=== Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw === funkyHat_ is now known as funkyHat === hggdh_ is now known as hggdh === elky` is now known as elky [07:07] cjwatson: libvideo-frequencies-perl ;) === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ === Tonio_ is now known as Tonio_aw === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio_ === almaisan` is now known as al-maisan === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === kloeri_ is now known as kloeri === Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_aw [11:30] bkerensa: que? [11:41] Laney: do you know if we can sync haskell-conduit from experimental as haskell-network-conduit is in depwait on that version? [11:43] geser: no I don't know about that specifically I'm afraid [11:43] I had hoped to start the transition in earnest over the holidays but it turned out that I didn't have much time for that stuff [11:47] ah, I once looked at it (if it builds) but it also needs a merge of haskell-devscripts [11:47] probably so [11:48] iulian: would you have any time to help on this? === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio__ === Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_aw === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio__ === yofel_ is now known as yofel === Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_aw === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio__ === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan === Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_aw [15:38] hey, does anyone know what's the error? https://launchpadlibrarian.net/127508146/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-amd64.libxml2_2.8.0%2Bdfsg1-5ubuntu2.2~lucid1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [15:38] The same package build properly in pbuilder. === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away === almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan [15:48] did you pbuilder used the same debhelper package like it was used in the PPA (8.9.0ubuntu1~ppa1~lucid4 from the ubuntugis-unstable PPA) [15:50] guess not. the building machine is a latest. [15:50] geser, we try a override_dh_prep now.. [15:52] geser, oh, well... yes the debhelper is supposed to be the same since we build in the same distribution inside a pbuilder [15:54] aboudreault: I asked because I noticed a "T" at the end of each dh call in your log (and I don't remember seeing this normally) [15:56] emm... that's right [15:56] /bin/rm: cannot remove `libtoolT': No such file or directory [15:57] strange.. will check this [15:58] geser, but there is no T at all when building with pbuilder lucid ... [15:59] hmm, strange === al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away [16:06] aboudreault: dh $@ T (from your debian/rules) [16:06] what does/should do the "T" do there? [16:08] good question. [16:08] will point it to my coworker. [16:14] aboudreault: and the reason why it build in your pbuilder is the same why it build in your PPA for i386 and not amd64: pbuilder and the i386 use by default the "binary" target (build both binary-arch and binary-indep) while the amd64 buildd uses "binary-arch" [16:14] ah. I see. Thanks for the info [16:14] you should be able to reproduce it with specifing "--binary-arch" to your pbuilder call [17:46] any pilots around? i'm poking about bug #1093511 [17:46] bug 1093511 in remmina (Ubuntu) "please merge remmina 1.0.0-4 (main) from Debian testing" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1093511 === Tonio_aw is now known as Tonio__ === Caesar_ is now known as Caesar === Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_aw [19:13] From #ubuntu: (who sent me here as MOTU is the maintainer of the relevant packages) [19:13] Hey guys. What should I do to get a package off the ubuntu repos? I work on e17 and ubuntu has a 3 year old package in it's repos. This is very annoying as users think badly of e17 because of it (it was an early dev version). I would like that if possible this package will be removed altogether or upgraded to the stable release, but what should I do in order to achieve that? [19:16] that and all the relevant supporting libs (evas, eina and etc) [19:16] TAsn, getting it upgraded in Debian might be where you need to start - afaict its being pulled form sid (aka "unstable") into the ubuntu repositories. [19:16] it is upgraded in debian [19:16] note I"m not a MOTU, i'm just going by what i see on the packages on here: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/e17 [19:16] I mean [19:16] TAsn, not in unstable? [19:16] getting upgraded [19:17] probably post-freeze. [19:17] the problem is old repos [19:17] 12.04 and etc [19:17] (i think debian's still under freeze) [19:17] we want them removed [19:17] TheLordOfTime, the link you provided is too old. [19:17] TheLordOfTime: Itis. [19:17] TAsn, the link I provided is live data from launchpad [19:17] it doesn't track Debian [19:17] sure [19:18] that's whats in the repos now, expand one of the packages you'll see its pulled in from sid. [19:18] ScottK, MOTU? [19:18] TheLordOfTime, and that's old [19:18] (you're everywhere, hence me asking) [19:18] TAsn, you said that three times already [19:18] and people using older ubuntu get older versions [19:18] and we would like that removed [19:19] TAsn: How about getting it updated? [19:19] Wouldn't that be better? [19:19] it won't be updated in old ubuntus, won't it? [19:20] no features policy and etc [19:20] no? [19:20] No. It also won't be removed. [19:20] We don't do post release removals. [19:20] I can remove it from the development release, but that's all I can do. [19:20] that's just frustrating [19:20] ScottK, nah, that's alright, thanks. [19:20] Once it's updated in the development release, we could backport the newer one. [19:21] Then you could at least say "Oh, install the update in backports) [19:21] yeah [19:21] ScottK, it'd have to be upgraded in Sid, at least in experimental, no? [19:21] and then sync'd to $latestdev [19:21] ? [19:21] TheLordOfTime: Or we do a direct upload. [19:21] it's being updated in unstable atm iirc [19:21] or maybe experimental [19:21] TAsn, not while debian's under freeze it likely won't be [19:22] If it's being updated in Unstable/experimental, then we can sync that. [19:22] ScottK, the thing is, that as I said, the current version is a very old development snapshot [19:22] that is just broken [19:22] we get a lot of users that install that [19:22] instead from our ppa [19:22] it's very frustrating [19:22] Sure. [19:22] and because there's a package [19:22] they think it's alright [19:22] TAsn, the nginx team has the same issue [19:22] but we can't do a single thing about it [19:22] as ubuntu/debian usually don't package dev snapshot [19:23] Sure you can. [19:23] so we say "screw it" and tell people to use the PPA when they stop in #nginx (we keep $latestdev synced with Debian as much as possible) [19:23] so they don't even try the ppa [19:23] You can get involved in Ubuntu development and make sure the stuff in the repos is up to date/working. [19:23] they either complain in our support chan [19:23] ScottK, I'm not an ubuntu user myself [19:23] ScottK, i could, but CBA to repackage things when i'm busy fixing things :p [19:23] I'm just sick of users bein mislead [19:23] or more correctly [19:23] TAsn: Sure. [19:23] users misleading themselves. :) [19:24] Is there someone on the e17 team that is? [19:24] a user? [19:24] ScottK, speaking of which, PPU rights, how often are those requests addressed/handled? [19:24] An Ubunt person. [19:24] Some lazy ones, I'm sure. [19:24] yeah [19:24] TAsn, upstream, as in devs/packagers i think is what ScottK meant. [19:24] but the fact that I'm here [19:24] and they are not [19:24] means that they are too lazy too bother [19:24] Right. [19:25] I have a box with ubuntu 12.04 on it though [19:25] somewhere [19:25] Perhaps the person maintaining the PPA could get some sponsored uploads and the apply for per-package uploader rights for e17? [19:25] TheLordOfTime: PPU upload rights are process fortnightly at the Developer Membership Board meeting (2 applicants per meeting max) [19:25] what does that even mean? I.e what should be done? [19:26] micahg, thanks. [19:26] as for backports, I've been trying to keep up with the recent requests, I haven't dug into the backlog yet [19:26] Whoever is doing the PPA would also prepare an upload for Ubuntu and then file a bug with a link to the .dsc and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors [19:26] And what are those ubuntu-sponsors? [19:27] It's a team of Ubuntu devs that review requests by non-developers for package uploads [19:27] ScottK, and also, just to have it sorted in my head: what can be done with the old ubuntu versions? 10.04-13.04? I.e ones that ship the old version? [19:27] They then also tend to be the ones who will advocate for someone being ready for direct upload rights since they've seen their work. [19:28] 13.04 is the development version. [19:28] We can still update that freely. [19:28] Ah, cool. [19:28] Once that's done, we can backport the new package to 10.04 - 12.10. [19:28] ScottK, OK. Will ask in our mailing list for volunteers. [19:28] So that users of those releases can install it from backports. [19:28] Thanks a lot. [19:29] ScottK, and there's no way to remove the old packages from the repos, right? [19:29] That's correct. [19:29] Thank you. [19:54] ScottK, talked to someone, will be done soon. Thanks a lot. [19:54] later [19:54] You're welcome. [20:47] here's a weird problem: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=697158 [20:47] Debian bug 697158 in libsnappy1.0.3-java "libsnappy1.0.3-java: Missing jar due to broken debian/links" [Grave,Open]