=== Snova_ is now known as Snova [00:10] does the lp api include a way to find out what date a bug was marked as a certain status? [00:11] LarstiQ, SamB: Both bzr-svn and bzr-git are coming RSN, IIRC. [00:12] maco: date_$(some_status) on the bugtask. [00:12] https://edge.launchpad.net/+apidoc/#bug_task [00:13] The full activity log isn't exposed over the API, but those dates are stored separately. [00:13] 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] Yes. [00:59] Hmm [00:59] One more package just built in my PPA [00:59] But it's not in the repository [01:05] nvm [01:05] one other question, the screenshots synaptic is able to get, where would I need to put one? [02:22] It's only possible to register bazaar repositories with LaunchPad? [02:27] how long does it take between dput "Successfully uploaded packages." and it showing up on https://edge.launchpad.net/~carlfk/+archive/ppa ? [02:28] "Pending 0" makes me nervous [02:28] CarlFK, for me around 5 minutes [02:28] don't be nervous :) [02:31] how about anxious? [02:32] i do recall seeing something about a lag [02:38] 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] 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] was I sposed to change something in .dput.cf ? I remember getting some notice a while ago.. month or 2 [03:06] CarlFK: Pastebin your .dput.cf [03:06] 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] That isn't the problem here :( [03:08] wgrant: http://dpaste.com/32164/ [03:08] CarlFK: Try ~carlfk/ubuntu/ppa instead. [03:08] But I doon't think it should be a silent reject if you leave off that last bit... [03:08] "Already uploaded to ppa.launchpad.net; Doing nothing for pdf417enc_4.4-ppa1_source.changes" [03:09] dput -f [03:10] Successfully uploaded ... now I wait... [03:17] Can you pastebin your changes file? (make sure it's unsigned, if you have upload rights to anywhere else) [03:22] wgrant: http://dpaste.com/32168/ [03:23] CarlFK: The distribution is wrong (change that in debian/changelog), but that should get you an emailed rejection, not a silent one. [03:23] CarlFK: You're not getting any email response at all? [03:24] correct [03:24] Try fixing the distribution. [03:29] Successfully uploaded packages. [03:29] whew.. i before x:30 :) === Snova_ is now known as Guest78048 === Guest78048 is now known as Snova [03:43] wgrant: is my changelog right? http://dpaste.com/32170/ [03:45] CarlFK: Yes. === Snova_ is now known as Snova [03:46] Although that version string is debatable, it's not technically wrong. [03:46] what's a better one? [03:47] -0ppa1 is good, as it sorts below both official Ubuntu and Debian versions. [03:51] https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA suggests appending "~ppa" [03:51] oh, after incrementing the last component of the preceding portion of the version number [03:51] and best practices recommend actually using your LP id [03:52] e.g., pulseaudio-0.9.14-0ubuntu100~crimsun1 [03:52] hmm. but doesn't that give precedence to versions packaged by people with names beginning with "z"? [03:53] c sorts before z... [03:53] yeah, and doesn't a version number that sorts later take precence? [03:53] er. +de [03:54] 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] (rather, it should be pulseaudio_0.9.14-0ubuntu99, but whatever) [03:56] 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] 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] I use -XubuntuY~wgrant1 if I'm producing something that I know will be -XubuntuY in the primary archive. [04:00] doh.. just found a bunch of reject messages ... [04:01] Heh. [04:01] Could not find suite 'ppa' [04:01] I didn't think I saw any of the usual silent rejection candidates. [04:01] Blah. [04:01] ~carlfk/ppa/ubuntu [04:01] ha [04:02] And all of the earlier uploads failed because they couldn't find a distroseries named 'unstable'? [04:02] yup [04:14] 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] incoming = ~//ubuntu/ [04:16] missing / maybe.. === Andre_Gondim is now known as Andre_Gondim-afk [04:17] gah! [04:18] reject messages are out of sync with what I am doing [04:18] Rejected: pdf417enc_4.4-0ppa1.dsc: Section 'unknown' is not valid [04:18] CarlFK: The RELEASE pocket error is because you uploaded to Ubuntu, not your PPA. [04:18] Thee section one is legitimate, but will probably go away in a month or two. [04:25] Now running lintian... E: pdf417enc_4.4-0ppa2_source.changes: bad-distribution-in-changes-file jaunty [04:25] W: pdf417enc source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/pdf417enc.doc-base.EX [04:25] anything I should do something about? [04:26] That last one, yes. [04:26] The former is lintian being outdated. [04:27] You probably just want to remove the latter. [04:42] Where is the list of valid sections? [04:42] and why can't I make up my own... [04:51] so much for trying to outsmart it: pdf417enc_4.4-0ppa3.dsc: Section '-' is not valid [04:58] Pending 3 yay. === ripps_ is now known as ripps [05:23] CarlFK: Where did that '3' come from? [05:23] I don't recall seeing that last time I looked at a pending publishing. [05:25] 3 archs [05:26] dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: couldn't find library libgif.so.4 needed by debian/pdf417enc/usr/bin/pdf417prep (its RPATH is ''). [05:26] ah, -dev isn't libgif4 [05:32] CarlFK: You know you can use something like pbuilder or sbuild to test locally, right? [05:48] kinda - it buit OK for i386, not sure why x64 has a problem [05:50] 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 === gondim__ is now known as Andre_Gondim [06:07] wgrant: x64 box: [06:07] 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] dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: couldn't find library libgif.so.4 [06:08] but plain ol make clean && make works [06:09] CarlFK: Which package owns libgif.so.4 there? [06:09] And does it build in a pbuilder or sbuild? [06:15] pbuilder - I need to set that up on the x64 box. what is sbuild? [06:15] apt-file search libgif.so.4 (returned nothing?!) [06:15] sbuild is what the buildds use, but its more common configurations require LVM so it's a bit more heavyweight. [06:24] ah, I guess i dont need to sudo the apt-file update [06:24] gmb: I do like the new comment/change merging. [06:25] carl@dv67:~/temp/pdf417enc-4.4$ apt-file search libgif.so.4 [06:25] giflib-dbg: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libgif.so.4.1.6 [06:25] libgif4: /usr/lib/libgif.so.4 [06:25] CarlFK: Oops, I missed that second last line of yours - 'dpkg -S libgif.so.4' would have done it. [06:25] Hmm. [06:25] Well, I don't know. [06:27] im done for tonight... thanks for the help [06:27] npp [06:27] Gah. [06:28] X seems to now be respecting GNOME's key repeat settings. [06:28] It wasn't in Intrepid :( [09:20] hi guys [09:22] i did most of the zeitgeist wokr but my contact was set on seif@schroeder [09:22] so non of the karma was given to me [09:22] it was supposed to be seif@lotfy.com [09:22] can i get the karma transfered [09:28] seiflotfy1: I don't see any valid branches for zeitgeist - but anyway, you'd do better to ask on a weekday. [09:29] seiflotfy1: just add the other address to your account, or merge your account [09:29] s [09:29] lp:gnome-zeitgeist [09:29] Ah, gnome-zeitgeist. I was looking at plain zeitgeist, which seems to be a dupe. [09:29] lifeless: It looks like it has a hostname rather than an FQDN... [09:30] wgrant: ah [09:30] seiflotfy1: or ask a question on answers.launchpad.net/launchpad [09:30] A sysadmin could certainly do that without too much trouble, but IIRC historically they've said no. [09:30] IIRC ? [09:31] If I Recall Correctly. [09:31] wgrant: actually, its not that easy :P [09:31] there isn't a ui form to do it, so its a bunch of sql [09:31] lifeless: The Person creation process does it, so it must be pretty easy. [09:31] Oh, sure. [09:31] wgrant: account joining is complex and automated, but this wouldn't be account joining if its nto a valid email [09:32] lifeless: Right. [09:34] problem is seif@schroeder is not an address [09:34] its my account on my computer [09:34] schroeder is my pc [09:35] lifeless is most probably right: ask a question at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+addquestion, and somebody will fix it if they can. === tiax` is now known as tiax === gord_ is now known as gord [12:31] Hi guys [12:32] What is PPA in launch pad? [12:33] vikashkoushik: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=launchpad+ppa [13:55] 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] the reporter is automatically subscribed to a bug [13:58] can I get my LP account renamed? [13:58] my PPA is named after my email address already [13:58] 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] the only thing that isn't is my LP account name, and I'd just like to get it renamed, if possible [13:59] or the report is filed when I press continue or even before reaching the LP? [14:00] 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] 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] for "common" problems it's not uncommon that someone else was faster with filing a bug [14:06] 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] wow I should be more concise [14:23] Well I'd personally say 1 report of an installation of ten thousands could be randomflux [14:23] so yes the number is probably important but I don't know whether it's important for the LP application [14:43] Milosz: shouldn't you be able to change your account name yourself? [14:44] LarstiQ, well my PPA is still called "PPA for deadchip" [14:44] I'd just like this to be either my real name (PPA for Milosz Derezynski) or [14:44] or the actual name of my PPA, "internalerror" (it's ~internalerror/ppa/ubuntu) [14:45] I just think "PPA for deadchip" could be confusing for first-time visitors of my LP page [14:45] they might think it's an app or somethig [14:46] something* [14:46] or first-time users of LP or PPAs [14:46] Milosz: so change it then :) [14:46] I can't [14:46] oh [14:46] yeah I can't [14:47] I can only change the description [14:47] is there anyone I could mail so this gets changed? [14:47] Displayname? [14:47] Milosz: https://edge.launchpad.net/~internalerror/+archive/ppa/+edit [14:48] i set my display name to my realname [14:48] but it still says "PPA for deadchip" [14:48] ah [14:48] edge is the beta interface? [14:48] yeah [14:48] * LarstiQ disables redirection [14:49] cool thanks :) [14:49] what, no? :) [14:49] I'm just a user [14:49] I'm disabling redirection for myself to check if the non-beta ui is different [14:49] no thanks for pointing me to edge [14:49] no, thanks* [14:49] ah ok :) [14:50] yeah in the non-beta you can not change the PPA name [14:50] lol I guess that's not the only thing you wanted to see :P [14:50] actually, it is [14:51] Milosz: ok, so that seems to be it then [14:51] Yes, LarstiQ, that is it. [14:51] We will never see each other again. [14:51] Goodbye. [14:51] lol [14:51] sorry just in a happny mood :) [14:52] -n [14:52] I understand if you don't join in [14:52] :) [14:52] * LarstiQ is on a veeery slow link and preoccupied [14:53] :P [14:54] I get the humor though :P [14:54] :) [14:56] 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] klbate: isn't that called "bzr send"? I guess it's not quite the same, though -- it sends a patch bundle ... [15:02] SamB: I'm not sure, I've just started using both bzr and Launchpad. [15:02] SamB: send it to merge@code.launchpad.net and it i [15:02] though I saw evidence that it *used* to work for sending "merge proposals" in the form of a bug report ... [15:02] SamB, klbate: http://theironlion.net/blog/2009/01/15/launchpad-code-reviews-without-browser/ [15:02] 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] LarstiQ: Thanks. [15:03] personally, I don't like the way merge proposals don't keep track of what commit you wanted merged [15:03] 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] without really knowing that part of launchpad, I'd say that is because you propsoe a branch for merging, not a revision [15:04] SamB: really? [15:04] yeah, that's the bit I don't like [15:04] the fact that it's a branch, not a revision, that you propose ;-) [15:04] SamB: that's pretty standard workflow for projects using dvcs === intellec` is now known as intellectronica [15:05] SamB: when branching is so easy, you just create a new branch for every bit of work [15:05] SamB: review feedback would be rather cumbersome otherwise [15:06] SamB: but it sticking around forever doesn't sound right either [15:07] why not? it's sometimes useful for archaeology [15:08] yea, keep it forever. [15:09] klbate: you can use the rest api (i think) [15:10] personally I have trouble sticking with branch topics :-( [15:11] 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] it should stick around forever, but it should look more finished after the revision I meant is merged where I wanted it ;-) [15:11] intellectronica: yeah ... [15:12] SamB: i think that's a good idea. file a bug [15:17] intellectronica: right, I meant ala Bunly Buggy merged status so that is out of my face for things to review [15:18] LarstiQ: ah, you mean on +activereviews? [15:19] 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] 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] i've deleted the older (both upstream and ppa version) source packages... and it's still doing it [15:21] jdub: are you copying a binary or source? [15:22] source [15:22] (https://launchpad.net/~jdub/+archive/ppa btw) [15:24] jdub: what I've picked up from lurking (and guessing about underlying structure) is that sources are already in the same pool [15:24] jdub: so that won't work, but you can copy the binary [15:24] * LarstiQ looks for a faq [15:25] yeah, i read the launchpad help doco about it... didn't seem clear [15:25] "copy existing binaries" doesn't really sound like "rebuild the current sources for this series" [15:26] indeed [15:26] but "rebuild the copied sources" sounds almost right... aside from the single pool context [15:26] i thought i was missing a changelog hack, but other ppas don't seem to do anything weird with it [15:27] guess i'll try the binary option and see how spectacularly it breaks :D [15:28] zomg, that totally looks like it's done the wrong thing [15:41] alrighty... i'm just going to focus on hardy for now; will figure this out later :-) [15:41] thanks [15:45] hmm one team/person can own more than one PPA now? [15:58] yes [15:58] 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] maxb: no clue what soyuz is, but maybe in control, Section: devel [16:13] 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] none of the authors have posted anything sense Sep 2006 [16:17] should I make a bunch of patches, or hijack the project? === hyperair is now known as hyper === hyper is now known as hyper__ [16:29] CarlFK: You want to be on #ubuntu-motu for that sort of thing [16:44] maxb: oh yeah... and ask there.. :) === abentley1 is now known as abentley === abentley1 is now known as abentley [18:01] 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] can I see download statistics for my PPA? [18:04] savvas: in #ubuntu-motu, not here, and it'll only open after jaunty's release [18:05] hyperair: I meant for a PPA - but ok, thanks :) [18:07] oh that [18:07] hahah whoops [18:16] savvas: Probably after releases and new toolchain uploaded. [18:17] alrighty :) [18:48] what's in a toolchain anyway? [18:50] hyperair: compiler/linker/libc/etc [18:50] LarstiQ: basically a new set of build-essentials and devscripts? [18:51] hyperair: something like that [18:51] * LarstiQ doesn't know the specifics for Ubuntu [18:51] hmm === bureflux is now known as afflux [20:33] hi! [20:33] A few hours ago, I successfully updated and committed a bzr branch in launchpad [20:33] Now it refuses my public key [20:33] Why's that? === hubuntu is now known as huayra [21:07] Any idea concerning my ssh problem? [21:10] natureshadow: did you accidentally change your key? [21:11] SamB: Nope .... the data in Launchpad and my local system are identical [21:11] Perhaps I should just create a new one and try again? [21:19] I just regenerated my key, uplaoded it, and it still doesn't let me in [21:19] I'm not very suse whether bzr uses my key [21:20] It doesn't sue the standard name so I configured it in ~/.ssh/config [21:20] This worked until 4 hours ago though ^^ [21:21] Running ssh on bazaar.launchpad.net lets me in, but (of course) complains about missing shells on the server [21:21] So the problem must be with the ssh configuration === james_w` is now known as james_w [21:29] Works again .... obviously ssh wasn't happy with the config anymore :/ [23:44] 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.