mtxcollhi, is anyone from the team around? i have an emergency00:58
spivmtxcoll: there are a few LP people around.  What's up?00:59
mtxcollhi, i inadvertently posted a response to a bug with my signature, which has my address and phone #00:59
mtxcollis it possible to delete that from the bug being tracked?00:59
spivspm: ^ one for you, I think00:59
mtxcolli'm hoping i can get rid of it before google indexes in cache01:00
mtxcollhm i have to go soon so can i pm someone on the team the offending url?01:07
mtxcollunless there's a way i can directly delete the e-mail myself01:07
mwhudsonmtxcoll: /msg spm?01:10
mtxcollok, i'll do that01:10
mtxcollsorry about that, i wasn't thinking before i sent the mail01:11
RAOFOk.  What the hell is happening here: https://edge.launchpad.net/~do-testers/+archive/+build/83367801:37
RAOFgnome-do has had a number of hours to be published in that archive; why can't the builder find it?01:38
Hobbseesarah@neptune:~% dpkg --compare-versions lt && echo true01:45
HobbseeRAOF: because you failed at versioning, unfortunately ;)01:46
Hobbseeyou're requiring gnome-do (>=, but are giving a lower version number.01:46
RAOFRight.  I'm just intrigued as to how can be lower than
Hobbseeit's not01:47
Hobbseesarah@neptune:~% dpkg --compare-versions eq && echo true01:47
Hobbseebut ~ is regarded as lower01:47
RAOFWell, that's a trap I've not run into before :)01:47
Hobbseereally?  surprising01:47
* Hobbsee has no idea why you're using -0, but shrug01:48
* Hobbsee would have expected you to run into ~ versioning before01:48
RAOFOh, I use it all the time.01:48
RAOFThis is the first time that foo-0~ < foo has hit me.01:49
Hobbsee(the -0 isn't a problem in itself)01:49
Hobbseefoo == foo-0 ;)01:49
Hobbseeat least, according to dpkg01:49
Hobbseebut fair enough01:49
RAOFActually, why does dpkg special-case -0?01:50
Hobbseeit does?01:50
RAOFfoo < foo-1, but foo == foo-001:51
Hobbseei'm not sure.  I presume it's because of the logic that 1.0 = 1.00000000 in maths, and so they decided to keep it01:51
=== warp10_ is now known as warp10
=== _neversfelde is now known as neversfelde
=== mrevell-afk is now known as mrevell
=== henninge changed the topic of #launchpad to: https://launchpad.net/ | Channel logs: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com | Help contact: henninge | launchpad-users@lists.launchpad.net
=== thekorn_ is now known as thekorn
Kalidarnanyone around that could wipe my launchpad repository, im having trouble uploading because i think i mucked up the version11:05
Kalidarnand the logging thing doesn't let me upload anything now, i used 0ubuntu1 instead of 0ppa111:06
Kalidarndeleting the package hasn't let me upload the package (with same name and version using 0ppa1)11:06
henningebigjools: ^ is that something in your area of knowledge and power? ;-)11:07
Kalidarnyeah i needed someone who is a launcpad admin to clear it for me :)11:08
Kalidarni asked some time during december but yeah most people weren't around then11:08
henningeKalidarn: you will have to file a question in any case to prove your identity.11:10
Kalidarnah true i suppose11:10
Kalidarnwhere abouts do i do that11:10
henningeKalidarn: hang on ...11:10
Kalidarnhttps://launchpad.net/~dcecchin/+archive in any case i've removed everything i can11:10
Kalidarnits just the log being a pain in the ass :P11:10
henningeKalidarn: https://answers.launchpad.net/soyuz/+addquestion11:12
HobbseeKalidarn: you can't use the same version for the same package, even if you've deleted it.11:13
Kalidarnyeah i know unless the log is cleared.11:13
* Hobbsee notes that should be added to the FAQ or something.11:13
Hobbseei don't think they'll do that.11:13
Kalidarnwhich it isn't ideal to use the same version number scheme because of this particular conflict11:14
Hobbseeyou'll need to use another version.11:14
Kalidarn(thats what other users in ubuntu-motu) suggested i do11:14
wgrantbigjools: 30 days doesn't seem very long...11:32
bigjoolsKalidarn: you have to bump the version11:38
Kalidarni figured you'd say that least its giving me a reufusal email11:39
Kalidarnbefore it wouldn't even do that11:39
KalidarnSigner has no upload rights at all to this distribution.11:39
KalidarnNot permitted to upload to the RELEASE pocket in a series in the 'CURRENT' state.11:39
Kalidarni guess thats because of the version.. hmm11:40
wgrantNo, that's because you're trying to upload to Ubuntu.11:40
Hobbseeno, that would be because you're not uploading to a ppa...11:40
Kalidarnoh ;)11:40
wgrantOne would generally only not get an email if the package wasn't properly signed.11:41
Kalidarnhmm i read https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA#Uploading11:41
Kalidarnso i figured it was the correct way to do it11:41
bigjoolsHobbsee: despite your negativity, it is in the PPA instructions11:41
Hobbsee$  dput my-ppa P_V_source.changes ?11:42
bigjoolsregarding versions and deleting11:42
Kalidarnoh hang on my dput config got wiped :P11:43
Kalidarnits missing11:43
Kalidarnoh no that's the other machine no it should be working11:43
Kalidarnie .dput.cf11:43
Kalidarnindicates the same as what is at https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA#Uploading (except i replaced the particular line it talked about with my ppa name)11:44
wgrantWhat is the command you are running to upload?11:44
Kalidarnrather launchpad id11:44
Kalidarn$  dput my-ppa P_V_source.changes11:44
Kalidarnoh now i see the error11:44
Kalidarnoops i didn't put the 'my ppa bit in'11:44
Kalidarnonly just got out of bed (didn't notice the actual space there)11:45
wgrantThat would do it.11:45
Kalidarnhmm is it just the id or is it something longer11:46
Kalidarnbecause now its telling me No host dcecchin found in config11:46
wgrantIt's the bit in the [].11:46
Kalidarnah there we go forgot the -ppa.11:47
Kalidarngod im making nubby mistakes all over the place11:47
Kalidarnoh yay it worked that time accepted11:51
Kalidarnthe other day i wasn't getting any email11:51
Kalidarnof it being rejected or accepted11:51
wgrantYou probably forgot to sign the package.11:52
Hobbseebigjools: the documentation makes it seem like the easiest way to fix a bad source is by uploading a higher version number, but that if one waits long enough (ie, until the deletion goes through), it will be possible to use the same version number again.  Is it possible to get this clarified in the documentation?11:52
Kalidarnwgrant, i did sign it11:52
Kalidarnwhen i built the source11:52
Kalidarngpg: Signature made Mon 12 Jan 2009 22:03:10 CST using DSA key ID F2FE93F811:53
Kalidarngpg: Good signature from "David Cecchin <dcecchin@gmail.com>"11:53
Kalidarnthe chances and dsc file were signed11:53
* wgrant has no idea, then.11:53
Hobbseewhere did you upload it to?11:53
Hobbsee(not debian, one hopes?)11:54
Kalidarnmy own ppa seems to be working now11:54
Kalidarnim not sure about the other day i remember i had done everything correctly because i'd only just read the faq11:54
Kalidarn(and i hadn't just gotten out of bed)11:54
Kalidarnand it was being funny it sent me the accepted email, but thats when i decided the version number was wrong, and then i couldn't do anything about it11:55
Kalidarnsomeone was saying 0ppa1 comes before 0ubuntu1 in order of precedence or something11:55
Kalidarni forget it was almost a month ago11:55
Kalidarnand that i'd have to consider doing package-x.x.x+cleaned-0ppa1 until jaunty came out or a new version of the package11:56
Kalidarni didn't want to do that at all :P11:56
wgrantThat is how archives work.11:56
maxbEven if you *could* reset the PPA, you'd be preventing sane upgrades from working for anyone using those packages, if you decreased the version11:57
wgrantDecreasing the version does not make sense.11:57
Kalidarnyeah well i hadn't uploaded anything else11:57
Kalidarnso i was prepared to start from scratch and learn from my nubby mistake11:58
Kalidarnit was because i was following https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete and it didn't really mention about using 0ppa1 instead of 0ubuntu111:58
Kalidarnbecause that article doesn't really have any entry there as to if your uploading to a ppa archive11:58
wgrantIt isn't a PPA packaging guide.11:59
Kalidarnwell yeah i kind of worked that out :P11:59
bigjoolsHobbsee: yes we can clear that up, thanks for the suggestion11:59
Hobbseebigjools: cool.12:00
Kalidarnbut now i know how things work it shouldn't be a problem :P12:00
maxbKalidarn: You know the official recommendation is ~ppa, not ppa ?12:08
Kalidarni did it wrong again :P12:08
Kalidarnsuppose i can change it12:09
maxbGranted it doesn't actually make a difference in the -0 case12:09
Kalidarnstill its nice to do things properly.12:10
maxbAnd actually that page lacks a consideration of the complications that XubuntuY introduces12:11
Kalidarnmktorrent (0.9.9-0~ppa1) intrepid; urgency=low12:11
Kalidarnis that acceptable?12:12
Kalidarnokay well i'll reup it as that then12:12
maxbwell, it won't let you because that's less than what's there12:13
maxbbut it really doesn't matter in this case, because -0ppa is still less than -0ubuntu12:13
Kalidarn;( too late12:15
Kalidarni might just upload it for jaunty when that is out12:17
Kalidarnits not like it's very important anyway12:17
Kalidarnmaxb, actually it accepted it12:23
Kalidarn OK: mktorrent_0.9.9.orig.tar.gz12:23
Kalidarn OK: mktorrent_0.9.9-0~ppa1.diff.gz12:23
Kalidarn OK: mktorrent_0.9.9-0~ppa1.dsc12:23
Kalidarn     -> Component: main Section: net12:23
Kalidarnits now building12:23
Kalidarnah i think i canned it12:24
maxbSo, erm, huh.12:24
Kalidarnbefore it finished building the last one12:24
Kalidarnits got the rotaty thing next to amd64 i386 lpia12:25
maxbMaybe lp does let you go backwards if you wait sufficiently after deleting the old version12:25
Hobbseei'm told this is the case, yes12:26
maxbI guess I didn't wait sufficiently when I tried it :-)12:26
=== ubott2 is now known as ubottu
nhandlerAnyone know what is going on with the PPA lpia buildd?12:52
henningebigjools: ^12:52
Davieylooooooooooooong backlog12:52
Davieyi was estimated 4 hours until hammer time12:53
nhandlerYeah, I know. /me has packages that were in there before he went to bed last night. The strange thing is, I just did a fresh PPA upload, and the lpia build for it already started12:53
bigjoolslooking into it12:55
=== henninge changed the topic of #launchpad to: https://launchpad.net/ | Channel logs: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com | Help contact: henninge (out to lunch) | launchpad-users@lists.launchpad.net
* henninge hopes to remember to reset the topic after lunch ...12:56
persiamaxb, Just a note on versioning: the official recommendation probably would benefit from changing.  -0~ppa1 < nothing at all, which is extra confusing.13:08
maxbpersia: odd, yes, but not likely to occur in real life, as that would imply a patched package turning into a native package?13:29
persiaActually, there was a case reported only several hours ago, of someone trying to do a base (for upstream) followed by a -0~intrepid for intrepid, which failed.13:30
maxbThe bigger problem with the versioning recommendation as I see it is that if you do what it says and go from 1.0-1 to 1.0-2~ppa1, and then ubuntu releases a 1.0-1ubuntu1, the ppa one is still newer13:31
maxbWhy would a base for upstream be in a deb repository?13:31
persiaBecause upstream uses launchpad, and wanted to give users a snapshot.13:32
persiaAnd yes, using 1.0-1ppa1 would solve that as well.  Abusing ~ isn't always best.13:32
maxbSo, what was upstream's repo?  a PPA?13:33
maxbbut... if the upstream's PPA was building for jaunty, the ~intrepid would have been ok? And if the upstream's PPA was building for intrepid, the ~intrepid wouldn't have been needed at all?13:34
persiaUpstream wanted to build for several Ubuntu releases, and started with jaunty, and then started backporting.13:39
maxbI don't understand why -0~intrepid would have failed13:40
persiaIt's less than nothing at all.  1.0-0 == 1.013:41
persiaSo 1.0-0~ppa1 < 1.013:41
maxbBut why does that matter? Isn't it normal and correct for a backport to be less than what it was backported from?13:41
persiaYes, except PPAs don't work that way.13:41
maxbWell something odd is going on. The last paragraph of https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA#Versioning recommends that backporting be done this way13:43
persiaYes, but it presumes you're backporting from something other than your PPA.13:44
maxbI read it as telling you that you can upload foo~intrepid1 and foo~hardy1 to the same ppa13:45
persiaYou can, as long as you do it in the opposite order.13:45
maxbpersia: I just got an accepted mail from my PPA for a backport intrepid->hardy, by appending ~hardy1 :-)13:52
persiaFor something you already had in your PPA as ~intrepid1 ?13:53
maxbfor something already there with no suffix13:54
maxbi.e. 1.1.2-0~ppa2 to 1.1.2-0~ppa2~hardy113:55
savvasDoes anyone why the lpia builds don't build? https://launchpad.net/~medigeek/+archive/+builds13:56
savvas*anyone know13:56
savvasQueued:  13 hours ago13:57
savvasEstimated build start: in 1 hour <- It's been saying this 13 hours ago :P13:57
maxbhttps://launchpad.net/+builds suggests that something is broken somewhere, since all the buildds are idle, but there's a queue13:57
savvasah thanks maxb :)13:57
maxbhenninge: When you get back from lunch could you investigate? ^^^^13:57
persiamaxb, Interesting.  That's counter to the behaviour described as problematic earlier.13:58
persiaI still think the current documentation encourages pointless abuse of ~, but at least it's not specifically confusing13:59
maxbI agree, I can't see any circumstance in which -XppaY or -XubuntuYppaZ wouldn't be reasonable14:00
maxbExcept for trying to be earlier than official backports, but ~ppa doesn't achieve that until we reach Ominous Ostrich, or whatever :-)14:01
persiawhereas the 1.0-2~ppa1 vs. 1.0-1ubuntu1 case you described earlier is easily understood.14:01
persiaWell, I'd make the argument that PPA users would want to supercede the official backports, as I'd hope most PPAs are feature or bugfix solutions, rather than just backports.14:02
persiaIf it's just a backport, seems easy enough to file a backports bug, get a buddy to ack it, and wait a week.14:02
=== gord_ is now known as gord
maxbNot for packages with extensive or eclectic rdepends14:03
=== henninge changed the topic of #launchpad to: https://launchpad.net/ | Channel logs: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com | Help contact: henninge | launchpad-users@lists.launchpad.net
henningemaxb: checking14:06
maxbThey look like they may have just unblocked14:06
henningemaxb: there are problems with the buildds today but they are being worked on.14:14
=== mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch
bebrawif there is someone who has right to delete trunk of a project, please contact me :) (there's a svn to bzr merge proposal which has become obsolete as i can handle it myself :) )14:43
bebrawis there some default site where people put up their wiki btw?14:44
persiaThere's no default wiki, no.14:45
henningebebraw: administrative requests need to be submitted using the answer tracker to verify your identity.14:46
bebrawhenninge, alright. makes sense :)14:46
bebrawi'm just getting used to launchpad but so far it has seemed like a nice service :)14:47
henningebebraw: glad you like it!14:47
henningebebraw: https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+addquestion14:49
* henninge is back14:53
=== matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch
=== mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell
=== fenris_ is now known as e-jat
=== matsubara__ is now known as matsubara
thekornleonardr, hi, I'm reading your last post on news.launchpad.net, thanks for this new way of changing the status of a task,16:03
leonardrthekorn, believe me, it's my pleasure16:03
thekornleonardr, however, I think task.description in the 2nd section is a bit misleading as bug_task objects don't have a "description" attribute16:03
leonardrok, you know better than i16:04
leonardrdo they have anything analagous to description?16:04
leonardrwhat would you recommend therE?16:04
thekornwhat about changing it to bug.description16:05
leonardrok, that's not perfect but it will get the point across16:05
Kmoshi! could someone approve this import? 7 days waiting... https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/babiloo/debian16:31
henningeabentley: ^ ;-)16:32
abentleyKmos: sorry, there is a bit of backlog due to the holidays.16:33
Kmosabentley: ah ok =) np16:34
=== henninge changed the topic of #launchpad to: https://launchpad.net/ | Channel logs: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com | Help contact: - | launchpad-users@lists.launchpad.net
=== deryck is now known as deryck[lunch]
=== Kmos_ is now known as Kmos
=== mrevell is now known as mrevell-afk
=== deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck
abentleysinzui: why does _preferredemail_cached need to be cleared?18:47
sinzuiabentley: You may have meant to ask the question in launchpad-reviews. Regardless, the answer is that that the object is in memory and in storms cache and the wrong answer will come out in methods that use that. Many do. Anytime we change the primary address, we manually clear the cache for the next step in the task to get a sane answer.18:51
sinzuiabentley: setPreferredEmail() is a common way this is done. In the case of SUSPENDED users, they are updated directly, so the cleared the cache manually in the test.18:52
energYI want to make an open source game.19:12
energYI have a launchpad account. I have some source-code.19:12
kikoenergY, all you need now is to register a project and push away19:16
energYI can't upload with anything else than the bzr thing?19:17
beunoenergY, only tarballs for releases or bzr branches, yes19:17
beunoyou can get it to import SVN or CSV branches if you have a public-accessible server19:17
energYIs there any other thing I can use so I can edit php files in my browser?19:18
beunoenergY, not within Launchpad, no19:19
=== matsubara is now known as matsubara-afk
=== spm_ is now known as spm
pochuhey there. Is it possible that a PPA uses $POCKET-updates for building packages? Uploading it to hardy-updates caused a rejection saying I should upload to RELEASE, but uploading to hardy didn't get the package from hardy-updates, causing a FTBFS due to a missing build-dependency20:58
wgrantpochu: See https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+edit-dependencies21:56
wgrantpochu: You can select the pocket (it's $distroseries-$pocket; -updates is a pocket) there.21:57
wgrantThe default configuration pulls from -updates, but you might have already changed it.21:58
pochuwgrant: thanks a lot. I guess it's the same for team PPAs?22:13
pochuit is22:14
pochuand it looks like it's set to default22:14
pochuyet it didn't work22:14
* pochu tries again, just in case22:15
LaserJock"To claim this team, enter one of the e-mail addresses it is associated with." what does "associated" mean here?22:20
wgrantLaserJock: Linked as a team email address.22:27
wgrantYou can probably work out which address it was if it was automatically created.22:27
LaserJockwgrant: ugg, who does that22:27
LaserJockoh, wait a sec22:28
LaserJockso is it really gonna send an email to that address?22:28
wgrantYou can ask an admin to do it for you manually, I suspect.22:28
LaserJockI'm trying to set edubuntu-devel as the Maintainer for edubuntu packages22:29
LaserJockif LP sends some sort of email to edubuntu-devel my guess is it'll end up in the spam trap22:29
wgrantAh, and that will have created that user... complain to an ~admin on the answer tracker, and they can probably sort it out for you without spamming people.22:29
pochuit doesn't use hardy-updates with the default config :/22:48
pochucprov: ping ^ :)22:49
pochucprov: this should have used hardy-updates AFAICS, but it didn't: https://edge.launchpad.net/~elvis-team/+archive/+build/83530822:50
wgrantAh. P3As.22:51
pochueh right, sorry for not mentioning it22:56
cprovpochu: P3As dependencies defaults to Release + Security only23:09
cprovpochu: of course you can override it in +edit-dependencies23:10
pochucprov: https://edge.launchpad.net/~elvis-team/+archive/+edit-dependencies says default is security + recommended23:11
pochuI guess recommended means -updates23:11
cprovpochu: uhm, it's lying for P3As23:11
cprovpochu: bug me23:11
pochucprov: sorry?23:12
cprovpochu: the 'default' option presented in the UI (release + security + updates) internally represents "no dependencies overrides" which for P3As still hard-coded as release + security only23:14
pochuso do you want a bug report?23:14
cprovpochu: yes, please23:14
maxbSo, there's no difference between "Default" and "Security" at the moment?23:15
cprovmaxb: for private PPAs only.23:15
cprovmaxb: public PPAs dependencies are fully functional.23:16
maxbaha, right23:16
cprovmaxb: the UI lies for P3A and doesn't make possible to users to select release + security + updates.23:17
pochucprov: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/31657623:19
ubottuUbuntu bug 316576 in soyuz "P3As default dependencies don't include $distro-updates" [Undecided,New]23:19
pochucprov: do you have an estimation by when that could be fixed? If it's not soon, I'll have to workaround it :)23:19
pochu(not that it'll be a big deal, but if you plan to fix it soon I can wait)23:20
cprovpochu: I will work on it tonight and if everything is fine it can be CPed in edge tomorrow23:20
nhandlercprov: Glad to hear that. I just experienced the same issue yesterday. I manually uploaded the required build-depends from -updates to the ppa to get around it23:21
pochucprov: you rock! thanks23:21
cprovpochu: super!23:23
maxbcprov: A while ago (last week?) we talked about how LP currently gets its Packages-arch-specific from CVS but needs to switch to HTTP or git - I was thinking of filing a bug on it (partially so there's somewhere which will tell me when it gets fixed :-) - does that makes sense?23:25
cprovmaxb: yes, it does. Adam Conrad was working on the P-a-s diff you found last week and will possibly switch for HTTP updates soonish.23:27
cprovmaxb: we should use a bug to track progress on this.23:27
* maxb files23:28

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