[05:32] <al-maisan> hello there, how does one specify a dependency on package X >=1.5.0,<2.0.0 ?
[05:35] <Rhonda> Like you wrote. :)
[05:35] <mase_work> looks good to me
[05:36] <al-maisan> ah, I see, thanks :)
[05:36] <Rhonda> Depends X (>= 1.5.0Depends: wesnoth-1.9-core (>= 1:1.9.3-1), wesnoth-1.9-core (<< 1:1.9.3-1.~)
[05:37] <Rhonda> bleah :)
[05:37] <Rhonda> Depends: wesnoth-1.9-core (>= 1:1.9.3-1), wesnoth-1.9-core (<< 1:1.9.3-1.~)
[05:38] <al-maisan> ah, the package name needs to be repeated .. I see
[05:38] <Rhonda> Yes, that's pretty tight. But needed within Debian to allow binNMUs
[05:38] <Rhonda> al-maisan: the debian/rules magic for that is a fair bit weird
[05:39] <al-maisan> so, "Depends: python-dateutil (>= 1.5), python-dateutil (<< 2.0)" would be right?
[05:40] <Rhonda> Looks good, yes
[05:40] <al-maisan> great, thanks!
[05:40] <Rhonda> I'd even use 2.0~
[05:40] <al-maisan> what is the effect of the '~'?
[05:40] <Rhonda> to nog get troubles with pre releases
[05:41] <Rhonda> Lower than anything, even the empty string
[05:41] <al-maisan> ok, will make use of it
[05:42] <Rhonda> so it is used eg for 2.0~rc1 to later be able to upgrade to 2.0
[05:42] <al-maisan> ah, I see
[05:44]  * Rhonda . o O ( When you see me not shifting anything, not fixing typos and not responding soon, I am probably mobile and type singlehanded  ;P )
[05:48] <al-maisan> ah :)
[07:20] <dholbach> good morning
[07:41] <hakermania> How did it go yesterday? I mean with the BetaFreeze and UIFreeze :)
[08:13] <pmjdebruijn> hi again
[08:13] <pmjdebruijn> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/78130735/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-amd64.libvirt_0.8.8-1ubuntu6.5unnet0~lucid_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[08:13] <pmjdebruijn> I have a pacakge build failing because it can't find any kernel stuff in /boot
[08:13] <pmjdebruijn> any advice on dealing with this?
[08:14] <pmjdebruijn> I guess I could hack out the test
[08:14] <pmjdebruijn> but then again I wonder how the package built on the original build farm? are they different from the ppa build farm?
[08:19] <geser> pmjdebruijn: it already skips those tests (Skipping /boot/initrd* tests. Could not find /boot/initrd*). The one that failed it before it: FAIL: daemon-conf
[08:22] <geser> pmjdebruijn: the official build skipped those initrd tests too but it also had a check for Ubuntu buildd for the failed one: Skipping valid config (Ubuntu buildd FTBFS)
[08:22] <geser> you might need to check why it doesn't trigger for PPA builds
[08:32] <pmjdebruijn> oh
[08:32] <pmjdebruijn> right
[08:32] <pmjdebruijn> ok
[08:33] <pmjdebruijn> thanks
[09:04] <pmjdebruijn> geser: crap it had a debian-changes-... patch affecting daemon-conf
[09:04] <pmjdebruijn> so I somehow broke it myself
[09:04] <pmjdebruijn> clear case of PEBKAC
[09:18] <jtaylor> cnocerning this sru: https://code.launchpad.net/~jtaylor/ubuntu/natty/meld/meld-sru/+merge/72410
[09:19] <jtaylor> it was approved but nothing uploaded, should I subscribe -release to the bugs now or will a sponsor have another look later?
[09:23] <geser> jtaylor: usually the SRU teams reviews from the upload queue, you need to find a sponsor for the upload
[09:44] <Laney> a sponsor needs to upload it as normal, yeah
[09:45] <jtaylor> k I'll wait then
[09:46] <jtaylor> hm as they review from the upload queue how will bug 811721 be handled which is waiting for an approval before anything is uploaded?
[09:49] <Laney> get it uploaded
[09:50] <jtaylor> I am waiting for a decision if I should backport it or instead do some version number patching
[09:58] <geser> jtaylor: I'd suggest to try to reach them on IRC instead of waiting on a comment in the bug
[10:08] <jtaylor> geser: do they have an irc channel or do I just ask in -devel/privmsg?
[10:16] <geser> jtaylor: I'd try ping them in #ubuntu-devel
[12:20] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: did you see debbug 516689
[12:26] <jtaylor> hm no, missed that affects 3.10, thx for checking
[14:30] <bpoole> jrib, thanks, so you would suggest something like this? http://pastebin.com/GamxrPNH
[14:55] <al-maisan> Hmm .. a package of mine failed to build with "Found files in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages (must be in dist-packages for python2.7)."
[14:56] <al-maisan> Any idea what that means and how it should be fixed?
[14:56] <al-maisan> This is the build log: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/78180839/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-i386.python-dateutil_1.5-3_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[14:58]  * al-maisan looks at the MANIFEST.in
[14:59] <jtaylor> al-maisan: pass --install-layout=deb to setup.py install
[14:59] <al-maisan> do I need to override some target in rules to do that?
[15:01] <jtaylor> it appears it is already overriden
[15:01] <jtaylor> dh_auto_install usually does it right
[15:01] <jtaylor> you aren't using python packaging helpers?
[15:01] <al-maisan> I do not see "--install-layout=deb" being passed in the build log though
[15:02] <jtaylor> yes its missing
[15:02] <al-maisan> jtaylor: I did a dh_make and used the debian/rules it generated ..
[15:02] <jtaylor> add --with python2 to the dh $@ line
[15:03] <al-maisan> ah, ok, will try that, thanks!
[15:04] <tumbleweed> al-maisan: is there a Makefile in that source?  it looks like you may want to pass dh --buildsystem=python_distutils
[15:05] <al-maisan> tumbleweed: actually there is one, http://paste.ubuntu.com/675313/
[15:06] <tumbleweed> yeah, so tell dh not to use it :)
[15:06] <al-maisan> .. or remove it?
[15:08] <al-maisan> jtaylor, tumbleweed : thank you very much for your help !
[15:08] <tumbleweed> al-maisan: yeah you could remove it, but you need to be sure you do that before dh tries to work out what buildsystem to use, which gets tricky
[15:09] <al-maisan> hmm .. I see .. I will give it a try and see how it goes .. thanks again!
[15:10] <jtaylor> passing --buildsystem works fine though
[15:10] <al-maisan> ok
[15:10] <jtaylor> I have a pacakge where I use distutils for most and a makefile for tests ^^
[15:10] <al-maisan> ah, I see .. will use "--buildsystem=python_distutils" then
[15:37] <keffie_jayx> Hello guys , i am currently working on a package that has changed significantly, Upstream has decided to split the core so it can be reused by other aplications, this core should be packaged as a share library package?
[15:37] <keffie_jayx> or should I just split the packages into two binary pacakges
[18:49] <Daviey> I'm not on crack am I?  http://pb.daviey.com/ieni/ is 3 clause BSD, right?
[18:52] <broder> Daviey: it matches the 3-clause license on wikipedia :)
[18:52] <Daviey> $ licensecheck lcptools/readpol.c
[18:52] <Daviey> lcptools/readpol.c: BSD (2 clause)
[18:52] <Daviey> go figure :/
[18:52] <Daviey> ISTR reading about someone else encountering that issue.
[18:58] <Rhonda> The issue is this:
[18:58] <Rhonda> elsif ($licensetext =~ /(The name of .*? may not|Neither the names? of .*? nor the names of (its|their) contributors may) be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software/i
[18:59] <broder> is it just not matching across the newline/asterisk?
[19:00] <Rhonda> no
[19:00] <Rhonda> The missing "of" infront of Intel Corporation is the issue
[19:00] <Rhonda> Add a "of" infront of intel in that file, run licensecheck on it again, and see
[19:01] <Rhonda> I would guess that the of should be left off in the match
[19:01] <Daviey> Yeah, that isn't a patch i'll be carrying.
[19:01] <Daviey> :)
[19:01] <broder> or /(The name (of )?.*? may not|Neither the names? (of )?.*? etc, etc
[19:01] <Rhonda> s/of // in that line isn't a patch you would like to submit to licensecheck?
[19:01] <Rhonda> broder: That makes no sense.
[19:02] <broder> change the regex to deal with the absence of the "of"
[19:02] <Rhonda> (of )? directly infront of .*? is … "irrelevant", as seven-of-nine would say.
[19:02] <broder> ha. good point
[19:02] <Rhonda> .*? itself would deal with that already.
[19:03] <Rhonda> So strip the of off (hah)
[19:03] <Rhonda> ah, adsb!
[19:06]  * Rhonda . o O ( debcheckout -a devscripts )
[19:06] <Rhonda> broder, Daviey: Patch will be submitted soonish.
[19:17] <Rhonda> broder, Daviey: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=devscripts/devscripts.git;a=commitdiff;h=1c2016
[21:50] <hakermania> sladen, Hello again, what about my next move now :) ?
[21:50] <sladen> hakermania: you want your (now approved package) uploading
[21:51] <hakermania> sladen, by who?
[21:51] <sladen> well probably by me
[21:52] <micahg> sladen: yep, it's all you :)
[21:52] <hakermania> heh, thanks if you do so
[21:53] <sladen> micahg: remind me, are we allowed to sponsor new packages to Universe after FF /
[21:53] <micahg> sladen: if there's an FFe granter
[21:53] <micahg> *granted
[21:55]  * micahg doesn't know where the FFE bug is, hakermania?
[21:55] <sladen> micahg: mmm, technically I'm not sure a wallpaper changer is essential, so probably doesn't deserve one :(
[21:56] <micahg> sladen: I think it was already granted
[21:56] <micahg> this was the second cycle hakermania has tried to get it in
[21:57] <sladen> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/824102
[21:58] <hakermania> micahg: sladen, thanks
[21:58] <hakermania> Yes it is already granted :D
[21:59] <hakermania> Laney, ;)
[21:59] <hakermania> but the Kate Stewart who replied the request confused me a bit, (s)he was probably wrong
[22:02] <micahg> hakermania: she's the release manager ;)
[22:03] <micahg> sladen: ah, the FFe is conditional on finding an AA who's gulli^H^H^H^H^Hkind enough to review it
[22:04] <sladen> micahg: hakermania suckered me into that yesterday
[22:04] <sladen> micahg: so by my (optimistic reading), that means we're good to go, right :)
[22:05] <micahg> sladen: I think the uploader needs to find the AA that's willing to review it :)
[22:05] <micahg> hakermania: I think she was missing that it's a new package with no dependencies
[22:05] <hakermania> Nice, what's an AA?
[22:05] <micahg> hakermania: archive admin
[22:06] <hakermania> aha, are there multiple ones around :D ?
[22:06] <micahg> probably not on a Friday afternoon/evening
[22:06] <Daviey> hakermania: Wait, are you trying to get wallch installed by default?
[22:06] <hakermania> Daviey, no, absolutely not
[22:07] <Daviey> good stuff
[22:10] <ScottK> micahg: I don't think she was missing that.  One of the main reasons not to continue to allow a steady stream of new packages into the archive late in the cycle is the archive-admins generally need to be busy with other stuff.
[22:10] <ScottK> So "If someone has time to review it" is a reasonable basis for an FFe approval.
[22:12] <hakermania> ScottK, I think that nobody disagrees with this
[22:13] <sladen> ScottK: so, happy to NEW it if I upload?
[22:14] <ScottK> sladen: No.  Busy with other things.
[22:15] <hakermania> Is ScottK an AA?
[22:15] <Daviey> hakermania: wow, you've had a pretty drawn out process trying to get it in the archive.
[22:16] <hakermania> Daviey, I know :'(
[22:16] <hakermania> lol
[22:17] <hakermania> Daviey, there are also 1.0 tries in there... Being a complete newbie in pacaging and with a brief knowledge of english it isn't so easy :P
[22:18] <Daviey> hakermania: good effort on your perseverance, sorry it's been such a challenge.
[22:18] <hakermania> Daviey, sorry? I'm glad that the system is so strict
[22:22] <hakermania> sladen, thanks for the comment, can you please tell me some AA to kindly ask them for marking wallch as 'NEW' (if I got it right)
[22:25] <Daviey> hakermania: The issue is that archive admins need to review the package, and as we are in a beta freeze - they are mostly tied up with more pressing tasks.  It's not just a case of them hitting approve.
[22:26] <hakermania> Daviey, I got it, what do you suggest
[22:26] <hakermania> ?
[22:35] <Daviey> hakermania: either get it in Debian or see if you have more success on Monday.
[22:37] <sladen> hakermania: I have passed a small anonymous brown paper bag to an archive admin on your behalf
[22:39] <hakermania> sladen, containing money :P ?
[22:40] <hakermania> Daviey, thanks for the suggestion by I don't think that it's applicable, with so many uploads to REVU each one separately containing hours of searching on the net, I think it deserves going through ubuntu now that's finally OK. It is designed to work on ubuntu better, after all
[23:01] <hakermania> sladen, thanks whatever you do(or did) :D Goodnight
[23:03] <micahg> ScottK: Laney made the conditional approval on AA time, did I say anything contrary to that?
[23:04] <ScottK> micahg: I should have directed that at hakermania.  Sorry.
[23:05] <micahg> ScottK: no problem :)