=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === s1aden is now known as sladen === mitya57_ is now known as mitya57 [10:28] Laney: could you please review/comment on the patch from Debian bug #665064? it fixes the kaya FTBFS (a Haskell package) [10:28] Debian bug 665064 in src:kaya "kaya: FTBFS: dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-source -b kaya-0.4.4 gave error exit status 2" [Serious,Open] http://bugs.debian.org/665064 [10:33] geser: looks sane to me [10:33] I could upload that NMU [10:33] but then again Vincent is a DD himself [10:33] I'll ping him [10:34] whatever works to get the FTBFS resolved === Kiall is now known as Guest35492 [12:16] good evening :) === swoody is now known as Guest13539 [13:25] anyone familiar with how Python dependencies got computed has an idea why python-jenkinsapi gets a dependency on a non-existant package and how to fix it? [13:44] geser: it's parsed from requires.txt [13:47] debfx: why is it correct then in Debian? see http://packages.debian.org/sid/python-jenkinsapi [13:47] test building -5 in quantal ends in: Depends: python-lxml, python-bs4, python-pkg-resources, python2.7, python (>= 2.7.1-0ubuntu2), python (<< 2.8), python-beautifulsoup4 [13:48] resulting in "python-jenkinsapi : Depends: python-beautifulsoup4 but it is not installable" [13:51] hm, good question [13:56] geser: in Debian /usr/share/python/dist_fallback has an entry for beautifulsoup4 [13:58] looks like it hasn't been regenerated in Ubuntu for a while [13:59] ScottK: ^ [14:01] a quick fix would be to just pass --no-guessing-deps to dh_python2 since the package manually specifies the Depends anyway [14:20] jtaylor: please file a bug. I'm currently travelling for another week, so I'll get to that as soon as I return [14:22] siretart: so its a bug? [14:22] it looks intentional [14:22] * Have both libavcodec and libavcodec-extra package conflict with each other. [14:24] jtaylor: I need to take a closer look [14:24] jtaylor: actually, I do not want it to have coinstallable, but I there was some previous discussion about this that I need to review [14:24] anyway, gotta run [14:29] jtaylor: my understanding is that libavcodec53 and libavcodec-extra53 are not meant to be coinstallable, but that (following my most recent upload) libavcodec-dev and libavcodec-extra53-dev should be [14:29] jtaylor: The earlier dependency you quoted was an or-dep, so it's not a problem in itself that its two elements conflict [14:30] sorry, I meant "libavcodec-dev and libavcodec-extra-53 should be" above [14:32] k I am asking because of the yorick-av ftbs, it depends on both, though extra-53 is only needed for a test that is easily disabled === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan [15:15] jtaylor: the problem with yorick-av is that libavutil-dev and libavcodec-extra-53 aren't coinstallable [15:15] the output in the build log is a bit misleading [15:16] sounds like it might make sense to disable that one test for the time being and file a bug ... === maxb_ is now known as maxb [16:05] hello, can't I build a quantal chroot on my lucid server? there is no script for quantal in /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/ [16:07] c_korn: just copy one of the others to that name [16:07] there all the same [16:07] c_korn: you probably need debootstrap from -backports [16:07] oh, hrm, it wasn't pushed back that far [16:08] c_korn: if you want to test the reverse dependencies in lucid, I'd be happy to push a backport there, but as jtaylor said, it's just adding a new symlink I think [16:08] no quantal script in lucid-backports either: http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid-backports/all/debootstrap/filelist [16:17] the symlink did its job. thanks to you. [17:06] debfx: Remind me on Tuesday or convince barry to fix it. [17:48] jdstrand: what kind of functionality does yorick-av require from libavcodec-extra-53? [17:49] siretart: do you meant jtaylor? [17:51] micahg: of course. sorry jdstrand [17:51] jtaylor: what kind of functionality does yorick-av require from libavcodec-extra-53? [17:52] thanks micahg [17:56] siretart: just testing of h264 [17:57] jtaylor: libavcodec53 decodes h264 just fine. so why do you ned -extra-53? [17:57] good question, someone else added the dependency so that the test succeeded [17:58] jtaylor: have you tried removing that dependency? i.e., is it *really* necessary? [17:58] I suspect cargo culting going on here [17:58] I'm guessing then it will fail again [17:58] didn't try it [17:58] will do soon [18:03] jtaylor: k. let me know [18:20] siretart: yes the test fails with codec not found [18:21] sounds like a yorick-av bug [18:22] really? [18:22] I recall encoding issues with x264 if extra was not installed [18:22] the description of avcodec does not mention h264 [18:22] only extra [18:23] oh, right :) [18:23] it's an Ubuntu diff from Debian [18:23] x264 is in universe [18:28] it'll be nice when the main/universe distinction goes away [18:29] is that planned? [18:29] yes, just not sure when, last UDS we talked about trying for 13.04 [18:30] hello, trying to build with my new quantal chroot there is this error: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=NDSG4dde this is my config: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Au4PqvUg the precise chroot is building fine. please help. [18:31] c_korn: what group is listed in the precise config? [18:32] * micahg has groups=sbuild,root,admin in his quantal config [18:33] micahg: the precise config is also in the paste. the warning about the admin group also appears in the precise build. maybe this is not the cause. [18:34] c_korn: ah, right, the mount error is the issue [18:35] yeah, the error also appears with "groups=sbuild,root,admin" [18:35] jtaylor: what does the failing test actually do? [18:35] I'd worry slightly more about the Es than the Ws [18:36] don't know [18:36] but how should it work if the codec is not available [18:36] probably it does encoding [18:36] jtaylor: please check. the only thing that I could image that would explain this failure is that the test tries to *encode* something to h264 with libx264 [18:37] jtaylor: which seems a terribly strange thing to do in a test [18:37] we can just disable the test, thats not the issue [18:37] the issue is only, are the two packages supposed to be coinstallable or not [18:38] if not, disable the test and be done [18:38] jtaylor: libavcodec-extra-53 and libavcodec53 both provide an libavcodec shared object. the difference is that -extra links against libx264 [18:39] jtaylor: so these two cannot be installed together [18:39] then extra should provide an own -dev package [18:39] why? there is no difference in terms of headers [18:39] that would make two -dev packages with exactly the same content [18:39] how do you then pull libavcodec-extra and the headers? [18:40] you can't because they rre not coinstallable [18:40] that seems pretty pointless to me, and you still have not really convinced me to change this opinion [18:40] umm, libavcodec-dev has the proper alternate dependencies [18:41] see [18:41] alternate dependencies are not used by buildd [18:41] so? [18:41] they are in Ubuntu [18:41] I realyl do not want any packages to build against the -extra variant as a saftey net [18:41] also it doesn't work for me [18:41] if I install the -dev it removes extra [18:41] and that some strange broken test case might want to encode to h264 does not sound really convincing to me [18:42] jtaylor: if you use --resolve-alternatives, it should work [18:42] urg I didn't even know that exists .. [18:42] * micahg isn't sure LP's old sbuild will resolve it properly though [18:42] is that an apt-get flag? [18:42] jtaylor: in Debian, it's policy to not use alternates, in Ubuntu we allow it [18:42] jtaylor: sbuild [18:42] no, at sbuild flag, which is not used on the buildds [18:42] s/at/it is an/ [18:43] so forget about it [18:43] to me this looks wrong [18:43] I can't install both on my system [18:43] encoding to h264 on the buildds sounds really wrong to me [18:44] forget about the test [18:44] and forget about buildd [18:44] apt-get install libavcodec-dev libavcodec-extra-53 [18:44] doesn't work [18:44] jtaylor: you can't have libavcodec53, libavcodec-extra-53, and libavcodec-dev, but you should be able to do that [18:45] I haven't [18:45] that's something that i'd be willing to investigate. I think that used to work at some point, but as indicated, I'm not entirely convinced that this was a good idea to allow in the first place [18:45] though its probably avutil as cjwatson mentioned [18:45] ah, there's a conflict with libavutil-dev [18:46] we probably have some mismatches that didn't get updated properly since most of the extra packages were removed in Debian [18:46] can't we just promote x264, xvid and lame to main and get rid of this libav-extra split, please? [18:47] that would make my life so much easier, and greatly minimize the diff to debian [18:47] siretart: if there are MIRs and they're not an extra security burden, it would probably be ok [18:47] but this late in the release cycle it probably won't happen, try for it right when R opens [18:47] micahg: well, in fact i've tried that before, and it seems that x264 uses gpac, which is a bit hairy for an mir. [18:48] siretart: hopefully the main/universe split will go away at least for build deps in 13.04 and the problem will be solved as well [18:48] micahg: that would be really really great and solve exactly this problem [18:48] micahg: is there a spec about this that I could subscribe to? [18:49] there was discussion about it at the last UDS, so yes [18:49] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-r-finish-archive-reorg [18:50] micahg: excellent, thanks and subscribed [18:51] siretart: are you coming to UDS? [18:51] micahg: i'd love, but i won't have time this cycle because I'm finishing my phd thesis. maybe next time, dependending where I end up finding a job [18:52] ok [19:50] * micahg hopes to start helping more in Debian starting in R