[00:10] <maco> does the lp api include a way to find out what date a bug was marked as a certain status?
[00:11] <wgrant> LarstiQ, SamB: Both bzr-svn and bzr-git are coming RSN, IIRC.
[00:12] <wgrant> maco: date_$(some_status) on the bugtask.
[00:12] <wgrant> https://edge.launchpad.net/+apidoc/#bug_task
[00:13] <wgrant> The full activity log isn't exposed over the API, but those dates are stored separately.
[00:13] <maco> awesome. so i should theoretically be able to subtract the date reported from the date marked fix released and find out how long the bug was open?
[00:13] <wgrant> Yes.
[00:59] <Milosz> Hmm
[00:59] <Milosz> One more package just built in my PPA
[00:59] <Milosz> But it's not in the repository
[01:05] <Milosz> nvm
[01:05] <Milosz> one other question, the screenshots synaptic is able to get, where would I need to put one?
[02:22] <Milosz> It's only possible to register bazaar repositories with LaunchPad?
[02:27] <CarlFK> how long does it take between dput "Successfully uploaded packages." and it showing up on https://edge.launchpad.net/~carlfk/+archive/ppa ?
[02:28] <CarlFK> "Pending 0" makes me nervous
[02:28] <Milosz> CarlFK, for me around 5 minutes
[02:28] <Milosz> don't be nervous :)
[02:31] <CarlFK> how about anxious?
[02:32] <CarlFK> i do recall seeing something about a lag
[02:38] <wgrant> CarlFK: Uploads are processed every 5 minutes - they will then show as Pending for up to 20 minutes. Once they change to Published, apt-get will be able to see them.
[03:00] <CarlFK> 5 and 20 min have come and gone, and I still don't see anything - here is my build and dput output: http://dpaste.com/32162/
[03:01] <CarlFK> was I sposed to change something in .dput.cf ?  I remember getting some notice a while ago.. month or 2
[03:06] <wgrant> CarlFK: Pastebin your .dput.cf
[03:06] <wgrant> CarlFK: I see you had a similar problem about three months ago, but in that case the problem was that you weren't using the right key.
[03:07] <wgrant> That isn't the problem here :(
[03:08] <CarlFK> wgrant:  http://dpaste.com/32164/
[03:08] <wgrant> CarlFK: Try ~carlfk/ubuntu/ppa instead.
[03:08] <wgrant> But I doon't think it should be a silent reject if you leave off that last bit...
[03:08] <CarlFK> "Already uploaded to ppa.launchpad.net; Doing nothing for pdf417enc_4.4-ppa1_source.changes"
[03:09] <wgrant> dput -f
[03:10] <CarlFK> Successfully uploaded ... now I wait...
[03:17] <wgrant> Can you pastebin your changes file? (make sure it's unsigned, if you have upload rights to anywhere else)
[03:22] <CarlFK> wgrant: http://dpaste.com/32168/
[03:23] <wgrant> CarlFK: The distribution is wrong (change that in debian/changelog), but that should get you an emailed rejection, not a silent one.
[03:23] <wgrant> CarlFK: You're not getting any email response at all?
[03:24] <CarlFK> correct
[03:24] <wgrant> Try fixing the distribution.
[03:29] <CarlFK> Successfully uploaded packages.
[03:29] <CarlFK> whew.. i before x:30 :)
[03:43] <CarlFK> wgrant: is my changelog right? http://dpaste.com/32170/
[03:45] <wgrant> CarlFK: Yes.
[03:46] <wgrant> Although that version string is debatable, it's not technically wrong.
[03:46] <CarlFK> what's a better one?
[03:47] <wgrant> -0ppa1 is good, as it sorts below both official Ubuntu and Debian versions.
[03:51] <SamB> https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA suggests appending "~ppa<n>"
[03:51] <SamB> oh, after incrementing the last component of the preceding portion of the version number
[03:51] <dtchen> and best practices recommend actually using your LP id
[03:52] <dtchen> e.g., pulseaudio-0.9.14-0ubuntu100~crimsun1
[03:52] <SamB> hmm. but doesn't that give precedence to versions packaged by people with names beginning with "z"?
[03:53] <dtchen> c sorts before z...
[03:53] <SamB> yeah, and doesn't a version number that sorts later take precence?
[03:53] <SamB> er. +de
[03:54] <dtchen> yes, but if pulseaudio-0.9.14-0ubuntu99 is in the archive, then uploading pulseaudio-0.9.14-0ubuntu100~crimsun1 is ok until pulseaudio-0.9.14-0ubuntu100 is uploaded, upon which ~crimsun1 is superceded
[03:55] <dtchen> (rather, it should be pulseaudio_0.9.14-0ubuntu99, but whatever)
[03:56] <SamB> I'm just teasing about what happens if you have foo-1.2-0ubuntu1~frotz and then someone comes along and makes foo-1.2-0ubuntu1~glulxe
[03:57] <dtchen> well either glulxe is an Evil Daemon and you have to battle to the death, or you can just not have glulxe's PPA in your sources.list(5)
[03:57] <wgrant> I use -XubuntuY~wgrant1 if I'm producing something that I know will be -XubuntuY in the primary archive.
[04:00] <CarlFK> doh.. just found a bunch of reject messages ...
[04:01] <wgrant> Heh.
[04:01] <CarlFK> Could not find suite 'ppa'
[04:01] <wgrant> I didn't think I saw any of the usual silent rejection candidates.
[04:01] <wgrant> Blah.
[04:01] <wgrant> ~carlfk/ppa/ubuntu
[04:01] <CarlFK> ha
[04:02] <wgrant> And all of the earlier uploads failed because they couldn't find a distroseries named 'unstable'?
[04:02] <CarlFK> yup
[04:14] <CarlFK> wgrant:  "Rejected: Signer has no upload rights at all to this distribution. Not permitted to upload to the RELEASE pocket in a series in the 'CURRENT' state. "
[04:15] <CarlFK> incoming = ~<your_launchpad_id>/<ppa_name>/ubuntu/
[04:16] <CarlFK> missing / maybe..
[04:17] <CarlFK> gah!
[04:18] <CarlFK> reject messages are out of sync with what I am doing
[04:18] <CarlFK> Rejected: pdf417enc_4.4-0ppa1.dsc: Section 'unknown' is not valid
[04:18] <wgrant> CarlFK: The RELEASE pocket error is because you uploaded to Ubuntu, not your PPA.
[04:18] <wgrant> Thee section one is legitimate, but will probably go away in a month or two.
[04:25] <CarlFK> Now running lintian... E: pdf417enc_4.4-0ppa2_source.changes: bad-distribution-in-changes-file jaunty
[04:25] <CarlFK> W: pdf417enc source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/pdf417enc.doc-base.EX
[04:25] <CarlFK> anything I should do something about?
[04:26] <wgrant> That last one, yes.
[04:26] <wgrant> The former is lintian being outdated.
[04:27] <wgrant> You probably just want to remove the latter.
[04:42] <CarlFK> Where is the list of valid sections?
[04:42] <CarlFK> and why can't I make up my own...
[04:51] <CarlFK> so much for trying to outsmart it: pdf417enc_4.4-0ppa3.dsc: Section '-' is not valid
[04:58] <CarlFK> Pending         3  yay.
[05:23] <wgrant> CarlFK: Where did that '3' come from?
[05:23] <wgrant> I don't recall seeing that last time I looked at a pending publishing.
[05:25] <CarlFK> 3 archs
[05:26] <CarlFK> dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: couldn't find library libgif.so.4 needed by debian/pdf417enc/usr/bin/pdf417prep (its RPATH is '').
[05:26] <CarlFK> ah, -dev isn't libgif4
[05:32] <wgrant> CarlFK: You know you can use something like pbuilder or sbuild to test locally, right?
[05:48] <CarlFK> kinda - it buit OK for i386, not sure why x64 has a problem
[05:50] <wgrant> CarlFK: I don't know why that's failing - do you have an amd64 machine on which to test?
[05:50]  * wgrant -> gone for a few minutes
[06:07] <CarlFK> wgrant: x64 box:
[06:07] <CarlFK> ls -l /usr/lib/libgif.so.4; lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 2009-01-30 09:56 /usr/lib/libgif.so.4 -> libgif.so.4.1.6
[06:07] <CarlFK> dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: couldn't find library libgif.so.4
[06:08] <CarlFK> but plain ol make clean && make works
[06:09] <wgrant> CarlFK: Which package owns libgif.so.4 there?
[06:09] <wgrant> And does it build in a pbuilder or sbuild?
[06:15] <CarlFK> pbuilder - I need to set that up on the x64 box.  what is sbuild?
[06:15] <CarlFK> apt-file search libgif.so.4 (returned nothing?!)
[06:15] <wgrant> sbuild is what the buildds use, but its more common configurations require LVM so it's a bit more heavyweight.
[06:24] <CarlFK> ah, I guess i dont need to sudo the apt-file update
[06:24] <wgrant> gmb: I do like the new comment/change merging.
[06:25] <CarlFK> carl@dv67:~/temp/pdf417enc-4.4$ apt-file search libgif.so.4
[06:25] <CarlFK> giflib-dbg: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libgif.so.4.1.6
[06:25] <CarlFK> libgif4: /usr/lib/libgif.so.4
[06:25] <wgrant> CarlFK: Oops, I missed that second last line of yours - 'dpkg -S libgif.so.4' would have done it.
[06:25] <wgrant> Hmm.
[06:25] <wgrant> Well, I don't know.
[06:27] <CarlFK> im done for tonight... thanks for the help
[06:27] <wgrant> npp
[06:27] <wgrant> Gah.
[06:28] <wgrant> X seems to now be respecting GNOME's key repeat settings.
[06:28] <wgrant> It wasn't in Intrepid :(
[09:20] <seiflotfy1> hi guys
[09:22] <seiflotfy1> i did most of the zeitgeist wokr but my contact was set on seif@schroeder
[09:22] <seiflotfy1> so non of the karma was given to me
[09:22] <seiflotfy1> it was supposed to be seif@lotfy.com
[09:22] <seiflotfy1> can i get the karma transfered
[09:28] <wgrant> seiflotfy1: I don't see any valid branches for zeitgeist - but anyway, you'd do better to ask on a weekday.
[09:29] <lifeless> seiflotfy1: just add the other address to your account, or merge your account
[09:29] <lifeless> s
[09:29] <seiflotfy1> lp:gnome-zeitgeist
[09:29] <wgrant> Ah, gnome-zeitgeist. I was looking at plain zeitgeist, which seems to be a dupe.
[09:29] <wgrant> lifeless: It looks like it has a hostname rather than an FQDN...
[09:30] <lifeless> wgrant: ah
[09:30] <lifeless> seiflotfy1: or ask a question on answers.launchpad.net/launchpad
[09:30] <wgrant> A sysadmin could certainly do that without too much trouble, but IIRC historically they've said no.
[09:30] <seiflotfy1> IIRC ?
[09:31] <wgrant> If I Recall Correctly.
[09:31] <lifeless> wgrant: actually, its not that easy :P
[09:31] <lifeless> there isn't a ui form to do it, so its a bunch of sql
[09:31] <wgrant> lifeless: The Person creation process does it, so it must be pretty easy.
[09:31] <wgrant> Oh, sure.
[09:31] <lifeless> wgrant: account joining is complex and automated, but this wouldn't be account joining if its nto a valid email
[09:32] <wgrant> lifeless: Right.
[09:34] <seiflotfy1> problem is seif@schroeder is not an address
[09:34] <seiflotfy1> its my account on my computer
[09:34] <seiflotfy1> schroeder is my pc
[09:35] <wgrant> lifeless is most probably right: ask a question at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+addquestion, and somebody will fix it if they can.
[12:31] <vikashkoushik> Hi guys
[12:32] <vikashkoushik> What is PPA in launch pad?
[12:33] <hyperair> vikashkoushik: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=launchpad+ppa
[13:55] <Persi> hi, jaunty does a good job of preparing bug reports, and then it sends me to launchpad page, do I have to subscribe to a bug in order to report it?
[13:57] <geser> the reporter is automatically subscribed to a bug
[13:58] <Milosz> can I get my LP account renamed?
[13:58] <Milosz> my PPA is named after my email address already
[13:58] <Persi> well I press continue, then it asks me whether I want to subscribe to a "similar" bug, which is almost identical, so I thought it is a way to refine the report, isn`t it?
[13:58] <Milosz> the only thing that isn't is my LP account name, and I'd just like to get it renamed, if possible
[13:59] <Persi> or the report is filed when I press continue or even before reaching the LP?
[14:00] <geser> Persi: if a bug to your problem exist it's better if you subscribe to it (if you want to get notified about updates to the bug) instead of filing a new one
[14:01] <geser> you can also add comments to existing bugs (if it helps to resolve the bug) if you want (you don't need to be subscribed to the bug for it)
[14:02] <geser> for "common" problems it's not uncommon that someone else was faster with filing a bug
[14:06] <Persi> I see, but it probably doesn`t make sense to report for example crashing firefox due to same reasons as already reported, just in marginally different situation, as a separate report, ain`t it? So I imagine that before I reporter sends me to LP the bug is already counted somewhere and at LP I may subscribe to it only if I wish. Or is the number of reporters of the same bug actually important for anything?
[14:06] <Persi> wow I should be more concise
[14:23] <Milosz> Well I'd personally say 1 report of an installation of ten thousands could be randomflux
[14:23] <Milosz> so yes the number is probably important but I don't know whether it's important for the LP application
[14:43] <LarstiQ> Milosz: shouldn't you be able to change your account name yourself?
[14:44] <Milosz> LarstiQ, well my PPA is still called "PPA for deadchip"
[14:44] <Milosz> I'd just like this to be either my real name (PPA for Milosz Derezynski) or
[14:44] <Milosz> or the actual name of my PPA, "internalerror" (it's ~internalerror/ppa/ubuntu)
[14:45] <Milosz> I just think "PPA for deadchip" could be confusing for first-time visitors of my LP page
[14:45] <Milosz> they might think it's an app or somethig
[14:46] <Milosz> something*
[14:46] <Milosz> or first-time users of LP or PPAs
[14:46] <LarstiQ> Milosz: so change it then :)
[14:46] <Milosz> I can't
[14:46] <Milosz> oh
[14:46] <Milosz> yeah I can't
[14:47] <Milosz> I can only change the description
[14:47] <Milosz> is there anyone I could mail so this gets changed?
[14:47] <LarstiQ> Displayname?
[14:47] <LarstiQ> Milosz: https://edge.launchpad.net/~internalerror/+archive/ppa/+edit
[14:48] <Milosz> i set my display name to my realname
[14:48] <Milosz> but it still says "PPA for deadchip"
[14:48] <Milosz> ah
[14:48] <Milosz> edge is the beta interface?
[14:48] <LarstiQ> yeah
[14:48]  * LarstiQ disables redirection
[14:49] <Milosz> cool thanks :)
[14:49] <LarstiQ> what, no? :)
[14:49] <LarstiQ> I'm just a user
[14:49] <LarstiQ> I'm disabling redirection for myself to check if the non-beta ui is different
[14:49] <Milosz> no thanks for pointing me to edge
[14:49] <Milosz> no, thanks*
[14:49] <LarstiQ> ah ok :)
[14:50] <Milosz> yeah in the non-beta you can not change the PPA name
[14:50] <Milosz> lol I guess that's not the only thing you wanted to see :P
[14:50] <LarstiQ> actually, it is
[14:51] <LarstiQ> Milosz: ok, so that seems to be it then
[14:51] <Milosz> Yes, LarstiQ, that is it.
[14:51] <Milosz> We will never see each other again.
[14:51] <Milosz> Goodbye.
[14:51] <Milosz> lol
[14:51] <Milosz> sorry just in a happny mood :)
[14:52] <Milosz> -n
[14:52] <Milosz> I understand if you don't join in
[14:52] <LarstiQ> :)
[14:52]  * LarstiQ is on a veeery slow link and preoccupied
[14:53] <Milosz> :P
[14:54] <LarstiQ> I get the humor though :P
[14:54] <Milosz> :)
[14:56] <klbate> Quick question: Is there a command line tool for sending merge proposals?
[15:00]  * SamB wonders why https://bugs.launchpad.net/dosemu/+bugs doesn't either mention the use of an external bug tracker or show the bugs from it ...
[15:01] <SamB> klbate: isn't that called "bzr send"? I guess it's not quite the same, though -- it sends a patch bundle ...
[15:02] <klbate> SamB: I'm not sure, I've just started using both bzr and Launchpad.
[15:02] <LarstiQ> SamB: send it to merge@code.launchpad.net and it i
[15:02] <SamB> though I saw evidence that it *used* to work for sending "merge proposals" in the form of a bug report ...
[15:02] <LarstiQ> SamB, klbate: http://theironlion.net/blog/2009/01/15/launchpad-code-reviews-without-browser/
[15:02] <klbate> I'd like something that has exactly the same effect as a merge proposal submitted via the web. I suppose I could do something with wget, but if there's something else that works already...
[15:02] <klbate> LarstiQ: Thanks.
[15:03] <SamB> personally, I don't like the way merge proposals don't keep track of what commit you wanted merged
[15:03] <SamB> so if I make a merge proposal and then the thing I proposed to be merged gets merged some other way, the merge proposal sticks around
[15:04] <LarstiQ> without really knowing that part of launchpad, I'd say that is because you propsoe a branch for merging, not a revision
[15:04] <LarstiQ> SamB: really?
[15:04] <SamB> yeah, that's the bit I don't like
[15:04] <SamB> the fact that it's a branch, not a revision, that you propose ;-)
[15:04] <intellec`> SamB: that's pretty standard workflow for projects using dvcs
[15:05] <intellectronica> SamB: when branching is so easy, you just create a new branch for every bit of work
[15:05] <LarstiQ> SamB: review feedback would be rather cumbersome otherwise
[15:06] <LarstiQ> SamB: but it sticking around forever doesn't sound right either
[15:07] <intellectronica> why not? it's sometimes useful for archaeology
[15:08] <exarkun> yea, keep it forever.
[15:09] <intellectronica> klbate: you can use the rest api (i think)
[15:10] <SamB> personally I have trouble sticking with branch topics :-(
[15:11] <intellectronica> SamB: there's nothing stopping you from developing in a single branch, then creating a new branch when you want to submit it. bzr makes it so easy and fast
[15:11] <SamB> it should stick around forever, but it should look more finished after the revision I meant is merged where I wanted it ;-)
[15:11] <SamB> intellectronica: yeah ...
[15:12] <intellectronica> SamB: i think that's a good idea. file a bug
[15:17] <LarstiQ> intellectronica: right, I meant ala Bunly Buggy merged status so that is out of my face for things to review
[15:18] <intellectronica> LarstiQ: ah, you mean on +activereviews?
[15:19] <intellectronica> you can get it out of there by reviewing it and marking it as "abstain", but i agree that it shouldn't be there once it's merged
[15:19] <jdub> hi all; trying to copy a new upstream package from hardy to jaunty in my ppa, and it's saying "same version already has published binaries..."
[15:20] <jdub> i've deleted the older (both upstream and ppa version) source packages... and it's still doing it
[15:21] <LarstiQ> jdub: are you copying a binary or source?
[15:22] <jdub> source
[15:22] <jdub> (https://launchpad.net/~jdub/+archive/ppa btw)
[15:24] <LarstiQ> jdub: what I've picked up from lurking (and guessing about underlying structure) is that sources are already in the same pool
[15:24] <LarstiQ> jdub: so that won't work, but you can copy the binary
[15:24]  * LarstiQ looks for a faq
[15:25] <jdub> yeah, i read the launchpad help doco about it... didn't seem clear
[15:25] <jdub> "copy existing binaries" doesn't really sound like "rebuild the current sources for this series"
[15:26] <LarstiQ> indeed
[15:26] <jdub> but "rebuild the copied sources" sounds almost right... aside from the single pool context
[15:26] <jdub> i thought i was missing a changelog hack, but other ppas don't seem to do anything weird with it
[15:27] <jdub> guess i'll try the binary option and see how spectacularly it breaks :D
[15:28] <jdub> zomg, that totally looks like it's done the wrong thing
[15:41] <jdub> alrighty... i'm just going to focus on hardy for now; will figure this out later :-)
[15:41] <jdub> thanks
[15:45] <hyperair> hmm one team/person can own more than one PPA now?
[15:58] <maxb> yes
[15:58] <maxb> Is there a Soyuz person around who can explain what this uploadlog means?: 2009-01-10 04:10:23 WARNING Unable to grok section 'dev', overriding it with misc
[16:00] <CarlFK> maxb: no clue what soyuz is, but maybe in control,  Section: devel
[16:13] <CarlFK> I want to package https://sourceforge.net/projects/pdf417encode/ - it needs to be cleaned up, like not including binaries in the source .tar and Makefile needs an install:
[16:14] <CarlFK> none of the authors have posted anything sense  Sep 2006
[16:17] <CarlFK> should I make a bunch of patches, or hijack the project?
[16:29] <maxb> CarlFK: You want to be on #ubuntu-motu for that sort of thing
[16:44] <CarlFK> maxb: oh yeah... and ask there.. :)
[18:01] <savvas> is it possible to upload a karmic debian source now? or when will it be, when it is announced to be openfor development?
[18:04] <Milosz> can I see download statistics for my PPA?
[18:04] <hyperair> savvas: in #ubuntu-motu, not here, and it'll only open after jaunty's release
[18:05] <savvas> hyperair: I meant for a PPA - but ok, thanks :)
[18:07] <hyperair> oh that
[18:07] <hyperair> hahah whoops
[18:16] <jpds> savvas: Probably after releases and new toolchain uploaded.
[18:17] <savvas> alrighty :)
[18:48] <hyperair> what's in a toolchain anyway?
[18:50] <LarstiQ> hyperair: compiler/linker/libc/etc
[18:50] <hyperair> LarstiQ: basically a new set of build-essentials and devscripts?
[18:51] <LarstiQ> hyperair: something like that
[18:51]  * LarstiQ doesn't know the specifics for Ubuntu
[18:51] <hyperair> hmm
[20:33] <natureshadow> hi!
[20:33] <natureshadow> A few hours ago, I successfully updated and committed a bzr branch in launchpad
[20:33] <natureshadow> Now it refuses my public key
[20:33] <natureshadow> Why's that?
[21:07] <natureshadow> Any idea concerning my ssh problem?
[21:10] <SamB> natureshadow: did you accidentally change your key?
[21:11] <natureshadow> SamB: Nope .... the data in Launchpad and my local system are identical
[21:11] <natureshadow> Perhaps I should just create a new one and try again?
[21:19] <natureshadow> I just regenerated my key, uplaoded it, and it still doesn't let me in
[21:19] <natureshadow> I'm not very suse whether bzr uses my key
[21:20] <natureshadow> It doesn't sue the standard name so I configured it in ~/.ssh/config
[21:20] <natureshadow> This worked until 4 hours ago though ^^
[21:21] <natureshadow> Running ssh on bazaar.launchpad.net lets me in, but (of course) complains about missing shells on the server
[21:21] <natureshadow> So the problem must be with the ssh configuration
[21:29] <natureshadow> Works again .... obviously ssh wasn't happy with the config anymore :/
[23:44] <neal_s_> Should I bother getting undeserved Karma removed? I've been mucking around with bzr as a newb, and I've been deleting and creating branches willy nilly.