[01:07] If a MOTU has a minute, can someone review http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/mythbuntu-bare ? It just needs a second ack and I'd like to get this into 11.10 === emma is now known as em === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away [09:16] how can I add a parameter to dh_installchangelogs with cdbs? I thought DEB_DH_INSTALLCHANGELOGS whould do the trick [09:19] DEB_DH_INSTALLCHANGELOGS_ARGS? [09:19] ah, DEB_INSTALL_CHANGELOGS_ALL [09:20] it is mentioned in the doc here: http://build-common.alioth.debian.org/cdbs-doc.html [09:20] don't ask me where this underscore comes from. this is cdbs voodoo [09:27] i don't think it's fair to equate cdbs with a legitimate religion like voodoo [09:27] i see it as having more in common with your cthulu-worshipping cults [09:41] c_korn: I used to grep the cdbs source to find suitable magic variables [09:41] hehe, yeah, this is a good idea ;) [11:25] Hi everybody! [11:26] Anyone could help me searching one program in repository? [11:26] I'm looking for "multisync-tools" [11:26] It isn't anymore available? [11:33] francesco_superc: it was removed because it requres opensync << 0.30: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/multisync0.90/+bug/654613 [11:33] Ubuntu bug 654613 in multisync0.90 (Ubuntu) "remove packages needing opensync (<< 0.30) in maverick" [Undecided,Fix released] [11:39] jtaylor, thanks. So the deprecated multisync-tool from what does it replace? [11:48] I don't know of any replacement [11:50] jtaylor, thanks a lot the same [12:26] francesco_superc: [12:26] opensync replaced multisync [12:26] We were working on the successor to Multisync called OpenSync. [13:08] hello [13:08] i have a question regarding proper package versioning [13:08] i know it's a question that belongs to #ubuntu-packaging, but there's no one alive there [13:09] anyway, i'm making a PPA, with a brand new program. how do i go about assigning a version? the upstream version is 0.5.1, and it's the first ppa release. should i name is 0.5.1-ppa1 or something else? [13:13] 0.5.1-0ubuntu1~ppa1 is usually used [13:14] an official debian version would be 0.5.1-1 so an official ubuntu pacakge should be lower than that -> 0.5.1-0ubuntu1, an ppa package should be lower than that -> 0.5.1-0ubuntu1~ppa1 [13:14] so the official archive versions replace the non-archive versions [13:16] if you want the ppa version to replace an archive version use +ppa1 [13:17] what if there's no official version? [13:17] do i have to still specify 0ubuntu1~ppa1? [13:18] you should, as there might be an official version in the future [13:18] 0.5.1-0~ppa1 should also work [13:19] dpkg --compare-versions "0.5.1-0ubuntu1" gt "0.5.1-0~ppa1" && echo "yes" [13:20] thanks for clarification [13:27] persia: hi, I'll be your AM for this evening^h^h^h^hNM process, how can I be of service? :P [14:05] if i update the package with an upstream version (say, 0.5.2), should i drop the ppa revision back to 1? like 0.5.2-0ubuntu1-ppa1? [14:07] yes [14:08] it should indicate which packaging revision of a specific upstream version it is [14:08] aha [14:09] does debian think that 0.5.1a is newer than 0.5.1? or i should just drop the "a" and make a ppa2 instead? [14:11] use dpkg --compare-versions to figure that out [14:11] it should be larger [14:13] thanks [14:13] you've been really helpful === EzraR_ is now known as EzraR [14:31] another question if you don't mind [14:31] the upstream developer chose to put plugins for his program into /usr/share/, and thus lintian complains about that. what is the proper place to put plugins so that a program could find them? [14:34] I never packaged something with plugins yet [14:34] but I think they are usually placed under /usr/lib/package-name/ [14:34] if they are arch-dependend [14:35] and /usr/share/package-name if they aren't. The program might need to be changed to find them in the new location... [14:36] thanks === medberry is now known as med_out [20:06] If a MOTU has a minute, can someone review http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/mythbuntu-bare ? It just needs a second ack and I'd like to get this into 11.10 [20:07] would someone mind helping me debugg some of these piuparts results http://paste.debian.net/125307/ [20:09] ... [21:04] friggin dpatch why won't it take my patch -.- [21:05] heh [21:06] * iulian throws quilt at jtaylor. [21:07] I'd wish I could use quilt [21:11] hurray manually editing patches is fun, but it worked [21:14] debfx: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xawtv/3.95.dfsg.1-8.1ubuntu2 was this forwarded anywhere? [21:14] patch 103 [21:15] hm ok 102 says "there is no actual xawtv upstream any more" so probably no forwarding [21:22] jtaylor: I've forwarded it to Debian, not sure about upstream [21:23] jtaylor: http://git.linuxtv.org/xawtv3.git/shortlog seems active [21:24] it was unfortunatly not quite complete, see bug 821916 [21:24] Launchpad bug 821916 in xawtv (Ubuntu) "v4lctl show color return undefined symbol: tan" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/821916 [21:24] but simple to fix [21:25] uplaoding a branch shortly, can you sponsor it? [21:31] jtaylor: sure [21:35] debfx: https://code.launchpad.net/~jtaylor/ubuntu/oneiric/xawtv/fix-821916/+merge/70657 [21:35] an SRU should be probably be made === yofel_ is now known as yofel [21:45] jtaylor: do you want me to open a natty task on the bug? [21:46] yes please [21:46] the package FTBFS on oneiric: http://paste.ubuntu.com/660093/ [21:48] Oo [21:48] I built it in a pbuilder [21:53] maybe its not quite clean [21:54] I've built the same package again, now it works fine [21:54] not sure what caused it to try call autoconf [21:55] building in a fresh clean i386 chroot, and it came past that point [21:55] finished successfully [22:01] presumably it was just a local issues with my pbuilder [22:24] forwared 103 and 102 to the upstream you mentioned