=== yofel_ is now known as yofel [00:56] lifeless: Yes. It was fine. [00:57] ScottK: thanks! [01:07] hello there. i am new to motu and ubuntu packaging. i kind of got done with packaging guide. and was browsing through the bitesize bugs and found one. wondering, do i just start working on it directly or is there something needs to be done before that [01:07] ? [01:13] for some reason i feel the guides are too confusing or less organized [01:14] but its fun :) [01:14] shayonj: Just dive in and ask questions if you have them. [01:15] ScottK, sure thanks man :) [01:15] It would be good if some MOTU could look into Bug 864095 and maybe updating gramps to 3.3.1. [01:15] Launchpad bug 864095 in gramps (Ubuntu) "list index out of range in gettext.install(TransUtils.LOCALEDOMAIN, localedir=None, unicode=1)" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/864095 [01:19] does anyone know what does this read - Located in obj-i686-linux-gnu/config/ui_qtcurveconfigbase.h:4191 rc.cpp:889 rc.cpp:889 [01:20] or just this - 4191 rc.cpp:889 rc.cpp:889 ? For the rest i believe you will be needing to take a look at the source code [01:22] It's referring to line 4191 of ui_qtcurveconfigbase.h and line 889 of rc.cpp. You need to look in the source. [01:24] okay i thought so, but there is no file like ui_qtcurveconfigbase.h in the config folder, infact the the file qtcurveconfigbase.ui has the bug (its typo) mentioned in here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kde-style-qtcurve/+bug/852957 [01:24] Ubuntu bug 852957 in kde-style-qtcurve (Ubuntu) "typo in translation template qtcurve" [Undecided,New] [01:25] ScottK: I didn't think gramps 3.3.1 was released yet [01:28] ScottK, and there is no file like rc.cpp in the source code [01:31] jbicha: Not sure. Just reading what's in the bug. If there's a fix and it's not released, it might be worth cherrypicking it. [01:33] ScottK: I'm subscribed to the gramps mailing list and it sounds like the new release is imminent [01:33] shayonj: It's in config/qtcurveconfigbase.ui [01:33] jbicha: OK. As long as someone is watching over it. [01:34] ScottK, okay [01:34] ScottK, thanks !. [01:34] shayonj: I did "grep -r cusom *" in the source package. [01:36] ScottK, oh right.. should have used that . [01:37] ScottK, so did you make the changes ? [01:37] or i can do ahead do that here :P [01:37] shayonj: No. [01:37] (I didn't) [01:37] ScottK, cool. [01:37] shayonj: I did look and see that there's a newer version on the upstream web site. You might want to look and see if they've already fixed this. [01:38] (look in debian/control for the upstream homepage) [01:38] ScottK, okay! [01:41] ScottK, nope its not fixed.so is it a good idea to fix this bug or report the new version and then fix it ? [01:41] It's debatable. [01:42] We get this package from Debian without change and so in the long run, maintaining such a small diff for the package isn't a great idea. [01:42] OTOH, we are close to a release and it'd be nice to get it fixed. [01:42] So I'd see about doing both. [01:42] ScottK, okay ! [01:42] Get a fix in Ubuntu and also let upstream know so that it's fixed. [01:43] We could also report the bug to Debian if we were being really thorough, but for this I think going upstream is enough. [01:43] ScottK, yeah i was going to ask that. how do i do that ? there are steps mentioned on that in so many places.but i am confused which one to go with [01:43] as in letting the upstream know about it [01:43] That varies based on the upstream. [01:44] i see [01:45] For this one, you go to http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=40492&forumpage=157 and leave a comment. [01:47] ScottK, okay. i got one more question, sorry to bug you. So after i make the changes, do i update the changelog, package it and let them know ? [01:47] for upstream, I'd just make a diff and give them that. [01:48] For Ubuntu that would also be good, but even better would be a good debian/changelog entry with a complete debdiff if you know how to do that. [01:48] ScottK, cool. thanks so much :0 [01:48] :) * [01:48] ScottK, yep. i just got done with this - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/Debdiff [01:48] For Ubuntu, once you have something, attach it to the bug and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to the bug. [01:48] someone will review it. [01:49] ScottK, what do i attach ? [01:49] the new package right ? [01:49] The debdiff from the old one to the new one. [01:49] okay [01:54] ScottK, i got one more question. The same typo is there in more than one file in the new release ? i can fix that, but do i report it first or leave a comment ? [01:54] I would fix all the templates too. [01:55] ScottK, i didnt get that.templates, as in ? [01:55] The other files it affects are translation templates (the PO files) [01:55] .pot/.po [01:56] oh right yes. i am doing that. i am just wondering, do i need to file a report first about this or just fix it and leave a comment in the upstream ? [01:56] and what ubuntu in this case? [01:56] what about ubuntu * [02:01] Fix them all. [02:01] (for ubuntu) and then list all the affected files in the upstream comment you leave. [02:02] cool [02:02] * ScottK goes for a nap. [02:02] ScottK, thanks and have a good one ! === micahg_ is now known as micahg [03:39] i am trying to make the debdiff and it tells me "Can't check signature: public key not found" . [03:39] do i need to sign the .dsc file too along with the .changes ? [03:40] any help on this ? [03:41] oops it already, guess its just not able to verify [03:54] how do we create branch for the bugs we work on ? [03:54] the way mentioned here ? [03:54] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/Debdiff [03:58] shayonj: Just attach the debdiff to the bug. You don't need a branch then. [03:58] yay ScottK is back :).. yep did that. thanks man [03:59] Then as long as you subscribed ubuntu-sponsors to the bug, you've done your bit. [03:59] oh yeah did that too. working on the newer version. and i upload the diff file in the comment there, right ? [04:00] If it's just that fix, all that's needed is the debdfiff. [04:00] okay ! [04:00] Whoever sponsors the package will use the current package plus your debdiff to remake the new package. [04:01] i see. okay but this newer version, does not have a debian folder [04:01] so no control/changelog [04:02] sorry [04:02] my bad.. didnt let it extract :P [04:39] for some reason debuild is only building the debian folder, any help on this ? [05:02] Hey guys package blogtk is broken, it doesn't have python gtkhtml2 library and fails to run. [05:02] Please look into it. [05:05] bwright: someone needs to package a new version === rritten-brewing is now known as rrittenhouse === tikohumsup_ is now known as Rajsun === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === JanC_ is now known as JanC === bulldog98_ is now known as bulldog98 [20:13] hi [20:13] people [20:15] need some help with packaging from scratch . this program does not have a make/install file, where as it runs by the shell script file (linux-install.sh). So i am wondering will the guide mentioned here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete#Packaging_from_Scratch be helpful ? [20:16] as the rules file is working with the make arguments [20:17] anyone ? === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === RAOF_ is now known as RAOF