[04:37] <Q-FUNK> seems that one new package I had uploaded was rejected, except that there was no explanation other than "rejected by archive admin". what next?
[04:41] <Q-FUNK> "rejected by archive administrator" is not a helpful message at all.
[04:49] <ScottK> What package?
[04:49] <ScottK> (The AA that rejects it is supposed to mail you with the details)
[04:49] <Q-FUNK> I don't mind the package being rejected per-se, but it would be useful to know why, so that I can fix it.
[04:50] <Q-FUNK> libdigidoc (2.7.0-0ubuntu1) precise;
[04:54] <ScottK> Q-FUNK: Did you upload it more than once?  There's still a copy in New: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+queue?queue_state=0&queue_text=libdigidoc
[04:56] <Q-FUNK> ScottK: not that I recall, but it's possible that I inadvertently did so while intending to upload a copy to our team's PPA.
[04:57] <ScottK> My guess is someone saw two copies in queue and rejected the older one just to clean things up.
[04:57] <Q-FUNK> ScottK: that reminds me, is there a policy for setting Maintainers to a LP team?  Ideally, the contact address for this would be ~esteid as a team, not just myself personally.
[04:58] <ScottK> Maintainer needs to be an *buntu.com address.
[04:58] <ScottK> An LP team in launchpad.net doesn't cover it.
[04:58] <Q-FUNK> ScottK: ok, that might be the reason. It just wasn't indicated, so it's hard for me to guess.
[04:59] <ScottK> XSB-Original-Maintainer can be anything.
[04:59] <Q-FUNK> alright. I guess I'll have to be the official maintainer on behalf of the team... ;)
[04:59] <ScottK> You can make ubuntu-developers maintainer
[04:59] <Q-FUNK> right, that one can indeed be anything, but LP teams don't necessarily have any external e-mail, correct?
[05:00] <ScottK> There's no rule like for Debian where someone in Maintainer/Uploaders needs to be an actual live person.
[05:00] <ScottK> That's true, but you can get mailing list.
[05:00] <Q-FUNK> True, and it could make sense for us to have such a list. How do we apply for one?
[05:01] <Q-FUNK> Then, we could set that list as our PPA team's contact, too.
[05:01] <ScottK> It's in the LP U/I somewhere.
[05:01] <Q-FUNK> ok. I'll check.
[05:01] <Q-FUNK> Thanks for the idea!
[05:03] <Q-FUNK> ScottK: btw, would you happen to know how often new packages get checked? We have a suite of 6 packages that need to get into Precise to provide support for the national Estonian ID card, the added to Estonian language dependencies.
[05:03] <Q-FUNK> ScottK: the first one of these (smartcardpp) finally cleared binary-new today.
[05:06] <ScottK> It's irregular.
[05:06] <ScottK> All the archive admins also have other duties.
[05:06] <ScottK> Anything that's uploaded before feature freeze will get in though.
[05:06] <Q-FUNK> ok
[05:08] <Q-FUNK> It was all uploaded earlier this week, pending approval and eventually landing in dep-wait.
[13:29] <Kano> hi, just tested cloudprint 0.5 deb, it misses one depend: python-pkg-resources
[13:32] <jtaylor> Kano: which distribution?
[13:33] <Kano> both, the same file anyway for oneric/precise
[13:33] <jtaylor> nevermind, oneiric
[13:33] <jtaylor> it works in precise
[13:33] <Kano> sure, but only because  python-pkg-resources was preinstalled
[13:33] <jtaylor> clean chroot
[13:34] <jtaylor> probably some of its depends pulls it in
[13:34] <Kano> that a script only
[13:34] <Kano> no automatic depend detection
[13:34] <Kano> tested it on squeeze and found that
[13:35] <jtaylor> of course a script will not pull dependencies
[13:35] <jtaylor> you need a package for that
[13:36] <tumbleweed> it's common for packages to miss dependencies on python-pkg-resources, because that has to be explicitly stated
[13:36] <jtaylor> unless you use dh_python2 and it has a correct requires.txt
[13:37] <jtaylor> that will convert setuptool dependency into a pkg-resources one
[13:40] <Kano> feel free to change it the way it works correct
[13:42] <jtaylor> someone familiar with ocaml here?
[13:43] <Kano> bye
[14:27] <l3on> Hey guys... someone here can remove condor and classads from precise ?
[14:27] <l3on> classads has been removed from debian because is now in condor
[14:28] <l3on> current condor version in ubuntu requires classads as dep, but it does not exist
[14:28] <jtaylor> file a bug and subscribe ubuntu-archive
[14:28] <l3on> ok, I'm going
[14:28] <jtaylor> + sponsors if needed
[14:28] <l3on> thanks :)
[14:29] <jtaylor> though if its removed from debian some script should remove it automatically
[14:29] <jtaylor> I think
[14:29] <l3on> ah no ok, classads is not in precise
[14:30] <Weasley> hi, i have a packaging related question
[14:30] <Weasley> if i want to fork a package, can i use quilt to patch files inside the debian directory, eg. the rules file or the control file?
[14:31] <jtaylor> it might work, but you should not do that
[14:31] <jtaylor> just use a VCS
[14:32] <jtaylor> why do you want to fork a package?
[14:32] <l3on> jtaylor, bug 919671 - thanks :)
[14:33] <jtaylor> l3on: so condor is uninstallable?
[14:33] <l3on> jtaylor, yep... it's need a new version... I tried to upgrade it, but I should spend to much time to well understand how condor works
[14:34] <l3on> jtaylor, bug 518848
[14:35] <jtaylor> have you spoken to the guy you uploaded condor?
[14:36] <l3on> jtaylor, yep
[14:36] <l3on> I sent him an email 4 days ago... still waiting for a reply
[14:36] <jtaylor> he wants it removed too?
[14:36] <l3on> I dind't talk about removal...
[14:36] <l3on> just about new release and depends problem
[14:37] <jtaylor> the remove reason is: ROM; No longer released separately, moved to different source package
[14:37] <jtaylor> can't the new package be used?
[14:37] <l3on> jtaylor, of course
[14:37] <l3on> if someone starts to work
[14:37] <l3on> I tried, but it seems not too much simple
[14:47] <l3on> jtaylor, would you sponsor a merge for me ? :)
[14:48] <jtaylor> which one?
[14:49] <l3on> shogun
[14:49] <l3on> bug 914523
[14:51] <jtaylor> thats not nice Add mono-gmcs as build-depends to fix FTBFS
[14:52] <jtaylor> it should use the default
[14:53] <l3on> in configure.ac it looks for gmcs
[14:53]  * Laney eyes this package
[14:53] <Laney> no clideps?
[14:53] <jtaylor> nope ..
[14:53] <l3on> configure:	if gmcs --version >/dev/null 2>&1
[14:53] <Laney> it should use mono-csc
[14:54] <Laney> patch it if necessary
[14:54] <jtaylor> hm ahs the hdf5 transition in deiban started already?
[14:54] <Laney> http://release.debian.org/transitions/
[14:54] <l3on> So... what I would do?
[14:54] <l3on> try to replace gmcs with mono-csc ?
[14:54] <jtaylor> first file an RC bug in debian
[14:55] <jtaylor> hm where's my template
[14:55] <l3on> debian does not have this problem, cause they have mono-gmcs as depends in mono-devel
[14:55] <jtaylor> not anymore
[14:56] <jtaylor> I'll file the debian bugs
[14:56] <l3on> jtaylor, mmm http://packages.debian.org/sid/mono-2.0-devel
[14:56] <Laney> it didn't even come on our transition radar because the dependencies are wrong
[14:56] <jtaylor> they are RC, so will hopefully be fixed soon, then we look at the merge again
[14:57] <Laney> fancy asking antlr and zeroc-ice to rebuild?
[14:57] <jtaylor> me? in debian? why?
[14:57] <Laney> i pinged #debian-java on irc but no response
[14:57] <Laney> because you're filing bugs :P
[14:57] <Laney> i'll do it later if yo udon't want to
[14:57] <jtaylor> if you tell me the reason I can do it
[14:58] <jtaylor> just rebuildonly?
[14:58] <Laney> they have mono bindings
[14:59] <l3on> I'm not following you :P
[15:00] <l3on> shogun has mono-2.0-devel as build-dep, which has mono-gmcs as dep
[15:00] <l3on> so, it works
[15:00] <jtaylor> thats most likely wrong
[15:00] <l3on> jtaylor, ah ok, can you file the bug ?
[15:00] <jtaylor> yes
[15:01] <l3on> thanks, please CC me :P
[15:01] <l3on> ok.. and then .. let's go on with paprefs :D
[15:07] <jtaylor> Laney: I can copy pasted your coco-cs mail?
[15:09] <jtaylor> l3on: debian bug 656756, 656757
[15:10] <l3on> jtaylor, thanks :D
[15:10] <l3on> if you're free... paprefs seems ready too
[15:12] <l3on> note that I updated dsc to althiot, waiting for a sponsor there. Maintainer also hasn't yet replied me after some days.
[15:14] <jtaylor> Laney: bugs filed
[15:36] <Laney> jtaylor: thanks, and yeah that's what I would do
[17:47] <jtaylor> siretart: ups did not see your message on the mplayer bug
[17:48] <jtaylor> I synced the version from debian almost-testing, it fixes the issue
[17:56] <siretart> jtaylor: what version did you sync? the one from unstable?
[17:56] <jtaylor> yes
[17:57] <siretart> okay, then please just close the bug. I would have done exactly the same :-)
[17:57] <jtaylor> already done
[17:57] <jtaylor> sorry I forgot to assign myself
[17:58] <siretart> no problem
[22:48] <antoniu> I'm having trouble packaging something into a deb file, can anyone help me out
[22:52] <jmarsden> antoniu: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete
[22:57] <antoniu> well here's the thing I am able to package it and when I upload it to the ppa it builds successfully, however it's a dkms package that contains a post add script, I made sure to make the script executable but when I install the deb it says the script isn't executable
[22:58] <antoniu> however I packaged it using dkms
[23:53] <Corey> If I have a .install file that I'm trying to place a templated config file in, can I have .install rename the file as well?
[23:54] <jtaylor> no
[23:54] <directhex> debian/install cannot rename files
[23:56] <Corey> Then what's the proper way to have a file renamed during package creation from a tarball?
[23:57] <jtaylor> use mv in rules
[23:57] <Corey> jtaylor: And that'll take effect after the file is copied into place?
[23:58] <directhex> it'll take place at the point you put it in in your rules file
[23:58] <directhex> i.e. if it happens before dh_install it'll happen then. after -> after
[23:58] <Corey> Hm, there's no dh_install in my rules file.
[23:58] <Corey> is there a dh_postinstall?
[23:59] <jtaylor> you can override it
[23:59] <jtaylor> override_dh_install:
[23:59] <jtaylor>   dh_install
[23:59] <jtaylor>   #do more stuff
[23:59] <jtaylor> assuming a dh-7 like package