[14:49] <jhobbs> do prerequisite branches work with git? I can't seem to make them work
[14:57] <dobey> jhobbs: i don't understand the uestion. you mean for merge proposals?
[15:00] <cjwatson> jhobbs: yes
[15:01] <jhobbs> yes
[15:01] <jhobbs> ok, i'll try some more, must be doing something wrong
[16:19] <knome> hey, could some admin look at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/270038 ? cheers
[16:47] <mark06> help please, I need to clone this branch but can't http://vpaste.net/DWYwJ
[17:07] <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
=== UbuntPkgSx is now known as UbuntuPkgingSuck
=== UbuntuPkgingSuck is now known as UbuntuPkgingSuxx
[21:19] <mark06> dobey: using http worked
[21:20] <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
[21:21] <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 the bzr branch for the packaging in ubuntu is out of date due to the issue you asked about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
[21:22] <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
[21:24] <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
[21:25] <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
[21:26] <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 my branch is outdated and I can't figure out a way to update it to both latest pidgin++ and the ubuntu patches
[21:27] <mark06> I wasted a few hours today so I guess I'll give up
[21:28] <mark06> best solution is maybe creating a real pidgin++ package instead of pidgin + pidgin++ patches + ubuntu patches
[21:32] <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
[21:34] <mark06> technically my current pidgin++ package name is "pidgin" with patches (mine and ubuntu's)
[21:35] <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 :(
[21:37] <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 :(
[21:40] <dobey> and why don't you work with the upstream pidgin developers to just improve pidgin instead of forking it?
[21:41] <mark06> I tried in the beginning, see the bugs I fixed for discussions
[21:43] <mark06> they often spend more time in bug tracker than it would take to write the actual patches
[21:44] <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
[21:45] <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
[21:48] <mark06> well, sorry for the ranting  and thanks anyway
=== heroux_ is now known as heroux