[01:23] <virtuald> someone have to make unsubscribing from bugs by email possible, it's annoying to different other people trying all the time
[01:24] <virtuald> to see different people trying to unsubscribe by email*
[01:28] <virtuald> or maybe gmail just showed me a bunch of old emails i thought i had deleted
[02:45] <PATX> why are the blue print "white boards" called that? i see no resemblance...
[02:49] <wgrant> PATX: It's a thing you scribble notes on.
[02:49] <PATX> ah
[02:49] <PATX> now i sees
[03:16] <exarkun> Service Temporarily Unavailable
[03:17] <exarkun> The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.
[03:18] <lifeless> is that on bazaar.launchpad.net ?
[03:18] <lifeless> if so, hit f5
[03:18] <lifeless> or ctrl-r or your fav thing for that
[03:18] <exarkun> It is apparently on help.ubuntu.com
[03:19] <exarkun> Not that I have any interest at all in being on help.ubuntu.com
[03:19] <lifeless> indeed
[03:19] <lifeless> let me see
[03:19] <exarkun> But that's one of the places I have to go if I want to report a bug against Ubuntu these days, isn't it
[03:19] <exarkun> Man I get grumpy so easily.
[03:19] <lifeless> if you're not using 'ubuntu-bug', and didn't bookmark the workaround for non bug-control folk, yes.
[03:20] <lifeless> ok, something is naffed
[03:21] <wgrant> It's slow, but working, for me.
[03:21] <exarkun> Another 503 here.
[03:21] <lifeless> wgrant: 503 for ajmitch here; very slow for me
[03:22] <exarkun> I'll run report-bug, maybe.
[03:22] <lifeless> I've asked in our is channel, will phone if noone answers shortly
[03:22] <lifeless> launchpad itself i s ok
[03:22] <exarkun> Wow, it's not even installed.
[03:22] <wgrant> exarkun: ubuntu-bug.
[03:22] <exarkun> Ah
[03:22] <lifeless> report-bug goes to debian, and for added hilarity we didn't reuse the command line name
[03:22]  * exarkun boggles at the initial choice presented.
[03:23] <wgrant> reportbug is still useful for reporting bugs to Debian.
[03:23] <wgrant> exarkun: You probably want 'ubuntu-bug somepackage'
[03:23] <exarkun> Yea, got it now.  Thanks.
[03:23] <exarkun> Oh no.
[03:23] <exarkun> It stole focus right when I tried to hit return to send that message.
[03:23] <exarkun> So I told it to do something, but I don't know what.
[03:24] <exarkun> Hooray for focus stealing applications, they're the most best.
[03:24] <wgrant> File that focus-stealing bug with 'ubuntu-bug apport' :P
[03:25] <lifeless> wgrant: no its not, it mails ubuntu-bugs
[03:25] <lifeless> wgrant: bts is useful
[03:25] <wgrant> lifeless: Not if you tell it to send to Debian instead.
[03:25] <lifeless> wgrant: we could still divert, honour the option and pass through
[03:26] <wgrant> lifeless: Perhaps. But it seems impolite to steal a name for a different tool.
[03:26] <wgrant> It has very few similarities.
[03:26] <lifeless> wgrant: the tool name is generic, for a generic platform local purpose
[03:27] <lifeless> wgrant: it would be like stealing the name 'cc' for the default compiler.
[03:27] <lifeless> that is, totally normal.
[03:27] <wgrant> lifeless: C compilers take vaguely similar arguments and behave very similarly.
[03:27] <wgrant> ubuntu-bug and reportbug do not.
[03:28] <lifeless> very few options are similar, and the behaviour varies wildly; the overall goal is the same.
[03:28] <lifeless> now, which case am I describing?
[03:28] <exarkun> "ubuntu-bug apport" doesn't seem to be viable
[03:28] <wgrant> exarkun: What do you mean?
[03:28] <exarkun> It offers to send several crash reports to the developers.  My options are to let it or to exit.
[03:28] <exarkun> But the crash reports have nothing to do with the apport bug I want to file.
[03:29] <lifeless> exarkun: really?
[03:29] <lifeless> the wiki seems happy again now
[03:29] <exarkun> Very really.
[03:30] <lifeless> sounds like you have two bugs to file
[03:30] <exarkun> I guess I could let it send the crash reports and then say "psych, the bug is really..."
[03:30] <wgrant> 'ubuntu-bug apport' works fine for me.
[03:30] <exarkun> wgrant: Maybe it behaves differently in the absence of crash logs?
[03:31]  * exarkun starts writing down the bug report stack so he doesn't miss anything
[03:31] <mzz> heh, I went to a similar drill a little while ago, including launchpad oopsing on one of my crash reports
[03:32] <mzz> it was fun! I think I was up to 4 reports by the time I was done
[03:36] <exarkun> Ah, I think "ubuntu-bug apport" doesn't really do anything special
[03:36] <exarkun> The send crash report dialog that confused me must be the one that I unintentionally instantly dismissed when I ran "ubuntu-bug firefox"
[03:54] <pwolanin> fyi, https://help.launchpad.net/ seems to be down or borked
[03:54] <pwolanin> I get 502 or 503 responses
[10:54] <rdb> what's the correct way to have a package be built for multiple distributions (hardy, jaunty, karmic etc)
[11:31] <maxb> rdb: It requires separate sourceful uploads with different version numbers targetted at each
[11:31] <rdb> maxb, hrm, that sounds terribly clumsy
[11:32] <maxb> rdb: Well, fundamentally, you're doing multiple builds, which requires the allocation of multiple different version numbers.
[11:32] <rdb> so, e.g. version 2.3-1 in hardy, 2.3-2 in intrepid, etc
[11:32] <rdb> like that?
[11:33] <maxb> rdb: It's clearer IMO if you, e.g. upload 2.3-1 to karmic, and then model the earlier series as backports: 2.3-1~jaunty1, 2.3-1~hardy1
[11:33] <rdb> copying a package with "rebuild" option doesn't seem to work
[11:33] <rdb> maxb, ah, k - thanks for the info
[11:33] <maxb> yes, because you're effectively asking it to rebuild the same version, and it won't let you overwrite the previous binaries
[11:34] <rdb> ah
[11:34] <rdb> so they are stored as the same .deb in the pool?
[11:34] <maxb> rdb: another advantage of that style of version numbering is that if the build breaks on an older series, you can fix it up with e.g. a ~hardy2 upload
[11:34] <rdb> ah
[11:34] <rdb> excellent, thanks
[11:34] <rdb> so I'll just dput the karmic version, change the changelog entry, debuild and dput it again, change it again, etc
[11:35] <rdb> ?
[11:36] <maxb> the pool filenames are determined by ("ubuntu", "main", package, version, architecture) - there's no series involved
[11:36] <maxb> rdb: right, and if you want to save some upload time, you don't need to upload the .orig tarball more than once
[11:36] <rdb> ah, k. thanks for your help!
[11:36] <maxb> So you might like to debuild the subsequent builds with -sd
[11:37] <rdb> debuild automatically exludes the orig.tar.gz if it already has been uploaded, afaik
[11:37] <rdb> then it just makes a diff
[11:39] <wgrant> There are good reasons apart from disk location conflicts to force a new version -- what if I install your Jaunty package, then upgrade to Karmic? If they have the same version string, I won't get the Karmic version of your package.
[11:43] <rdb> is -0 the first version, or -1 ?
[12:11] <cl_2> hi guys! is there a way i can reach translators in launchpad? i want  to release in a few days and it would be nice if translations are completed before then.
[17:41] <Hobbestigrou> hi
[17:42] <Hobbestigrou> you know if i can find a ml or a irc channel about lanchpad in a french
[17:42] <Hobbestigrou> because my english is very bad
[18:02] <quentusrex> Does anyone know what the heck is up with the apport seahorse mailing list problem????
[18:02] <quentusrex> Please tell me someone is around...
[18:03] <quentusrex> Anyone who reported a bug about seahorse(empathy) is now getting 50+ emails
[18:12] <bibinou> hi
[18:12] <bibinou> how can I search for "Windows 7" in the launchpad bugs ?
[18:14] <bibinou> it seems to output the bugs with Windows and 7 and not the whole "Windows 7" phrase