[01:09]  * tumbleweed waves bug 1008271 at jtaylor
[01:09] <shubham> hello
[01:10] <shubham> i am new to using irc so excuse me if i am to verbose
[01:10] <shubham> i want to try fixing a bug in natilus
[01:10] <shubham> #nautilus
[01:11] <shubham> i want to ask where should i get the source from
[01:11] <shubham> should i use github ?
[01:12] <shubham> anyone
[01:13] <tumbleweed> bzr branch lp:ubuntu/nautilus
[01:13] <shubham> thanks
[01:13] <tumbleweed> see http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/fixing-a-bug.html
[01:14] <shubham> @tumbleweed Thanks for the link i will look into the page
[01:15] <tumbleweed> np
[01:15]  * tumbleweed goes to bed
[07:02] <dholbach> good morning
[07:04] <geser> good morning dholbach
[07:04] <dholbach> hey geser
[08:09] <iulian> Morning dholbach, geser.
[08:09] <dholbach> hey iulian
[08:10] <iulian> Oh, it's Monday already.
[08:10] <iulian> Hmm.
[08:11] <Laney> yeah, how did that happen?
[08:17] <Zhenech> they skipped the weeked for some booze I heard
[08:17] <Zhenech> stupid gods
[13:07] <vibhav> tumbleweed: You there?
[13:11] <tumbleweed> yes, hi
[13:15] <vibhav> tumbleweed: I uploaded a debdiff (lucid) for bug 569514 , you might want to see it
[13:17] <tumbleweed> vibhav: where's the SRU paperwork? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure
[13:17] <tumbleweed> also. the version still needs to changed, the same version is published in lucid and natty
[14:24] <kendfinger> Has OpenSSH 6.0 been uploaded?
[14:25] <Laney> !info openssh quantal
[14:25] <Laney> utter lies
[14:25] <Laney> yes, it has.
[14:26] <kendfinger> Cool! Thanks!
[14:27] <kendfinger> openssh-client is what I meant.
[14:29] <Laney> maybe that bot works on binary packages, indeed
[14:29] <Laney> !info openssh-client quantal
[14:30] <Laney> seems out of date
[14:33] <kendfinger> I am pretty sure that is wrong!
[14:33] <Zhenech> openssh-server | 1:6.0p1-1ubuntu1 |       quantal | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, powerpc
[14:34] <Zhenech> thats what rmadisson says
[14:41] <Laney> yeah
[14:41] <Laney> Pici: ^^^^^ the bot is out of date :(
[14:43] <Pici> Laney: I'll see what I caan do.
[14:43] <Laney> cheers boss
[16:05] <AmberJ_> Hello
[16:09] <AmberJ_> I manually built a program and then did 'checkinstall' (essentially 'make install') to create a deb. The deb file has a lib/libpln.so of size ~47MB.
[16:09] <AmberJ_> I created another deb using debuild and the same lib/libpln.so file is only ~2MB.
[16:09] <AmberJ_> Why is there this vast difference in file sizes of same file?
[16:09] <AmberJ_> In fact size of every file in lib/ created with checkinstall is greater than corresponding files created with debuild...
[16:13] <azeem_> AmberJ_: maybe the checkinstall files are unstripped?
[16:21] <AmberJ> azeem_: "unstripped"?
[16:21] <azeem_> yes
[16:21] <ogra_> dressed :)
[16:21] <azeem_> run "file" on both and compare the output
[16:22] <jtaylor> AmberJ: debug symbols are still in
[16:22] <jtaylor> removing them is called stripping
[16:22] <jtaylor> which is done by dh_strip during normal build
[16:24] <ogra_> (and has nothing to do with dresses, despite my bad joke above :) )
[16:55] <AmberJ> Thanks jtaylor, very well explained. And azeem_'s 'file' explained the rest.
[16:57] <AmberJ> ogra_: I'll leave it to others to decide if that was a bad joke :D Thanks
[16:58] <ogra_> :)
[19:40] <AmberJ> What's an indep (independent?) binary?
[19:41] <jtaylor> something that is architecture independent
[19:41] <jtaylor> = it runs everywhere without recompile
[19:41] <AmberJ> ah
[19:41] <jtaylor> usually interpreted stuff like python or cli
[19:41] <jtaylor> or documentation
[19:43] <AmberJ> ok
[19:43] <AmberJ> I use 'bzr dh-make' to setup debian/ templates... What should I choose if I plan to split upstream into multiple debs: multiple binary or library ?
[19:44] <jtaylor> probably multiple binary
[19:44] <AmberJ> I mean that upstream has multiple binary executables and libraries
[19:44] <jtaylor> unless its a library
[19:44] <jtaylor> hm thats more complicated
[19:44] <jtaylor> are the libraries "public" = they can be used by other programs too
[19:47] <AmberJ> jtaylor: yes, those libraries can be used independently without the need for other upstream 'components'.
[19:48] <jtaylor> k it should still be similar to the multiple binary package except that you build library packages from it too
[19:48] <AmberJ> That's why we plan to separate them into separate packages. Roughly speaking, any library that can be used independently goes in a separate package (and the same applies to executables)
[19:48] <jtaylor> which means following all conventions for them
[19:48] <jtaylor> correct library packaging is quite timeconsuming
[19:49] <AmberJ> I guess I should choose "multiple binary" and then use $package.install to fine tune library packages (?)
[19:49] <jtaylor> yes
[19:49] <jtaylor> you can create both templates to see what dh_make would give you
[19:50] <AmberJ> yes, that's a nice way t see how dh_make handles both
[19:50] <AmberJ> *to
[19:50] <AmberJ> Thanks :)
[20:15] <AmberJ> Tried both dh_make templates. It seems I'll need to combine template files from both templates
[22:31] <jbicha> bdrung: light-themes was already uploaded to precise-proposed, it's just waiting in the queue
[22:34] <bdrung> jbicha: thanks. then it's less to do for me
[22:35] <bdrung> jbicha: btw, the current light-themes version still has some issues (background color of icons of selected apps wrong in the application selector)