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