[06:45] <geser> Rhonda: forwarding from #ubuntu-devel: < twb > "http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/msmtp is returning a 500 for me"
[06:45] <geser> in case you want to look at the cause
[06:46] <geser> and is the email address in that error message still correct?
[06:46] <Rhonda> Hmm, same here.
[06:46] <Rhonda> Erm, no.
[06:46] <Rhonda> No clue where that comes from.
[06:52] <Rhonda> Changed it in conf/apache.conf to rhonda@ubuntu.com  (should look better ;))
[06:53] <Rhonda> \o/  apache logs are mode 644 :)
[06:54] <eagles0513875_> hey Rhonda is there a channel for the ubuntu documents?
[06:54] <Rhonda> "the ubuntu documents"?
[06:55] <eagles0513875_> there is an issue with the dovecot documentation on the 12.04 portion of the wiki
[06:55] <Rhonda> Why do you hilight me specificly for that? :)
[06:55] <bobweaver> eagles0513875,  there is #ubuntu-wiki and #ubuntu-docs
[06:55] <eagles0513875_> Rhonda: seeing your the onlyone active in the room at the moment
[06:55] <eagles0513875_> thanks bobweaver  :)
[06:55] <Rhonda> If I would know an answer I would state so, even without a specific hilight.
[06:56] <eagles0513875_> ok
[06:58] <Rhonda> geser: pfewh, looks strange.
[06:58] <Rhonda> [error] Can't call method "get_document" on an undefined value at /srv/packages.ubuntu.com/lib/Packages/Search.pm line 264.\n
[06:58] <Rhonda> *scratcheshead*
[06:58] <Rhonda> Unfortunately my laptop isn't able to charge its akku anymore, so I am sort-of offline (only able to look into stuff from at work, where I should … erm, work :))
[11:45] <aboudreault> Hi
[11:46] <aboudreault> I would need this package: http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/debootstrap
[11:46] <aboudreault> but 500 :(
[11:47] <Zhenech> aboudreault, why not fetch it directly from a mirror?
[11:47] <Zhenech> http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/d/debootstrap/
[11:48] <aboudreault> Zhenech, thanks!
[11:48] <Zhenech> debootstrap_1.0.40~precise1_all.deb is what you are looking for
[11:48] <Zhenech> may I ask why you didnt fetch it via apt directly?
[11:49] <aboudreault> Zhenech, well. I just install that package manually in  oneiric machine... to be able to do a pbuilder precise amd64 create
[11:49] <aboudreault> doesn't seem to have worked though ;) It worked before using cowbuilder
[11:50] <geser> debootstrap from oneiric should know about precise (according to changelog)
[11:50] <aboudreault> not sure if I need to update pbuilder
[11:50] <aboudreault> Unknown distribution: precise
[11:50] <tsimpson> precise
[11:51] <tsimpson> oops, I mean: it does know precise (I have it on oneiric)
[11:51] <aboudreault> not why it doesn't work then..
[11:52] <geser> aboudreault: can you pastebin the whole error you get?
[11:52] <Zhenech> paste the whole error to pastebin
[11:52] <Zhenech> geser, !
[11:52] <Zhenech> :)
[11:52] <aboudreault> http://pastebin.com/gGAgqK8B
[11:53] <tsimpson> what version of debootstrap do you currently have installed?
[11:53] <aboudreault> it's the version of precise now
[11:54] <aboudreault> ahh I think I remember
[11:55] <Zhenech> aboudreault, what the contents of your /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/?
[11:55] <Zhenech> is there a "precise" file?
[11:56] <aboudreault> http://pastebin.com/RT9TwgZv
[11:56] <aboudreault> no, umm
[11:57] <aboudreault> I think the file I installed wasn't the proper one
[11:57] <aboudreault> dated of 05-11
[11:57] <Zhenech> neither you have oneiric etc
[11:58] <tsimpson> you don't even have intrepid
[11:58] <aboudreault> Zhenech, I think the package you pointed me was an old one
[11:58] <aboudreault> let me reinstall the oneiric one
[11:58] <tsimpson> !info debootstrap
[11:59] <aboudreault> haa,, looks better
[11:59] <aboudreault> it works. creation in process.
[11:59] <tsimpson> though the 1.0.40~precise1 deb also has the correct files
[16:40]  * Laney misses ScottK in the backports BOF
[16:40] <micahg> +1
[18:15] <CareBear\> hello! I'd like to get a backport going. I'm upstream for libusb and the new release we have since a while fixes lots of problems that would be good to get out to as many users as possible.
[18:15] <micahg> CareBear\: hmm, libraries are a bit harder since they usually have reverse dependencies, are you on precise?
[18:15] <CareBear\> I'm actually not a ubuntu user at all (so far)
[18:16] <micahg> ah, ok
[18:16] <CareBear\> reading further, I see that perhaps I should exploit SRU instead - since the old version actually has some bad bugs too
[18:16] <micahg> this is for 1.0?
[18:16] <CareBear\> yes
[18:17] <micahg> well, if you want to fix specific bugs, SRU is the way to go, if you need new feature, backports would be appropriate, so, for backports, one needs to get someone to install/run all the reverse dependencies with the new package installed that built successfully on the older release
[18:19] <CareBear\> would the SRU ever jump straight to the new upstream release, or only ever add bugfix patches on top of the original version in the release?
[18:21] <CareBear\> testing all packages that depend on the library may not be really feasible.. I'm not sure.. it might depend on how thorough that testing must be
[18:21] <micahg> CareBear\: usually just add bugfix patches unless there's a compelling reason to jump to the new upstream version (i.e. current version is totally broke and not easily fixable)
[18:21] <micahg> CareBear\: just that the package installs and runs (for backports)
[18:21] <micahg> CareBear\: are you thinking to backport libusb 1.0?
[18:21] <CareBear\> 1.0.9 right
[18:22] <CareBear\> it is API and ABI backwards compatible with what has been released so far, but I understand that my word for this is not so much to go on :)
[18:23] <micahg> is this for precise or lucid?
[18:23] <CareBear\> as many as possible!
[18:24] <CareBear\> I don't know what the ubuntu version stats are like in terms of users, but my wish is for as many as possible to have the newest version
[18:24] <micahg> CareBear\: backporting to lucid should be fairly straightforward, but nothing would use it by default since that version wasn't available
[18:25] <CareBear\> I guess lucid is more important than natty or oneiric
[18:26] <CareBear\> but a backported package would show up in the package manager and users could grab it manually?
[18:27] <micahg> for precise, as it already has rc3, you might consider SRUing important bugs
[18:27] <micahg> CareBear\: yes, it shows up as a drop down in software center
[18:27] <CareBear\> rc3 is actually fine for precise
[18:28] <CareBear\> that doesn't have to be updated, the bugs are fixed and it has the most important features of 1.0.9
[18:29] <micahg> a backport to lucid would be fine (assuming it builds and we would just need someone to do an install/run test of it), anyone wishing to use it though would need to rebuild packages against it
[18:30] <CareBear\> really? new version remains ABI compatible
[18:30] <broder> Laney, tumbleweed, micahg: btw, the rebackporter did get imported into harvest: http://harvest.ubuntu.com/opportunities/?opp.list=rebackports&pkg=
[18:30] <micahg> broder: cool
[18:30] <CareBear\> micahg : I could also try to get some SRU in that will make a few revdeps pull the backport, yes?
[18:31] <CareBear\> micahg : the backported version e.g. fixes pretty bad usability problems for smart card users
[18:31] <micahg> CareBear\: I suppose we could backport some packages to build against it (they'd need the same testing as a normal backport and need to fit the backport requirements)
[18:31] <CareBear\> (revdep is the ccid package)
[18:32] <micahg> yeah, that has only one reverse dependency in lucid, so that should be easy (assuming someone can test it and it builds)
[18:33] <CareBear\> given cluestick I could test in VMs, or try to motivate others
[18:34] <micahg> VM testing would be fine
[18:34] <CareBear\> oops. http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/libccid throws 500 at me
[18:35] <micahg> yeah, there's a problem with the site ARM
[18:35] <micahg> *ATM
[18:35] <micahg> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ccid
[18:35] <broder> hmm, you can't open merge proposals against +junk repos, right?
[18:36] <micahg> right (well, last I checked)
[18:38] <CareBear\> how do you feel about "faking" a specific version dependency to ensure that a bugfree library gets installed, even if a reverse dependency will somehow work (but buggy) also with an older version?
[18:38] <CareBear\> in a way it's not wrong, because the newer version is the first that has issues fixed..
[18:39] <CareBear\> in another way it's not like the API is any different
[18:40] <micahg> umm, not quite sure what you mean by that
[18:41] <CareBear\> I'll gather some data and clarify
[18:43] <CareBear\> how do I see deps for ccid ?
[18:43] <CareBear\> found it
[18:44] <CareBear\> hm no that didn't work out. rts
[18:44] <CareBear\> lucid has ccid-1.3.11-1 but that isn't using libusb-1.0 at all, so no SRU there
[18:45] <bobweaver> Hello there I am making a package for ubuntu server and the upsource code was real bad re-righting apache ect I have now re-wrote the files and what too see if there is a better way to write this into the package. the bug is located here https://bugs.launchpad.net/zpanelcp/+bug/996282   Code is located here http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~josephjamesmills/zpanelcp/zpanelcp/files/head:/etc/zpanel/configs/apache/      I will be trying too pu
[18:45] <bobweaver> sh to /var/www/ and make avilble during build but I do not know the steps too link sites-enabled How too link ? any tutorial would be great thanks for your time
[18:47] <bobweaver> my idea is too write into postinst and have it install the "site/controlpanel"  to /var/www
[18:47] <bobweaver> and not overwrite the apache.conf
[18:50] <Amoz> jdstrand, hey, just a heads up. Security fix. I got a PPA with the pidgin 2.10.4 built. See this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pidgin/+bug/996691
[18:50] <Amoz> dholbach told me you were one of the guys I should talk to :)
[20:41] <jtaylor> how does one tag -updates regressions?
[20:52] <psusi> jtaylor: regression-release
[20:52] <jtaylor> thx
[20:57] <dupondje> nobody bored around with upload permissions in main ? :P