[05:40] <eddyMul> Hi. I'm (very) new to Launchpad PPA. I assume it takes some time for binary packages to "show up/get published" after I got a report of a successful build. What is the average wait time?
[05:41] <Fujitsu> eddyMul: What do you mean by a report of a successful build?
[05:42] <RAOF> eddyMul: It varies wildly.  From the time that you get the "launchpad has accepted foo", there's an every-15-minute publish run, then they get added to a build queue (of uncertain length).
[05:42] <eddyMul> Fujitsu, RAOF: https://launchpad.net/~eddymul/+archive/+builds?build_text=&build_state=built
[05:42] <Fujitsu> Ah.
[05:42] <eddyMul> Fujitsu, RAOF: nvm. the binary package just showed up. I guess launchpad is pretty quick
[05:43] <eddyMul> :)
[05:43] <Fujitsu> It would have been published at xx:40, where xx is the current hour in your favourite timezone.
[05:43] <Fujitsu> They should be published at :00, :20, :40.
[05:44] <eddyMul> Fujitsu: I see. Since this is my first time submitting a package to PPA, I want to make sure I "wait accordingly"
[08:20] <ubotu> New bug: #186548 in rosetta "Still an "iterable argument required" on Slovenian translation import" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186548
[08:26] <kitofhawaii> hi where do i go for help if i need for our ubuntu team launchpad to be taken over from a hostile member who has ownership of it?
[08:27] <Fujitsu> kitofhawaii: Your best bet is probably to file a question on the launchpad project.
[08:27] <kitofhawaii> Fujitsu: thank you :)
[08:29] <kitofhawaii> ok have to get jono to vouch for it...
[08:49] <doko> hmm, can't submit/open new bug reports, see OOPS-758EB48 ...
[08:51] <elmo> doko: try on !edge
[08:51] <Fujitsu> doko: Is this through apport?
[08:52] <doko> Fujitsu: no, plain browser; elmo: thanks, works
[08:58] <elmo> doko: please open a bug?  I'll follow up, I know what commit broke it
[08:59] <mpt> Gooooooooooooooooooooooooood morning Launchpadders!
[08:59] <elmo> (s/know/think I know/)
[09:00] <Fujitsu> Hi mpt.
[09:01] <doko> elmo: #186564
[09:04] <intellectronica> doko: did you try to attach a file at the same time as filing the bug?
[09:06]  * mpt tries to think of a nice synonym for "wankery"
[09:07] <doko> intellectronica: no
[09:08] <intellectronica> doko: thanks (I'm asking because I think the bug that caused your OOPS is part of the work on a new feature which will allow you to attach a file at the same time as submitting a new bug).
[09:10] <ubotu> New bug: #186564 in malone "OOPS with edge.launchpad.net while submitting a report" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186564
[09:18] <mpt> arrrgh
[09:21]  * Fujitsu wonders why mpt sounds so like a cat being strangled.
[09:22] <mpt> because I just fell victim to bug 186564 :-)
[09:22] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 186564 in malone "OOPS with edge.launchpad.net while submitting a report" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186564 - Assigned to Graham Binns (gmb)
[09:23] <Fujitsu> Aha.
[09:25] <ubotu> New bug: #186567 in launchpad "Message when approved for a team refers to "status of your" non-existent "membership"" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186567
[09:28] <Fujitsu> mpt: Is an email subject of `X made an admin by Y' your creation? It seems to not really fit with the rest of Launchpad's text.
[09:29] <mpt> Fujitsu, no, sabdfl takes care of designing the team-related e-mail headers 
[09:30] <Fujitsu> Ah.
[09:38] <Aloha> how do you add blueprints to launchpad teams?
[09:39] <Fujitsu> Aloha: Blueprints are created on a project or distribution, not a team.
[09:39] <Aloha> Fujitsu, ok
[09:39] <Aloha> what do teams have a blueprints page then?
[09:40] <Fujitsu> Those are blueprints that are related to the team. Blueprints that the team is subscribed or assigned to, for example.
[09:41] <Aloha> Fujitsu, gotcha. thnx
[10:41] <carlos> morning
[10:56] <ubotu> New bug: #186587 in malone "Bug trackers listing should be a single-column page" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186587
[10:56] <ubotu> New bug: #186588 in malone "Bug-reporting guidelines presentation is unsightly" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186588
[11:50] <ubotu> New bug: #186602 in rosetta "Can't setup Asturian language as default on Ubuntu" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186602
[12:15] <ubotu> New bug: #186607 in malone "Distribution Package Structural Subscriptions for Bugs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186607
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186611 in malone "Milestone Structural Subscriptions for Bugs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186611
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186612 in malone "Product Series Structural Subscriptions for Bugs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186612
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186613 in malone "Distribution Series Structural Subscriptions for Bugs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186613
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186614 in malone "Project Structural Subscriptions for Bugs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186614
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186615 in malone "Product Structural Subscriptions for Bugs" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186615
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186616 in malone "Distribution Structural Subscriptions for Bugs" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186616
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186619 in malone "Convert Product Bug Contact to Structural Subscriptions" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186619
[12:31] <ubotu> New bug: #186620 in malone "Convert Distribution Bug Contact to Structural Subscriptions" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186620
[12:31]  * Fujitsu drowns.
[12:32]  * elmo frowns
[13:39] <coolbhavi> How to make my email addresses publicly viewable in Launchpad?
[13:41] <coolbhavi> Help please
[13:47] <Fujitsu> coolbhavi: See https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+edit
[13:47] <Fujitsu> The first checkbox.
[13:48] <coolbhavi> Thanks Fujitsu
[15:04] <no0tic> hi, I'm trying to add myself to planet ubuntu, committing to bazaar replies
[15:04] <no0tic> bzr: ERROR: Can't rename /srv/sm-ng/push-branches/00/00/06/74/.bzr/branch/lock/giagxml1b7.tmp to /srv/sm-ng/push-branches/00/00/06/74/.bzr/branch/lock/held: /srv/sm-ng/push-branches/00/00/06/74/.bzr/branch/lock/held already exist
[15:16] <ubotu> New bug: #186660 in launchpad "Launchpad shouldn't store wiki names" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186660
[15:21] <ubotu> New bug: #186661 in launchpad "SQLObject prejoins aren't documented anywhere in the project" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186661
[15:49] <Rinchen> Bug #186667
[15:49] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 186667 in malone "New report a bug info box for Ubuntu intrusive and annoying" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186667
[15:55] <ubotu> New bug: #186667 in malone "New report a bug info box for Ubuntu intrusive and annoying" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186667
[16:56] <ubotu> New bug: #186683 in soyuz "PPA index page does not handle invalid GET values properly " [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186683
[17:49] <mdz> https://edge.launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/1:1.0.2-0ubuntu10.3 -> redirection limit exceeded
[17:49] <mdz> is it only me?
[17:49] <mdz> (old URL from a bug comment)
[17:52] <intellectronica> mdz: if you remove the /distros/ bit it works fine. definitely a but
[17:53] <mdz> intellectronica: should I file a bug?
[17:53] <mdz> presumably backward compatibility for old URLs is meant to be preserved
[17:53] <intellectronica> mdz: yup
[17:54] <intellectronica> oh, i think that url pattern is still supported, at least for backwards compatibility
[17:56] <ubotu> New bug: #186702 in launchpad "Fields defined in interfaces should be reusable or copiable" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186702
[19:15] <jkakar> Is the 'summary' section on a project's +announce page intended to contain a lot of content?
[19:26] <jkakar> Crap.
[19:26] <jkakar> My bug report is causing OOPS and OOPS and not getting filed.
[19:27] <matsubara> jkakar: as a workaround use launchpad.net instead of edge
[19:28] <matsubara> jkakar: the cause is likely to be bug 186564
[19:28] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 186564 in malone "OOPS with edge.launchpad.net while submitting a report without an attachment" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186564 - Assigned to Graham Binns (gmb)
[19:31] <jkakar> Woah, what a weird bug. :)
[19:56] <ubotu> New bug: #186752 in launchpad "announcements feed on front page of launchpad.net does not correspond to front page news" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186752
[21:00] <ubotu> New bug: #186792 in launchpad "hook up welcome message for new subscribers" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/186792
[21:50] <Aloha> can we add copyrighted images in packages to the ppa, or do they have to be public domain?
[21:51] <ScottK> Aloha: Depends on the license associated with the images.
[21:51] <ScottK> They have to be distributable.
[21:51] <Aloha> gotcha
[21:51] <Aloha> so like creative commons
[22:43] <LaserJock> cprov: got a sec?
[23:06] <hexmode> I'm confused: How can I add files for .../+download? 
[23:06] <hexmode> for example, to here: https://edge.launchpad.net/ihris-manage/+download
[23:06] <kiko> hexmode, add it to a product release
[23:06] <hexmode> looking
[23:07] <kiko> hexmode, visit a series page (such as /trunk) and then navigate to the release
[23:08] <LaserJock> kiko: hola
[23:09] <cprov> LaserJock: sure
[23:10] <LaserJock> cprov: I was just ask a little about package overview pages
[23:11] <LaserJock> I just left a comment on bug #73116 with most of it
[23:11] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 73116 in soyuz "Source package pages don't describe what the package is for" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/73116
[23:11] <cprov> LaserJock: ok, give me a URL
[23:12] <LaserJock> but basically I think it'd really be helpful for developers and even users if the overview pages where a bit more descriptive about the package itself
[23:12] <LaserJock> they are already doing good from a publishing perspective
[23:12] <LaserJock> but they give basically no information about the package itself
[23:13] <LaserJock> I just wondered what thoughts you had about that
[23:14] <cprov> LaserJock: well, we can't do much since sources have no description in the debian metadata format
[23:15] <cprov> LaserJock: once we have binaries it gets better https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bum/2.1.10-1
[23:15] <LaserJock> that is true
[23:15] <LaserJock> but I'm wondering if we can kinda move some of that information "uphill"
[23:16] <LaserJock> there are a lot of packages that only produce a single binary, those would be trivial
[23:16] <LaserJock> for multiple binaries it's definitely more vague to talk about a description
[23:17] <cprov> LaserJock: It's feasible, but it could be sorted in a proper way if we use the 'packaging' link to the corresponding project
[23:17] <LaserJock> it seems to me that the source overview page is "primary" target for people wanting info on the package
[23:18] <LaserJock> and so it should include a lot of the information
[23:18] <LaserJock> rather than having to click around
[23:18] <LaserJock> I still often have to more or less randomly click around to get some information
[23:19] <LaserJock> well, I think "packaging" links are only proper if there's a corresponding project around
[23:19] <cprov> LaserJock: https://edge.launchpad.net/bum has the information what is "bum" ... even if we present the binaries description it will only describe what the packages are, not what "bum" is
[23:20] <LaserJock> well, generally the short descriptions are even fairly ok, but the long descriptions for sure are good info
[23:20] <cprov> LaserJock: yes, it's only available if we have a corresponding product/project
[23:20] <ScottK> Of course that info may or may not relate to what either upstream or the Ubuntu package have to say about it.
[23:21] <cprov> right, but as I mentioned before, ubuntu/debian says nothing about the source, we have to wait for the binaries to show up
[23:21] <LaserJock> ScottK: that's a good point, I've seen a lot of projects that have no info and are basically useless
[23:22] <LaserJock> cprov: right, but from our perspective there's not much difference. If I apt-cache showsrc <pkg> I get all the info
[23:23] <LaserJock> in some sense the source package page should inherit this stuff from the binaries
[23:23] <LaserJock> if that makes any sense
[23:23] <cprov> LaserJock: no, you don't get summary/description by using "apt-cache showsrc"
[23:24] <LaserJock> sorry, that's right
[23:24] <LaserJock> apt-cache show will
[23:24] <crimsun> right, because it makes no sense.  They're only appropriate for binary packages.
[23:24] <cprov> LaserJock: a sourcepackagerelease, basically stores what is shipped in the DSC
[23:24] <LaserJock> cprov: right, and I'm saying that it'd be nice if we got more than that
[23:25] <cprov> LaserJock: yes, I know we can present the binaries summary when they are available.
[23:25] <kiko> cprov, LaserJock is saying "never mind that we store things as dsc and binaries. present stuff that is useful to the user."
[23:26] <LaserJock> basically yeah
[23:26] <LaserJock> the +source page is the entry point into that package and yet often has the least  amount of useful information
[23:26] <LaserJock> because a lot of the goodies reside in the binaries
[23:27] <LaserJock> and specific version pages
[23:28] <hexmode> kiko: tyvm for the release help