| bear | is there a FAQ for package maintainers to get their package updated in universe? | 00:33 |
|---|---|---|
| micahg | bear: I don't see a good all inclusive document for this, do you have a specific question? | 00:41 |
| bear | i'm the maintainer of two python packages and just wanted to make sure that the most recent version gets into the system - right now older versions are being used | 00:42 |
| micahg | bear: ok, so if there's no ubuntu diff, you can use requestsync from ubuntu-dev-tools to request an updated version from Debian | 00:42 |
| bear | hrmm, so I will have to go muck with debian side then - they also have the older versions | 00:43 |
| micahg | bear: you can propose an update in Ubuntu ahead of Debian if it's critical to be released with it, we're about a month out from release at this point | 00:43 |
| bear | well, one of the packages is python-twitter and right now the version 0.6 doesn't even work now that twitter is using oauth | 00:44 |
| bear | I don't mind doing the legwork on the debian side if that is what is required | 00:45 |
| micahg | bear: yeah, that should be easy enough to get updated, still will need a feature freeze exception (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeatureFreeze) | 00:46 |
| bear | ok, let me go read that and start any paperwork required | 00:47 |
| bear | thanks | 00:47 |
| micahg | bear: ah, just found this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete#Updating%20an%20Ubuntu%20Package | 00:48 |
| * bear bookmarks | 00:49 | |
| bear | bah - the debian side knows of the update but they are stalled due to lack of oauth2 package | 00:52 |
| micahg | bear: nope, it's in sid | 00:55 |
| bear | ah - then the bug comments i'm reading are behind - just trying to catchup on debian side discussion (which I should do in another place than here ;) | 00:55 |
| micahg | bear: yeah, that's why it was removed from stable and is not in squeeze | 00:57 |
| bear | is the only way to file a bug via apport and not via the web? | 01:01 |
| bear | ah - found it | 01:02 |
| bear | thanks micahg for the bug-edit/triage work | 02:02 |
| micahg | bear: you're welcome | 02:03 |
| === kklimonda_ is now known as Guest17427 | ||
| === Guest17427 is now known as kklimonda_` | ||
| === kklimonda_` is now known as kklimonda_ | ||
| === kklimonda_ is now known as Guest63630 | ||
| === Guest63630 is now known as kklimonda_` | ||
| === kklimonda_` is now known as kklimonda_ | ||
| === Amaranth is now known as Itsh00k | ||
| === Itsh00k is now known as Amaranth | ||
| === Amaranth is now known as its_gnarf | ||
| === its_gnarf is now known as Amaranth | ||
| === Amaranth is now known as its_gnarf | ||
| === its_gnarf is now known as Amaranth | ||
| === Amaranth is now known as oops_my_bad | ||
| === oops_my_bad is now known as Amaranth | ||
| === Amaranth is now known as not_gandalf | ||
| === not_gandalf is now known as Amaranth | ||
| === Amaranth is now known as slept_with_ganda | ||
| === slept_with_ganda is now known as Amaranth | ||
| dholbach | good morning | 08:56 |
| wolfe | moin | 08:57 |
| micahg | slangasek: for igstk, istr that same error on amd64, but apparently that sorted itself out with one of its dependent libs getting fixed | 09:01 |
| slangasek | micahg: possibly libgdcm2-dev+libvtk5-dev, which are not buildable on armel because of a segfault | 09:13 |
| slangasek | micahg: so the remaining problem can probably be marked a duplicate of bug #745843 | 09:13 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 745843 in vtk (Ubuntu) "vtk version 5.4.2-8ubuntu4 failed to build on armel" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/745843 | 09:13 |
| iulian | Morning dholbach. | 10:36 |
| dholbach | hey iulian | 10:37 |
| === yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
| ari-tczew | paultag: ping | 13:36 |
| ari-tczew | does anybody know how to figure out fix for dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libusb-0.1.so.4 could be avoided if "debian/clementine/usr/bin/clementine" were not uselessly linked against it (they use none of its symbols). ? | 13:39 |
| ari-tczew | does it mean there are unused build-dependencies? | 13:39 |
| Bachstelze | ari-tczew: it means that the executable is linked against libusb but doesn't actually use it | 13:46 |
| ScottK | ari-tczew: Such problems are usually more trouble than it's worth to fix them. | 13:46 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: so it's nothing important? | 13:50 |
| ScottK | In practice, no. | 13:50 |
| ScottK | All it means is that the package may have an extra dependency. | 13:50 |
| ScottK | It's a bug, but a low priority one that's not easy to fix. | 13:51 |
| Bachstelze | plus libusb is generally installed in the first place anyway | 13:51 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: ok thanks. next question, I'm going to upgrade package to debhelper8, what about backporting package which uses dh8? | 13:52 |
| ScottK | Bachstelze: Yes. Exactly why it's really not worth fixing. | 13:52 |
| ScottK | ari-tczew: If you're worried about backporting, leave it dh 7. | 13:53 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: does not it work with dh8? | 13:53 |
| ari-tczew | maverick and natty has got 8, earlier not | 13:54 |
| ScottK | Right, so dh 8 is fine if you just backport to Maverick. | 13:54 |
| ari-tczew | clementine is in lucid-backports, lucid has got dh7 | 13:54 |
| ScottK | We could backport dh 8. | 13:54 |
| ScottK | (we backported dh 7 to hardy) | 13:55 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: hmmm, sounds good, does it needs much testing? | 13:55 |
| ScottK | It needs someone to backport it manually and then do test builds with it. | 13:56 |
| ScottK | Shouldn't be too hard. | 13:56 |
| ScottK | ari-tczew: If you're interested, please test backporting the Maverick dh. | 13:56 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: I'm wondering how it works - do builders get packages from *-backport as well? | 13:57 |
| ScottK | ari-tczew: If it's an upload to -backports they do. | 13:57 |
| ScottK | Uploads to -updates/-security wouldn't. | 13:58 |
| ScottK | That's why this is a reasonably safe backport. | 13:58 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: I'm wondering about pack clementine bases on dh7 and propose it as *0ubuntu0.1 lucid-proposed through SRU. Wdyt? | 13:59 |
| ScottK | ari-tczew: No. | 14:00 |
| ScottK | New packages are not introduced in -updates. | 14:00 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: It's already in -backports. | 14:00 |
| ari-tczew | If it could go through -updates, user will got notify about able to update package. | 14:01 |
| ScottK | ari-tczew: Doesn't matter. That's where it should be. Only changes that meet SRU criteria can go in -updates. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates | 14:01 |
| ari-tczew | (if he has got installed clementine from backports already) | 14:01 |
| ScottK | If they've already got it from backports, they'd get an update too. | 14:02 |
| ScottK | This is controlled by the tech board, so you'd have to ask them for an exception. | 14:02 |
| ari-tczew | ScottK: No need, I'll use backport. | 14:11 |
| ari-tczew | hrw: what about dpkg-cross 2.0.3? any news? | 14:29 |
| === nhandler is now known as [N] | ||
| === [N] is now known as PinkUnicorns | ||
| === Pici is now known as ZarroBoogs | ||
| hrw | ari-tczew: still waiting for upstream | 15:47 |
| c2tarun | can anyone please help me with this error http://paste.kde.org/8692/ I got this error while running upgrade on chroot | 15:56 |
| ari-tczew | c2tarun: #ubuntu+1 might be better if it's on natty | 16:03 |
| c2tarun | ari-tczew: I am on maverick and chroot is of natty. do you think I should ask this on #ubuntu+1? | 16:04 |
| ari-tczew | c2tarun: chroot? $ sudo apt-get upgrade | 16:05 |
| ari-tczew | if maverick, #ubuntu | 16:05 |
| === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan | ||
| hrw | c2tarun: mount /proc;dpkg --configure -a | 16:16 |
| === jimqode is now known as Guest70956 | ||
| === emma is now known as em | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!