[05:09] <maxolasersquad> Anyone around to answer some basic packaging questions?
[05:16] <JackyAlcine> !question
[05:16] <ubot2> Please don't ask to ask a question, simply ask the question (all on ONE line and in the channel, so that others can read and follow it easily). If anyone knows the answer they will most likely reply. :-) See also !patience
[05:18] <maxolasersquad> I'm working on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board/+bug/905618
[05:18] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 905618 in ubuntu-app-review-board "Application Review: memory card game 0.1" [Undecided,In progress]
[05:19] <maxolasersquad> This is my first time doing any real packaging, and I've got a few questions about the lintian errors I'm getting.  First, I put the section as games, but it is building it in /usr/bin
[05:21] <maxolasersquad> This is clearly a game.  What should I do to get it build properly as a game in /usr/games?
[05:31] <maxolasersquad> I'm going to bed now, but if anyone responds I'll see it in the morning.
[08:25] <mvo> maxolasersquad: hey, good monring! I read you comments for #905618 - we are happy to help with this if you push your source somewhere (e.g. using bzr)
[10:59] <maxolasersquad> mvo: Thanks, I'll do that in a few.
[11:00] <mvo> maxolasersquad: cool! I have lunch in a bit, but I will read scrollback
[11:20] <maxolasersquad> mvo: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~maxolasersquad/+junk/qml-memory-game/changes
[12:41] <mvo> maxolasersquad: that looks good, you may update debian/copyright to get rid of a bunch of issues
[12:42] <mvo> (the lintian issues)
[13:38] <mvo> maxolasersquad: for the /opt install here is a recipe: http://paste.ubuntu.com/776310/
[15:11] <jml> james_w: would appreciate you trying https://code.launchpad.net/~jml/pkgme-binary/use-description/+merge/86224 again on oneiric to confirm whether I've addressed the sqlite issue.
[15:19] <james_w> will do
[15:25] <james_w> jml, tests now pass here on oneiric
[15:29] <jml> james_w: yay
[15:33] <james_w> jml, would you like me to hit Approved now?
[15:33] <jml> james_w: yes please
[15:34] <james_w> done
[15:34] <james_w> tarmac should process it in ~im
[15:34] <james_w> 1m
[15:35] <jml> huzzah
[15:39] <jml> james_w: btw, on mumble whenever you want to chat.
[15:47] <mvo> maxolasersquad: I like the game btw, nicely done
[16:00] <jml> gn'uh
[16:01] <wip> hi all, the new indicator system cause a big problem to my application, i cannot put an icon in the indicator (it works fine with non-unity desktop)
[16:01] <wip> here's a post about the problem (i am using wxwidgets): http://groups.google.com/group/wx-users/browse_thread/thread/e688d6d188003f87
[16:37] <crashanddie>  Hi, trying to use the Boost.Test library on Ubuntu Natty on my application which uses libtool and more specifically ltdl. It would appear there is a conflict as the Boost.Test shared library is statically compiled using ltdl 1.5, which generates undefined references in my code. Any idea on who to contact regarding this?
[16:42] <wip> Does gtk_status_icon_new still works on Unity?
[18:02] <jml> james_w: would appreciate a quick glance over my changes to https://code.launchpad.net/~jml/pkgme-binary/use-description/+merge/86224 before I re-submit.
[18:03] <jml> james_w: also, is the code in pdf/description the correct way of formatting descriptions?
[18:39] <maxolasersquad> mvo: Are you still around?
[18:42] <james_w> jml, changes look good
[18:42] <james_w> jml, and yeah, I think it's correct
[18:43] <james_w> jml, it does remind me that I wasn't sure if the description should prepend the tagline or not
[18:45] <jml> james_w: yeah, I don't really know.
[18:45] <jml> james_w: my assumption was that we should be slavishly literal for now.
[18:47] <james_w> yeah
[18:47] <james_w> an easy thing to change
[18:49] <jml> james_w: speaking of change, I'm going to have to push the config stuff further up in order to use it for source/binary switching
[18:49] <jml> (either that or enrich the (connection_string, db_type) tuple we're passing around, but this seems more sensible)
[18:52] <james_w> yes
[18:54] <jml> ugh.
[18:54] <jml> I should have run the acceptance tests locally :\
[18:55] <james_w> argle
[18:55] <james_w> json is pretty annoying with that
[18:58] <jml> yuh-huh
[18:58] <jml> annoyingly I get pythonpath-related errors when I run locally
[19:17] <james_w> jml, while I'm hacking on this LP binary thing, is there anything you've noticed that would be useful in that area?
[19:18] <jml> james_w: nothing leaps to m... well, a way to get the source package name from the binary would be kind of nice.
[19:18] <james_w> jml, I'll see if that's easy enough
[19:19] <jml> james_w: and also, for us, we want the latest published binary, and there's no great API for that.
[19:20] <james_w> I think that would need a new API though?
[19:23] <jml> james_w: yeah probably.
[19:25] <jml> james_w: we're going to have to add shlibs parsing, fwiw.
[19:26] <james_w> :-(
[19:31] <jml> also, I broke my pyflakes-flymake somehow.
[19:37] <jml> james_w: tarmac just told me to go away when I tried switching the branch to "Approved". Do I need to do a code review as well?
[19:38] <james_w> jml, you need to refresh the page
[19:38] <james_w> funny isn't it?
[19:38] <james_w> when you set approved, it sets approved revision based on the revision of the diff you are looking at
[19:38] <jml> hysterical
[19:39] <james_w> tarmac then checks that's the revision that is at tip
[19:45] <james_w> yay, merged
[19:45] <jml> yeah. finally.
[19:46] <jml> the source-and-binary branch is up, but I'm heading out to grab some food
[19:46] <james_w> I'll review
[19:49] <mvo> maxolasersquad: yes, I am still around again
[20:04] <maxolasersquad> How do I properly do the patch?
[20:04] <maxolasersquad> I'm really new at this stuff.  I'm just getting the basics.  I know I'm not supposed to actually apply it against the file.
[20:06] <maxolasersquad> mvo: ^^
[20:15] <mvo> maxolasersquad: why not applying it? in debian/link you will have to put a link to the icon and the dekstop file (in addition to the binary that I put in the patch already) but the rest should be fine
[20:15] <mvo> maxolasersquad: then its nicely isolated in /opt
[20:16] <maxolasersquad> I'm sorry.  I just realised those where diffs against my files, not the source files.
[20:16] <mvo> :)
[20:17] <mvo> maxolasersquad: did you wirte the game on your own ? if so, you probably want to add a copyright notice to every qml file in the header with the license (gplv3 afaics) and your name
[20:19] <maxolasersquad> No, this wasn't something that Allison Randal suggested I try as my first swing at helping with the Application Review Board.
[20:19] <mvo> aha, I see
[20:19] <maxolasersquad> s/wasn't/was
[20:21] <mvo> maxolasersquad: aha, I see - in this case its best to contact the author so that he/she can include a AUTHORS file and ideally also add the copyright headers to the files, currently I can see no notice who actually wrote the game
[20:21] <mvo> and what license the icons have
[20:21] <maxolasersquad> Yeah, it only had the COPYING file with the GPL3 in it.
[20:22] <mvo> maxolasersquad: I guess its best to put something in the bug about it, plus the info how to install it with the /opt prefix (essentially just the diff I provided)
[20:22] <maxolasersquad> Will do, thanks.
[20:24] <mvo> thank you
[20:24]  * mvo is away for a bit
[21:49] <YokoZar> I'm trying to repack a bitrock app
[21:49] <YokoZar> I think we should seriously consider expressly telling people not to use it
[21:49] <YokoZar> (bitrock that is)
[21:49] <james_w> it's producing bad packages?
[21:50] <YokoZar> Yes.  The app submitter couldn't figure out how to use it to produce a source package, so I'm left with trying to reverse engineer the deb, which is normally fine.  Except bitrock creates maintainer scripts that call its own binary file on postinst/prerm.
[21:50] <YokoZar> I have no way of knowing what this binary does
[21:51] <YokoZar> I don't see these packages ever passing review
[21:55] <JanC> *ieuw*
[22:08] <ajmitch> YokoZar: that sounds a bit ugly
[22:08] <YokoZar> ajmitch: fortunately the helper binary may not be required at all if I repack this thing
[22:09] <ajmitch> does that helper do anything special, or can it be replaced easily with a bit of debhelper magic?
[22:15] <JanC> those bitrock people should send a dh_bitrock patch I suppose  ;-)
[22:17] <JanC> (one would think people designing cross-platform tools would actually try to understand the platforms they list as supported)
[22:28] <ajmitch> 3rd party tools that make debian packages often just bundle up a binary package, skipping the usual source package step
[23:38] <YokoZar> ajmitch: I just repacked it without any of the bitrock stuff and it seems to work perfectly fine, so I have no idea what it was doing