[02:34] <eddyMul> after dput-ing to my PPA, I kept getting "MD5 sum of uploaded file does not match existing file in archive". Browsing under http://ppa.launchpad.net/eddymul/ubuntu/pool/main/ showed older files. How can I delete these?
[02:36] <jamesh> eddyMul: you should use different version numbers if you are rebuilding a package
[02:36] <eddyMul> jamesh: so I should increment the ppa number?
[02:36] <jamesh> eddyMul: which file did not match?
[02:37] <eddyMul> jamesh: the (debian) diff.gz
[02:37] <eddyMul> jamesh: I'll try incrementing the +ppan
[02:38] <jamesh> eddyMul: Okay.  You should be incrementing the package release number when rolling a new package, yes.
[02:38] <jamesh> eddyMul: the new build will supersede the existing package, causing it to be removed from the archive after a bit.
[02:39] <eddyMul> i c
[02:39] <eddyMul> jamesh: thanx. I'll do that
[02:39] <jamesh> eddyMul: if you were able to upload new packages with the same version number, how would apt know that it needs to install the update?
[02:40] <eddyMul> jamesh: If I understand correctly, this time, I don't need to dput the orig.tar.gz. Am I right?
[02:40] <jamesh> eddyMul: nope.
[02:40] <jamesh> only when you are building with a new .orig.tar.gz
[02:40] <eddyMul> jamesh: apt: I was hoping to keep changing +ppa1, but I guess that's bad for users other than me....
[02:43] <eddyMul> any advice to tell debuild to not package the emacs backup files (*~) ?
[02:44] <mtaylor> eddyMul: are you using bzr at all? 
[02:44] <mtaylor> eddyMul: if so, you can use bzr-builddeb and it'll not package up that stuff
[02:45] <mtaylor> eddyMul: otherwise, you can put something like this:
[02:45] <mtaylor> DEBUILD_DPKG_BUILDPACKAGE_OPTS="-i -rfakeroot -ICVS -I.svn -I.bzr -ISCCS"
[02:45] <mtaylor> in ~/.devscripts
[02:45] <mtaylor> and add an -I*~ or something, I belive
[02:46] <eddyMul> mtaylor: thanks for the env. variables. I will try that.
[03:05] <mtaylor> eddyMul: cool.... it's not an env var, though
[03:10] <eddyMul> mtaylor: ah. it's a config file setting. thanx for pointing that out.   :p
[03:10] <mtaylor> :)
[03:46] <gryc> Is there any way to tell the ppa build servers to not even bother building my package on the lpia architecture?
[03:47] <RAOF> Yup.  You can say "i386 amd64" rather than "any" for your arch field.
[03:48] <jamesh> gryc: why do you care if your package is built for lpia or not?
[03:48] <jamesh> it shouldn't affect the speed of builds on the other architectures
[03:48] <gryc> apparently mono isnt available for it
[03:48] <jamesh> ah.
[03:49] <jamesh> I wonder why not?
[03:49] <gryc> and I dont want to waste 3-4 minutes on something I know isnt going to build :P
[03:49] <jamesh> lpia is basically just x86 with different optimisation, iirc
[03:51] <gryc> oh, oops, looks like a misconfiguration in my rules file on my part >.<;
[03:52] <dhart> hi. does anyone know if super-projects can be nested? (i.e. a super-project belong to a super-project)
[03:52] <jamesh> dhart: we don't support that at the moment
[03:53] <dhart> ok thanks. I'm about to create some projects and just wanted to know. 
[04:53] <mtaylor> I've got several things that don't build on lpia
[04:53] <mtaylor> I haven't sorted it out yet myself
[06:35] <victory747> Hi.  I was pointing someone to launchpad instead of sourceforge to consider for their project, but he says launchpad is missing things he needs, such as a way of uploading nightly builds, automatically updating a web site, etc.  In fact, it seems launchpad doesn't have mailing lists, forums, or any way to release software except for ppa which is ubuntu specific.
[06:35] <victory747> Launchpad doesn't seem to have space for project web pages.
[06:36] <jamesh> victory747: we don't currently provide project web space, but it is under consideration.
[06:37] <victory747> I think he's hesitant to have his project spread across multiple places (sourceforge and launchpad).
[07:27] <mtaylor|zzz> victory747: launchpad does have a way to release files
[07:27] <mtaylor|zzz> victory747: you can upload files (which can be tarballs if you like)
[07:27] <mtaylor|zzz> and attach the to a release
[08:29] <ccm> hey guys
[08:31] <Fujitsu> Hi ccm.
[08:45] <ccm> is one of you technically responsible for the ubuntu.com mailservice?
[08:45] <ccm> i ran into a minor problem with the mail redirection for ubuntu members
[08:47] <Fujitsu> That's not exactly a part of Launchpad, I don't think.
[08:47] <Fujitsu> What's the problem?
[08:50] <ccm> well when redirecting mails via @ubuntu.com spf-checking mail servers might think it is a forged mail
[08:51] <ccm> afk for a while
[09:11] <ccm> .
[09:19] <AiSpirit> hello and good morning
[09:19] <Fujitsu> Hi AiSpirit.
[09:19] <AiSpirit> I have a little question about the bug #162394 I started a few times ago :p
[09:19] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 162394 in nautilus "Nautilus rights management problem with links" [Unknown,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/162394
[09:20] <AiSpirit> I put a comment about it on french ubuntu forum http://forum.ubuntu-fr.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1511036#p1511036
[09:20] <Fujitsu> This isn't a forum for Ubuntu support.
[09:20] <AiSpirit> oh oh. but for launchpad, no ?
[09:20] <Fujitsu> Yes.
[09:20] <AiSpirit> I mean, I'm wandering weither I have to start a new thread on launchpad or not
[09:20] <AiSpirit> about this bug
[09:20] <AiSpirit> so ... wrong channel or not ? :D
[09:21] <Fujitsu> If it's a different issue, you need to file a new bug.
[09:22] <AiSpirit> but I don't now if it's a different issue or a "temporary fix release". That's why I'm wandering : forum topic ? 162394 comments ? new bug ?
[09:22] <Fujitsu> Ah, I see, it's fixed upstream, not in Ubuntu.
[09:22] <AiSpirit> cause now, I have an error such as "different filesystem => cannot delete"
[09:22] <Fujitsu> I can't read French, unfortunately.
[09:22] <AiSpirit> arf :(
[09:23] <AiSpirit> I mean : I m knew in bug declaration, so I don't know if I let this like it s or I fill a new bug
[09:23] <AiSpirit> ** i'm new ;)
[09:23] <Fujitsu> Is it the same issue?
[09:23] <mrevell> Morning Launchpad
[09:23] <Fujitsu> Hey mrevell.
[09:24] <mrevell> hey hey
[09:24] <AiSpirit> for the result : yes : I can't remove link from partion ext3 if the real file is on ext3. but different error (due to the "fix")
[09:24] <AiSpirit> hey mrevell 
[09:24] <mrevell> hi AiSpirit
[09:24] <Fujitsu> Are you sure it's due to the fix? The fix doesn't seem be in Hardy yet, let alone Gutsdy.
[09:24] <Fujitsu> *Gutsy
[09:25] <AiSpirit> donno
[09:29] <AiSpirit> so, I have this comment from Yann Rouillard : 
[09:30] <AiSpirit> However, as gnome-vfs will be replaced with gvfs, I wonder it it's a good idea to introduce this kind of changes.
[09:30] <AiSpirit> maybe I should let it like this for the moment and wait for gvfs
[09:31] <AiSpirit> (though I do not much about them ...)
[09:32] <AiSpirit> so,good bye and maybe later. (back to work ...)
[11:48] <No`> hi all
[11:50] <No`> didn't see it in the Transaltion in Launchpad FAQ... how long does it take (very roughly) for a template to be checked before the translation are available?
[12:01] <ubotu> New bug: #188907 in ubuntu "Lock GNOME upstream translations" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/188907
[12:41] <bd_> Hi, where can I get a copy of xine-lib version 1.1.9-0ubuntu1? The source links off https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xine-lib/1.1.9-0ubuntu1 are broken, even if I remove /hardy/ from the url. 
[12:42] <Hobbsee> bd_: which arch?
[12:42] <bd_> Hobbsee: sources
[12:43] <Hobbsee> oh, yes, of course
[12:43] <Hobbsee> bd_: you can't.
[12:43] <bd_> Ubuntu is required to provide it for GPL compliance.
[12:43] <Hobbsee> cprov: your workaround doesn't work - that still gives binaries, not sources
[12:44] <bd_> for up to three years
[12:44] <Hobbsee> bd_: i know.  they've been told that before.  unfortunately, the LP guys haven't put it as important enough yet
[12:44] <cprov> Hobbsee: which workaround ?
[12:44] <Hobbsee> cprov: for accessing old sources for superceeded package releases
[12:44] <bd_> Hobbsee: okay, who should I directly demand sources from until they get annoyed at having to manually provide GPL compliance and fix it? :)
[12:45] <Hobbsee> bd_: cprov, kiko, stevea.
[12:45] <cprov> Hobbsee: the code is not there yet
[12:45] <Hobbsee> bd_: in that order - cprov is likely the one who has to fix it, and kiko and SteveA is in charge.
[12:45]  * bd_ looks at cprov
[12:45] <Hobbsee> cprov: well, i suggest you fix it asap, because, as bd_ says, it's a gpl violation.  and it's also very annoying.
[12:45] <Hobbsee> and it used to work.
[12:46] <bd_> it's not a violation if they fulfill requests manually, but it's still very annoying
[12:46] <bd_> I'm trying to track down a regression between a just-uploaded package version and the immediate prior one
[12:46] <cprov> bug 179028
[12:46] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 179028 in soyuz "+files doesn't work for removed SPRs" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/179028 - Assigned to Celso Providelo (cprov)
[12:46] <Hobbsee> so far, i've not seen them do that either
[12:47]  * Hobbsee adds to the bug.
[12:51]  * bd_ wonders if he knows any copyright holders of GPL code in ubuntu...
[12:51] <Hobbsee> bd_: no, don't do that.
[12:51] <Hobbsee> bd_: blog to ubuntu planet about it.
[12:51] <bd_> I kid, I kid. But seriously, there needs to at least be a manual procedure to get old sources.
[12:51] <Hobbsee> bd_: but really, before doing that, i'd suggest making the admin's aware of it.
[12:52] <Hobbsee> then, if they don't get it fixed asap, then yell.
[12:52] <bd_> the admins being who, exactly?
[12:52] <Hobbsee> bd_: kiko, stevea
[12:53]  * Hobbsee thought she sadi that above
[12:53] <bd_> mhm, if they're not online at the moment, is there an email contact address or something? Or is my best bet to check back later?
[12:53] <Hobbsee> bd_: they both have emails listed on LP
[12:54] <bd_> ok
[12:57]  * bd_ files a 'question' requesting a manual copy of the source
[13:04] <muszek> hi... quick question: in ubuntu gutsy, installing bzr from backports creates a dependency error when user tries to install bzr-gtk (bzr-gtk: Depends: bzr (< 0.91~) but 1.0-1~gutsy1 is to be installed).  should it be filed as a bug or is it rather a "you installed backported stuff - deal with problems yourself" kind of an issue?
[13:04] <Hobbsee> muszek: ask jdong 
[13:04] <Hobbsee> muszek: usually should be a bug on the product called "ubuntu-backports"
[13:06] <muszek> Hobbsee: thank you, I found that project and I'll file a report there
[13:12] <Hobbsee> muszek: you're welcome
[14:00] <Hobbsee> mrevell-lunch: please make sure that you update the PPA documentation about orig tarballs on the quickstart - it's wrong, nad it won't be helping with the number of questions you're getting about md5sum mismatches.
[14:00] <mrevell> hi Hobbsee
[14:01] <Hobbsee> heya!  :)
[14:01]  * mrevell checks email to see if I've had anything more specific
[14:02] <mrevell> Hobbsee: I'm sorry there's an error. What have you spotted? "Please make sure you update" is a little vague :)
[14:02] <Hobbsee> oh
[14:04] <Hobbsee> mrevell: s/PPA builds do not have any dependency restrictions,/PPA builds do not have any build dependency restrictions,/
[14:05] <Hobbsee> ew, we've grown a "pocket" in there too.  no one outside LP actually understands what a pocket is.
[14:05] <Hobbsee> and last i checked, you couldn't use anythign but the default pocket (release) in LP anyway.
[14:05] <Hobbsee> for ppa
[14:06] <Hobbsee> mrevell: the part i spotted that was wrong is:  {i} Note: ORIGs are not shared between the primary Ubuntu archive and your PPA. The first time you upload a source package you need to include the ORIG - i.e. build the source package with debuild -S -sa. 
[14:06] <mrevell> Hobbsee: What's the more common term for "pocket"?
[14:07] <Hobbsee> there isn't one
[14:08] <Hobbsee> most people think ubuntu is normal, updates goes to the same place as ubuntu, and calling it $distro-updates is a matter of courtesy to the users, and that backports is a black art, independant of LP
[14:08] <mrevell> right
[14:09] <mrevell> Hmm.
[14:09] <Hobbsee> but, like i say, i didn't think you could use anything but "release" pocket anyway
[14:09] <Hobbsee> worth checkign with cprov 
[14:09] <mrevell> Hobbsee: I think cprov would have to confirm
[14:09] <mrevell> right, yeah
[14:10] <mrevell> Hobbsee: This ORIG note. You're unhappy with the debuild options specified, right?
[14:11] <Hobbsee> mrevell: no, actually
[14:11] <Hobbsee> cprov: well done.  finally critical :)
[14:12] <cprov> Hobbsee: mrevell: currently, PPAs can re-use ORIGs from PRIMARY archive. That's what should be changed in that comment.
[14:12] <Hobbsee> Distribution Management and PPA (Soyuz)
[14:12] <Hobbsee> [14:12] <Hobbsee>   * Personal Package Archives now check the primary Ubuntu archive for
[14:12] <Hobbsee>     candidate orig.tar.gz files. (Bug 139619)
[14:12] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 139619 in soyuz "Allow orig.tar.gz from distribution repos" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/139619 - Assigned to Celso Providelo (cprov)
[14:13]  * Hobbsee had to search for the release notes
[14:13] <mrevell> Right, got it. Thanks.
[14:13] <mrevell> Hobbsee: Slipped through the cracks. Thanks for pointing it out.
[14:14] <Hobbsee> mrevell: a lot of people are getting tarballs that are the same version as later ubuntu versions of them, giving them a cryptic md5sum error.  this confuses them.
[14:14] <Hobbsee> because they can't see any such package in their ppa
[14:14] <mrevell> right
[14:15] <Hobbsee> and here's one
[14:15] <rexbron_> Hey, I am having a problem with the distro overrides in my PPA. 
[14:15] <Hobbsee> rexbron_: if your .orig.tar.gz version is the same as *any* ubuntu release version, it'll get rejected as a md5sum mismatch, no matter how you override it.
[14:16] <rexbron_> Hobbsee, but it is not
[14:16] <rexbron_> Openlibraries is not in the archives
[14:16] <Hobbsee> then is probably a LP bug, and i don't konw.  cprov can probably help you
[14:17]  * Hobbsee figured she'd get check for the trap people normally fall into
[14:17] <rexbron_> :)
[14:19] <rexbron_> Correct me if I am mistaken, but the override system should allow you to have the same version of a package built and published for different distro
[14:20] <rexbron_> Correct me if I am mistaken, but the override system should allow you to have the same version of a package built and published for different distro
[14:20] <Hobbsee> i didnt' think so, due to the pool structure of the archives
[14:20] <Hobbsee> that just lets you override whatever's in debian/changelog
[14:21] <rexbron_> and therefore build and publish it in a diferent distro series
[14:21] <ubotu> New bug: #188942 in soyuz "please support uploads to -security pockets for PPA" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/188942
[14:23] <rexbron_> I suppose what I am after is to have a package built for both gutsy and hardy without having to maintain two source packages
[14:24] <Hobbsee> rexbron_: i suspect you awnt to look into launchpad.net/autoppa
[14:40] <rexbron_> Hobbsee, too bad they do not have a hardy build in their PPA :P
[14:40] <Hobbsee> heh
[15:10] <No`> same player, try again:  didn't see it in the Transaltion in Launchpad FAQ... how long does it take (very roughly) for a template to be checked before the translation are available?
[15:31] <No`> ok, I got my answer: roughly 24 hours.
[16:45] <allee> I'll want to rebuild some sources available during gutsy development.  But all I get is an ops:  OOPS-765EB111 https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/gutsy/+source/linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22/2.6.22-13.33    Are only the sources kept that are released and not the intermediate version of the development cycle?
[16:47] <Hobbsee> allee: iz bug.  no solution.  bug cprov more until he finds one.
[16:51] <allee> Hobbsee: eh, it's also not in the archive itself :( http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/l/linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22/
[16:51] <Hobbsee> allee: that's an old version, no?
[16:51] <allee> Hobbsee: is there an archive that keeps intermediate sources
[16:51] <Hobbsee> nope
[16:51] <Hobbsee> lp used to do it
[16:52] <allee> Hobbsee: that's the last version that has unionfs 2.1.   Fix it was reverted FAI (fully automatic installation is broken) and new try in proposed does not fix it :(
[16:52] <Hobbsee> oh, what hte hell?
[16:52] <Hobbsee> who decided to mangle this page, so it was harder to read?
[16:52] <Hobbsee> where's the damned info that was on it before?
[16:53] <Hobbsee> oh, it's because of +gutsy/ in there
[16:53] <Hobbsee> allee: it should be from https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22/2.6.22-13.33
[16:54] <Hobbsee> allee: the suggestion would be to bug cprov about finding you the source.  claim a gpl violation if you wish, to get it done.
[16:54] <allee> Hobbsee: :)
[16:54] <allee> Hobbsee: thx a lot!! 
[16:55] <allee> Hobbsee: eh, other page, same bug.
[16:56] <Hobbsee> allee: yes, i know.  read the next line.
[16:59] <Hobbsee> allee: #canonical-sysadmin might be able to find you the sources, too
[17:11] <bd_> Unable to identify file openc2e_0.0svn1609.orig.tar.bz2 (games) in changes.
[17:11] <bd_> ^^^ what does this mean in a PPA rejection?
[17:11] <bd_> the dput seemed to succeed
[17:11] <bd_> does it not like bz2 or something?>
[17:17] <bd_> aha, it was the bz2
[17:23] <muszek> I created a project on launchpad earlier today and would like to enable bug tracking... but can't find it anywhere... can someone please help me?
[17:23] <muszek> I've searched "answers" for launchpad project and didn't find anything
[17:29] <gmb> muszek: If you go to your project's overview page you'll see a menu on the left hand side.
[17:29] <mrevell> muszek: Yes, no problem. You need to visit your project's overview page and then click "Change details" in the Actions menu on the left-hand side of the page.
[17:29] <mrevell> oh, gmb has beat me to it :)
[17:30] <gmb> muszek: What mrevell said ;)
[17:30] <mrevell> We should make this easier for people.
[17:30] <mrevell> muszek: Scroll around half way down the "Change project details" page
[17:30] <muszek> gmb, mrevell: thank you, I somehow missed that
[17:30] <mrevell> muszek: and you'll see the "Bugs are tracked in..." radio buttons.
[17:30] <mrevell> muszek: no problem
[17:34] <muszek> I'm used to trac inteface... in there, whenever I want to create a simple task that's not really a bug (for example: "implement rss feeds for comments" or "change the widget to blue"), I use the same bug reporting interface as if I was reporting a bug... how's it done (properly) in launchpad?)
[17:35] <gmb> muszek: In fact, bugs are treated as analogous to tasks.
[17:36] <muszek> gmb: ty
[17:36] <gmb> muszek: So in that case you could create a bug "There should be rss feeds for comments" and use that to track your progress.
[17:36] <gmb> muszek: Alternatively, if it's a bigger piece of work that you feel needs more specification you could use a blueprint http://blueprints.launchpad.net
[17:37] <muszek> gmb: thank, I'll play around with these things
[17:37] <gmb> muszek: Cool. Let us know if you have any problems.
[17:51] <ubotu> New bug: #189001 in launchpad "Enabling bug tracker and translations is not obvious" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/189001
[18:09] <bd_> how long does it take for a PPA build to become queued, usually?
[18:15] <bd_> ... there it goes
[19:01] <ubotu> New bug: #189025 in soyuz "Missing tests for binary PAS in the PPA context" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/189025
[20:29] <goobsoft> What do I need to do in order to not get the following warning when installing packages from my PPA?
[20:29] <goobsoft> WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
[20:30] <stdin> you can't do anything, the repos aren't signed
[20:31] <goobsoft> ok, thanks
[23:51] <ubotu> New bug: #189108 in malone "ability to export all bug data for a project" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/189108