[12:10] <l3on> Hi guys.... someone can help me with this?
[12:10] <l3on> http://debomatic64.debian.net/precise/pool/shogun_1.1.0-1ubuntu1/shogun_1.1.0-1ubuntu1.buildlog (16MB!)
[12:10] <l3on> snippet:
[12:10] <l3on> make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/shogun-1.1.0/shogun-ruby_modular/interfaces/ruby_modular'
[12:10] <l3on> clang++ -Xlinker --no-undefined -L../../shogun -lshogun -lruby-1.9.1 -fPIC -shared -ldl modshogun_wrap.cxx.o sg_print_functions.cpp.o -L../../shogun -lshogun -lm -pthread -lhdf5 -ljson   -lxml2   -llapack -lcblas -llapack_atlas -larpack -lglpk -lm -llzo2 -lz -llzma  -o modshogun.so
[12:10] <l3on> modshogun_wrap.cxx.o: In function `Init_modshogun':
[12:10] <l3on> /tmp/buildd/shogun-1.1.0/shogun-ruby_modular/interfaces/ruby_modular/modshogun_wrap.cxx:378696: undefined reference to `rb_define_module'
[12:11] <jtaylor> the libraries must be after the objects
[12:12] <jtaylor> lshogun and lruby
[12:12] <l3on> ah ok, always the same :)
[15:40] <l3on> Hi guys... I'm looking at merge eggdrop... last ubuntu changes import a SSL patch, in website I can read:
 Hi guys... I'm looking at merge eggdrop... last ubuntu changes import a SSL patch, in website I can read:
 Adds SSL support to Eggdrop, allowing your bot to establish an SSL connection with IRC servers that support it. Note this patch does not have 64-bit or thread support. Also note this patch works for some but causes crashes for others—see this forum thread for more information. Users who experience crashes after applying this patch should not send a bug report to Eggdrop development, but instead consider using the development version of Eggdr
[15:43] <l3on_> op 1.8 w
 hich includes SSL support.
 the question is: we have to apply it anyway ?.. I mean, it seems that introduces some crashes, could it be more safe do not include it this time?
[16:03] <udienz> l3on, dpkg-ruby is absolute by ruby-debian
[16:03] <udienz> see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=654296
[16:04] <l3on> udienz, ah ok, so we have to make a transitional package ?
[16:05] <arand> Regarding icons.. Which resolution does ubuntu use for the launcher and lenses? Would it be ok to only install a 128x128 version, or should I convert it down to something like x64?
[16:06] <udienz> l3on, why we need it?
[16:07] <l3on> udienz, I don't know, I'm learning this things in these days ... so, don't really care about by words :)
[16:07] <l3on> anyway, is not the standard way to replace a package with another ?
[16:08] <udienz> l3on, http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/ruby-debian.git;a=blob;f=debian/control;hb=HEAD#l14 ruby-debian will replace dpkg-ruby
[16:08] <l3on> ah great! :)
[16:08] <udienz> l3on, you can use replace
[16:10] <l3on> ah ok, :)
[16:11] <udienz> l3on, for bug 896668. please add debdiff from latest ubuntu change to your newer ubuntu changes
[16:11] <udienz> so we have 2 debdiff, 1) debdiff debian-ubuntu 2) debdiff ubuntu-ubuntu
[16:13] <l3on> udienz, done :)
[16:14] <udienz> ah.. i forget to join ubuntu-sponsors team
[16:14] <udienz> i'll take a look
[16:29] <l3on> hey gusy, have you ever seen something like this: http://debomatic64.debian.net/precise/pool/jack-tools_20101210-1.1ubuntu1/jack-tools_20101210-1.1ubuntu1.buildlog ?
[16:30] <jtaylor> l3on: yes  -lm is missing
[16:31] <l3on> well and why it builds fine in debian? :)
[16:31] <jtaylor> it previously relied on indirect linkage
[16:31] <jtaylor> probably as-needed related
[16:32] <jtaylor> as yes thats the issue
[16:32] <jtaylor> -lm is on the line, but it must be after the static library
[16:32] <l3on> ok, I'm going to fix it :)
[16:36] <udienz> hm.. seems like debian not enabled as-neeeded
[16:37] <jtaylor> yes unfortunatly
[16:37] <jtaylor> most existing packages are fixed but a good percentage of new packages need fixing too
[16:38] <jtaylor> it will be a constant source of work for quite a while
[16:38] <jtaylor> (until upstreams get it)
[16:40] <udienz> jtaylor, then all bug with as-needed in debian must not 'serious' priority again?
[16:40] <jtaylor> no they are wishlist
[16:41] <jtaylor> debian does not enable that flag, and probably also won't in near future
[16:41] <l3on> well jtaylor it's not so simple, sice jack-tools uses automake :/
[16:41] <l3on> thats all:
[16:41] <l3on> jack_udp_LDADD = common/libcommon.a $(JACK_LIBS)
[16:41] <l3on> jack_udp_CFLAGS = $(AM_CFLAGS) $(JACK_CFLAGS)
[16:42] <l3on> makefile.am
[16:42] <jtaylor> that looks right
[16:42] <jtaylor> just missing a -lm
[16:43] <l3on> .. are you suggesting to add manually -lm ?
[16:43] <jtaylor> debian/rules is to blame
[16:43] <jtaylor> LDFLAGS += -ldl -lm
[16:43] <jtaylor> that should be LIBS
[16:43] <jtaylor> make sure to file a bug in debian
[16:44] <l3on> yep :)
[16:44] <l3on> thanks :)
[16:44] <Zhenech_> that should be in the automake foo, not in rules
[16:44] <jtaylor> yes thats an upstream issue
[16:44] <Zhenech_> there is a trivial automake snippet for that even
[16:46] <jtaylor> hm no forwarding adress set in the debian bug that introduced that ...
[16:47] <Zhenech_> something like this to the configure.ac:
[16:47] <Zhenech_> +LT_LIB_M
[16:47] <Zhenech_> +LIBINDICATOR_LIBS+="$LIBM"
[16:47] <Zhenech_> (JACK_LIBS here ofc)
[16:55] <l3on> well jtaylor it does not work :)
[16:55] <l3on> http://debomatic.debian.net/precise/pool/jack-tools_20101210-1.1ubuntu1/jack-tools_20101210-1.1ubuntu1.buildlog
[16:56] <jtaylor> try LIBADD
[16:58] <l3on> udienz, oooops..
[16:59] <l3on> I forgot to delete it, it does not come from merge-grub, It's a test I did some days ago... Sorry!
[17:04] <udienz> l3on, no problem. please upload your debdiff again
[17:09] <l3on> udienz, done :)
[17:10] <l3on> jtaylor, nothing changed :/
[17:10] <jtaylor> you probably have to patch the source then
[17:10] <jtaylor> configure.ac
[17:32] <udienz> l3on, uploaded, thanks for your work
[17:32] <l3on> udienz, thanks for review :)
[17:33] <udienz> wow you have ~40 uploaded to Ubuntu archive
[17:35] <jtaylor> do we need dpkg predepends for bz2 packages?
[17:37] <jtaylor> probably not, I just looked at the wrong compressed file
[19:44] <dupondje> whats the version convention for beta versions ?
[19:45] <dupondje> 1.0.0-beta5-0ubuntu1 ?
[19:45] <dupondje> or ?
[19:45] <tumbleweed> there's a problem with that
[19:45] <tumbleweed> 1.0.0-beta5 > 1.0.0
[19:45] <dupondje> myeh :)
[19:46] <tumbleweed> use ~beta5
[19:46] <dupondje> oh ok :)
[19:46] <dupondje> thx
[19:46] <dupondje> beta versions accepted btw ?
[19:47] <tumbleweed> sure, we occasionaly upload bzr/git/svn HEADs
[19:47] <tumbleweed> obviously, only when it's a good idea
[19:47] <tumbleweed> we prefer released versions, certainly
[21:33] <lfaraone> If I'm SRUing multiple bugs, should I just put all the verification information in the main bug? Specifically thinking of bug 743198
[21:33] <lfaraone> also, most confusing error message ever.
[23:26] <arand> Regarding icons.. Which resolution does ubuntu use for the launcher and lenses? Would it be ok to only install a 128x128 version, or should I convert it down to something like x64?