jhobbs | do prerequisite branches work with git? I can't seem to make them work | 14:49 |
---|---|---|
dobey | jhobbs: i don't understand the uestion. you mean for merge proposals? | 14:57 |
cjwatson | jhobbs: yes | 15:00 |
jhobbs | yes | 15:01 |
jhobbs | ok, i'll try some more, must be doing something wrong | 15:01 |
knome | hey, could some admin look at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/270038 ? cheers | 16:19 |
mark06 | help please, I need to clone this branch but can't http://vpaste.net/DWYwJ | 16:47 |
dobey | mark06: you'll have to get the source package for that some other way | 17:07 |
dobey | mark06: using pull-lp-source is generally the recommended way to get source packages | 17:07 |
=== UbuntPkgSx is now known as UbuntuPkgingSuck | ||
=== UbuntuPkgingSuck is now known as UbuntuPkgingSuxx | ||
mark06 | dobey: using http worked | 21:19 |
dobey | mark06: not really. you got old data | 21:20 |
mark06 | I wanted to keep the application up-to-date but ubuntu packaging is annoying | 21:20 |
mark06 | dobey: huh? | 21:21 |
dobey | the bzr branch for the packaging in ubuntu is out of date due to the issue you asked about | 21:21 |
dobey | the imported bzr branches for ubuntu source packages have had lots of import issues; you should use pull-lp-source to get the actual source from the archive | 21:21 |
mark06 | I noticed that, I don't see 0ubuntu3.2 there, well it's all really annoying | 21:22 |
dobey | life is annoying. get used to it :) | 21:22 |
dobey | packaging stuff for ubuntu is not really that hard though | 21:22 |
mark06 | it is, period | 21:24 |
mark06 | but this is not the place to complain how much it sucks | 21:24 |
dobey | no it is not | 21:24 |
mark06 | it is | 21:24 |
mark06 | see my branch | 21:24 |
mark06 | in arch it would be *one single file*, the PKGBUILD | 21:25 |
mark06 | arch packaging is way better | 21:25 |
mark06 | sorry for complaining | 21:25 |
dobey | ... | 21:26 |
mark06 | my branch is outdated and I can't figure out a way to update it to both latest pidgin++ and the ubuntu patches | 21:26 |
mark06 | I wasted a few hours today so I guess I'll give up | 21:27 |
mark06 | best solution is maybe creating a real pidgin++ package instead of pidgin + pidgin++ patches + ubuntu patches | 21:28 |
dobey | i have no idea why you are trying to create a fork-that-isnt-really-one of pidgin; but i can certainly say that such a choice does make otherwise simple tasks more difficult, and thus is the core of the complaints you constantly make in here | 21:32 |
mark06 | I'm talking about the packaging | 21:32 |
mark06 | technically my current pidgin++ package name is "pidgin" with patches (mine and ubuntu's) | 21:34 |
mark06 | I guess it should be an independent package named "pidgin++" but I'm super lazy to read http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html, specially after the hours I spent with this :( | 21:35 |
mark06 | I would also need to change my source code etc... so best solution for now is removing the ubuntu section from http://pidgin.renatosilva.me, unfortunately :( | 21:37 |
dobey | and why don't you work with the upstream pidgin developers to just improve pidgin instead of forking it? | 21:40 |
mark06 | I tried in the beginning, see the bugs I fixed for discussions | 21:41 |
mark06 | they often spend more time in bug tracker than it would take to write the actual patches | 21:43 |
dobey | yeah, no thanks. if you're too lazy to read packaging documentation and do things right, i'm certainly too lazy to perform an anthropological survey of your development activities in relation to upstreams | 21:44 |
mark06 | there's plenty of bugs like this they love to find reasons not to fix https://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/15347 | 21:44 |
mark06 | dobey: there's no research to do, the patches are freely available to anyone decide to like or not, they can merge them anytime too | 21:45 |
mark06 | well, sorry for the ranting and thanks anyway | 21:48 |
=== heroux_ is now known as heroux |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!