[08:48] <nopf> hi. so what's the matter with symlinks on windows? i have a project with *1* symlink which i'm willing to delete right now and make a new version -- but won't that 1 create and 2 then remove that on 'pull' on the win machine and still fail in step 1?
[09:21] <nopf> ok. bzr is wise enough to replay in one big step, so this works. thanks
[16:10] <Elimin8er> Im trying to build a package.. when I use checkinstall everything works great. but I want to build it with the intent of putting it on my ppa.. anyhow when I use bzr builddeb -- -us -uc, I get error at the end, take a look here: http://paste.ubuntu.com/8408128/ .. I just dont get it.. Hopefully someone can give me a pointer or two..
[16:16] <fullermd_> Well, that's nothing to do with builddeb, or bzr for that matter.  's just compiler warnings/errors.
[16:21] <Elimin8er> fullermd_,  umm what can I do? anything ?
[16:21] <Elimin8er> it works fine when I use chdeckinstall and make a nice deb file.. but I need it to package for my private ppa.
[16:22] <fullermd_> Fix the b0rked C code   :)
[16:22] <Elimin8er> I was thuinkjing it was the rules file..
[16:22] <Elimin8er> broken code? its hexchat. compiles just fine.. its the dev 2.11.0 version..
[16:23] <Elimin8er> just doesnt compile with bzr issued
[16:25] <fullermd_> Then something in the build process is using different warn flags.
[16:26] <Elimin8er> im still pretty new to this.. anyway to debug that and see whats being passed to display that?
[16:29] <fullermd_> That way out of my baliwick.  Something in the chain of makefiles or invocations.
[16:31] <Elimin8er> fullermd_,  thank you anyhow... and yes it seems to do the same thing in anything that I build that I know build with checkinstall or just reg. make..
[16:33] <fullermd_> Yes, there's a lot of terribly b0rked an insecure C out there   :)
[16:36] <Elimin8er> so your saying bzr is more picky then everything else?
[16:38] <fullermd_> It's nothing at all to do with bzr.  bzr doesn't know anything about any compiling of anything.  It MAY be something embedded in builddeb.
[16:40] <Elimin8er> fullermd_,  yea I figured that too. I understand bzr is just a main function calling.. im thinking its the mh_make making the rules thats causing the problem..
[16:40] <Elimin8er> not sure though
[16:40] <Elimin8er> seems to have problems with debian/rules area
[16:41] <fullermd_> And what I know about debian build processes could be written in 72 point type on one side of a grain of rice...
[16:42] <Elimin8er> debian seems much more easier.. this is for ubuntu that seems to be picky about alot of crap.
[16:42] <Elimin8er> even though they both use deb packages
[16:42] <Elimin8er> and are based of the same concept
[16:43] <fullermd_> Obviously, the fix is to install a real *BSD   O:-}
[16:46] <Elimin8er> call me stupid but what does BSD mean? yes ill still new to all this
[16:46] <fullermd_> Oh, I'm just trolling a little.
[16:47] <Elimin8er> I been working with computers since 1980 (commodore64) then PC later years.. but only messed with linux a short time.
[16:47] <Elimin8er> I been a windows person for some many years..
[17:29] <Elimin8er> fullermd_, I managed to get one test project to work. I compiled qbittorrent 3.2.0alpha with no problems.
[17:29] <Elimin8er> using the bzr package way
[21:24] <LeoNerd> Just occasionally, I wish it was possible to have multiple independent bzr workdirs/branches in the same physical directory, each maintaining separate sets of files
[23:03] <CcxCZ> LeoNerd: hou
[23:03] <CcxCZ> how do you suppose it should look on commandline?
[23:04] <CcxCZ> also; howdy :-)
[23:25] <LeoNerd> Hmmm, yeah it'd be quite awkward I'm sure :)