[00:13] hello! i would like to become a maintainer for an application that hasn'T been updated for a while as a deb package. I have created my ppa, generated the project, described the branch and asked for a pull (CVS), the first build attempt returned this: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/166382622/buildlog.txt.gz i am not really experienced with any of this.. could someone help me please? [00:15] nathaneltitane: it looks like your build scripts try to use network resources when building; the buildds do not allow builds to use any networking. [00:15] sarnold: hence, what should i do? upload the code manually? [00:16] nathaneltitane: You should be uploading (dput) the debianised package source to the builder [00:16] nathaneltitane: yeah, either as a new 'upstream tarball' in the build or modify the source via debian patching [00:18] sarnold: afaik, i'M not familiar with deb patching, though upstream tarball sounds best. [00:18] give me second to test [00:19] sarnold: i just pulled the source from cvs on my system and made a tarball [00:20] how do i push it? [00:20] please bare with me, it's the first time i do this, and as much as I've read the links and indications, i'M still somewhat confused [00:20] nathaneltitane: do you have an 'unpacked' tree anywhere, with e.g. debian/control file and debian/changelog and so forth? [00:21] sarnold: nope [00:21] did a cvs pull, plain and simple [00:21] nathaneltitane: indeed, I've been doing it for 1.5 years and still lack the vocabulary to explain what I do and how to make it work :) hehe [00:21] i need to 'debianize it' using the build-essentials? [00:21] nathaneltitane: can you apt-get source an existing package from the ubuntu archives? that'd give you an unpacked source tree [00:21] there is no ubuntu archive [00:22] i'm the one setting it up [00:22] the source is in cvs [00:22] nathaneltitane: oh! okay. then there's a bit more work ahead of you :) [00:22] (Please forgive me, all I do is pull existing stuff, make tiny changes, and push it back. :) [00:22] well ideally, that'S what i'll be doing too :) [00:22] :) [00:22] so i have a pull.. what now [00:24] sarnold: Tip, use dh_make, handy for creating a template to work off of. [00:24] nathaneltitane: well, there's two different ways of doing packaging; there's the newfangled "ubuntu distributioned development" method, which is pretty well dscribed at http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/ -- but it always felt like a lot of extra overhead compared to the older more traditional debian packaging.. [00:25] Unit193: ooh. that looks cool. [00:25] let'S get started the 'easy' way then [00:26] sarnold: Yeah, used it for the first time recently, pretty nifty. Note that the older release you're running on, the more slightly outdated it'll be (dh8 vs dh9 on saucy) [00:27] nathaneltitane: Unit193's suggestion of dh_make looks fantastic; apt-get install dh-make and check out the dh_make manpage. it looks straightforward and simple. :) [00:28] Unit193: yeah, that makes sense. most tools I'm used to using do require running fairly new releases to keep building for fairly new releases. :) hehe [00:29] Unit193: Thanks for the pointer, this'll save tons of time :) [00:29] sarnold: Sure, welcome. [00:32] sarnold: looking into it [00:38] wow, that seemes to have worked like a charm sarnold [00:39] so i now have an ldview-4.2.1/debian dir tree [00:39] i used the Tar.gz i pulled as the original source [00:44] nathaneltitane: nice! [00:45] nathaneltitane: check out the debian/changelog file and make sure it looks useful and then try to build with dput: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading [00:46] shouldn't i make the install dirs first? [00:47] nathaneltitane: heh, I was just hoping it would Do The Right Thing :) [00:47] Also all the debian/*ex files. [00:48] sarnold, all the ex files look good [00:54] i have no changes file.... [00:55] nathaneltitane: that might not be an issue for a first upload? [00:56] sarnold, i still dont get which one i need to upload [00:57] i have the deb tree and the tar gz that was generated by dh-make [01:02] nathaneltitane: hrm. sorry, I hadn't realized the dsc wouldn't be sufficient for the upload. [01:13] You normally dput the changes file. === freeflying_away is now known as freeflying [01:22] Unit193: s/normally/always/ [01:24] Yes. === doko__ is now known as doko [11:14] infinity, can't see that [11:18] doko: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gccgo-go/1.2-0ubuntu5 [11:19] doko: The FTBFS on armhf and powerpc. [11:20] urgh, and the non-build on ppc64el ... [11:20] jamespage, ^^^ [11:20] doko: The non-build on ppc64el is because we're purging the archive. [11:20] ahh [11:20] doko: It'll get a build record tomorrow. [11:21] doko: Shot in the dark, but libgcc-4.8-dev would imply perhaps a mismatch for headers/static library from the 4.9 libgcc1? [11:22] no, thats blindly shooting [11:23] Hence "shot in the dark". :P [11:24] doko: Mostly just want to know that whatever that issue is, it's not something that's going to screw the ppc64el rebuild tomorrow. If it's specific to gccgo, or gccgo-go, then yay, if it's something that needs fixing with libgcc, on the other hand... [11:28] doko: Erk. So, on x86, I have a /usr/lib//4.8/libgcc_s.so symlink to /lib//libgcc_s.so.1 [11:28] doko: On ppc64el, it's a linker script instead of a symlink. [11:28] doko: Seems an odd disparity. [11:29] Oh, maybe that's intentional too, since some arches need -lgcc? [11:36] it's intentional. the .so symlink is just missing [11:39] Which symlink? [13:46] Hi all. I'm trying to boot a CD for the first time in ages. I find I'm dumped into a initramfs shell, but it's not clear why -- no messages or anything. A strange thing, I think, is that after the shell prompt, the kernel displays the device-discovery lines for the CD device. So, I suspect that it's trying to rotate root, hasn't settled USB, aborts silently. [13:50] I found this to be the same for when I'm booting off a UMS stick too. Device discovered about 1 sec after being dumped into a initramfs shell. [13:50] Trusty daily image of yesterday, for that^. === Zic_ is now known as Guest95981 === henrix_ is now known as henrix === jasoncwarner___ is now known as jasoncwarner__ === FlannelKing is now known as Flannel [18:11] is there a reason that some packages only have arm64 and ppc64el builds and not builds for other architectures? [18:15] teward: They most likely have been built in earlier releases for i386, amd64 etc [18:16] Ampelbein: ah, okay, i see. it would only show builds for a given release if, say, the version changed? [18:16] (the package in question seems to have remained the same version since Quantal) [18:17] teward: Yes, pretty much. Once a binary package is published, that version will not be rebuilt. [18:19] okay, that threw me off on Launchpad [18:19] thanks [18:19] teward: Like https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aoetools -> Uploaded in lucid, built for the architectures that lucid was released with. Then, in precise, the armhf was introduced, so it was built there. [18:19] Quantal didn't have a new architecture, so no build records at all. [18:19] Saucy then got arm64 and finally trusty got ppc64el [18:19] right === Guest95981 is now known as Zic === Kow_ is now known as Kow === tkamppeter__ is now known as tkamppeter === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === zz_mwhudson is now known as mwhudson [20:29] darkxst, What do we still need to get gnome-desktop 3.10? Also, are there any 3.12 parts we want? === SpamapS_ is now known as SpamapS [22:59] ogra_: thanks so much