[06:08] <Mirv> Unit193: morning!
[06:52] <ataalik> Hello, I have done my first packaging yesterday and was wondering if anyone could check it and see it's fine. Am an in the right place?
[06:53] <Unit193> ataalik: Well, are you intending for it to be in Ubuntu?  Did you need any specific help?  If not Ubuntu, where do you plan on submitting it?
[06:57] <ataalik> I have uploaded on launchpad. I noticed a good piece of software that was not in launchpad and wanted to see how packaging and maintaining was done. Everything seems to be working and the .deb file builds successfully at launchpad but I might have some mistakes about the meta data and such.
[07:00] <Unit193> Debian says: The packaging tutorial (http://deb.li/QYyI) and the New Maintainer's Guide (http://deb.li/3DiDA) are good places to start learning  about  Debian packaging.
[07:02] <ataalik> I went trough the Ubuntu community tutorial but will have a look at these too, thank you.
[07:03] <Unit193> Well, nobody can take a look without a link.  I'd also run it through  lintian --pedantic -IE  for some tips.
[07:06] <ataalik> https://launchpad.net/~ataalik/+archive/ubuntu/ppa  here is the link for it. I have run it trough lintian and it only complains about descriptions.
[07:11] <sladen> ataalik: it builds and compiles, which is a good indication of doing something right :)
[07:12] <sladen> ataalik: debian/* directory copyright  "2014 Maim Contributors" ?
[07:13] <sladen> ataalik: probably 2015, and probably yourself
[07:14] <sladen> ataalik: debian/control::Description: 'a screenshot commandline screenshot program."
[07:14] <ataalik> Ha.
[07:14] <sladen> ataalik: two uses of 'screenshot', one full-stop and beginning with "a"
[07:14] <sladen> ataalik: all of which can be dropped
[07:15] <ataalik> Copyright (C) 2014 Dalton Nell, Maim Contributors (https://github.com/naelstrof/maim/graphs/contributors)
[07:15] <ataalik> This is the start of their copyright file
[07:15] <ataalik> Should I just drop the contributors thingy
[07:15] <sladen> ataalik: yes, but the debian directory I (presume) is something you just created, and this is the reason you're seeking review?
[07:16] <Unit193> It's also GPL-3+, I did some fixes.
[07:16] <ataalik> Yes, should I include myself there. The guy that created the software wanted to group all other contributors with a github link soo?
[07:17] <Unit193> http://paste.openstack.org/show/foVIIP6QRdhd3ba6pamF
[07:17] <sladen> ataalik: the main copyright attribution is not wrong
[07:18] <sladen> ataalik: what I'm querying is the copyright attribution for the debian/ directory (ie. the Debian packaging)
[07:18] <sladen> ataalik: which I presume was done, today, in 2015, and not by the main contributors
[07:18] <sladen> maim
[07:18] <ataalik> Oh I get it
[07:18] <sladen> since I can't see a debian/ directory in  https://github.com/naelstrof/maim
[07:18] <Unit193> AKA, your name and email.
[07:20] <sladen> there was another package called 'main' 13 years ago:  https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2002/05/msg00254.html
[07:21] <sladen> so calling it  'maim-screenshot' might be safer if you end up with a naming collision
[07:23] <ataalik> all right. I'm fixing these as we speak.
[07:25] <sladen> ataalik: the manpage says it is copyright Dalton Nell, so I don't know which spelling of Nell vs. Neil is correct
[07:26] <sladen> either way, as Unit193 noted, the email from there should be added after the name int he copyright file
[07:26] <Unit193> My example description isn't the best, but it's an example.  I missed saving befor making the diff, but the correct license seems to be GPL-3+ (light difference in what you marked, GPL-3)
[07:27] <Unit193> Dalton Nell <naelstrof@gmail.com>
[07:27] <Unit193> Seems to be, that is: https://github.com/naelstrof/maim/commit/9e101cec430180ffd1005966182ae6c8d4c65cf2.patch
[07:29] <Unit193> Anywho, as sladen is helping out and far more capable than I, I'll take my leave.
[07:29] <sladen> not at all...
[07:30] <sladen> 'apt-cache search screenshot | less -S'  shows the other Descriptions: that people use for screenshot utiltiies, might give some ideas
[07:30] <sladen> it's not wrong, but might help working out to 'stand out'
[07:31] <sladen> eg. Description: save screenshots with cursor and masking from command-line
[07:36] <ataalik> So I've got all of that. I think it look ok now. One last thing before sending it trough lintian again. Does the copyright entry at debian/ has to have my name and the developers name or just one of us ?
[07:42] <sladen> who did the Debian packaging?
[07:43] <sladen> it should reflect whodunnit
[07:43] <ataalik> I did the debian packaging
[07:43] <sladen> then it should be you
[07:43] <ataalik> All right then just me
[07:44] <dholbach> good morning
[07:46] <Unit193> Howdy, dholbach.
[07:47] <ataalik> lintian returned no errors, woo
[07:48] <dholbach> hi Unit193
[07:53] <ataalik> Source: maim-screenshot Binary: maim
[07:53] <ataalik> Is binary the actual command line call of the package? If so is it wise to keep it like this or should I change that to maim-screenshot or something similar
[08:00] <geser> ataalik: Binary is the name of the generated package, for most source packages building only one binary package it's the same name (if no naming policy requires something different)
[08:01] <geser> if you have no reason to name the binary package only "maim" then keep the name "main-screenshot" (the actual executable can stay "maim", you don't have to rename that to match)
[08:53] <Rhonda> Can someone look into ejabberd?  Debian has newer upstream versions available. :)
[08:55] <Rhonda> I think the patches could get dropped, most of them were taken from upstream and are incorporated in the newer releases, but I haven't checked that completely.
[09:24] <Rhonda> Alright, checked with an ejabberd upstream developer, the only patch that is in there which needs to be kept is the ufw profile one.
[09:24] <Rhonda> And here I wonder if we can/should carry that in the Debian package already so we can drop the ubuntu diff here. :)
[11:18] <blueyed> Can I install man pages for x11/xcb somehow?
[11:24] <blueyed> The ones that are provided in Arch via https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libxcb/files/
[11:24] <blueyed> I cannot find them using "apt-file search"
[11:25] <simosx> try "libx11-doc" or "libxcb-doc"
[11:55] <blueyed> simosx: thanks, but they are simply not installed: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=751981
[12:02] <blueyed> Should those go into the -dev package? The -doc one is ~42MB (rather large already).
[12:03] <blueyed> The man pages are ~9MB. So, probably -doc is a good fit, and won't blow up -dev's size.