[04:12] <mfisch> where do I find the build logs for a given package?  I'm trying to figure out why libseccomp wasn't built for armhf
[04:12] <mfisch> it's not on the ftbfs page
[04:14] <mfisch> ah, looks like for precise it only made it in as amd64 and i386
[04:15] <mfisch> actually this may not exist for armhf at all
[04:51] <micahg> mfisch: check the debian/control file
[04:53] <micahg> mfisch: architectures are listed on teh build page as well: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libseccomp/1.0.1-1
[07:34] <gotwig> hey, can you tell me where I can find the relevant po strings , where "unity" is part of for the package jockey-gtk? I dont find it when I do apt-get source jockey-gtk from ubuntu 12.04. But I find it here: https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/jockey/+pots/jockey/de/+translate?batch=10&show=all&search=unity
[07:36] <gotwig> I want to fix bug #1032534
[07:41] <gotwig> morning, guys..
[07:53] <gotwig> hey, can you tell me where I can find the relevant po strings , where "unity" is part of for the package jockey-gtk? I dont find it when I do apt-get source jockey-gtk from ubuntu 12.04. But I find it here: https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/jockey/+pots/jockey/de/+translate?batch=10&show=all&search=unity I want to fix bug #1032534
[08:03] <dholbach> good morning
[11:03] <Rhonda> Hmm, why does libpulse0 have an epoche in ubuntu but not in Debian?   :/
[11:04] <Rhonda> Hmm, is Luke Yelavich around? :)
[11:04] <tumbleweed> some mistakes stick with us forever...
[11:04] <Rhonda> Yes, but maybe the Debian people could be convinced to add it too.
[11:05] <tumbleweed> Rhonda: he's TheMuso on IRC, don't see him around
[11:05] <persia> He seems away now (usually is TheMuso)
[11:05] <Rhonda> It's causing third-party packages to pick it up and thus make them non-usable for Debian  (read: steam)
[11:05] <Rhonda> I wonder if he tried to contact the pulseaudio maintainers of Debian for that.
[11:06] <Rhonda> And … I wonder if the people caring for libjpeg-turbo are willing to get that package into Debian, too.  :)
[11:07] <Rhonda> I wonder if I edit the meta data of the steam package to drop the epoch - is the epoch also somewhere within the library too, or should that actually work?
[11:07] <persia> I'd be careful about asserting that folk care long-term about specific packages in Ubuntu: while there are exceptions, a lot of the not-in-Debian stuff tends to bitrot if not gardened.
[11:08] <tumbleweed> libjpeg-turbo is fairly important, though
[11:08] <persia> Shouldn't that only affect packaging stuff (dpkg, shlibs, etc.)?
[11:08] <Rhonda> persia: libjpeg-turbo is maintained by "ubuntu core developers" - so I would assume that there is some longtime interest in it, not?
[11:08] <Rhonda> Or do I read too much into that role? ;)
[11:08] <Zhenech> Rhonda, epochs should not be anywhere but debian metadata, so should work
[11:08] <tumbleweed> the Maintainer field means almost nothing in Ubuntu
[11:09]  * Rhonda cries on tumbleweed's shoulder :)
[11:09] <tumbleweed> Rhonda: it has advantages, too :)
[11:09] <tumbleweed> but on the whole, it means ubuntu-only packages get neglected
[11:09] <persia> tumbleweed: Sure, but I don't see lots of consistency in uploaders for the past year :)
[11:09] <Rhonda> even core team ones?
[11:10] <persia> Rhonda: core team stuff gets neglected *even more* than other stuff.
[11:10] <Rhonda> Can someone check the reverse depends of libjpeg-turbo8 please?  :)
[11:10] <tumbleweed> yes. things get cared about if they get used a lot / need to be cared about
[11:10] <Rhonda> persia: Don't burst my bubbles!
[11:10] <persia> *but* stuff that's core to Ubuntu (all flavours) is almost never neglected.
[11:11] <persia> We've had a number of cases where some team asserted control over a package and it became absolutely useless until it could be pried away from them again.
[11:11] <persia> As a result, we're fairly leery of that class of assertion.
[11:12] <persia> libjpeg-turbo8 rdepends are all also provided by the libjpeg-turbo source (I haven't checked recursively)
[11:14] <Rhonda> But libjpeg-turbo is neither in Debian. :)
[11:14] <persia> Rhonda: You could upload it ...
[11:14] <Rhonda> I don't even know what that is.  :)
[11:15] <Rhonda> And don't put another load onto my shoulder.  :/
[11:16] <persia> dget http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/libj/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo_1.2.1-0ubuntu2.dsc
[11:16] <persia> Heh, yeah, that's the problem with maintainers: one has to be confident of being a maintainer to upload :)
[11:16] <nigelb> Rhonda: Excuses like "I don't know what that is" tend to not work with persia.
[11:16] <nigelb> ;)
[11:17] <persia> Anyway, tgall_foo might be willing to be sponsored, if someone wanted to hunt him down (he doesn't hang out in this channel)
[11:17] <Rhonda> nigelb: Does excuses like "I'll do it if you care for my games in Debian for the time being, in exchange" work with persia?
[11:18] <persia> Rhonda: You know me better than that! :)
[11:18] <nigelb> Also, no.
[11:18] <nigelb> hahaha, persia answerd that better :P
[11:19] <Rhonda> persia: But we need something for your DM application!
[11:19] <Rhonda> You know you want to do it!
[11:19] <nigelb> Wait, persia isn't a DD?
[11:19] <nigelb> I'm surprised. For once.
[11:19] <persia> DM  Why would I want to be a DM?
[11:19] <persia> nigelb: There were some scheduling issues
[11:20] <Rhonda> Like, it would involve doing stuff?  *nudgenudge*
[11:20] <Rhonda> (sorry, that was low, my bad)
[11:20] <persia> Becoming a DM would be more work at this point than becoming a DD, but yeah, I should hunt down that file that got lost.
[11:22] <persia> nigelb: And as further background, Debian has this strange requirement that one use email as more than a write-only-medium, which requirement I failed to meet for about 5 years: don't think that my lack of being a DD has *any* relation at all to the nature of the NM process or it being difficult or anything.
[11:23] <nigelb> persia: I was under no such impression.
[11:58] <gotwig> where can I find the relevant po files (for the different languages) for jockey-gtk?
[11:59] <gotwig> the strings for unity are missing: https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/jockey/+pots/jockey/de/+translate?batch=10&show=all&search=unity <<< these strings, when you do apt-get source jockey-gtk from Ubuntu 12.04
[12:52] <gotwig> come on :D no packagers here?
[13:20] <persia> gotwig: Rather, nobody has a good answer to your question (or they likely would have answered from the backscroll).  You might try a local build without binary-mangler, and see if that gets you strings, but it could as easily be an LP bug.
[13:21] <gotwig> persia: maybe the po files get created at build?
[13:22] <persia> Possibly.  I have no idea: I haven't tried the build.
[15:01] <mfisch> micahg: thanks, I never even thought to check control because I was building something on armhf and didn't expect it to ask for something not packaged
[15:04] <persia> mfisch: Rather, not instructed to be built: maybe it has a known failure, or maybe someone just forgot.  Try changing control locally, and running an armhf build.  If it works (both builds and can be used by client packages), it's worth a bug asking for armhf supoort (ideally with your debian/control patch and a test report)
[15:04] <mfisch> I found out this morning that I was missing a patch to remove a required lib and so life is good now or will be as soon as i get coffee
[15:54] <micahg> mfisch: there was also a bug in the changelog associated with the x86 only change
[15:54] <mfisch> micahg: turns out that it shouldn't be in the makefile, the patched tree works great
[16:50] <alo21> hi. I am trying to apply a patch with quilt, but it tells me that a patch can't be applied
[16:51] <alo21> this is the patch: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1452731/
[16:52] <alo21> this is the makefile: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1452738/
[16:53] <alo21> As I noticed, the raw does not match. What should I do?
[16:54] <micahg> alo21: looks like it's been applied already or applied upstream
[16:54] <Zhenech> well, ther eis no test target in the makefile, so why are you trying to remove it?
[16:56] <alo21> micahg, If I download a source from debian with pull-debian-source, are all the patches apply automatically?
[16:56] <micahg> depends if it's source format 3.0 or not
[16:57] <micahg> check quilt applied
[16:59] <alo21> yes. the patch has been applied yet.... how can I build a package running 'merge-buildpackage', without get the error that a patch is just applied?
[17:06] <alo21> micahg, did you read?
[17:07] <micahg> huh?  if it's been applied you shouldn't get an error
[17:08] <alo21> micahg, here is the error that I got: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1452784/
[17:10] <micahg> yeah, you can't have fuzz with source format 3.0 packages
[17:10] <micahg> run this on the troublesome patch: quilt refresh --diffstat --no-timestamps
[17:11] <micahg> I forget the command to do it to all patches
[17:11] <alo21> I got: Nothing in patch 01_deactivate-nosetests.patch
[18:07] <alo21> I am merging a package from 0.2 (in ubuntu), to 0.3 (in debian), but a new version (0.4) comes out in upstream, but not in debian. Can I merge directly merge to the new upstream, or not?
[18:09] <xnox> alo21: whichever =) but e.g. 0.4 can go into debian experimental.
[18:10] <alo21> xnox, but isn't in debian experimental yet
[18:10] <alo21> it isn't*
[18:11] <xnox> alo21: sure, but it doesn't mean that you can't get it sponsored there =)
[18:11] <alo21> xnox, fine
[18:12] <xnox> alo21: as I said: merging 0.3 into ubuntu, publishing 0.4 into experimental, publishing 0.4 into ubuntu. Are all valid paths here and will be beneficial.
[18:12] <xnox> alo21: depends on what you really want and/or have time to do.
[18:14] <alo21> xnox, I think would be better if I push 0.4 in experimental, but I haven't upload right, and I can't package for debian
[18:14] <xnox> alo21: then you what to do next ;-)
[18:15] <alo21> xnox, have I to fill in a bug report to require sponsor?
[18:35] <xnox> alo21: debdiff+bug or branch+merge-proposal
[18:36] <alo21> xnox, as I said, I can't create the .deb package
[18:36] <xnox> alo21: oh you can't package at all? then bug to request a version upgrade / merge.
[18:36] <xnox> alo21: what package is it for?
[18:37] <alo21> xnox,  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gbirthday/+bug/1020783
[18:38] <alo21> the last post, suggests to upgrade into version 0.6.7