/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2008/08/31/#launchpad.txt

LaserJockanybody know how to change branch details in the new LP?07:06
wgrantLaserJock: Pencil next to the branch title?07:09
LaserJockI don't see one07:10
wgrantLaserJock: Hm, I can see one on my branches. https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-qa/debcheck/ubuntuwire is one you should be able to see too.07:11
LaserJockok, right, I see it there07:11
LaserJockthen why can't I see it on a vcsimport I registered07:11
wgrantBecause you're aren't a member of ~vcs-imports07:12
LaserJockwell that's stupid07:12
wgrantQuite possibly.07:12
LaserJockI was gonna fix an import that's been down since 2007-10-07 but I guess not07:12
wgrantHow do you propose to fix it?07:13
LaserJockthe project moved to svn07:13
LaserJockall I need to do is update the url and it should work07:13
wgrantFile an answer, I propose.07:13
LaserJockwgrant: yeah, I suppose that'll have to do07:20
wgrantHm. That's a few buildds.08:21
=== RainCT is now known as RainCT_
=== fta_ is now known as fta
psycoseI run a Launchpad PPA builder session using Ubuntu Intrepid, can i tell the system to create a symlink (sudo ln -s /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3 /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3.1) because the compiler tool chain crash without it ?13:42
psycoseor should i wait that ubuntu packager solve that problem ?13:43
persiapsycose: You should probably file a bug against gcc in Ubuntu describing the issue.  I suspect we'd have *many* more FTBFS reports if it affected every package.13:52
ftatoo bad it's not possible to re-upload a deleted package with a different src tarball in ppa :(14:45
ftaas the tarball is gone from the pool, it should be possible..14:45
persiafta: Yeah, but it violates the archive model.15:15
ftait's a ppa15:16
persiaOnce an orig.tar.gz has been published, it ought not be changed.  REVU makes a special exception to this because so many orig.tar.gz files there are initially broken, but even REVU probably oughtn't.15:16
persiaYes, but it violates the very idea that an orig.tar.gz is actually the original tarball.15:16
persiaWhere it isn't the original tarball, it ought have an appropriate indicator indicating modification, which indicator ought be bumped when it is changed.15:17
ftamost ppa are probably not better than REVU..15:18
ftain my case, it was a buggy vcs tag but as i want this package to enter the repo, i don't want to publish a higher version in my ppa15:19
persiaYeah, sadly most PPA probably aren't better.15:20
persiaAnd I understand your use case: it's an unforunate side effect when orig.tar.gz's don't match upstream.15:21
cprovpersia: agree15:22
cprovfta: wouldn't it be clearer to add a patch (using dpatch) modifying the orig ?15:23
persiacprov: Not in the case of a buggy tag.15:23
cprovfta: just and idea, I don't know exactly if it would be legitimate.15:23
ftacprov, not in this case, that would be a several megs patch15:23
persiaEssentially, sometimes there isn't an original tarball that upstream releases.  In these cases, we construct one with a get-orig-source rule.15:24
persiaIf the wrong rev is pulled, the orig.tar.gz is mislabelled, so a packaging mistake ends up costing the appropriate version number.15:24
persiaThis is especially annoying for VCS-centric upstrems that are good about tagging releases appropriately.15:25
cprovyes, I see, very annoying from the maintenance PoV.15:26
persiafta: Don't let a several meg patch frighten you: you don't want to adjust because it would be wrong, not because of the patch size.15:26
persiacprov: Part of why some maintainers don't like VCS.  Mind you, when it works, it can vastly simplify the work, it just doesn't always work.15:26
persia(especially when the maintainer makes a mistake)15:27
cprovpersia: right. Do you think a bug should be filled to discuss this issue ? Do you see anything we could do on the infrastructure side to make it work better ?15:28
ftai created bug 263301 already15:29
ubottuLaunchpad bug 263301 in soyuz "Can't re-upload a package with a different src tarball after deletion in PPA" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/26330115:29
cprovfta: thank you.15:29
persiacprov: I would have said no :)  But it depends on the purpose of a PPA.15:29
persiaIf a PPA is supposed to be a scratch space for people to fiddle and learn, then deletion ought actually delete.15:29
persiaWhile this might violate all sorts of conventions, and permit people to do things like upload lower versions, etc., it makes it a better scratch space.15:30
cprovpersia: it does delete, however the package version and the orig version|content remains blacklisted15:30
persiaIf PPAs are supposed to be little release archives for stuff not in other distributions or with patches not in other distributions, then fixing the bug is a bad idea, as it fails to encourage adherence to the conventions.15:31
persiacprov: The content is deleted.  The existence of the upload is not deleted.  My apologies for confusion.15:31
ftacprov, i also opened bug 263296 just before.. a ui problem with delete15:31
ubottuLaunchpad bug 263296 in soyuz "Can't easily delete packages when PPA contains more than 50 pkgs" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/26329615:31
persiaI already opened that bug, so that's a dup.  I'll see if I can find mine.15:32
persiaAnd you can delete the packages, it's just very awkward.15:32
ftai looked but couldn't find it15:32
jpdsDoes anyone know how I can use the "inTeam" method described in http://people.ubuntu.com/~flacoste/launchpad-api-doc.html ?15:33
cprovfta: persia: nice, two new bugs on ppa, I will investigate solutions for them Monday. Thank you, guys.15:35
jpdsI do: me.inTeam("ubuntu-dev") and I get this error: http://paste.ubuntu.com/42171/15:35
ftathank *you*15:35
persiafta: I can't find it either.  Odd.  Thanks for filing then :)15:36
ftapersia, i usually search 1st :)15:36
persiacprov: which is the intended model for the PPAs?  I'll comment on 263301 appropriately.15:36
persiafta: Certainly :)  I was just *sure* I filed that bug, as it was causing me lots of issues in June.15:37
cprovpersia: well, the intended model is the current one, package and orig versions always grow coherently. However this model has issues. Better describe the broken workflows and decided to change the system to fit all of them.15:39
persiacprov: At a much higher level, are PPAs scratch spots for people to play, or intended for release purposes for teams?15:40
cprovpersia: both.15:40
cprovpersia: since we assume they are compatible.15:40
persiaAh.  That assumes that anyone uploading always does it right :)  With that assumption, we don't need PPAs, as we could just take it in Ubuntu.15:41
cprovpersia: the current situation suggests they are *not* (as I see it)15:41
persiaNo.  I'll comment both ways to underscore this in the bug.  Thanks for describing the confusion.15:41
cprovpersia: ehe, thanks15:41
ftafunny, go to +delete-packages, enter something bogus in the search field but don't search, select a package to be deleted and click delete, you get the bogus search error.15:44
ftais it the same form ?15:44
ftamy bogus search was to search for something in the version, not in the package name15:45
cprovfta: they are part of the same form, indeed.15:55
ftacprov, ok, so the question is, should search prevail over delete ?15:57
cprovfta: IMHO, it does because of the way the page is implemented "search/select/act", but that can be changed.15:58
=== cprov is now known as cprov-lunch
ftacprov-lunch, it should look for field.actions.update vs field.actions.delete to do the right thing16:00
ftaneed a another bug ?16:00
fta-a16:00
cprov-lunchfta: yes, file that too.16:00
ftabug 26331416:07
ubottuLaunchpad bug 263314 in soyuz "delete vs search in +delete-packages (ppa)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/26331416:07
=== warp10_ is now known as warp10
persiafta: Please update 263301 if my description of the general case in support of your need is insufficiently general to cover your specific situation.16:16
ftapersia, it's indeed what happened to me: i fixed it earlier today http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/mozilla-devscripts/mozilla-devscripts/revision/17116:19
persiafta: Great.  Let's see how it gets interpreted tomorrow.  I'm still not sure which is the right answer (for all the reasons I describe), but it's better that the implementation be based on an informed decision, rather than just what happens to be right for Ubuntu.16:20
ftai would not say i'm new to packaging, but my get-orig-source rule is far from trivial and then probably not bugfree. Got the proof today with mercurial and firefox 3.116:27
persiafta: No, you're not new to packaging, and your get-orig-source rules tend to make people cry, but I think that a novice packager is more likely to end up in this situation than yourself, and would rather avoid the bug being rejected because you are special: better to have the decision be based on a general case.16:56
ftapersia, sure. that's why i didn't use mozilla anywhere in the bug, or my vcs specificities. btw, who's crying about my get-orig-source rules and about which package(s) ? i'd be interested to know the arguments.17:35
persiafta: At least me for prism.  That was probably the least easy get-orig-source I ever reviewed.17:36
persiaNote that this isn't necessarily a bad thing: sometimes things must be done that way.17:36
persiaAlso note that the final result produced correct data, so the fact that it was hard for me to understand isn't very important.17:37
ftapersia, ok. for prism, that's history now. my last version of debian/rules looks like this: http://paste.ubuntu.com/42200/ but that whole WEBAPPS thing will probably disappear too.17:41
persiafta: You include /usr/shre/mozilla-devscripts/prism.mk and you still need 99 lines for a CDBS rules file?  I like CDBS with 1 line.17:43
persiaThis isn't the forum really, but complication is relative :)17:43
ftapersia, 2 reasons, 1st: /usr/share vs /usr/lib (preferred upstream path) to please lintian, 2nd: as i said, WEBAPPS mess that will disappear. I tried to simply xulapp packaging as much as possible, see my (temptative of) tutorial here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/XulApps/Packaging but it's still not easy business. yet the rules files in there is small17:49
ftaindeed, not the right forum17:49
=== trmanco_ is now known as trmanco
=== cjwatson_ is now known as cjwatson
komputesI always seem to run into an issue when I want to report a bug against 2 packages, can someone tell me how that's done again (without removing the first package or relating it to a URL to an upstream project)23:08
wgrantkomputes: You want to have the same bug against two packages?23:08
komputeswgrant: yes23:09
wgrantkomputes: "Also affects distribution..."23:09
komputeswgrant: great, thanks. I guess I always get confused since the field is filled with the previous package name, making it seem that I am replacing it with this new package, thanks for reminding me...23:11
wgrantkomputes: That's useful when you want to add a task against Debian, which uses the same package names.23:12
komputeswgrant: gotcha, guess i'll have to learn to live with it.23:12
=== ursula__ is now known as Ursinha

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!