[03:24] <jmarsden> pdtpatr1ck: I can't duplicate that behaviour, but do not ask teams about bugs.  Please file a bug in LaunchPad against a package, in this case probably bash-completion,  if you think one exists and can describe how to reliably reproduce it.
[07:26] <dholbach> good morning
[08:15] <iulian> Morning dholbach.
[08:21] <dholbach> hey iulian
[10:16] <hakermania> What is the process to provide update for your app through the update manager?
[10:17] <nigelb> ~sru
[10:17] <nigelb> !sru
[10:17] <nigelb> hakermania: ^
[10:30] <hakermania> nigelb, thanks, will look in it. May I ask something else? What's the point in having a README and an uninstall script inside the source? For the use of the persons who choose to see the source via apt-get source?
[10:31] <nigelb> I believe the uninstall is for cleaning up things when your package is deleted. The README should ideally be in /usr/share/doc/PACKAGENAME/
[10:32] <nigelb> (I may be wrong, and glad to be corrected)
[10:32] <RAOF> hakermania: Is your app an open-source application, packaged through the normal channels, or is this via developer.canonical.com?
[10:33] <hakermania> RAOF, who knows :D ? I uploaded to REVU and it's in 11.10's repos
[10:34] <hakermania> Yes, I assume the former
[10:34] <hakermania> it's open source
[10:34] <RAOF> hakermania: Yeah, that's the normal channels :)
[10:34] <nigelb> g56
[11:22] <geser> hakermania: the uninstall script is usefull for those who didn't use a package manager to install that software, it doesn't make sense to have it in the package as the package manager takes care of the uninstallation
[11:38] <hakermania> geser, that's why I asked, I'll let the uninstallation script lay at the tarball only on the next release
[13:39] <al-maisan> I am looking for an example of a package with multiple binaries (ideally a python and a java binary). Any suggestions?
[13:43] <al-maisan> rationale: our project (http://openquake.org) consists of java and python sources, I need to package it so that the java sources get installed as a jar and the python sources in the usual way.
[13:43] <tumbleweed> al-maisan: that's an uncommon combination, can't think of  any. But multiple binary packages isn't that uncommon...
[13:43] <al-maisan> aha
[13:44] <tumbleweed> in this case it sounds like you'll need to drive both build systems from your debian/rules
[13:45] <geser> a package with java and python bindings sounds uncommon
[13:45] <al-maisan> yeah .. so I will probably need to override the build target .. I still have older packages where java and python are separate .. I can run them through pbuilder and watch what commands are issued..
[13:46] <tumbleweed> al-maisan: that depends a lot on the contents of this package. If I ca nsee the source, I can probably give hints
[13:46] <al-maisan> tumbleweed: the source to be packaged is here: https://github.com/gem/openquake/
[13:47] <tumbleweed> sounds big...
[13:47] <al-maisan> it has java and openquake sub-directories .. the latter is where the python sources live
[13:48] <al-maisan> tumbleweed: I am a beginner .. and not even sure whether a single package with  multiple binaries is the best approach to this
[13:48] <geser> al-maisan: found one source package with java and python bindings: protobuf. But I didn't check if it's a good example or not
[13:48] <al-maisan> geser: that's great .. will take a look .. thanks!
[13:58] <cjwatson> lfaraone: dpkg-source: warning: diff `imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/debian/patches/1002-fix-FTBFS-libav-0.7.diff' patches file imageshack-uploader-2.2+hg20100408.d802dea89428/ffmpeg_fas.c twice
[13:59] <cjwatson> lfaraone: it's probably that as an error rather than a warning for whatever reason.  do you want me to fix that up for you and reupload?  it's fairly obvious
[14:13] <and`>  /WINDOW NAME (status)
[14:13] <and`> argh :)
[14:15] <and`> ls
[14:17] <Pici> and`: not doing much better ;)
[14:18] <and`> Pici: definitely not :P
[14:18] <jamespage> al-maisan: zookeeper also produces java and python (and native libraries) so that might be worth a look to
[14:18] <and`> Pici: I have too much consoles open at this time, and I am getting confused :)
[14:30] <geser> and`: type Ctrl+D till it's better
[14:37] <lfaraone> cjwatson: sure, thanks!
[14:43] <al-maisan> thanks jamespage ! Will take a look.
[16:00] <thelinuxer> hi guys, I am trying to build this http://desowin.org/gdigi/ . I followed this guide https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete
[16:00] <thelinuxer> The install path in the Makefile is $(DESTDIR)/usr/bin  .
[16:00] <thelinuxer> If I leave it like this i get the following error "install: cannot create regular file `/home/atoulan/workspace/gdigi/gdigi-0.2.0/debian/gdigi/usr/bin': No such file or directory"
[16:00] <thelinuxer> should I use override_dh_auto_installed  and create the directory ?
[16:02] <tumbleweed> thelinuxer: dh_installdirs can help you out there
[16:06] <thelinuxer> tumbleweed: I added this to my rules file dh_auto_install --destdir='/usr/bin'
[16:06] <thelinuxer> now i get permission denied error
[16:07] <tumbleweed> thelinuxer: I'd expect that, you don't want it to install into the buildd
[16:07] <azeem> thelinuxer: the DESTDIR is supposed to be relative to your source package
[16:07] <tumbleweed> thelinuxer: just put "/usr/bin" in debian/gdigi.dirs
[16:11] <thelinuxer> tumbleweed: thanks, it's working. will bug u again if i need anything else
[16:11] <thelinuxer> tumbleweed: :)
[16:39] <cjwatson> lfaraone: uploaded; the only change from your upload was to run 'quilt refresh'.  thanks!
[16:40] <cjwatson> lfaraone: and I built it directly against libav 0.7 since that just hit unstable yesterday
[17:04] <lfaraone> cjwatson: awesome. thanks for catching that, I'll have to remember to check for warnings next time. (perhaps ftpmaster scripts treat warnings as errors)