[00:04] <TheLordOfTime> any MOTU able to approve a bug nomination for Lucid so it actually shows up as "Lucid" in the bug?
[00:05] <TheLordOfTime> or should i be poking a different set of people?  (its a "Universe" package's bug so... thought i'd start here)
[00:05] <xnox> TheLordOfTime: pasting the bug number helps better than asking to ask a question about a bug =))))) what's the bug #?
[00:05] <TheLordOfTime> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/znc/+bug/1088390
[00:06] <TheLordOfTime> xnox, but i'm checking with upstream to see if this is really an issue with the package itself :P
[00:06] <TheLordOfTime> (nevertheless, the reporter has stated that its fixed in Precise and later, so...)
[00:08] <xnox> TheLordOfTime: done, continue trianging ;-)
[00:10] <TheLordOfTime> xnox, thanks :)
[00:11] <TheLordOfTime> (althoug htechnically upstream is basically saying i should tell the user of lucid to just upgrade to 0.206 or newer,  which is the same as saying "Use Precise")
[00:11] <TheLordOfTime> (0.206 won't backport correctly, ran into issues just getting it to natty at the time, wherein package requirements were nonexistent and would end up requiring a TON of things to be backported, but would end with an FTBFS due to backports not being able to depend on backports or something)
[01:18] <phillw> Hi, is there a tame MOTU who could help?  libguestfs: error: cannot find any suitable libguestfs supermin, fixed or old-style appliance on LIBGUESTFS_PATH (search path: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/guestfs)I believe that I fixed this in 1.18.5-3 which was uploaded to
[01:18] <phillw> Debian/unstable on or around 2012-07-19.
[01:18] <phillw>  me get I believe that I fixed this in 1.18.5-3 which was uploaded to
[01:18] <phillw> Debian/unstable on or around 2012-07-19.
[01:18] <phillw> actually progressed?
[01:20] <phillw> bug 1086974
[01:37] <TheLordOfTime> uhm...
[01:37] <TheLordOfTime> care to restate your request phillw?  you've got recursive words going around ;P
[01:37] <TheLordOfTime> if i can't understand what you're asking, doubt a MOTU can either :P
[01:37] <xnox> phillw: sure, i'll do it sometime in the next week.
[01:38] <TheLordOfTime> or not :P
[01:38] <TheLordOfTime> (xnox is wizard at understanding things :P)
[01:38] <micahg> he merged the fixes in to raring :)
[01:38] <TheLordOfTime> ah, that explains things.
[01:38] <TheLordOfTime> oh good, you're here micahg.
[01:38] <xnox> micahg: RUN!
[01:38] <TheLordOfTime> care to guess what i'm about to poke you about?  :P
[01:39] <micahg> backporting a version that's no longer in the archive? :)
[01:39] <TheLordOfTime> actually, was oging to ask you two things, but...
[01:39] <TheLordOfTime> backports, yes.
[01:39] <TheLordOfTime> secondly, why is znc 1.0-2 listed as stuck in proposed still
[01:40] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: waiting for powerpc
[01:40] <TheLordOfTime> ... no way to push the i386/amd64 versions to raring without waiting for powerpc to build?
[01:40]  * TheLordOfTime will have to "fix committed" the bug that the sync actually "fixed" per se.
[01:41]  * TheLordOfTime preps uploads of 1.0-2 to his PPA.
[01:41] <phillw> xnox: the patch is there, but KVM with ubuntu is also having problems. I'm not sure as to what time should be allocated to it as there is the other KVM bug which is more important.
[01:42] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, because powerpc was, a few hours ago, at "24 minutes to build" then got dumped up to 2 hours to build
[01:42] <TheLordOfTime> if the queue for powerpc is that long, it'll never get out of -proposed :/
[01:42] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: webkit :)
[01:42] <TheLordOfTime> ...  have i mentioned recently i dislike powerpc with a passion?
[01:43] <TheLordOfTime> probably not :P
[01:43] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, should i amend the backport requests for znc 1.0-x to recheck for 1.0-2?
[01:43] <TheLordOfTime> or can we just cancel the backport request in progress and I go file a new one?
[01:43] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: if you want the new version backported, yes
[01:44] <micahg> just modifying is sufficient
[01:44] <TheLordOfTime> okay, given that 1.0-2 provides a solution for LP Bug 1085742, i'd think it'd be sufficient to test for 1.0-2.
[01:45] <TheLordOfTime> (solution was to "Recommend" the g++ compiler in the debian package)
[01:45] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: have I mentioned recently about the facts of kernels causing regerssions for PPC :)
[01:45] <TheLordOfTime> phillw, i don't track PPC, so its unlikely
[01:45] <TheLordOfTime> :P
[01:49] <phillw> possibly missed by most... bug 1066435
[01:50] <phillw> but, the request is... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libguestfs/+bug/1086974/comments/2
[01:51] <phillw> but the request is how do I action https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libguestfs/+bug/1086974/comments/2
[01:51] <phillw> sorry for the echo :(
[01:52] <TheLordOfTime> micahg, backport requests updated, i'm going to retest in a few days.
[08:00] <dholbach> good morning
[11:32] <murrayc> Is there any way to generate debian/copyright by scanning all the source files? Doing it by hand will take ages and be hard to keep up to date.
[11:34] <jtaylor> murrayc: licensecheck
[11:34] <murrayc> Thanks.
[11:34] <jtaylor> there is also /usr/lib/cdbs/licensecheck2dep5 which is useful but needs lots of manual checking
[11:36] <tumbleweed> easiest way to keep it up to date is to read the diffs before uploading new upstream verisons
[11:36] <tumbleweed> you do that anyway, right? :)
[11:36] <tumbleweed> one of the things I do when reading it is search for copyright
[11:36] <murrayc> I'm am creating my habits now.
[11:36] <murrayc> The duplication is a bit dull.
[11:37] <tumbleweed> what duplication?
[11:37] <murrayc> The same info is in debian/copyright and in the source files.
[11:37] <murrayc> One seems like just a view of the others.
[11:37] <tumbleweed> however, the source isn't shipped in the binary packages
[11:38] <tumbleweed> so, we need to include the copyright information it contains in the binaries, somehow
[11:39] <tumbleweed> it doubles as an audit of the licencing of the package
[11:39] <tumbleweed> which does need to be done before Ubuntu will distribute it
[11:40] <murrayc> Yeah, so it seems like the focus should be on getting the information correct in the source files, and just generating it each time, with some way to modify the generation if the source can't be changed.
[11:40] <murrayc> But I'm a (perpetual) newbie packager.
[11:41] <tumbleweed> yes, getting the upstream to clearly state copyright and licensing is a worthwhile goal
[11:41] <tumbleweed> it makes life easier for everyone else who modifies/distributes it
[11:42] <murrayc> I can ignore NEWS, README, etc, right?
[11:42] <tumbleweed> they're worth reading. And it's probably worth including NEWS in the binary package
[11:42] <murrayc> I mean, I don't need to specify the copyright of README?
[11:42] <tumbleweed> you don't need to go into prefect detail in your copyright file
[11:43] <tumbleweed> it's perfectly acceptable to say that everything is copyright these people, and distributable under this license
[11:43] <murrayc> OK, but real projects tend to have multiple copyright holders.
[11:43] <murrayc> When they care about specifying it in their source files.
[11:43] <tumbleweed> you can collate them, if the licenses are the same / compatible
[11:43] <Laney> Files: *\nCopyright: <union of all copyright holders>\nLicense: <whatever>
[11:44] <murrayc> copyright myproject-team is a bit of an avoidance.
[11:44] <tumbleweed> personally, I divide my copyright files up by licenses, and collate all the copyright holders and years
[11:44] <Laney> if everything is the same license, that is fine
[11:44] <murrayc> Anyway licensecheck plus licensecheck2deb5 seems useful.
[11:45] <tumbleweed> licensecheck is useful, but often gets licenses wrong
[11:45] <murrayc> Well, it seems better than nothing.
[11:45] <tumbleweed> so, it's more useful as a guide than a definitive source
[11:49] <murrayc> Thanks
[14:53] <jpds> Right, with the new order of "dh $@" --- how I do tell rules to chmod a file after it's been dh_install'ed ?
[14:54] <jtaylor> override_dh_fixperms:
[14:55] <jpds> jtaylor: Tried that, doesn't work when I do: debian/rules binary.
[14:55] <jtaylor> jpds: have you cleared the debhelper logs?
[14:55] <jtaylor> thats what dh uses instead of stamps
[14:59] <jpds> ls
[14:59] <jpds> jtaylor: Right, so.
[14:59] <jpds> $ fakeroot debian/rules binary
[14:59] <jpds> But I don't see the chmod in override_dh_fixperms being run.
[15:00] <jtaylor> even if you do a debian/rules clean first?
[15:00] <jpds> jtaylor: Yep.
[15:21] <jtaylor> can you show the rules
[16:13] <jpds> jtaylor: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1438174/
[16:13] <jtaylor> why do you install debhelper.mk?
[16:13] <jtaylor> include
[16:16] <jpds> jtaylor: I thought it was standard?
[16:16] <jtaylor> not with dh rules
[16:16] <jpds> jtaylor: Well, without it - I get: make: *** No rule to make target `binary'.  Stop.
[16:17] <jtaylor> you need to comment the dh in of course
[16:17] <jtaylor> override_dh only works with dh rules not cdbs rules
[16:27] <jpds> jtaylor: Great, thanks.
[16:41] <hlt32> Hi
[17:21] <hlt32> Join the #ubuntu-motu channel on irc.freenode.net and talk with the MOTU. It's good to do this early on, to get advice on how to package (avoid common mistakes), to find out if your package is likely to be accepted (before you invest a lot of work in packaging it), and to find mentors willing to sponsor your package or to point you in the right direction.
[17:22] <hlt32> Am I in the right place for this? :)
[17:22] <jtaylor> yes
[17:23] <hlt32> Cool, I guess the first question is to find out if I'm wasting my time ... I'm looking at packaging http://www.evefit.org/static/pyfa#faq directly for ubuntu.
[17:24] <hlt32> I checked the Debian package requests - there's an old dormant request from 2010, but also some comments that it is insufficiently "free" for even the non-free repo there and they would want the non-free data to be downloaded post installaiton.
[17:24] <hlt32> Would this be likely to be an issue here?
[17:27] <jtaylor> yes pretty much the same rules apply
[17:31] <hlt32> Would it matter that the programs source is licensed under the GPL, but contains data files licensed for non-commercial use?
[17:33] <jtaylor> hlt32: yes, the gpl part can be regulary packaged
[17:34] <jtaylor> but the non-commercial non distributable stuff needs to be handled differently
[17:34] <jtaylor> e.g. via downloading it in a postinst like flash
[17:35] <hlt32> so whether or not its licensed for non-commercal use doesnt matter - it can't live in the repo at all?
[17:35] <hlt32> (even in contrib ?)
[17:35] <jtaylor> non-commercial is not fre
[17:36] <jtaylor> it may go into multiverse, if its distributable
[17:36] <hlt32> ah good
[17:36] <jtaylor> in general we also don't advise to package directly for ubuntu but to try via debian
[17:37] <hlt32> I read that part, but I would prefer to avoid a postinst if possible.
[17:37] <hlt32> and I have philosophical issues with debians definition of free, which is partly why I use ubuntu
[17:39] <jtaylor> its not easy to find sponsors in ubuntu, especially for this type of package
[17:39] <jtaylor> I'd file it under not worth it
[17:39] <jtaylor> maybe its suitable for a ppa
[17:40] <hlt32> ah, thanks
[17:40] <hlt32> It's more of a learning experience than anything else I guess, I'll get it working in a PPA then go from there.