=== freeflying_away is now known as freeflying [01:59] bdrung, slangasek, stgraber: Since you're the only dmb members online, would you mind checking the status of my MOTU application? It's been a week since i sent it and i've got more testimonials since. [01:59] Noskcaj: not a member of the dmb [02:00] sure? https://launchpad.net/~developer-membership-board/+mugshots [02:43] Noskcaj: yes, quite sure that I am none of those people :) [02:44] slangasek, Last time i click on the link you were there. Something in launchpad broke for me [02:44] hah [02:45] I'm going to guess it's because of the tech board [02:45] I'm going to guess it's because of solar flares ;) [02:48] :) [07:38] good morning === freeflying is now known as freeflying_away === paddy_ is now known as paddy === freeflying_away is now known as freeflying === paddy_ is now known as paddy [21:27] Hello again MOTU, I'm trying to create a two packages, a base nutcraker (that I already have) and a nutcracker-dbg with a few compile time debugging options (and debugging symbols) turned on. I've already found how to not strip the debugging symbols, but I have not found another package that uses different configure flags for different packages [21:51] MentalPower|Work, Normally -dbg packages are made only as addons, with dh_strip --dbg-package= and maybe some extra files/links [21:51] hmm... is there a way to have two compile chains without needing two sources? [22:00] Why would you want two compile chains? Like Noskcaj mentioned, compile it once with debug symbols turned on, and use dh_strip --dbg-pkg [22:00] The regular package will then be without the debug symbols which get extracted to the mentioned package. [22:01] That's the way most packages do it. Just look at the source package of a random -dbg package. [22:35] Rhonda: I need to enable some compile-time debugging options [22:35] this specific software doesn't do hardly any debugging output unless its compiled in [22:40] MentalPower|Work: a library or application? [22:41] for application just compile a second time, rename the binary (and its libraries if it has some) and install them in a dbg package [22:41] see e.g. python-dbg (conceptionally, don't look at the packaging ;) ) [22:42] application [22:45] hmm... let me look at python [22:50] or fftw3 [22:50] it builds multiple times with different configurations and sticks the results in different packages [22:50] packaging should be easier to understand than python, though its also not great [22:50] don't know of better examples [22:55] jtaylor: you're right, python's packaging is all over the place. fftw's is a bit better, but I can't find where its doing the two compiles [22:56] MentalPower|Work: in build-arch: [22:57] multiple configure make install DESTDIR [22:57] the destdir is the important part [22:57] moving into packages is then using the --sourcedir argument of dh_install [22:57] in binary-arch: [22:58] the rest is just cludge because not all variants work on all arches [22:59] you hopefully won't need that [23:37] When you have two packages with same name but different versions, how do you know which one will be selected by apt-get [23:37] I just built a new package for precise that is updated from the ubuntu included version [23:38] This is what I see when I do show: http://paste2.org/xnCU2dJD [23:48] the one which has a higher version according to dpkg --compare-versions [23:49] but apt.preferences are taken into acount for automatic upgrades [23:50] sontek: ^ [23:50] jtaylor: ok, that sounds fine then [23:51] Now I have one problem, there is one director in the .tar.gz that isn't being included right now [23:51] What defines what files get shipped? [23:51] I see the .install files [23:51] install files and "manual" copies in debian/rules [23:51] also .links .manpages etc