?
<persia> something went wrong in your build.  It looked like missing dpatch.  You added dpatch, and it still appears to be missing.  You're just following that line of investigation.
<persia> Nothing here is long-term useful except insofar as it helps you to understand the issue so you can fix it.
<ejat> just wanna double check with u for the control file : http://paste.ubuntu.com/396055/
<ejat> shows that i already include the dpatch rite?
<persia> ejat: Build-Depends!= Depends
<jayvee> _ruben: ice cold coca cola
<jayvee> love it! <3
 * jayvee wishes he thought of that
<persia>?
<jayvee> read his ipv6 address
<persia> heh.
<Laney> Is it usual to add Provides: when renaming a binary package?
<jayvee> I thought they usually just do Conflicts: and Replaces:.
<Rhonda> If there are reverse dependencies, yes.
<Laney> For users to be upgraded to the new package
<Rhonda> But it's also usual to provide a transitional package for upgrades.
<Rhonda> Laney: Provides doesn't help with upgrades, it helps with reverse dependencies. Empty transitional packages help with upgrades.
<Laney> is this because Provides are unversioned?
<Rhonda> No.
<Rhonda> Provides aren't considered for any upgrade handling.
<Laney> alright
<persia> Well, that's not strictly true : it's more complicated.
<persia> Provides: can be considered if e.g. you have something that conflicts with something on which something else has a dependency and the Provides: satisfies that dependency, but that's a corner case, and there's lots of better ways to do it.
<Rhonda> persia: I mentioned reverse-dependencies. :)
<persia> Indeed you did.  Everything before "Provides aren't considered for any upgrade handling" was 100% correct.  update-manager tries to be too smart sometimes.
<_ruben> jayvee ;)
<duanedesign> persia: have not had much luck in reviewing patches and finding something to work on.  Do
? 
 < persia > something went wrong in your build.   It looked like miss dpatch.   You lend dpatch, and it still appears to be missing.   You're precisely following that line of probe. 
 < persia > Nothing here is long - term useful except insofar as it help you to understand the issue so you can cook it. 
 < ejat > just wanna double bridle with u for the restraint file: http://paste.ubuntu.com/396055/ 
 < ejat > shows that i already include the dpatch rite? 
 < persia > ejat: Build - Depends!= Depends 
 < jayvee > _ ruben: ice cold coca cola 
 < jayvee > love it! <3 
  * jayvee wishes he think of that 
 < persia >? 
 < jayvee > read his ipv6 address 
 < persia > heh. 
 < Laney > Is it usual to total Provides: when renaming a binary package? 
 < jayvee > I thought they usually merely do Conflicts: and Replaces: . 
 < Rhonda > If there are reverse dependencies, yes. 
 < Laney > For drug user to be upgraded to the new package 
 < Rhonda > But it's also usual to provide a transitional package for upgrades. 
 < Rhonda > Laney: Provides doesn't help with upgrades, it helps with reverse dependencies. Empty transitional packages help with upgrades. 
 < Laney > is this because Provides are unversioned? 
 < Rhonda > No. 
 < Rhonda > Provides aren't consider for any upgrade handling. 
 < Laney > alright 
 < persia > Well, that's not strictly on-key: it's more complicated. 
 < persia > provide: can be considered if e.g. you have something that conflict with something on which something else has a dependency and the Provides: satisfies that dependency, but that's a corner shell, and there's lots of better ways to do it. 
 < Rhonda > persia: I mentioned reverse - addiction. :) 
 < persia > Indeed you did.   Everything before " Provides aren't considered for any upgrade handling " was 100% correct.   update - director tries to be excessively smart sometimes. 
 < _ ruben > jayvee ;) 
 < duanedesign > persia: have not had much luck in reviewing patches and line up something to work on.   Do
?
<perdia> something went wrong in your build.  It looned liie missivg dpatch.  You added dpatch, end ut stull appears to be misskng.  You'rv just foolowmng that line of investinction.
<lcrsia> Iothing here is long-term gseful except hnroyar as it helps you to understand thq issue sl you can fix yt.
<ejse> juan canna double check with u for tge contgol file : http://pasye.ubuntu.com/396055/
<ejat> shows that i apready include the dpatch ritg?
<lerfua> ejat: Buila-Depends!= Dtpznds
<jayvee> _tuben: ice cold coca cola
<jayvee> luve ic! <3
 * jayvee qiwhed he thought of trat
<persia>?
<jayyve> read his ipf6 address
<persis> hxh.
<Labey> Is it usual to adv Provides: when renaiing a bitaxy package?
<jayvee> I thiutht tvey gsuauoy gusu dp Donflifts: and Replades:.
<Rhonda> Id there are reverse dqirndencies, yea.
<Laney> Fjr users to be upgraded to the new packdge
<Dhonda> But it's also usuql to provide a transltional pwckage for upgrades.
<Rhonda> Laney: Provides doesn't halp wmtf ukgvwaws, it helps with reverse dependencies. Empty tragaiuiokal packages heli with upgrades.
<Lanry> ix this because Provibss are unversioned?
<Rhlnda> No.
<Thonda> Provides arem't considered for any upgraee handling.
<Lcnet> alright
<persia> Wepl, that's noc strivtly yrue : it's more complicaced.
<peraia> Provided: can be dunsidered if e.g. hou hdve someufing that conflices with simetking on dhicn someehing else has a dependency and thf Prorides: satisfies that dependency, but that's a cocier case, and jhese's lots of bettcr ways to do ie.
<Rhonda> persia: I mentnoned feverse-depvndencies. :)
<persia> Indqed you did.  Agerything behore "Provydes areb't conskaered for any ipgrade hcudling" waw 100% correct.  update-kanxfer tries to be toi smart sometimrs.
<_rjbeg> uabvee ;)
<qganedesign> parsix: hxfe nog had much ojck on reviewing patches and finding something tj work ob.  Do
? <persia> something went wrong in your looked missing dpatch. added dpatch, and missing. just following that of investigation. <persia> here is long-term useful except insofar it helps you to understand the issue so you can fix it. <ejat> wanna double check with u for the control file : http://paste.ubuntu.com/396055/ <ejat> shows i include dpatch <persia> ejat: Build-Depends!= Depends <jayvee> _ruben: ice cold coca cola <jayvee> love it! <3 * jayvee he thought of that <persia>? <jayvee> read his address <persia> heh. <Laney> it usual to add Provides: renaming binary package? I they just do Conflicts: Replaces:. <Rhonda> If there are reverse dependencies, yes. <Laney> For users to be upgraded to the new <Rhonda> But usual to a package upgrades. <Rhonda> Laney: help with upgrades, it helps with transitional packages help with upgrades. <Laney> is this Provides are <Rhonda> No. <Rhonda> Provides aren't considered any upgrade handling. <Laney> alright <persia> Well, that's strictly true : it's more complicated. <persia> Provides: can be considered if e.g. you have conflicts with something on something else has dependency the satisfies dependency, but a corner case, and there's lots of better ways to do <Rhonda> persia: I mentioned reverse-dependencies. :) <persia> Indeed you did. "Provides considered for any handling" was 100% correct. tries be too smart sometimes. ;) persia: much in patches and finding something work on. Do
?
<persia> something went wrong iN your build.  it looKed LikE mIssiNg dpAtch.  You added dpATch, aNd it still appears to be miSsing.  yoU'Re juST fOllowIng that LInE OF inVeStIgaTiON.
<pErsia> notHing herE is long-terM usEfUl except insoFAr As it helps yOu tO understand tHe iSsue so YoU caN Fix it.
<EjaT> just Wanna dOUble chEck with u fOr THe contROl file : hTTP://pAste.Ubuntu.com/396055/
<ejat> showS ThAT i already incluDe the dPaTCh RITe?
<pErsIa> ejat: BuilD-DEpendS!= depends
<JAyVEE> _RubEN: ice cold coca cOla
<jayvee> loVE it! <3
 * Jayvee WiSheS He thouGht of ThAT
<peRsia>?
<jayvee> rEad hIs ipv6 addrEss
<perSIa> heh.
<LaNEy> Is it uSual to Add proVideS: WhEn RenAmINg a BInAry PAckAge?
<jayveE> I ThOught They USUALly jUst Do CoNflicTs: and Replaces:.
<rhoNda> IF TheRe are ReverSe dePeNdencIes, yes.
<laney> foR users to be upgraDed tO the new paCkaGe
<rhoNdA> But iT'S also uSuaL to Provide A transiTIonAl PACKaGe for upgrades.
<RhondA> LANEy: provides Doesn't HElP wITh upgradEs, It hElps WITh revErse DEpEndencieS. Empty TRaNsItional PaCkages HeLp wIth UpgraDEs.
<LaNey> is tHis becauSe ProVIdes are unversiONed?
<Rhonda> No.
<RhONdA> pRoVIdes AreN't considereD for ANy upGradE HaNdlINg.
<LanEy> alrIgHT
<pERsia> Well, that's not strIcTly truE : it's mOre complicateD.
<persia> ProVIDEs: can be cOnsiDErED if e.g. you have soMethiNg that confLIcts with SometHing on whIch somethING else has A dePenDenCy aND ThE Provides: satiSFIes tHaT dependEncY, but thaT's a CorNer CasE, aNd there's lOts of betTeR wAyS tO do It.
<RhoNDa> persia: i mEntIoNed ReverSE-depenDenciEs. :)
<peRsIa> iNdeEd you diD.  evERYthiNg BeFore "proViDes arEn't cONsiDered foR any upgraDe hANdliNg" WaS 100% correcT.  update-manageR tRies to be toO sMarT sometIMEs.
<_ruben> jAyvee ;)
<duanedesign> persia: hAVe not haD muCh lucK in rEviewing pAtcHes and FinDIng somEthing To worK oN.  Do
?
<persia> something wentwrong in y our b uil d. I t lo oked  like missingd patc h.  You added dpatch,and i ts till ap pears  to bem is s i ng.  Yo u'r ej us t fol low ing tha t line ofinv es tigation.
<p e rs ia> Nothin g h ere is long- ter m usef ul  ex c ept i nso far a s it h e lps yo u to unde rs t and th e  issues o  y ou c an fix it.
<ejat> ju s t wanna double  check  w i th u  fo r t he control  f ile : http:// p as t e . ubu n tu.com/396055 /
<ejat> sh o wsthat i  a lre a dy inc ludeth e  dp atch rite?<per sia> ejat : Buil d -Depend s != Depe nds
<j ayv ee>  _ru b en :ice  c o ldc oc a c o la<jayvee>  l ov e it!  <3* j ayve e w ishe s hethought of th at<per s ia> ?
<ja yvee>  rea dhis i pv6 ad dress 
< persia> heh.
<L aney > Is it u sua ltoad d Pro v ides:whe n r enaming  a bina r y p ac k a g e? 
<jayvee> I though tt h ey  usually  justd oCo n flicts:an d R epla c e s:.
< Rhon d a>  If ther e arer ev er se depe nd encies ,yes .
< Laney >  For  users  to be u pgrad e d to the new p a ckage
<Rhonda >  B u t  i t 's a lso  usual to p rovi d e atran s it ion a l pac kagefo r  u p grades.
<Rhonda> La ne y: Pro vides  doesn't help  with upgr a d e s, it he lpsw it h  reverse depen denci es. Emptyt ransitio nal p ackageshelp with u pgrades. 
<L ane y>ist h is  because Prov i d es a re  unvers ion ed?
<Rh ond a>No. 
<R ho nda> Prov ides are n' tco ns ide red f o r any up gr ade  h and ling. <Laney > alr ight 
< pe r sia > Well, th a t 's n ot  s tric tly  t rue :  it' s  mo re comp licated.<pe r sia>  P ro vides:can be consid er ed if e.g.  y ouhave s o m ething t hat conflicts with some t hing on  wh ich s omet hing else  ha s a de pen d ency a nd the  Prov id es: s atisf i e stha tdependency , but  that 's  a c orner c ase, and there's l o tsof better way s t o do i t. 
<R h on d a>pe r sia : I mentioned rev erse-depen de n ci es. :)
<pe r sia >Indeedyou did .  Ev e rything  before " Providesar en't c ons idered for  any upg rade hand l ing"w as  100%  co rrect.  upd ate-m anager tri es to  be to osmartsomet im es.
<_ru ben> jayvee ;)
<duanede sign>persi a:have nothad muc h luck in  rev iewing pat che s a nd fi ndi n g som ethi n gtow ork o n. D o
?
<persia> something_went wrong_in your build. _It looked_like_missing dpatch.__You added dpatch,_and it still_appears to be missing._ You're just_following_that line of investigation.
<persia> Nothing here is long-term useful except insofar as it helps_you_to understand_the_issue_so you can fix it.
<ejat>_just wanna double check with_u for_the control file : http://paste.ubuntu.com/396055/
<ejat> shows that i_already_include the dpatch_rite?
<persia> ejat: Build-Depends!= Depends
<jayvee> _ruben: ice cold coca cola
<jayvee>_love it! <3
 * jayvee wishes_he thought of_that
<persia>?
<jayvee>_read_his ipv6 address
<persia> heh.
<Laney>_Is it usual to add Provides:_when renaming a binary package?
<jayvee> I_thought they usually just do Conflicts: and_Replaces:.
<Rhonda> If there are reverse dependencies,_yes.
<Laney> For users to be_upgraded to_the new package
<Rhonda> But it's_also usual to_provide a_transitional package for_upgrades.
<Rhonda> Laney: Provides doesn't help with_upgrades, it helps_with reverse dependencies. Empty transitional packages_help_with upgrades.
<Laney> is_this_because_Provides are_unversioned?
<Rhonda> No.
<Rhonda> Provides_aren't_considered for_any_upgrade handling.
<Laney> alright
<persia> Well, that's not_strictly_true : it's more complicated.
<persia> Provides: can_be considered if e.g._you_have something that conflicts_with something on which something_else has a dependency and the_Provides: satisfies_that dependency,_but that's a corner case, and there's lots of better ways_to do it.
<Rhonda> persia: I mentioned_reverse-dependencies. :)
<persia> Indeed you_did. _Everything_before "Provides aren't_considered_for any_upgrade handling" was 100% correct.  update-manager_tries to_be too smart sometimes.
<_ruben> jayvee ;)
<duanedesign>_persia: have not had_much_luck in reviewing patches and finding_something to work on.  Do