[01:57] <broder> micahg: as i've said at the TB meetings, i don't think anybody understands how the backports pocket works right now. but i'm pretty sure i've seen uploads from either me or Laney for main packages
[01:57] <broder> but i didn't think it was connected to upload rights to the release pocket
[13:40] <jtaylor> what is the backport-package versioning going to do when the release names go beyond z?
[13:45] <geser> jtaylor: I assume it's not decided yet what happens to the versioning scheme to assure the monotic increase of version numbers
[13:45] <mdeslaur> jtaylor: use release numbers instead of release names?
[13:47] <jtaylor> so it wil probably change before r to get something like r14.04?
[13:48] <geser> mdeslaur: don't numbers sort before letters?
[13:49] <mdeslaur> geser: what's the versioning scheme for backports now?
[13:49] <geser> jtaylor: or perhaps for "u" (u14.04)
[13:49] <jtaylor> mdeslaur ~releasename#
[13:50] <mdeslaur> so just eventually switch to ~10.04.1 or something
[13:51] <mdeslaur> oh, I see the issue, if you already have some with names
[13:51] <geser> dpkg --compare-versions 1~precise1 gt 1~12.04.1 && echo yes => yes
[13:52] <mdeslaur> yes, you'll need to use versions instead of names for all releases, without mixing them
[13:52] <geser> perhaps we switch to unicode release names after "z" :)
[13:53] <mdeslaur> you're assuming release names will continue alphabetically...honestly, I don't think that's set in stone
[13:54] <mdeslaur> maybe versions numbers should be used soon
[13:54] <jtaylor> might be a good idea
[13:55] <jtaylor> as long as we still have letters left with which we can prefix the number to be compatible with the old scheme
[13:55] <mdeslaur> you don't need to be compatible with the old scheme, the next release's version is always higher
[13:55] <geser> jtaylor: it's only a problem if there are existing backports with the same upstream version
[13:56] <mdeslaur> jtaylor: do you have an example of a source package that would be problematic now?
[13:56] <jtaylor> no, but I assume it could happen
[13:57] <mdeslaur> it could, would probably just be a couple of exceptions
[13:57] <mdeslaur> so a few get named ~z12.04.1
[13:57] <mdeslaur> meh
[13:59] <geser> I'm still thinking in which case one might need that (assuming nobody uses the version name instead of the release number by mistake)
[15:31] <l3on> Hi guys... how can I know the reason due a packages is no more in Ubuntu ?
[15:32] <l3on> for example, last build of root-system is for maverick...
[15:32] <and`> l3on: check for it on Debian and look around for an RM bug, packages dropped in Debian are automatically dropped in Ubuntu as well
[15:33] <jtaylor> root-system may be added again at some point
[15:33] <jtaylor> I think last time it was removed due to lack of a maintainer
[15:33] <l3on> thanks and` :)
[15:33] <and`> l3on: yw :) as a reference http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/r/root-system/root-system_5.18.00-2.3~lenny1/changelog
[15:34] <jtaylor> its not hard to build it yourself though
[15:34] <and`> l3on: last upload dated 2009 :)
[15:34] <and`> l3on: and http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610011
[15:35] <jtaylor> on oneiric you need to use trunk or build without as-needed
[15:35] <jtaylor> 5.30 does not work with as-needed
[15:35] <l3on> mmm well.. it could be nice find out a new maintainer :D
[15:36] <l3on> I'll try to pack it for debian, we'll see...
[15:36] <jtaylor> it sort of has
[15:36] <jtaylor> packaging root is no easy task
[15:36] <jtaylor> its a huge framework
[20:52] <l3on> Hi all.. someone aroud?
[20:52] <l3on> I'm trying to merge forked-daapd
[20:52] <l3on> but I've some problem during configure:
[20:52] <l3on> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory
[20:52] <l3on> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crti.o: No such file or directory
[20:52] <l3on> clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
[20:53] <l3on> build log is here: http://debomatic.debian.net/precise/pool/forked-daapd_0.19gcd-2ubuntu1/forked-daapd_0.19gcd-2ubuntu1.buildlog
[20:53] <l3on> On 11.10 "make -f debian/rules build" does not fail at that step...
[21:00] <Ampelbein> l3on: Yes, that's bug 792146
[21:01] <l3on> Ampelbein, but in 11.10 configure works fine :/
[21:02] <l3on> the problem is in precise
[21:02] <Ampelbein> l3on: Yes, because precise wasn't added yet as a ubuntu distro.
[21:02] <l3on> Ampelbein, and so... what have I to do ? :)
[21:02] <Ampelbein> l3on: (In clang's ToolChains.cpp)
[21:04] <Ampelbein> l3on: You'd have to add precise in clang-2.9/tools/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains.cpp in clang.
[21:05] <l3on> ah ok, Ampelbein I'll do it :)
[21:06] <l3on> Ampelbein, in this case I've to send patch at debian, right?
[21:07] <Ampelbein> l3on: Ideally, yes. But Ubuntu works well, too.
[21:14] <l3on> Ampelbein, one question about clang... but no-supported ubuntu releases can be removed ?
[21:15] <Ampelbein> l3on: They could be removed, yes.
[21:17] <l3on> Ampelbein, should I add ubuntu+1 too ?
[21:19] <l3on> mmm... does Ubuntu (Q) have a name? :P
[21:19] <broder> l3on: not yet. n+1 is not generally announced until just before n releases
[21:20] <l3on> ah ok :)
[23:56] <broder> l3on: did you ever put a patch for clang together? i'd be happy to upload it
[23:56] <l3on> broder, I did
[23:57] <l3on> bug 896695
[23:58] <broder> l3on: ok. i think i'm going to dupe that bug to bug #792146, tweak the changelog, double-check the patch, and upload. sound good?
[23:59] <l3on> broder, ok :)