pfifoI am, or rather have been trying to get a package updated. The package is SDL-ttf version 2.10. I have contacted upstream and thats not really going anywhere. What can I do to get things moving in ubuntu? It seems there are atleast 3 othrs compiling this package from source given just the info on launchpad. What can I do?08:07
pfifoany ideas at all? Im honestly at the end of the road and could use direction08:15
SpamapSpfifo: is there a bug in Launchpad already?08:16
pfifoill link it one moment08:17
centopfifo, give me the exactly name08:17
centoof the package08:17
SpamapSpfifo: just type 'bug #xxxxx' and the bot will link it08:18
ubottuUbuntu bug 647759 in sdl-ttf2.0 (Ubuntu) "Update to new upstream release" [Undecided,Confirmed]08:18
pfifoas you can see I am trying to take this into my own hands, it has been effecting me for long enough now and I have experience working around it. I want something done.08:21
pfifoSpamapS, cento, anything of interest?08:24
centotry to package yourself08:25
centoand use a personal ppa08:26
pfifome providing a ppa will 'resolve' the issue?08:27
centoif you need NOW this package08:27
centoyou can help, with custom ppa, yourself and other users08:28
=== cento is now known as c3n
pfifoso basicly your telling me theres no way to fix this?08:30
pfifoatleast until debian does?08:30
c3ni tell you i'm a ubuntu user like you, and i think "if a package isn't on my rep, i make it on my ppa" :)08:31
pfifowell ok, thanks08:32
christitzei attached a fix as a debdiff to a bug report and now it says that the bug is fixed. but i got an email saying "* State: Failed to build" (for all arch's). so what should i do now? is the bug fixed in the new package or not?08:49
christitzethis is the link: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/open-vm-tools/2011.03.28-387002-0ubuntu4/+build/261608408:49
tsimpsonif it failed to build, then not fixed08:51
christitzeokay, then what should i do now?08:51
tsimpsonyou may want to look at the build log, fix the error, and update the debdiff08:52
christitzethanks, i'll see what i can do but i'm a real newbie, this is my first bug fix08:53
tsimpsonit looks like the build failure has nothing to do with your fix, but you get more karma if you fix the new errors it to ;)08:53
tsimpsonthough you'll probably want to open a new bug for this error, as it's seems unrelated to the original bug08:54
=== paul__ is now known as Elbrus
christitzeokay thank you. where should i report the bug? or what is causing it?08:56
tsimpsonagainst the package, something like "open-vm-tools failed to build on i386"08:58
tsimpsonor you can let someone else pick it up if you don't know what the fix is08:59
christitzei'll report the bug now and post the information i have and someone else can look further into it09:00
=== warp11 is now known as warp10
tumbleweedaonyx: I don't think moving LDFLAGS to the end is the best option either. In fact, a fair number of these issues were from people using LDFLAGS for linking to libraries rather than changing linker behavior15:58
tumbleweedaonyx: but there isn't an obvious best way to deal with this package. Both the upstream makefile and debian/rules should probably be changed15:59
aonyxOk, so for now should I just add the PAMLIB argument to the makefile?16:16
aonyxtumbleweed: I mean add the PAMLIB argument to the makefile to debian/rules16:17
tumbleweedaonyx: sorry, I need to go out, I can probably only look at it again tomorrow. But others around here (jtaylor?) can probably help16:22
tumbleweedI think my original suggestion was reasonable, but maybe there's no best answer and we should just get the thing uploaded...16:23
aonyxok, well I will try hailing jtaylor to see what he thinks.16:27
aonyxjtaylor: would you mind taking a look at something?16:27
jtaylorone moment16:46
jtayloraonyx: does this package still fail?16:56
jtaylorld should link with libc correctly even if you don't tell it to16:56
jtaylorah no --shared is used16:57
aonyxso do you know which package we are referring to?16:57
jtaylorlibpam-encfs I assumed16:57
jtaylorit builds fine in my chroot16:58
aonyxare you referring to the fix that I pushed?16:58
aonyxtumbleweed thinks that what I did is not as correct as it could be16:59
jtaylorno the one from debian16:59
jtaylorbut it still looks wrong, an extra variable LIBS should be added and appended to the ld line17:02
jtayloror use PAMLIB17:03
aonyxok, sure, that is what tumbleweed was suggesting, was just trying to figure out why it built in your chroot, because it didn't in mine17:05
jtaylormaybe yours sets --no-undefined17:07
jtaylor=> my chroot is bad ._.17:07
jtaylorno thats not the reason17:10
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
LaneyScottK: I just looked at natty-backports. bug 800501 bug 800224 bug 808126 (this is mine) look good to go for me.21:33
ubottuLaunchpad bug 800501 in natty-backports "Please backport ding-libs from oneiric" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/80050121:33
ubottuLaunchpad bug 800224 in natty-backports "Please backport packaging-dev 0.1" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/80022421:33
ubottuLaunchpad bug 808126 in natty-backports "Please backport sparkleshare 0.2.2-1ubuntu1 from Oneiric to Natty" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/80812621:33
broderLaney: i don't see any reason we couldn't backport openjdk-7, since the version is embedded in the package name21:37
ScottKLaney: I agree in two of the three cases.21:38
broderit wouldn't affect rdeps or anything21:38
Laneythe policy should be updated then21:38
LaneyScottK: ding-libs is a package not in natty if you're referring to that21:38
Laneyactually, i think all of them are21:38
broderLaney: i had interpreted the policy to refer more to changing things like python-defaults21:39
broderbut ScottK is more authoritative on this than me, so since he's around, i'll defer to him :)21:39
ScottKLaney: It's on my list to get the backports library policy officially updated.  The de facto policy at the moment is "don't break rdepends".21:40
LaneyI thought runtimes were a hard no21:41
Laneywhat's the problem with packaging-dev then?21:41
Laneybug 80204421:47
ubottuLaunchpad bug 802044 in natty-backports "Please backport nspluginwrapper 1.4.2-0ubuntu2" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/80204421:47
Laneywow. somehow ubuntu learned how to keep my s/pdif off after a reboot21:48
broderyou mean the mac optical port? 'bout time21:49
ScottKLaney: The testing standard for backports is "Builds, installs, and runs." he just said he'd tested it built and installed.21:52
Laneyright. missed that.21:52
LaneyI assume it was just a typo, but yeah I see your point21:53
ScottKIt's the most common omission when people say they want something backported.22:05
ScottKI understand from jdong_ there have been more than a few cases where stuff builds fine and thing utterly fails to start.22:06
ScottKOTOH, if it as least starts it generally works ~as well as it did in the later release.22:06
broderScottK: you know packaging-dev is a metapackage, right?22:22
ScottKbroder: I forgot about that.22:22
ScottKIt is rather redundant to try and run it.22:23
ScottKI'll go back and approv e it.22:23
jtayloras there is just a backport discussion, the zeromq backport is tested, I#m using it since a while in natty22:25
broderjtaylor: what's the bug #? i'll take a look22:26
jtaylorbroder: 80570122:27
jtaylorno rdeps22:27
broderfor any of them?22:28
jtaylorno, pgm is new in oneiric22:29
jtaylorwas bundled in the old zeromq22:29
broderok, sounds good. for procedure reasons, can you open a separate bug for each package?22:29
broderit makes it easier on the archive admins22:29
broderoh yeah - any DDs around interested in sponsoring a new package in Debian for me?22:32
jtaylorbroder: 80814{1,3,6}22:39
broderjtaylor: ok, those look good. in the future, please be sure to note that the package "builds/installs/runs" (which you were less than clear about for 808141)22:42
broderyou also didn't reference the PPA in 808141 which would be useful if someone was examining it in isolation22:42
broderand for doing test builds, we recommend using the backportpackage script from ubuntu-dev-tools22:42
broderbut those are mostly nits22:42
jtaylorI used backportpackage to do my ppa packages22:43
broderreally? they don't seem to have the right suffix22:43
jtaylorah yes I linked my old ppa, I have a new one jtaylor/ipython-dev22:43
broderwhatever - i checked that you did the backport right for the old ppa22:45
jtayloronly uploaded them there a few days ago, but I used essentially the same package from my personal ppa before22:45
broderanyway, those 3 should be all set to go22:45
jtaylorshould I still update the description with these details?22:46
broderdon't worry about it - i've already acked it22:48
jtaylork thx22:48

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!