=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [05:32] hello there, how does one specify a dependency on package X >=1.5.0,<2.0.0 ? [05:35] Like you wrote. :) [05:35] looks good to me [05:36] ah, I see, thanks :) [05:36] 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] bleah :) [05:37] Depends: wesnoth-1.9-core (>= 1:1.9.3-1), wesnoth-1.9-core (<< 1:1.9.3-1.~) [05:38] ah, the package name needs to be repeated .. I see [05:38] Yes, that's pretty tight. But needed within Debian to allow binNMUs [05:38] al-maisan: the debian/rules magic for that is a fair bit weird [05:39] so, "Depends: python-dateutil (>= 1.5), python-dateutil (<< 2.0)" would be right? [05:40] Looks good, yes [05:40] great, thanks! [05:40] I'd even use 2.0~ [05:40] what is the effect of the '~'? [05:40] to nog get troubles with pre releases [05:41] Lower than anything, even the empty string [05:41] ok, will make use of it [05:42] so it is used eg for 2.0~rc1 to later be able to upgrade to 2.0 [05:42] 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] ah :) === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === StevenK is now known as W4|_|_YW0R|_D === W4|_|_YW0R|_D is now known as StevenK [07:20] good morning [07:41] How did it go yesterday? I mean with the BetaFreeze and UIFreeze :) [08:13] hi again [08:13] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/78130735/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-amd64.libvirt_0.8.8-1ubuntu6.5unnet0~lucid_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [08:13] I have a pacakge build failing because it can't find any kernel stuff in /boot [08:13] any advice on dealing with this? [08:14] I guess I could hack out the test [08:14] but then again I wonder how the package built on the original build farm? are they different from the ppa build farm? [08:19] 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] 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] you might need to check why it doesn't trigger for PPA builds [08:32] oh [08:32] right [08:32] ok [08:33] thanks [09:04] geser: crap it had a debian-changes-... patch affecting daemon-conf [09:04] so I somehow broke it myself [09:04] clear case of PEBKAC === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [09:18] cnocerning this sru: https://code.launchpad.net/~jtaylor/ubuntu/natty/meld/meld-sru/+merge/72410 [09:19] it was approved but nothing uploaded, should I subscribe -release to the bugs now or will a sponsor have another look later? [09:23] jtaylor: usually the SRU teams reviews from the upload queue, you need to find a sponsor for the upload === Amaranthus is now known as Amaranth [09:44] a sponsor needs to upload it as normal, yeah [09:45] k I'll wait then [09:46] hm as they review from the upload queue how will bug 811721 be handled which is waiting for an approval before anything is uploaded? [09:46] Launchpad bug 811721 in tahoe-lafs (Ubuntu) "update pycryptopp to version 0.5.29-1 in natty" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/811721 [09:49] get it uploaded [09:50] I am waiting for a decision if I should backport it or instead do some version number patching [09:58] jtaylor: I'd suggest to try to reach them on IRC instead of waiting on a comment in the bug [10:08] geser: do they have an irc channel or do I just ask in -devel/privmsg? [10:16] jtaylor: I'd try ping them in #ubuntu-devel === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away [12:20] jtaylor: did you see debbug 516689 [12:26] hm no, missed that affects 3.10, thx for checking === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === yofel_ is now known as yofle === yofle is now known as yofel === Nigel_ is now known as G [14:30] jrib, thanks, so you would suggest something like this? http://pastebin.com/GamxrPNH === funkyHat_ is now known as funkyHat [14:55] 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] Any idea what that means and how it should be fixed? [14:56] 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] al-maisan: pass --install-layout=deb to setup.py install [14:59] do I need to override some target in rules to do that? [15:01] it appears it is already overriden [15:01] dh_auto_install usually does it right [15:01] you aren't using python packaging helpers? [15:01] I do not see "--install-layout=deb" being passed in the build log though [15:02] yes its missing [15:02] jtaylor: I did a dh_make and used the debian/rules it generated .. [15:02] add --with python2 to the dh $@ line [15:03] ah, ok, will try that, thanks! [15:04] al-maisan: is there a Makefile in that source? it looks like you may want to pass dh --buildsystem=python_distutils [15:05] tumbleweed: actually there is one, http://paste.ubuntu.com/675313/ [15:06] yeah, so tell dh not to use it :) [15:06] .. or remove it? === dupondje_ is now known as dupondje [15:08] jtaylor, tumbleweed : thank you very much for your help ! [15:08] 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] hmm .. I see .. I will give it a try and see how it goes .. thanks again! [15:10] passing --buildsystem works fine though [15:10] ok [15:10] I have a pacakge where I use distutils for most and a makefile for tests ^^ [15:10] ah, I see .. will use "--buildsystem=python_distutils" then === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away [15:37] 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] or should I just split the packages into two binary pacakges === raju1 is now known as raju === _LibertyZero is now known as LibertyZero [18:49] I'm not on crack am I? http://pb.daviey.com/ieni/ is 3 clause BSD, right? [18:52] Daviey: it matches the 3-clause license on wikipedia :) [18:52] $ licensecheck lcptools/readpol.c [18:52] lcptools/readpol.c: BSD (2 clause) [18:52] go figure :/ [18:52] ISTR reading about someone else encountering that issue. [18:58] The issue is this: [18:58] 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] is it just not matching across the newline/asterisk? [19:00] no [19:00] The missing "of" infront of Intel Corporation is the issue [19:00] Add a "of" infront of intel in that file, run licensecheck on it again, and see [19:01] I would guess that the of should be left off in the match [19:01] Yeah, that isn't a patch i'll be carrying. [19:01] :) [19:01] or /(The name (of )?.*? may not|Neither the names? (of )?.*? etc, etc [19:01] s/of // in that line isn't a patch you would like to submit to licensecheck? [19:01] broder: That makes no sense. [19:02] change the regex to deal with the absence of the "of" [19:02] (of )? directly infront of .*? is … "irrelevant", as seven-of-nine would say. [19:02] ha. good point [19:02] .*? itself would deal with that already. [19:03] So strip the of off (hah) [19:03] ah, adsb! [19:06] * Rhonda . o O ( debcheckout -a devscripts ) [19:06] broder, Daviey: Patch will be submitted soonish. [19:17] broder, Daviey: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=devscripts/devscripts.git;a=commitdiff;h=1c2016 === medberry is now known as med_out [21:50] sladen, Hello again, what about my next move now :) ? [21:50] hakermania: you want your (now approved package) uploading [21:51] sladen, by who? [21:51] well probably by me [21:52] sladen: yep, it's all you :) [21:52] heh, thanks if you do so [21:53] micahg: remind me, are we allowed to sponsor new packages to Universe after FF / [21:53] sladen: if there's an FFe granter [21:53] *granted [21:55] * micahg doesn't know where the FFE bug is, hakermania? [21:55] micahg: mmm, technically I'm not sure a wallpaper changer is essential, so probably doesn't deserve one :( [21:56] sladen: I think it was already granted [21:56] this was the second cycle hakermania has tried to get it in [21:57] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/824102 [21:57] Launchpad bug 824102 in Ubuntu "FFE: Wallch 2.0" [Undecided,Confirmed] [21:58] micahg: sladen, thanks [21:58] Yes it is already granted :D [21:59] Laney, ;) [21:59] but the Kate Stewart who replied the request confused me a bit, (s)he was probably wrong [22:02] hakermania: she's the release manager ;) [22:03] sladen: ah, the FFe is conditional on finding an AA who's gulli^H^H^H^H^Hkind enough to review it [22:04] micahg: hakermania suckered me into that yesterday [22:04] micahg: so by my (optimistic reading), that means we're good to go, right :) [22:05] sladen: I think the uploader needs to find the AA that's willing to review it :) [22:05] hakermania: I think she was missing that it's a new package with no dependencies [22:05] Nice, what's an AA? [22:05] hakermania: archive admin [22:06] aha, are there multiple ones around :D ? [22:06] probably not on a Friday afternoon/evening [22:06] hakermania: Wait, are you trying to get wallch installed by default? [22:06] Daviey, no, absolutely not [22:07] good stuff [22:10] 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] So "If someone has time to review it" is a reasonable basis for an FFe approval. [22:12] ScottK, I think that nobody disagrees with this [22:13] ScottK: so, happy to NEW it if I upload? [22:14] sladen: No. Busy with other things. [22:15] Is ScottK an AA? [22:15] hakermania: wow, you've had a pretty drawn out process trying to get it in the archive. [22:16] Daviey, I know :'( [22:16] lol [22:17] 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] hakermania: good effort on your perseverance, sorry it's been such a challenge. [22:18] Daviey, sorry? I'm glad that the system is so strict [22:22] 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] 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] Daviey, I got it, what do you suggest [22:26] ? [22:35] hakermania: either get it in Debian or see if you have more success on Monday. [22:37] hakermania: I have passed a small anonymous brown paper bag to an archive admin on your behalf [22:39] sladen, containing money :P ? [22:40] 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] sladen, thanks whatever you do(or did) :D Goodnight [23:03] ScottK: Laney made the conditional approval on AA time, did I say anything contrary to that? [23:04] micahg: I should have directed that at hakermania. Sorry. [23:05] ScottK: no problem :) === med_out is now known as medberry