[00:15] hmm [00:15] anyone know when dh added the '--without' option ? [00:16] Trying to do a backport of subunit to hardy & getting an error about that [00:18] lifeless: 7.2.9 [00:20] lifeless: which is karmic and later [00:21] arhh - thanks === tuantub_ is now known as tuantub === asac_ is now known as asac === Whoopie_ is now known as Whoopie [05:04] I just tried to package for the latest openbox but it'll only build for i386 [05:04] https://edge.launchpad.net/~mtecknology/+archive/ppa/+packages [05:05] oh...... [05:06] It's arch-indep? [05:06] Hm, no. [05:06] It's arch: i386. [05:06] == wrong [05:06] ya, I just changed that to any [05:06] !info openbox lucid [05:06] openbox (source: openbox): standards compliant, fast, light-weight, extensible window manager. In component universe, is optional. Version 3.4.7.2-5 (lucid), package size 266 kB, installed size 1432 kB [05:07] ;] [05:09] maybe this will work right now :) [05:10] waiting for the new build to start now.. [05:11] rejected... [05:11] apparently it lacks common sense for > [05:11] :P [05:12] ? [05:13] I changed from 3.4.9-ppa0 to 3.4.9-1ubuntu1 [05:13] I deleted the ppa0 one [05:14] I'm trying to upload it again === nhandler_ is now known as nhandler === nhandler is now known as Guest95780 === nhandler_ is now known as nhandler [05:39] What's going on with this? https://edge.launchpad.net/~mtecknology/+archive/ppa/+packages [05:39] "Dependency wait" [05:43] eh... I'll just bug somebody to get 3.4.9 into 10.04 [05:54] MTecknology: Did you just manually retry that? [05:55] And on what did it depwait? [05:55] I didn't knwo I could check that.. [05:55] The email will probably tell you, and so does the page (until it's retried). [05:55] Did you retry it? [05:56] I wonder if it was retried automatically in error. [05:56] no; no email either; but i wound up deleting it [05:56] Oh, right, no email for depwait. [05:56] But did you retry it or not [05:56] ? [05:57] no [05:57] So there is a bug :( [05:57] I broke something :D [05:58] Oh, no, I was just looking at the wrong build. [05:59] xlibs-dev hasn't existed for a Long Time. [05:59] I'll try to pull the current version and look at the debian/* files and compare [05:59] I was trying to build from what they already had [05:59] git clone git://git.icculus.org/mikachu/openbox openbox [06:03] wgrant: this is weird... I was doing apt-get source openbox and apparently there's this too - svn://svn.debian.org/svn/collab-maint/deb-maint/openbox [06:03] MTecknology: Is that weird? [06:04] wgrant: well - they use git.. [06:04] wgrant: as far as their wiki sayd [06:04] says* [06:05] MTecknology: Upstream might use git now, but the Debian package use(s|d) svn. [06:05] Not an uncommon situation. [06:06] ok; I'll just try to make this work using git [06:06] I know git is upstream [06:08] I was told the fix I'm after is in git [06:11] wgrant: I'm thinking I might need to try out dh_make even though most of the stuff is already there .. idk [06:13] wgrant: app_version-karmic0; is that the right format? [06:14] MTecknology: That does not match any of the commonly accepted version conventions. Have a look around at packages, PPAs and documentation. [06:15] wgrant: I'm probably too tired to be doing this if I'm not finding any of that :P [06:16] Probably. [06:16] 0ubuntu1 [06:16] I see that one [06:16] that's for the archive, not for PPAs [06:16] I was looking at https://edge.launchpad.net/~doctormo/+archive/ppa [06:17] I saw app_version-ppa0 earlier [06:17] He's not an Ubuntu developer, so consider the source. [06:17] true [06:17] I'd like to make sure this gets into 10.04; but that comes later; for now I just use -ppa0 ? [06:18] No. [06:18] I' [06:18] I'll look around more [06:19] foo_1.0-0ubuntu1~ppa1, foo_1.0-0ubuntu1~mktecknology1; foo_1.0-0ubuntu1+ppa1; foo_1.0-0ubuntu2~ppa1 [06:20] each of those has a specific use [06:20] the first set (delimited by semicolon) is for a PPA version not yet in Ubuntu proper [06:21] the second set is for a PPA version newer than what's in Ubuntu proper that you wish to denote is explicitly based on 1.0-0ubuntu1 === nigel_nb_ is now known as nigel_nb [06:21] the third set is for a PPA version newer than what's in Ubuntu proper that you wish to denote may not be based on what will be in the next Ubuntu version [06:21] and, of course, there are variations [06:22] the importance of proper versioning is that you don't want override the next version in Ubuntu proper [06:22] how do I see how it's named in Ubuntu? [06:22] openbox-3.4.7.2 [06:23] rmadison [06:23] so, rmadison -uubuntu openbox [06:23] (you can omit -uubuntu for sufficiently new versions of rmadison) [06:23] likewise, -uqa for what's in Debian [06:23] lucid = 3.4.7.2-5 [06:24] make sure you pass source package names to rmadison (or at least be aware that you should read the corresponding 'source' output line) [06:24] hardy has the ubuntu word in it - 3.4.6.1-0ubuntu2 [06:25] namely, you can pass binary package names to rmadison, but the output can be confusing unless you're fairly familiar with the packaging (e.g., linux, linux-meta{ [06:25] )* [06:25] otherwise it goes -2, -3, -4, -5 [06:25] I hope to be familiar enough with it someday [06:27] so openbox_3.4.9.0-0+ppa1 ? [06:27] what's the actual upstream version? [06:27] openbox | 3.4.7.2-5 | lucid/universe | source, amd64, i386 [06:27] oh.. [06:27] 3.9.4 [06:28] 3.4.9 ** [06:28] so, it's a good idea to get 3.9.4 into Debian unstable [06:28] 3.4.9, then [06:28] since sid only has 3.4.8 [06:29] packaging is the same isn't it? I just need to submit to that other place [06:29] (a somewhat Ubuntu-centric dev would use 3.4.9-0ubuntu1~foo1, but again, getting it into Debian sid is the better choice) [06:29] http://mentors.debian.net/ [06:30] yes, mentors [06:30] anyhoo, offline for toodles [06:30] which is why it lacks the ubuntu1 part? [06:31] ok, thanks - I'll try to package it with openbox_3.4.9-0+ppa1 [06:32] or s/0/1/ ..? [06:32] Is it derived from the first Debian version of 3.4.9? [06:33] not afaik [06:33] Then -1+* would be a lie. [06:33] debian doesn't have 3.4.9 [06:33] -0+* would be honest then? [06:34] Yes. [06:34] that's the people telling me arrays should start at 1 :P [06:39] wgrant: so after I build iti I should rename karmic to lenny and submit to debian mentors? [06:40] MTecknology: If you want to submit it to Debian mentors, yes. [06:40] thanks [06:42] You'll want to follw the Debian scheme for revision numbering on mentors though. [06:44] ScottK: it looks like that means just omittint the +* for this [06:49] this doesn't look like a good package to practice on... [08:07] hi. [08:07] why is adobe-flashplugin used for restricted extras instead of flashplugin-installer? [10:39] Hi [10:39] on the web, is there deb pkg of mono more recent than the 2.4 ? [10:40] directhex: you are the Mono expert :-) ? [10:40] if there is why would you want it ? [10:42] ikonia: weired question, but, because i m developper and want to folow some bug fix, new feature and so one, also at least if there isn't one i plane to build one throug open suse build service [10:42] if it's outside the ubuntu repo's it doesn't seem with it as it won't be packaged for ubuntu, so your testing may not be valid [10:43] eg: you test it , it works, ubuntu package it slightly different (patches etc) and your testing is void [10:43] so once time is the ubuntu mono pkg more recent than the old 2.4 ? [10:44] * surfzoid is there [10:44] surfzoid: is it in the repo ? [10:44] ikonia: is there a way to contribute in packaging or the actual maintener of Mono pkg work on it ? [10:45] yes in the repo = 2.4 [10:45] surfzoid: so then the version in the repo is the latest version [10:45] (assuming you're checking all the repos) [10:45] 2.4 is pretty old [10:45] surfzoid: what version of ubuntu ? [10:45] ikonia: 9.10 , but i m new in ubuntu word, perhap s i miss an repo [10:46] surfzoid: also - you're in the right place to contribute, lots of guys in here are part of the packaging world [10:46] ikonia: so how to process, i already have my own ubutu repo, but is not "oficial" [10:46] ikonia: if you go to "system->administration->software sources" you can see what repos you have [10:47] surfzoid: I guess it depends where the package you want to update is, (what repo) [10:47] ikonia: my repo live at opensuse OBS [10:48] errrrr I mean what ubuntu repo the package you want to update is in [10:50] ikonia: i'm not sur it could help since is in french, but here it is my repo http://picpaste.com/pics/Capture-3.1261306191.png [10:50] i will look for mono source [10:52] ikonia: mono is from this repo : http://picpaste.com/pics/Capture-4.1261306333.png [10:53] !info mono-runtime [10:53] mono-runtime (source: mono): Mono runtime. In component main, is optional. Version 2.4.2.3+dfsg-2 (karmic), package size 1223 kB, installed size 3432 kB (Only available for i386 lpia kfreebsd-i386 powerpc amd64 kfreebsd-amd64 ia64 arm armeb armel sparc s390 all) [10:53] surfzoid: ok - so it's in the core main repo [10:53] !info mono [10:53] Package mono does not exist in karmic [10:53] surfzoid: you'd have to get a launcpad.net account and contribute to the package that way, it's developers will be in #ubuntu-devel [10:54] hum i have reqested a build pkg of my softwares at lauchpad so my account is enought ? [10:55] I'd gues s so [10:55] oops, guess so [10:55] so after i build the pkg somewhere and mail directly to the actual maintener ? [10:56] log an update request and link your package to it [10:56] (the one in your ubuntu branch) talk the maintainers, most are really gratful for help, speak to directhex also, he's put in a lot of effort for mono and ubuntu / debian [10:56] like the !info, there is an query to know the actual guy who package mono ? [10:56] oki [10:57] surfzoid: it's normally not one guy (but can be) if you log a bug/upgrade against in launchpad it will contact the maintainers [11:00] damed i m logged at LP, but it is where i post new bug !! [11:03] ikonia: i m complety unable to find how to post a new bug !! https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/443398 [11:03] Ubuntu bug 443398 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] MonoOSC" [Wishlist,New] [11:04] surfzoid: if there is an existing bug - add to it [11:04] i used the search engine but no result [11:04] so i guess i need to add, but where ?!! it is amazing to have a so complicated system ! [11:05] then log a new bug, [11:05] why did you post that bug (443398) if it's not the bug you're interested in [11:06] that s what i try ,and finally find a link from my old bug, but from home page if you click on "bug" there isn t link to report a new one !! [11:06] iko see date of the bug please [11:06] I don't need to see the date of the bug [11:08] ikonia: "why did you post that bug (443398) if it's not the bug you're interested in" because we spoke about an Mono release today and the old 443398 is an MonoOSC bug for release of my software, so yes , see the dates !! [11:08] why ??? [11:09] it's either the bug you want to update, or it's not [11:09] in which case log a new one [11:10] comon, of course not : bug 443398 = MonoOSC/MonoOBSFramework, the new bug we are speaking = Mono Framework [11:10] Launchpad bug 443398 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] MonoOSC" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/443398 [11:10] ???? [11:11] either update the bug if you feel it's relevant, or log a new bug that is what you need/want [11:11] Finaly i will not report a release query, ubuntu is really to mutch complicated for me, i will simply and badly duplicate efort by building Mono in my OBS repo !! [11:11] a release query, ??? [11:12] you don't want a query, you want it updated, so to get it updated you need to log a bug/feature request [11:12] i know my english is poor, but realy at this level [11:12] I don't understand why that is a problem [11:16] release/update query/log okidoki !! [11:16] same thing [11:17] ??? === tgm4883 is now known as jim127 [13:01] dktrkranz: re debian bug #560758: this it not due the LP debian mirror being out-of-sync (as no --lp switch got used) but due to rmadison now listing several "source" lines and the requestsync code not using the most recent one (I found it now too and looking into it) [13:01] Debian bug 560758 in ubuntu-dev-tools "False: The versions in Debian and Ubuntu are the same already during requestsync" [Normal,Open] http://bugs.debian.org/560758 [13:20] geser: mmh, that's probably the real issue, I checked on some packages and I was unable to reproduce anymore, maybe I was just unlucky to pick those with a single source entry [13:34] inside a package is there any way to stop it from building the documentation? I am building and packaging a cross compiler based on gcc-4.4.2 but I do not need the docs, so was curious if you can stop this in the configure arguments [13:36] depends on upstream's configure script [13:38] geser, the upstream package is gcc-core-4.4.2 and I just apply a patch to build a cross compiler, I am guessing the GCC configure script does not allow you to disable building of docs [13:39] I just have an rm -rf /usr/man in my rules but i though there might be a better solution [14:19] so i m trying to build an ubuntu pkg with the folowing dsc : http://pastebin.com/d71362a67 [14:20] but i already get the folowing error [14:20] dpkg-source: error: Files field contains bad line `c87d9fdb04a3233cd89512dbf816cc5a mono-2.6.1.tar.gz' [14:20] i really don't see what is wrong in format or other ! [14:21] anybody have an clue ? [14:22] surfzoid, are you trying to build changed by you package? or original package? [14:23] changed by me after calculate again the md5 [14:24] ari-tczew: ^ [14:27] ok [14:27] it looks like you did change in orig tarball [14:28] btw. why this is not .orig.tar.gz ? [14:31] ari-tczew: no clue ? [14:32] surfzoid, do you want to update mono to 2.6.1 version? [14:32] it would be nice to report bug @ bugs.debian.org [14:32] surfzoid: where did you got this .dsc? the Files line looks broken [14:33] yes 2.6.1, i got it from 2.4 one [14:33] you constructed this .dsc by hand? [14:33] if you did all changes what are needs by 2.6.1, you must put "debuild -us -uc" [14:34] if built will fine, get debuild -S [14:34] geser: i modify it by hand yes [14:34] lol [14:35] !! [14:36] why? why not used the tools intended for it? [14:36] hum, which one ? [14:37] geser: i m more rpm and just discover the deb world [14:37] surfzoid, maybe you should read some articles on wiki.ubuntu.com ? [14:37] debuild -S or dpkg-buildpackage -S [14:38] some gui exist for those command line tools ? [14:40] I don't know any [14:53] finaly damed, the problem was only "-" rather "_" !! [14:55] surfzoid, great, but please don't handly changing dsc file in future, just use debuild ;-D [14:57] yes now i know, the puzle sound like really more easy [14:58] in fact, if you have existing source, the only stuff is to change the log and debuild do all the stuf :-) === RainCT_ is now known as RainCT [15:18] hum using the tool give me new error : http://pastebin.com/d52de1cc3 [15:19] i did something wrong or foprget something ? [15:21] the funny is if i go in my source dir and do the autogen.sh all is okay [15:21] myabe someone is wrong with debian/rules? [15:21] maybe [15:22] I guess you should add autoconf patch [15:22] hum where it is ? [15:22] create folder, unpack there .orig.tar.gz [15:22] and copy unpacked folder [15:23] where [15:23] lol, are you in folder with mono, right? [15:23] here is *.orig.tar.gz right? [15:24] yes [15:25] so, for example please create folder, e.g. call it "diff", so put in console: mkdir diff [15:25] then unpack *.orig.tar.gz with mono in diff folder [15:26] if you have unpacked orig.tar.gz, please copy it, because you need 2 folders for compare [15:27] in efects you should have in diff folder e.g. mono-2.6.1 and mono-2.6.1 (copy) [15:27] oki now i see better you would like i compare the 2 dir [15:27] are you understand [15:27] yes, compare two dirs [15:28] in one dir you need to run command: autoconf [15:28] then go back and compare these dirs [15:28] cd .. && diff -pruN dir1 dir2 > autoconf.patch [15:30] sorry i said a mistake, i don't have an orig tarball [15:30] just I saw in your pastebin [15:31] ehh surfzoid, you must rename to .orig.tar.gz [15:31] so, e.g.: mv mono_2.6.1.tar.gz mono_2.6.1.orig.tar.gz [15:31] ha oki [15:33] at the same time i see other posible mistake of the tool, my source dir is "mono-2.6.1" but the tool make an "mono_2.6.1.tar.gz" with inside "mono-2.6.1" so "_" vs "-" will make trouble ? [15:33] source dir is ok [15:34] continue work ... [15:34] if i rename to .orig.tar.gz i must change that also in the dsc file ? [15:34] LOL don't change handly dsc file ! [15:34] dsc will change by debuild [15:34] automatically [15:35] hum weird pointer :-) [15:37] do not change the dsc by hand, use debuild [15:38] on a side debian is stric , really amazing stric, and it permit this lol [15:45] very long to build this 35 Mega of sources :D [15:48] ari-tczew: i have followed you by renaming to orig.tar.gz, but of course ! : [15:48] dpkg-source: error: cannot fstat file /usr/src/packages/SOURCES/mono_2.6.1.tar.gz: No such file or directory [15:50] it confuse me to have checsum of file name with only tar.gz, but use an orig.tar.gz rather [16:02] ari-tczew: oki, you was right, i know understand, renaming in ori.tar.gz, but lunch the tool in mono-2.6.1 dir, detect the new origi.tar.gz and adjust the dsc file :-) [16:03] exactly [16:03] i just forget the step to rerun the tool :-) [16:03] as you see themselve surfzoid, changing dsc file is no sense [16:04] surfzoid, do you have patch autoconf ? [16:05] no yet, now i have clean many thing, i would like to check again before [16:53] oh lord [16:53] anyone uploads a new mono to ubuntu, heads will roll. FYI. [16:54] directhex: uhuhuhu \o/ .. what happened? [16:54] nobody would ever sponsor it [16:55] Laney: archive admin wise? [16:57] directhex : you mean, a new release of mono is now available in ubuntu 9.10 ? [16:57] surfzoid: 9.10 is frozen and security upload only [16:58] sebnerr there isn't something like backport ? [16:58] surfzoid: yeah but hardly used (for mono) [16:59] anything with lots of rdepends is effectively blacklisted from being backported [16:59] things like new gcc releases or new python releases or new mono releases have too high a risk of breaking existing apps [16:59] directhex, you became afraid ? :) [17:00] yes, on other side you should upgrade one day :-) [17:00] directhex: what about the sponsoring stuff? No auto-sync for 2.4.3? I'll choose 2.6 though, poor meebey [17:00] 2.7 [17:00] * Laney is confused [17:00] surfzoid: ?? there is no 2.7 [17:01] sebnerr mono -V [17:01] Mono JIT compiler version 2.7 ( [17:01] surfzoid: trunk then? [17:01] yep :-) [17:02] surfzoid: we're talking about ubuntu versions ;) [17:02] sebner, 2.4.3 should sync in at some point. but we're making changes to stuff which will cause breakage, and that transition really needs to be completed [17:02] Laney: what's no with that: No one will sponsor it? [17:02] sebner, i'd rather get it finished in debian then have the whole lot come into ubuntu in one go [17:02] directhex: ah the -cil stuff? [17:02] sebner, right [17:02] sebner, and getting rid of /usr/bin/csc [17:03] directhex: isn't everything with mono-csc already? [17:03] not everything. [17:03] kk [17:03] it all *needs* to be done though [17:04] directhex: I doubt meebey targets 2.6 for lucid? [17:04] i'm still waiting on meebey to give me the goahead to break stuff like gtk# [17:04] sebner, meebey intends to taregt 2.4.x for squeeze (march freeze) with 2.6 in experimental [17:04] so, ubuntu too. Ic [17:04] sebner, 2.4.x is upstream's LTS branch [17:08] surfzoid, 2.6 will likely appear in a PPA in january. probably [17:08] thanks, but i m trying now to build it at OBS :-) [17:09] i just have an compile error [17:09] directhex: does meebey already know what changes with 2.6? Anything important to mind? [17:09] sebner, 4.0 classlib [17:10] directhex: that means? [17:10] not sure yet. it means *something* though. new corlib, new compiler, etc [17:10] directhex: have you got few minutes to help : https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=Mono&project=home%3Asurfzoid%3ADebianUbuntu%3AMono ? [17:11] please :-) [17:13] directhex: uhh, I smell another transition + breakage :P [17:14] sebner, if everything uses mono-devel and -cil-dev packages, then it should be rebuild-only [17:14] surfzoid, looks like your .install files need massaging. there's only 99 of them to tweak. chop chop. [17:14] directhex: heh, we'll see [17:14] dh_install: libmono-c5-1.0-cil missing files (debian/tmp/usr/lib/mono/gac/Mono.C5/1.0.*/), aborting [17:16] directhex: the build of the deb is different of ./autogen.sh && make && make install ?? [17:18] directhex: you mean, i need to change all the 99 files one by one, ? [17:20] the problem is more here , no : ERROR: ld.so: object 'libfakeroot-sysv.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored. [17:20] surfzoid, you certainly need to change libmono-c5-1.0-cil.install since that's where it's bailing out [17:20] surfzoid, no, libfakeroot messages aren't real errors & should be ignored. [17:20] and the .so missing is not so important ? [17:20] oki [17:21] directhex: libmono-c5-1.0-cil.install is a file generated or provided by mono source ? [17:22] surfzoid, it's in debian/ along with 188 other files/folders which make up the mono source package [17:24] closer to 229 including patches etc [17:26] directhex: not sur, but, in Mono2.6 the Net1.0 stuff was dropped ? [17:32] i thought that was happening in 2.8 not 2.6 [17:32] but i could be wrong [17:33] directhex: in fact i m complety sure it is dropped in 2.7 [17:33] directhex: sounds familiar [17:33] i had the problem last week with the trunk version [18:18] siretart, ping [18:39] is there a place, either in ubuntu or debian where one can filter the list of packages to see which source format their in (either command line or on the web somewhere). i'm trying to find examples of 3.0 (quilt) formatted packages to study [18:59] cratylus: now there's different formats I need to learn? :( [19:01] MTecknology, tell me about it. apparently there's a new craze every now and then [19:01] you don't HAVE to change formats as the others are supported, though [19:02] cratylus: I'm just learning basics when I have a little spare time; I'll get it eventually [19:03] MTecknology, i'm in the same boat right now. so many docs to read! [19:09] I coudn't find much documentation about debsrcr3.0 either, the best resource I could find was man dpkg-source [19:11] joaopinto, yep, i'm basically using that and Hertzog's doc. along with apt-get source for such packages whose debian/source/format file has "3.0 (quilt)" as it's content [19:11] found a few so far [19:16] I remember there are some posts on planet Debian about it [19:17] a few people have blogged about "converting" to it [19:29] it's still just getting started with 466 packages to date: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/stuff/dpkg-v3/ === nhandler_ is now known as nhandler [20:09] i think i found the answer to my earlier question about seeing which packages have that format. seems the ultimate debian database has a format field one can query: http://udd.debian.org/schema/udd.html#public.view.all-sources === yofel_ is now known as yofel [20:16] I'm trying to use requestsync to request the syncing of ng-spice-rework (20-1) from Debian testing. I'm sshed into my server, performed the manage-credentials step, but am now geting an error "Could not find cookie file for Launchpad...", and so on. Must I ssh -X and run firefox graphically to complete the requestsync? [20:17] tritium: Or use the email option [20:17] tritium: Or copy the cookie from another box [20:19] ScottK: the email option, meaning don't use the "--lp" switch? I've tried that. [20:20] Yes. That shouldn't need the cookie [20:20] tritium: which ubuntu-dev-tools version do you have installed on your server? [20:21] geser: 0.72, on a jaunty box [20:27] geser: any ideas? [20:27] looking at the code from this version [20:27] Thanks. [20:29] Let me try copying ~/.cache/lp_credentials/ubuntu-dev-tools-write_public.txt to ~/.lpcookie.txt. [20:29] this version still used the firefox cookie at some places [20:31] Well, I can wait until I get home in January. [20:32] .lpcookie.txt is the LP cookie from firefox [20:33] No luck with that. [20:33] if it doesn't exist, it tries to find it in cookies.sqlite or cookies.txt from firefox [20:34] try copying it from your desktop and placing in a location matching ~/.mozilla/*/*/cookies.sqlite [20:35] requestsync (or more precisely a module from u-d-t) should extract it from there and store it in ~/.lpcookie.txt for future use [20:37] Try copying ~/.cache/lp_credentials/ubuntu-dev-tools-write_public.txt to ~/.mozilla/*/*/cookies.sqlite? [20:38] no, your firefox cookie database [20:39] scp ~/.mozilla/*/*/cookie.sqlite server:~/.mozilla/foo/bar/cookies.sqlite [20:39] Oh, I see. Well, I'm on my wife's MacBook. Let me see if that works. [20:41] or wherever the firefox cookie database is for you [20:41] geser: perhaps I'll just file a bug on Launchpad, following https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess. [20:42] I appreciate your help trying to get it working. [20:42] that's also a way (if it's easier for you) [20:46] OK, I'm getting somewhere. Now it's not complaining about the cookie, just about $DEBEMAIL. [20:46] export DEBEMAIL="your@mail.address" [20:46] yep, thanks [20:47] It appears to possibly be working... [20:50] except that my gnupg key is on my desktop, whichs is turned off, not this server [20:50] Oh well, thanks for your help! [20:51] Have a good day, geser. [20:51] have you tried "requestsync --lp ..." to file it directly into LP and not mail it? [20:52] Earlier, but not since fixing the cookie issue. Let me try again. Thanks for the reminder. [20:53] Sweet! Thanks, geser. [20:54] Filed as bug 498871 [20:54] Launchpad bug 498871 in ubuntu "Sync ng-spice-rework 20-1 (universe) from Debian testing (non-free)." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/498871 [20:54] geser: thanks for fixing requestsync [20:55] Sweet tool! [20:55]