[00:40] <Corey> If I have a package I'm building that doesn't have a makefile in any sense-- it's just a list of files that all get stuffed into one directory, what do I populate my Rules file with?
[00:57] <SpamapS> Corey: minimal rules file is fine
[00:57] <Corey> SpamapS: Thanks.
[00:57] <SpamapS> Corey: then have an 'install' file which lists all the files and where they go
[00:58] <Corey> SpamapS: Yeah, it's kinda crappy, but "the entire contents of the tarball should wind up in $directory"
[00:58] <Corey> So it SHOULD be stupidly simple to package.
[03:37] <Corey> I'm trying to get git-dch to write a commit message, but it keeps whining about the version not being found.  What's the proper version string for a "first run" of git-dch?
[03:37] <Corey> (building a package from scratch, new debian directory and changelog)
[07:01] <dholbach> good morning
[07:04] <geser> good morning dholbach
[07:05] <dholbach> hi geser
[07:12] <Rhonda> oh. release tomorrow.
[07:18] <nigelb> *whee*
[07:35] <dholbach> ajmitch, is #ubuntuwire the best place to get in touch with its sysadmins?
[07:36] <geser> dholbach: usually it is (though one has to consider the timezone differences)
[07:36] <dholbach> ajmitch, bdfhjk (who leads the Ubuntu Algorithms team) wants to host a voting service somewhere but couldn't get in touch with uw sysadmins
[07:36] <dholbach> wgrant, ^ too
[07:36] <dholbach> geser, is there a mailing list maybe?
[07:37] <dholbach> ah ok found it
[07:39] <geser> dholbach: not sure if there is any working e-mail address (lists.ubuntuwire.org shows only the default apache "It works!" page" and the admin team website is 404)
[07:40] <dholbach> :-(
[07:40] <dholbach> geser, who's all on the admin team? (apart from William and Andrew)
[07:40] <dholbach> I'll suggest to bdfhjk to get in touch with them directly then
[07:42] <geser> dholbach: I'd try to ask them both first too, don't know if anybody else is admin
[07:43] <dholbach> ok
[07:44] <dholbach> thanks geser
[07:45] <geser> and let bdfhjk know about the timezone William an Andrew are in. bdfhjk tried already in #ubuntuwire to contact an admin but at the wrong time for both and left before they could answer
[07:47] <dholbach> will do
[15:55] <tumbleweed> bdrung: I see distro-info-data has a debian backport. It should be updated and I'm not in the backports keyring. Are you?
[16:13] <bregma> one of my team is preparing an SRU for precise and I'm trying to sponsor him (my first time sponsoring someone else, I've never seen it from this end of the tunnel) -- do I need to debsign the .changes file before uploading to precise-proposed?
[16:14] <tumbleweed> yes, everything that's uploaded is signed
[16:14] <tumbleweed> as a sponsor, you are just signing the upload for the sponsoree
[16:14] <bregma> right, just making sure
[16:14] <tumbleweed> (btw, sponsor-patch makes this easy)
[16:14] <bregma> it always seemed like magic when someone else did it for me
[16:14] <bregma> I guess it;s sufficiently advanced technology
[16:15] <tumbleweed> heh
[16:15]  * Laney always rebuilds the source package (+ changes)
[16:16] <tumbleweed> and reviews the diff, presumably
[16:16] <Laney> well, yes
[16:16] <Laney> that's not the entire process
[16:17] <Laney> I also build it, for example :P
[16:17] <Laney> and roll a D20, and down some tequila. you know, usual stuff.
[16:17] <bregma> download tequila now.....
[16:18] <bregma> ugh, I think I'm going to upload
[16:20] <Laney> if you set DEBSIGN_KEYID in ~/.devscripts there's not much that can go wrong
[17:31] <bregma> hmm, sponsor-patch (nice tool, btw) fails for me because the Ubuntu packaging branch is several versions out of date from the current Ubuntu release -- what gives?
[17:32] <bregma> have I done something egregiously wrong somewhere?
[17:33] <jtaylor> nice another asterisk dsa
[17:33] <jtaylor> this really is a good package for having no proper maintainer :/
[17:33] <jtaylor> at least precise should be easy now :)
[17:37] <micahg> jtaylor: we have a few of those in universe that could use someone looking after them
[17:38] <micahg> bregma: no, you can file a bug against the UDD project if there isn't one for the import failure, see http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/
[17:38] <Laney> sadly so
[17:38] <tumbleweed> bregma: there are a few of those http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/
[17:38] <tumbleweed> ah, micahg got there already
[17:40] <bregma> a maze of twisty little passages, all different
[17:42] <bregma> so this problem deserves a new bug all of its own or should it be me-too'd?
[17:42] <tumbleweed> which package is it?
[17:46] <bregma> I can see the import failed for utouch-evemu, utouch-frame, and utouch-geis (all three of which I have uploaded in the past at some point)
[17:46] <tumbleweed> those all look xz related
[17:47] <tumbleweed> pristine-tar recently got basic xz support, I wonder if its still broken
[17:47] <micahg> they might not be using that version yet :)
[17:47] <micahg> maxb: ^^ can you comment to this?
[17:48] <tumbleweed> bregma: if the packaging branch is broken, what were you sponsoring from? if it was a debdiff the broken branch wouldn't have been an issue
[17:50] <bregma> we haven't gotten as far as making the debdiff, I have just been running the sponsor-patch tool as a test to understand how it works, but we're preparing a release against our packaging branch that we usually prepare full uploads from
[17:51] <tumbleweed> right. sponsor-patch doesn't support non-UDD packaging branches
[17:54] <bregma> if the import was working the Ubuntu branch should have been identical to our packaging branch so any debdiff should have been identical (in theory)
[17:55] <tumbleweed> right, but it would try and do a bzr merge, which won't work if the history doesn't have a common ancestor
[17:56] <bregma> well, I have no problem sticking to the tried-and-true dput I'm used to in Debian
[17:57] <tumbleweed> there's no reason it couldn't be taught to support them, either. That's just not a very common use case for ubuntu sponsors
[18:31] <jethrogb> just drawing some attention to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xtables-addons/+bug/916606
[18:32] <tumbleweed> jethrogb: nobody saw it, clearly
[18:32] <tumbleweed> there are lots of packages that failed to build and we never got to fixing
[18:32] <tumbleweed> too many, basically
[18:33] <tumbleweed> that said, it can still be done. Would you like to prepare an SRU and request sponsorship for it?
[18:33] <tumbleweed> !sru
[18:33] <tumbleweed> !sponsorship
[18:36] <jethrogb> tumbleweed: maybe, that is not going to happen anytime soon though
[18:38] <tumbleweed> I'm happy to have a look at it, nothing urgent in front of me right now
[18:45] <jethrogb> thanks