[06:44] <jokerdino> i am trying hard to make pornview build from source but i keep failing :(
[07:06] <vibhav> jokerdino: Maybe I could help you
[07:09] <vibhav> Suppose I want a package that is of an old version in Ubuntu be updated from upstream,what doo I do?
[07:14] <jokerdino> i dropped pornview and i am now messing with uisp
[07:15] <crimsun> hmm? still at it? :-)
[07:15] <jokerdino> lol :/
[07:15]  * crimsun is waiting for digikam to finish test-building on armhf
[07:15] <nigelb> heh, pornview.
[07:15]  * nigelb gets reminded of a particularly long discussion on a m/l related to it.
[07:16] <jokerdino> when i dropped the patch, i get this http://paste.ubuntu.com/865632/
[07:16] <jokerdino> for pornview
[07:16] <jokerdino> nigelb: why on earth is it named pornview? misleading name.
[07:16] <crimsun> jokerdino: that shouldn't cause the build to fail, though
[07:17] <vibhav> jokerdino: pornview caused a huge flame war at the unity-design mailing list
[07:17] <jokerdino> i know. ;)
[07:17] <crimsun> flamewar? why is that not surprising?
[07:18] <nigelb> and there was a total of 1 email about the name.
[07:19] <nigelb> jokerdino: It's like the old libp0rn.
[07:19] <jokerdino> o.O
[07:19] <jokerdino> weird FOSS people
[07:20] <jokerdino> i was expecting a backlash for that X lens.
[07:22] <crimsun> heh, the merged pornview FTBFS with a missing -lpng anyway
[07:23] <nigelb> also, hi crimsun! I just realized why the nick sounded familiar :)
[07:24] <crimsun> nigelb: hiya!
[07:24] <jokerdino> crimsun: what is that supposed to mean? :S
[07:24] <crimsun> ah, pornview is a multiarch casualty
[07:24] <vibhav> nigelb: Can I PM you ?
[07:24] <crimsun> jokerdino: it's looking for libpng in the wrong place
[07:24] <jokerdino> wah.
[07:25] <crimsun> it'll take another 4 hours to compile digikam anyway ;-)
[07:25] <jokerdino> dropping the ubuntu patch makes it build
[07:25] <nigelb> vibhav: sure
[07:27] <jokerdino> crimsun: i can build pornview after dropping the ubuntu patch. should i upload the modified dsc to my PPA for verification?
[07:27] <crimsun> jokerdino: sure, or use sbuild or pbuilder
[07:27] <jokerdino> pbuilder gives positive results.
[07:28] <jokerdino> dpkg-deb: building package `pornview' in `../pornview_0.2pre1-11ubuntu2_amd64.deb'.
[07:28] <crimsun> jokerdino: that isn't the merged one ;-)
[07:28] <crimsun> Source-Version: 0.2pre1-11.1ubuntu1
[07:28] <crimsun> Space: 12428
[07:28] <crimsun> Status: attempted
[07:28] <jokerdino> i thought mom did the merging?
[07:29] <crimsun> jokerdino: it attempts to
[07:29]  * jokerdino is confused.
[07:29] <crimsun> jokerdino: note that your version string is 11ubuntu2, which is "older" (less) than 11.1ubuntu1
[07:30] <jokerdino> wah, i used the wrong dsc
[07:30] <jokerdino> i will get back to you
[07:34] <jokerdino> well, it failed.
[07:34] <jokerdino> no more p0rn for 12.04 then
[07:35] <nigelb> lol
[07:40] <jokerdino> regarding uisp, i can't find this patch
[07:40] <jokerdino>  Build with -Wno-error as some warn_unused_result warnings are
[07:40] <jokerdino> +    generated. Fixes FTBFS.
[07:49] <jokerdino> may be it was a bad idea to try uisp
[07:49] <vibhav> jokerdino: heh
[07:50] <jokerdino> i will pick the relatively easier looking radare
[08:13] <jokerdino> no success with radare either
[08:14] <crimsun> uploaded pornview
[08:14] <jokerdino> oh wow
[08:14] <vibhav> crimsun: Congrats
[08:14] <crimsun> jokerdino: don't worry, that one was kinda hairy. It was easier to keep the Ubuntu delta.
[08:15] <jokerdino> http://paste.ubuntu.com/866336/ what about radare :?
[08:18] <crimsun> jokerdino: hmm, what are you attempting?
[08:18] <jokerdino> trying to build the debian src without modifications
[08:19] <jokerdino> (crimsun https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pornview/+bug/935370)
[08:20] <crimsun> hmm, I fail.
[08:20] <crimsun> I utterly forgot to update the changed-by :/
[08:21] <crimsun> oh well, guess Ubuntu Merge-o-Matic gets more karma ;-)
[08:22] <jokerdino> LOL :p
[08:24] <jokerdino> i am going to do something other than rc bugs
[08:27] <crimsun> good luck :)
[08:40] <jokerdino> is this bug still open? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-user-docs/+bug/804855
[08:56] <vibhav> How Do I update packages in Ubuntu?
[08:56] <jokerdino> which package?
[08:56] <jokerdino> you mean locally or in the repo?
[08:56] <vibhav> repo
[08:57] <jokerdino> you need to sync it from debian.
[08:57] <jokerdino> but i am not very sure about the process. i will withdraw from your question
[08:57] <vibhav> thanks
[09:07] <vibhav> I dont know any programming launguage, can I w\still contribute to MOTU??
[09:10] <vibhav> Never Mind, I have started working on "Needs Packaging Bugs"
[09:13] <valdur55> Cups default filters doesn't include Samsung-ML1670 fiters...
[09:13] <valdur55> filters. How can i fix it?
[09:17] <vibhav> IS there any way I can know the dependencies of a specific program using the 'configure' script?
[09:18] <jokerdino> you can use apt-cache show rdepends packagename
[09:18] <arand> vibhav: I think you'll need to do some detective work there, normally.
[09:19] <arand> I'm assuming that this is a new package
[09:19] <vibhav> arand: The package is not in the repos
[09:19] <arand> vibhav: And if it is a new package, aim to package it for Debian first.
[09:19] <vibhav> arand: I was working on a "Needs PAckaging" bug
[09:19] <valdur55> vibhav, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AptGet/Howto#auto-apt
[09:20] <jokerdino> vibhav:  there is no readme file?
[09:20] <vibhav> jokerdino: There is, but it doesnt list the dependencies
[09:20] <arand> valdur55: Oh, that's a convenient one :)
[09:20] <vibhav> ( https://launchpad.net/unity-lens-bliss )
[09:21] <arand> Oh, though packaging Unity bits for Debian might be tricky... :)
[09:21] <vibhav> I was going to say that
[09:22] <vibhav> Cant I directly package it for Ubuntu and upload to my PPA
[09:23] <arand> Of course.
[09:23] <vibhav> But I dont know the dependencies :(
[09:24] <jokerdino> take a wild guess haha
[09:24] <vibhav> No way
[09:24] <jokerdino> i am guessing it has the same depen as the unity-lens-app
[09:25] <vibhav> What are the dependencies of                     ^
[09:26] <vibhav> found out
[09:46] <vibhav> syntax error in unity-lens-bliss-0.1.3/debian/control at line 16: line with unknown format (not field-colon-value)
[09:46] <vibhav> Can anybody tell me the reason of the problem?
[09:49] <arand> Could you pastebin the control file?
[12:15] <jtaylor> hurray pytables built :)
[14:03] <vibhav> My builds are failing giving the message "Missing build dependencies: libunity-dev (>= 5.2)"
[14:03] <jokerdino> add it to the control
[14:03] <jokerdino> the debian/control file
[14:44] <jtaylor> tumbleweed: your build status history is not updating anymore :(
[14:58] <dross> hey guys :3 Can sexually explicit packages be in MOTU? i.e. XXX slash screens of the GIMP mascot
[14:59] <ScottK> dross: Go read the code of conduct and then think about it.
[15:01] <dross> ScottK: I don't see anything against it in there
[15:01] <ScottK> Not a specific 'rule', but think about the intent of it.
[15:02] <dross> to cater those who use gimp for rather xxx nature of commissions :-)
[15:03] <dross> ScottK: I dont' think it's inconsiderate since people won't use it unless they are looking for it
[15:03] <dross> i.e. Bible tools, not everyone believes in "God" or are religious at all
[15:03] <jtaylor> well, but its very optional, why offend the easily offended
[15:03] <jtaylor> more people will complain that its there than that its not
[15:03] <ScottK> dross: Where's the line?  If there was a package that contained images of people being tortured to death, would that be OK?
[15:03] <dross> you all are offending athiests and those who don't believe in God by including bible tools
[15:04] <dross> how is that any different
[15:04] <ScottK> dross: It's not a black and white thing.
[15:05] <dross> ScottK: so are you saying the ubuntu project is controlled by christian morals?
[15:05] <dross> that's what I'm getting from this conversation
[15:05] <ScottK> dross: No.
[15:06] <ScottK> I'm saying it takes some balancing.
[15:06] <dross> it would be optional and even the package name would be very apparent
[15:07] <ScottK> FWIW, I think offending Muslim morals is more of a concern.  There is a very popular derivative oriented towards them, so from my POV Christian morals aren't even the worst case.
[15:07] <PaoloRotolo> Hi all!
[15:07] <ScottK> dross: I don't actually know the answer to your question and I'd have to see exactly what we're talking about to have a firm opinion.  My answer to your question is "maybe".
[15:08] <dross> ScottK: let me get you a thread. i was just messing around and even told the gimp developers. Now it's turning in to an interest.
[15:08] <dross> http://lulz.net/furi/res/1993335.html
[15:08] <ScottK> dross: I'm just about to have to leave, so I really can't look into it further right now.
[15:10] <dross> splash mockup http://img.lulz.net/src/Untitled.png  (NSFW)
[16:28] <vibhav> My builds are failing giving the message "Missing build dependencies: libunity-dev (>= 5.2)"
[16:29] <Ampelbein> vibhav: For what release are you trying to build?
[16:31] <vibhav> Ampelbein: oneiric
[16:32] <vibhav> Ampelbein: https://launchpad.net/~vibhavp/+archive/needspackaging/+build/3256388
[16:32] <vibhav> Its stuck on "Dependency wait"
[16:32] <Ampelbein> vibhav: See the rmadison output at http://paste.ubuntu.com/866899/, oneiric doesn't have that version of libunity-dev
[16:32] <jtaylor> oneiric only has 4.0
[16:33] <vibhav> Ampelbein: How Do I build it for oneiric then ?
[16:34] <Ampelbein> vibhav: You could try to backport the precise version to oneiric
[16:34] <Ampelbein> (of libunity-dev)
[16:34] <vibhav> Ill package it for precise then
[16:34] <vibhav> will backport it later
[16:35] <vibhav> thanks Ampelbein
[16:35] <Ampelbein> yw
[16:39] <vibhav> Also, Is fixing "Need Packaging" Bugs also called contributing to MOTU ?
[16:39] <Ampelbein> Of course.
[16:40] <vibhav> Ampelbein: I uploaded a package for a certain "Needs Packaging" Bug , what do I do next ?
[16:40] <vibhav> in my PPA *
[16:42] <Ampelbein> vibhav: The preferred way to get new applications in Ubuntu is via Debian first, but there's also REVU so that people can review
[16:42] <Ampelbein> !revu | vibhav
[16:43] <vibhav> Ampelbein: The Application is for unity, so I upload it to Ubuntu.
[16:43] <Ampelbein> vibhav: Then REVU is the way to go.
[16:45] <vibhav> "REVU is no longer the primary path for submitting new packages for Ubuntu"
[16:45] <vibhav> But I can still use it, right?
[16:49] <ScottK> Yes, but you'll have to look for reviewers.
[16:49] <ScottK> Also we're past feature freeze, so you'd have to have release team approval to get any new packages in.
[16:54] <vibhav> Where will I get reviewers from ?
[16:55] <ScottK> Here is probably the best place.
[16:59] <vibhav> I just uploaded a new package, Its telling me that I have 0 uploads
[17:00] <vibhav> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/u/vibhavp
[17:00] <m4n1sh> vibhav: how did you upload to REVU?
[17:03] <vibhav> m4n1sh: dput
[17:03] <m4n1sh> vibhav: full command? maybe you used the wrong URI or something
[17:03] <vibhav> dput revu unity-lens-bliss_0.1.3-1_source.change
[17:04] <m4n1sh> vibhav: " Processing of uploads is done every 5 min" from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU
[17:53] <tumbleweed> jtaylor: I moved it to ubuntuwire http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~stefanor/lp-ftbfs-report/historical/primary-precise.html
[20:54] <Rcart> Hello, while working on a bitsize bug, created a patch and commited the changes, quilt creates a .pc dir
[20:54] <Rcart> I wanna know if is recommends to delete that dir before commiting the changes, or let it in there
[20:55] <jtaylor> opinions diverge here, I prefere branches without quilt stuff
[20:55] <Rcart> does it matters?
[20:56] <jtaylor> not really, it just keeps the diff smaller
[20:57] <Rcart> Ok, I'll remove it. Thanks jtaylor (:
[21:22] <broder> a udd branch should always have the patches applied, including the .pc dir
[21:22] <broder> there are things that are unfortunate about it, but that's the udd format for 3.0 (quilt) patches. trying to not submit branches like that causes problems during review
[21:30] <Rcart> broder: what kind of problems?
[21:31] <broder> Rcart: it increases the probability that a sponsor will run into problems merging
[21:31] <broder> i don't think i've ever been able to merge a branch with patches unapplied directly - i always have to go and apply the patches and then merge it
[21:37] <Rcart> Understood
[21:42] <Rcart> broder: do you have some time to review this fix-typo branch? https://code.launchpad.net/~rcart/ubuntu/precise/hyperestraier/fix-914180
[21:42] <broder> Rcart: sure, i'll take a look
[21:43] <broder> Rcart: did you commit with the patches unapplied? there's a lot of diff for just a debian/control typo fix
[21:43] <Rcart> I'm using edit-patch, and I guess that it unapplies the patches
[21:44] <Rcart> yes, the diff is scary
[21:44] <broder> ah, you used edit-patch to change the debian/control file?
[21:44] <Rcart> yep
[21:44] <broder> we don't use patch systems like quilt to modify stuff in the debian/ directory
[21:44] <broder> just stuff outside of it
[21:44] <broder> for stuff in the debian directory, you can just modify it directly
[21:44] <broder> in this particular case, this is a package that ubuntu is getting from debian, right?
[21:44] <Rcart> without any patch? just the changelog entry?
[21:45] <Rcart> yes
[21:46] <broder> Rcart: yes, just the changelog entry. no edit-patch needed
[21:46] <Rcart> awesome, I'll fix it right away
[21:46] <broder> Rcart: it might be easiest to just start over so we  can get rid of the rest of that diff
[21:47] <broder> once you've made the change, you can push --force lp:~rcart/ubuntu/precise/blah/blah/blah
[21:47] <broder> to overwrite the branch that's already there
[21:47] <Rcart> in fact I do --overwrite for the push
[21:47] <broder> err, right that one
[21:47] <broder> sorry, i'm mostly a git person
[21:48] <Rcart> should I report this to upstream?
[21:48] <broder> Rcart: not upstream, but you should report it to debian
[21:48] <broder> we actually have a script that makes that really easy - submittodebian
[21:49] <broder> you can run it once you've made your change
[21:49] <Rcart> yeah, I mean debian
[21:50] <broder> for any package that we're importing from debian, we almost always prefer getting the change from debian to maintaining it ourselves, at least in the long term
[21:50] <broder> so i would have asked you to submit it to debian anyway :)
[21:56] <Rcart> updated (:
[21:57] <broder> Rcart: much better :). i'll go ahead and sponsor it now
[21:58] <Rcart> thank you broder, I'm gonna submit it to debian (:
[21:59] <broder> awesome. do you know how to associate the debian bug with the ubuntu one on lp?
[21:59] <Rcart> yep, adding a bug watcher, no?
[21:59] <broder> right
[22:00] <broder> that's important because it means that down the line people can easily confirm that you sent the bug to debian
[22:00] <Rcart> Ok
[22:01] <Rcart> btw, I'll work on this bug too #902485
[22:01] <Rcart> bug 902485
[22:02] <Rcart> It's a typo, and this time I need to work on a  patch, right?
[22:03] <Rcart> sorry, needs to update a string*
[22:03] <broder> Rcart: is the only change that the "start-create-db" needs to be removed from the usage string of the initscript?
[22:04] <Rcart> yes
[22:04] <broder> it's not trying to create the database from the package's postinst script or something?
[22:05] <Rcart> the database creation is now inside mpd, not needed to be called directly
[22:05] <broder> ok
[22:05] <broder> the initscript usually lives at debian/packagename.init or debian/init
[22:05] <broder> since it's inside the debian/ directory, you just modify it directly
[22:06] <Rcart> Ok, and then report it to debian as well?
[22:07] <broder> sure. have you checked that debian hasn't fixed this already?
[22:08] <Rcart> yes, I did. There's no bug report about it.
[22:08] <broder> cool. then yeah, fix it and report it to debian
[22:09] <Rcart> awesome
[22:21] <broder> Rcart: still working on a test build of hyperestraier, btw - my network connection's a bit slow today
[22:26] <Rcart> broder: No worries (:
[23:23] <broder> damnit, i need to do more ppa uploads. "dput ubuntu" comes out without thinking if i'm not careful
[23:24] <jtaylor> ^^
[23:27] <Rcart> https://code.launchpad.net/~rcart/ubuntu/precise/mpd/fix-902485/+merge/95761
[23:28] <Rcart> broder: would you review it please?
[23:34] <broder> Rcart: sure, looking now
[23:37] <broder> Rcart: the patch looks good, but it seems like there are a bunch of bugs open against mpd about install-time failures
[23:37] <broder> e.g. bug #778571
[23:37] <broder> if that still happens, it would be nice to fix those now
[23:37] <broder> if you don't want to, though, i can just upload the patch and we can move on
[23:39] <broder> hmm, actually, it's not clear that all of the postinst faliure bugs are the same
[23:40] <Rcart> broder: I've never try to fix FTBFS bugs S:
[23:40] <broder> Rcart: these aren't FTBFS; they're failure to install
[23:41] <broder> but they alos seem to be a pretty mixed bag - this may not matter as much as i had thought
[23:42] <Rcart> I would like to try to fix them, but no have experience on that kind of bugs S:
[23:46] <Rcart> Do you have any link on debian/ubuntu about it? I'd really like to work on that kind of bugs
[23:46] <Rcart> (kind of bored of typos)
[23:47] <broder> i do'nt know of any references, but i can try to help you understand what's going on
[23:48] <Rcart> awesome, let's do it then =P
[23:48] <broder> anyway, i don't see anything obvious with any of the install failures, so i'll just upload your typo fix
[23:59] <Rcart> broder: take a look: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=489353