[06:51] <geser> wgrant: Hi, what was the magic url for the LP build chroots again? hrw was looking for it yesterday
[06:52] <wgrant> geser: https://launchpad.net/api/devel/ubuntu/oneiric/i386
[06:53] <geser> thanks
[06:53] <geser> hrw: ^^
[06:58] <dholbach> good morning
[06:59] <geser> good morning dholbach
[07:01] <dholbach> hi geser
[07:43] <iulian> Morning dholbach, geser.
[07:44] <dholbach> hey iulian
[07:47] <iulian> How's it going?
[07:59] <hrw> wgrant, geser: thanks
[09:09] <hrw> uf. now I have chroot where package fail ;D
[09:10] <tumbleweed> is that what you wanted? :)
[09:11] <hrw> yes
[09:12] <hrw> package built in my chroots and not on launchpad. now I have LP one locally
[09:47] <dupondje> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/courier/0.66.1-1ubuntu1/+build/2611450/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-oneiric-i386.courier_0.66.1-1ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[09:47] <dupondje> umask 0022 is default to build no ?
[09:51] <geser> dupondje: bigjools and/or wgrant in #launchpad should know it
[10:00] <tumbleweed> seeing as we just changed the default in ubuntu, it's quite likely that affected sbuild too
[10:00] <tumbleweed> oh, that was noted in #ubuntu-devl
[10:01] <dupondje> ye :)
[10:07] <hrw> found issue ;)
[10:07] <hrw> i486 != i686 != i486
[10:07] <hrw> die i386... asap
[10:07] <tumbleweed> what was different about the launchpad chroot that triggered that?
[10:09] <hrw> tumbleweed: bug 802985 hold me from using i386 chroot before
[10:10] <hrw> so I tested on amd64 which is totally different
[10:10] <hrw> new lesson learnt
[10:10] <hrw> new patch to gcc-4.4 (nearly obsolete now) generated
[10:11] <tumbleweed> ah right
[12:37] <dupondje> dh_installman manpages/*.{5,8}
[12:37] <dupondje> this doesn't work anymore ?
[12:47] <tumbleweed> dupondje: that's a bashism separate it into two parameters
[12:48] <tumbleweed> err, prentend I used some punctuation there
[12:48] <dupondje> weird it worked before tho :s
[12:49] <tumbleweed> bash used to be the default shell (a while ago)
[12:50] <dupondje> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shorewall-lite/+bug/806457
[12:50] <dupondje> looks fine ?
[12:50] <tumbleweed> I'd have put them both on the same line
[12:50] <tumbleweed> also, that's something to submit to debian
[12:51] <tumbleweed> and the changelog entry isn't very helpful :)
[12:51] <tumbleweed> dh_installman didn't change at all
[12:52] <dupondje> true, its because bash isn't the default shell anymore :)
[12:52] <jtaylor> it also fails in debian
[12:52] <jtaylor> please file a RC bug
[12:53] <jtaylor> User: debian-release@lists.debian.org Usertags: goal-dash
[12:53] <tumbleweed> dupondje: "Removed a bashism from debian/rules" would be far clearer.
[12:54] <jtaylor> hm no that tag does not apply
[13:00] <dupondje> but its still usefull to get it fixed in Ubuntu no ?
[13:01] <tumbleweed> yes, but as it's RC in debian, we can probably get it uploded there quite quickly. (if the maintainer doesn't respond within a week or so, ping me, I'll NMU it)
[13:01] <jtaylor> yes, but it needs fixing in debian too
[13:02]  * dupondje hates debian's bugsystem
[13:02] <dupondje> launchpad is much more easier :)
[13:03] <tumbleweed> hrm, I'd say they both have their advantages. I'll agree launchpad is easier to use, though
[13:03] <jtaylor> I can file it if like
[13:04] <jtaylor> been massfiling the last few days anyway, one more does not matter :)
[13:04] <dupondje> well i'll try it out myself :)
[13:04] <dupondje> gotto learn it one day :D
[13:05] <Laney> you hate it, but you've never filed a bug there?
[13:05] <dupondje> well did file a bug
[13:05] <dupondje> or add comment
[13:05] <dupondje> but not alot :)
[13:05] <dupondje> and every time I need to read its man page again ^^
[13:10] <geser> man page?
[13:10] <Laney> reportbug packagename ...
[13:10] <dupondje> geser: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
[13:10] <dupondje> :)
[13:11] <geser> I use reportbug, answer the questions, write the mail body, attach the patch and send it
[13:12] <jtaylor> reportbug crashes for me every 2nd time ._.
[13:13] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: why?
[13:13] <jtaylor> ought to file a bug for that, but I always just use regular email
[13:13] <jtaylor> no idea
[13:14] <jtaylor> its random, did not really have any success at debuggingit
[13:26] <jtaylor> so many opendrim packages broken :(
[13:27] <tumbleweed> we have someone working on those
[13:27] <tumbleweed> it's really easy to fix
[13:27] <jtaylor> who?
[13:28] <tumbleweed> scarneiro
[13:28] <jtaylor> they should be marked then
[13:28] <tumbleweed> he had branches filed for most of them that needed work. pitti marked them as "needs fixing" in his patch piloting today
[13:28] <tumbleweed> before thta, they were showing up on the bug pages
[13:29] <tumbleweed> oh, they still are
[13:29] <tumbleweed> I just picked one that wasn't
[13:32] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: there, marked them.
[13:32] <dupondje> tumbleweed: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/74646996/shorewall-lite.debdiff
[13:32] <tumbleweed> dupondje: LGTM
[13:36] <jtaylor> thx but you missed quite a few
[13:36] <tumbleweed> I marked the ones he had branches for
[13:36] <jtaylor> ah ok
[13:40] <directhex> Rhonda, you don't happen to have access rights to the backports.debian.org keyring do you?
[13:40] <dupondje> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632851 and forwarded to debian
[13:41] <tumbleweed> dupondje: please link it to the ubuntu bug
[13:42] <dupondje> done
[13:44] <jtaylor> yey lua-svn has a randomly failing testsuite
[13:56]  * Rhonda laughs madly at directhex
[13:56] <Rhonda> directhex: who else but me? :)
[13:57]  * Rhonda hmmms, I had rt.d.o open somewhere today already for processing tickets …
[13:57] <Rhonda> directhex: buy me a beaverage at debconf :P
[13:57] <directhex> Rhonda, sadly i won't be at debconf :(
[13:57] <directhex> Rhonda, fosdem 2012?
[13:57] <Rhonda> too chaotic to attend for me
[13:59] <directhex> Rhonda, i can get robot101 to pay if i give a talk. the trick is working out a subject to talk about at debconf
[14:00] <jtaylor> does lua shake have an expect test macro?
[14:00] <Rhonda> Is it? I've been tricked into giving four this year ..   %-)
[14:00] <directhex> Rhonda, :o
[14:01]  * Rhonda . o O ( alright, bits from the web team and bits from the backports team ones don't really count )
[14:11] <directhex> Rhonda, thanks. also thanks from sledge
[14:11] <Rhonda> Is he sitting beside you?
[14:12] <jtaylor> I can't reproduce this failure anymore: bug 771137 but instead there is a different problem causing a build failure
[14:12] <jtaylor> should I edit the bug or close it and open a new one?
[14:12] <directhex> Rhonda, he's in #debian-uk on oftc.
[14:13] <Rhonda> Why can't he send me the kudos himself? :)
[14:13] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: I'd just recycle the bug
[14:14] <directhex> Rhonda, well i told him to relay beer on my behalf.
[14:15] <Rhonda> … only if they have good beer in bosnia. ;)
[19:29] <micahg> tumbleweed: are you uploading pppstatus?
[19:30] <tumbleweed> micahg: err, just did
[19:30] <micahg> k, I was looking at it as well...
[19:30] <tumbleweed> sorry, I'll stop
[19:30] <micahg> tumbleweed: no, please continue
[19:30] <tumbleweed> hah
[19:30] <tumbleweed> I've just been uploading things from the same guy
[19:31] <micahg> I just wish there was a way to flag something as working on in the UDD view
[19:31] <micahg> tumbleweed: you're just doing the FTBFS fixes, right?
[19:31] <tumbleweed> yeah
[19:32] <micahg> k, I'll grab other things
[19:32] <micahg> there's plenty to do :)
[19:32] <tumbleweed> in that case, I'll look at some more
[19:33] <micahg> tumbleweed: thanks
[21:00] <paultag> Rhonda: 'grats on the debian backports gig, just saw that mail :)
[21:00] <paultag> well done :)
[21:01] <Laney> 'aint real until it's appeared on d-d-a eh? ;-)
[21:01] <paultag> :)
[21:45] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: not waiting on a debian response for oval-interpreter?
[21:46] <jtaylor> no the RC bug in debian is too old with no reaction
[21:46] <tumbleweed> sounds NMUable :)
[21:47] <tumbleweed> let's give it a few days with a patch, and if there's no response, NMU it
[21:48] <tumbleweed> actually I'll nmu it now, it's an ancient bug
[21:48] <jtaylor> well there is still much time till debian release, does it need a nmu?
[21:48] <tumbleweed> 3 month old RC bug, with no maintainer response. Sounds fine to me
[21:50] <jtaylor> go ahead, I'm no dm so I can't
[22:01] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: uploaded to delayed/2
[22:01] <jtaylor> thx
[22:26] <tumbleweed> bdrung_: hrm, are we doing some thing wrong with sponsor-patch? I'm noticing udd inconsistancies with branches I've sponosred
[22:26] <bdrung_> tumbleweed: that's your code :P
[22:26] <tumbleweed> oh, duh, I probably didn't bzr commit while editing (sponsor-patch -e). Maybe we should detect uncommitted changes..
[22:27] <broder> ...oh, you're supposed to commit with -e?
[22:27] <tumbleweed> you are in a bzr checkout, so yes
[22:28] <broder> i assumed sponsor-patch would run debcommit for me
[22:28] <bdrung_> it does, doesn't it
[22:28] <tumbleweed> hmm, it does
[22:28] <bdrung_> it should make sure that everything is committed before pushing
[22:28]  * tumbleweed takes a closer look at the inconsistancies
[22:31] <tumbleweed> oh, quilt, urgh