[07:51] <dholbach> good morning
[16:42] <obounaim> Hunk #1 succeeded at 17 with fuzz 1. what does it mean?
[16:44] <Logan_> It means that a part of a patch applied correctly, but it was one line off of what is specified in the patch.
[16:45] <ScottK> Logan_: Isn't that offset 1?
[16:47] <ScottK> Fuzz is the number of lines of context that had to be ignored to make the patch apply.
[16:47] <Laney> It's if the context is a bit different
[16:47] <Laney> patch(1) explains it
[16:47] <Logan_> Oh, right, my bad.
[16:47] <ScottK> obounaim: It merits manual investigation to make sure the patch applied where you wanted and still does what you want.
[16:49] <obounaim> Ok, thanks all of you.
[16:50] <micahg> jtaylor: sorry I didn't get to look at your backport this weekend, I'll try to squeeze it in at some point
[16:50] <ScottK> Logan_: Are you Logen Rosen?
[16:50] <Logan_> That's me.
[16:51] <ScottK> Logan_: Forwarding new version should be packaged bugs to Debian while they are in pre-release freeze isn't particularly likely to be of benefit.
[16:52] <ScottK> (I noticed the skanlite one because I'm subscribed to the relevant Debian mailing list)
[16:52] <Logan_> True, but it encourages the maintainer to fix it after the freeze. And we can always submit a patch if the change is applied in Ubuntu first.
[16:55] <ScottK> It also causes maintainer annoyance at Ubuntu.
[22:30] <Logan_> jtaylor: poke
[22:30] <jtaylor> Logan_: ?
[22:31] <Logan_> jtaylor: I'm doing a merge of pyg from Debian, and I noticed that you "include required string.h in wlp/C/commands.{l,y}" - this was done in Debian, but only for the .y file - should the .l delta remain?
[22:32] <jtaylor> hm is the l file autogenerated?
[22:32] <Logan_> i.e. include 'string.h' was only done in commands.y in Debian, and not in .l, as it was in Ubuntu
[22:32] <jtaylor> I'm not very familiar with this lexing stuff
[22:32] <Logan_> actually, it probably is
[22:33] <jtaylor> I just patched both and the warning disappeared, possibly the l patch was not needed
[22:33] <jtaylor> if the implicit declaration warning is gone you can drop it
[22:33] <Logan_> alright, cool, thanks