[00:09] <ScottK> ajmitch: No, just saw a reference to it.
[00:10] <ScottK> micahg: AIUI askubuntu covers Kubuntu too.
[00:10] <ScottK> (not that I use it either way)
[00:24] <Resistance> ScottK:  AskUbuntu does cover Kubuntu
[00:24] <Resistance> it also covers the other official derivatives
[00:24] <Resistance> Xubuntu, Lubuntu, etc.
[02:37] <micahg> ScottK: re askubuntu> indeed it does, I was making a joke :)
[03:30] <ScottK> OK.
[03:32] <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?
[03:34] <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
[03:35] <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
[03:41] <Resistance> hmm
[03:42] <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> :/
[03:43] <Resistance> *shrugs*
[03:43] <Resistance> maybe i'm just horridly tired... :P
[03:44] <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 >.>
[03:45] <micahg> dpkg-dev is in lucid...
[04:00] <Resistance> micahg:  the version in lucid is insufficient
[04:00] <Resistance> i cant find the control entry to allow me to specify the version
[04:02] <micahg> Resistance: huh? rkhunter doesn't need dpkg-dev
[06:38] <micahg> laney: are the haskell packages supposed to be spitting out weird versioned dependencies?
[10:17] <iulian> Weird versioned dependencies?
[10:20] <micahg> iulian: http://paste.ubuntu.com/781974/
[10:20] <micahg> nothing can build against these weird versions now
[10:24] <iulian> micahg: Why not? What's wrong with the versions?
[10:25] <micahg> aside from that they don't exist in the archive?
[10:26] <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
[10:27] <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
[10:28] <micahg> and if one's missing, it means a rebuild is needed usually
[10:29] <iulian> If it has a different hash, yes. All the packages that depend on it need to be rebuilt.
[11:10] <Laney> micahg: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/research/publications/studia11-dh-ocaml.pdf
[11:10] <Laney> it is an implementation of that
[11:12] <Laney> http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2009/11/Enforcing_type-safe_linking_using_package_dependencies/
[11:16] <micahg> Laney: thanks, that's quite informative (although it seems nightmarish to keep up to date)
[11:18] <Laney> it's pretty scriptable
[11:19] <micahg> I guess so, I just figured out that part myself
[11:28]  * micahg goes to sleep and tries not to have nightmares about this :)
[11:35] <iulian> It's not that bad after all.
[16:32] <ScottK> iulian: Congratulations on DM.
[16:34] <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?(
[16:40] <MerryResistance> also, to all the MOTUs and Ubuntu-dom... Happy Holidays to You All!
[16:41] <iulian> ScottK: Thanks but that was roughly 2 years ago.
[16:42] <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
[16:43] <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.
[16:44] <iulian> ScottK: Probably.
[16:50] <tumbleweed> yay, more ruby grumbling: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2011/12/24/Ubuntu-vs-Ruby
[16:52] <ScottK> I think switching to 1.9 by default is a good goal, just needs someone to do it.
[16:55] <tumbleweed> probably, although I don't know ruby
[16:59] <ScottK> I don't know it much either, but I understand 1.9 is a substantial performance improvement over 1.8.
[17:00] <tumbleweed> lucas: planning on transitioning in debian?
[22:38] <micahg> Resistance: don't backport debhelper, it's more trouble than it's worth :)