[06:19] <ripps> I've found a weird packaging bug. I run a daily ppa for gmpc/libmpd, and recently libtool started naming the libmpd.so wrong.
[06:21] <ripps> In previous builds it has always named the file libmpd.so.1.2.0 -> libmpd.so.1 because LIBMPD_LIBTOOL_VERSION=3:0:2. Now, the last commit in git renamed it to LIBMPD_LIBTOOL_VERSION=3:0:3 and it's now naming the library libmpd.so.0.3.0 -> libmpd.so.0.
[06:23] <ripps> As you can guess this is screwing up gmpc and it's plugins. I've read over the libmpd git diffs and that is the only difference I see made to any of the autotools stuff (not much has changed in months)
[07:12] <dholbach> good morning
[07:12] <dholbach> tumbleweed, happy birthday! :)
[07:13] <tumbleweed> dholbach: thanks :)
[09:32] <iulian> dholbach: Morning. How did you know that it was tumbleweed's birthday?
[09:32] <iulian> Happy birthday tumbleweed.
[09:32] <geser> iulian: dholbach knows everything :)
[09:32] <iulian> It seems so...
[09:33] <iulian> No idea who he does it.
[09:33] <nigelb> iulian: facebook :P
[09:33] <nigelb> (probably)
[09:33] <nigelb> although I'll gladly believe that dholbach is all-knowing ;)
[09:33] <nigelb> tumbleweed: Happy Birthday!
[09:37] <dholbach> I'm not :)
[09:37] <dholbach> facebook indeed :)
[09:39] <DktrKranz> facebook is just a frontend, dholbach is the guy behind it
[09:39] <iulian> Do people still use that nowadays?
[09:39] <nigelb> haha, good one.
[09:39] <nigelb> I only use it to track birthdays :P
[09:40] <Rhonda> I use my own reminder file for that.
[09:40] <DktrKranz> RTM is quite good
[09:40] <Rhonda> But it's easy to remember, tumbleweed is a day late for Debian's birthday.
[10:07] <jtaylor> hm are the german mirrors broken? didn't get any upgrades for two days, now changed to us mirror and 175 upgrades available
[10:09] <Laney> lp/mirrors I believe
[10:10] <Laney> ubuntu/+archivemirrors even
[10:13] <jtaylor> indeed my mirror is 2 days behind, thx
[10:38] <tumbleweed> iulian, nigelb, Rhonda, everyone: thanks :)
[11:52] <hakermania> Hey, how do I upload files to launchpad? i mean i've created Wallch's page etc but shouldn't I include the DEB(s) and the souurce(s) as well?
[11:56] <nigelb> well, why don't you use a PPA?
[11:57] <nigelb> if your use-case is to provide debs that is.
[12:06] <hakermania> nigelb, I have never made a ppa, any how-to?
[12:07] <nigelb> I think this should be a good start https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA
[12:07] <Laney> do you mean a launchpad project?
[12:07] <Laney> I think you do (rather than a PPA), and questions for that are best asked in #launchpad
[12:32] <hakermania> Thanks all
[12:38] <hakermania> micahg, you're subscribed to wallch, so please get it reviewed asap :( We have only 8 days left and it's a pity, because featurefreeze exception was given...
[12:51] <hakermania> Hey guys, is there any problem the needs-packaging bug to be against the upstream projecT?
[13:17] <jtaylor> will bug 826856 actually be processed by sponsors as it is already confimed by -release?
[13:18] <jtaylor> or does triaged me sponsoring done?
[13:18] <Laney> now needs sponsoring
[13:26] <jtaylor> xes but will it be considered by sponsors?
[13:26] <jtaylor> in the past sponsored sync requests of mine where set to confirmed
[13:28] <tumbleweed> yes, that may confuse people
[13:30] <freeflying> hi all, whom shall I ask for the upload permission for specific package?
[13:31] <jtaylor> I'll set it back to new then?
[13:33] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: wouldn't hurt, also wouldn't be too worried
[13:41] <Laney> anyone got an i386 machine which is running an i386 kernel and oneiric?
[13:41] <Laney> if so, i'd appreciate a test rebuild of mono from oneiric
[13:50] <hakermania> Whola, wallch in omgubuntu :)
[14:11] <hakermania> Well guys, I never thought that Wallch could ever go into omgubuntu, I mean, common! But I am really excited :D And I want to share this excitement. Also, please please do something with wallch, or at least, let me know that sb's working on it :/
[15:13] <RoAkSoAx> zu/win 4
[15:17] <hakermania> RoAkSoAx, huh?
[15:20] <RoAkSoAx> hakermania: typo
[15:30] <hakermania> RoAkSoAx, hard to believe you :P
[15:56] <kklimonda> ma ktoś pomysł na krzesło do biurka za 700-900zł?
[15:57] <kklimonda> ups wrong channel.. heh
[15:57] <Quintasan> kklimonda: wrong channel :)
[15:57] <kklimonda> indeed
[15:57] <kklimonda> I've restarted weechat after few months, and it has reordered channels..
[17:44] <hakermania> What do REVUs do nowadays? Bug fixing? http://tiny.cc/ne0fi
[17:45] <hakermania> nowadays= these days
[17:49] <Laney> you've been advised a few times to get your package into Debian first, and that remains your best chance of getting into Ubuntu (it will involve making the Ubuntu specific features optional, which is no bad thing as it allows your software to be more widely used)
[18:04] <hakermania> Laney, no way. I know it seems like I impatient but I'm not! REVU is for uploading ubuntu specific packages and going through debian is not a solution, it will get me in worse trouble while i'm going for final exams!
[18:04] <hakermania> Laney, the thing is, can REVU do what it was designed for?
[18:04] <paultag> hakermania: policy is almost identical
[18:04] <paultag> REVU is for ubuntu changes, mostly
[18:04] <paultag> new packages should be in Debian
[18:05] <hakermania> paultag, *mostly*
[18:05] <paultag> hakermania: if your package is in good shape for Ubuntu, there's no reason you'd get kickback from Debian
[18:05] <micahg> paultag: no, REVU is for new packages, Ubuntu changes just go inthe sponsorship queue
[18:05] <paultag> hakermania: small things like shipping a changelog, but that's not your duty
[18:05] <paultag> micahg: wait, seriously?
[18:05] <paultag> micahg: why does REVU even exist anymore, then?
[18:05] <micahg> yeah, we just send most of them to Debian anyways when they are ready
[18:08] <Laney> REVU reviewer time is extremely limited
[18:41] <hakermania> micahg, so even if time expires and sb reviewes the package, will it be sent to debian?
[18:42] <micahg> hakermania: no, you would have to submit it to Debian (you're welcome to do that now if you like or after the review), is the needs-packaging bug in the sponsorship queue (ubuntu-sponsors subscribed)?
[18:49] <hakermania> micahg, I have a question about the needs-packaging bug. Does it have to be against the ubuntu distro?
[18:52] <hakermania> micahg, I just subscribed ubuntu-sponsors
[18:52] <hakermania> But why so?
[18:53] <hakermania> Also i'd like to send it to debian after the review, so as to ensure that everything package-related will be ok
[18:53] <micahg> hakermania: yes, as it needs packaging in ubuntu
[18:54] <micahg> hakermania: where's the bug?
[18:54] <hakermania> micahg, which bug?
[18:54] <micahg> hakermania: the needs-packaging one
[18:55] <Laney> if it's not against ubuntu then the upload cannot close it
[18:56] <hakermania> Laney, I have it against the project, is this a problem?
[18:57] <Laney> why not just open an additional task?
[18:59] <hakermania> Laney, do you mean I should make the bug against ubuntu?
[19:00] <hakermania> And where does it specifies that it should be this way?
[19:03] <micahg> hakermania: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages
[19:13] <hakermania> micahg, so, i make the bug against ubuntu and then I update it also to the deb package? (changelog)
[19:13] <hakermania> BTW 100 motus have seen the bug and nobody told me that it should be against ubuntu -_-
[19:16]  * micahg doesn't recall seeing the bug
[19:16] <hakermania> micahg, you were the 101th :P
[19:16]  * micahg still doesn't know where th ebug is, # please?
[19:18] <hakermania> wops, w8 a moment
[19:19] <hakermania> http://bit.ly/nibINh
[19:20] <hakermania> micahg, the above link shows the bug as to be an 'ubuntu' one (it says bugs in ubuntu), but the same bug is being seen in the project's bugs. What's going on?
[19:30] <micahg> hakermania: bugs can have multiple tasks
[19:42] <hakermania> micahg, can you please tell me what should I do?
[20:55] <tumbleweed> hakermania: getting it into Debian would have been way faster, you could have got in ages ago. But I did promise you a re-review, and I'll look at it right now
[20:59] <hakermania> tumbleweed, are you god?
[20:59] <tumbleweed> no, but I'll review it :)
[21:10] <jtaylor> we fixing flightgear is fun
[21:11] <jtaylor> depends on a library with a billion sshared libraries, no upstream build system for them and no debian patchsystem ._.
[21:19] <jtaylor> can one handle circular dependencies in shared libraries somehow?
[21:22] <tumbleweed> err you really sohuldn't have that
[21:22] <jtaylor> well I do
[21:22] <jtaylor> but don't blame me, blame flightgear developers ^^
[21:23] <jtaylor> or the debian maintainers even :O, upstream doesn't provide shared libraries at all it seems
[21:24] <tumbleweed> that's not that uncommon
[21:25] <tumbleweed> (upstream not providing shared libraries, but debian making them happen)
[21:25] <jtaylor> yes but it fails when the static libraries where not designed to be shared and have these ugly dependencies
[21:26] <jtaylor> hm seems easier to again just disable --as-needed
[21:26] <tumbleweed> try to avoid that, if possible
[21:27] <jtaylor> it can probably be done in a minimal way
[21:27] <jtaylor> can one use the positional property of as-needed with automake?
[21:27] <jtaylor> if you put it in LDADD it complains ...
[21:27] <tumbleweed> if you want some fun FTBFSs, you are welcome to complete the vtk transition. I ran out of steam :)
[21:28] <tumbleweed> it complains?
[21:28] <jtaylor> yes "linker flag belongs in ldflags"
[21:28] <tumbleweed> oh I see what you mean
[21:28] <tumbleweed> no idea
[21:33] <hakermania> Somebody was talking about bugs' tasks and that I should add one to mine so as to be a valid needs-packaging bug
[21:34] <jtaylor> what kind of ftbs are the vtk ones?
[21:34] <jtaylor> need adapting for new api?
[21:37] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: mostly nasty as-needed & no-add-needed
[21:37] <tumbleweed> and the all the reverse build deps fail to build on armel because of a missing dependency
[21:37] <jtaylor> hurry flightgear builds with only one change
[21:38] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/vtk.html
[21:38] <jtaylor> I'll have a look when I'm bored (which is often ;) )
[21:39] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: you sound like you need things to do. I wish I knew more people liek that :P
[21:45] <hakermania> How much time does lp to post a new ppa?
[21:47] <hakermania> false positive
[21:49] <sum1nil> Hi, I have a question - I am attempting to learn packaging and am following https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/PackageUpdate
[21:50] <sum1nil> but when i get to debuild -S -sa the end product fails
[21:50] <jtaylor> sum1nil: what is the error message?
[21:51] <sum1nil> it is on pastebin: http://pastebin.com/XPc71PB5 at the end of the output
[21:52] <ajmitch> looks like the changelog is still referring to 0.5.2, so it's trying to diff against the orig.tar.gz for that release
[21:53] <ajmitch> though you appear to be trying to update to 0.6.1
[21:53] <sum1nil> I believe the main hitch is dpkg-source: info: use the '3.0 (quilt)' format to have separate and documented changes to upstream files, see dpkg-source(1)
[21:53] <sum1nil> dpkg-source: unrepresentable changes to source
[21:53] <jtaylor> yes your working copy tree should be identical to the original tarball + the debian dir
[21:54] <jtaylor> you should also use 3.0 (quilt);  mkdir -p debian/source; echo "3.0 (quilt)" > debian/source/format
[21:54] <ajmitch> fix the version in debian/changelog, make sure you have a brasero_0.6.1.orig.tar.gz
[21:55] <jtaylor> its a package format where all patches against the upstream source are saved in debian/patches and applied with the program quilt
[21:55] <sum1nil> thanks let me follow these suggestions and get back to you. thanks
[22:13] <sum1nil> hi again, the suggestions worked great thanks
[22:14] <sum1nil> on to the next exercise, cya later
[22:15] <hakermania> tubmleweed, I'm going to bed LOL, anyway, thanks again...
[22:21]  * tumbleweed wasn't suprised by the quality of wallch :/