| maxb | wgrant: I don't have ~launchpad/ppa but given it has nothing published for karmic, that shouldn't matter | 02:21 |
|---|---|---|
| maxb | meh | 02:21 |
| maxb | oh well, I can either treat this as cause to dig into the code, or I can treat those as known failures regradless and start trying to get some of my extant changes landed | 02:22 |
| wgrant | maxb: I have the ~launchpad/ppa's jaunty enabled. | 02:22 |
| wgrant | maxb: Let's see what I have installed from there... | 02:23 |
| maxb | hmm | 02:23 |
| maxb | lxml and setuptools updates, it looks like | 02:33 |
| wgrant | maxb: Something like that. It's hard to tell what's from which PPA. | 02:47 |
| wgrant | After activating those PPAs, I upgraded, installed python2.4 and python-celementtree, and built LP. | 02:47 |
| wgrant | And it all magically worked. | 02:47 |
| poolie | hello wgrant | 02:47 |
| wgrant | Hi poolie. | 02:47 |
| wgrant | poolie: That's a strange hostname for you... | 02:48 |
| poolie | mm | 02:50 |
| poolie | i'm at coscup.org | 02:50 |
| poolie | in Taipei | 02:50 |
| wgrant | poolie: Ahh. | 02:51 |
| wgrant | Nice new footer. | 06:19 |
| wgrant | Is launchpad-buildd still part of RF? The version there is rather old. I'm wondering because it doesn't work properly with karmic as a host, and it'd be best to fix a non-obsolete version... | 11:23 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: yes, it is (lib/canonical/buildd). It probably doesn't work for karmic as it is, I have a patch from Adam. | 12:46 |
| wgrant | cprov-afk: Right, I know it's there, but from what I've seen there have been a few changes in production since the version in LP. | 13:03 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: yes, 3 new versions IIRC. I'm pushing a branch, so you can check. | 13:04 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: lp:~cprov/launchpad/lp-buildd-karmic | 13:07 |
| wgrant | cprov-afk: Ah, excellent. Thanks. | 13:07 |
| wgrant | Everything else is now working perfectly on karmic. | 13:07 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: re. bug #413922, it does render correctly (somehow), right ? | 13:08 |
| mup | Bug #413922: "supported version of Ubuntu" link on ArchiveActivateView broken <Soyuz:In Progress by cprov> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/413922> | 13:08 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: it's just a misleading TAL instruction. | 13:08 |
| wgrant | cprov-afk: It renders a link to something like '/~person/<a href="https://launchpad.net/ubuntu>Ubuntu</a>'. | 13:09 |
| wgrant | So no, it doesn't work. | 13:09 |
| wgrant | edge is really out of date -- it was broken in the 3.0 migration. | 13:09 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: oh, f.. yes, edge is old. | 13:10 |
| wgrant | Really old. | 13:10 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: ha, staging is up. | 13:11 |
| wgrant | Barely.. | 13:12 |
| wgrant | The problem is indeed visible there. | 13:12 |
| cprov-afk | wgrant: right ... works for this specific prob. | 13:12 |
| wgrant | Along with a conflict between the 2.0 and 3.0 styles, which should be fixed once person-ppas is 3.0ised. | 13:13 |
| === cprov-afk is now known as faces | ||
| === faces is now known as cprov | ||
| * cprov hides somewhere. | 13:24 | |
| wgrant | I suspect this new lp-buildd will fail in a similarly obscure way, but let's see... | 13:25 |
| wgrant | cprov: Ah, interesting. That fixed the particularly confusing problem, although it still doesn't quite work without a patch. | 13:40 |
| wgrant | (dpkg-source's output changed recently. Debian's sbuild was patched to no longer parse its output 18 months ago, but this sbuild seems muuuch older than that.) | 13:41 |
| maxb | Why does the dev setup use two different IP addresses? It appears to just be in support of running bazaar.launchpad.dev on a separate IP - why is that? | 13:45 |
| wgrant | maxb: the bazaar vhost is completely different from the others. | 13:47 |
| wgrant | But it still needs SSL. | 13:47 |
| wgrant | And SSL doesn't do multiple vhosts on one IP address. | 13:47 |
| wgrant | (unless you use SNI, which Ubuntu doesn't support yet) | 13:47 |
| maxb | Why does the bazaar vhost need SSL? | 13:49 |
| maxb | http://bazaar.launchpad.net/ seems perfectly happy to talk to me | 13:49 |
| wgrant | Because it does in production, to protect cookies. | 13:49 |
| maxb | Oh, loggerheading of private branches? | 13:49 |
| wgrant | (for private codebrowse) | 13:49 |
| wgrant | Right. | 13:49 |
| * maxb is attempting to make | 13:50 | |
| maxb | oops | 13:50 |
| * maxb is attempting to make dev.lp.net/Running/RemoteAccess saner, and would be happy to drop the requirement for multiple IPs | 13:50 | |
| wgrant | Maybe in a release or two. | 13:50 |
| maxb | Well, dev.lp.net/Running/RemoteAccess is a bit of a hack anyway :-) | 13:51 |
| wgrant | Indeed. | 13:51 |
| wgrant | maxb: Still no luck with getting tests to pass? | 13:52 |
| maxb | Nope, I think it's dig-into-the-code time | 13:52 |
| wgrant | Damn. | 13:52 |
| maxb | I just need to decide whether I do that now, or just ignore those two tests and press on with landing some of the py2.5 changes I've already accumulated | 13:55 |
| maxb | Switching topics: Is there a statement from Canonical explaining its rationale in choice of license for Launchpad icing/images? | 13:56 |
| wgrant | kfogel might have mentioned it in a comment on a blog post, but I don't recall anything official. | 13:57 |
| wgrant | Although it's pretty obvious why. | 13:57 |
| maxb | Well, there's multiple aspects and it's not entirely obvious. | 13:57 |
| wgrant | That's true. I can think of two big ones. | 13:58 |
| maxb | For example, I'd love to use Malone for both non-profit private projects, and attempt to convince my company to use it. | 13:59 |
| maxb | Neither of those are ever going to be revenue stream for Canonical, nor damage Launchpad's cohesive one-place-for-OSS position | 13:59 |
| wgrant | The second could be a revenue stream, if companies get on the ooh-cloudy bandwagon. | 14:00 |
| maxb | If I can't do those, it would be nice to know why exactly :-) | 14:00 |
| maxb | My company will never buy into putting its bugtracking info on a 3rd party server | 14:00 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!