[01:32] <wgrant> tumbleweed: Not quite. Things were different in those days.
[01:33] <wgrant> tumbleweed: Security updates ere done by handing a source to the security team, who uploaded it to a dak instance, built everything there, then uploaded source+binaries to LP. So most secuirity uploads from back then probably have oddly named changes files :/
[03:17] <broder> tumbleweed: requestbackport is looking awesome. i just ran through all the list of pending-but-approved backports and it came up with the right information for all of them
[03:18] <broder> remaining issues: (a) it looks like it's including reverse-suggests. i don't expect people to test recommends or suggests, so those should be ignorable
[03:19] <broder> (b) now that we have the checklist, the only other testing that needs to be documented is b/i/r for the package itself...which we could probably do by adding entries to the checklist itself
[03:19] <broder> and then we can probably drop the "Testing performed" section entirely
[03:25] <broder> tumbleweed: hmm, possibly (c) if the user specifies a non-existent source package, check to see if it's a binary package name before bailing (and adjust appropriately)
[08:03] <tumbleweed> wgrant: suprised I haven't run into more of them, then. I'm scraping all upload history, for udd.debian.org
[08:12] <wgrant> tumbleweed: Interesting. Perhaps they sometimes were _source.changes despite containing binaries.
[08:14] <tumbleweed> oh, I just checked my logs. Yes, there were many
[08:14] <tumbleweed> the practice seems to have started around dapper
[08:15] <tumbleweed> Laney: um, that's a problem, I guess we need to survive without them
[08:15] <tumbleweed> oh, right, we are. nm
[08:29] <tumbleweed> broder: I didn't filter suggests, enhances, etc, because I thought they were worth mentioning. Should I mention them, but not as checklist items, or add a sentance to the instructions saying they can be ignored?
[08:38] <tumbleweed> I can't see enough information in the LP API, to locate the source package that built a binary, but we can ask apt
[09:23] <tumbleweed> broder: how's that? (r1223)
[10:18] <Laney> morning
[11:12] <l3on> Hi all... I'm trying to use requestsync but I've some problem :/
[11:12] <tumbleweed> Laney: what is it?
[11:12] <tumbleweed> err l3on
[11:12] <l3on> Please edit the report and give an explanation.
[11:12] <l3on> Not saving the report file will abort the request.
[11:12] <tumbleweed> Laney, broder: happy with requestbackport ?
[11:12] <l3on> what is a report exactly?
[11:13] <l3on> I mean.. which kind of info I've to report there ? And, is there an example somewhere?
[11:13] <tumbleweed> l3on: requestsync is going to file a bug report. The report is the bug report that it'll file
[11:13] <tumbleweed> l3on: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess
[11:14] <l3on> I'm reading it..
[11:14] <l3on> What I understand is:
[11:14] <l3on> 1. You can use LP web iterface or reqeustsync
[11:14] <l3on> if you want use requestsync use command in this way:
[11:14] <l3on>  blabla blalba blala
[11:14] <l3on> So.. what's wrong? :)
[11:15] <tumbleweed> are you saying you can't read the wiki page because it's too long?
[11:15] <l3on> tumbleweed, maybe
[11:15] <Laney> manage-credentials?!
[11:15] <tumbleweed> Laney: that may still be necessary on lucid...
[11:16] <Laney> tumbleweed: haven't tried it, sorry
[11:16] <tumbleweed> Laney: why do you think I'm prodding you :)
[11:17] <tumbleweed> l3on: "Content of a sync request" answers the first question you asked
[11:17] <tumbleweed> how about you tell us what you are trying to file a sync request for?
[11:17] <l3on> apt-cacher
[11:18] <l3on> and thanks for input :)
[11:18] <tumbleweed> so, we currently have an ubuntu-delta for apt-cacher
[11:18] <l3on> what do you mean with ubuntu-delta ?
[11:19] <tumbleweed> we've changed it in Ubuntu
[11:19] <tumbleweed> the current version is 1.6.12ubuntu1. The "ubuntu" means it's been modified
[11:19] <l3on> I know the basic tumbleweed :)
[11:19] <tumbleweed> The last upload was a merge, so the current state of the delta should be summarised in the changelog https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt-cacher/1.6.12ubuntu1
[11:20] <l3on> Changes are now in debian
[11:20] <tumbleweed> fantastic, thesn please file a sync request and say so :)
[11:20] <tumbleweed> requestsync --lp apt-cacher
[11:20] <l3on> but I'm not sure about a file "apt-cacher2" that's in 1.6.12-1ubuntu1 but not in new version 1.7.1
[11:27] <tumbleweed> looks like apt-cacher2 moved to apt-cacher, and doesn't include the changes we have to apt-cacher2
[11:33] <l3on> tumbleweed, mmm
[11:33] <l3on> sure?
[11:33] <l3on> I see a NEWS somewhere...
[11:34] <l3on> line 89
[11:40] <l3on> tumbleweed, in debian changelog I can read:
[11:41] <l3on> * Add changelog and NEWS.Debian to installer_files_regexp
[11:44] <tumbleweed> ah, right, yes, I think that covers it
[11:44] <l3on> Ok I proceed :)
[11:50] <l3on> tumbleweed, maype there's a lack on debug symbol package
[11:52] <tumbleweed> ah, yes. You'll need to do a merge. And please pass that patch to the debian maintainer
[11:52] <tumbleweed> no
[11:52] <tumbleweed> package_files_regexp includes ddeb
[11:52] <l3on> yes you're right
[11:52] <l3on> d|deb
[11:53] <tumbleweed> (u|d)?deb
[11:53] <l3on> yep :)
[12:00] <broder> tumbleweed: sorry, we hit my too-tired-to-be-useful point about 2 hours ago. i'll take another look after catching some shuteye
[12:01] <tumbleweed> broder: err yes, why are you awake?
[12:01] <broder> not really sure :)
[12:01] <l3on> tumbleweed, thanks for help... sync reported :)
[12:02] <tumbleweed> l3on: seeing as I've already reviewed it, I'll sponsor it
[12:02] <l3on> thanks again :D
[12:02] <l3on> bug 889448
[12:03] <tumbleweed> there are a fair number of open bugs for it in LP. Do you think any of them are fixed by the new version?
[12:04] <l3on> let me see
[12:07] <l3on> tumbleweed, this 83987 is fixed in debian
[12:07] <l3on> bug 83987
[12:09] <l3on> tumbleweed, this bug 219095 is fixed
[12:10] <tumbleweed> neither of those were explicitly closed in the debian changelog (only the debian versions of the bugs)
[12:10] <tumbleweed> Can you make a comment in the sync request bug, with the list of bugs to close, when it's synced?
[12:10] <l3on> of course!
[12:11] <tumbleweed> great, then we can close them, then
[12:12] <l3on> tumbleweed, It's right:
[12:12] <l3on> According to debian bug system, these bug could be closed because fixed in debian:
[12:12] <l3on>  * https://launchpad.net/bugs/83987
[12:12] <l3on>  * https://launchpad.net/bugs/219095
[12:13] <l3on> or more info is needed ?
[12:14] <tumbleweed> sounds fine
[12:16] <l3on> comment filed :)
[12:18] <tumbleweed> thanks. Hopefully I'll remember to close them when the sync is processed.
[12:18] <l3on> wait
[12:18] <l3on> :)
[12:18] <l3on> there's another bug :P
[12:19] <l3on> bug 366293
[16:29] <l3on> Someone knows why "LDFLAGS += -Wl,--no-as-needed" should be important in debian/rules? :)
[16:30] <jtaylor> it shouldn't
[16:30] <jtaylor> you only need that in very rare cases
[16:30] <l3on> I'm trying merge gnome-phone-manager
[16:30] <l3on> and it does it
[16:31] <jtaylor> its better to fix the build to work with as-needed
[16:31] <l3on> It's the only change, others are now in Debian, and I don't know if I've to request a sync or not
[16:31] <jtaylor> does it build in ubuntu?
[16:31] <l3on> this is the build without any changes:
[16:31] <l3on> http://debomatic.debian.net/precise/pool/gnome-phone-manager_0.68-1ubuntu1/gnome-phone-manager_0.68-1ubuntu1.buildlog
[16:31] <l3on> of course!
[16:31] <jtaylor> and are all plugins fully linked?
[16:32] <jtaylor> aka does it run
[16:32] <l3on> Let me try :)
[16:33] <jtaylor> do a build without that flag and check dpkg-shlibdeps
[16:33] <l3on> The build I showed you is without that flag
[16:34] <jtaylor> seems fine then
[16:34] <jtaylor> to be sure check ldd -r of all shared libraries
[16:34] <jtaylor> if thats ok it can be synced
[16:35] <l3on> I can't install it damn it
[16:36] <l3on> because I'm on oneric right now
[16:37] <l3on> jtaylor, some suggestions ? :)
[16:39] <jtaylor> why can't you install it in oneiric?
[16:39] <l3on> depends on
[16:39] <l3on>  gnome-phone-manager depends on libebook1.2-12 (>= 3.2.1); however:
[16:39] <l3on>   Version of libebook1.2-12 on system is 3.2.0-0ubuntu1.
[16:39] <l3on>  gnome-phone-manager depends on libedataserver1.2-15 (>= 3.2.1); however:
[16:39] <l3on>   Version of libedataserver1.2-15 on system is 3.2.0-0ubuntu1.
[16:39] <jtaylor> did youbuild it for oneiric?
[16:40] <l3on> no precise
[16:40] <jtaylor> if it isn't installable in precise - no sync
[16:40] <jtaylor> to test you can build in oneiric
[16:40] <jtaylor> so far I know there are no toolchain differences that are relevant
[16:41] <tumbleweed> but ifyou are going to be doing any reasonable amounts of work on Ubuntu, you probably want to set up local chroots / pbuilder, so that you can test things like that
[16:41] <l3on> tumbleweed, I know ... I'll do it :)
[17:21] <l3on> jtaylor, bug 889563
[21:43] <l3on> Hi all, I'm receving this error during merge cdebootstrap
[21:44] <l3on>  error: ignoring return value of 'fgets', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Werror=unused-result]
[21:44] <l3on> And in debian/rules I have:
[21:44] <l3on> CFLAGS_DEB = -Wall -W -Werror -ggdb
[21:44] <l3on> What's the best way to fix it?
[21:44] <l3on> remove -Werror or control fgets return value ?
[21:46] <tumbleweed> well, it's a bug. It should be fixed upstream by checking the return value, and appropriately handling error situations
[21:47] <l3on> tumbleweed, and for now what you suggest to do ?
[21:47] <tumbleweed> if it doesn't look particularly dangerous, then -Wno-error=unused-result may be the easiest solution for Ubuntu
[21:47] <l3on> ok, i'll try :)
[21:48] <l3on> tumbleweed, take a look at this:
[21:48] <l3on> CFLAGS_DEB = -Wall -W -Werror -ggdb
[21:48] <l3on> CFLAGS_STATIC = -Wall -W -Werror
[21:48] <l3on> CFLAGS_UDEB = -Wall -W -Werror
[21:48] <l3on> I've just to edit CFLAGS_DEB ?
[21:48] <tumbleweed> I assume those apply to the three binary packages it builds
[21:48] <tumbleweed> so probably all of them
[21:49] <l3on> ok, thanks.. I'll try :)
[21:50] <tumbleweed> you probably want to add support for precise while you're there
[21:51] <tumbleweed> did you notice bug 884185?
[21:51] <l3on> I knwo and I did :)
[21:51] <l3on> oh wow! But it's not reported in m.u.com/universe !
[21:51] <l3on> well :)
[21:52] <tumbleweed> that was two weeks ago
[21:52] <tumbleweed> dupondje: still working on it?
[21:53] <tumbleweed> the previous uploader is considered responsible for merging into the next release, and it's a good idea to ask before starting a merge. But if you don't, the worst you can do is waste your time
[21:53] <tumbleweed> *before starting someone else's merge
[21:55] <tumbleweed> btw, if you are looking for packages that are most in need of merging: http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/oldmerges/ and http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/bugs/rcbugs/precise/
[21:55] <l3on> tumbleweed, thanks! :)
[21:57] <l3on> tumbleweed, well... learn me to use that websites :)
[21:58] <l3on> ops.. s/learn/teach/ :)
[21:58] <tumbleweed> which one?
[21:59] <l3on> The oldmerges are merges older than 90 days, it's clear :)
[21:59] <l3on> so I can take one of these without carry about last uploader
[21:59] <l3on> but.. second one?
[21:59] <tumbleweed> right, of course some of the onse at the top of oldmerges are rather hard / not actually mergeable
[22:00] <tumbleweed> but many others are just neglected
[22:00] <tumbleweed> The rcbugs page lists packages that have had RC (release critical) bugs fixed in Debian, but we haven't got those fixed versions yet
[22:01] <l3on> and I can take it without contact old uploader ?
[22:01] <tumbleweed> the bug fixed may not affect Ubuntu, but they're a good way to find easy improvements for ubuntu
[22:02] <l3on> well cdeboostrab now builds :)
[22:02] <tumbleweed> contacting the old uploader is never a bad idea, but nothing requires you to
[22:02] <tumbleweed> you can also look a tthe upload history, to get afeeling for how much someone cares about a package
[22:03] <dupondje> hi !
[22:04] <dupondje> started with cdebootstap, but did some bugreporting in debian first
[22:04] <dupondje> to get it fixed there
[22:06] <dupondje> l3on: its indeed build with -Wno-error atm
[22:06] <dupondje> thats quite fine, but they should fix it upstream also, anyway :)
[22:07] <dupondje> also add Precise to dists
[22:07] <dupondje> and your fine
[22:07] <dupondje> feel free to upload the merge
[22:07] <l3on> Ok :)
[22:07] <l3on> I edited how tumbleweed suggested
[22:07] <l3on> and it builds
[22:08] <dupondje> well its currently also build with additional options for those build errors
[22:08] <l3on> I've to contact upstream ?
[22:10] <dupondje> you could, I already asked them to add oneiric & precise
[22:10] <dupondje> not the build errors yes
[22:10] <dupondje> Also you need to check if NO_PKG_MANGLE is still needed
[22:10] <tumbleweed> l3on: we like to push everything upstream whenever possible. Maintaining deltas (differences) in Ubuntu is painful (it requires merging, and we can't keep up with all the merges)
[22:11] <l3on> dupondje, how can I do it ?
[22:11] <l3on> tumbleweed, thanks :)
[22:12] <dupondje> l3on: well there is where I got stuck ... :D
[22:12] <l3on> lol
[22:12] <l3on> here the buildlog: http://debomatic.debian.net/oneiric/pool/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1.buildlog
[22:12] <tumbleweed> l3on: you should be building for precise, not oneiric
[22:12] <tumbleweed> also, that's the failed build
[22:12] <l3on> gosh.. sorry, wrong url
[22:13] <l3on> http://debomatic.debian.net/precise/pool/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1.buildlog
[22:13] <l3on> :)
[22:15] <tumbleweed> so, you want to know if NO_PKG_MANGLE is still needed
[22:15] <tumbleweed> if you read the ubuntu changelog, you can see why it was added
[22:15] <l3on> I would know what is NO_PKG_MANGLE and I'm googling it :)
[22:16] <tumbleweed> hrm, don't know if that's well documented anywhere
[22:16] <tumbleweed> we have a package called pkgbinarymangler, that we install in our build chroots (although debomatic doesn't appear to have it. DktrKranz?)
[22:17] <tumbleweed> it allows us to mangle the packages a little during the build, for the things that we do differently to debian
[22:17] <dupondje> its for translations I think
[22:17] <dupondje> but not totally sure
[22:18] <tumbleweed> e.g. it sets the maintainer to "Ubuntu Developers", removes translations, yes, optimises PNGs, removes changelogs https://launchpad.net/pkgbinarymangler
[22:19] <l3on> and how you know if we need it ?
[22:19] <tumbleweed> oh, sorry debomatic does have it. I missed that
[22:19] <tumbleweed> well, cdebootstrap is a bit odd. You'll notice the debs it builds contain debs
[22:19] <tumbleweed> DktrKranz: unping, nm
[22:21] <l3on> yep, it's right I've debs inside deb
[22:21] <l3on> http://debomatic.debian.net/precise/pool/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1.contents
[22:21] <tumbleweed> the changelog entry that added NO_PKG_MANGLE says:
[22:22] <tumbleweed> helper/Makefile.am, helper/Makefile.in: Set NO_PKG_MANGLE while building nested packages so that pkgstriptranslations doesn't kick in.
[22:22] <tumbleweed> I don't think anything would have changed there, that's still a potential problem
[22:23] <tumbleweed> you can, of course, forward that patch to Debian too, it will do nothing in Debian, and make Ubuntu's life easier
[22:23] <dupondje> that has been forwared to debian
[22:23] <dupondje> and rejected btw
[22:23] <dupondje> so :)
[22:24] <l3on> lol
[22:25] <tumbleweed> right, debian bug 486899
[22:34] <l3on> well tumbleweed, if I understood.. NO_PKG_MANGLE should allow us to not have nested packeges
[22:35] <l3on> but... using it I've still debs inside debs
[22:35] <l3on> That's new contents:
[22:35] <l3on> http://debomatic.debian.net/precise/pool/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1/cdebootstrap_0.5.8ubuntu1.contents
[22:36] <tumbleweed> l3on: the problem is that debian package building is modified by the presense of pkgbinarymangler. But this can be disabled by exporting NO_PKG_MANGLE
[22:36] <tumbleweed> we don't want those modifications on the nested packages
[22:36] <l3on> this is the patch :
[22:36] <l3on> http://paste.ubuntu.com/736721/
[22:36] <tumbleweed> that looks right
[22:36] <l3on> ok :)
[22:36] <l3on> i'll debdiff and upload the bug :)
[22:37] <l3on> thanks (again!) :)
[22:42] <l3on> ok, done bug 884185
[22:42] <l3on> thanks tumbleweed dupondje :)
[22:48] <dupondje> +    - Patch 002-Fix-netsted-packages.patch setting NO_PKG_MANGLE while building
[22:48] <dupondje> typo
[22:54] <l3on> dupondje, mmm... is it important ? :/
[22:54] <l3on> I need to redebuild ?!
[22:56] <dupondje> and I see the series seems adjusted in the code
[22:56] <dupondje> and there is also a patch included ...
[22:56] <l3on> double type, patch name heading with 0002_...
[22:58] <l3on> s/type/typo/
[22:58] <l3on> ok.. maybe it's time to go bed :)
[22:59] <l3on> dupondje, suggestions ? :)
[23:15] <l3on> well I've to go.. bye bye and thanks for all :)
[23:15] <l3on> see you :)
[23:50] <broder> tumbleweed: ok, actually taking a look at the requestbackport changes. i would like the installability checkbox to be per-binary package, to make it explicit that people test all of them
[23:50] <broder> (i screwed that up once in the past)