[06:14] <cdunlap> does anyone know if there is a way to remove a change from a quilt patch, rather than removing the 'popping' the whole patch?
[06:16] <Bachstelze> cdunlap: if you have the original diff, apply it with patch -R and do a quilt refresh
[06:16] <Bachstelze> or you an always modify the file manually if the change is not too big
[06:16] <Bachstelze> can*
[06:18] <Bachstelze> (and quilt refresh afterwards of course)
[06:19] <cdunlap> thanks. I have the .deb that has the original patch but I don't think I have the original diff
[06:19] <Bachstelze> you cant do a lot of things with a .deb
[06:20] <Bachstelze> you would at least need the source package it was built from
[06:20] <cdunlap> I think I will see what I can do with the .deb.  At worst I have to start over.
[06:21] <cdunlap> Thanks for the help and direction Bachstelze
[06:21] <Bachstelze> (source package is .orig.tar.gz, .diff.gz (or .debian.tar.gz) and .dsc)
[06:21] <Bachstelze> depending on where you got the .deb from, the source package should not be far
[07:08] <dholbach> good morning! :)
[07:12] <ajmitch> morning dholbach
[07:13] <dholbach> hi ajmitch
[07:36] <truongan> hello ./*
[08:46] <Laney> howdy ho
[08:47] <nigelb> Morning
[08:47] <Laney> disturbingly there have been no additions to the udd table since i switched to the new method :P
[08:48] <nigelb> Did you b0rk it?
[08:48] <Laney> evidently
[08:55] <lucas> Laney: shouldn't your change apply to Debian as well?
[08:55] <lucas> it would be better to keep the same table struct as much as possible
[08:57] <Laney> yeah, if you can supply that data for Debian too
[08:57] <Laney> lucas: do you know why the updates fail for ubuntu-upload-history now?
[08:57] <Laney> update but no run in timestamps
[08:58] <lucas> Laney: I don't know
[08:58] <lucas> Laney: sorry, my UDD time is very limited
[08:58] <lucas> Laney: are you a DD? I could ask you to be added to the uddadm group
[08:58] <Laney> yes
[08:58] <Laney> if you like, that would be fine
[08:58] <lucas> ok, let's do that
[08:59] <lucas> Laney: debian login?
[08:59] <Laney> laney
[09:01] <lucas> I created the RT ticket, I'll let you know when the request is dealt with
[09:01] <Laney> ty
[10:00] <lucas> Laney: done
[10:01] <Laney> nice
[10:13] <Laney> lucas: err, how do I run things as udd? and login to postgres to alter the table?
[10:13] <Laney> soz
[10:14] <lucas> Laney: you need a sudo passwd, and then sudo -u udd -s
[10:15] <Laney> thought that, doesn't seem to be my d.o password though
[10:15] <tumbleweed> sudo passwords are different
[10:15] <Laney> ok
[10:15] <Laney> docs?
[10:15] <tumbleweed> developers reference, IIRC
[10:16] <lucas> or db.debian.org
[10:16] <tumbleweed> yeah, that's where you set it
[10:17] <Laney> ah, that
[10:18] <Laney> cheers
[12:00] <Ceno3x> Hi guys. I want to upload a kernel package I've built to launchpad, but seems I need to make a source package in other to do that. I built my packages using make-kpkg so I shouldn't be too far off, can someone point me in the right direction?
[12:07] <tumbleweed> Ceno3x: didn't I point you at the kernel teams documentation a few days ago?
[12:10] <Ceno3x> tumbleweed: indeed you did, but I still haven't figured it out, so I thought I'd try my luck again. sorry man, I'm under a bit of pressure to have this done quickly
[16:45] <tumbleweed> Laney: another qa script (to move to ubuntuwire when we have udd there) http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/neglected-packages.cgi
[16:45] <Laney> nice
[16:46]  * Laney is trying to write a "who has made uploads to orphaned packages" query
[16:47] <elgaton> Hi, I'm fixing a small bug (missing dependency in debian/control) and have a few questions: 1) should I generate the patch against the debian/ directory only (as explained in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing) or a debdiff? 2) Since I need to get a sponsor for my patch and I'm working on the fix, is it right to subscribe ubuntu-sponsors and add the "patch" tag to the LP bug, but to set the bug status to "In Progress" and assign it to myself? T
[16:47] <elgaton> hanks.
[16:47] <Laney> 1) debdiff is fine, 2) subscribe sponsors, status to confirmed, no assignee
[16:48] <elgaton> OK, thanks
[19:10] <micahg> gilir: I'm assuming we don't want a dev version of abiword for the LTS, right?
[19:11] <gilir> micahg, only if a stable release is planned during this cycle :)
[19:11] <micahg> ok, so I'll merge the last fix from testing this weekend before the dev version migrates (not sure that a stable version will land this cycle)
[19:13] <gilir> sounds good, thanks :)
[19:14] <micahg> and Abiword 3.0 is GTK 3 only
[19:14] <micahg> or most likely will be
[19:23] <mr_pouit> micahg: a sync request has been filed I think already
[19:24] <mr_pouit> (for abiword 2.9, I mean)
[19:24] <micahg> mr_pouit: do you think we should take it?
[19:24] <micahg> I'm happy to comment on it and request it not be brought in
[19:25] <mr_pouit> since the official website says explicitly that it's a development release, I think it's better not to sync it
[19:25] <micahg> ok, so, we're all on the same page
[19:25] <mr_pouit> :)
[19:26] <mr_pouit> Bug #881386
[19:27] <mr_pouit> oh, you already replied ;-)
[19:27] <micahg> yep :)
[19:27] <micahg> and \sh isn't around to discuss...
[19:28] <micahg> mr_pouit: sorry, I should've highlighted you originally as well :)
[19:30] <mr_pouit> no worry, I saw the sync request this morning and I was thinking about it as well
[20:08] <jtaylor> hm what to do when a package has no patchsystem
[20:08] <jtaylor> but uses patch in debian rules to patch something in debian/package-name
[20:08] <jtaylor> now I need to add a patch that changes the source itself
[20:08] <jtaylor> add patch < patch, patch -R < to debian rules?
[20:08] <tumbleweed> if it's currently applying patches by hand, it wouldn't hurt to add another one
[20:09] <tumbleweed> otherwise just patch directly
[20:09] <jtaylor> the problem with using aptch in rules is how does one recognize that it was already applied
[20:09] <jtaylor> or does nto need to be reversed
[20:10] <tumbleweed> clearly that's a problem it either already has to deal with, or simply ignores
[20:10] <jtaylor> no it onlypatches debian/package-name/...
[20:10] <jtaylor> one does not need to reverse there
[20:10] <tumbleweed> oh I misunderstood
[20:10] <tumbleweed> change the source directly
[20:11] <jtaylor> yes probably simplest
[20:11] <jtaylor> its an pretty bad package, 3.9.1 standard but many pretty bad looking lintian errors ._.
[20:12] <jtaylor> bitlbee btw
[20:12] <tumbleweed> the lovely thing about being a debian derivative is that we don't have to care about bad packages too much :) we just fix the bug we are there for and move on
[20:25] <arand> jtaylor: Seems the bitlbee packaging for debian is actually done upstream..
[20:26] <tumbleweed> is that why it's so bad? :)
[20:27] <jtaylor> would explain why its not up to date to current packaging practices
[20:32] <arand> Comment at the head of the rules file is interesting :)