodified redistribution"? I have a feeling this might conflict with GPL, would I need to use another license for my packaging?
[22:30] <Crak> hi
[23:40] <ScottK> kklimonda: Possibly.  It depends on the details.
[23:40] <ScottK> kklimonda: Desktop is a little less important for RHEL than Ubuntu.
[23:49] <kklimonda> ScottK: has it been done in the past? i.e. backporting small parts of the API?
[23:49] <kklimonda> (in -backports, not in the entire archive)
[23:49] <ScottK> kklimonda: Not that I recall.  We have backported full new versions where there was a strong argument for it and we could test it.
[23:49] <ScottK> Right.
[23:49] <ScottK> So in theory this would be less invasive than that.
[23:50] <kklimonda> in practice it's still a lot of work for a small team :)