[03:31] <madjesta> hi there
[03:42] <wgrant> madjesta: Hi.
[03:48] <madjesta> hey wgrant
[03:48] <madjesta> sup?
[03:49] <madjesta> lp is back :)
[03:51] <wgrant> madjesta: It was down?
[04:37] <madjesta> yes
[04:57] <TNorris> If I begin a project as open-source, then later want to opt into a dual license (like MySQL), would there be any problems or legal concerns I should be aware of?
[04:59] <wgrant> TNorris: It gets very complicated if there are multiple copyright holders.
[04:59] <wgrant> Because you need agreement from all of them.
[04:59] <wgrant> And that may not be forthcoming in this case.
[05:00] <TNorris> So would I just have to start the project using a dual license?
[05:00] <mkanat> One solution there is to get copyright assignment.
[05:01] <mkanat> TNorris: Or get copyright assignment in writing from every contributor.
[05:01] <wgrant> mkanat: Right, I think that's the only way it could work.
[05:01] <mkanat> TNorris: The FSF has a form that they use for that, I think.
[05:01] <TNorris> Thanks. All the legal stuff blows my mind.
[05:02] <wgrant> That's the point of legal stuff.
[05:02] <mkanat> Hahaha.
[05:02] <wgrant> But basically, to relicense you need agreement from all copyright holders.
[05:02] <wgrant> And the easiest way to get that is to ensure there's just one such holder -- you.
[05:03] <mkanat> This is why every time I've thought about relicensing my projects, I just dropped the idea after 5 seconds. :-)
[05:03] <mkanat> It'd be pretty amusing to try to get approval from everybody who's ever contributed to Bugzilla, for example.
[05:04] <TNorris> So, if I start with the dual license then anyone who contributes does so with the knowledge that their source may be used in a commercial project?
[05:04] <wgrant> Yes.
[05:10] <TNorris> have a link to the list of accepted licenses? can't find one.
[05:11] <wgrant> TNorris: There's a list on the project registration page, but there's probably another one somewhere.
[05:11]  * wgrant hunts.
[05:12] <TNorris> Thanks. Figured the same, but didn't want to start 'registration' before knowing what was available.
[05:12] <wgrant> https://help.launchpad.net/Legal/ProjectLicensing are the conditions.
[05:12] <wgrant> You can try it all out at https://staging.launchpad.net/ without doing anything permanent.
[05:18] <TNorris> Thanks for the info. I've been developing some db concepts and, out of desire to stick it to any patent trolls, want to get anything I can up and running.
[05:20] <TNorris> Problem is it's only conceptual and I don't have the programming experience to do too much.
[05:20] <TNorris> Been trying to create a prototype in MySQL, but programming procedures is really painful.
[05:21]  * TNorris cringes thinking about it.
[05:34] <TNorris> wgrant: Would it be possible to do a copyright assignment while leaving it open-source? To make it easier to transfer later...
[05:37] <wgrant> TNorris: Oh yes, of course. All of Canonical's projects do it, I think most FSF projects do too.
[05:39] <TNorris> Perfect. Simple human terms make it much easier to understand.
[05:40] <wgrant> TNorris: You'll have to look around for the best way to do it. I'm not sure of all the details.
[05:41] <wgrant> TNorris: But you don't have to work it out until somebody else wants to contribute.
[05:41] <TNorris> wgrant: Will do. Would that go as an additional license when creating a project on launchpad?
[05:42] <wgrant> TNorris: No.
[05:42] <wgrant> It's a separate issue.
[05:43] <TNorris> Okay. So from the looks of it, launchpad isn't concerned with that as a project pre-qualifier.
[05:43] <wgrant> That's correct.
[05:45] <TNorris> Great. Thanks again. Now to see if anyone even wants to contribute. :-)
[05:45] <wgrant> np
[05:45] <wgrant> Hopefully they will!
[06:03] <TNorris> wgrant: There a license you prefer over others?
[06:03] <wgrant> TNorris: Not really.
[06:05] <wgrant> TNorris: But the most common are likely to be those listed under 'Recommended open source licenses' on the project reg page.
[06:06] <TNorris> wgrant: Yea. Chose the GPLv3. Think I understand that one the best.
[06:07] <TNorris> Wow. Have a project, now I need to figure out how to manage it.
[10:30] <happyaron> upload rejected, why?
[10:30] <happyaron> after building my packages in PPA, it returns failed to upload
[10:31] <wgrant> happyaron: Link?
[10:31] <wgrant> There are a few reasons that happens; the upload log has details.
[10:31] <wgrant> Sometimes rather opaque details, but let's see.
[10:31] <happyaron> wgrant: here is the buildlog https://launchpad.net/~gmchess/+archive/ppa/+build/1175980/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.gmchess_0.20.2-1ppa~karmic2_BUILDING.txt.gz
[10:31] <wgrant> happyaron: The upload log is the relevant one.
[10:31] <wgrant> But I can find it from that.
[10:32] <happyaron> wgrant: http://paste.ubuntu.org.cn/38307
[10:32] <happyaron> do you mean this one sent to my email?
[10:33] <wgrant> happyaron: That one. It's on the web too, but they're the same.
[10:33] <wgrant> happyaron: Look at line 38 of that paste.
[10:33] <happyaron> wgrant: okay, I know what to do, thx
[10:34] <wgrant> happyaron: But you really shouldn't have to look through all of that.
[10:34]  * wgrant files a bug.
[10:34] <happyaron> ? what do you mean?
[10:35] <wgrant> happyaron: It should have been obvious from the email what went wrong, but the log is so long that it's useless.
[10:35] <wgrant> It should just give you line 38, basically.
[10:36] <happyaron> wgrant: the paste is what in that email, just copy-and-paste all content
[10:36] <wgrant> happyaron: Right. I'm saying that the email it sends you is buggy.
[10:36] <happyaron> hehe
[11:58] <kamalnandan> I hace a question regarding launchpad..
[11:58] <kamalnandan> on this webpage: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/InstallingSoftware
[11:59] <kamalnandan> whats the meaning of this line:
[11:59] <kamalnandan> Step 1: Copy the first line from the apt sources.list entries section of the PPA overview page.
[12:00] <kamalnandan> what is apt sources.list???
[12:02] <wgrant> kamalnandan: The two 'deb' and 'deb-src' lines in a box on a page like https://edge.launchpad.net/~wgrant/+archive/ppa
[12:04] <kamalnandan> wgrant: thanks..got it...perhaps, that is related to the software that needs to be installed..am i  right?
[12:04] <wgrant> kamalnandan: It identifies the PPA from which you want to install the software.
[12:05] <kamalnandan> wgrant..ok..
[12:46] <LCID_Fire> Hi.
[12:49] <LCID_Fire> Could someone give me a hint why my kernel package does not build for i386 (amd64 works though)? Log is http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30664328/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.linux-rt_2.6.31-2.2~sl1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[13:08] <geser> LCID_Fire: have you tried asking in #ubuntu-kernel? they should be more familiar with the kernel build process
[13:08] <LCID_Fire> geser: I'll try thanks
[14:53] <Amaranth> how do you link a branch to a bug report so you can see the branch from the bug report?
[14:53] <Amaranth> I swear I've seen bugs that do this
[15:01] <Amaranth> nevermind, it seems it just doesn't work like I thought
[15:01] <Amaranth> the branch did get linked, thanks anyway
[17:23] <kamalnandan> I was wondering how lauchpad helps in building packages for different versions..i mean what are the features of launchpad...
[18:48] <erichammond> I just spent 8 hours learning enough about bazaar, Debian packaging, and Launchpad to get to the point where I am able to apt-get install a package containing a simple command and man page from my PPA.
[18:49] <erichammond> I have some questions which may show gaping holes in the knowledge I picked up, but pointers to docs or examples would be appreciated.
[18:51] <erichammond> First question: I would like to publish this package for dapper, hardy, intrepid, jaunty, karmic, but attempts to upload it to each result in a rejection that "you cannot upload the same version within the same distribution".
[18:52] <erichammond> What is the recommended methodology for maintaining a package in multiple releases?
[18:53] <erichammond>  Do I need to add a new version to changelog, build the source package again, and upload to each suite?
[18:53] <erichammond> Are there tools to help with this?
[18:54] <beuno> erichammond, are you trying to upload a version of a package already available in Ubuntu?
[18:55] <erichammond> beuno: No, this is a simple script I created.  I'd like to use Launchpad to make it available to Ubuntu users.
[18:56] <beuno> erichammond, so it lets you upload it once, and then rejects for the other versions?
[18:58] <beuno> you should be able to upload the same version for all series
[18:58] <beuno> look at: https://edge.launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/ppa
[18:58] <beuno> for loggerhead
[18:58] <beuno> I uploaded the same version
[18:58] <erichammond> beuno: Here's the error: "The source runurl - 0.1-4 is already accepted in ubuntu/dapper and you cannot upload the same version within the same distribution. You have to modify the source version and re-upload."
[18:58] <erichammond> Perhaps I'm not specifying the different suite correctly.
[18:58] <beuno> erichammond, that would be my guess
[18:59] <beuno> are you changing it in the change log?
[19:02] <erichammond> Based on my reading of https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading#Using%20packages%20from%20other%20distributions I thought I could simply specify several different PPAs, each with its own "incoming = ~esh/ppa/ubuntu/jaunty" or /karmic etc.
[19:02] <erichammond> I was hoping to not have to modify the source package I had built, but upload the same source package to multiple suites.
[19:03] <james_w> that's not possible
[19:03] <erichammond> clarification: specify several different PPAs in $HOME/.dput.cf
[19:03] <james_w> due to the way apt archives work you would have different files requiring the same names on disk
[19:04] <james_w> which isn't possible
[19:04] <james_w> launchpad then rejects the uploads of the same version for this reason
[19:04] <james_w> the usual way to fix this is to change the version and series in debian/changelog and build and upload multiple times
[19:04] <erichammond> james_w: Got it, thanks.
[19:05] <james_w> it is possible to do it by copying binary packages around inside launchpad, but this can often not be what you want, due to differing versions of dependencies in each series etc.
[19:05] <erichammond> When you say "change the version and series" do you mean "modify the top entry" or "add a new entry at the top"?
[19:05] <james_w> either works fine
[19:06] <james_w> it is usual to append ~hardy1 ~intrepid1 etc. to the versions
[19:06] <erichammond> ah.  That makes sense.
[19:06] <james_w> this makes the versions increase with the series, which is a desirable property
[19:06] <erichammond> I didn't want to imply that certain versions had more recent code than others.
[19:06] <james_w> there is a tool called "autoppa" that may help with automating this, but it does other things as well
[19:07] <james_w> I haven't used it in anger
[19:08] <dhillon-v10> hi everyone
[19:11] <lfaraone> Does launchpad have the ability to change the UI language?
[19:11] <erichammond> beuno: I'm catching up to what you pointed out with loggerhead versioning.  How did you specify the same source file for different suites?
[19:12] <lfaraone> (ie. if spanish were my first language, could I use LP itself in es?)
[19:12] <beuno> lfaraone, it does not
[19:12] <beuno> erichammond, re-uploaded after changing the changelog
[19:15] <erichammond> beuno: So I see that the +sourcepub numbers are different for hardy/intrepid/jaunty, but when I click through to each of them, they are all pointing at the same loggerhead_1.10-1.diff.gz, which itself contains only one version of the changelog ("intrepid").
[19:16] <erichammond> Seems like it's not doing quite what you told it to do, but is doing what you want it to do.
[19:16] <erichammond> I.e., you're uploading a changed source package but it's using the original one.
[19:18] <beuno> erichammond, ah, sorry
[19:18] <beuno> what I did is copy them across, as james_w (hi!) mentioned
[19:18] <beuno> but that's because I knew that dependencies weren't a problem
[19:20] <erichammond> beuno, james_w: Cool.  My dependency is "wget", so I'm pretty sure I'm going to be ok with the "copying binary packages around inside launchpad" approach for now.  Can you point me in the direction where I can find that rope to hang myself?
[19:23] <beuno> erichammond, on the top right of the file list
[19:23] <beuno> it says "copy packages"
[19:26] <erichammond> beuno: Thanks.  Works like a charm.
[19:27] <erichammond> It would be nice if there were a command line or API for this.  I like to automate builds and releases so I don't have to go point and click repetitive tasks.
[19:28] <erichammond> I suppose I could whip something up with WWW:: Mechanize :)
[19:29] <beuno> erichammond, not sure if there's a launchpad API for this
[19:29] <beuno> but probably
[19:30] <beuno> https://help.launchpad.net/API/
[19:30] <beuno> if not, Launchpad's open source, you can provide a patch to export that to the API  :)
[19:40] <erichammond> beuno, james_w: Thanks again for the excellent support.  I'm off to pick up my son from soccer practice.
[19:43] <erichammond> In case you're curious, here's what I have so far: https://launchpad.net/runurl and https://launchpad.net/~alestic/+archive/ppa
[19:52] <beuno> erichammond, welcome to Launchpad  :)
[21:19] <tritium> Hello.  I uploaded a package to my PPA, which was accepted.  I realized there was an omission in the changelog, so I fixed the omission, deleted the packages from my PPA, and tried to re-upload.  However, I keep getting an error stating that the version I'm trying to upload already exists.
[21:21] <ianto> Hello, are there any launchpad admins who can assist in changing the admin of a dead translation team? I've tried to email him but he has been inactive since '06 on lp
[21:23] <ianto> Namely https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-l10n-cy
[21:25] <tritium> Hmm, the repository *had* the packages in it, even after I tried to delete them, but they appear to have been removed recently.  I will try uploading again.  Thanks!
[21:26] <tritium> Nope, it's still insisting I change the source version.
[21:36] <ianto> When someone returns, markjones is here in place of me to take over the translation team as I have to leave now
[21:36] <ianto> As he will be the future admin iff the decision is taken ^
[21:41] <idnar> what does selecting "resubmit" mean when writing a review comment on a merge proposal?
[21:45] <geser> tritium: even if you delete them LP knows about the version and don't let you upload it again, you have to increase it
[22:50] <tritium> geser: ok, thanks
[23:37] <fta> wgrant, just read your answer, i don't understand why providing stats for daily ppas would be a privacy issue? it's no different from any other ppa
[23:40] <wgrant> fta: You suggested that apt include a machine-specific identification token.
[23:40] <wgrant> fta: The problem with daily PPAs is that not everybody is going to download every version.
[23:40] <wgrant> For slower PPAs, you can get a very good estimate of the number of users by looking at how many downloaded each version.
[23:41] <wgrant> So to get a good estimate for daily PPAs, you need to be able to consistently identify the client machine, and that's impossible without sparking an outrage.
[23:41] <fta> wgrant, i don't expect anyone to try *all* the builds
[23:42] <fta> i'm not even upgrading everyday myself, far from it
[23:42] <wgrant> fta: And that's the problem.
[23:42] <fta> why?
[23:42] <wgrant> If everybody upgraded daily, there would be no problem.
[23:43] <wgrant> Because the number of users of a package is the number that downloaded any particular version -- every user downloads every version.
[23:43] <wgrant> All of my PPAs can get reliable user counts, because it's rare that a version is there for less than a week.
[23:43] <wgrant> So every user gets every version.
[23:44] <fta> well, no
[23:44] <fta> let me find an example..
[23:46] <fta> I've split ffmpeg away from chromium 3 to 4 weeks ago
[23:46] <fta> chromium-browser                 10127   0.84%       819    4454    4853       1
[23:46] <wgrant> tritium: Packages aren't removed immediately; they will be removed within an hour for manual deletions, or 24 hours (I think) if they were just superseded. You can never upload the same version again.
[23:46] <fta> chromium-codecs-ffmpeg            4348   0.36%       752       0    3596       0
[23:46] <fta> chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree     476   0.04%        94       0     382       0
[23:46] <wgrant> Hm.
[23:46] <wgrant> Interesting.
[23:46] <fta> chromium-browser now has a Dep of chromium-codecs-ffmpeg | chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree
[23:46] <wgrant> Yep.
[23:47] <wgrant> Maybe people just download it from the web UI... hmm.
[23:47] <fta> so chromium-codecs-ffmpeg + chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-nonfree should be equal to chromium-browser after a week or so, it's far from that
[23:47] <wgrant> Or they decide they're not interested, and disable the PPA, but don't remove the package.
[23:47] <wgrant> It would be nice to track downloads through the web UI too, but that's much harder.
[23:48] <fta> http://www.sofaraway.org/ubuntu/tmp/chromium-popcon-6.png
[23:48] <fta> i don't know if i'm loosing people, probably, but the trend is still up
[23:48] <wgrant> Yep, saw that impressive graph yesterday.
[23:49] <wgrant> It would be very interesting to compare that to download stats.
[23:49] <fta> indeed, that's why i touched the bug
[23:51] <wgrant> Interest timing, given that I partly implemented the backend yesterday.
[23:52] <fta> would raw stats be possible? (the last part of my comment)
[23:52] <wgrant> No idea.
[23:52] <fta> I want to play with the chromium numbers to see what information i can extract
[23:55] <markjones_> hi, ianto sent me here as i am to take over the running of the Welsh Translation team, and to become the future admin, should a decision is made