UVF exception: lirc 0.7.1pre2 -> 0.8.0

Here is the debdiff for the new package.

There are a lot of changes but as the current lirc-modules-source doesn't really work right now, I think it worth upgrading

the changelog contains mainly bugfixes, new hardware support or build fix.

lirc 0.8.0-0ubuntu1 build log with pbuilder

The update looks like a good idea (lots of good fixes).

fine with me... mostly bugfixes, support for new devices and better support for our kernel ;)

I agree with this update. But pretty please, before uploading, please coordinate with amaya, the debian maintainer for this package. She has requested this update before, but I fail to see why she didn't upload 0.8.0 to debian yet. Please check with her about potential problems

Ok, I've sent her an email to ask her if we should wait for her package.

Yann, any news on this?

No news from amaya, I should try to reach her on IRC. What is the best channel for that ?

any progress on this?

Just had an answer from Amaya, her package is not ready, she said we shouldn't wait for it.

Why is this bug "fix comitted"? from what i see there wasn't an upload or something else

this is clearly not 'fix commited' then. This package needs someone to prepare, testbuild (ideally test) and eventually upload it. Dear tester/uploader, please assign this bug to you and proceed!

Let's investigate in Debian's newest version and make lirc users happy again.

debian still has 0.7.2, not 0.8.0

I have tested that the lirc-modules-source builds fine but I don't have infrared device on the computer where Ubuntu is installed. So it would be better if someone really test infrared.

For the upload, only motu can upload, am I wrong ?

Yes you need to be in the group 'ubuntu-dev' for uploading, but you can attach the source package (diff.gz, dsc and orig.tar.gz, perhaps only pointers) to this bug, and I'll happily sponsor you.

You don't need to be a MOTU to prepare uploads ;)

I have tested that the lirc-modules-source builds fine but I don't have infrared device on the computer where Ubuntu is installed. So it would be better if someone really test infrared.

For the upload, only motu can upload, am I wrong ?

Err, I uploaded the debiff at the beginning of this bug.
Isn't it what you need ?

where is the orig.tar.gz? I'd prefer a real source package over a debdiff. Perhaps you can upload a candidate to revu?

Ok I will do this. But don't expect the package before tomorrow night.
Will I find in the wiki how to upload to revu ?

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU. I already added your key to the keyring, so you should be clear to upload

just uploaded the package

http://revu.tauware.de/details.py?upid=2320

I sponsored the package for you, please make sure that the package which gets build shortly builds correctly on all archs and works on your machine. Reopen this bug or file another bug if you spot other issues

First, I wanted to thank you for fixing this package.

I've a config question: why is it configure --with-driver=none? Shouldn't it be compiled with all possible drivers? In order for it to work with my flyvideo98 i had to add at least flyvideo driver (unless i'm missing someting, but AFAIK it's mentioned in the lirc FAQ that such a config is usable only in a networked configuration).

yann, something must have gone wrong somewhere, I apologize. Could you please answer Wiktor and tell me if I should reupload 0.8.0 from revu or wait for an updated pacakge with this --with-driver issue?

Thanks for finding that problem !

Indeed the --with-driver=none showed up in the previous last debian package (0.7.2-1) and is responsible of some problems, see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=348390

I will solve this bug and look at other debian bugs also.

Great! Thanks once again :).

I uploaded a new package with "--with-driver=all",
Reinhard, can you upload it ?
Wiktor, can you test it once it's there.

There are some news on the debian side, Amaya requested an adopter for the package and now there some people working on it:
http://julien.danjou.info/blog/index.php/2006/05/10/277-new-lirc-package-on-the-road
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=364606

I also noticedd lirc is an alioth project:
http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-lirc/

I don't know if iit's a good idea to look at the in-progress debian package now.

Works for me.

Yann, --with-driver=all causes FTBFS in build environments. please investigate

where do I find the build logs ? I used to look at http://people.ubuntu.com/~lamont/buildLogs/l/lirc/ but it seems it's not here anymore.

crimsun advised me to try the experimental lirc package from debian, so I will merge the package instead of improving this one.

I tried the experimental package and it didn't work out the box.
So I choosed to quickly fix the current package to have a working version, I will work on the debian package later.

I changed --with-driver=all to --with-driver=userspace, now lirc doesn't try to build kernel modules and hence doesn't need the kernel headers.
lirc drivers should be build separately with lirc-modules-source. Would be nice to have binary lirc drivers package, I will see that when I will work ont he debian package.

I uploaded last version on revu.

I've just seen that 0.8.0-2 just entered unstable. how about taking that package?

As I said, I quickly fixed the old package to have something working before I can work on the new debian package.
I will have some time this week end to work on it but I have no problem if someone want to try to merge it sooner.

I've just uploaded lirc 0.8.0-2ubuntu1 a bit later than expected (no too late I hope, I didn't had time last week-end)

It's basically the new debian package with an additionnal patch to be able to compile modules from lirc-module-source with the ubuntu kernel 2.6.15 (without requiring the kernel-source).

It's similar to the debian patch for kernel 2.6.16.

This new debian package has a lot of bugs fixed and improved debconf templates, this would be really better to have it in dapper.

Reinhard, can you upload it ?

I don't have infrared hardware on my ubuntu powered computer, I just tested module compilation and packages installation/desinstallation. it would be great if someone could test this package quickly.

@Yann: I don't see it (0.8.0-2ubuntu1) on REVU yet.

strange, from the lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1_source.upload file:
Successfully uploaded /home/yrouillard/devel/lirc2/lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1.dsc to upload.ubuntu.com.
Successfully uploaded /home/yrouillard/devel/lirc2/lirc_0.8.0.orig.tar.gz to upload.ubuntu.com.
Successfully uploaded /home/yrouillard/devel/lirc2/lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1.diff.gz to upload.ubuntu.com.
Successfully uploaded /home/yrouillard/devel/lirc2/lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1_source.changes to upload.ubuntu.com.

I uploaded it again:
$ dput -f lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1_source.changes
Upload package to host ubuntu
Checking Signature on .changes
[...]
Good signature on /home/yrouillard/devel/lirc2/lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1.dsc.
Package includes an .orig.tar.gz file although the debian revision suggests
that it might not be required. Multiple uploads of the .orig.tar.gz may be
rejected by the upload queue management software.
Uploading via ftp lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1.dsc: done.
Uploading via ftp lirc_0.8.0.orig.tar.gz: done.
Uploading via ftp lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1.diff.gz: done.
Uploading via ftp lirc_0.8.0-2ubuntu1_source.changes: done.
Successfully uploaded packages.
Not running dinstall.

Content of my .dput.cf:

[revu]
fqdn = revu.tauware.de
incoming = /incoming
login = anonymous
allow_unsigned_uploads = 0

Tell me if I am doing something wrong.

Yeah you're doing something wrong... just do
dput -f revu foo_source.changes

(note the "revu")

ok.
done

Ok, builds and works for me again. Thnx.

The latest on revu builds for me too..

As a user of lirc with MythTV I have to ask, am I missing something or is using lirc on Ubuntu RIDICULOUSLY difficult? As far as I can see, you must jump through the following hoops, and this applies to the latest lirc on revu:

(after building if using latest)

-Install the following debs: lirc, liblircclient0, lirc-modules-source
-Install kernel sources
-Determine only by digging through lirc-modules-source's installed files list in Synaptic that there is some documentation in /usr/share/doc/lirc-modules-source on what to do now
-Follow the instructions in /usr/src/modules/lirc/README to actually build modules and get a working lirc setup. Have you read this file? Why even bother with the deb package route in the first place?

Someone please tell me how stupid I am for thinking this is what has to be done at present, because I really want to be wrong. This isn't even slightly easy or maintainable when kernel updates come down the line as far as I can see.

At the moment I'm just modifying debian/rules for --with-driver=serial and building that way, which means once the debs are installed I'm set.

fubarbundy:

You don't need kernel-sources, you only need kernel-headers. The README file you've expirienced reading is... man, it's scares :). But seriously, I'm usually building modules using module-assistant (module-assistant build lirc, or m-a build lirc).

Hmm.. so this is really a broken setup. The package should at the very least depend on the kernel headers and build itself against the current kernel, instead of forcing the user to do that.

What happens as far as kernel updates when the modules are built manually?

It's not like that. If you necessarily want to find something that is "broken", that'd be lirc. The drivers are developped outside the kernel, so they have to be kept outside, and that's what m-a is for.

Good point. Do you know if anything is going on r.e. bringing lirc into the kernel? Or is it a politics/personality thing? :)

I agree the current situation is not that great.
I think it would be possible to have a lirc-modules-2.6...deb like there are linux-restricted-modules-*
However they probably should be rebuilt on kernel update and personnaly I will not have time to work on this right now.

I see the package I uploaded has not yet been committed. Is there any problem with it ?
0.8.0-3 debian package is there, I may have time to upload it but I would prefer this package to be uploaded so it's in dapper.

Out of curiousity, can anybody comment on what's going on with this package?

Well it seems MOTU uploaders didn't like it or didn't have time to upload it for dapper.

Any reason I'm getting a 403 when trying to download the .debs from REVU?

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 02:13:18PM -0000, Andrew Conkling wrote:
> Any reason I'm getting a 403 when trying to download the .debs from
> REVU?

revu is about reviewing of source package, not binary packages.
Downloading of binary package is not permitted intentionally.

Gruesse,
 Reinhard

I close this bug which is not relevant anymore as dapper is out.