[04:50] hello guys! [04:51] I'm learning how to build and edit packages from source [04:52] Careful, before you know it you'll have your very own repo of packages. [04:53] I don't quite get, why if I add build dependencies to debian/control, it will ask for install build dependencies when I only want to install the binaries [04:53] Unit193, yeah, I'm learning to backport some recent versions [04:54] Ok, that reads confusing [04:55] When building I add dependencies, once build the binaries in order to install it now also requires to install build dependencies, why? [04:55] wheren't they only for build? [05:04] Ark74: In general yes, build-deps are only for build; but sometimes build-depending on something will cause your built packages to gain runtime dependencies too. You probably need to be more specific about what's going on. [05:06] cjwatson, maybe I took a bone too big to start learning, but I'm trying to figure out LibreOffice backport from PPA [05:07] That's not likely to be the best first package. [05:07] yeah, I now [05:07] I have completed a 16 hour build [05:07] Ark74: Well, I'm less thinking about what you're packaging, and more exactly what the specific Build-Depends and Depends at issue are [05:09] but I added some dependencies on debian/control > Build-Depends and now, now that I have a local repository it tries to install a whole bunch of dependency packages [05:10] unless I add those packages to Build-Depends the build fails [05:11] "it tries to install" what exact commands did you run that caused "it" (what?) to try to install which specific packages that you weren't expecting? [05:12] mostly java packages, libwpd, libwps, libwpg, liborcus [05:12] I think it might be helpful if you put some kind of transcript on paste.ubuntu.com and shared a link [05:13] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/wZXBXBZsnF/ [05:13] "paquetes NUEVOS" are new packages [05:13] Looks normal enough [05:14] Well, maybe, not sure about the Java pile [05:14] But that transcript does not say what command you ran that resulted in that [05:14] that was sudo apt update ; sudo apt dist-upgrade [05:14] I already had the ppa [05:14] libreoffice ppa [05:14] libwpd, libwps, libwpg, liborcus don't seem like a surprise; note that it's only installing the runtime packages, not the -dev packages [05:15] then used aplty to setup a local repo for the packages build [05:15] OK, so what you need to do is look at the Depends fields of the .debs you have and compare them against the ones in the libreoffice PPA [05:15] hmmm, you are right [05:15] Narrow down what's actually been added there [05:15] You aren't going to get anywhere fast with an undifferentiated pile of output from apt [05:16] And hopefully you have build logs that you can diff against the ones in the PPA [05:17] Also hopefully you have a diff of the changes you made to the source package [05:17] All those things are vital diagnostic tools when looking into this kind of problem [05:18] well, I took the source from the PPA, so I thought there would not be much difference [05:18] You made changes [05:18] the only changes I did where the builder failed [05:18] adding dependencies [05:18] Regardless, you made changes [05:19] A diff is a way of concisely expressing exactly what those changes were [05:19] I have the list [05:19] one sec [05:19] You can generate it by running debdiff against the old and new .dsc files [05:20] Also, if you found that "the builder failed" on the packages that had already built cleanly in the libreoffice PPA, then perhaps that's a warning sign that something is wrong with your build setup and maybe hacking around it by adding Build-Depends is incorrect [05:21] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/xrGwzhC5Nh/ [05:21] Sorry, not prepared to look at it in that form [05:22] A debdiff is the standard way of representing this kind of thing [05:22] A pile of sed statements is unreadable [05:22] (And judging from that you might very well have edited Depends lines by accident ...) [05:23] You might be right [05:23] This is why you need to look at a diff, if nothing else to see if your noninteractive file-editing machinery misfired [05:23] thank you, that makes sense [05:24] let me play with debdiff, so I can be sure if I screw in the way [05:30] cjwatson, seems this will take some time, in case I don't see you around when I'm done, let say thanks! to point out the proper way to tackle this. [05:30] *let me say [05:30] No problem, good luck [05:30] I'll be around, thanks! [10:14] is only me or the bugs pages are showing badly? [10:14] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dkms/+bug/1838921 [10:14] Launchpad bug 1838921 in OEM Priority Project "ability to install dkms without version checking and retire it when kernel fixed issue" [High,New] [10:27] slow alright [10:27] or just bad [10:28] LocutusOfBorg: we're fixing [10:28] slight fallout from migration to git [10:35] thanks! [12:12] good morning === ricab is now known as ricab|lunch === ricab|lunch is now known as ricab === jamesh__ is now known as jamesh [16:21] marcustomlinson: What's the effect of the last hunk of change (to debian/rules) in your libreoffice upload? [16:21] marcustomlinson: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/445268811/libreoffice_1%3A6.3.2-0ubuntu1_1%3A6.3.2-0ubuntu2.diff.gz [16:22] marcustomlinson: The USE_GIT_TARBALLS bit, which isn't mentioned in the changelog. [16:22] infinity: no affect on anything runtime, that flag is used during build-time to grab origs [16:22] infinity: it's supposed to be build as N for every release [16:22] infinity: must have miss it last release [16:22] marcustomlinson: Okay, so only has effect when constructing a new upstream? [16:23] infinity: yes [16:23] Check. === bryce__ is now known as bryce