[07:48] <dholbach> good morning
[10:35] <Laney> ARGH
[10:35] <Laney> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/ghc.html
[10:51] <Laney> I should have predicted this :( :( :(
[10:51]  * Laney mashes the keyboard in irritation
[10:51] <jpds> For a second there, I read tradition.
[10:52] <Laney> when you maintain GHC it does become rather traditional, indeed
[11:02] <geser> Laney: do ghc transitions ever end?
[11:02] <Laney> this one was about to
[11:02] <Laney> and then I uploaded GHC again last night
[11:02] <geser> I have the impression that at least one package on any arch has always a wrong dependency and needs a rebuild
[11:02] <Laney> imagine yourself travelling around a circle :-0
[11:02] <Laney> :-)*
[11:03]  * DktrKranz patpats Laney 
[11:03]  * Laney shelters underneath DktrKranz 
[11:03] <Laney> you have the power of 'wb nmu'
[11:04] <DktrKranz> nope
[11:04] <Laney> 'you' as in 'debian'
[11:04] <Laney> makes such frustrations go away somewhat :P
[11:04] <DktrKranz> definitely
[11:05] <DktrKranz> wasn't "rebuild package" button in progress?
[11:05] <Laney> not that i've heard
[11:07] <geser> DktrKranz: not "rebuild package" but a "sync package" button is worked on
[11:08] <Laney> https://dogfood.launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+localpackagediffs
[11:11] <DktrKranz> cool
[11:12] <geser> yes, really interesting
[17:33] <Ekx> Vortexirc looks for linux/chat interested people, if you want to join irc.vortexirc.com 6667  see ya :D
[17:35] <Laney> don't do that
[17:59] <micahg> broder: regarding seamonkey, we'll need to push 2.1 when it's released to the stable releases, so idk if an SRU is worthwhile
[18:00] <micahg> 2.1 uses the newer hunspell
[18:00] <broder> oh, really? yeah, in that case it doesn't seem like it makes much sense to keep working
[18:01] <micahg> yeah, the 3.5 branch which seamonkey 2.0 is based on will be EOL on June 21, so there will be no more releases for it
[18:02]  * micahg probably should've commented on that bug
[18:56] <micahg> bdrung: I never got an answer about syncing eclipse from experimental, I did a test build on amd64 on oneiric and it was fine, I would do one more with i386 before requesting the sync since i386 failed before with gcc-4.6
[19:04] <andersk> What went wrong there?  Shouldn’t it be possible to change ghc’s debian/control without breaking all the ABI hashes?
[20:18] <KNRO> Hi. I'm stuck with updating a package. I've already uploaded the .orig.tar.gz (2.3) version to ppa, and I later discovered there was a missing dependency, so I edited debian/control, but I can't reupload the .diff.gz file because the same version of the diff file (2.3) was uploaded and launchpad won't accept same version but different content.
[20:19] <KNRO> and if I pump the number in debian/changelog, I can't seem to get an updated .diff.gz (to 2.3ppa1 for example), I have to rename the orig file 2.3ppa1 as well which is wrong
[20:19] <KNRO> so how do I fix that, what am I doing wrong?
[20:20] <jtaylor> upload without the orig source
[20:20] <broder> KNRO: it sounds like you've done a handful of things wrong
[20:21] <micahg> KNRO: you should use a debian revision (i.e. 2.3-0ppa1
[20:21] <jtaylor> debuild -sa
[20:21] <broder> KNRO: first, if this isn't a "Debian/Ubuntu-native package" - i.e. the software meaningfully exists outside of Debian/Ubuntu, you should add a Debian revision number, like micahg said
[20:22] <KNRO> it's not native to Debian/Ubuntu
[20:22] <broder> but also, while you're experimenting in PPAs, you should add something to the version number - something like ~ppa1 - that leaves you room to change the version number in your PPA
[20:22] <broder> KNRO: right, so the version of the Debian package shouldn't be "2.3", it should be "2.3-0ubuntu1"
[20:22] <broder> then you add on the PPA tag (so "2.3-0ubuntu1~ppa1")
[20:23] <KNRO> okay, and the .orig filename is then what?
[20:23] <KNRO> 2.3.orig.tar.gz ? or 2.3-0ubuntu1.tar.gz ??
[20:30] <jtaylor> the furst
[20:30] <jtaylor> s/u/i/
[20:32] <KNRO> so if the orig file was foo_2.3.orig.tar.gz and my debian version is 2.3-0ubuntu1~ppa1, I can't run debuild -sd or -sa or any combination without renaming the .orig file!!!
[20:32] <KNRO> But the .orig file name should remain the same!!
[20:32] <micahg> KNRO: what does debian/source/format say if anything?
[20:33] <KNRO> I see ... dpkg-source: warning: no source format specified in debian/source/format, see dpkg-source(1)
[20:33] <KNRO> guess that's my problem...
[20:34] <micahg> KNRO: that's the debian version set in debian/changelog?
[20:34] <KNRO> in debian/changelog I have 2.3-0ubuntu1~ppa1
[20:35] <Laney> if it can't find the orig then you'll get a native package
[20:35] <KNRO> there is no source/format under debian
[20:35] <Laney> don't worry about that
[20:35] <KNRO> how do I tell it to look for foo_2.3.orig.tar.gz then?
[20:35] <KNRO> and take the diff from that?
[20:36] <Laney> show us the complete output from 'debuild -S' please :-)
[20:37] <KNRO> ok
[20:38] <KNRO> here http://pastebin.com/cE3xGsyj
[20:40] <Laney> ls ../libapogee2_2.3.orig.tar.gz
[20:40] <broder> KNRO: dpkg-source is using the version number 2.3ubuntu1~ppa1, not 2.3-0ubuntu1~ppa1
[20:40] <broder> the hyphen is critical
[20:41] <KNRO> Laney: yes it exists... ?
[20:41] <Laney> yeah, you need to fix that version :-)
[20:42] <KNRO> ohhhhh
[20:42] <KNRO> 2.3 then hypthen
[20:42] <KNRO> okay let me try
[20:46] <KNRO> it worked!! Thanks guys, this was driving me insane
[21:04] <KNRO> another question, if I have a package already built in maverick, and I want to build it for natty ppa, is it possible to build without updating the changelog file?
[21:07] <Laney> no
[21:07] <Laney> you can't have different binaries from the same revision
[21:08] <KNRO> even for different distributions?
[21:08] <Sarvatt> you can binary copy it from maverick to natty in the PPA without changing the versions but thats usually a bad idea and can't rebuild it that way
[21:09] <Laney> actually it's often not a bad idea
[21:09] <Laney> that's what happens for new ubuntu series after all
[21:10] <KNRO> I'll just update the changelog file and do it the easy way
[21:11] <Laney> try copying the binaries and see if it works
[23:16] <bdrung> micahg: i answer yesterday or so. the answer was: yes, please sync it.
[23:16] <micahg> bdrung: ah, sorry, must have missed it, xchat doesn't always tell me when I have a message waiting, thanks, will do over the weekend
[23:17] <bdrung> micahg: np. i would have done it yesterday if requestsync wouldn't crash