User1: User2 ever heard of the gnusim8085?
User1: i made this program on it : http://pastebin.com/81qsAbdG
User1: but im getting Execution branched to invalid memory location <6H>. Execution will be stopped! << please reply in PM
User2: User1 no idea in assembly. I work in c
User2: User1 there?
User2: User1 oh sorry .. soo jaa kaaka .. shhh!!!
User3: User4 Still around?
User4: User3 yes
User3: I'm looking at bug #622914, but I can't find those two CVEs anywhere. Is there an announcement somewhere?
User5: Launchpad bug 622914 in tmux (Ubuntu) "Sync tmux 1.3-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/622914
User3: Sorry - wrong bug. bug #622900
User5: Launchpad bug 622900 in phpmyadmin (Ubuntu) "Please sync phpmyadmin 4:91.69.162.6-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/622900
User4: User3 in the changelog
User4: User3 I figured since it was the devel release that would be enough, I plan on a full bug with all the info for the SRUs
User3: User4 Yeah, yeah - I see the numbers. I want to know what the actual vulnerabilities are
User3: Curiosity as much as anything else
User4: User3 http://www.phpmyadmin.net/home_page/security/PMASA-2010-5.php
User3: Ah - XSS bug. Boring :-P
User6: heh
User3: User4 Anyway, yeah - I agree. Security microrelease == no FFe. I'll ACK it
User4: User3 thanks
User4: there will probably be a 3.3.6 before Maverick release, but we'll see if it's bug fix or features
User3: Can you punt the ubuntu-sponsors subscription? I've been too lazy to get my membership renewed :)
User4: User3 sure
User7: anyone here know about packaging deb files? I'm in the process of reading https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete but this is more of a question of, "is this the best way to do it?" than anything else. I want to find the best way to distribute images for wallpapers, fonts, document files, and also an install-setup.sh for setting up new installs. Basically the idea is to do a new Ubuntu install, add the PPA, update it
User7: and then the file downloads and does all of the work. Is this the best way to do that? One issue that may arise is the shell script does reqire some user input to it. Forgive me. I am not a programmer, new to packaging, etc. Just want some feedback on my method really. Right now I have an alternaitve Ubuntu ISO with a kickstart file that does a wget to.dropbox.com -O- | sh and it works, but it's crude.
User4: User9 do you know what linux-vdso.so.1 is?
User8: q. apt-get doesnt support http proxy ?
User8: due fixed it
User8: sudo export http_proxy and not just export
User9: micahg, if memory serves, it's an imaginary library (i.e. it's part of the kernel)
User9: used to be linux-gate
User4: User9 k, I was wondering if that's why moonlight was crashing due to an unavailable lib
User10: good morning
User5: Launchpad bug 622914 in tmux (Ubuntu) "Sync tmux 1.3-1 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/622914
User11: simon-o: just say excatly that and subscribe ubuntu-release (bug numbers are good)
User12: Hello
User13: If a package has a dfsg bit, and has no ubuntu changes, and I want to upgrade it in Ubuntu only (special case), what should be done ? Can I just remove the dfsg bit and mark -0ubuntu1 ?
User11: User13 +dfsg means a repack
User11: so if you are upgrading it in ubuntu, do the same repack
User11: (there should be a get-orig-source rule to do it)
User13: User11 ok, got it
User13: User11 yes there is
User13: User11 so I should go ahead and just do as I do normally?
User13: no
User13: I understood
User13: now
User11: User13 yeah except that you are using the repacka you created, not the upstream tarball
User13: User11 ok so I will need to repackage, will I need to upload the repack somewhere else?
User11: User13 no, the sponsor can do the same repack
User13: ari-tczew: yes
User14: Hrm?  If there's a repack in Debian, it's best to use the *exact same* binary artifacts that Debian produced for the repack, rather than re-repacking it.
User13: ari-tczew: it happened long ago
User13: There's good news, people
User13: No need, since the repack was done to remove a file
User13: Upstream has removed it now
User13: User11 so I am dumping the dfsg bit in the version. Okay?
User13: BRB
User11: User13 why?
User11: User13 oh, I see
User11: nm
User11: User14 bilalakhtar was talking about a new upstream release
User14: Ah, right.
User13: ari-tczew: The repack happened long ago
User13: ari-tczew: In the september 14 meeting
User13: ari-tczew: By then, I hope to gain a little bit more experience
User11: ari-tczew: afraid so, yes
User13: User11 Like merges, in package upgrades also should I outline all debian/ubuntu changes in the changelog?
User13: I have added a message in changelog why I dropped the repack
User11: User13 in merges you don't have to outline debian changes, but yes you should always outline *your* changes in the changelog
User13: User11 in merges we outline Ubuntu changes
User11: yes, the changes you are applying
User13: User11 here I am outlining non-upstream changes
User13: yes
User13: building now
User13: Built!
User13: Hey! When I ran update-maintainer, it added the old maintainer to the uploaders! Is it right?
User15: I don't think it should touch the Uploaders field
User13: No, I saw it the wrong way
User13: It did it correct
User15: (nor does it from the code)
User15: ok
User13: I was actually looking at the DSC
 * bilalakhtar will leave now
User16: we have a team meeting today dont we?
User16: oops...wrong channel
User17: of the web tools that we have that support adding comments on packages (e.g. merge-o-matic) do those comments persist with new versions?
User17: i.e. is the comment field blank after a new version is uploaded, or does it keep the same value as it had before?
User15: IIRC they were reset
User15: but you can get the source of mom
User17: yeah
User17: getting it is one thing, answering that question for sure is another
User17: from what I've seen it looks like they aren't reset but I'm not sure
User15: I wonder what happened to merges.ubuntu.com/xxx.html
User17: ENOSPC I believe
User15: is there an RT about it?
User17: don't know
User15: anyway it makes sense to me for them to be linked to versions, as the kind of things they were used for were transient
User15: bug numbers and assignment tracking mainly
User17: it appears that they persist
User11: that's my memory of them, you'd often come across comments that related to previous merges
User15: if that's true, then I feel retrospectively bad for putting bug numbers in the comments ;)
User18: tumbleweed, working on the sponsorship queue?
User18: (I won on bug 623358 by 4 minutes :-) )
User5: Launchpad bug 623358 in gnurobots (Ubuntu) "gnurobots ftbfs in maverick" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/623358
User11: User18 heh
User11: you can have the upload then :)
User18: :-) I just wanted to avoid double work ;-)
User18: ari-tczew, I'm looking at bug 623372
User5: Launchpad bug 623372 in libgtkada2 (Ubuntu) "Sync libgtkada2 2.14.2-4 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/623372
User18: ;-)
User11: didn't my ack-sync lock it?
User18: hmm, you too?
User18: still in New in the ack-sync output
User18: ack-sync throw me an exception, so it may be true
User11: you're riht, still new, but it assigned me (didn't it used to set in progress?)
User18: should be, yes
User18: IIRC, bdrung added it and also a control on status to avoid 2 people working on the same bug report at the same time
User11: User18 I can't see any sign of In Progress in the source (or the bzr log)
User18: bdrung perhaps forgot to commit the change, then
User11: I was going to ammend it to set Fix Committed before uploading, but determining which task we are looking at is quite complex
User18: perhaps we should be using IRC to avoid clashes. Something like /me looking at #623358
User11: I normally unsubscribe sponsors and subscribe myself when starting to look, then reload the bug to be sure nobody else has
User18: so do I
User18: except with ack-sync
User11: User18 looks like ack-sync locks by assignee - it must have been a race during assignment
User18: tumbleweed, could be, yes. I'm updating also my ack-sync script, in case something has been fixed recently
User11: I've done a couple of tweaks, testing now.
User19: ok, I followed this guide:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Python  and my deb comes out small, and only installed the control files, where did I go wrong??
User19: Is this the right channel to get help with packaging?
User11: User19 #ubuntu-packaging
User19: tumbleweed, ok, thanks
User11: ari-tczew: #ubuntu-x ?
User15: no
User15: it's not a new upstream yet so the tarballs will still be different
User15: â fakesync or merge
User15: what? You asked if it could be synced and I answered you
User15: I don't know what the build dep is for either, the changelog should have been more verbose
User20: hello
User20: i'm trying to create my first ubuntu package
User20: since this is a java program i'm getting this error in pbuilder
User20: Can't exec "ant": No such file or directory at /usr/share/perl5/Debian/Debhelper/Dh_Lib.pm line 179.
User20: dh_auto_clean: ant clean failed to to execute: No such file or directory
User20: how can i say that this program needs ant to build?
User20: i tried this: Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, ant
User20: in the debian/control file
User20: but it didn't work
User20: any help?
User21: it's a Build-Depends
User20: ups, sorry for noobness
User20: didn't notice the build-depends variable
User20: trying to build the package again
User20: it's downloading java so i suppose it's working now =)
User20: azeem, Unpacking ant (from .../ant_1.7.1-4build1_all.deb) ...
User20: thanks man! =)
User20: i'm so stupid... obviously i have to say that i also need a java compiler
User21: no problem
User20: which java compiler should i use?
User21: the default one
User20: i should use a meta java compiler right?
User21: didn't you say it downloaded one?
User20: instead of saying openjdk-jdk for example
User21: why instead?
User20: i'll see the dependencies of ant
User20: because the binary package will depend on a java runtime
User21: check its Suggests as well
User20: trying again
User20: azeem, it worked! =)
User20: i'm happy
User20: i'm going home now and when i arrive i'll learn how to get my package uploaded
User22: anyone knows why a lucid build would resut in a dependancy on libav.* (>= 4:0.5.1-3) ????
User22: If the distro version is libav* 4:0.5.1-1
User23: User22 what package?
User23: probably a bad import from Debian
User22: User23 I did the package .. imported it, it is paraview
User22: I commited .. compiled ok in maverick..
User22: but now I want to backport it..
User22: I'm not a MOTU
User22: I just filled the bug and so on
User24: :D
User13: User11 Thanks for that bug-buddy upload!
User22: ??
User22: User13 How do I fix this ??
User13: User22 Please elaborate
User22: User13 It compiles, install, run and everything else fine in maverick
User22: User13 compile fine in lucid also...
User22: User13 but gives a dependency on libav.* (>= 4:0.5.1-3)  when installing
User22: User13 if I force it to install, it runs and do everything else perfect..
User23: User22 give the bug number or an URL to your source package or something
User22: User13 how do I fix that dependency on libav* (>= 4:0.5.1-3) to (>= 4:0.5.1-1) to ask for a backport in lucid
User23: nobody here has a crystal ball
User13: I agree with Bachstelze
User22: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/paraview/3.8.1-1ubuntu1
User13: User22 It would be a lot better to ask your question in public rather than refer me!
User22: sorry
User18: canesin, is this a build dependency or a generated one for the binary package?
User22: a generated one
User22: only ocours when trying to install the generated deb in lucid
User25: User18 by the way, I saw your upload doing a libao4 transition, should I request a rebuild of my package in Debian as well?
User22: used pbuilder-dist lucid build %.dsc
User18: canesin, so if you rebuild the package, the right dependency should be picked
User18: lfaraone, not sure: I'm parsing the NBS, and libao2 was one of those
User22: That is why I'm asking here.. it does not.. it still shows  libav.* (>= 4:0.5.1-3)
User18: lfaraone, Debian has libao4. Which package is it?
User25: User18 pianobar.
User18: it's ok in Debian
User18: canesin, why is there so many python2.5 stuff there?
User13: Hi fabrice_sp seeing you here after a long time!
User18: Hey bilalakhtar :-)
User18: on holidays tomorrow, so you'll have to wait even longer ;-)
User18: canesin, do you have a build log somewhere?
User18: for Lucid
User22: fabrice_sp, the program has a Python API..
User22: fabrice_sp, I'm rebuilding it now.. sorry.. only "last_operation.log" ..
User22: fabrice_sp, It is in 40% ....
User18: canesin, take your time
User18: even if it has a python API, why isn't 2.6 referenced?
User22: fabrice_sp, I believe that in version 3.8.1 it is 2.6 .. but in olders no
User22: this package was very outdated..
User22: that was why I filled the FFe
User18: yeah :-/
User18: 3.8.1 still reference python2.5
User18: at least, in the debian directory
User22: ? .. in the build log it don't call it
User18: you have it in paraview.lintian-overrides
User18: debian/python-paraview.install
User11: oh dear I missed that. I sponsored it
User18: and that's it
 * tumbleweed assumes the python scripting is broken in it then?
User13: User11 hey1
User18: it seems so, yes
User13: s/1/!/
User13: User11 Thanks for that upload!
User11: User13 np
User18: s/1/?/
User13: User11 And, what about the mail I sent you? Can you answer it now?
 * tumbleweed sees some more SRU uploads from you first
User13: User11 I have none right noq
User13: *now
User11: oh, nm
User13: User11 did you upload a few SRUs before becoming MOTU?
User11: no, but I probably should have.
User13: User11 then?
User13: so its a 'Wait some more time'
User13: Thanks for the review tumbleweed !
User11: User13 no, that is unrelated, my mistake, nm
User13: User11 The problem is, I cannot find bugs which can be SRUed
User13: I tried one, but pitti declined
User11: User13 don't worry about that - you'll come across them soon enough
User11: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/54310767/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-amd64.utouch-grail_1.0.10-0ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz <- eh? sh: gcc: not found
User15: don't worry about that
User15: all builds are saying it
User22: User18 so what is the problem ??
User22: User18 It has something broken ?
User18: canesin, did you posted a lucid build?
User18: ohh, about python: yes
User22: User18 wierd, because I had run some python scripts to test
User22: before upload
User18: according to the install file, you should be missing debian/tmp/usr/lib/paraview/python2.5/lib-dynload/*.so files
User18: but as it's building fine, the build system seems to find those files
User22: ok...
User22: so no problem in that ..
User22: it runs
User18: not sure
User18: I'll build the package in a clean chroot, and see if the files are there or not
User22: okay
User22: and the dependency problem ?? how do I fix that ??
User26: could someone upload bug 395692 ? it has a debdiff waiting for a very long time...
User5: Launchpad bug 395692 in alacarte (Ubuntu) "Drag-and-Drop behavior in the menu editor is inconsistent and confusing" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/395692
User26: I asked Amaranth and he said upstream is unmaintained too
User13: User26 You're better off asking it in #ubuntu-desktop
User20: hello everyone
User20: i've followed the motu videos by daniel holbach to create my first package
User20: now that pbuilder ran successfully, what should i do?
User23: User20 depends, what kind of package is it?
User20: i just packaged a java program that is not currently in the ubuntu reps
User20: basically, i download the program (in .zip) and changed it to a .tar.gz like daniel holbach says in the video
User23: if it's not in Ubuntu, it's probably not in Debian either, the "preferred" way is to get it into Debian, and let it merge in Ubuntu automatically
User20: is it similar to create a package for debian?
User23: yes
User23: obviously, the packaging format it the same ;)
User20: ok, i'll look into that on the debian website
User20: it's A LOT to read
User20: i'll just unzip the program and use it
User20: i'm not into reading all this stuff just to create a package now :(
User18: canesin, the build failed because I don't have enough space on my HD. Sorry, I have to leave now
User22: fabrice_sp :
User22: Okey
User15: sparc and ia64 finally died eh?
 * Laney twiddles a script or two
User9: aw, now i can't install ubuntu on our altix
User15: nah, you just get the fun of rolling your own
ubuntu-motu
Ubuntu IRC