[00:14] what do i do if i cant find the version number of a package ? (contact the author) ? [00:17] shayonj: where is this package? [00:17] micahg, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/590082 [00:17] Ubuntu bug 590082 in Ubuntu "[needs-packaging] batchcommander" [Wishlist,New] [00:19] no idea [00:20] yeah, i am gonna rest it for a while [00:20] then [01:10] debian does not accept packages built with cdbs ? [01:11] anyone ? [01:12] what? no - something around 20% of packages in debian use cdbs [01:12] (give or take...a lot - i haven't checked the stats recently) [01:12] 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] shayonj: that's referring to a specific feature of cdbs - DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL [01:13] which automatically regenerates the debian/control file at build-time. it's a bad idea [01:13] 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] unless you changed it, it wouldn't have done it [01:14] 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] 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] i see [01:15] well the only Deb i got in my rules file is DEB_PYTHON_SYSTEM=pysupport [01:15] ajmitch: not using dh? [01:15] thats it [01:16] micahg: bah, I *meant* not using cdbs :) [01:16] micahg: brain & fingers didn't likne up [01:16] Heh. [01:16] ^ again [01:16] * ajmitch drinks more caffiene & shuts up [01:17] * micahg was going to suggest an afternoon caffeine hit :) [01:17] caffeine..hrm! [02:14] 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] shayonj: Is it a package you want to get into Ubuntu or Debian? [02:21] ScottK, ubuntu [02:21] Sure. Where is it? [02:22] ScottK, https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/606231 [02:22] Ubuntu bug 606231 in Ubuntu "[needs-packaging] Tornado" [Wishlist,New] [02:22] When can I find your pacakge? [02:23] ScottK, https://github.com/downloads/facebook/tornado/tornado-2.1.1.tar.gz [02:23] how is this different from the python-tornado package in universe? [02:25] nothing apparently :) [02:25] Looks like the same thing. [02:25] ouch [02:26] good thing to practice on ;) [02:26] ajmitch, thanks :P [02:27] shayonj: Is that a package you have interest in or just one you thought needed working on? [02:27] 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] 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] jbicha, oh alright. sure, i will note that. [02:49] shayonj: sorry to spoil things like that :) [02:53] ajmitch, hah no its cool. learn one more thing i this :) [02:53] this=guess [02:54] 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] right [02:56] will take care of this next time :) [02:58] 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] any idea about this? [02:59] 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] 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] and submit to revu ? [03:00] also, they don't usually include the source [03:00] or were built with alien or something [03:00] i see === aalex-home_ is now known as aalex [04:42] 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] x86 and x86_64 [04:43] shayonj: only needs to work on the devel release and future releases [04:43] micahg, sounds good. thanks ! [05:15] after run the linitian test i get this - native-package-with-dash-version [05:15] any help with tih s [05:15] this ? [05:15] i do have the 3.0 (native) in source/format [05:15] if i remove it, lintian gives me another message saying it is missing...what should be done ? [05:16] also the same for watch file [05:19] everything is fixed now. thanks anyways ) [05:19] :) [05:33] need some help with native/quilt ...anyone up here ? [05:38] What's the question? [05:39] RAOF, i got 3.0 (native) in source/format [05:39] and when do i do the lintian test [05:39] That's almost certainly wrong. [05:39] it shows me this message [05:39] you mean i should have quilt ? [05:40] 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] okay [05:40] but wait a sec [05:42] sorry about that.. so you mean its fine to have a .debian.tar.gz instead of a .diff [05:42] .diff.gz [05:42] or may be i just read the english wrong here - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Basic#CommonMistakes [05:43] they just described what native and quilt and its not under common mistake [05:43] (?) [05:46] The .debian.tar.gz is a 3.0 (quilt) thing; that's the right thing to have. [05:46] phew [05:47] thanks RAOF ..just got confuse with the english i guess [05:47] The packaging guide is possibly out of date, too :/ [05:52] yeah i kinda had a hard time matching up two same type of info.. specially in case of copyright [05:54] do i need to debdiff after i performed debuild and pbuilder ? because i already have the .debian with me [05:55] 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] guess i will just make notes where all does it needs update on the packaging guide... [05:56] anyways thank RAOF . its been lot of pacaking. time to hit bed. Thanks so much :) [05:56] packaging * [06:56] good morning === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [08:01] morning all [08:45] 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] s/now/no [08:45] SanbarComputing: #ubuntu-beginners [08:46] micahg: thanks === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === apachelogger_ is now known as apachelogger [10:32] Rhonda: are you aware that packages.u.c has 404 links to copyright files? [10:33] some are there ... [10:33] ah, maybe it links to $package.copyright when it should be just copyright === jrib is now known as Guest46488 [11:06] Hi, I helping add something to the etherpad that dholbach mailed about. [11:06] I need some help phrasing this [11:07] What I want to add is that you need not be a member to contribute [11:14] Laney: the copyright and changelog files are extracted and get published on a different host === Guest46488 is now known as jrib [12:04] Rhonda: seems like it's just a matter of fixing the link? [12:05] 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] The thing is, that would break other things [12:07] multiple binary packages in a single source package [12:09] I suppose they could technically be different [12:11] I don't know how the importer decides when to create binary.copyright === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === jtaylor_ is now known as jtaylor [16:44] someone feel like sponsoring bug 811721? [16:45] Launchpad bug 811721 in pycryptopp (Ubuntu Natty) "update pycryptopp to version 0.5.29-1 in natty" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/811721 [16:45] last reply is an ack from SRU if I did not misinterpret it === yofel_ is now known as yofel [16:47] jtaylor: is there anything else of yours that needs action for oneiric? [16:47] yes one thing, but thats still wip :/ [16:48] ok, reminder again to apply for upload rights [16:49] 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] you don't need to commit to any particular amount of time :) [17:34] jtaylor: sponsored [17:35] thx [17:36] yey only 6 month and it is finally fixed :) [17:36] I hope ;) [17:40] it still needs to be approved and SRU verified... [17:44] yes but thats not needs to be done by me ;) [19:20] 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] 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] How can I handle this? [19:21] don't use -sa for that [19:21] So, run `debuild -S -sd` for a second time, and upload to natty? [19:22] With the same package version? [19:22] The package is not in the ubuntu archives, so the first time I do have to upload it [19:23] hm not sure, but I think the version must be different [19:23] ~natty1 added or so [19:24] Hm. Then it would be faster to not have a native package, i.e. to split the source from the packaging [19:24] "Version numbers must be unique. This has implications if you want to provide packages for multiple Ubuntu series at once:" [19:24] I could then upload the source once, and use the same `debuild -sd` for all the other series [19:24] https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/BuildingASourcePackage [19:24] * alkisg reads... [19:24] "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] 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 === warp11 is now known as warp10 [21:20] gna I overlooked another important bugfix in meld git :/ [21:21] btw thats another package where the sync from experimental should never have been made [21:21] just how much do you use meld? [21:21] very much [21:21] * tumbleweed uses it a couple of times a year [21:21] I pretty much daily [21:21] whenever there is something to compare [21:22] I'm all in favor of tightening the sync rules from exp [21:22] there is a reason it is a development version and that its only in experimental [21:23] and whoever requested the sync never even commented on any of the resulting bugs [21:24] :/ [21:26] well, at least we have someone caring for it now [22:08] where can i find a list of sections in ubuntu. i somehow lost the link..cant find it now. anyone ? [22:09] its for the debian\control [22:09] http://packages.ubuntu.com/oneiric/ [22:16] tumbleweed, thanks [22:56] 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] 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] RAOF, okay. looking into it. thanks :) === kentb is now known as kentb-out [23:43] Hi [23:43] is there a glassfish version 3 package available for 8.04 ? [23:57] anyone here uses(ed) pod2man ?