| ScottK | ajmitch: No, just saw a reference to it. | 00:09 |
|---|---|---|
| ScottK | micahg: AIUI askubuntu covers Kubuntu too. | 00:10 |
| ScottK | (not that I use it either way) | 00:10 |
| Resistance | ScottK: AskUbuntu does cover Kubuntu | 00:24 |
| Resistance | it also covers the other official derivatives | 00:24 |
| Resistance | Xubuntu, Lubuntu, etc. | 00:24 |
| micahg | ScottK: re askubuntu> indeed it does, I was making a joke :) | 02:37 |
| === elky` is now known as elky | ||
| ScottK | OK. | 03:30 |
| Resistance | hmm... | 03:32 |
| Resistance | anyone know how much of a hassle it'd be to backport dpkg from a newer distribution to lucid in order to fulfill a build-dep for a package i want to backport? | 03:32 |
| micahg | Resistance: you probably just want to fix the package to not require the newer debhelper | 03:34 |
| Resistance | micahg: debhelper was an easy backport, and it succeeded... dpkg-dev on the otherhand isnt backported into lucid at all | 03:34 |
| Resistance | hence the question | 03:34 |
| Resistance | (i'd have to modify the package versioning for dpkg/dpkg-dev in the control, and i could easily do that) | 03:35 |
| micahg | Resistance: sorry, I'd suggest fixing to not use a newer dpkg | 03:35 |
| Resistance | oh i agree :P | 03:35 |
| Resistance | i'm just horridly freaking tired ;P | 03:35 |
| Resistance | if i werent, i'd do it | 03:35 |
| Resistance | hmm | 03:41 |
| Resistance | micahg: i dont see dpkg-dev existing there... i'm not even sure wth i'm looking for in this case (source package: rkhunter, control file does not explicitly state dpkg/dpkg-dev in the deps... | 03:42 |
| Resistance | :/ | 03:42 |
| Resistance | *shrugs* | 03:43 |
| Resistance | maybe i'm just horridly tired... :P | 03:43 |
| Resistance | s/rkhunter/rkhunter (lucid)/ | 03:44 |
| Resistance | grah | 03:44 |
| Resistance | oneiric | 03:44 |
| Resistance | i'm headed off, too tired to backport things >.> | 03:44 |
| micahg | dpkg-dev is in lucid... | 03:45 |
| Resistance | micahg: the version in lucid is insufficient | 04:00 |
| Resistance | i cant find the control entry to allow me to specify the version | 04:00 |
| micahg | Resistance: huh? rkhunter doesn't need dpkg-dev | 04:02 |
| === JackyAlcine is now known as SantaClaus | ||
| === SantaClaus is now known as Santa_Claus | ||
| micahg | laney: are the haskell packages supposed to be spitting out weird versioned dependencies? | 06:38 |
| iulian | Weird versioned dependencies? | 10:17 |
| micahg | iulian: http://paste.ubuntu.com/781974/ | 10:20 |
| micahg | nothing can build against these weird versions now | 10:20 |
| === yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
| iulian | micahg: Why not? What's wrong with the versions? | 10:24 |
| micahg | aside from that they don't exist in the archive? | 10:25 |
| micahg | oh, I see...this is why these things need constant rebuilds :-/ | 10:26 |
| micahg | it almost seems an abuse of provides to version libraries | 10:26 |
| micahg | but I guess this stuff moves too fast otherwise | 10:26 |
| iulian | micahg: Those are the first 5 digits of the hash if that's what you meant by 'weird versions'. | 10:27 |
| micahg | iulian: yes, I missed that they were "provided" by the dev packages | 10:27 |
| micahg | and if one's missing, it means a rebuild is needed usually | 10:28 |
| iulian | If it has a different hash, yes. All the packages that depend on it need to be rebuilt. | 10:29 |
| Laney | micahg: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/research/publications/studia11-dh-ocaml.pdf | 11:10 |
| Laney | it is an implementation of that | 11:10 |
| Laney | http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2009/11/Enforcing_type-safe_linking_using_package_dependencies/ | 11:12 |
| micahg | Laney: thanks, that's quite informative (although it seems nightmarish to keep up to date) | 11:16 |
| Laney | it's pretty scriptable | 11:18 |
| micahg | I guess so, I just figured out that part myself | 11:19 |
| * micahg goes to sleep and tries not to have nightmares about this :) | 11:28 | |
| iulian | It's not that bad after all. | 11:35 |
| === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan | ||
| ScottK | iulian: Congratulations on DM. | 16:32 |
| Resistance | micahg: well debhelper does... https://launchpadlibrarian.net/88357122/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-i386.rkhunter_1.3.8-7~lucid1~ppa1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz | 16:34 |
| Resistance | micahg: debhelper needs dpkg-dev >= 1.16.0~ubuntu4 (which i think is in natty?( | 16:34 |
| === Resistance is now known as MerryResistance | ||
| MerryResistance | also, to all the MOTUs and Ubuntu-dom... Happy Holidays to You All! | 16:40 |
| iulian | ScottK: Thanks but that was roughly 2 years ago. | 16:41 |
| ScottK | iulian: Oh. I saw a mail about your key being added to the keyring. | 16:42 |
| ScottK | I guess it was just an update? | 16:42 |
| * ScottK lises track of who is what. | 16:42 | |
| ScottK | lise/loses | 16:42 |
| iulian | ScottK: I have no idea to be honest. What mail? | 16:43 |
| ScottK | I didn't save it, but it want to the NM list. It was a standard mail listing DM keyring changes. | 16:43 |
| ScottK | Maybe it was inadvertently resent from long ago. | 16:43 |
| iulian | ScottK: Probably. | 16:44 |
| tumbleweed | yay, more ruby grumbling: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2011/12/24/Ubuntu-vs-Ruby | 16:50 |
| ScottK | I think switching to 1.9 by default is a good goal, just needs someone to do it. | 16:52 |
| tumbleweed | probably, although I don't know ruby | 16:55 |
| ScottK | I don't know it much either, but I understand 1.9 is a substantial performance improvement over 1.8. | 16:59 |
| tumbleweed | lucas: planning on transitioning in debian? | 17:00 |
| === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan | ||
| === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away | ||
| === MerryResistance is now known as Resistance | ||
| micahg | Resistance: don't backport debhelper, it's more trouble than it's worth :) | 22:38 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!