[00:14] <shayonj> what do i do if i cant find the version number of a package ? (contact the author) ?
[00:17] <micahg> shayonj: where is this package?
[00:17] <shayonj> micahg, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/590082
[00:19] <micahg> no idea
[00:20] <shayonj> yeah, i am gonna rest it for a while
[00:20] <shayonj> then
[01:10] <shayonj> debian does not accept packages built with cdbs ?
[01:11] <shayonj> anyone ?
[01:12] <broder> what? no - something around 20% of packages in debian use cdbs
[01:12] <broder> (give or take...a lot - i haven't checked the stats recently)
[01:12] <shayonj> broder, i see...well i thought so too. but i cant make sense of this - http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
[01:13] <broder> shayonj: that's referring to a specific feature of cdbs - DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL
[01:13] <broder> which automatically regenerates the debian/control file at build-time. it's a bad idea
[01:13] <shayonj> well my control file was generated by dh_make.. how do i find that out if its used DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL
[01:14] <ajmitch> unless you changed it, it wouldn't have done it
[01:14] <ajmitch> you can check in debian/rules though
[01:14]  * RAOF would also *generally* use dh rather than cdbs, but that's a matter of preference and it's by no means mandatory.
[01:15] <broder> is anybody actually recommending cdbs for new packages these days? i feel like it's mostly moved into legacy territory
[01:15]  * ajmitch thinks you'd be more likely to get sponsors by not using dh, but that can depend on if it's something that's covered by a team in debian, and their preferences
[01:15] <shayonj> i see
[01:15] <shayonj> well the only Deb i got in my rules file is DEB_PYTHON_SYSTEM=pysupport
[01:15] <micahg> ajmitch: not using dh?
[01:15] <shayonj> thats it
[01:16] <ajmitch> micahg: bah, I *meant* not using cdbs :)
[01:16] <ajmitch> micahg: brain & fingers didn't likne up
[01:16] <RAOF> Heh.
[01:16] <ajmitch> ^ again
[01:16]  * ajmitch drinks more caffiene & shuts up
[01:17]  * micahg was going to suggest an afternoon caffeine hit :)
[01:17] <nigelb> caffeine..hrm!
[02:14] <shayonj> i have a python package it builds and installs fine. but i believe its installing in the wrong place. any help on this ?
[02:20] <ScottK> shayonj: Is it a package you want to get into Ubuntu or Debian?
[02:21] <shayonj> ScottK, ubuntu
[02:21] <ScottK> Sure.  Where is it?
[02:22] <shayonj> ScottK, https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/606231
[02:22] <ScottK> When can I find your pacakge?
[02:23] <shayonj> ScottK, https://github.com/downloads/facebook/tornado/tornado-2.1.1.tar.gz
[02:23] <ajmitch> how is this different from the python-tornado package in universe?
[02:25] <micahg> nothing apparently :)
[02:25] <ScottK> Looks like the same thing.
[02:25] <shayonj> ouch
[02:26] <shayonj> good thing to practice on ;)
[02:26] <shayonj> ajmitch, thanks :P
[02:27] <ScottK> shayonj: Is that a package you have interest in or just one you thought needed working on?
[02:27] <jbicha> shayonj: also if you want to package a new Python app for Debian or Ubuntu, please use dh_python2, we're trying to get rid of python-support
[02:28] <shayonj> ScottK, i am kind of in a learning stage.so just trying my hands on some real projects thats it. But dont worry wont mess it up.. thought it would be a good way to learn....but yes i did run rmadison and couldnt find it..
[02:29] <shayonj> jbicha, oh alright. sure, i will note that.
[02:49] <ajmitch> shayonj: sorry to spoil things like that :)
[02:53] <shayonj> ajmitch, hah no its cool. learn one more thing i this :)
[02:53] <shayonj> this=guess
[02:54] <ajmitch> for what it's worth, I did a search for "debian ITP tornado" to see if someone had filed a bug for it in debian, it it had turned out to be fixed there
[02:55] <shayonj> right
[02:56] <shayonj> will take care of this next time :)
[02:58] <shayonj> i got a question. there are many packages i see, which have been tagged as [need-packaging] but already have a .deb file in the git/sourceforge
[02:58] <shayonj> any idea about this?
[02:59] <jbicha> shayonj: just because there are deb's available does not mean that they meet the standards for inclusion in the Debian/Ubuntu archives
[03:00] <shayonj> jbernard, oh yes i understand. But what am i saying is, should we go ahead and see and if possible make them fit to the standards ?
[03:00] <shayonj> and submit to revu ?
[03:00] <micahg> also, they don't usually include the source
[03:00] <broder> or were built with alien or something
[03:00] <shayonj> i see
[04:42] <shayonj> when we create a package is it mandatory or something to create for other ubuntu versions ? Atm i am testing only on lucid
[04:42] <shayonj> x86 and x86_64
[04:43] <micahg> shayonj: only needs to work on the devel release and future releases
[04:43] <shayonj> micahg, sounds good. thanks !
[05:15] <shayonj> after run the linitian test i get this - native-package-with-dash-version
[05:15] <shayonj> any help with tih s
[05:15] <shayonj> this ?
[05:15] <shayonj> i do have the 3.0 (native) in source/format
[05:15] <shayonj> if i remove it, lintian gives me another message saying it is missing...what should be done ?
[05:16] <shayonj> also the same for watch file
[05:19] <shayonj> everything is fixed now. thanks anyways )
[05:19] <shayonj> :)
[05:33] <shayonj> need some help with native/quilt ...anyone up here ?
[05:38] <RAOF> What's the question?
[05:39] <shayonj> RAOF, i got 3.0 (native) in source/format
[05:39] <shayonj> and when do i do the lintian test
[05:39] <RAOF> That's almost certainly wrong.
[05:39] <shayonj> it shows me this message
[05:39] <shayonj> you mean i should have quilt ?
[05:40] <RAOF> A native package is one for which there is no upstream - ie: some software which only makes sense in Ubuntu and Debian.  Things like dpkg and apt are native, as they're Debian specific.  If you're packaging some software, it's not a native package.
[05:40] <shayonj> okay
[05:40] <shayonj> but wait a sec
[05:42] <shayonj> sorry about that.. so you mean its fine to have a  .debian.tar.gz instead of a .diff
[05:42] <shayonj> .diff.gz
[05:42] <shayonj> or may be i just read the english wrong here - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Basic#CommonMistakes
[05:43] <shayonj> they just described what native and quilt and its not under common mistake
[05:43] <shayonj> (?)
[05:46] <RAOF> The .debian.tar.gz is a 3.0 (quilt) thing; that's the right thing to have.
[05:46] <shayonj> phew
[05:47] <shayonj> thanks RAOF ..just got confuse with the english i guess
[05:47] <RAOF> The packaging guide is possibly out of date, too :/
[05:52] <shayonj> yeah i kinda had a hard time matching up two same type of info.. specially in case of copyright
[05:54] <shayonj> do i need to debdiff after i performed debuild and pbuilder ? because i already have the .debian with me
[05:55] <RAOF> A debdiff is a the difference between two versions of the same package.  Since you don't have two versions of this package, it doesn't make sense to have a debdiff.
[05:55] <shayonj> guess i will just make notes where all does it needs update on the packaging guide...
[05:56] <shayonj> anyways thank RAOF . its been lot of pacaking. time to hit bed. Thanks so much :)
[05:56] <shayonj> packaging *
[06:56] <dholbach> good morning
[08:01] <jamespage> morning all
[08:45] <SanbarComputing> There is a problem with the following UBT wiki.  I wrote an e-mail to the author, but got now reply.  Who can I ask about it? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BeginnersTeam/FocusGroups/Development/Devbeginnings
[08:45] <SanbarComputing> s/now/no
[08:45] <micahg> SanbarComputing:  #ubuntu-beginners
[08:46] <SanbarComputing> micahg: thanks
[10:32] <Laney> Rhonda: are you aware that packages.u.c has 404 links to copyright files?
[10:33] <Laney> some are there ...
[10:33] <Laney> ah, maybe it links to $package.copyright when it should be just copyright
[11:06] <nigelb> Hi, I helping add something to the etherpad that dholbach mailed about.
[11:06] <nigelb> I need some help phrasing this
[11:07] <nigelb> What I want to add is that you need not be a member to contribute
[11:14] <Rhonda> Laney: the copyright and changelog files are extracted and get published on a different host
[12:04] <Laney> Rhonda: seems like it's just a matter of fixing the link?
[12:05] <Laney> currently it goes to http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/o/ocaml-dssi/ocaml-dssi_0.1.0-1/libdssi-ocaml.copyright but it should be http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/o/ocaml-dssi/ocaml-dssi_0.1.0-1/copyright for example
[12:06] <Rhonda> The thing is, that would break other things
[12:07] <Rhonda> multiple binary packages in a single source package
[12:09] <Laney> I suppose they could technically be different
[12:11] <Laney> I don't know how the importer decides when to create binary.copyright
[16:44] <jtaylor> someone feel like sponsoring bug 811721?
[16:45] <jtaylor> last reply is an ack from SRU if I did not misinterpret it
[16:47] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: is there anything else of yours that needs action for oneiric?
[16:47] <jtaylor> yes one thing, but thats still wip :/
[16:48] <tumbleweed> ok, reminder again to apply for upload rights
[16:49] <jtaylor> yes, I delayed it as I needed to judge how much time/will I still have for it after starting my new job
[16:49] <tumbleweed> you don't need to commit to any particular amount of time :)
[17:34] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: sponsored
[17:35] <jtaylor> thx
[17:36] <jtaylor> yey only 6 month and it is finally fixed :)
[17:36] <jtaylor> I hope ;)
[17:40] <tumbleweed> it still needs to be approved and SRU verified...
[17:44] <jtaylor> yes but thats not needs to be done by me ;)
[19:20] <alkisg> Hi. I have a native package (I'm upstream + packager). So I do `debuild -S -sa; dput ...` and upload it to my PPA for e.g. Lucid.
[19:21] <alkisg> The problem is that if I want to reupload it for e.g. Natty, launchpad refuses it because the source is already uploaded
[19:21] <alkisg> How can I handle this?
[19:21] <jtaylor> don't use -sa for that
[19:21] <alkisg> So, run `debuild -S -sd` for a second time, and upload to natty?
[19:22] <alkisg> With the same package version?
[19:22] <alkisg> The package is not in the ubuntu archives, so the first time I do have to upload it
[19:23] <jtaylor> hm not sure, but I think the version must be different
[19:23] <jtaylor> ~natty1 added or so
[19:24] <alkisg> Hm. Then it would be faster to not have a native package, i.e. to split the source from the packaging
[19:24] <jtaylor> "Version numbers must be unique. This has implications if you want to provide packages for multiple Ubuntu series at once:"
[19:24] <alkisg> I could then upload the source once, and use the same `debuild -sd` for all the other series
[19:24] <jtaylor> https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/BuildingASourcePackage
[19:24]  * alkisg reads...
[19:24] <jtaylor> "If your package does need to be recompiled to support multiple Ubuntu series, then you should add a suffix of a tilde and the series name to the version number"
[20:45] <alkisg> jtaylor: sorry I forgot to thank you - I ended up using a recipe so that I don't have to create a script for all those ~lucid1, ~natty1 uploads
[21:20] <jtaylor> gna I overlooked another important bugfix in meld git :/
[21:21] <jtaylor> btw thats another package where the sync from experimental should never have been made
[21:21] <tumbleweed> just how much do you use meld?
[21:21] <jtaylor> very much
[21:21]  * tumbleweed uses it a couple of times a year
[21:21] <jtaylor> I pretty much daily
[21:21] <jtaylor> whenever there is something to compare
[21:22] <jtaylor> I'm all in favor of tightening the sync rules from exp
[21:22] <jtaylor> there is a reason it is a development version and that its only in experimental
[21:23] <jtaylor> and whoever requested the sync never even commented on any of the resulting bugs
[21:24] <tumbleweed> :/
[21:26] <tumbleweed> well, at least we have someone caring for it now
[22:08] <shayonj> where can i find a list of sections in ubuntu. i somehow lost the link..cant find it now. anyone ?
[22:09] <shayonj> its for the debian\control
[22:09] <tumbleweed> http://packages.ubuntu.com/oneiric/
[22:16] <shayonj> tumbleweed, thanks
[22:56] <shayonj> this program doesnt has a man page and when i run lintian on .changes it tells me it cant fine one. is it okay not to have a man page ?
[23:00] <RAOF> shayonj: Maybe.  Generally what that means is that it's time to write a manpage (which can be pretty easy with the help of help2man and similar tools)
[23:01] <shayonj> RAOF, okay. looking into it. thanks :)
[23:43] <kaushal> Hi
[23:43] <kaushal> is there a glassfish version 3 package available for 8.04 ?
[23:57] <shayonj> anyone here uses(ed) pod2man ?