[00:52] <Riddell> yofel: hmm, plasma-desktop now uses kactivities on the linker command line but it doesn't actually link to it
[00:52] <Riddell> weird, uploaded to ppa anyway to let others check
[15:41] <Riddell> erk, new KDE tagging this week, and I haven't even finished with the last one
[15:41] <Riddell> still next one should be pretty simple in comparison
[15:42] <Riddell> wish I had written the clever cloud compiling scripts I wanted to do but I need to learn a bit more about scripting ec2 etc first
[15:45] <apachelogger> what we need is CI-style packaging :P
[15:52] <Riddell> apachelogger: CI-style packaging?
[15:52] <apachelogger> Riddell: well, continous packaging
[15:52] <apachelogger> that would allow release packaging to be done in less than a day
[15:59] <ScottK> 4.7.4 didn't take me very long.
[15:59] <ScottK> It's not hard to do it quickly when the content of what you're packaging is stable.
[16:20] <apachelogger> ScottK: hence the continouity
[16:20] <apachelogger> break up the big change into a couple of small ones
[17:25] <apachelogger> ScottK: do you by any chance have an unused machine? I did a halfway OBS setup some time ago and am somewhat confident that we could put an OBS in front of our ARM farm and make the arm machines nodes to OBS
[17:29] <ScottK> What kind of machine would it need to be?
[17:29] <ScottK> I don't have an extra at the moment, but I might in the next month or two.
[17:31] <apachelogger> ScottK: nothing fancy, from what I gather it'd only need to run mysql, some web server and a couple of obs daemons
[17:33] <ScottK> Could it run Ubuntu or would it have to be opensuse?
[17:36] <apachelogger> ubuntu
[17:36] <apachelogger> though to be perfectly honest, if we were to use the opensuse appliance deployment would be loads easier
[17:36] <ScottK> OK.
[17:37] <apachelogger> though it might be a good excuse to get an OBS ppa started ^^
[17:37] <ScottK> I need to reinstall them anyway.  I was thinking it might be a good time to switch them to armhf.
[19:29] <shadeslayer> apachelogger: you're looking for a spare machine?
[19:40] <ScottK> shadeslayer: It needs to be at my house.
[19:41] <ScottK> Just updated 4.7.4 in the updates PPA with some post-4.7.4 patches that looked like things we'd want.
[19:54] <apachelogger> shadeslayer: send a machine to ScottK :P
[20:02] <apachelogger> debfx: your patch aint in kdelibs!!!
[20:03] <debfx> apachelogger: which patch?
[20:04] <apachelogger> rpath
[20:04] <debfx> ah, don't complain to me about that
[20:07] <apachelogger> you be filing review requests that make no sense
[20:07] <apachelogger> the file says "this shoot must be copynpastable"
[20:07] <apachelogger> and you propose changes that make it not copynpasteable
[20:10] <debfx> I don't follow
[20:14] <debfx> Riddell: what did rekonq/qtwebkit upstream say about their security support plans?
[20:18] <apachelogger> debfx: this change must be made in kdelibs
[20:18] <apachelogger> and then imported into phonon
[20:19] <debfx> I though you were talking about the kdelibs review request
[20:22] <apachelogger> I have a request pending for phonon
[20:22] <apachelogger> which I will not accept until that change was accepted into kdelibs
[20:22] <apachelogger> in particular because I have no clue about cmake
[20:23] <apachelogger> qmake for world domination!
[20:32] <Riddell> debfx: qtwebkit is going to keep doing it only in trunk which will be qt 5 only at some point.  I need to reply to the tech-board list
[20:42] <debfx> hm ok
[20:44] <debfx> I share jdstrand's doubts that we can maintain precise for 5 years because of the limited kde upstream support and the number of releases we'd have to support in parallel
[20:45] <ScottK> debfx: What do you mean?  It's one additional release for the last two years.
[20:45] <Riddell> debfx: kde upstream  support is fine, and certainly better than say gnome
[20:46] <ScottK> Security support of a Qt Webkit based browser, I agree is concerning.
[20:48] <Riddell> it is but it's nothing we haven't had in an LTS before and their policy is no different from say firefox's
[20:49] <ScottK> Right, but there's no full time security staff to keep yet another web browser up to date in Main.
[20:50] <debfx> kde upstream will certainly not support 4.8 anymore in 5 years
[20:51] <debfx> firefox is continuously updated with new upstream versions in Ubuntu so it's totally different
[20:51] <Riddell> debfx: kde upstream do security releases for 12-18 months, that's never changed
[20:52] <debfx> yeah so how can we suddenly support kde for another 2 years?
[20:54] <Riddell> well just like every other LTS, and just like every bit of software in main which doesn't have reliable security support.  gnome for example.
[20:54] <ScottK> There aren't that many security issues in KDE.  The recent spate of SSL cert validation issues is an exception that should pass.
[20:55] <ScottK> Also I think jdstrand's complaining about wanting Kubuntu to be supported like other flavors misses the fact that KDE is in Main.
[20:55] <Riddell> isn't that Qt only?  nokia does security patches for that and KDE upstream richmoore is happy
[20:56] <ScottK> IIRC there were also a few places in KDE that got hit, but I may misremember.
[20:56] <Riddell> and that Kubuntu is also a commercial product of canonical
[20:56] <ScottK> Yes.
[20:56] <ScottK> (someone who works for Canonical should probably quietly remind him of this)
[20:57] <Riddell> yeah needs me to get to my e-mail
[20:58] <ScottK> It's also be somewhat tough to go 5 years for Ubuntu desktop support and then drop support for a lot of apps in Main that people use (like ones from KDE).
[21:32] <bulldog98> Riddell: pim-runtime override error /usr/share/dbus-1/interfaces/org.kde.Akonadi.MixedMaildir.Settings.xml is also in the -dev
[21:32] <bulldog98> 4:4.6.0-0ubuntu1~ppa2
[21:52] <Riddell> bulldog98: ta
[23:30] <Riddell> what's the script to rebuild something in a PPA?
[23:44] <u2san> is kubuntu precise dead?
[23:45] <Riddell> u2san: ?  it's not even released yet
[23:45] <u2san> seems the other flavors are on the 20-30 % done kubuntu is only at 4%
[23:47] <Riddell> I'm was nearly dead so that's why I haven't been doing my % but the PPA is coming along
[23:47] <u2san> just wondering bec the status is RED vs the others
[23:48] <Riddell> it's been slower than I'd like but there are good reason for that
[23:58] <u2san> when you say PPA is coming along does it means 4.8 is there?


[11:07] <rZr> hi
[11:07] <rZr> if it maters, there is a live video at fosdem : http://www.newlc.com/en/2009-events-fosdem-now-wmc-next (now explain cdbs)
[21:16] <chrismurf> Can someone point me in the right direction for how to get a (new) package into Universe?
[21:16] <chrismurf> Built a package, not clear on the process for getting it into ubuntu eventually
[21:46] <pleia2> chrismurf: you're looking for the MOTU team: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU
[21:46] <chrismurf> pleia2, Thank you
[21:47] <chrismurf> I also just stumbled across #debian-python on OFTC, since it's a python package -- seems like that might be helpful
[21:47] <pleia2> chrismurf: have you built the package yet? Debian and Ubuntu are similar with package building, but completely different when it comes to actually getting them in each distro
[21:48] <chrismurf> pleia2, I have a package for ubuntu on my PPA
[21:48] <chrismurf> Ready to go for intrepid, builds on their system (so dep's are right)
[21:48] <pleia2> chrismurf: okay, you'll want to talk to the Ubuntu folks specifically then
[21:48] <chrismurf> okay - thanks
[21:48] <pleia2> welcome :)
[22:33] <dou213> hi guys, does eBox or any other applications providig a web (graphical) interface work on ubuntu server edition (no X) ?
[22:33] <dou213> *providing
[22:47] <pleia2> dou213: I think you want #ubuntu or #ubuntu-server


[08:48] <nopf> hi. so what's the matter with symlinks on windows? i have a project with *1* symlink which i'm willing to delete right now and make a new version -- but won't that 1 create and 2 then remove that on 'pull' on the win machine and still fail in step 1?
[09:21] <nopf> ok. bzr is wise enough to replay in one big step, so this works. thanks
[16:10] <Elimin8er> Im trying to build a package.. when I use checkinstall everything works great. but I want to build it with the intent of putting it on my ppa.. anyhow when I use bzr builddeb -- -us -uc, I get error at the end, take a look here: http://paste.ubuntu.com/8408128/ .. I just dont get it.. Hopefully someone can give me a pointer or two..
[16:16] <fullermd_> Well, that's nothing to do with builddeb, or bzr for that matter.  's just compiler warnings/errors.
[16:21] <Elimin8er> fullermd_,  umm what can I do? anything ?
[16:21] <Elimin8er> it works fine when I use chdeckinstall and make a nice deb file.. but I need it to package for my private ppa.
[16:22] <fullermd_> Fix the b0rked C code   :)
[16:22] <Elimin8er> I was thuinkjing it was the rules file..
[16:22] <Elimin8er> broken code? its hexchat. compiles just fine.. its the dev 2.11.0 version..
[16:23] <Elimin8er> just doesnt compile with bzr issued
[16:25] <fullermd_> Then something in the build process is using different warn flags.
[16:26] <Elimin8er> im still pretty new to this.. anyway to debug that and see whats being passed to display that?
[16:29] <fullermd_> That way out of my baliwick.  Something in the chain of makefiles or invocations.
[16:31] <Elimin8er> fullermd_,  thank you anyhow... and yes it seems to do the same thing in anything that I build that I know build with checkinstall or just reg. make..
[16:33] <fullermd_> Yes, there's a lot of terribly b0rked an insecure C out there   :)
[16:36] <Elimin8er> so your saying bzr is more picky then everything else?
[16:38] <fullermd_> It's nothing at all to do with bzr.  bzr doesn't know anything about any compiling of anything.  It MAY be something embedded in builddeb.
[16:40] <Elimin8er> fullermd_,  yea I figured that too. I understand bzr is just a main function calling.. im thinking its the mh_make making the rules thats causing the problem..
[16:40] <Elimin8er> not sure though
[16:40] <Elimin8er> seems to have problems with debian/rules area
[16:41] <fullermd_> And what I know about debian build processes could be written in 72 point type on one side of a grain of rice...
[16:42] <Elimin8er> debian seems much more easier.. this is for ubuntu that seems to be picky about alot of crap.
[16:42] <Elimin8er> even though they both use deb packages
[16:42] <Elimin8er> and are based of the same concept
[16:43] <fullermd_> Obviously, the fix is to install a real *BSD   O:-}
[16:46] <Elimin8er> call me stupid but what does BSD mean? yes ill still new to all this
[16:46] <fullermd_> Oh, I'm just trolling a little.
[16:47] <Elimin8er> I been working with computers since 1980 (commodore64) then PC later years.. but only messed with linux a short time.
[16:47] <Elimin8er> I been a windows person for some many years..
[17:29] <Elimin8er> fullermd_, I managed to get one test project to work. I compiled qbittorrent 3.2.0alpha with no problems.
[17:29] <Elimin8er> using the bzr package way
[21:24] <LeoNerd> Just occasionally, I wish it was possible to have multiple independent bzr workdirs/branches in the same physical directory, each maintaining separate sets of files
[23:03] <CcxCZ> LeoNerd: hou
[23:03] <CcxCZ> how do you suppose it should look on commandline?
[23:04] <CcxCZ> also; howdy :-)
[23:25] <LeoNerd> Hmmm, yeah it'd be quite awkward I'm sure :)