[02:15] <achiang> woo. ubuntu-mono default font in launchpad?
[02:30] <ScottK> achiang: --> #launchpad
[02:30] <ScottK> Probablay explains why the text is smaller though.
[02:31] <achiang> ScottK: hm, i don't see anything in /topic there, nor do i really have any further comments... just making a drive-by remark
[02:31] <achiang> sorry for the noise
[02:32] <ScottK> This is an odd place to expect to see information about a Launchpad font change in /topic.
[02:32] <lifeless> I think its about the ubuntu font more than lp :P
[02:33] <achiang> ScottK: i guess that was an unclear antecedent... "there" referred to #launchpad (but now i'm just making even more noise)
[02:33] <ScottK> It's not really an "Ubuntu" font.
[02:33] <ScottK> Although it's named that, I think it's intended for wider use.
[02:33] <ScottK> (I find the naming a bit odd given what I understand the goals to be, but I may just misunderstand.)
[03:37] <shayonj> i am building package from scratch, and while using the pbuilder for .dsc. i am continuously getting this - dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
[03:37] <shayonj> any help on this
[04:14] <shayonj> for some reason debian/rules cant find /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk ... any help with this ?
[04:18] <jbicha> shayonj: you probably don't have cdbs installed, you might want to just install packaging-dev while you're at it
[04:20] <shayonj> jbicha, i do have cbs installed on my machine
[04:21] <jbicha> shayonj: is cdbs in your build-depends then?
[04:21] <shayonj> you mean is it mentioned in the source ?
[04:21] <shayonj> control file ?
[04:23] <shayonj> jbicha, no i did not include. But i did just now
[04:24] <shayonj> jbicha, and got a checksum error
[04:24] <shayonj> i thought debuild does that or do i need to use debsign for that ?
[04:26] <jbicha> why are you using cdbs for packaging?
[04:27] <shayonj> jbicha, i am just trying it, since i am not able to get the default /rules syntax to work. its saying  dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
[04:27] <jbicha> and have you looked at http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/
[04:28] <shayonj> wait a sec.. i was actually reading this one https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Basic.
[04:30] <shayonj> jbicha, will try it right now thanks
[04:31] <shayonj> jbicha, okay how do i know if the package uses cmake.. is it by knowing that it uses the makefile ?
[04:33] <jbicha> shayonj: I've never dealt with cmake, packaging something from scratch is probably not a good way to start with packaging work
[04:34] <shayonj> jbicha, i see
[04:34] <shayonj> well i did do a bit debuilds as in not from the scratch.. but yeah this is my 2nd or 3rd packaging attempt
[04:34] <shayonj> the other was successful btw :)
[04:40] <shayonj> jbicha, cmake wont work in this case. just so you know :
[04:40] <shayonj> :)
[08:04] <dholbach> good morning
[08:04] <sagaci> hi dholbach
[08:04] <dholbach> hi sagaci
[12:52] <achiang> is it possible to get new packages from debian/sid into lucid's universe, possibly as SRU? or is a ppa the appropriate way to do this?
[12:57] <geser> achiang: only as a backport to lucid (what packages you provide in your PPA is up to you)
[12:58] <achiang> geser: i don't think i understand that statement. i was assuming i'd have to backport the package to lucid...
[12:59] <achiang> geser: the question was more around, is it still possible to get packages into lucid's archive? or do i maintain them in a PPA?
[12:59] <geser> achiang: only through lucid-backports or your PPA
[13:00] <achiang> geser: ah, ok.
[13:00] <achiang> geser: and how does one get packages into lucid-backports?
[13:01] <geser> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports#How_to_request_new_packages
[13:01] <achiang> geser: oops, i should have googled that myself. thanks for the pointer
[13:03] <Rhonda> achiang: It is technicly possible, though new upstream versions are highly likely to get rejected.
[13:03] <Rhonda> The SRU policy is pretty strict
[13:04] <achiang> Rhonda: this is a brand new package, just landed in sid yesterday (i've been working on again/off again on this in my spare time for a few months)
[13:04] <Rhonda> if it's a new package and wasn't in lucid yet, it's impossible :)
[13:04] <achiang> Rhonda: ok, so lucid-backports is what i want then?
[13:04] <Rhonda> I would guess so, yes
[13:05] <achiang> ok, thanks all
[13:05] <Laney> is the package in oneiric?
[13:06] <achiang> (the original goal was to get this package into ubuntu in the first place, but did it the "proper" way of filing and closing a debian ITP)
[13:06] <Rhonda> oh, wait, yes, if it's in sid yesterday, it won't be in oneiric.
[13:06] <Rhonda> and if it's not in oneiric, there is no place you can backport it from.
[13:06] <achiang> Laney: no, i assumed it was too late to get packages into oneiric's universe?
[13:07] <achiang> Rhonda: right, i read the page geser pointed me at, and i'll have to wait to get it into ubuntu first, before doing a backport
[13:07] <Laney> right
[13:07] <Rhonda> You'll have to wait until P is there for lucid-backports, for now only PPA is possible.
[13:07] <Laney> that's what i was getting at
[13:07]  * Laney eyes mutt with suspicion
[13:07] <Rhonda> Laney: for the P codename? :)
[13:08] <Laney> no, I've given up on that ;-)
[13:08]  * achiang really wants something platypus based. :)
[13:08] <Laney> for "please stop hanging"
[13:08] <achiang> playful platypus
[13:08] <Rhonda> Laney: Pestering Pawnys
[13:08] <Rhonda> wait, no. Penetrating Pownies
[14:36] <Rhonda> hmm, sabdfl wasn't on irc in a while, was hi?
[14:36] <Rhonda> he?
[15:39] <cdunlap> I have a question about bug: 825807.  It seems that the changes that were made were rejected, if that is so, am I OK to work on this bug since it is unassigned?
[15:49] <cdunlap> I apologize if this isn't the place for this question, if it isn't, could you tell me the correct place to ask?
[16:41] <jtaylor> if someone from the release team is monitoring this: please consider bug 576504 for oneiric (and natty)
[16:43] <jtaylor> cdunlap: given that there is no activity since a month I'd say go ahead and fix it properly
[16:44] <cdunlap> jtaylor:  Thank you and I will take a shot at it.
[16:47] <Laney> jtaylor: yeah looks good, sponsoring
[16:47] <Laney> did they comment out some german translations or what is that?
[16:48] <jtaylor> yes unused translations
[16:48] <Laney> right
[17:14] <jtaylor> thx
[18:14] <showard_> hey motu-ers, I have an unseeded universe sync request. Bug #867731
[18:15] <showard_> a depends was missing so help sometimes didn't show, we just added it. If anyone has time, we (the upstream devs) would appreciate it
[18:15] <showard_> thank you!
[18:16] <micahg> showard_: sorry, not unseeded, part of edubuntu
[18:16] <showard_> ahh, yeah you're right! ok I know those guys, I'll contact them directly
[18:16] <showard_> thanks
[18:16] <showard_> (unless someone else here is edubuntu and can just do it)
[18:20] <ScottK> stgraber: ^^^
[18:24] <stgraber> hello
[18:24] <stgraber> showard_: do you have a debdiff?
[18:27] <showard_> I'll throw it up on launchpad, but it's these two commits:
[18:27] <showard_> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/librecad.git;a=commitdiff;h=43ef105acc2fb5c0ee74596f24390b056d58e937
[18:27] <showard_> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/librecad.git;a=commitdiff;h=e3790eb6b45e2ab32eb2aca4f8353eb067e852dc
[18:30] <showard_> debdiff is at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/librecad/+bug/867731
[19:11] <stgraber> showard_: +1
[19:12] <stgraber> ScottK: ^
[19:12] <ScottK> stgraber: Go for it then.
[19:12] <showard_> thank you
[19:19] <stgraber> showard_: it's now in the queue, will close the bug once it's accepted
[20:37] <jbicha> would someone like to sync gramps from sid to fix bug 864095?
[20:37] <jbicha> https://gramps.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gramps/trunk/NEWS
[20:37] <Laney> got a diff?
[20:38] <Laney> also an analysis determining that it is fixes only
[20:50] <jbicha> Laney: the diff is huge, let me see if filtering the translations makes it better https://launchpadlibrarian.net/81958680/gramps_3.3.0-1_3.3.1-1.diff.gz
[20:51] <Laney> you could also scan the changelog
[20:51] <Laney> or git log
[20:51] <Laney> I'll trust your assessment :-)
[21:02] <jbicha> Laney: ok I read the changelog, lots of changes but they all looked like bugfixes & translation updates to me
[21:02] <Laney> alright
[21:03] <Laney> please make the bug a sync request and do the requisite testing and i will sponsor
[21:37] <Laney> jbicha: thanks a lot :-)
[22:54] <shayonj> have a question about debian/copyright. this package has pretty good amount of files... do i need to mention each file's copyright information in debian/copyright ?
[22:55] <RAOF> You need to have the aggregate information there, yes.
[22:56] <shayonj> uh-oh
[22:56] <shayonj> okay :) and what if few files dont have the copyright info in them..
[22:56] <shayonj> ?
[22:58] <RAOF> So, if you've got src/foo/* with a MIT licence and a range of copyright (like (C) 2000 author <me@mine>, (C) 2011 author <me@mine>, etc) then you can have a single src/foo/* section.
[22:59] <RAOF> They generally should have copyright headers; if they don't, that's usually ok, and they'll inherit the global copyright.
[22:59] <shayonj> RAOF, cool. thanks :)