[09:48] <poptisse> This the development team - because I have a really annoying bug that I have found which is not present on 10.10
[09:48] <poptisse> only on Natty
[09:49] <Ampelbein> poptisse: what is the bug number?
[09:49] <poptisse> 600178
[09:50] <poptisse> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers/+bug/600178
[09:50] <poptisse> It is extremely irritating - as some of the fixes I just don't understand as I am brand new to Ubuntu.
[09:50] <poptisse> It just appears to be an on-going issue that needs a fix
[09:54] <poptisse> Ampelbein: You part of the development team?
[09:55] <Ampelbein> poptisse: not of the core development team, no. but that issue seems to be with the closed source nvidia drivers anyway so the development team will most likely not be able to do anything about it.
[09:56] <poptisse> Workarounds are mention on the bug - just one of the workarounds is confusing me lol
[09:56] <poptisse> If you could help me understand it that, would be perfect
[09:57] <Ampelbein> poptisse: user support is better placed in #ubuntu
[09:58] <poptisse> I have tried ubuntu and no one understands what i am asking so cant help
[09:58] <poptisse> Enable Workarounds -> Force full screen redrews (buffer swap) on repaint - Its just this
[09:58] <poptisse> and
[09:58] <poptisse> Disable Workarounds -> Don't wait for video sync
[09:59] <poptisse> Does that mean I tick force full screen and untick don't want for video sync
[09:59] <poptisse> Because in compizconfig don't wait for video sync is alreayd unticked..
[10:00] <Ampelbein> poptisse: i don't know. have you tried it?
[10:00] <poptisse> Yes/No because
[10:01] <poptisse> In compizconfig there is an option to disable workarounds
[10:01] <poptisse> so am not sure if i disable workarounds and than tick the don't wait for video sync
[10:01] <poptisse> :l
[10:02] <poptisse> I am just going to downgrade to 10.10
[12:20] <bdrung> tumbleweed: around?
[12:21] <wibblymat> Does anyone have a moment to point a packaging newbie in the right direction?
[12:21] <bdrung> wibblymat: shoot
[12:22] <wibblymat> I have downloaded a package using bzr and copied in the latest upstream source
[12:22] <wibblymat> But when I try yo bzr build, I get 'Looking for a way to retrieve the upstream tarball' and some errors
[12:22] <wibblymat> Why is it trying to download the source?
[12:24] <wibblymat> Hmm, tried to keep it short, hopefully that is still intelligible :)
[12:24] <bdrung> the file is in the wrong directory or named wrongly
[12:24] <wibblymat> Which file?
[12:25] <bdrung> the upstream source tarball
[12:25] <bdrung> it should be ../package_version.orig.tar.gz (or .bz2)
[12:25] <wibblymat> But... why does it need the upstream tarball at all?
[12:25] <Laney> so that it can tell which parts are your modifications to upstream's source
[12:26] <bdrung> it's needed for the source package build (if you build only the binary .deb package, it's not needed)
[12:27] <wibblymat> Ok, I can see that I have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere :) I downloaded the upstream source and then copied the files from in the tarball over the top of the source in the package. Was that wrong?
[12:27] <Laney> did you add a new changelog entry with the new version number?
[12:27] <wibblymat> Yep
[12:28] <Laney> should be fine if you have the file in .. then, as bdrung said
[12:30] <wibblymat> I'm still a bit confused about why the build requires the original source tarball
[12:31] <Ampelbein> wibblymat: did you use 'bzr merge-upstream' to include the changes?
[12:31] <wibblymat> No
[12:31] <wibblymat> Should I have done?
[12:32] <Ampelbein> wibblymat: that's the recommended way when using bzr
[12:34] <Ampelbein> wibblymat: see http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/udd-merging.html#merging-a-new-upstream-version
[12:34] <wibblymat> Ah, thanks!
[12:35] <Laney> a source package usually consists of some upstream code (orig.tar.gz/bz2) and the Debian modifications (diff.gz/debian.tar.gz), as well as a control file (dsc)
[12:36] <wibblymat> Ah, ok. Was thinking of it as just a way to get the binary deb so couldn't understand why it needed the tarball when I had already included the code.  I'll revert and start again :)
[13:15] <frafu> Hi, I need some advice about what version of a dependency to use in debian/control because of a bug in the dependency.
[13:15] <frafu> In fact, the package named Onboard needs python-distutils-extra >= 2.10. But distutils-extra 2.26 has a bug that breaks the building of Onboard. The bug is fixed in distutils-extra 2.28. Thus, I am wondering if I should use 2.10 or 2.28 in debian/control. Could anybody please give me any advice? Thanks in advance.
[14:02] <bdrung> frafu: use 2.10
[14:02] <bdrung> frafu: bumping the version if only one version has a bug
[14:03] <bdrung> it would make backporting harder
[14:04] <frafu> bdrung: Thanks for the answer and the explanation. I will leave it to 2.10.
[14:51] <mirak_> hi
[14:52] <mirak_> is there a way to run the alternate installer from within an ubuntu install ?
[14:53] <maxb> any of the various virtual machine systems
[14:53] <maxb> but as a plain chroot builder, no
[16:06] <vish> anyone have an idea where the bug could be ? Bug #792085  the bug has three tasks and no debugging..
[16:06] <vish> .. and I'm able to reproduce it too on two separate WD drives
[16:37] <bdrung> broder: bug #801945
[20:05] <broder> bdrung: in find_package, just change SourcePackage to UbuntuSourcePackage
[20:08] <bdrung> broder: that doesn't seem to be the right solution
[20:08] <broder> the code used to use UbuntuSourcePackage. i changed it because i didn't see any reason i couldn't but forgot to test
[20:25] <bdrung> bug #801945 look more like a bug in tumbleweed's archive.py
[20:57] <broder> bdrung: maybe, or maybe we just shouldn't be using SourcePackage
[20:57] <broder> (and only using the subclasses)
[20:58] <bdrung> tumbleweed: your opinion to ^?
[23:35] <sveinse> I'm trying to make a debian package, and the files within this package can be installed without compilation. dh_make seems to be centric around building a source package, then a binary package. What is the easiest way to create a binary package without building. (I'm a n00b on this)