[04:03] <Unit193> mapreri: Congrats.
[14:08] <RainCT> woah this room still exists
[14:50] <Rhonda> lol
[15:33]  * Laney rains on RainCT
[15:51] <highvoltage> It's also raining in CT
[15:51] <Laney> and in the CT scanner


[22:00] <sem> What is the default behavior of the meta key, when pressed by itself, in ubuntu studio?
[22:01] <Eickmeyer> Opens the application launcher.
[22:01] <Eickmeyer> If it's not, then assign alt-f1 to the application launcher, if that's the desired behavior.


[05:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [s390x] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:18] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [ppc64el] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [ppc64el] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [s390x] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[05:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [arm64] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: sundials [armhf] (artful-proposed/universe) [2.5.0-4] (no packageset)
[05:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [arm64] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[05:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted sundials [armhf] (artful-proposed) [2.5.0-4]
[06:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted mutter [source] (zesty-proposed) [3.24.2-0ubuntu0.1]
[06:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apt [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.3.7]
[06:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected mythtv [source] (yakkety-proposed) [2:0.28.0+fixes.20160413.15cf421-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>]
[06:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apt [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.3.8]
[06:58] <apw> ^ 3 duplicate in the queue
[07:05] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sudo [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.8.19p1-1ubuntu1.2]
[07:21] <apw> tjaalton, it looks like your sudo fix for LP: #1686803 got lost in yakkety with the upload of a security update.
[07:22] <tjaalton> apw: bah, noone cares at this point :)
[07:22] <tjaalton> I think
[07:22] <apw> tjaalton, bah that should be: bug #1607666
[07:23] <tjaalton> looks like it wouldn't get verified anyway
[07:23]  * apw idly wonders how long yakkety has before EOL
[07:24] <apw> tjaalton, well it did in xenial and zesty i assume, and is released in those i think
[07:24] <apw> so we are left i in a bit of a muddle
[07:24] <flocculant> morning - -running artful with kernel from -proposed, seem to have an issue with alsa and that kernel, can't report issue with ubuntu-bug (proposed I assume) not sure of best way to proceed (reported at least to alsa)
[07:24] <flocculant> apw: Ubuntu 16.10 will reach end of life on Wednesday, July 20, 2017
[07:24] <tjaalton> apw: I think it's fine to wontfix it, the guy says they don't deploy yakkety so can't test it
[07:25] <tjaalton> zesty got the new upstream version
[07:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sudo [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.8.16-0ubuntu3.3]
[07:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sudo [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.8.16-0ubuntu1.5]
[07:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted telegram-desktop [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.0.29-1ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>]
[07:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted postfix [source] (zesty-proposed) [3.1.4-4ubuntu1]
[07:46] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted postfix [source] (yakkety-proposed) [3.1.0-5ubuntu1]
[11:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: systemd (yakkety-proposed/main) [231-9ubuntu5 => 231-9ubuntu6] (core)
[11:27] <sil2100> jamespage: hey!
[11:27] <jamespage> sil2100: hello
[11:28] <sil2100> jamespage: I'm looking at releasing some of the packages that we have in -proposed - was looking at the ones frome LP: #1696139
[11:28] <sil2100> jamespage: my question here is - do we need for all of them to be released at once?
[11:29] <jamespage> sil2100: ideally yes as we tested proposed, rather than individual parts
[11:32] <sil2100> jamespage: ok, in that case would you be able to test/get someone to test the two bugs that are still not verified? LP: #1649616 and LP: #1675088
[11:32] <sil2100> jamespage: once those are marked as verified I'll be able to flush the whole stack from -proposed at once
[11:32] <sil2100> Thanks!
[11:33] <sil2100> (those two bugs were included in the uploads of heat and keystone along with the 'new upstream release' bug)
[11:37] <jamespage> sil2100: that matches my expectations!
[11:52] <sil2100> jamespage: could you give me a ping once those two bugs are green?
[12:08] <jamespage> sil2100: can do
[12:17] <LocutusOfBorg> autopkgtest for apt/unknown: armhf: Regression ♻
[12:17] <LocutusOfBorg> WTF? armhf, you so sad
[12:18] <apw> LocutusOfBorg, retry it, i am starting to think we have a sad runner in the pool
[12:18] <apw> have not had a chance to investigate it yet
[12:18] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, I already retried them, I'm having a look about how it goes
[12:19] <apw> i had a lot of those over the weekend i think it was, and retried them and most came out ok
[12:19] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [source] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:20] <LocutusOfBorg> wonderful, I'll keep retry/check then
[12:20] <LocutusOfBorg> not a good timing to upload perl :(
[12:21] <LocutusOfBorg> queues were empty
[12:22] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, can we have libreoffice/i386 forced bad? I don't like that "ignore/retry" continuous kick
[12:22] <LocutusOfBorg> testsuite sucks, and wasting power cycles for that is just useless
[12:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [amd64] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [ppc64el] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [i386] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [arm64] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [powerpc] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:24] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, hello, do you want me to upload ghc building with bfd on arm64?
[12:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: gce-compute-image-packages [armhf] (trusty-proposed/universe) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (ubuntu-cloud)
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [armhf] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [powerpc] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [arm64] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [ppc64el] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[12:33] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted gce-compute-image-packages [i386] (trusty-proposed) [20170622-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[13:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartshine (zesty-proposed/universe) [0.36-0ubuntu2 => 0.36-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>] (no packageset)
[13:11] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartshine (xenial-proposed/universe) [0.36-0ubuntu2 => 0.36-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>] (no packageset)
[13:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: smartshine (trusty-proposed/universe) [0.36-0ubuntu2 => 0.36-0ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>] (no packageset)
[13:28] <sil2100> Hello! Looking at the zesty NEW queue, I see someone approved the new gce-compute-image-packages binary for amd64 but not for all the other arches - does anyone know why it's like that?
[13:28] <sil2100> The xenial and yakkety binaries got accepted for all arches, same for trusty
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, please make doxygen and freetype migrate? hinting libreoffice/i386 should be enough
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> gstreamer, pango, cairo
[13:45] <LocutusOfBorg> all of them waiting for that libreoffice
[14:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted freeipa [source] (zesty-proposed) [4.4.3-3ubuntu2.1]
[14:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libepoxy [source] (zesty-proposed) [1.3.1-1ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>]
[14:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libepoxy [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.3.1-1ubuntu<IP_ADDRESS>]
[14:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: xorg-server-hwe-16.04 (xenial-proposed/main) [2:1.18.4-1ubuntu6.1~16.04.1 => 2:1.19.3-1ubuntu1~16.04.1] (no packageset)
[14:44] <Saviq> hi team, we got an email about mir/miral being stuck in artful-proposed for a few days now, are we in Alpha1 freeze or so?
[14:45] <apw> Saviq, nope
[14:45] <Saviq> any idea why those don't migrate then http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/artful/update_excuses.html#mir ?
[14:46] <jbicha> Saviq: thanks for asking, you need to rebuild unity-system-compositor
[14:46] <jbicha> after that page, there's https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/artful/update_output.txt
[14:46] <jbicha> which is a bit hard to read
[14:46] <Saviq> yeah, I can't parse that, sorry :D
[14:46] <cjwatson> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ProposedMigration has some advice on learning how to do so
[14:47] <apw> Saviq, from the huge list of things which are broken by those promoting, i assume they are creating an ABI break and you have not rebuilt everything that uses those ?
[14:47] <cjwatson> also, if the problem is that we're in a freeze, then update_excuses will say so explicitly
[14:47] <apw> http://paste.ubuntu.com/25018646/
[14:47] <apw> Saviq, ^ those are the relevant bits
[14:47] <Saviq> yup, thanks
[14:48] <jbicha> Saviq: I recommend rebuilding unity-system-compositor, that might be all you need
[14:50] <Saviq> jbicha, yeah I'm not sure that should happen, we'll look into it, thanks
[14:52] <jbicha> Saviq: libmirserver43 was bumped to 44 so everything that depends on 43 needs to be rebuilt
[14:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted hw-detect [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.117ubuntu2.2]
[14:54] <apw> Saviq, what jbicha said ... unity-system-compositor is linked against libmirserver43 so is broken if that mir migrates
[14:54] <jbicha> qtmir and qtmir-gles too
[14:54] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted hw-detect [source] (yakkety-proposed) [1.117ubuntu3.1]
[14:55] <Saviq> yeah, I'm not sure why those weren't part of that upload, we'll take care of that, thanks
[14:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apt [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.2.23]
[15:14] <Trevinho> Hey, can someone from the SRU team promote https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-control-center/15.04.0+16.04.20170214-0ubuntu1 ?
[15:14] <Trevinho> As it's blocking the upcoming SRU
[15:27] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted sssd [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.13.4-1ubuntu1.6]
[15:28] <slashd> vtapia ^
[15:45] <slashd> sil2100, doing SRU today related work today ?
[15:45] <slashd> doing SRU related work today lol
[15:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (xenial-proposed/main) [2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.04.1 => 2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.04.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[15:47] <sil2100> slashd: yes, a bit, I didn't have time yesterday + the US guys are off
[15:48] <sil2100> But I'm finishing in a bit
[15:48] <slashd> sil2100, ok I'll ping the vanguard tomorrow then
[15:48] <sil2100> slashd: what's up? You need some action on something?
[15:50] <slashd> sil2100, was wondering if you could move multipath-tools from trusty-proposed to trusty-updates, if everything look good to you. I checked and everything lgtm
[15:50] <sil2100> I was looking at that today, need to remind myself what were my thoughts about that one
[15:50] <slashd> Note that pending SRU still shows LP:  	1687004 has not verified, but it is, it simply that we did it a couples minutes ago and it didn't refresh the page yet.
[15:50] <sil2100> One moment
[15:50] <sil2100> Ah
[15:50] <slashd> sil2100, sure
[15:51] <sil2100> Ok, yeah, probably wasn't verified back then
[15:51] <slashd> sil2100, yeah that was probably it, there is no clear way to reproduce it, as mentioned it is base on dump analysis
[15:52] <slashd> but knowing Rafael he did a lot of testing using valgrind, etc ....
[15:53] <slashd> sil2100, they are both mark as green now in pending SRU
[15:54] <sil2100> Will take care of that one in a minute
[15:54] <slashd> sil2100, much appreciated
[15:54] <slashd> sil2100, and sorry for the changelog lp thing, I have took a note for next time.
[15:54] <slashd> re: sssd ^
[15:57] <sil2100> slashd: no worries, I didn't expect it to cause any issues with the tooling, but I guess it should be good now
[15:57] <slashd> sil2100, ack
[16:00] <sil2100> slashd: multipath-tools released o/
[16:01] <slashd> sil2100, thanks for this last minute request
[16:01] <slashd> tinoco, ^^
[16:02] <sil2100> np!
[16:05] <tinoco> tau =)
[16:05] <tinoco> tku =)
[17:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed/main) [4.4.0-85.108] (core, kernel)
[18:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (yakkety-proposed/main) [2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.10.1 => 2.0.7-0ubuntu1~16.10.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[18:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lxcfs (zesty-proposed/main) [2.0.7-0ubuntu1~17.04.1 => 2.0.7-0ubuntu1~17.04.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-server)
[18:51] <slashd> Hi, Does someone with upload rights in devel release who has some cycle to sponsor a debdiff https://launchpadlibrarian.net/326769765/artful-ksh_93u+20120801-3.2.debdiff ? Once in Artful, I can sponsor the SRU myself.
[18:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.4.0-85.108]
[18:56] <mitya57> slashd, the correct version number would be 93u+20120801-3.1ubuntu1
[18:56] <mitya57> Otherwise, will upload to artful now.
[18:58] <slashd> mitya57, much appreciated, you'll do the correction or want me to re-generate a new debdiff ?
[18:58] <mitya57> I will do.
[18:58] <slashd> mitya57, thanks much
[19:00] <mitya57> slashd, uploaded.
[19:00] <slashd> mitya57, thanks you very much
[19:01] <slashd> mitya57, you were right about the version, I think I misread when I saw, it I was under the impression it was ubuntu3.1, thanks for catching this
[19:01] <slashd> need some glasses
[20:16] <slangasek> xnox: do you know why udev is failing to configure on armhf for autopkgtests? (e.g. http://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/l/lazarus/artful/armhf)
[20:35] <infinity> slangasek: Going to assume it's less to do with armhf and more to do with lxd.
[20:50] <slangasek> infinity: s390x didn't show the problem, and this is certainly a regression in the behavior
[20:50] <infinity> slangasek: s390x is lxc, not lxd, just to be confusing.
[20:50] <slangasek> ah right
[20:50] <slangasek> well anyway. still a behavior regression :)
[20:50] <infinity> Not saying it's not a problem, just guessing it's not arch-specific.
[20:56] <slangasek> and nagios3 autopkgtest is failing cross-arch because Error: The new file apt.cfg does not exist!
[22:12] <xnox> slangasek, hahahahah elipsised logs are useful - Jul 04 12:23:38 autopkgtest-lxd-qemhph systemd[1]: systemd-udevd.service: Fai…ed
[22:13] <xnox> slangasek, also why is that calling invoke-rc.d on ubuntu?! initscript udev?!
[22:13] <xnox> wtf.
[22:13] <xnox> what is this?! 2004?
[22:14] <xnox> slangasek, there is also an upgrade bug where open-vm-tools tries to call udevadm trigger or settle and that is not allowed whilst udev is upgrading. that is from trusty->xenial do-release-upgrade of EC2 instance.
[22:14] <xnox> slangasek, do we do cloud lts-lts upgrade testing in all the clouds?
[22:24] <slangasek> xnox: invoke-rc.d is the policy interface and always has been
[22:24] <slangasek> lts-lts upgrade testing in "all the clouds" - I'm sure not
[22:25] <xnox> sorry for rebooting my irc bouncer.


 https://phab.lubuntu.me/P51
 ^ @tsimonq2 @kc2bez wxl:
 anyone else.
 also, did we miss standup again today?
 @The_LoudSpeaker [https://phab.lubuntu.me/P51], install the correct -dev package
 https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&arch=any&mode=exactfilename&searchon=contents&keywords=Qt5DBusConfig.cmake
 @The_LoudSpeaker [also, did we miss standup again today?], Yes. I was busy and lost track of it. Semester break maintenance happening here.
 @RikMills [https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&arch=any&mode=exactfilename&searc …], Thanks! I will do it tonight.
 I just left home.
 @RikMills [https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&arch=any&mode=exactfilename&searc …], This is a very helpful page. I should probably bookmark it.
 luguito is on vacation
 He needs a break.
 @tsimonq2 you free?
 @The_LoudSpeaker [@tsimonq2 you free?], Free but no computer
 What's up?
 `CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:24 (find_package): …   By not providing "FindQt5LinguistTools.cmake" in CMAKE_MODULE_PATH this …   project has asked CMake to find a package configuration file provided by …   "Qt5LinguistTools", but CMake did not find one. …   Could not find a package configuration file provided by "Qt5LinguistT
 @RikMills [https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&arch=any&mode=exactfilename&searc …], ^
 Plug both of those cmake files in
 I installed qtbase5-dev
 And find the package
 Yeah, just search for the new ones
 I searched
 @RikMills [Yeah, just search for the new ones], Right. Once you add it as a build dep it should be fine
 https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&arch=any&mode=filename&searchon=contents&keywords=Qt5LinguistTools
 @The_LoudSpeaker [I searched], Both of them?
 @The_LoudSpeaker [https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&arch=any&mode=filename&searchon=c …], ^
 @The_LoudSpeaker [https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&arch=any&mode=filename&searchon=c …], Add the file extension and specifically put that it's a file in your query :)
 The fisrt one works: https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?searchon=contents&keywords=Qt5LinguistToolsConfig.cmake&mode=exactfilename&suite=focal&arch=any
 worked
 Thanks!
 To be claer, as said you need to search for the while filename: Qt5LinguistToolsConfig.cmake
 Yeah I did that
 or chnage the default search option to "packages that contain files whose names contain the keyword"
 have to install qttools5-dev
 133MB download :/
 @The_LoudSpeaker [133MB download :/], Convince your Uni to host an Ubuntu archive mirror
 @tsimonq2 [Convince your Uni to host an Ubuntu archive mirror], For them 2TB is too much
 can't get a 2TB storage for this
 but I am not in uni currently.
 This is a perfect example of something the Lubuntu funds would cover ;)
 Uni's 1.5GB bandwidth is enough if not for sophos. But thats a different story.
 @tsimonq2 [This is a perfect example of something the Lubuntu funds would cover ;)], ooooooooooh! ;)
 @The_LoudSpeaker [Uni's 1.5GB bandwidth is enough if not for sophos. But thats a different story.], problem is my own network provider. currently
 @The_LoudSpeaker [problem is my own network provider. currently], apt-cacher-ng
 That's some kind of proxy right?
 Yeah
 I will have to set it up.
 First task when I reach uni
 Cool
 I had something simillar set up for chroots before but removed later
 yay! after 4 more searches and installation of various libraries and packages cmake succesfully wrote the build files
 @The_LoudSpeaker [yay! after 4 more searches and installation of various libraries and packages cm …], apt build-dep PACKAGE
 Or similar
 I was installing what cmake logs asked me.
 That's why these builds are typically done in a clean environment. You may have a package installed on your system already which may be an optional flag and can change the output of a package as opposed to pure build dependencies on top of a base system which can provide insight into whether optional dependencies are necessary, prese
 https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/Z86N9Zy2Zj/
 I see only translation errors. cmake files are fixed I suppose.
 Check line 111
 *facepalms*
 Look up in the code the file and line number it's outputting and pastebin that line with five lines before and after for context
 @The_LoudSpeaker [I see only translation errors. cmake files are fixed I suppose.], Correct
 @tsimonq2 [Look up in the code the file and line number it's outputting and pastebin that l …], Five lines is typically safe
 Is this straight from upstream?
 yup!
 straight from the mom package
 @The_LoudSpeaker [straight from the mom package], Aha
 @tsimonq2 [Look up in the code the file and line number it's outputting and pastebin that l …], ^
 I'm willing to bet it's a merge conflict that you still need to resolve
 I also think so.
 I would personally do a recursive grep for ">>>" and "<<<" respectively, which should highlight where your merge conflicts are
 In translations, a good rule of thumb is to always favor Debian's variant
 I use ^W in nano for that
 @tsimonq2 [In translations, a good rule of thumb is to always favor Debian's variant], yeah I did that only
 ubuntu one was a bit incomplete
 like it is written in the file that it is incomplete
 I should have saved an example
 The next thing I would encourage you to do, once you're done and get this to build, is run `debuild -S -d` and run `debdiff <CURRENT DEBIAN VERSION>.dsc <NEW UBUNTU VERSION BASED ON TOP>.dsc` and manually inspect the diff. MoM can sometimes be stupid
 It's also a good way to figure out precisely what to document in the changelog
 @The_LoudSpeaker [ubuntu one was a bit incomplete], Makes sense
 @tsimonq2 [The next thing I would encourage you to do, once you're done and get this to bui …], okay
 @tsimonq2 [The next thing I would encourage you to do, once you're done and get this to bui …], At the end of the day, when we keep an Ubuntu delta, it's a good practice to get in the habit of always analyzing the current delta, partly for documentation reason but partly because if there's something we can send to Debian, we shou
 oh I acutally forgot to fix that file in line 111
 @tsimonq2 [At the end of the day, when we keep an Ubuntu delta, it's a good practice to get …], Cases where you should continue adding things to your new version include but are not limited to if Debian added changelog entries, if Debian has more translations (unless our base strings are different, which is rare but has happened
 When you do merges from Debian, always always always completely document the remaining delta thoroughly in the changelog
 I can pull up an example if you'd like but it's fairly straightforward
 @The_LoudSpeaker [oh I acutally forgot to fix that file in line 111], No worries :)
 The reason why I've let others fill in with explanations of deltas and how to deal with them is because it's a fairly abstract concept that took me some time to fully comprehend myself
 It's one of those things that has become muscle memory to me and is difficult to teach
 @tsimonq2 [I can pull up an example if you'd like but it's fairly straightforward], example would be good.
 if you aren't busy ;)
 @The_LoudSpeaker [example would be good.], Sure, let me think of one
 @The_LoudSpeaker [example would be good.], https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sbuild/0.74.0-1ubuntu1
 I pulled that straight from my Core Developer application :)
 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/tsimonq2/Applications/CoreDeveloper
 noice.
 build succesful yayayay!
 `This package has a Debian revision number but there does not seem to be … an appropriate original tar file or .orig directory in the parent directory; … (expected one of lxqt-globalkeys_0.14.3.orig.tar.gz, lxqt-globalkeys_0.14.3.orig.tar.bz2, … lxqt-globalkeys_0.14.3.orig.tar.lzma,  lxqt-globalkeys_0.14.3.orig.tar.xz or lxqt-
 I should create one ? from the current folder?
 https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/dnC597Tdm9/
 I have libx11-dev and xserver-xorg-input-libinput-dev installed
 ^^ @tsimonq2 wxl: @kc2bez
 @RikMills
 and others. any help appreciated.
 I think it is an issue with the control file.
 I will have to merge it correctly again afaik.
 Those two build depends were from the debian side but not on the ubuntu side. I kept the debian side when merging.
 @The_LoudSpeaker are you on eoan or focal?
 focal
 container
 I did modify the debian changelog accordingly
 nvm
 I forgot to place a "," between those two
 *facepalms*
 but still I need a source tar ball.
 can you show me the control file?
 for the tarball, you noeed to get the sourcecode
 running debsign failed now. 😶
 @HMollerCl [can you show me the control file?], one sec
 https://wiki.debian.org/Packaging/Intro?action=show&redirect=IntroDebianPackaging
 @The_LoudSpeaker [running debsign failed now. 😶], for ppa?
 for debuild -S -d
 @HMollerCl [can you show me the control file?], https://phab.lubuntu.me/P52
 @The_LoudSpeaker [https://phab.lubuntu.me/P52], you solved the ","?
 @HMollerCl [you solved the ","?], yup!
 @HMollerCl [for ppa?], using —no-sign doesn't give the error
 yes, signing is for signing .deb so you can upload to ppa
 when only want to build .de I use: debuild -us -uc -tc
 (-tc is postclean)
 okay. noted.
 to upload to a PPA, run debuild -S -d -sa -k[key]
 now running debdiff
 @HMollerCl [to upload to a PPA, run debuild -S -d -sa -k[key]], okay. this goes to saved messaged
 *messages
 I fetched the current debian version. dsc from mom page and I already have the just compiled current-ubuntu-version-on-top.dsc but I can't run debdiff
 @tsimonq2
 https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/fCXVKNRD3N/
 @teward001
 you need tar
 @HMollerCl [https://wiki.debian.org/Packaging/Intro?action=show&redirect=IntroDebianPackagin …], @The_LoudSpeaker see this
 for debdiff also?
 @HMollerCl [@The_LoudSpeaker see this], k.
 dpkg-source: error: cannot fstat file /home/ubuntu/lxqt-globalkeys_0.14.3.orig.tar.xz: No such file or directory
 it gives an error
 If debdiff is passed two source packages (.dsc files) it will compare the contents of the source packages. If the source packages differ only in Debian revision number (that is, the .orig.tar.gz files are the same in the two .dsc files), then interdiff(1) will be used to compare the two patch files if this program is available on th
 ^ from manpages
 got it running. downloaded resp orig.tar.xz , tar.xz.asc and a debian.tar.xz
 got a looong output. showing changes
 @tsimonq2 @teward001 next steps on how to upload this merged source?
 @The_LoudSpeaker [got a looong output. showing changes], meanwhile I will try to document this in debian changelog if something is not already present.