[00:33] <bear> is there a FAQ for package maintainers to get their package updated in universe?
[00:41] <micahg> bear: I don't see a good all inclusive document for this, do you have a specific question?
[00:42] <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
[00:43] <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
[00:44] <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
[00:45] <bear> I don't mind doing the legwork on the debian side if that is what is required
[00:46] <micahg> bear: yeah, that should be easy enough to get updated, still will need a feature freeze exception (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeatureFreeze)
[00:47] <bear> ok, let me go read that and start any paperwork required
[00:47] <bear> thanks
[00:48] <micahg> bear: ah, just found this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete#Updating%20an%20Ubuntu%20Package
[00:49]  * bear bookmarks
[00:52] <bear> bah - the debian side knows of the update but they are stalled due to lack of oauth2 package
[00:55] <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 ;)
[00:57] <micahg> bear: yeah, that's why it was removed from stable and is not in squeeze
[01:01] <bear> is the only way to file a bug via apport and not via the web?
[01:02] <bear> ah - found it
[02:02] <bear> thanks micahg for the bug-edit/triage work
[02:03] <micahg> bear: you're welcome
=== 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
[08:56] <dholbach> good morning
[08:57] <wolfe> moin
[09:01] <micahg> slangasek: for igstk, istr that same error on amd64, but apparently that sorted itself out with one of its dependent libs getting fixed
[09:13] <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
[10:36] <iulian> Morning dholbach.
[10:37] <dholbach> hey iulian
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
[13:36] <ari-tczew> paultag: ping
[13:39] <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?
[13:46] <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.
[13:50] <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.
[13:51] <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
[13:52] <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.
[13:53] <ScottK> ari-tczew: If you're worried about backporting, leave it dh 7.
[13:53] <ari-tczew> ScottK: does not it work with dh8?
[13:54] <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.
[13:55] <ScottK> (we backported dh 7 to hardy)
[13:55] <ari-tczew> ScottK: hmmm, sounds good, does it needs much testing?
[13:56] <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.
[13:57] <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.
[13:58] <ScottK> Uploads to -updates/-security wouldn't.
[13:58] <ScottK> That's why this is a reasonably safe backport.
[13:59] <ari-tczew> ScottK: I'm wondering about pack clementine bases on dh7 and propose it as *0ubuntu0.1 lucid-proposed through SRU. Wdyt?
[14:00] <ScottK> ari-tczew: No.
[14:00] <ScottK> New packages are not introduced in -updates.
[14:00] <ari-tczew> ScottK: It's already in -backports.
[14:01] <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)
[14:02] <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.
[14:11] <ari-tczew> ScottK: No need, I'll use backport.
[14:29] <ari-tczew> hrw: what about dpkg-cross 2.0.3? any news?
=== nhandler is now known as [N]
=== [N] is now known as PinkUnicorns
=== Pici is now known as ZarroBoogs
[15:47] <hrw> ari-tczew: still waiting for upstream
[15:56] <c2tarun> can anyone please help me with this error http://paste.kde.org/8692/ I got this error while running upgrade on chroot
[16:03] <ari-tczew> c2tarun: #ubuntu+1 might be better if it's on natty
[16:04] <c2tarun> ari-tczew: I am on maverick and chroot is of natty. do you think I should ask this on #ubuntu+1?
[16:05] <ari-tczew> c2tarun: chroot? $ sudo apt-get upgrade
[16:05] <ari-tczew> if maverick, #ubuntu
=== Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan
[16:16] <hrw> c2tarun: mount /proc;dpkg --configure -a
=== jimqode is now known as Guest70956
=== emma is now known as em