[00:35] <Hi-Angel> Hi! I'm reading a vacancy at Ubuntu desktop development team, and there is a mandatory field "Code hosting". Any ideas what would that mean?
[00:36] <wxl> e.g. github, gitlab, etc.
[00:36] <wxl> examples of your code
[00:36] <wxl> or that's how i'd read it
[00:37] <Hi-Angel> Hmm, so, links to projects, I see. Thanks!
[00:37] <wxl> np
[09:11] <LocutusOfBorg> teward, xnox_ I blame my node-acorn bootstrap
[10:13] <doko> xnox_: what is https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers-legacy-390xx/390.87-4 ?
[10:21] <tjaalton> yeah remove that
[10:23] <doko> ok, and blacklisting
[10:25] <tjaalton> thanks
[10:33] <seb128> juliank, hey. Bug #1812174 might be interesting to you? It looks fine to me so I was going to sponsor it but I look at the state of things in Debian and saw your have a git with the sftp changes, so I'm pinging in case you want to review/maybe merge that in your version? Or is that ok if I just upload to disco?
[10:34] <juliank> seb128: ack
[12:00] <LocutusOfBorg> we need to understand e.g. why node-buble is not building
[12:00] <LocutusOfBorg> same issue
[14:17] <doko> infinity: fyi: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/406733858/buildlog_ubuntu-bionic-amd64.debian-installer_20101020ubuntu543.4_BUILDING.txt.gz (pure reference test rebuild)
[14:53] <teward> LocutusOfBorg: so node-acorn is the reason of those REPL errors?
[14:53] <teward> LocutusOfBorg: or the source of all the problems observed thus far?
[14:56] <LocutusOfBorg> teward,
[14:56] <LocutusOfBorg> rollup was badly bootstrapped
[14:56] <LocutusOfBorg> and rollup injects code on lots of places
[14:56] <LocutusOfBorg> rollup bootstrap itself in stage profiles
[14:57] <LocutusOfBorg> but the first bootstrapped version was badly done, so it was badly propagating the exception issues
[14:57] <LocutusOfBorg> and everything built with rollup was bad as consequence
[14:57] <LocutusOfBorg> ginggs, ^^
[14:57] <teward> aha!  makes sense.
[14:57] <LocutusOfBorg> I did create two chroots, and melded usr/lib/nodejs
[14:57] <LocutusOfBorg> once debian and one ubunut
[14:57] <LocutusOfBorg> now the two directories are looking the same
[14:57] <LocutusOfBorg> in fact a lot of stuff in -proposed right now was failing for exactly the same reason
[14:58] <LocutusOfBorg> stuff that before didn't have any issue
[14:58] <LocutusOfBorg> because the "bootstrap" was partial
[14:58] <teward> that makes sense, and explains why things had been failing on a 'grander' scale.
[14:58] <LocutusOfBorg> I copied the node_modules from debian chroot for rollup and used it :)
[14:58] <LocutusOfBorg> debian folks uploaded a binary for the bootstrap
[14:59] <LocutusOfBorg> now node-buble works, acorn too, rollup is correctly bootstrapped
[14:59] <LocutusOfBorg> so I presume nodejs will be the next one to build correctly
[14:59] <LocutusOfBorg> I didn't test it, but I'm pretty sure of what I'm saying :)
[15:00] <LocutusOfBorg> we might need some publisher runs but meh
[15:03] <LocutusOfBorg> now the only failed package is node-nan, requiring new nodejs and lots of dep-wait stuff
[15:03] <LocutusOfBorg> also node-srs
[15:31] <teward> LocutusOfBorg: let me know if you need me to test it. v6 datagram stuff will still most likely fail on my end and v6 related ones will fail likely because E:NOIPv6 but
[15:31] <teward> still willing to help out :)
[15:35] <infinity> doko: There are already newer versions of d-i in bionic-proposed that clearly build, so not too concerned about looking at that log. :P
[15:38] <LocutusOfBorg> teward, just upgrade your chroot and try!
[15:39] <teward> LocutusOfBorg: running my massibe sbuild-update calls now
[15:39] <LocutusOfBorg> the archive might be still outdated
[15:41] <teward> possibly but my chroots are all rebuilt for each run, i don't keep the chroots with each time.  we'll see what happens.
[15:41] <teward> i still have to pull things regularly anyways so :p
[17:09] <LocutusOfBorg> ahasenack, thanks for helping Ryan wrt openldap!
[17:09] <LocutusOfBorg> I'm happy to give it to him
[17:09] <LocutusOfBorg> I also want him to become DD or ubuntu PPU :)
[17:09] <ahasenack> yeah, hopefully he can apply for ppu
[17:09] <ahasenack> yep
[17:09] <LocutusOfBorg> I really stopped double checking his openldap stuff a long while ago
[17:09] <LocutusOfBorg> I just build&sign&upload :)
[17:09] <ahasenack> it's good stuff
[17:10] <LocutusOfBorg> I would be happy to advocate him for PPU if you want :)
[17:10] <ahasenack> sure
[17:10] <LocutusOfBorg> btw I have some nitpicks on his ubuntu upload
[17:11] <LocutusOfBorg> now apparmor is a thing in debian too
[17:11] <LocutusOfBorg> also ufw support is a thing
[17:11] <LocutusOfBorg> so maybe he can upstream part of the delta to his debian packaging?
[17:11]  * LocutusOfBorg didn't check the above
[17:13] <ahasenack> that would be cool
[17:13] <ahasenack> reduce the delta
[20:25] <dckusr> is there any change to make python-opencv not install X windows ? tons of people use opencv to run some CV algorithms without GUI
[20:25] <dckusr> maybe a python-opencv-gui package can be made for doing that...
[20:26] <dckusr> I have dockers which apt install this package, and they are so bloated...
[20:34] <sarnold> dckusr: you can use the equivs package to make fake debian packages to satisfy dependencies
[20:34] <sarnold> dckusr: apt-rdepends python-opencv  output can help you determine which packages to fake
[20:34] <sarnold> dckusr: I'm guessing that making a fake libopencv-highgui3.2 package would help, but that's probably not the only one you would need to fake
[20:39] <dckusr> sarnold: why resort tofaking ?
[20:40] <dckusr> most opencv uses are for non gui uses
[20:40] <dckusr> so why not cater to the sane option first ?
[20:41] <sarnold> dckusr: that might be a good idea too, but it will probably also take a while for any possible changes in debian packaging to filter back to ubuntu
[22:22] <sparr> are questions about building debs on topic here?
[22:46] <rlaager> Am I doing something wrong, or is packages.ubuntu.com missing a bunch of information? It seems to have no packages for Bionic, or possibly anything newer than Trusty.
[22:49] <Faux> Heh, no, it seems broken here too.
[23:57] <sparr> I saw the same
[23:59] <TJ-> Is that broke again?