[07:04] <evaluate> Hello.
[07:05] <evaluate> There is a fix for a pretty serious bug for a package in natty. I currently can't upload it to Debian because of the perl transition. Can someone update it in Ubuntu directly or should I best mail the maintainer of the package in Ubuntu?
[07:06] <micahg> evaluate: which package?
[07:07] <evaluate> micahg, http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/clipit
[07:07] <evaluate> The bug which I'm talking about is bug #702316
[07:08] <evaluate> And it is fixed in the 1.3.13 release, which is available on http://sourceforge.net/projects/gtkclipit/files/Version%201/
[07:09] <micahg> evaluate: best to file a bug, prepare debdiffs for oneiric and natty-proposed and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors
[07:10] <evaluate> I wasn't talking about oneiric, I rather thought about a SRU for natty...
[07:12] <micahg> evaluate: SRUs have to go to dev release first :)
[07:13] <evaluate> oic
[07:13] <micahg> evaluate: it would be the same debdiff, just a different version/suite
[07:13] <evaluate> Is this the procedure you're reffering to: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/Debdiff ?
[07:13] <micahg> evaluate: yeah
[07:13] <Rhonda> Can we get the next release done sooner? I fear I might mistype the codename far too regularly for it to be useful.
[07:13] <micahg> evaluate: version is ubuntu2 for oneiric and ubuntu1.1 for natty-proposed
[07:14] <micahg> Rhonda: 5.5 months isn't soon enough?
[07:14] <evaluate> ok, I'll try to go through that...
[07:14] <Rhonda> micahg: I fear I will have to type it too often in that time. :)
[07:15]  * micahg guesses debian is easier since it's almost always unstable or experimental
[07:21] <Rhonda> almost always fits pretty well, though I am one of these rare persons who seem to have uploaded to every single other possibility out there, too ;)
[07:22] <Rhonda> Preparing security updates yourself to reduce the workload of the security team seems to entail that somehow.
[07:23] <nigelb> Rhonda: heh
[07:24] <Rhonda> nigelb: Hey, I like to give everything a try on my own, to form my own opinion instead of being guided by prejudices handed by others.
[07:24] <nigelb> Rhonda: No no, i was smiling about the bit were you wanted the release early ;)
[07:24] <Rhonda> The one time I tried emacs it though ended in a reboot of the server I was sitting infront of.
[07:25] <nigelb> vim ftw
[07:25] <Rhonda> I wondered how to exit it, and a "helpful" collegue said "I think it's control, meta …  and me thinks delete"
[07:25] <Rhonda> Ah, that one. :)
[07:25] <nigelb> heh
[07:28] <evaluate> What should I use in the changelog, natty or natty-proposed (or oneiric)?
[07:30] <nigelb> natty-proposed I guess
[07:30] <nigelb> but shouldn'd you fix it first in oneiric?
[07:30] <micahg> evaluate: natty-proposed for natty, oneiric for oneiric
[07:31] <evaluate> So do I need to create two debdiffs?
[07:31] <micahg> evaluate: yep
[07:31] <micahg> evaluate: same debdiff, just change the version/changelog
[07:31] <evaluate> ok, got it.
[07:36] <evaluate> ok, could someone please have a look at the debdiff and tell me if it's fine before I submit it: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/603123/ ?
[07:40] <Bachstelze> should be ubuntu1.2 I think
[07:41] <micahg> evaluate: version should be ubuntu1.1, for oneiric ubuntu2
[07:41] <Bachstelze> also you should fill out the DEP3 info in the patch
[07:44] <evaluate> Bachstelze, which information is needed exactly?
[07:44] <Bachstelze> evaluate: lines 39-45 of your paste
[07:45] <micahg> actually, he already filled it out in 31-32
[07:48] <evaluate> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/603125/
[07:48] <evaluate> Bug, Bug-Debian and Reviewed-By don't apply.
[07:48] <evaluate> Not sure why it says 'debian-changes-1.3.12-1ubuntu2' on the last line though. Is that normal?
[07:51] <Bachstelze> [08:48] < evaluate> Bug, Bug-Debian and Reviewed-By don't apply. <= delete them, then
[07:51] <evaluate> You mean the whole part between lines 36-47?
[07:52] <Bachstelze> the lines that don't apply
[07:52] <Bachstelze> though since Origin is upstream, you should probably have a Bug line
[07:52] <evaluate> What do you mean with Bug line please?
[07:53] <evaluate> The bug only applies to Ubuntu, since it's indicator related...
[07:53] <Bachstelze> the Bug line should give the URL of the bug in the upstream bug tracker
[07:53] <Bachstelze> then why does Origin say upstream?
[07:54] <evaluate> Isn't Origin reffering to the source of the patch?
[07:54] <Bachstelze> yes
[07:55] <evaluate> Well, the bug was fixed upstream, so I guess that should be fine then...?
[07:55] <Bachstelze> then you shoukd out an URL to the bug in the upstream bug tracker in Bug
[07:56] <Bachstelze> and normally the URL to the upstream VCS commit in Origin
[07:56] <Bachstelze> it's all there really: http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
[07:59] <Bachstelze> put*
[08:00] <evaluate> Well, there's no bug in the upstream bug tracker about this. It's just in launchpad....
[08:01] <Rhonda> Is an int signed or unsigned by default?
[08:03] <nigelb> I think signed
[08:05] <Bachstelze> yes
[08:06] <evaluate> Bah, this is too complicated. I'll just request a sync once it gets into Debian.
[08:13] <Rhonda> That's the spirit! :)
[08:42] <micahg> evaluate: to get into natty, you still need a debdiff/test case
[08:44] <evaluate> Well, I don't. I just wanted to help fix that bug, if you're making such a simple patch so complicated, then you can fix it.
[08:46] <micahg> evaluate: Debian doesn't have requirements about DEP-3 headers on patches?
[08:47] <evaluate> micahg, it does, but the way to place them there is more sane. If I run debuild -S they are generated automatically and I don't have any influence about what gets put there apparently.
[08:49] <micahg> evaluate: you should be able to use DEP-3 headers the same way in Ubuntu as Debian, it just requires a Bug-Ubuntu instead of a Bug-Debian, they're auto-generated, but that's meant as a guide, you can remove the auto-generated ones if you don't need them
[08:50] <evaluate> Also, since the bug was fixed upstream, I don't see the logic behind also creating a patch for Ubuntu. Why not just import the package from upstream?
[08:50] <micahg> evaluate: we can't take a new upstream version in a stable release without an SRU exception
[08:50] <micahg> evaluate: would be fine for oneiric though
[08:51] <evaluate> And wouldn't a complete freeze of X justify a SRU exception?
[08:51] <micahg> evaluate: not if it can be fixed with a simple patch
[08:55] <micahg> evaluate: I think the only thing missing was a link to the "upstream" commit, that would go on the Origin line following upstream,
[09:01] <Rhonda> And actually, the Description that debuild -S produces isn't really sane.
[09:02] <Rhonda> The whole created thing screams "I'm a template - please adjust me!" in most of its part.
[09:07] <evaluate> micahg, would this be acceptable: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/603147/ ?
[09:08] <micahg> evaluate: that looks good to me
[09:09] <evaluate> Do I just attach it to the bug report or should I also ping a list or something?
[09:09] <micahg> evaluate: attach to the bug, subscribe ubuntu-sponsors
[09:10] <evaluate> Also, about oneiric, do I need to do it for oneiric too? Wouldn't it be wiser to just sync the patch from Debian once it's there?
[09:10] <micahg> evaluate: you can attach a second one to the bug for oneiric, just changing the version to 1.3.12-1ubuntu2 and the suite to oneiric
[09:10] <evaluate> Since oneiric isn't limited to any SRU exceptions or anything...
[09:10] <micahg> evaluate: yeah, you can sync from Debian if you want to wait for that, but it needs to go in oneiric before ubuntu SRU will accept to natty
[09:10] <evaluate> ohh well
[09:11] <micahg> evaluate: you could prepare a new version upload for oneiric if you like as well, but that's up to you
[09:12] <micahg> evaluate: seems like the least amount of work would be to get this patch uploaded to oneiric and then sync from Debian once it's ready there
[09:13] <evaluate> micahg, ok.
[09:14] <evaluate> Gah. "You cannot make any changes at this time. Launchpad is undergoing maintenance and is running in read-only mode."
[09:16] <micahg> evaluate: oops, yeah, should be over by 9:30 UTC
[09:18] <micahg> evaluate: thanks for your work on this :)
[09:19] <evaluate> micahg, sure. It's my package after all... :-)
[09:22] <micahg> evaluate: you should find that after the first few bumps, it should be clear sailing to get stuff sponsored, if you have any ideas for making the process easier/better, please let us know
[09:25] <evaluate> micahg, I don't see anything wrong with the process of having something sponsored, but rather with the idea behind preffering a ubuntu patch rather than a new upstream version in a SRU...
[09:32] <micahg> evaluate: this might help with that: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Why
[09:43] <evaluate> micahg, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/clipit/+bug/702316 -- hope it's ok now
[12:27] <ScottK> micahg: DEP-3 is not required in Debian.
[12:27] <ScottK> And I think this is a good example of why.
[12:45] <Rhonda> Actually that patch is only a good example that debuild -S creates only a template and requires a fair amount of tweaking afterwards. :)
[12:46] <c2tarun> can anyone please tell me how can I edit this page and write comments? https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html
[12:54] <geser> c2tarun: there is a hidden input field in the comment column
[12:56] <c2tarun> geser: in natty there was a linker problem due to binutils-gold linker. is this also problem in oneiric?
[13:10] <c2tarun> here is a debian/changelog file http://paste.kde.org/50683/ in line 14 its adding a patch, but when I checked into the file the patch is all ready applied. How is this possible?
[13:11] <geser> c2tarun: yes, oneiric uses the same linker defaults as early natty
[13:12] <c2tarun> geser: can you please look at the problem I just posted?
[13:12] <geser> c2tarun: see line 10; the package now uses v3 (quilt) where package are automatically applied after unpacking
[13:13] <c2tarun> geser: I also thought so, but when I checked by quilt top I got no patches applied.
[13:13] <geser> hmm
[13:14] <c2tarun> geser: I got this error while applying the patch Patch 01_local_hiscores_file_check.patch can be reverse-applied
[13:16] <c2tarun> geser: I grabbed the package by grab-merge.sh script
[13:16] <c2tarun> grab-merge.sh bastet
[13:18] <c2tarun> geser: I am getting similar error with the other patch mentioned in line 17
[13:19] <c2tarun> geser: ping
[13:22] <c2tarun> geser seems to be busy, can anyone please help me?
[13:23] <Laney> you don't need to ping specific people for questions like that
[13:23] <Laney> that message usually means that the patch has been applied upstream or in debian, and you can remove it
[13:23] <Laney> (or you are attempting to apply it twice)
[13:25] <geser> hmm, does MoM the right thing for v3 packages?
[13:25] <c2tarun> Laney: in changelog its mentioned about adding the patch, how can that be applied upstream?
[13:26] <geser> Laney: see the changelog entry c2tarun linked; that patch got added in the current Debian revision
[13:27] <Laney> sure, I was giving a generic answer
[13:30] <c2tarun> I just pulled-debian-source bastet and patch is not applied there.
[13:31] <c2tarun> grab-merge.sh can only apply the ubuntu1.patch and no internal patches
[13:31]  * c2tarun confused, what went wrong and where?
[13:31] <c2tarun> Laney: are you suggesting that I should drop the patch?
[13:32] <geser> c2tarun: do you have a .pc/ directory in the package directory?
[13:33] <c2tarun> geser: yes but its empty.
[13:33] <c2tarun> geser: nope its not
[13:33] <c2tarun> geser: it contains three files .  ..  .quilt_patches  .quilt_series  .version
[13:34] <geser> perhaps it would be best if you take the (unmodified) Debian package and merge manually
[13:35] <Laney> does it need a merge?
[13:35] <Laney> changelog suggests not
[13:35] <c2tarun> Laney: I too think so, let me check it
[13:37] <Laney> this http://launchpadlibrarian.net/65435629/bastet_0.41-6_0.41-6ubuntu1.diff.gz was the previous diff
[13:37] <Laney> and the bug logs and debian changelog suggest that that is now upstream
[13:37] <Laney> so it looks like a sync to me
[13:49] <c2tarun> Laney: sorry I got disconnected, did you replied to my query?
[13:49] <Laney> c2tarun: didn't see it
[13:53] <c2tarun> Laney: how can I request for sync? I tried with reqeuestsync script but dont know why its not working. Is there any particular format for sync bug for LP?
[13:57] <Laney> c2tarun: did you try with requestsync --lp
[13:57] <Laney> ?
[13:58] <Laney> otherwise, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess
[13:58] <c2tarun> Laney: I posted a sync bug 777083  please check and tell me if more details are required?
[13:58] <Laney> usually the debian changelog is included
[13:58] <Laney> and it'd be nice if you said that the only fixes were build fixes which are now incorporated upstream
[13:59] <c2tarun> Laney: ok, I'll do that, and sorry I requested a sync for the first time so its little bit less in details
[13:59] <Laney> no problem at all
[14:00] <c2tarun> Laney: complete debian changelog or latest entry?
[14:01] <Laney> the new ones
[14:01] <c2tarun> Laney: please take a look now.
[14:06] <Laney> c2tarun: looks good, please subscribe ubuntu-sponsors and that's it
[15:07] <debfx> how can I remove a merge request from the sponsoring overview?
[15:07] <debfx> (the equivalent to setting a bug status to invalid)
[15:09] <Laney> set the status of the merge request
[15:09] <debfx> to work in progress?
[15:34] <Laney> debfx: sounds good
[15:46] <Laney> barry: regarding your winpdb upgrade request, have you seen that debian has 1.4.8 now?
[15:47] <Laney> it has in fact been autosynced
[17:03] <c2tarun> there is a package named dares, there was a patch to fix binutils-gold error. Debian developer just included this patch in its newer version. No other changes and patch is also not applied in source code, just included as a patch. Is there any need of sync in this case?
[17:53] <Laney> c2tarun: might as well while you are looking at it, then it'll be autosynced in future
[17:54] <c2tarun> ok, this question may not be relevant but there was a guy with IRC nick persia, I haven't seen him from very long time on any channel. why so?
[17:55] <c2tarun> I asked because he was very with everything we do on this channel
[17:56] <c2tarun> I asked because he was very good with everything we do on this channel
[17:56] <nigelb> c2tarun: he's in japan, he's having internet trouble for a while.
[17:56] <c2tarun> ohh...
[19:34] <c2tarun> I have a question about grab-merge.sh script. This script downloads the source code from debian and then applies the ubuntu.patch file to it? is there any way to make it stop applying that patch?
[19:41] <micahg> c2tarun: just unpack the debian source separate if you want to see it, it'll be in a different dir
[19:42] <c2tarun> micahg: got it. in previous ubuntu version, a patch was introduced to fix ftbfs due to binutils-gold, that patch is not included in new debian release. This should be a merge. What should I write in changelog, patch imported from previous ubuntu version?
[19:43] <micahg> c2tarun: list the patch in remaining changes
[19:44] <yofel> doesn't debian use the gold linker too?
[19:44] <c2tarun> yofel: dont think so. :/ because new version is giving same error due to gold linker :(
[19:44] <yofel> :/
[19:44] <micahg> the patch should be forwarded if they're affected, but that doesn't mean they'll include it
[19:45] <micahg> yofel: not yet by default
[19:45] <yofel> ah ok
[19:49] <c2tarun> one more problem, whenever i try to use the grab-merge.sh script, none of the patches in debian/patches folder apply. On executing quilt top i see no patches applied, but on pushing the patches none of them apply :( Even the patches introduced in the same version also didn't apply. why so?
[19:51] <yofel> is the series file intact? I just merged kaffeine, and there the patch got applied without quilt and the series file got renamed to series.UBUNTU
[19:52] <c2tarun> yofel: on series file isn't intact I have to modify it to include all the patches. can you please try this on your system. grab-merge.sh dma
[19:52] <c2tarun> yofel: then go inside the folder and check whether any patch is applied or not? then modify the series file in proper format and then try to apply the patches.
[19:55] <yofel> yeah, it seems the ubuntu patch is applied now and the series file has conflicts
[19:55] <yofel> everyone: what's the right way to fix that?
[19:56] <c2tarun> yofel: conflict is because ubuntu patch is not included and few new patches are introduced. We have to include ubuntu patch as well all the debian patches
[19:57] <yofel> that is true, what I'm not sure is how to handle that fact that 38_fix_ftbfs_binutils-gold.patch is already applied to the source
[19:57] <yofel> unless all patches were automatically applied..
[19:58] <c2tarun> yofel: well there is no information in changelog that 38_fix_ftbfs_binutils-gold.patch is applied.
[19:58] <yofel> nono, I meant that it was applied by MOM
[20:01] <c2tarun> yofel: and try to pop the patches, none of them are applied :/ or something weird is happening which I have never seen before.
[20:01] <c2tarun> hmmm.... thats new to me. I didn't know that MOM also applies the patch.
[20:01] <yofel> nah, I'm wondering if MOM just doesn't consider that dpkg-source now automatically applies patches with 3.0(quilt)
[20:02] <c2tarun> yofel: what should I do here? get the debian source, copy the debian folder from dma-0.0.2010.06.17-10ubuntu1 and try to build it on oneiric?
[20:02] <yofel> no idea, I'm pretty new to merging myself and was just asking myself the same..
[20:03] <dupondje> there is a magic tool for this
[20:03] <yofel> in this case you could probably just revert that one patch in the Makefile since it's just a one line patch and then rename the patch file and update series
[20:03] <dupondje> grab-merge package
[20:03] <dupondje> :)
[20:04] <dupondje> does alot by itself
[20:04] <yofel> dupondje: yeah, and that gets us a source with applied quilt patches and quilt says no patch applied
[20:04] <dupondje> euh, but thats because no patches are loaded in quilt ?
[20:04] <c2tarun> can anyone please help us here?
[20:05] <yofel> dupondje: yes, but it seems that the patches were applied by MOM before merging
[20:05] <dupondje> what package are we talking about ,
[20:05] <yofel> or MOM just doesn't check if dpkg-source auto-applies the patches
[20:05] <c2tarun> dupondje: what does that mean that no patches are loaded in quilt?
[20:05] <yofel> dma
[20:06] <yofel> it's the 38_fix_ftbfs_binutils-gold.patch from ubuntu
[20:06] <yofel> the series file has conflicts, but the patch is already applied
[20:07] <yofel> and that's not because it's in debian or upstream
[20:09] <dupondje> grab-merge dma
[20:10] <dupondje> fix conflict in debian/patches/series
[20:10] <dupondje> and that does it no ?
[20:10] <dupondje> :)
[20:10] <yofel> dupondje: yes, but why is the patch (that needs to be kept) already applied?
[20:10] <yofel> that's not how quilt works...
[20:11] <micahg> yofel: source format 3 and grab-merge will not work well together
[20:11] <yofel> that's what I feared...
[20:12] <c2tarun> micahg: that means we have to merge it manually.
[20:13] <c2tarun> I tried and encountered this error http://paste.kde.org/51187/
[20:16] <c2tarun> can anyone help me with this error ^^
[20:16] <geser> c2tarun: which package is this?
[20:17] <yofel> still dma
[20:17] <c2tarun> geser: dma
[20:18] <dupondje> that patch is applied
[20:18] <dupondje> because its fixed in the package itself
[20:18] <dupondje> see ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/dma/dma_0.0.2010.06.17.orig.tar.gz
[20:19] <c2tarun> dupondje: I extracted fresh tarball and then applied all the patches and then on buliding I got this error.
[20:19] <yofel> a) it's not applied, b) all patches were applied, it's just that MOM can't handle source format 3.0(quilt)
[20:20] <c2tarun> yofel: was that ^^ for me?
[20:20] <yofel> no, re dupondje
[20:20] <yofel> but I got the same error if it helps (no, not really...)
[20:20] <c2tarun> yofel: you got some different error?
[20:21] <yofel> no, same
[20:21] <yofel> crypto.c:92:7: error: assignment discards 'const' qualifier from pointer target type [-Werror]
[20:21] <yofel> not sure if debian builds with -Werror
[20:21] <micahg> yofel: they don't
[20:22] <yofel> good, then we have the problem at least
[20:22] <geser> c2tarun: change crypto.c:87 to "const SSL_METHOD *meth = NULL;" (add the const to the beginning)
[20:24] <c2tarun> geser: should I create a patch for this?
[20:25] <geser> yes, as the package is in v3 (quilt) format
[20:27] <c2tarun> geser: it worked :) thanks
[20:27] <geser> np
[20:36] <dupondje> btw: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=622052
[20:38] <c2tarun> dupondje: ohh.. I should close this bug in my changelog . Thanks :)
[20:38] <c2tarun> no I cant
[20:38] <c2tarun> its a debian bug I guess.
[20:38] <dupondje> ye :)
[20:38] <dupondje> but you could reply to it with the fix for example :)
[20:38] <dupondje> the old ftbfs (38_fix_ftbfs_binutils-gold.patch) got fixed this way in debian
[20:39] <geser> c2tarun: I sometimes add "Closes: #xxx" to my changelog entries, even if it does nothing in Ubuntu but it good for a reference
[20:40] <geser> it helps checking later if the Ubuntu delta needs merging or can be dropped (because the bug got fixed in Debian too)
[20:40] <c2tarun> ok then, I'll add "Closes: #debian-bug" to my changelog entry, should I send it to debian as well?
[20:41] <geser> the patch yes
[20:41] <dupondje> add the diff to the bug yep
[20:41] <dupondje> always usefull for debian :)
[20:45] <dupondje> geser: you have upload rights in universe?
[20:46] <geser> yes, like any other MOTU too
[20:46] <dupondje> want to check https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/toonloop/+bug/775588 ?
[20:48] <micahg> dupondje: you can ask jdstrand, he's piloting in #ubuntu-devel
[20:49] <dupondje> also for universe packages ? :)
[20:49] <geser> for everything in the sponsoring queue
[20:49] <dupondje> oh ok
[21:36] <Laney> bigon: I feel like looking at merging epiphany 3, mind if I take it over from you, or are you planning on doing it yourself?