[00:58] <mtxcoll> hi, is anyone from the team around? i have an emergency
[00:58] <mtxcoll> hello?
[00:59] <spiv> mtxcoll: there are a few LP people around.  What's up?
[00:59] <mtxcoll> hi, i inadvertently posted a response to a bug with my signature, which has my address and phone #
[00:59] <mtxcoll> is it possible to delete that from the bug being tracked?
[00:59] <spiv> spm: ^ one for you, I think
[01:00] <mtxcoll> i'm hoping i can get rid of it before google indexes in cache
[01:04] <mtxcoll> ....
[01:07] <mtxcoll> hm i have to go soon so can i pm someone on the team the offending url?
[01:07] <mtxcoll> unless there's a way i can directly delete the e-mail myself
[01:10] <mwhudson> mtxcoll: /msg spm?
[01:10] <mtxcoll> ok, i'll do that
[01:11] <mtxcoll> sorry about that, i wasn't thinking before i sent the mail
[01:37] <RAOF> Ok.  What the hell is happening here: https://edge.launchpad.net/~do-testers/+archive/+build/833678
[01:38] <RAOF> gnome-do 0.7.95.1-0~stuff has had a number of hours to be published in that archive; why can't the builder find it?
[01:45] <Hobbsee> sarah@neptune:~% dpkg --compare-versions 0.7.95.1-0~intrepid~ppa lt 0.7.95.1 && echo true
[01:45] <Hobbsee> true
[01:46] <Hobbsee> RAOF: because you failed at versioning, unfortunately ;)
[01:46] <RAOF> !
[01:46] <Hobbsee> you're requiring gnome-do (>= 0.7.95.1), but are giving a lower version number.
[01:47] <RAOF> Right.  I'm just intrigued as to how 0.7.95.1-0 can be lower than 0.7.95.1
[01:47] <Hobbsee> it's not
[01:47] <Hobbsee> sarah@neptune:~% dpkg --compare-versions 0.7.95.1-0 eq 0.7.95.1 && echo true
[01:47] <Hobbsee> true
[01:47] <Hobbsee> but ~ is regarded as lower
[01:47] <RAOF> Well, that's a trap I've not run into before :)
[01:47] <Hobbsee> really?  surprising
[01:48]  * Hobbsee has no idea why you're using -0, but shrug
[01:48]  * Hobbsee would have expected you to run into ~ versioning before
[01:48] <RAOF> Oh, I use it all the time.
[01:49] <RAOF> This is the first time that foo-0~ < foo has hit me.
[01:49] <Hobbsee> (the -0 isn't a problem in itself)
[01:49] <Hobbsee> foo == foo-0 ;)
[01:49] <Hobbsee> at least, according to dpkg
[01:49] <Hobbsee> but fair enough
[01:50] <RAOF> Actually, why does dpkg special-case -0?
[01:50] <Hobbsee> it does?
[01:51] <RAOF> foo < foo-1, but foo == foo-0
[01:51] <Hobbsee> i'm not sure.  I presume it's because of the logic that 1.0 = 1.00000000 in maths, and so they decided to keep it
[11:05] <Kalidarn> anyone around that could wipe my launchpad repository, im having trouble uploading because i think i mucked up the version
[11:06] <Kalidarn> and the logging thing doesn't let me upload anything now, i used 0ubuntu1 instead of 0ppa1
[11:06] <Kalidarn> deleting the package hasn't let me upload the package (with same name and version using 0ppa1)
[11:07] <henninge> bigjools: ^ is that something in your area of knowledge and power? ;-)
[11:08] <Kalidarn> yeah i needed someone who is a launcpad admin to clear it for me :)
[11:08] <Kalidarn> i asked some time during december but yeah most people weren't around then
[11:10] <henninge> Kalidarn: you will have to file a question in any case to prove your identity.
[11:10] <Kalidarn> ah true i suppose
[11:10] <Kalidarn> where abouts do i do that
[11:10] <henninge> Kalidarn: hang on ...
[11:10] <Kalidarn> https://launchpad.net/~dcecchin/+archive in any case i've removed everything i can
[11:10] <Kalidarn> its just the log being a pain in the ass :P
[11:12] <henninge> Kalidarn: https://answers.launchpad.net/soyuz/+addquestion
[11:13] <Hobbsee> Kalidarn: you can't use the same version for the same package, even if you've deleted it.
[11:13] <Kalidarn> yeah i know unless the log is cleared.
[11:13]  * Hobbsee notes that should be added to the FAQ or something.
[11:13] <Hobbsee> i don't think they'll do that.
[11:14] <Kalidarn> which it isn't ideal to use the same version number scheme because of this particular conflict
[11:14] <Hobbsee> you'll need to use another version.
[11:14] <Kalidarn> that'
[11:14] <Kalidarn> (thats what other users in ubuntu-motu) suggested i do
[11:32] <wgrant> bigjools: 30 days doesn't seem very long...
[11:38] <bigjools> Kalidarn: you have to bump the version
[11:39] <Kalidarn> i figured you'd say that least its giving me a reufusal email
[11:39] <Kalidarn> before it wouldn't even do that
[11:39] <Kalidarn> Signer has no upload rights at all to this distribution.
[11:39] <Kalidarn> Not permitted to upload to the RELEASE pocket in a series in the 'CURRENT' state.
[11:40] <Kalidarn> i guess thats because of the version.. hmm
[11:40] <wgrant> No, that's because you're trying to upload to Ubuntu.
[11:40] <Hobbsee> no, that would be because you're not uploading to a ppa...
[11:40] <Kalidarn> oh ;)
[11:40] <Kalidarn> oops
[11:41] <wgrant> One would generally only not get an email if the package wasn't properly signed.
[11:41] <Kalidarn> hmm i read https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA#Uploading
[11:41] <Kalidarn> so i figured it was the correct way to do it
[11:41] <bigjools> Hobbsee: despite your negativity, it is in the PPA instructions
[11:42] <Hobbsee> $  dput my-ppa P_V_source.changes ?
[11:42] <bigjools> regarding versions and deleting
[11:42] <Hobbsee> oh
[11:43] <Kalidarn> oh hang on my dput config got wiped :P
[11:43] <Kalidarn> oops
[11:43] <Kalidarn> its missing
[11:43] <Kalidarn> oh no that's the other machine no it should be working
[11:43] <Kalidarn> ie .dput.cf
[11:44] <Kalidarn> indicates 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] <wgrant> What is the command you are running to upload?
[11:44] <Kalidarn> rather launchpad id
[11:44] <Kalidarn> $  dput my-ppa P_V_source.changes
[11:44] <Kalidarn> oh now i see the error
[11:44] <Kalidarn> oops i didn't put the 'my ppa bit in'
[11:45] <Kalidarn> only just got out of bed (didn't notice the actual space there)
[11:45] <wgrant> That would do it.
[11:46] <Kalidarn> hmm is it just the id or is it something longer
[11:46] <Kalidarn> because now its telling me No host dcecchin found in config
[11:46] <wgrant> It's the bit in the [].
[11:47] <Kalidarn> ah there we go forgot the -ppa.
[11:47] <Kalidarn> god im making nubby mistakes all over the place
[11:51] <Kalidarn> oh yay it worked that time accepted
[11:51] <Kalidarn> the other day i wasn't getting any email
[11:51] <Kalidarn> of it being rejected or accepted
[11:52] <wgrant> You probably forgot to sign the package.
[11:52] <Hobbsee> bigjools: 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] <Kalidarn> wgrant, i did sign it
[11:52] <Kalidarn> when i built the source
[11:53] <Kalidarn> gpg: Signature made Mon 12 Jan 2009 22:03:10 CST using DSA key ID F2FE93F8
[11:53] <Kalidarn> gpg: Good signature from "David Cecchin <dcecchin@gmail.com>"
[11:53] <Kalidarn> the chances and dsc file were signed
[11:53] <Kalidarn> *changes
[11:53]  * wgrant has no idea, then.
[11:53] <Hobbsee> where did you upload it to?
[11:54] <Hobbsee> (not debian, one hopes?)
[11:54] <Kalidarn> my own ppa seems to be working now
[11:54] <Kalidarn> im not sure about the other day i remember i had done everything correctly because i'd only just read the faq
[11:54] <Kalidarn> (and i hadn't just gotten out of bed)
[11:55] <Kalidarn> and 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 it
[11:55] <Kalidarn> someone was saying 0ppa1 comes before 0ubuntu1 in order of precedence or something
[11:55] <Kalidarn> i forget it was almost a month ago
[11:56] <Kalidarn> and that i'd have to consider doing package-x.x.x+cleaned-0ppa1 until jaunty came out or a new version of the package
[11:56] <Kalidarn> i didn't want to do that at all :P
[11:56] <wgrant> That is how archives work.
[11:57] <maxb> Even if you *could* reset the PPA, you'd be preventing sane upgrades from working for anyone using those packages, if you decreased the version
[11:57] <wgrant> Decreasing the version does not make sense.
[11:57] <Kalidarn> yeah well i hadn't uploaded anything else
[11:58] <Kalidarn> so i was prepared to start from scratch and learn from my nubby mistake
[11:58] <Kalidarn> it was because i was following https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete and it didn't really mention about using 0ppa1 instead of 0ubuntu1
[11:58] <Kalidarn> because that article doesn't really have any entry there as to if your uploading to a ppa archive
[11:59] <wgrant> It isn't a PPA packaging guide.
[11:59] <Kalidarn> well yeah i kind of worked that out :P
[11:59] <bigjools> Hobbsee: yes we can clear that up, thanks for the suggestion
[12:00] <Hobbsee> bigjools: cool.
[12:00] <Kalidarn> but now i know how things work it shouldn't be a problem :P
[12:08] <maxb> Kalidarn: You know the official recommendation is ~ppa, not ppa ?
[12:08] <Kalidarn> i did it wrong again :P
[12:09] <maxb> https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA#Versioning
[12:09] <Kalidarn> suppose i can change it
[12:09] <maxb> Granted it doesn't actually make a difference in the -0 case
[12:10] <Kalidarn> still its nice to do things properly.
[12:11] <maxb> And actually that page lacks a consideration of the complications that XubuntuY introduces
[12:11] <Kalidarn> mktorrent (0.9.9-0~ppa1) intrepid; urgency=low
[12:12] <Kalidarn> is that acceptable?
[12:12] <wgrant> Quite.
[12:12] <Kalidarn> okay well i'll reup it as that then
[12:13] <maxb> well, it won't let you because that's less than what's there
[12:13] <maxb> but it really doesn't matter in this case, because -0ppa is still less than -0ubuntu
[12:15] <Kalidarn> ;( too late
[12:17] <Kalidarn> i might just upload it for jaunty when that is out
[12:17] <Kalidarn> its not like it's very important anyway
[12:23] <Kalidarn> maxb, actually it accepted it
[12:23] <Kalidarn> Accepted:
[12:23] <Kalidarn>  OK: mktorrent_0.9.9.orig.tar.gz
[12:23] <Kalidarn>  OK: mktorrent_0.9.9-0~ppa1.diff.gz
[12:23] <Kalidarn>  OK: mktorrent_0.9.9-0~ppa1.dsc
[12:23] <Kalidarn>      -> Component: main Section: net
[12:23] <maxb> erm
[12:23] <maxb> wha!?
[12:23] <Kalidarn> its now building
[12:24] <Kalidarn> ah i think i canned it
[12:24] <maxb> So, erm, huh.
[12:24] <Kalidarn> before it finished building the last one
[12:24] <Kalidarn> https://launchpad.net/~dcecchin/+archive
[12:25] <Kalidarn> its got the rotaty thing next to amd64 i386 lpia
[12:25] <maxb> Maybe lp does let you go backwards if you wait sufficiently after deleting the old version
[12:25] <Kalidarn> maybe
[12:26] <Hobbsee> i'm told this is the case, yes
[12:26] <maxb> I guess I didn't wait sufficiently when I tried it :-)
[12:30] <Kalidarn> :)
[12:52] <nhandler> Anyone know what is going on with the PPA lpia buildd?
[12:52] <henninge> bigjools: ^
[12:52] <Daviey> looooooooooooong backlog
[12:53] <Daviey> i was estimated 4 hours until hammer time
[12:53] <nhandler> Yeah, 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 started
[12:55] <bigjools> looking into it
[12:55] <nhandler> :D
[12:56]  * henninge hopes to remember to reset the topic after lunch ...
[13:08] <persia> maxb, Just a note on versioning: the official recommendation probably would benefit from changing.  -0~ppa1 < nothing at all, which is extra confusing.
[13:29] <maxb> persia: odd, yes, but not likely to occur in real life, as that would imply a patched package turning into a native package?
[13:30] <persia> Actually, 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.
[13:31] <maxb> The 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 newer
[13:31] <maxb> Why would a base for upstream be in a deb repository?
[13:32] <persia> Because upstream uses launchpad, and wanted to give users a snapshot.
[13:32] <persia> And yes, using 1.0-1ppa1 would solve that as well.  Abusing ~ isn't always best.
[13:33] <maxb> So, what was upstream's repo?  a PPA?
[13:33] <persia> Yep.
[13:34] <maxb> but... 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?
[13:39] <persia> Upstream wanted to build for several Ubuntu releases, and started with jaunty, and then started backporting.
[13:40] <maxb> I don't understand why -0~intrepid would have failed
[13:41] <persia> It's less than nothing at all.  1.0-0 == 1.0
[13:41] <persia> So 1.0-0~ppa1 < 1.0
[13:41] <maxb> But why does that matter? Isn't it normal and correct for a backport to be less than what it was backported from?
[13:41] <persia> Yes, except PPAs don't work that way.
[13:41] <maxb> eww
[13:43] <maxb> Well something odd is going on. The last paragraph of https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA#Versioning recommends that backporting be done this way
[13:44] <persia> Yes, but it presumes you're backporting from something other than your PPA.
[13:45] <maxb> I read it as telling you that you can upload foo~intrepid1 and foo~hardy1 to the same ppa
[13:45] <persia> You can, as long as you do it in the opposite order.
[13:52] <maxb> persia: I just got an accepted mail from my PPA for a backport intrepid->hardy, by appending ~hardy1 :-)
[13:53] <persia> For something you already had in your PPA as ~intrepid1 ?
[13:54] <maxb> for something already there with no suffix
[13:55] <maxb> i.e. 1.1.2-0~ppa2 to 1.1.2-0~ppa2~hardy1
[13:56] <savvas> Does anyone why the lpia builds don't build? https://launchpad.net/~medigeek/+archive/+builds
[13:56] <savvas> *anyone know
[13:57] <savvas> Queued:  	13 hours ago
[13:57] <savvas> Estimated build start: in 1 hour <- It's been saying this 13 hours ago :P
[13:57] <maxb> https://launchpad.net/+builds suggests that something is broken somewhere, since all the buildds are idle, but there's a queue
[13:57] <savvas> ah thanks maxb :)
[13:57] <maxb> henninge: When you get back from lunch could you investigate? ^^^^
[13:58] <persia> maxb, Interesting.  That's counter to the behaviour described as problematic earlier.
[13:59] <persia> I still think the current documentation encourages pointless abuse of ~, but at least it's not specifically confusing
[14:00] <maxb> I agree, I can't see any circumstance in which -XppaY or -XubuntuYppaZ wouldn't be reasonable
[14:01] <maxb> Except for trying to be earlier than official backports, but ~ppa doesn't achieve that until we reach Ominous Ostrich, or whatever :-)
[14:01] <persia> whereas the 1.0-2~ppa1 vs. 1.0-1ubuntu1 case you described earlier is easily understood.
[14:02] <persia> Well, 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] <maxb> true
[14:02] <persia> If it's just a backport, seems easy enough to file a backports bug, get a buddy to ack it, and wait a week.
[14:03] <maxb> Not for packages with extensive or eclectic rdepends
[14:06] <henninge> maxb: checking
[14:06] <maxb> They look like they may have just unblocked
[14:14] <henninge> maxb: there are problems with the buildds today but they are being worked on.
[14:43] <bebraw> if 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 :) )
[14:44] <bebraw> is there some default site where people put up their wiki btw?
[14:45] <persia> There's no default wiki, no.
[14:46] <henninge> bebraw: administrative requests need to be submitted using the answer tracker to verify your identity.
[14:46] <bebraw> henninge, alright. makes sense :)
[14:47] <bebraw> i'm just getting used to launchpad but so far it has seemed like a nice service :)
[14:47] <henninge> bebraw: glad you like it!
[14:49] <henninge> bebraw: https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+addquestion
[14:49] <henninge> brb
[14:53]  * henninge is back
[16:03] <thekorn> leonardr, 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] <leonardr> thekorn, believe me, it's my pleasure
[16:03] <thekorn> leonardr, however, I think task.description in the 2nd section is a bit misleading as bug_task objects don't have a "description" attribute
[16:04] <leonardr> ok, you know better than i
[16:04] <leonardr> do they have anything analagous to description?
[16:04] <leonardr> what would you recommend therE?
[16:05] <thekorn> what about changing it to bug.description
[16:05] <leonardr> ok, that's not perfect but it will get the point across
[16:31] <Kmos> hi! could someone approve this import? 7 days waiting... https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/babiloo/debian
[16:32] <henninge> abentley: ^ ;-)
[16:33] <abentley> Kmos: sorry, there is a bit of backlog due to the holidays.
[16:34] <Kmos> abentley: ah ok =) np
[16:34] <Kmos> thanks
[18:47] <abentley> sinzui: why does _preferredemail_cached need to be cleared?
[18:51] <sinzui> abentley: 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.
[18:52] <sinzui> abentley: 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.
[19:12] <energY> Hello
[19:12] <energY> I want to make an open source game.
[19:12] <energY> I have a launchpad account. I have some source-code.
[19:16] <kiko> energY, all you need now is to register a project and push away
[19:17] <energY> I can't upload with anything else than the bzr thing?
[19:17] <beuno> energY, only tarballs for releases or bzr branches, yes
[19:17] <beuno> you can get it to import SVN or CSV branches if you have a public-accessible server
[19:18] <energY> Is there any other thing I can use so I can edit php files in my browser?
[19:19] <beuno> energY, not within Launchpad, no
[20:58] <pochu> hey 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-dependency
[21:56] <wgrant> pochu: See https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+edit-dependencies
[21:57] <wgrant> pochu: You can select the pocket (it's $distroseries-$pocket; -updates is a pocket) there.
[21:57] <wgrant> Er.
[21:58] <wgrant> https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+archive/+edit-dependencies
[21:58] <wgrant> The default configuration pulls from -updates, but you might have already changed it.
[22:13] <pochu> wgrant: thanks a lot. I guess it's the same for team PPAs?
[22:14] <pochu> it is
[22:14] <pochu> and it looks like it's set to default
[22:14] <pochu> yet it didn't work
[22:15]  * pochu tries again, just in case
[22:20] <LaserJock> "To claim this team, enter one of the e-mail addresses it is associated with." what does "associated" mean here?
[22:27] <wgrant> LaserJock: Linked as a team email address.
[22:27] <wgrant> You can probably work out which address it was if it was automatically created.
[22:27] <LaserJock> wgrant: ugg, who does that
[22:28] <wgrant> Launchpad!
[22:28] <LaserJock> oh, wait a sec
[22:28] <LaserJock> so is it really gonna send an email to that address?
[22:28] <wgrant> Yes.
[22:28] <LaserJock> bah
[22:28] <wgrant> You can ask an admin to do it for you manually, I suspect.
[22:29] <LaserJock> I'm trying to set edubuntu-devel as the Maintainer for edubuntu packages
[22:29] <LaserJock> if LP sends some sort of email to edubuntu-devel my guess is it'll end up in the spam trap
[22:29] <wgrant> Ah, 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.
[22:48] <pochu> it doesn't use hardy-updates with the default config :/
[22:49] <pochu> cprov: ping ^ :)
[22:50] <pochu> cprov: this should have used hardy-updates AFAICS, but it didn't: https://edge.launchpad.net/~elvis-team/+archive/+build/835308
[22:51] <wgrant> Ah. P3As.
[22:56] <pochu> eh right, sorry for not mentioning it
[23:09] <cprov> pochu: P3As dependencies defaults to Release + Security only
[23:10] <cprov> pochu: of course you can override it in +edit-dependencies
[23:11] <pochu> cprov: https://edge.launchpad.net/~elvis-team/+archive/+edit-dependencies says default is security + recommended
[23:11] <pochu> I guess recommended means -updates
[23:11] <cprov> pochu: uhm, it's lying for P3As
[23:11] <cprov> pochu: bug me
[23:12] <pochu> cprov: sorry?
[23:14] <cprov> pochu: the 'default' option presented in the UI (release + security + updates) internally represents "no dependencies overrides" which for P3As still hard-coded as release + security only
[23:14] <pochu> ah
[23:14] <pochu> so do you want a bug report?
[23:14] <cprov> pochu: yes, please
[23:15] <maxb> So, there's no difference between "Default" and "Security" at the moment?
[23:15] <cprov> maxb: for private PPAs only.
[23:16] <cprov> maxb: public PPAs dependencies are fully functional.
[23:16] <maxb> aha, right
[23:17] <cprov> maxb: the UI lies for P3A and doesn't make possible to users to select release + security + updates.
[23:19] <pochu> cprov: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/316576
[23:19] <pochu> cprov: do you have an estimation by when that could be fixed? If it's not soon, I'll have to workaround it :)
[23:20] <pochu> (not that it'll be a big deal, but if you plan to fix it soon I can wait)
[23:20] <cprov> pochu: I will work on it tonight and if everything is fine it can be CPed in edge tomorrow
[23:21] <nhandler> cprov: 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 it
[23:21] <pochu> cprov: you rock! thanks
[23:23] <cprov> pochu: super!
[23:25] <maxb> cprov: 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?
[23:27] <cprov> maxb: 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] <cprov> maxb: we should use a bug to track progress on this.
[23:28]  * maxb files