[00:10] <zachtib> I hope this isn't a terrible place for a packaging question, but I've put ubuntu-mono icons into my package, but it's not regenerating the icon cache after installing, so they're not showing up. I've googled and found dh_icons, but I'm not sure how to invoke it
[00:11] <zachtib> I've looked at other applications that include mono icons, and they don't seem to use it either, and I can't find any examples online. So, I'm wondering what do I need to add to my source package for this to work
[00:14] <RAOF> zachtib: From memory that should be automatically handled by a file trigger.  That memory might be faulty, though, if you find that it doesn't work :)
[00:15] <micahg> zachtib: why not depends on the ubuntu-mono package?
[00:15] <zachtib> RAOF, no, I'm having to run update-icon-caches manually
[00:20] <zachtib> I suppose I could add a postinst script to run update-icon-caches, no?
[00:22] <micahg> zachtib: if you're using icons from the package, you should just depend on the package (and thus getting the cache updating for free I believe)
[00:22] <zachtib> micahg, I'm not, I'm adding a mono panel icon for my application
[00:23] <micahg> ah, ok
[00:25] <RAOF> zachtib: You'd want to just call dh_icons to grab the automatic update-icon-caches fragment.
[00:25] <zachtib> RAOF in my postinst script, then?
[00:26] <RAOF> No, in debian/rules.  It'll add the appropriate maintainerscript fragments itself
[00:26] <zachtib> RAOF, when I added it there, I got an error (though I have an odd rules file, it's using pycontrol)
[05:20] <nigelb> tumbleweed: poke
[05:20] <nigelb> tumbleweed: Brian just made a preliminary list with a script :)
[05:21] <nigelb> I'm confirming that there are no false positives.
[05:21] <nigelb> (this is for the ftbfts)
[05:21] <nigelb> *ftbfs
[07:01] <dholbach> good morning
[08:28] <tumbleweed> nigelb: cool
[08:29] <nigelb> tumbleweed: ah, I have one doubt. Hang on getting the log
[08:31] <nigelb> tumbleweed: Is this a linking failure? https://launchpadlibrarian.net/72378541/buildlog_ubuntu-oneiric-i386.4store_1.1.3-1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[08:33] <geser> nigelb: yes
[08:33] <nigelb> The script needs tweaking :)
[08:34] <geser> nigelb: both .a files in that linker call need to be moved before -lz -lraptor2 as they use symbols from those libs
[08:35] <geser> at least lib4storage.a uses them
[08:35] <nigelb> I can fix that when I get home :)
[08:40] <nigelb> I submitted a patch to fix build failure linking change in redis, upstream tells me they have no problem building it. HOw do I reply to it?
[08:42] <nigelb> http://code.google.com/p/redis/issues/detail?id=562
[08:42] <nigelb> Suggestions on a response welcome :)
[08:45] <tumbleweed> nigelb: I'd explain that Ubuntu's linker is becoming more strict (point them to the wiki page / doko's e-mails), and tell them they can verify it by trying to build it on an Ubuntu Oneiric alpha
[08:46] <nigelb> tumbleweed: Thanks, I'll do that :)
[08:48] <geser> you can also point them to the old build log (the one with the FTBFS)
[08:49] <nigelb> ah, yes
[08:49] <sladen> tumbleweed: is there a better link than  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-March/032632.html
[08:50] <tumbleweed> sladen: yes, that was the reversion of the changes, the original announcing e-mail or http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking
[08:52] <nigelb> okay, so this is what I'm going with http://dpaste.com/553984/. Did I miss anything?
[08:53] <tumbleweed> lgtm
[08:56] <nigelb> geser, tumbleweed: Done thanks :)
[08:57] <nigelb> sladen: Thank you for the extra comment :-)
[10:57] <Rhonda> Can I dput with dput from Debian to a ppa, or is that a Ubuntu specific patch?
[11:00] <Rhonda> Nevermind, added the four lines to my ~/.dput.cf
[11:01] <Rhonda> What version shall I choose for a ppa upload? The current version is 1.14.0~beta1-1
[11:02] <tumbleweed> it's generally sensable to append ~ppa1
[11:02] <Rhonda> Would that be 1.14.0~beta1-1ppa1 then?
[11:02] <Rhonda> Then the help files are outdated. :)
[11:02] <Rhonda> https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/BuildingASourcePackage
[11:03] <Rhonda> #
[11:03] <Rhonda> Ubuntu package myapp_1.0-1ubuntu3 → PPA package myapp_1.0-1ubuntu3ppa1
[11:03] <tumbleweed> I guess common sense just applies. Does one want to preced or supercede
[11:03] <Rhonda> You're right of course.
[11:06] <directhex> Rhonda, depends on where you want to place it - i.e. how it should supercede or be superceded by a distro package. and also depends on which version is the "base" version you're working from
[11:06] <directhex> Rhonda, i.e. if 1.14.0~beta1-1 is current, use ~ppa1 or +ppa1 depending on whether you want higher or lower
[11:07] <Rhonda> Now I wonder what to put into the changelog. Upload target would be oneiric, right?
[11:14] <geser> yes, if you want to build it for oneiric
[11:15] <Rhonda> That's the idea, thanks. :)
[11:16] <Rhonda> How long would it take until it appears in my PPA?
[11:17] <Rhonda> And … I am a bit puzzled by the ppa dput config snippet. When one creates a PPA they give it a name, multiple PPAs can get created.
[11:18] <Rhonda> Though, there is no PPA name part in the upload path, only e.g. ~rhonda/ubuntu.
[11:18] <Rhonda> Now I wonder how that gets moved in the proper named PPAs from there?
[11:19] <arand> "ubuntu" is the ppa name in that case afaik, or is this in your .cfg?
[11:19] <Rhonda> It's in the .cfg
[11:19] <Rhonda> Then I guess I should switch that.
[11:20] <arand> ~arand/redeclipse/ubuntu is what i use e.g.
[11:20] <arand> middle bit being the ppa name
[11:20] <geser> doesn't the default dput.cfg contain a generic ppa snippet in Debian (or was it only patched in Ubuntu?)?
[11:21] <Rhonda> hah, that was it :)
[11:21] <geser> you should get a e-mail soon (the uploads gets processed every 5min)
[11:21] <Rhonda> geser: Not in squeeze.
[11:21] <arand> It does, but you need to change it to fit, ubutnu has a patch which allows passing your ppa name to dput as an argument, but that hasn't been upstreamed
[11:21] <Rhonda> Upload Warnings:
[11:21] <Rhonda> No copyright file found.
[11:21] <Rhonda> That's a false warning.
[11:21] <tumbleweed> geser: the ppa: snippet can't be used on Debian until it supports SFTP (afaik)
[11:22] <Rhonda> There is debian/pgadmin3-data.copyright in the source.
[11:23] <Rhonda> This is what works for me with dput: http://paste.debian.net/119784/
[11:23] <arand> There is a build queue and a guesstimate of time if you check the "package details" and "all builds", I think it's called
[11:23] <Rhonda> "currently building"  \o/
[11:25] <arand> Oh, so the /ubuntu at the end is superfluos, I didn't know that :)
[11:26] <Rhonda> Maybe not, it's still building :)
[11:26] <tumbleweed> arand: IIRC you can do /ubuntu/$release
[11:26] <arand> Right, hmm, that overrides what's defined in the changelog then?
[11:27] <geser> yes, and is IIRC discouraged
[11:27] <Rhonda> Right, because it would encourage same versions
[11:28] <tumbleweed> and would easily lead to confusion
[11:33] <arand> Though there is an easy "copy packages" option for that
[11:37] <Rhonda> \o/
[11:37] <Rhonda> https://launchpad.net/~rhonda/+archive/pgadmin3/+packages
[11:37] <Rhonda> arand: Wouldn't that add a changelog entry?
[11:38] <arand> It does not seem to do no.
[11:40] <tuyetmy> hi
[11:40] <geser> Rhonda: why should "copy packages" add a changelog entry? it's still the same .debs that are just published in an other release too
[11:41] <Rhonda> geser: I would have hoped that it change the version accordingly, and for that adds a required changelog entry?
[11:42] <Rhonda> Otherwise a copy across the distributions somehow doesn't make sense to me.
[11:44] <geser> Rhonda: it copies the packages as is; this works best for packages copied forward which don't need a rebuild (the same way untouched packages get carried over from one Ubuntu release to the next)
[11:44] <Rhonda> Ah, forward makes sense, yes.
[11:45] <Rhonda> on the other hand, this might still leave to unresolveable dependencies because of removed libraries and stuff
[11:46] <cjwatson> and in those cases you need to reupload a new version
[11:46] <cjwatson> but there are plenty of cases where that isn't so
[11:47] <Rhonda> I think I just go the path of uploading the source with different versions :)
[12:03] <Rhonda> hmm.  successful builds are linked, failed builds not?
[12:03] <Rhonda> Now to I find out why/where it failed?
[12:10] <geser> Rhonda: which build failed? in your pgadmin3 PPA I only see the "backports" in depwait: "Missing build dependencies: postgresql-server-dev-all (>= 117~)"
[12:10] <tumbleweed> Rhonda: firstly, you should get an e-mail, second, expand the line on the +packages page to see the detaiuls. Or dig into "View all builds"
[12:10] <Rhonda> geser: Yep, that Build-Depends is the issue, I seem to have to pull it in from pitti's PPA or such, not sure.
[12:11] <tumbleweed> you could make your PPA "depend" on pitti's PPA
[12:11] <geser> or your add pitt's PPA as a dependency
[12:11] <Rhonda> If I would understand affairs better I would cancle the remaining pending builds.
[12:11] <geser> you can't cancel
[12:11] <Rhonda> A building one not, but neither a pending one?
[12:12] <tumbleweed> you can supercede it, that's about it
[12:12] <Rhonda> So how can I make the PPA depend on pitti's? And would that reschedule the builds?
[12:12] <tumbleweed> (or poke a launchpad admin, if it's a massive build and will fail after 20 hours"
[12:12] <Rhonda> Ah, think I found it :)
[12:12] <tumbleweed> you can't reschedule, but you can retry the failed builds
[12:15] <Rhonda> I'll check later.
[12:22] <Rhonda> Get:20 http://ppa.launchpad.net/pitti/postgresql/ubuntu/ lucid/main postgresql-server-dev-all 117~lucid [5482B]
[12:22] <Rhonda> Now that looks much much better.  :D
[12:23] <Rhonda> geser, tumbleweed, thanks for the hint in the right direction. :)
[12:49] <Amoz> I'm trying to update the libtorrent package, 0.12.6 to 0.12.8, but I get this weird error all the time
[12:49] <Amoz> chmod: cannot access `/tmp/buildd/libtorrent-0.12.8/build-tree/libtorrent-0.12.8/configure': No such file or directory
[12:49] <Amoz> make: *** [debian/stamp-autotools] Error 1
[12:49] <Amoz> when trying to pbuild the sourcepackage (.dsc)
[12:50] <Amoz> I apt-get source libtorrent
[12:50] <Amoz> wget the new source and extract it
[12:50] <Amoz> then I copy the old debian dir to the new source dir
[12:50] <Amoz> and dch -i
[12:50] <Amoz> then debuild -S -sa
[12:50] <Amoz> I must be missing something here
[12:50] <Amoz> any pointers?
[12:51] <geser> is the mentioned file there?
[12:52] <Amoz> geser, nope, the tmp dir is just there during the build I guess
[12:52] <Amoz> however, there's a configure file in the source dir
[12:53] <geser> is that from pbuilder? you can add a hook to drop you into a shell when the build fails
[12:53] <Amoz> geser, yes it is
[12:53] <Amoz> oh really, how? how's that going to help me? =)
[12:54] <Amoz> so I can checkout files and stuff?
[12:54] <geser> pbuilder destroys the chroot when it exits, when you get dropped into a shell you can investigate why it failed before everything gets removed
[12:54] <Amoz> ah
[12:54] <Amoz> the thing is I don't know what to look for anyway
[15:30] <psusi> is there a release manager around who can approve the series tasks for bug #675108 please?  it's a natty regression with a proposed patch that I've worked into a bzr branch and tested... going to forward port it to oneiric next, but the SRU will need the natty task.
[16:26] <geser> psusi: someone from #ubuntu-desktop should be able to accept the nominations too
[17:48] <micahg> cjwatson: libdkim on had half of your patch applied, do you want me to reupload the other half or wait until Debian does it?
[17:48] <micahg> *only
[17:52] <cjwatson> micahg: I reopened the Debian bug
[17:53] <cjwatson> I think we can probably just leave it until then TBH - I was only in a rush because it was on the OpenSSL transition list
[17:53]  * micahg thought you already rebuilt it for the transition
[18:03] <sinzui> I want to become a motu. Specifically I want to fix the packages I maintain or use that are broken in oneiric
[18:07] <micahg> sinzui: awesome, so, the best way to start is to propose fixes for your packages for sponsoring
[18:08] <sinzui> michag. I need to ensure the bug in reported against the package in oneiric and subscribe the sponsor team?
[18:15] <micahg> sinzui: no need to target the bug, yeah, just add a patch and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors or propose a branch for merge into lp:ubuntu/foo
[18:51] <cjwatson> micahg: the fix was after my rebuild attempt
[18:52] <cjwatson> micahg: and since it's now been transitioned, I'm not in a desperate hurry to fix the reappearing failure
[18:52] <cjwatson> happy to wait for Debian + autosync
[18:58] <micahg> cjwatson: ah, ok, thanks