[00:56] <ScottK> lifeless: Yes.  It was fine.
[00:57] <lifeless> ScottK: thanks!
[01:07] <shayonj> 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] <shayonj> ?
[01:13] <shayonj> for some reason i feel the guides are too confusing or less organized
[01:14] <shayonj> but its fun :)
[01:14] <ScottK> shayonj: Just dive in and ask questions if you have them.
[01:15] <shayonj> ScottK, sure thanks man :)
[01:15] <ScottK> It would be good if some MOTU could look into Bug 864095 and maybe updating gramps to 3.3.1.
[01:19] <shayonj> 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] <shayonj> 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] <ScottK> 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] <shayonj> 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
[01:25] <jbicha> ScottK: I didn't think gramps 3.3.1 was released yet
[01:28] <shayonj> ScottK, and there is no file like rc.cpp in the source code
[01:31] <ScottK> 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] <jbicha> ScottK: I'm subscribed to the gramps mailing list and it sounds like the new release is imminent
[01:33] <ScottK> shayonj: It's in config/qtcurveconfigbase.ui
[01:33] <ScottK> jbicha: OK.  As long as someone is watching over it.
[01:34] <shayonj> ScottK, okay
[01:34] <shayonj> ScottK, thanks !.
[01:34] <ScottK> shayonj: I did "grep -r cusom *" in the source package.
[01:36] <shayonj> ScottK, oh right.. should have used that .
[01:37] <shayonj> ScottK, so did you make the changes ?
[01:37] <shayonj> or i can do ahead do that here :P
[01:37] <ScottK> shayonj: No.
[01:37] <ScottK> (I didn't)
[01:37] <shayonj> ScottK, cool.
[01:37] <ScottK> 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] <ScottK> (look in debian/control for the upstream homepage)
[01:38] <shayonj> ScottK, okay!
[01:41] <shayonj> 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] <ScottK> It's debatable.
[01:42] <ScottK> 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] <ScottK> OTOH, we are close to a release and it'd be nice to get it fixed.
[01:42] <ScottK> So I'd see about doing both.
[01:42] <shayonj> ScottK, okay !
[01:42] <ScottK> Get a fix in Ubuntu and also let upstream know so that it's fixed.
[01:43] <ScottK> 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] <shayonj> 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] <shayonj> as in letting the upstream know about it
[01:43] <ScottK> That varies based on the upstream.
[01:44] <shayonj> i see
[01:45] <ScottK> For this one, you go to http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=40492&forumpage=157 and leave a comment.
[01:47] <shayonj> 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] <ScottK> for upstream, I'd just make a diff and give them that.
[01:48] <ScottK> 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] <shayonj> ScottK, cool. thanks so much :0
[01:48] <shayonj> :) *
[01:48] <shayonj> ScottK, yep. i just got done with this - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/Debdiff
[01:48] <ScottK> For Ubuntu, once you have something, attach it to the bug and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to the bug.
[01:48] <ScottK> someone will review it.
[01:49] <shayonj> ScottK, what do i attach ?
[01:49] <shayonj> the new package right ?
[01:49] <ScottK> The debdiff from the old one to the new one.
[01:49] <shayonj> okay
[01:54] <shayonj> 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] <ScottK> I would fix all the templates too.
[01:55] <shayonj> ScottK, i didnt get that.templates, as in ?
[01:55] <ScottK> The other files it affects are translation templates (the PO files)
[01:55] <ScottK> .pot/.po
[01:56] <shayonj> 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] <shayonj> and what ubuntu in this case?
[01:56] <shayonj> what about ubuntu *
[02:01] <ScottK> Fix them all.
[02:01] <ScottK> (for ubuntu) and then list all the affected files in the upstream comment you leave.
[02:02] <shayonj> cool
[02:02]  * ScottK goes for a nap.
[02:02] <shayonj> ScottK, thanks and have a good one !
[03:39] <shayonj> i am trying to make the debdiff and it tells me "Can't check signature: public key not found" .
[03:39] <shayonj> do i need to sign the .dsc file too along with the .changes ?
[03:40] <shayonj> any help on this ?
[03:41] <shayonj> oops it already, guess its just not able to verify
[03:54] <shayonj> how do we create branch for the bugs we work on ?
[03:54] <shayonj> the way mentioned here ?
[03:54] <shayonj> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/Debdiff
[03:58] <ScottK> shayonj: Just attach the debdiff to the bug.  You don't need a branch then.
[03:58] <shayonj> yay ScottK is back :).. yep did that. thanks man
[03:59] <ScottK> Then as long as you subscribed ubuntu-sponsors to the bug, you've done your bit.
[03:59] <shayonj> oh yeah did that too. working on the newer version. and i upload the diff file in the comment there, right ?
[04:00] <ScottK> If it's just that fix, all that's needed is the debdfiff.
[04:00] <shayonj> okay !
[04:00] <ScottK> Whoever sponsors the package will use the current package plus your debdiff to remake the new package.
[04:01] <shayonj> i see. okay but this newer version, does not have a debian folder
[04:01] <shayonj> so no control/changelog
[04:02] <shayonj> sorry
[04:02] <shayonj> my bad.. didnt let it extract :P
[04:39] <shayonj> for some reason debuild is only building the debian folder, any help on this ?
[05:02] <bwright> Hey guys package blogtk is broken, it doesn't have python gtkhtml2 library and fails to run.
[05:02] <bwright> Please look into it.
[05:05] <micahg> bwright: someone needs to package a new version
[20:13] <xxxS> hi
[20:13] <xxxS> people
[20:15] <shayonj> 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] <shayonj> as the rules file is working with the make arguments
[20:17] <shayonj> anyone ?