=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === chilicuil is now known as chilicuil_away === bobweaver is now known as wilson_kin_ === wilson_kin_ is now known as col-forbin === col-forbin is now known as kernel-phorbin === kernel-phorbin is now known as bobweaver === yofel_ is now known as yofel === Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_aw === chilicuil_away is now known as chilicuil [21:34] micahg: ping ipython backport [21:35] jtaylor: hi, sorry, will try to take a look at bit later todya [21:58] Is "Would like to have an updated version of $package in $release" a valid backport reason? [21:58] depends on the impact [21:59] universe package ZNC [21:59] an IRC boucner. [21:59] if no rdepends thats probably fine [21:59] what's the command to check for rdeps again? [21:59] oh wait [21:59] TheLordOfTime: as long as you do the reverse dependency testing, sure [21:59] requestbackport... the message says this (havent filed yet): No reverse dependencies [21:59] micahg, how thorough is requestbackport's rdeps checking? [22:00] should be pretty thorough [22:06] okay, i've filed the backport request for ZNC (to Quantal), and i plan on testing it in about an hour and a half after i'm back at home. (build tests already were done though :P) [22:32] micahg, for packages with debug symbols, is it OK to just check and see if it installs? Kinda hard to test debug symbols for whether it runs... [22:33] TheLordOfTime: yeah, that's fine === chilicuil is now known as chilicuil_away [23:37] micahg, https://bugs.launchpad.net/quantal-backports/+bug/1085731 <-- all's checked, but if you're not busy, got a question (on a bug I referenced in the backport bug) [23:37] Launchpad bug 1085731 in Quantal Backports "Please backport znc 1.0-1 (universe) from raring" [Undecided,New] [23:38] * xnox ponders if I should be excited or cautious.... [23:38] * xnox runs znc [23:39] its IRC bouncer software :P [23:39] TheLordOfTime: depending on build-essential is wrong [23:39] micahg, then what should it depend on? [23:39] other than the compilers? [23:39] (which, right now, i don't have the list for) [23:40] you can depend on non-default compiler versions if need be [23:40] but that also seems wrong for a dev package [23:40] micahg, the -dev package contains the binary znc-buildmod [23:40] which depends on the compilers [23:40] a dev package just provides headers for other programs to use to build somethin else [23:40] it's not a standard "dev" package [23:41] TheLordOfTime: does it ship source code? [23:41] indeed, but znc-dev isn't written that way [23:41] xnox, for ZNC? it does. [23:41] xnox, znc-buildmod is built in the build process. [23:41] if you're building, you'll have build-essential installed or you're doing it wrong [23:41] its installed with znc-deb [23:41] znc-dev [23:41] * [23:41] i'm not the writer of the package. [23:41] micahg: I bet it's something crazy like dkms modules. [23:41] take it up with the debian maintainer, its updated there. [23:42] * xnox goes to pull-debian-source [23:42] * micahg waits for the Debian bug to be closed as won't fix... [23:43] hrm, a dev package shipping a bin file... [23:44] TheLordOfTime: we ship a compiler by default for dkms like purposes [23:44] micahg, in *all* ubuntu ISOs? [23:44] micahg, last i checked it doesn't install automagicallty [23:45] from Precise: apt-cache show gcc | grep Task [23:45] Task: ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-usb, edubuntu-desktop, edubuntu-usb, edubuntu-desktop-kde, xubuntu-desktop, mythbuntu-frontend, mythbuntu-desktop, mythbuntu-backend-slave, mythbuntu-backend-master, ubuntustudio-desktop [23:45] IIRC it's in /pool so only installed if the installer detects the need for one of the dkms drivers [23:47] then this is not satisfactory, given that: IF (gcc / g++ != installed all the time to all systems by default) THEN (znc's module-builder will not correctly work unless its installer package (znc-dev at the moment) is dependent on the compilers or dependent on build-essential) [23:48] hrm, well, I guess it can't be any worse than dkms (which has an alternate build dependency on build-essential) [23:49] I'm going to talk via email with the debian maintainer to see whether they'd be willing to move away from the name of the "-dev" package and change it to something else, or include the module builder as part of just 'znc' [23:49] yeah, you'd probably want to break out the module building into another package [23:49] its in -dev now [23:49] right [23:49] i suggested a rename to them of -dev to -buildmod [23:50] well, -dev is still useful for in archive headers building [23:50] well, we'll see what they say. [23:50] in any case, that's the only open bug against it, fixable with a manual install of build-essential [23:51] although i run an after-install script that pulls that in anyways for my VMs/containers/systems, so... :P [23:51] (among other packages) [23:57] * micahg guesses depending on build-essential isn't as crazy as previously thought [23:58] right, it's build depending that would be very wrong (but there's still one package that does it) [23:58] true, but its depending, not builddepping on it [23:58] since the builders autopull compilers anyways, no?