[01:50] <geofft> Hm, manpages.ubuntu.com doesn't seem to be doing things with quantal or raring, despite #1073483 saying it should
[10:20] <melodie> hi
[10:21] <melodie> what is the package name for pygtk ?
[10:22] <FlowRiser> melodie, python-gtk2-dev
[10:23] <melodie> hi FlowRiser thanks.
[10:23] <melodie> is it for dev and also non dev use ?
[10:23] <FlowRiser> melodie, whenever you are searching for a package name, use apt-file search <library_name/part_of_package_name>
[10:23] <FlowRiser> melodie, it's only for dev
[10:24] <melodie> ie: http://obmenu.sourceforge.net →
[10:24] <melodie> "Dependecies
[10:24] <melodie> Python 2.3 or better, pygtk and pyglade."
[10:24] <melodie> but there is no package having for name just "pygtk"
[10:25] <melodie> ok, I will install apt-file and reload it
[10:25] <FlowRiser> it refers to the libraries ... pygtk.h and pyglade.h
[10:25] <FlowRiser> and to the respective include paths, ofc
[10:26] <mitya57> there is a non-"-dev" package as well: python-gtk2
[10:27] <mitya57> looks like it's what your package should depend on
[10:27] <melodie> thank you mitya57
[10:27] <mitya57> (by the way I won't recommend new packages to depend on pygtk at all as it's deprecated for ~ two years)
[10:27] <melodie> the apt-cache show command returns this for the depends "Depends: python, python-support (>= 0.90.0), python-glade2"
[10:28] <mitya57> python-glade2 depends on python-gtk2, so no need to depend on both
[10:28] <melodie> I get it. thank you very much.
[10:30] <FlowRiser> i don't see any pygtk in the apt-cache result ... weird stuff
[10:33] <melodie> me thinks apt-cache finds only chains when the chain is exactly the same in the package name, not more
[10:33] <melodie> perhaps apt-file would find more
[10:33] <melodie> I try now
[10:33] <FlowRiser> Anybody knows if there's a special PulseAudio Simple library for C++ ? Or is it just libpulse-simple-dev
[10:34] <FlowRiser> i meant libpulse-dev*
[10:36] <melodie> FlowRiser their website says about simple api but not library.
[10:38] <FlowRiser> melodie, aren't apis just libraries ? O.o
[10:39] <melodie> api stands for application programming interface
[10:39] <melodie> library " a collection of implementations of behavior, written in terms of a language"
[10:39] <melodie> so it is not the same thing
[10:40] <melodie> from wikipedia
[10:40] <melodie> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_%28computing%29
[10:40] <melodie> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API
[10:40] <FlowRiser> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface#API_libraries_and_frameworks
[10:41] <melodie> FlowRiser did you see that one page ? http://freedesktop.org/software/pulseaudio/doxygen/simple.html
[10:41] <FlowRiser> I think most software APIs are just frameworks with multiple implementations
[10:41] <melodie> perhaps it is the one
[10:42] <FlowRiser> melodie, i'll try it in C++ right now, but the examples are in C
[10:42] <melodie> you might be right
[10:42] <melodie> you didn't say what exactly you want, maybe a page such as this would be helpful ? http://ysflight.in.coocan.jp/programming/audio/pulseAudioSample/e.html
[10:43] <melodie> I have to do something else now...
[10:43] <melodie> and could not be more helpful anyhow. :)
[10:44] <FlowRiser> melodie, no worries, thanks for your time :D
[10:44] <melodie> sorry I can't help more. :)
[10:49] <FlowRiser> melodie, that download link was just the thing! It turns out there's only one implementation for both C++ and C, thanks :)
[10:51] <melodie> which one, the first one at freedesktop.org ?
[10:54] <melodie> FlowRiser I am happy I could help
[13:24] <melodie> hi
[13:26] <melodie> when in the description of a package we read "maintainer" on one ligne (ie: Ubuntu Developers) and "original maintainer" under, does it mean the original maintainer does not look after it anymore at all ?
[13:30] <mitya57> melodie: no, Original-Maintainer field is set for all packages that are modified in Ubuntu
[13:32] <melodie> mitya57 what should I do then ? I want to submit a desktop file for obmenu, and ask that the icons from the sources be installed to a regular icon directory under /usr/share instead of /usr/share/obmenu/icons where it is presently.
[13:33] <mitya57> melodie: file a bug or merge proposal
[13:34] <mitya57> by the way see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebianMaintainerField
[13:35] <melodie> ok, I will file a bug (no merge proposal, there is no desktop file at all in the package)
[13:35] <melodie> thank you mitya57
[13:36] <mitya57> you still can file a merge proposal adding it :)
[13:43] <melodie> is that very different from a bug report ? anything specific to it ?
[13:44] <melodie> mitya57 sorry for the lag, my machine was lagging with heavy tasks :)
[13:44] <mitya57> melodie: it'll be looked at quicker
[13:45] <melodie> great
[13:45]  * melodie looks for the merge proposal corner
[13:47] <mitya57> http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/fixing-a-bug.html
[13:49] <melodie> mitya57 I am not yet enough used to make packages, I have only done one, with a little sweat and lots of help. I'll train next, but for now and for this one I'll just report it as a bug. :)
[13:49] <mitya57> ok, that is welcomed anyway
[13:50] <melodie> I find many little bugs, and I try to report them one by one as soon as possible after I found them. I am working on the creation of a Openbox spin, which has to be simple to use and yet flexible to modify
[13:50] <melodie> doing this brings me many things to discover (bugs but not only, of course)
[18:10] <melodie> does someone know how to remove dangling links in a chrooted system ?
[18:10] <xxtjaxx> melodie: What links? Symlinks?
[18:10] <melodie> I am browsing the help files from fslint (the cli)
[18:10] <melodie> yes xxtjaxx dangling symlinks
[18:11] <xxtjaxx> melodie: they are basically files so you could simple remove them.
[18:11] <melodie> I found how to display them but not how to remove them
[18:11] <melodie> there are many, really many
[18:11] <xxtjaxx> rm
[18:11] <melodie> too slow
[18:12] <melodie> I'll try with find
[18:12] <melodie> ^^
[18:12] <melodie> and exec...
[18:13] <xxtjaxx> find -lname?
[18:19] <melodie> xxtjaxx I think I would rather have to try to find a command line using find and fslint (the one which is under /usr/share/fslint/*)
[18:26] <JanC> melodie: find also has a -delete action which doesn't need -exec
[18:28] <melodie> hi JanC and then how could I chain that with fslint ? (without distroying a symlink which would not be dangling if the system was alive... )
[18:30] <maxb> You can't. You have no gurantee that some dangling symlinks are not intentional parts of the system
[18:31]  * cjwatson tries to work out how this is #ubuntu-devel material ...
[18:31] <maxb> Hmm, good point
[18:33] <melodie> cjwatson do you think I might be OT ?
[18:34] <melodie> while trying to make a particular remix, I found lots of dangling links, so I try to find a way to remove them without breakage
[19:51] <ClientAlive> what does it mean if a partion's mount point shows up as "/boot/efi"? I know what efi is. What I'm asking is - is that a partition inside a partition? Is it a directory inside the /boot partition? And, at what level of that is the file system formatting at?
[19:51] <ClientAlive> what I'm getting at is - if I had to manually create /boot/efi on a machine, how would I do it properly?
[19:51] <ClientAlive> #ubuntu no one seems to know so that's why I came here
[20:00] <maxb> ClientAlive: That's not *really* a good excuse for violating the channel topic quite so conclusively :-/
[20:00] <ClientAlive> maxb: what?
[20:01] <ClientAlive> well do you have a suggestion how to get some information (if I'm in such gross VIOLATION)?
[20:01] <maxb> #ubuntu-devel is supposed to be for the development of Ubuntu, not a way to escalate support questions that people on other channels don't answer
[20:02] <ClientAlive> so why would you assume intentional evil on my part by saying "excuse" ??
[20:02] <ClientAlive> not cool
[20:03] <maxb> Well, perhaps I'm being a little sensitive, but since OT-ness has already been brought up in the past few hours...
[20:35] <JanC> melodie: so, I think your real question is if there exists a list of "broken" symlinks that are intentionally there and should not be removed?
[20:37] <melodie> JanC almost that
[20:38] <melodie> JanC suppose there are symlinks here and there which might be active only in a system which is booted and not in one which is being built. I am starting a vm to make tests in it, and see what dangling symlinks will be listed for removal
[20:39] <melodie> then I hope I will be able to compare with what I will find in the chrooted build directory
[20:43] <JanC> I think 'find -L . -type l' lists dangling symlinks under the current directory--should be easy to compare between both then?
[20:43] <melodie> JanC thank you, I am going to try it
[20:44] <JanC> but that would assume dangling symlinks are *always* used on a live system
[20:44] <melodie> ?
[20:45] <melodie> ok, I will check both status : installed and live as well. :)
[20:45] <JanC> I mean: they might be intentionally there, but not always being used
[20:45] <melodie> I get it
[20:46] <melodie> that would explain why I found those kinds in several live cd's
[20:46] <JanC> e.g. they might be dangling if certain devices aren't available
[20:46] <melodie> yes
[20:50] <melodie> JanC I just looked at man find to check the -type l, and I found that very tricky and clever. thank you very much
[20:52] <melodie> once I will have checked all what it returns I can try a :
[20:52] <melodie> find -L /usr -type l -exec rm {} \;
[20:53] <melodie> mostly only /etc and /usr have broken symlinks
[20:53] <melodie> and many more in /usr
[20:54] <mlankhorst> ermm
[20:54]  * mlankhorst hands melodie cleanlinks
[20:55] <melodie> mlankhorst thank you :D
[20:55] <JanC> as I said before: there is also -delete
[20:55] <melodie> I stumble upon it and will see what it allows to do
[20:55] <melodie> JanC is -delete easier, and where do you add it ? at the end ?
[20:55] <mlankhorst> anyhow you're obsessive if you care about dangling symlinks
[20:56] <JanC> find -L . -type l -delete
[20:56] <melodie> mlankhorst it's just annoying to see hundreds of them while seeking for just one file... in a directory
[20:56] <melodie> that looks unclean
[20:56] <melodie> JanC thanks !
[20:56] <melodie> now I will check what I find in a Live vbox
[20:57] <mlankhorst> for grep? just use -s, find ignores symlinks by default
[20:57] <melodie> mlankhorst great tip too... thank you very much
[20:57] <JanC> mlankhorst: hence the -L option
[20:58] <melodie> o_0 ?
[20:58] <melodie> -L vs -s ?
[20:58] <mlankhorst> I mean grep -s
[20:58] <JanC> to find, I mean  ☺
[20:58] <melodie> find vs grep ? ^_o
[21:00] <mlankhorst> oh find just pipe 2 to /dev/null
[21:00] <JanC> cleanlinks does more than removing dangling symlinks BTW
[21:00] <JanC> it also removes empty directories
[21:00] <JanC> ... according to its manpage
[21:01] <melodie> JanC are all empty directories un needed ?
[21:01] <mlankhorst> JanC: well if you have a new command and dont read its manpage you do so at your own risk :-)
[21:02] <melodie> this is a small question which have stayd under the carpet since many years now... I see an opportunity to get an answer to such a basic oen
[21:02] <melodie> one
[21:02] <mlankhorst> dangling symlinks are harmless so whatever you do it's just to satisfy OCD..
[21:03] <melodie> ok, just what is "OCD" ?
[21:03] <melodie> obsessional compulsive disease ? :D
[21:03]  * mlankhorst kindly refers to google :-)
[21:03] <JanC> some applications might assume that certain directories are always there
[21:04] <melodie> don't they use a tiny space ? maybe one inode each ? :)
[21:04] <melodie> (obessional wish to not spare the slightest space)
[21:04] <mlankhorst> find /usr -type d -empty ..
[21:05] <melodie> really I would not want any app to think they need a folder which is not there anymore, but for the poor orphaned links ? don't they use an inode each ?
[21:06] <mlankhorst> You know what? I'm going to stay out of this.. cleanlinks doesn't do what you want probably
[21:06] <melodie> (find is a very great tool, btw)
[21:06] <melodie> I am looking at it now
[21:10] <melodie> looking for it*
[21:14] <melodie> now I think I understand : the dangling symlinks could refer to locales not installed, because not yet chosen by a user starting to install to his hard drive ?
[21:14] <melodie> isn't that so ?
[22:28] <cjwatson> melodie: if you're inspecting things from outside a chroot then you'll see many allegedly-dangling symlinks that are actually because the symlinks are absolute and you don't have their targets on the system you're using to look at them.  if so then that is an artifact of your approach and not worth worrying about ...
[22:29] <cjwatson> I find it very surprising that there would be more than a tiny handful of dangling symlinks when inspected properly.  perhaps it would be easier to guess if given some examples?
[22:33] <cjwatson> certainly if you're trying to do any kind of cleanup on an Ubuntu derivative image that you intend anyone else to use then you need to do things by modifying packages, not by tools like cleanlinks or find/rm pipelines or whatever - which is going to involve understanding why the things you want to clean up are there and where they come from :)