[11:07:48] <quitte> made a version of libtool that doesnt depend on cpp and gcc. that should do the trick
[11:07:58] <caio1982> goooood
[11:09:58] <quitte> an idea why gtk want xlibs-pic?
[11:10:33] <caio1982> bug in old dependency from woody, i guess
[11:10:39] <caio1982> try disabling it
[11:10:46] <caio1982> transition dep
[11:11:41] <quitte> i ignored it
[11:11:45] <quitte> only dep left
[11:12:03] <caio1982> which one? :)
[11:12:06] <caio1982> ah
[11:12:08] <caio1982> cool
[11:12:25] <caio1982> so it's okay for building? i thought it had much more build-deps to solve!
[11:13:41] <quitte> libtool fixed those
[11:14:09] <quitte> caio1982: an idea how to handle DEBUILD_OPTIONS in makefiles?
[11:14:37] <caio1982> what you want to do with it at first?
[11:14:45] <caio1982> didnt get it
[11:15:12] <quitte> i think instead of skipping docs and tests we should start using the to be promoted DEBUILD options nodocs and notests
[11:15:49] <decko> what you're doing guys?
[11:16:06] <caio1982> i guess it's just a plain variable, but it depends on newer policies and dpkg anyway, isnt it?
[11:16:23] <caio1982> you just set it on top of the makefile or in the terminal env., right?
[11:17:02] <quitte> it's a plain variable that depending on its contents tests are skipped and nodocs are built. i hardly see a reason not to use that. except that i dont know how to read those values out of it
[11:17:11] <quitte> caio1982: you set it in env
[11:17:36] <quitte> wouldnt make much sense otherwise. buildd is supposed to work with it some day
[11:17:47] <caio1982> is it? would be nice
[11:17:49] <quitte> decko: uhm please ask more specific
[11:18:05] <decko> What you're talking about?
[11:18:10] <quitte> caio1982: didn't read the extremadura agenda and emdebian pages?
[11:18:15] <caio1982> but for we dont have it set up yet... this variable is already available for testing in some package of dpkg or what? can't we test it?
[11:18:31] <caio1982> quitte: not the details but yes i read
[11:18:54] <quitte> decko: www.emdebian.org wiki.debian.org/DebianEmbeddedWorkSessionExtremadura2006
[11:19:03] <caio1982> decko: optimized builds of .debs for embedded devices and this link jonas pasted
[11:19:19] <quitte> caio1982: i _typed_ it
[11:19:37] <caio1982> haha
[11:19:58] <quitte> caio1982: it's not available,yet. but using it shouldnt be much harder than just deleting shit from debian/rules
[11:20:08] <quitte> which we already did
[11:20:40] <quitte> but i have no clue how to handle different levels of build dependencies
[11:20:59] <caio1982> what you mean? we dont have to
[11:21:04] <caio1982> but we need srcinst still, imho
[11:21:27] <caio1982> quitte: yeah, but this would left it intact, not needing manual editing i nthe rules :)
[11:21:34] <caio1982> i guess it would be cool
[11:21:37] <caio1982> i'm up for it
[11:22:52] <quitte> just had a look at the control file fields. another field has to be promoted
[11:23:01] <caio1982> uh?
[11:24:19] <quitte> im not sure if binary-indep is enough. even arch specific files contain docs and source dependencies for it
[11:24:41] <quitte> when we don't build any docs we dont need dependencies to build those either
[11:25:03] <quitte> sometimes even test needs it's own fields
[11:25:17] <caio1982> ah, got it
[11:25:35] <quitte> i'll remember that for extremadura. i doubt i can get that into fosdem discussions
[11:26:54] <quitte> we could add a field embeddednotwanteddeps in the meantime to later be ported. having actual examples was a good thing
[11:27:20] <quitte> anyone logging this?
[11:27:45] <quitte> lama: log this chan and put them somewhere in public
[11:28:07] <quitte> gtk is still building
[11:29:18] <caio1982> i log everything