[07:20] I'm looking for the correct place to file a bug. Subject would be "Remove confusing and inconsistent gnome- prefix from executables packaged with Ubuntu". Affects these packages: dpkg -S `locate "bin/gnome-"` [08:38] 13:34 *** bladernr_ JOIN === yofel_ is now known as yofel === francisco is now known as Guest79688 === reels_ is now known as reels [15:53] i keep this bug open as per discussion from some time ago on this channel: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/+bug/1079801 [15:53] Launchpad bug 1079801 in mesa (Ubuntu) "applications like Google Earth or Second Life do not work" [Undecided,New] [15:55] forgot to add the comment, that i was not able to test install Ubuntu 13.04 [15:57] okay, updated [15:58] i hope the bug report is not annoying due to the number of comments === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha [19:49] ohai! [19:50] need someone else on bugcontrol/bugsquad/MOTU to consult with on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/znc/+bug/1088390 [19:50] Launchpad bug 1088390 in znc (Ubuntu Lucid) "znc & znc-perl not to load perl module" [Undecided,New] [19:50] according to upstream, this is an issue of "Stop trying to build stuff probably written for newer ZNC on older ZNC." [19:50] which is pretty non-ubuntu of them to say, but entirely relevant here. [19:50] suggestions on hwo to proceed with the bug? [19:52] TLoT: not a bug, if it was a shipped perl script that would be different [19:52] maybe we can backport the newer znc to lucid? [19:52] micahg: not possible [19:52] hrm? [19:52] issue is dependent on the "Backports cannot depend on backports" thing [19:53] we should get that fixed [19:53] even then, i've tried backporting 0.206 to Lucid [19:53] it fails completely. [19:53] even with swig2.0 backported. [19:53] (requirements are newer versions of software than lucid has) [19:53] last time i tested, it'd require pretty much backporting most if not all build-deps from precise/oneiric -> lucid, and that... well... [19:53] can cause issues... [19:54] TLoT: upstream codebase looks like it should build... [19:54] (such as interference with other packages, and libraries, and numerous other FTBFS related potential issues) [19:54] micahg: last time i tried backporting it wouldn't work [19:54] and that was... [19:54] oh... [19:54] back when Oneiric just came out. [19:54] s/oneiric/precise/ [19:55] micahg: in the mean time i'm going to mark that bug as invalid (unless you wouldn't mind doing that), but stay subscribed to it. [19:56] micahg: and which upstream codebase're you looking at, 1.0 or 0.206? [19:56] 0.206 is more likely to be backported if i go hacking at the codebase a bit, but 1.0 is... actually quite dependent on newer stuff. [19:57] oh, hrm, their README doesn't describe the deps well at all [19:57] micahg: pull the list of deps from a 0.206 package [19:57] i think... um... [19:58] pre-backported for precise and quantal had 0.206 [19:58] I was looking at the version in precise backports [19:59] micahg: i'd not EVER request 1.0 to be backported to lucid [19:59] too many... um... "issues" [19:59] since the difference in timeframe is ~3 years of codebase changes and library changes between znc in lucid and znc in precise, as well as build-dep issues [19:59] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/quantal/znc/quantal/view/head:/debian/control#L4 <-- [20:00] these are the MINIMUM build deps you'd nneed. [20:00] need* [20:00] and swig2.0 FTBFS if you backport it [20:00] TLoT: which isn't a problem is upstream was targeting the lowest common denominator (which they're not) [20:00] (earliest it built on was Natty, and that was a pain to do) [20:00] micahg: and now you know why i think znc on lucid is an idea riddled wtih stupidity [20:00] no offense to the rest of the world, but... [20:02] micahg: and upstream keeps syaing "Why don't they keep Ubuntu up to date with libraries and things?" to which i usually just don't respond to [20:03] since in that respect, debian stable releases and ubuntu releases are similar: they don't really version-upgrade libraries without there being a very good reason for doing so. [20:03] (security or otherwise) [20:05] micahg: and the biggest of all these issues: swig2.0 doesn't exist in Lucid [20:05] and doesn't really backport well [20:05] and has been a build-dep for 0.206 and later [20:07] so ideally two things would need to happen: (1) swig2.0 would need to be backported if possible to lucid, and (2) the bug on "Backports Can't Build-Dep on Backports" needs to be fixed, and that's i think an sbuild/archive-builders issue., [20:07] oh, and (3) debian/control: drop build-dep on swig (to fix a conflicts issue) [20:08] micahg: mind if I quote you in the bug response when i invalid it? [20:10] TLoT: sure [20:11] bleh forgot to include your statement. but i paraphrased it and referred to the conversation here. [20:11] micahg: also for reference, this is the backports can't depend on backports bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/888665 [20:11] Launchpad bug 888665 in Launchpad itself "Backports can't build-depend on other backports" [High,Triaged] [20:12] its been in that state for a few years thus far [20:12] so... [20:12] (seemingly no progress?) [20:12] TLoT: I should follow up with infinity on that, he was going to do it, but got blocked again, I'm not quite sure on what [20:16] micahg: i'd LOVE to know the status on that, since it would potentially break backports (not sure if it'd affect lucid, perhaps that should be checked?) [20:18] I'll check back later. [23:41] i don't even think this is valid... https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1097969 [23:41] Launchpad bug 1097969 in Ubuntu "Remina Remote Desktop Client cannot be minimized from fullscreen" [Undecided,New] [23:41] i don't see Remina in the repos. [23:41] * TheLordOfTime did an apt-cache search for 'remina' so unless he missed something... [23:52] ith as 2 m's [23:52] bdmurray, it does? [23:52] er, it has 2 m's [23:52] http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=remmina [23:52] ah, so it does [23:52] * TheLordOfTime takes back his initial statement and reassigns the bug to the package [23:55] would it hurt to ask them to apport-collect the bug as well? [23:55] (to gather some info about the package and the system)