=== mspencer_ is now known as mdspencer === RAOF_ is now known as RAOF === shadeslayer_ is now known as shadeslayer === Ursinha_ is now known as Ursinha === chilicuil_away is now known as chilicuil [08:00] good morning [08:08] good morning daniel o/ [08:10] hi Rcart === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away [10:42] Hello, [11:27] dholbach: thanks for the "clearing the queue" mail. the only solution, i came up with, was to throw more people at the queue. [11:27] yes [11:27] I just had a look at ~10 entries in there [11:28] if we all help out, and everybody with upload rights should, we'll get there [11:31] dholbach: can we have a list of sponsor items associated with the last uploader? [11:31] then we could poke people at looking at the sponsor request instead of just asking in general [11:32] hum, I'm not quite sure what you'd like to do [11:32] dholbach: https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/scheme2c/debian-merge/+merge/136770 -> is that done? if yes, why is it still in the queue? [11:32] it's uploaded, but the merge has not happened in LP yet [11:33] dholbach: can we get it technically out of the queue? maybe setting: in progress or checking -proposed? [11:34] example for my idea: bug 1075994 -> package lvm2 -> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lvm2/2.02.95-5ubuntu1 -> last uploader: xnox [11:34] bdrung, I don't know - I'll mark it as merged when it's merged in LP [11:35] ah, no, that's not easy to be done :-/ === lenios__ is now known as lenios === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw [12:02] dholbach: where should the uploaded branch pushed to? ubuntu:package? [12:02] bdrung, I usually wait for LP to automatically merge it :) [12:03] but yes [12:11] bdrung: hm? [12:12] bdrung: hmm that needs more work. Ok i'll get around to it. [12:17] xnox: i gave dholbach an example how to poke people to do sponsoring (by determing the last uploader) [12:17] bdrung: very scientific =) [12:18] /msg bdrung shhhh don't give the secrets away to dholbach [12:18] * xnox whoops [12:18] xnox: but it seams to work (in this small case example) :D [12:28] dholbach: btw, is logan ready for MOTU? [12:54] bdrung, I just sent him a d-a-t mail about the same topic earlier today ;-) [12:54] I believe he is [12:55] I'll let you know about his reply [12:56] dholbach: d-a-t? [12:56] dev advisory team === Zic is now known as Guest73291 === dpm_ is now known as dpm === Guest73291 is now known as Zic === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ === yofel_ is now known as yofel === LordOfTime is now known as TheLordOfTime === chilicuil is now known as chilicuil_away === 20WABM4XS is now known as jussi === jussi is now known as jussi01 === jussi01 is now known as jussi === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw [15:50] micahg: Laney: dholbach: bdrung: MOTU meeting in 10 minutes [15:50] holy [15:50] or so my calendar tells me =) [15:51] * xnox may or may not be even/odd week out of sync [15:51] * Laney has no idea [15:51] we missed loads [15:51] let's do it in any case :) [15:51] will that be the first one in raring ? =) [15:51] sure [15:52] it's a good side activity while i'm breaking the archive [15:52] muhahaha [15:52] Laney: well we can agreed on what to break next ;-) [15:59] * tumbleweed adjurns to the pub, where I'll stick my nose into the meeting [16:00] shall we? [16:00] Here or -meeting? [16:01] * Laney points over there [16:01] MOTU Meeting in #ubuntu-meeting [16:04] with dpkg-deb -I mypackage.deb. I see: Depends: ....., libproj0, [16:04] how can I get it to put libproj0 (>= 4.8) ? [16:04] I specified my version in the build-depends on my control... [16:04] aboudreault, in the control file, under Depends, make sure it says libproj0 (>= 4.8) [16:05] well, we use: ${shlibs:Depends}, [16:05] I see a lot of other dep packages that are with their version number, why not libproj0? [16:05] if you want it to define a specific minimum requirement for libproj0, add it yourself. [16:06] but why other packages are ok? ie. libgeos-c1 (>= 3.3.3) [16:06] with only shlibs [16:06] isnt shlibs:Depends 's output an automated detection system...? [16:06] or something. [16:06] yes. [16:07] trying to see why it works for all other packages [16:08] my control file: http://pastebin.com/zp0nwdP4 [16:09] and the dpkg-deb -I output: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.14), libcairo2 (>= 1.2.4), libcurl3-gnutls (>= 7.16.2-1), libfreetype6 (>= 2.2.1), libfribidi0 (>= 0.19.2), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), libgd2-xpm (>= 2.0.36~rc1~dfsg), libgdal1 (>= 1.9.0), libgeos-c1 (>= 3.3.3), libgif4 (>= 4.1.4), libjpeg8 (>= 8c), libpng12-0 (>= 1.2.13-4), libpq5, libproj0, libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1), libxml2 (>= 2.7.4) [16:10] libproj doesn't call dh_makeshlibs with -V and doesn't have a symbols file or other override, so its reverse dependencies don't get versioned deps [16:11] Laney, for versioned deps, it'd need to be explicitly defined, righit? [16:11] (i.e. the packager defines it manually?) [16:12] for that one dependency (libproj) [16:12] Laney, this would be IN the proj package? [16:12] right [16:13] why do you need the version? [16:13] because we did an upgrade.... but now my package thinks that the old libproj0 is OK... but it isn't [16:13] o/ [16:13] since the ABI changed. [16:14] (that's a hello, for disambiguation purposes) [16:14] highvoltage, that's not a hello, it means you have a question. thanks for the explanation :P [16:15] Laney, well... another package (that works) just call dh_makeshlibs -- -c0, and proj call dh_makeshlibs -a [16:16] aboudreault: If the abi changed, it should have a new soname. [16:17] I suppose he means new symbols [16:17] Maybe. [16:17] it's new package, from 4.7 -> 4.8 [16:17] At least a new soversion. [16:17] I see [16:17] aboudreault: does that other package have a debian/*.symbols file? [16:18] no it doesn't [16:18] what is it? [16:18] ? [16:18] which package [16:18] *proj* [16:19] the one that you say works [16:19] *gdal* works [16:19] gdal has .symbols file [16:19] that'll be why [16:19] you might like to submit a patch for proj to give it a symbols file [16:19] dholbach: can I commit this to u-p-g: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1394918/? [16:20] hey btw :) [16:20] mitya57, sure, feel free to run 'make gettext' at the same time [16:20] Laney, .symbols file have to be generated manually? [16:20] mitya57, how did the ppa builds of sphinx go? did you copy them over to the packaging guide ppa? [16:22] aboudreault: there are tools to help - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/stefanlsd/dpkg-gensymbols [16:22] Laney, yes, but should I add this IN my debian/rules, or simply add the symbol files myself? [16:22] you need to create a symbols file yourself and put that into debian/ [16:22] the build system will then check if new symbols appear/disappear by looking at that file [16:23] and then you amend things as necessary [16:23] dholbach, I managed to upload it to my ppa only today, not built yet [16:23] Laney, ok, we'll give this a try [16:23] mitya57, gotcha [16:24] dholbach, for some reason ubuntu tarball of sphinx is not really dfsg and contains files that were removed in debian [16:24] hum - did it get uploaded in Ubuntu first? [16:25] no [16:25] hm [16:25] it was introduced to Ubuntu through https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sphinx/1.1.3+dfsg-2ubuntu1 [16:25] I see, yes [16:25] so theoretically the tarball should not differ from Debian [16:28] mitya57: are you sure it's the tarball and not some source format 3 silly reversion? [16:29] micahg: well, md5sums on packages.debian.org and packages.ubuntu.com differ... [16:29] mitya57: ah, that's annoying... [16:42] what's the right BD for --with python2? [16:42] * Laney again shows his ignorance of all things cool [16:43] 'python'? [16:45] Laney: one of many... [16:46] that package appears to have Sequence/python2.pm [16:46] Laney: from the Debian wiki: Bump minimum required python-all (or python, python-dev, python-all-dev) package version to 2.6.6-3~ [16:46] (read /usr/share/doc/python/changelog.Debian.gz to check if you need a newer version) [16:46] heh [16:46] that's the version I use. You can get away with a slightly lower version in Ubuntu [16:46] but I think that's only useful for releases that are no longer supported === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ [16:47] ta [16:49] tumbleweed: lucid is quite supported :) [16:50] micahg: no dh_python2 on lucid [16:50] it first appeared in maverick, with a version lower than 2.6.6-3~ IIRC [16:50] tumbleweed: exactly :) [16:51] it prevents stuff from breaking on lucid === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw [17:01] dholbach, it decided to not build on precise: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/124426398/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.sphinx_1.1.3%2Bdfsg-5ubuntu1~ppa1~12.04_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [17:01] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/124426398/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-i386.sphinx_1.1.3%2Bdfsg-5ubuntu1~ppa1~12.04_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [17:01] AssertionError: latex exited with return code 1 [17:02] mitya57, I think we have a bug open about it, might be good to follow up on there with a link to the build log [17:04] dholbach, which bug? [17:05] hello there, I'm working on a bug present since 11.10: bug 943195 [17:05] Launchpad bug 943195 in xpdf (Ubuntu) "xpdf.real crashed with SIGSEGV in GooHash::hash()" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/943195 === Rcart_ is now known as Rcart [17:05] the bug is reported in upstream, with patch available but not applied [17:06] mitya57, I would need to go and find it [17:06] I've successfuly applied the patch in precise, and the bug is corrected [17:07] mitya57, ok, we might need a new bug - it's gone :) [17:07] where was it at least — on LP or on bitbucket? [17:08] and I would like to know if that fix is could be a SRU [17:08] on LP - I believe it was a packaging guide bug, as it was mostly just relevant to us and our PPA [17:11] dholbach, the version currently in ppa (-4ubuntu4) built on precise [17:12] and I don't see anything in -5 changelog that could cause the failure [17:12] mh, no idea right now [17:14] I'll now try to add l10n_fixes.diff to that (built) version and try to build that [17:15] Rcart, it would be good to have that SRUed but the fix needs to land in raring first [17:19] thanks mitya57 [17:19] I'll have to rush out in a bit [17:19] so thanks again for your work on this! [17:19] I'll copy the quantal version now anyway [17:25] thanks mitya57 [17:25] mitya57: in raring, the patch available (in debian) for that xpdf specific version rejects [17:25] Rcart, so you should fix that I think [17:26] a SRU cannot fit a previous release while not fixed in development version? [17:36] hahaha [17:37] xnox: so it /was/ the wrong week (-motu@) [17:37] Laney: I don't know who broke the order (UDS?), it's in my calendar for this week.... [17:37] Rcart, yes, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure [17:37] * micahg thought so [17:38] oh well [17:47] xnox: your calendar doesn't take into account 5 Thursday months :) [17:48] micahg: it does. [17:49] micahg: unless there are special rules around motu meetings and 5 thursday months =) [17:49] xnox: yes, we skip the 5th Thursday :0 === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === phihag_ is now known as phihag3 === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha [18:15] mitya57: Ok, thanks (: [19:58] does anyone have tested the open build service ? [20:04] I've played with it. [20:07] cody-somerville, how is it? does it build proper source packages for official debian/ubuntu etc?? [20:07] No, the source packages are not proper the last time I checked. [20:07] You have to upload sort of a hybrid thing. [20:07] and the repository it creates is flat [20:08] I see [20:09] The service overall has some really great features though [20:09] and there's some integration with the Suse Studio image build service as well which is real nice [20:11] is it normal that mongodb fills your disk when you start it? ... [20:13] now where did it puts its junk ... [20:41] hi all [20:41] I have a problem to build doc-debian [20:42] this is the make file http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1397706/ [20:43] when i run pbuilder, I got this error: ERROR: Cannot find ~/debian/www/webwml/english to regenerate the sources. Please read the TODO. [20:43] and as you notice, this error is handled into the makefile [20:45] alo21: that should've been fixed with http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690791 [20:45] Debian bug 690791 in doc-debian "building from source an inconvenient process" [Important,Fixed] [20:53] micahg: weird [20:57] micahg: what do you suggest? [20:59] idk, no time to look into it [22:03] Laney, it works! Thanks a lot === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away [23:36] cjwatson: which kind of packages build depend on devscripts? [23:36] what do they need from devscripts?