[00:40] <somerville32> bye
[01:19] <slangasek> superm1_: no
[01:19] <superm1_> slangasek, i forget what exactly i messaged as i pinged you before.
[01:19] <superm1_> slangasek, it was probably related to that mythtv sru
[01:36] <slangasek> superm1_: you asked me if I was still here
[01:36] <superm1_> slangasek, ah okay
[01:37] <superm1_> slangasek, well i was going to ask you about the sru then when you responded :)
[01:37] <slangasek> and if it's about the sru, I'm really probably not here until tomorrow morning when I've had a chance to rest some. :)
[01:37] <superm1_> slangasek, sounds good :)
[01:37] <superm1_> slangasek, enjoy your evening
[02:00] <somerville32> Hobbsee, I need some love.
[02:00] <somerville32> Bug 160314
[02:00] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 160314 in xfce4-session "xfce4-session: merge new Debian version" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/160314
[02:00] <Hobbsee> somerville32: oh?
[02:00] <somerville32> :)
[02:03] <somerville32> Hobbsee, Think you can help? :]
[02:04] <Hobbsee> somerville32: nope :)
[02:04] <somerville32> Hobbsee, Why not? : *(
[02:04] <Hobbsee> because i'm doing uni stuff, and i'm only on irc to speak to some people
[02:04] <somerville32> moogles.
[02:32] <BlaenkDenum> hey I'm wondering where I can propose something regarding the IRC channel, would the forums be a good place?
[02:33] <BlaenkDenum> I figured launchpad but then that's mainly for distribution problems I figure
[02:33] <Burgundavia> BlaenkDenum: irc channels are covered by the IRC council
[02:33] <Burgundavia> what is your issue?
[02:33] <PriceChild> BlaenkDenum, "the"... which channel?
[02:34] <BlaenkDenum> maybe the most popular, #ubuntu
[02:34] <BlaenkDenum> Burgundavia: oh haha there's an IRC council, where can I contact them?
[02:34] <Burgundavia> BlaenkDenum: what is your issue?
[02:34] <BlaenkDenum> Alright, well it's not really an issue I was just wondering if it's something to think about.
[02:35] <Burgundavia> instead of being obtuse, you could tell us what is on your mind
[02:35] <Hobbsee> #ubuntu-irc
[02:35] <Burgundavia> then we can help you a lot better
[02:35] <Hobbsee> Burgundavia: this still isnt the correct place :)
[02:35] <BlaenkDenum> I will, hold on I'm typing heh
[02:35] <BlaenkDenum> okay I'll go to #ubuntu-irc
[02:35] <PriceChild> Hobbsee, #ubuntu-ops you mean? ;)
[02:35] <Hobbsee> BlaenkDenum: use #ubuntu-irc.  most of the develpoers are not ops.
[02:35] <Hobbsee> PriceChild: er, yes, that.
[02:35] <Burgundavia> Hobbsee: I have no idea what exactly he is saying yet
[02:35] <Hobbsee> Burgundavia: if ti's regarding the irc channel...
[02:36] <Burgundavia> Hobbsee: and he mentioned LP and the forums, thus I am still confused
[02:37] <Hobbsee> Burgundavia: as places to put his proposals, yeah.
[02:37]  * Hobbsee waits to see what it is
[02:40] <somerville32> Carefully BlaenkDenum, they might eat you alive :P
[12:01] <viviersf> hi guys, does ubiquity copy files from the squashfs image only or the squash+unionfs ?
[12:23] <Mithrandir> viviersf: the squashfs, then a handpicked selection of items from the unionfs
[12:23] <Hobbsee> Mithrandir!
[12:24] <Mithrandir> hello little crazy Australian!
[12:24] <Hobbsee> hiya Mithrandir!
[12:25]  * Hobbsee is sad little crazy
[12:25] <Hobbsee> Australian
[12:25] <Mithrandir> why are you sad?
[12:25] <Hobbsee> my boss is leaving :(
[12:25]  * Hobbsee notes that her underlings are *all* sad, and are saying she isnt allowed to go :P
[12:26] <Mithrandir> heh
[12:26]  * Mithrandir ruffles Hobbsee
[12:26]  * Hobbsee hugs Mithrandir
[12:26] <Hobbsee> so we probably get a terror person, next
[12:27] <viviersf> Mithrandir, there a place one can define things to be copied form unionfs ?
[12:30] <Mithrandir> viviersf: you can set up a hook, sure.  /usr/lib/ubiquity/target-config contains a list of hooks
[12:31] <viviersf> Mithrandir, heh okay, so i just put a scipt in that copies the stuff
[12:31] <Mithrandir> viviersf: that ought to work, yes.  You might want to look at the bits there already to work out how it all fits together.
[12:32] <viviersf> Mithrandir, cool thanks
[12:32] <viviersf> Mithrandir, was this changed for gutsy ? in feisty it copied form all unionfs ?
[12:33] <Mithrandir> no, it's been the same way since dapper
[12:44] <viviersf> Mithrandir, in feisty i used to update packages from the live cd and install with the new versions. In gutsy it seems to revert everything
[12:47] <Hobbsee> morning cjwatson_
[12:47] <Mithrandir> viviersf: if you got that, I think you would have dreamed it.
[12:47] <viviersf> Mithrandir, haha no i didnt. Maby there was a bug :P
[12:48] <Mithrandir> viviersf: somehow, I think we would have noticed.  Just copying the unionfs would break a whole lot of things.
[12:49] <viviersf> Mithrandir, i dunno it worked. Its weird then
[13:15] <norsetto> stevenk: how is the battle against libtool going?
[13:16] <StevenK> norsetto: I will have my revenge!
[13:17] <Hobbsee> good luck with that.  will you succeed?
[13:18] <norsetto> Hobbsee: the official score is libbtool 1 - stevenk 0 (see bug 139635 last comment)
[13:18] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 139635 in libgpg-error "[cryptsetup] library dependency in /sbin/cryptsetup" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/139635
[13:24] <Hobbsee> norsetto: pity.
[13:56] <manchicken> Hobbsee: Howdy :)
[13:57] <Hobbsee> hiya manchicken!
[13:57] <manchicken> How goes it/
[14:00] <Hobbsee> manchicken: it goes, gnome style :)
[15:00] <bddebian> Heya
[16:03] <tekteen> anyone here know what packages I can take off of the alt install cd for kubuntu? I need to make room.
[16:04] <BUGabundo> hya
[16:05] <tekteen> hi
[16:05] <BUGabundo> today I've add Hardy reps
[16:05] <BUGabundo> did a few (really few packages) updates
[16:05] <BUGabundo> found a little prob
[16:05] <BUGabundo> SoftwarePropertiesGtk didn't work! should I report it on LP?
[16:05] <warp10> Hi all!
[16:06] <BUGabundo> is Michael Vogt here?
[16:09] <Hobbsee> BUGabundo: you want #ubuntu+1
[16:09] <Hobbsee> and no, he's not
[16:10] <BUGabundo> thanks Hobbsee
[16:16] <highvoltage> Was anyone here at the Gobuntu sessions at UDS Boston?
[16:18] <popey> i was at one of them
[17:10] <fabbione> FYI: we are going to disable automatic package ACCEPT in launchpad for a few hours
[17:10] <Hobbsee> oh noes!
[17:18] <Mithrandir> fabbione_: as in, disable build-from-unpublished-source?
[17:20] <fabbione_> Mithrandir: not sure.. ask pitti
[17:20] <fabbione_> Mithrandir: we need to import the partner archive in LP
[17:20] <Mithrandir> ah
[17:21] <Mithrandir> pitti: ^^; are you disabling the publisher completely or just the build-unpublished-source bits?
[17:22] <pitti_> Mithrandir: completely, just for safety
[17:22] <Mithrandir> ok
[17:23] <pitti_> Mithrandir: b-f-a stays enabled for now
[17:26] <Riddell> carlos: spooky japanese https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/gutsy/+source/kde-guidance/+pots/guidance/nb/+translate
[17:31] <carlos> Riddell: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/rosetta/+bug/133315
[17:31] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 133315 in rosetta "at least, four wrong language imports for gutsy" [High,Confirmed]
[17:51] <StevenK> pitti: libbsd-resource-perl should be okay to be promoted, it built everywhere
[17:51] <pitti> StevenK: it still needs at least a shallow review for MIR
[17:51] <StevenK> pitti: Yeah, okay, but that's you or me doing that?
[17:51] <StevenK> pitti: All I was planning on doing was crowbarring yada off of it
[17:52]  * StevenK beats bloody dexter with the crowbar
[17:54] <warp10> Hi all!
[18:17] <Joe_CoT> hey, the gutsy-security repo has an invalid signature. Has all morning. Anyone to report it to?
[18:23] <jdong> Joe_CoT: really?
[18:23] <jdong> I just applied security updates 1.5hrs ago
[18:23] <Joe_CoT> jdong, yeah.
[18:23] <Joe_CoT> W: GPG error: http://security.ubuntu.com gutsy-security Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG 40976EAF437D05B5 Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key<EMAIL_ADDRESS>[18:23]  * jdong runs a 2nd update
[18:24] <jdong> no error on apt-get update
[18:24] <Joe_CoT> really? hmm
[18:24] <jdong> sure you don't have an intercepting proxy or something upstream?
[18:24] <Kmos> i'm applying them without problem..
[18:24] <Kmos> Joe_CoT: isn't a problem of your mirror?
[18:25] <jdong> Kmos: it shows sec.ubuntu.com
[18:25] <jdong> Kmos: somehow the traffic is getting corrupted on the way over to him....
[18:25] <jdong> odd to say the least
[18:25] <Kmos> ah yeah =) is direct
[18:48] <pitti> StevenK: ah, libbsd-r-p package looks so *delightfully* easy now
[18:50] <pitti> StevenK: mainified, thanks
[18:50] <pitti> StevenK: on a related note, gnutls13 FTBFSed again, probably because of the libtool-crackification in libgcrypt11
[18:54] <StevenK> pitti: Thank you for the compliment. :-)
[18:55] <StevenK> pitti: I saw the FTBFS, I wanted to ask you about it. Shall I just fix and upload gcrypt11 and then we give back gnutls13 once more with feeling?
[19:07] <Chipzz> StevenK: weren't there plans to eliminate .la files from the packages several releases back?
[19:08] <slangasek> it's an uphill battle
[19:09] <Chipzz> looks more like a battle that never got out of the planning stage to me really ;)
[19:15] <StevenK> It's hard to kill .la files
[19:16] <StevenK> Since libtool is a pile of crap
[19:16] <geser> and some KDE apps need them
[19:16] <tekteen> can someone help me. My preseed file is not working. It does not seem to be answering any questions. I pasted it at http://paste.ubuntu-nl.org/43569/.
[19:20] <soren> tekteen: please don't ask questions and run away before you've given people a chance to answer. kthxbye
[19:24] <slangasek> soren: why?
[19:24]  * slangasek runs away!
[19:25]  * soren grumbles
[19:26]  * soren shakes his fist at slangasek
[19:40]  * popey waves at soren
[19:40] <soren> o/
[19:48] <slangasek> mathiaz: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-samba-maint
[19:53] <slangasek> bdmurray: are the Portland Cabal going to go in on Adilson's planning for airport transit?
[19:53] <StevenK> Heh heh. Portland Cabal
[19:55] <fabbione> FYI: uploads to LP will be processed automatically from now
[20:06] <bdmurray> slangasek: I've considered it
[20:09] <seb128> keescook: the glib copy is pcre 7.2
[20:10] <seb128> keescook: the changelog has that
[20:10] <seb128>         * glib/gregex.c: define PCRE_ERROR_NULLWSLIMIT if it's not defined by
[20:10] <seb128>         PCRE, has PCRE 7.3 removed this definition. (#475474)
[20:10] <seb128> not sure if that's a compatibility breakage or something not exported
[20:10] <slangasek> fabbione: hrm, what uploads to LP?
[20:11] <fabbione> slangasek: all of them.. we had the publisher in manual for a bit
[20:11] <fabbione> it's all good now
[20:11] <slangasek> oh
[20:13] <StevenK> pitti: Are you busy?
[20:13] <pitti> StevenK: currently typing a mail, but not particularly muc
[20:13] <pitti> h
[20:14] <StevenK> pitti: Shall I come find you and we can bitch at each other about gnutls and libtool?
[20:15] <slangasek> ugh, does gnutls still have .las?
[20:16] <StevenK> slangasek: It's worse than that. All three of us can talk about it if you want
[20:16] <slangasek> ok
[20:16] <StevenK> So as soon as pitti tells us where he is hiding, both of us can find him.
[20:17] <pitti> StevenK: main room
[20:17] <StevenK> Oh, duh
[20:17] <pitti> bdmurray: ok, mail is away
[20:17] <StevenK> I'm right behind you
[20:17] <StevenK> pitti: ^
[20:18] <StevenK> slangasek: Come find us?
[20:18] <slangasek> StevenK: in a meeting
[20:21] <StevenK> slangasek: Ahh. pitti and I will discuss it.
[20:21] <slangasek> bdmurray: we probably need to get a plan together pretty soon, lest all the vehicles in town get filled up before Saturday? :)
[20:22] <broonie> c
[20:22] <broonie> Gah.
[20:22] <fabbione> is it normal that a stat(file, &sb) on a symlink that points to a dir will have S_ISLNK(sb.st_mode) set to FALSE and S_ISDIR set to TRUE?
[20:23] <zul> fabbione: gah?
[20:23] <fabbione> zul: stat(2)
[20:23] <zul> fabbione: ah..
[20:23] <fabbione> zul: make a symlink pointing to a dir
[20:23] <fabbione> stat it
[20:23] <fabbione> check what it is via S_IS macros
[20:23] <fabbione> it tells me that it is a dir and not a symlink
[20:24] <fabbione> might be a bug or a feature.. just need to understand
[20:35] <lamego> fabbione, man fstat
[20:36] <fabbione> lamego: that's the same man page as stat..
[20:36] <lamego>        lstat() is identical to stat(), except that if path is a symbolic link,
[20:36] <lamego>        then the link itself is stat-ed, not the file that it refers to.
[20:36] <lamego> no it is not
[20:36] <lamego> it has a clear statement regarding how slinks are treated :)
[20:36] <fabbione> lamego: read carefully what i said... man stat = man fstat
[20:36] <lamego> lstat() unlike stat() identifies links
[20:37] <fabbione> ok perfect
[20:37] <lamego> ok, whatever, it answers to your question :)
[20:37] <fabbione> that is not fstat.. i don't need that
[20:37] <lamego> fabbione, stat follows links, as per the developers man page
[20:37] <liw> violent agreement detected
[20:37] <fabbione> lamego: yeps right.. i missed lstat
[20:38] <fabbione> liw: no.. he is right for lstat.. we agree on that.
[20:38] <fabbione> liw: i don't agree that the man pages are different :)
[20:38] <lamego> you are correct
[20:38] <lamego> :P
[20:38] <fabbione> lamego: thanks tho
[20:38] <fabbione> :)
[20:43] <Riddell> bdmurray: bug 155784
[20:43] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 155784 in qt4-x11 "[gutsy] /usr/lib/libssl.so missing" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/155784
[21:17] <pitti> seb128: new cdbs uploaded, works with libgcrypt11
[21:19] <warp10> pitti: Hi! Did you received my email?
[21:20] <seb128> pitti: you rock! ;-)
[21:21] <pitti> warp10: no, seems I didn't; which mail you mean?
[21:22] <warp10> pitti: I sent it 5 days ago, November 1st
[21:33] <norsetto> pitti: if I ask nicely, would you look at the fix for bug 155498 which is in gutsy-proposed since a month?
[21:33] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 155498 in rutilt "rutilt 0.15-0ubuntu5 crashes while applying a profile" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/155498
[21:33] <pitti> norsetto: oh, in fact I looked at it yesterday, but there was something about it I didn't like
[21:33] <pitti> norsetto: give me a minute
[21:34] <norsetto> pitti: sure
[21:38] <pitti> norsetto: oh, right; it doesn't have approval from motu-sru
[21:39] <pitti> and it has a whole lot of changes in it, which don't look critical
[21:39] <pitti> so I want motu-sru to ack it
[21:39] <pitti> norsetto: also, it doesn't have a changelog which is useful
[21:39] <pitti> even less so for users, so it does not tell anything about the impact and severity
[21:39] <norsetto> pitti: ok, for the first point, that was motu-uvf at the time
[21:40] <pitti> oh, eww, I didn't know that
[21:40] <pitti> so that's replaced by motu-uvf team?
[21:40] <norsetto> pitti: but its ok, I subscribe motu-sru then
[21:41] <pitti> norsetto: no, please don't
[21:41] <pitti> norsetto: LP says that motu-sru is obsolete
[21:41] <pitti> norsetto: hang on a minute
[21:42] <pitti> norsetto: hm, seems that the MOTU SRU process recently changed to not actually require acks
[21:42] <pitti> norsetto: so, sorry, it's not your fault
[21:42] <pitti> but I don't like this at all
[21:42] <norsetto> pitti: I will make it only for that bug if necessary but its a pity to miss the other fixes, they really enhance the package
[21:43] <pitti> norsetto: but every change bears the risk of breaking it for current users
[21:43] <pitti> norsetto: only "severe regressions" or "loss of data"
[21:43] <norsetto> pitti: just between you and me, I'm using it since a month
[21:44] <pitti> norsetto: btw, with "I don't like this at all" I didn't refer to your patch, but to the process change of not needing acks from motu-sru any more
[21:44] <norsetto> pitti: sure :-)
[21:44] <pitti> the current process basically makes stable-universe fair game for breaking
[21:45] <StevenK> The point was more to trust MOTUs to make calls about what to fix.
[21:45] <pitti> well, the current mythtv in gutsy-proposed unapproved is a prime example of how *not* to do an SRU
[21:46] <StevenK> Who uploaded it?
[21:46] <pitti> "Rewrite the entire tv backend driver because it's better"
[21:46] <StevenK> Oh geez
[21:47] <pitti> and once we go down that route of never ack'ing uploads, I'm also afraid that too much effort will be spent fixing minor things in stables
[21:47] <pitti> which is really better spent on improving the current dev release
[21:49] <pitti> norsetto: ok, I let this through based on the fact that it matches the currnet policy
[21:49] <pitti> but I'll initiate a change to that policy
[21:49] <norsetto> pitti: thanks, I really appreciate it
[21:49] <norsetto> norsetto hugs pitti
[21:50]  * pitti hugs norsetto
[21:50]  * norsetto hugs stevenk too (he is in a hugging mood, so there)
[21:55] <pitti> seb128: ok, we have fixed prepared for gnutls&friends
[21:55] <pitti> seb128: however, in the long run we need to convince Debian about this concept, or we need to use clean-la.mk by default in cdbs (right now it isn't)
[21:55] <pitti> seb128: I'm actually pondering doing the latter
[21:59] <seb128> pitti: well, clean-la comes from Debian, so there is already people convinced there ;-)
[21:59] <seb128> but right, should be discussed there
[21:59] <pitti> only amongst the gnome team, I guess
[21:59] <seb128> I think Keybuk is not that happy with that and consider .la useful
[21:59] <pitti> what for?
[22:00] <seb128> static building apparently
[22:00] <Keybuk> so, here's a theory for you ...
[22:00] <pitti> they just cause extra useless dependencies and other trouble
[22:00] <slangasek> seb128: the answer to that is to make sure a .pc file is provided when the .la is removed
[22:00] <Keybuk> if you don't want .la files
[22:00] <Keybuk> why do you compile with libtool at all?
[22:00] <seb128> but I'm not sure that's true on linux nowadays
[22:00] <Keybuk> why not just use gcc?
[22:00] <pitti> Keybuk: because upstream build systems do?
[22:00] <Keybuk> upstream install the .la file
[22:00] <pitti> but TBH I think that dh_shlibdeps does a much better job
[22:01] <slangasek> no, libtool installs the .la file
[22:01] <seb128> Keybuk: libtool install those
[22:01] <seb128> that's a side effect
[22:01] <Keybuk> no, it's the primary effect
[22:01] <seb128> upstream just wants to build their libs
[22:01] <Keybuk> the side effect is the installation of .so
[22:01] <pitti> and I'm not really concerned about having it working on a 20 year old VAX
[22:01] <Keybuk> libtool uses and manipulates .la files
[22:01] <slangasek> installing the .la file is an implementation detail of a poor implementation
[22:01] <Keybuk> so don't use the poor implementation
[22:01] <slangasek> don't have that choice
[22:01] <Keybuk> if you're using libtool, you should ship its .la files
[22:01] <slangasek> why?
[22:01] <pitti> right, we just hack around it ATM
[22:01] <Keybuk> if you don't want .la files, don't use libtool
[22:01] <slangasek> they're useless if you have a .pc file
[22:02] <Keybuk> it's easy not to
[22:02] <seb128> Keybuk: that's not true
[22:02] <seb128> what is the issue with not shipping those?
[22:02] <Keybuk> it breaks static linking
[22:02] <slangasek> seb128: none if you provide a .pc file instead
[22:02] <Keybuk> slangasek: not true
[22:02] <slangasek> .pc isn't broken; .la is
[22:02] <Keybuk> even with .pc files you need .la for static linking
[22:02] <slangasek> no, you don't.
[22:02] <Keybuk> yes, you do
[22:02] <slangasek> not if the .pc file isn't broken
[22:02] <Keybuk> the .pc file doesn't list the list of dependencies for the shared library
[22:03] <Keybuk> because if it did, you'd be removing those too
[22:03] <Keybuk> you need that list of dependencies for static linking
[22:03] <Keybuk> we fixed libtool years ago to ignore that list for dynamic linking
[22:03] <slangasek> er, no, you just need a version of pkg-config that supports the --static option
[22:03] <Keybuk> maybe the current Debian maintainer reverted my patches *shrug*
[22:03] <slangasek> Keybuk: except that libtool *still* has to recurse the actual .la files at build time
[22:03] <Chipzz> Keybuk: static linking tends to break for complex programs with lots of libs anyway
[22:03] <slangasek> so when the dependencies of your build-dependencies change, .la shows its true evil
[22:03] <Keybuk> slangasek: I have no issue with replacing libtool with something else
[22:03] <pitti> . o O { if that breaks static linking, so much the better :-P }
[22:03] <Keybuk> it's not difficult
[22:04] <seb128> Keybuk: that's not something we want to do at a distro level
[22:04] <slangasek> and you told me that aspect of .la behavior couldn't be fixed without a compatibility break
[22:04] <Chipzz> back in the gnome 1.4 days I tried linking a program using orbit statically; broke horribly
[22:04] <Keybuk> Chipzz: yet we still ship .a files
[22:05] <Keybuk> seb128: we overwrite config.guess and config.sub for every package
[22:05] <Keybuk> adding a third file to that list seems trivial
[22:05] <slangasek> the only thing installation of .la files is legitimately needed for on Linux is static linking; there is a way to support static linking via .pc files without the side-effects of .la files. QED
[22:05] <Keybuk> slangasek: .pc has different problems ;)
[22:05] <Keybuk> the main one being they can only be installed in one place
[22:05] <Keybuk> so you can't (easily) parallel install different version
[22:06] <Keybuk> ...unless that's fixed, I'm not up to date
[22:06] <seb128> Keybuk: how do other distros which don't ship .la do? that's not possible to do static linking on redhat?
[22:07] <Keybuk> seb128: ever tried static linking gtk? :p
[22:07] <pitti> Keybuk: but that's equally true of .la? /lib/libfoo.la doesn't work
[22:07] <Keybuk> *boom*
[22:07] <Keybuk> pitti: yes it does
[22:07] <Keybuk> assuming you compiled it for /lib
[22:07] <Chipzz> 23:01 < Keybuk> if you don't want .la files 23:01 < Keybuk> why do you compile with libtool at all? >> Several reasons actually, the prime one being "I didn't decide this as I didn't write the thing"
[22:07] <Keybuk> one of the usual complaints about libtool is precisely because it *does* support .la files by specific paths
[22:07] <Keybuk> Chipzz: the upstream maintainer almost certainly didn't decide either
[22:07] <Keybuk> most people only use libtool because automake demands it for shared libraries
[22:07] <Chipzz> second one: because it helps on other platforms than linux
[22:07] <pitti> Keybuk: we did, but libtool doesn't find them in /libs; we tried and it failed
[22:07] <Keybuk> Chipzz: we're Ubuntu *Linux*
[22:08] <Chipzz> Keybuk: I'm sure upstream cares about us being ubuntu linux ;)
[22:08] <Keybuk> like I said, upstream probably doesn't care about libtool
[22:08] <Keybuk> they got it as a side-effect of automake (which makes writing make files easier)
[22:08] <seb128> right
[22:08] <seb128> what upstream actually cares about is building and installing .so
[22:09] <Keybuk> yeah, and that's easy
[22:09] <Keybuk> just replace ltmain.sh with something that just calls gcc with the same arguments
[22:09] <Chipzz> Keybuk: anyway I think there's a difference between libtool being evil and .la files being evil
[22:09] <Keybuk> Chipzz: .la files are part and parcel about what libtool *does*
[22:09] <Chipzz> I'm not convinced of the former, but rather of the latter
[22:09] <Chipzz> Keybuk: libtool works fine without .la files
[22:09] <Keybuk> not true
[22:09] <Keybuk> I'm afraid
[22:09] <Keybuk> it works only for the commonest case
[22:09] <Keybuk> it's really a bit thick without them
[22:10] <Chipzz> try rm /usr/lib/*la and build something using libtool; it still builds fine
[22:10] <Keybuk> which is why I've continually resisted removing them
[22:10] <Keybuk> I *know* the bugs
[22:10] <Keybuk> actually
[22:10] <Keybuk> it doesn't
[22:10] <Keybuk> usual test
[22:10] <Keybuk> rm /usr/lib/*.la
[22:10] <Keybuk> have a package with a convenience library that links to something in /usr/lib
[22:10] <seb128> do you have concrete example of things which doesn't work without those for people who don't know the bugs?
[22:10] <Keybuk> and an app that links to it
[22:10] <Keybuk> app will fail to link
[22:11] <Keybuk> (convenience libraries are arguably bugs in themselves, but people love them)
[22:11] <seb128> what do you call "a convenience library"?
[22:11] <Keybuk> seb128: info libtool search for "convenience library"
[22:11] <seb128> rm /usr/lib/*.la is the usual way jhbuild users get GNOME to build
[22:11] <Keybuk> what most people use when they spread code amongst multiple sub-directories in their package
[22:12] <Keybuk> yeah
[22:12] <Keybuk> GNOME are particularly well-behaved
[22:12] <Keybuk> it certainly never affects them
[22:12] <Keybuk> but it affects a random bunch of other crap
[22:12] <norsetto> pitti: err, I owe you an apology for bug 155431 ... can you pls. un-subscribe ubuntu-archive. Sorry :-(
[22:12] <Keybuk> I honestly can't remember, because I stopped seriously caring about this years ago ;)
[22:12] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 155431 in apr "documentation in /usr/share/doc/libapr1-dev missing" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/155431
[22:12] <seb128> let's fix those then?
[22:12] <Keybuk> I came to the conclusion that the build chain support was utterly broken
[22:12] <Keybuk> and nobody had any desire to properly fix it
[22:12] <pitti> so, we could probably fix libgpg-error to ship the shlib in /lib *and* have a working .la file, but autoconf and libtool make this exceptionally hard
[22:13] <pitti> it seems that they actively make it hard to ship libs in /lib
[22:13] <Keybuk> I fully support replacing ltmain.sh with a very small shell script
[22:13] <Keybuk> so .la files cease to be a problem at all
[22:13] <Chipzz> Keybuk: one of the problems of .la files (which I'm sure you're aware of) is it totally defies any attempts of using -Wl,--as-needed
[22:13] <pitti> Keybuk: sounds good to me
[22:13] <seb128> I don't know enough about the build system to have an opinion on that
[22:13] <Keybuk> Chipzz: patched in Debian years ago
[22:13] <seb128> but if you are comfortable doing a such change
[22:14] <Keybuk> (when I maintained libtool)
[22:14] <pitti> norsetto: don't worry
[22:14] <Chipzz> Keybuk: yes, and if upstream doesn't use debians libtool and rolls a tarball you're still screwed
[22:14] <Keybuk> -- random tangent -- does anyone know how you tell OpenOffice what the individual text boxes on a slide master *mean* ?
[22:14] <Chipzz> (or you need to run relibtoolize)
[22:15] <Keybuk> Chipzz: autoreconf
[22:15] <pitti> (which tend to break more often than not)
[22:16] <Chipzz> autoreconf tends to be a chore to run, and it produces big patches which have to be reviewed
[22:17] <Keybuk> it only produces big patches if the upstream is done wrong
[22:17] <Chipzz> or with an older/different version than we use
[22:18] <seb128> Chipzz: you can use the same version than upstream, just look to the Makefile.in
[22:18] <Keybuk> hell
[22:18] <Keybuk> just running "make" will always use the same version as upstream
[22:19] <Keybuk> (except where Debian deliberately change the upstream package to prevent all that useful functionality from working -- yay working around perceived problems)
[22:19] <seb128> Keybuk: usually the libtoolize patch have an aclocal and an autoconf call
[22:19] <seb128> anyway what do we argue about now?
[22:20] <Chipzz> Keybuk: we currently have autoconf2.13; what happens if for example upstream tarball was rolled with autoconf 2.12 ?
[22:20] <Keybuk> aclocal will just replace a file in m4
[22:20] <seb128> Chipzz: let's stop there
[22:20] <Keybuk> like I said
[22:20] <Keybuk> I don't really care about any of this
[22:20] <seb128> most of us know the issues with the current system
[22:20] <Keybuk> it's all broken, and made worse by people doing workarounds rather than fixing the system
[22:20] <Keybuk> do what you want ;)
[22:20] <Keybuk> but don't complain to me when you break it <g>
[22:20] <seb128> fair enough
[22:21] <slangasek> Keybuk: a convenience library referencing the .la files in /usr/lib is precisely a symptom of *why* we shouldn't ship the .la files :)
[22:21] <Chipzz> seb128: that actually was a genuine question; but whatever ;)
[22:21] <slangasek> if they weren't present when the convenience lib was built, the application will also link just fine
[22:22] <Keybuk> slangasek: no, it won't
[22:23] <slangasek> huh?
[22:23] <slangasek> if there was no .la file in /usr/lib, the convenience lib's .la will only reference the libraries, not the non-existent .la files
[22:23] <Keybuk> not true
[22:23] <Keybuk> but I can't be arsed to argue anymore
[22:24] <slangasek> you're claiming that the convenience lib's .la file *will* reference .la files that never existed? :P
[22:24] <Keybuk> no
[22:26] <slangasek> then what? you're saying that you can't have a convenience lib .la without having .la files for all the underlying libs?
[22:34] <gaspa> seb128: ping
[22:34] <gaspa> are you working on pygoocanvas? i should work with it, so i can take a look for the merge/sync of it.
[22:36] <seb128> gaspa: no, I'm not, you are welcome do to the merging, feel free to ping me if you need sponsoring then
[22:42] <gaspa> seb128: ok, thank you ;D
[22:43] <seb128> gaspa: no problem
[22:44] <LaserJock> seb128: are you generally ok with people merging gnome packages?
[22:45] <LaserJock> seb128: or are there ones that you need to handle yourself
[22:49] <seb128> LaserJock: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TODO
[22:49] <seb128> LaserJock: feel free to claim any update or merge there
[22:50] <seb128> LaserJock: just put a link to the .dsc or to a bug with the informations