[00:05] :) [00:39] bulldog98_: Fixed the kinfocenter thing. Thanks. [01:19] ::workspace-bugs:: [1082345] dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/kde-window-manager-common_4%3a4.9.80-0ubunt... @ https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1082345 (by Marcin Juszkiewicz) [03:27] svn://svn.debian.org/python-apps/packages/pymilter-milters/trunk/ [03:27] oops [03:28] Meant to paste http://www.slideshare.net/ggreve/ec-workshop-on-frand-and-open-source [04:05] Someone needs to add print-manager to the package list for the kubuntu-automation scripts [05:02] afiestas: I tried to rebuild kamoso with the new libs from 4.9.80 and it fails with this error: http://paste.debian.net/211931/ is this something you've fixed already? [05:11] kphotoalbum fails too (even the one from debian/experimental) [05:11] * ScottK will file a bug. [05:12] That leaves Digikam as the major non-SC package that's entangled with getting all of 4.9.80 from proposed to release. [05:22] https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310593 [05:22] KDE bug 310593 in general "Fails to build with libraries for KDE SC 4.10 (i.e. 4.9.80)" [Major,Unconfirmed] [05:35] ScottK: add perlkde to that [05:35] for some reason it's not picking up akonadi [05:35] I just uploaded it. [05:35] jr did a patch that was in ninjas [05:35] oh cool [05:37] So I think now it's mostly a matter of waiting for powerpc to build. [05:38] shadeslayer: If you wanted to start on the libs package for KDE Games, that would enable people to package a game here and there as they have time. [05:39] okay [05:39] the only problem is that I have to leave in another hour or so [05:39] * shadeslayer gives it a go anyway [05:41] shadeslayer: Or you could package https://projects.kde.org/projects/playground/accessibility/libkdeaccessibilityclient so kmag works better. [05:42] already started on libkdegames [05:46] OK [05:46] Fixed up the package list in kubuntu-automation. [05:48] question, should I ship private libs with the public libs package or make a separate package called libkdegamesprivate1 and make libkdegames6 depend on that? [05:54] * shadeslayer bundles with public libs for now [06:03] shadeslayer: I'd have suggested split. [06:03] That's what we did with akonadi, IIRC> [06:04] hmm [06:05] well ... the do have a separate so version as well [06:15] I'll have to go in 10 minutes, so initial packaging in lp:~rohangarg/+junk/libkdegames [06:15] https://code.launchpad.net/~rohangarg/+junk/libkdegames [06:15] primarily stuff like symbols and copyright is left [07:36] ::workspace-bugs:: [1082345] dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/kde-window-manager-common_4%3a4.9.80-0ubunt... @ https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1082345 (by Marcin Juszkiewicz) [09:40] ::workspace-bugs:: [1082604] package kde-workspace-bin 4:4.9.3-0ubuntu2 failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite ... @ https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1082604 (by Alex Buell) === G4MBY2 is now known as r99 [11:41] ::workspace-bugs:: [1082625] package kde-workspace-bin 4:4.9.3-0ubuntu2 failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite ... @ https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1082625 (by Christian) [11:44] claydoh: able to handle this? http://paste.kde.org/613814/ === Mamarok is now known as Guest38965 [12:51] Hey all [13:19] Anybody trying the new beta of KDE SC 4.10 with daily 13.04 Kubuntu Builds? Muon found the update, and after I applied it, I lost some indicator plasmoids on my panel, and the shutdown option was gone from my exit tab on the Kickoff Application Launcher. [13:19] I think I am running a pretty generic Kubuntu 13.04 install, accepting all updates, and the only KDE app I am running out of the ordinary was Rekonq 1.3, which I compiled myself. === schmidtm_ is now known as schmidtm [13:43] ok, back, resuming libkdegames [13:57] hmm odd [14:17] anyone fancy populating debian/copyright for libkdegames? :P [14:33] this thing has GPL v2 / GPL v2+ / LGPL-2 / LGPL-2+ / Custom license [14:33] oh wait [14:33] BSD as well [14:34] I guess the only thing left is Apache and MIT [14:39] shadeslayer: I am sure there are far too many [14:39] well ... those are the major ones :) [14:40] still, for one package? That is just absurd [14:40] yep [14:41] espceially the v2 you can remove if there already is v2+ [14:41] this is redundant [14:41] and the custon license seems like a bad idea [14:42] get in touch with the authors and ask them to sort that out, it just makes no sense at all [14:42] they can ask for help in the eV [14:43] Mamarok: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegames/libkdegames/repository/revisions/master/entry/highscore/kscoredialog.h#L7 [14:43] that is not even a proper license [14:44] I agree [14:44] they really should sort that out [14:44] you can't ship a mix like that [14:45] ask in the games mailing list and make then aware that without a proper license the package can't be shipped by distributions [14:45] since it's a lib, shouldn't it all be under LGPL? [14:45] that is to the authors to solve that, not to you [14:45] but they really have to sort that out, in that stage this is not shipable [14:46] they need to decide on a proper license [14:46] and since I don't know all the other dependencies let them sort that out [14:47] * shadeslayer will email the KDE Games ML then [14:47] yes, copy to kubuntu-devel [14:48] aye [14:48] ScottK: just to make sure, do we have such weird licenses in the repo? https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegames/libkdegames/repository/revisions/master/entry/highscore/kscoredialog.h#L7 [14:49] hmm I wonder what the older package did [14:50] this is a fun copyright file to look at [14:50] it has a email conversation in it [14:51] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/raring/kdegames/raring/view/head:/debian/copyright#L325 [14:53] oh my [14:54] and why are there copyright headers for card decks in that file? Thy should get legal counsellin, that is just totally absurd [14:56] maybe also remind then that KDE is an associate organisation of the FSFE, so legal counselling is available [14:56] all this copyright stuff has made me hungry :] [14:58] * Mamarok is eating cake with tea [14:58] * shadeslayer has no idea what's for dinner [14:59] ask? [15:00] I don't think anything is cooking ... [15:00] * shadeslayer peeks into the kitchen [15:01] hmm, some leftover food from lunch ... [15:02] leftovers are usually yummy === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan [15:35] shadeslayer: That license is fine. It's a BSD license variant. [15:40] ScottK: then it should say so [15:41] Mamarok: the literal BSD license can't properly be used by anything but the University of California. [15:41] (since part of the text of it is Copyright Regents of the University of California) [15:42] So seeing BSDish variants is really quite common. [15:42] ScottK: that I know, but if this is a license then it should say so, with the workd "license" [15:42] word* [15:43] Right. Not arguing it's ideal, just that it's not a problem and not wildly different than a lot of other things. [15:43] still, they should make correct license headers to avoid any ambiguity [15:43] When asked, I usually recommend the MIT license over BSD/some BSD variant. [15:45] ScottK: agreed, but the problem still is that they need to word their licenses correctly aka name the license explicitly [15:46] I agree that would be better. [15:47] There are copyrights in that file that go back to 1998. [15:47] I suspect that's where the license comes from. [15:47] it is a giant mess IMO [15:47] (such things used to be much more common than they are now) [15:47] That would likely make it difficult to change. [15:48] and I bet there is little to no code left from the start, so it makes not much sense [15:48] Could be. [15:48] but yes, if people do not adhere to s clear license structure you end up with a mess like that [15:48] s/s/a/ [15:48] Mamarok meant: "but yea, if people do not adhere to s clear license structure you end up with a mess like that" [15:48] oops [15:49] *a clear license structure [15:49] OTOH, it's clearly a free license and compatible with other KDE licenses, so I don't see an actual problem that results from it. [15:50] well, the problem is that the text is ambiguous as it doesn't clearly state the license it is. Mind you, I talk about https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdegames/libkdegames/repository/revisions/master/entry/highscore/kscoredialog.h#L7 [15:51] Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted ... [15:51] That is sufficient. [15:51] None of the following conditions render it non-free. [15:55] Mamarok: The actual BSD license doesn't have the word license in it: http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php [15:56] well, once usually starts a license header with the name of the license [15:57] one* [15:59] like this: *This program is Free Software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the " [16:02] the BSD license really doesn't work that way since there's not just one. [16:03] Specifying BSD license might actually cause more confusion. [16:05] Would someone else try to rebuild calligra? [16:05] Hey guys. Sorry it's been a while. [16:05] We need to rebuiild it against the new kdegraphics libs and I get an unrelated build failure. [16:05] Heya Darkwing. [16:06] Hye ScottK. I'm finally stable again. :D [16:06] Great. === yofel_ is now known as yofel [16:16] hey Darkwing :) [16:18] ScottK: what variant is that actually? 3-clause? [16:21] yofel: http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause yes [16:21] k [16:22] just to give an update. I'm finally in school and I finally have a place to stay and steady internet. :) [16:22] So, I'll actually be around for this cycle. [16:22] good to have you back, we were a bit worried already as you've been absent for a while :) [16:23] Yeah, I was just really stuggling with life issues. [16:36] * yofel tries to rebuild digikam [16:37] Darkwing: \o/ [16:37] * Quintasan pats Darkwing [16:38] Love burndown charts [16:38] I have 2 tasks in a blueprint [16:38] done one and burndown chart says it's 33% done [16:38] :D [16:38] I need to get on board with what happened at UDS :D [16:38] Quintasan: You'll need the new digikam. It's in Debian experimental, but it needs to be modified not to use the embedded libs. [16:40] ScottK: I'll need it for what? [16:40] To get something that build. [16:40] * Quintasan doesn't follow [16:41] ScottK: Could you explain it with --verbose? :P [16:41] There are API changes in the libs that Digikam uses in 4.9.80 [16:42] I know our current Digikam won't build with it. [16:42] meh, true [16:42] might as well package 3b3 then [16:42] The digikam devs also do the kdegraphics libs, so they bundle a copy with Digikam. [16:43] Since Debian doesn't have the newer graphics libs, their package uses the embedded libs. Since we have them now, we'll need to use the system libs. [16:43] ScottK: So you want me to do that? [16:43] Yes. [16:43] Someone needs to. [16:44] Quintasan: feel free to take over bug 1045767 then [16:44] Launchpad bug 1045767 in digikam (Ubuntu) "Please update digikam to 3.0-beta3" [Wishlist,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1045767 [16:44] We need digikam, calligra, kphotoalbum, and kamoso to build before the 4.9.0 stuff will migrate from proposed. [16:45] Riddell: I deleted print-manager off the pad. I uploaded it last night. [16:46] That and the kdepim FTBFS on armhf are the major blockers for being "done" with 4.9.80 [17:12] looks like lcms2 is only available in 12.10 :-/ [17:16] will there be KDE 4.10 backports for 12.04 ? [17:19] * yofel fixes some more kde-workspace overwrites [17:22] what the hell is a kinfocenter.install.linux file o.O? [17:22] that's what's causing the file conflicts in the first place [17:27] Riddell: did those files show up in list-missing? (as you added them to the other packages for 4.9.80) [17:30] oy: Probably yes [17:31] * yofel out for a while [17:36] fun, I can't log out anymore after updating to 4.9.80 [17:36] the window never shows up [17:36] gone for real now [17:36] ok, will prepare for both cases (lcms1 only / + lcms2) [17:49] yofel: mm I guess so (guessing without looking at it) [17:49] kinfocenter.install.linux is files that only install on linux, not on kfreebsd or any other debian oddity [18:26] re [18:27] Riddell: if it did that would be a bug in list-missing though, not your fault [18:27] * yofel didn't do a test build after removing the files [18:29] Quintasan: are you going to do digikam now or not? If not I might look at it tomorrow, not sure if I'll have enough time though [18:30] yofel: Not today. [18:31] Quintasan: the bug is still assigned to me, so I would like to have a yes or no answer before we both start working on it... [18:31] I won't mind if you do it ^^ [18:35] new knotify is nice :) [18:40] yofel: No. [18:40] ok [18:40] thanks [19:06] ScottK: nope, can you report a bug pls? [19:06] afiestas: Will do. Thanks. [19:11] afiestas: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310618 [19:11] KDE bug 310618 in general "Fails to build with libraries for KDE SC 4.10 (i.e. 4.9.80)" [Major,New] [21:02] Are these instructions still current? http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/packaging-new-software.html [21:03] I have successfully compiled and installed reknoq 1.3 but I am getting: bzr: ERROR: unknown command "dh-make" [21:03] In the Starting a Package section. [21:09] you'll need to install dh-make [21:09] oh and bzr-builddeb [21:10] at least if you want to use bzr like that guide suggests, many people don't [21:14] Riddell: TY. I already had dh-make installed. Installing bzr-builddeb now. Is there an easier cookbook? [21:19] mparillo: well yeah, that I'm not too sure on [21:20] this is the debian one http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/ [21:20] which doesn't confuse you with bzr stuff that isn't much used [21:20] but is a bit long and convoluted [21:22] and of course you can ask here or in #ubuntu-motu [21:28] Thx, and I do not want to slow you down on the KDE SC 4.10 beta. But, installing builddeb helped me get to the next error message. [21:28] bzr dh-make rekonq 1.3 rekonq-1.3.tar.bz2 [21:28] bzr: ERROR: Either run the command from an existing branch of upstream, or move rekonq aside and a new branch will be created there. [21:34] mparillo: I don't know what that error means as I don't use bzr for that, but why aren't you basing it off the existing package? [21:36] Because I was following the directions like a monkey? [21:37] The existing Rekonq package is 1.1, and I have now compiled 1.3. [21:41] mparillo, I wish rekonq the best , but I'm still skeptical [21:41] hm, uscan gives me 1.70 :/ [21:43] 1.70 is the beta for Rekonq 2. I tried it, but it was way too unstable, so I dropped back to 1.3. [21:47] * yofel gives it a try [21:48] and the new knotify can't handle more text than it's window can display. It just cuts it off [21:49] kubotu: newversion rekonq 1.70 [21:49] To see why I think 1.70 is the beta for Rekonq 2, look at the target for taste it now from: http://rekonq.kde.org/ [21:49] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1082738 [21:49] from the verison 1.70 sounds rather like alpha [21:49] well, the site does say tech preview [21:50] 1.70 certainly did not seem very stable enough for me. [21:51] Coming stable for xmas... [21:51] let's see what comes out of it [21:51] I'll stuff a package into the experimental ppa if someone wants to try it [21:51] raring should rather get 1.3 so we can backport it [21:52] mparillo: I can take you through the old-style package update process [21:52] no idea how that's done with UDD and bzr [21:54] Not to sound too ungrateful, but I will be in and out. But I am ready for step 1. [21:55] rekonq shouldn't take too long [21:56] get the tar, ensure it follows the right name pattern, apt-get source rekonq to get the current package, copy over the debian/ directory, dch for a new changelog and debuild to build it [21:56] [22:06] OK, now I have tars for both 1.1 and 1.3. 1.1 has the debian/directory (because it was from apt-get source?), but 1.3 does not (because it came from git clone?) [22:08] mparillo: 1.1 has the debian/ dir because it's from the archive, yes. [22:09] 1.3 shouldn't be from git, but the unpacked tarball. Which won't have the packaging as that's distribution-specific [22:09] copy the debian folder from 1.1 over to 1.3 and add a new changelog entry for 1.3 [22:43] OK, I added a new changelog entry for 1.3 at the top of debian/changelog [22:44] but I did it using kate. Was that a mistake. I see upwards Riddell says use dch [22:45] doesn't matter but dch will give you the template so you don't have to do any copy and paste [22:50] OK, I deleted the 1.3/debian directory, and recopied the 1.1/debian directory. [22:53] It seemed to be about the same thing, this time using nano (my choice). Now I use debuild from my rekonq 1.3 directory? [22:57] mparillo: yep that'll do the package build [23:02] hmm I have a rekonq-1.3.tar.bz2, but debuild was hoping to find rekonq_1.3.orig.tar.bz2 [23:05] mparillo: mv is a handy command in these situations :) [23:05] rename it [23:05] packaging is very paticular about the name of the tar [23:11] Not only does it need to be named correctly, it needs to be in the parent directory. I suppose my next step is to apt-get install pkg-kde-tools ? It is a build dependency? [23:11] you can run 'sudo apt-get build-dep rekonq' to get the build-deps for the archive package in one go [23:12] (i.e. that'll get the build-deps that 1.1 needed) [23:15] mparillo: I hope you're taking notes :) [23:18] If I succeed, I will try to edit this IRC log. Next time I ask for a cookbook, somebody might suggest I draft one. [23:22] Alas, I have far too many fatal errors, even for a pastebin. I guess I have wasted all your time, but thank you both. [23:22] feel free to put them on paste.ubuntu.com anyway [23:28] The errors overflowed my Konsole buffer, but here is the end: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1383957/ [23:40] mparillo: somehow your rekonq-1.3 folder doesn't match with the tarball contents and you left the build/ folder in it [23:40] unpack the tar again, copy the debian folder over and try debuild again