=== vorian is now known as v === v is now known as vorian [02:07] for building a package with a different revision # (package revision #), where do we put htis information ? [02:07] launchpad doesn't let me re-upload under the same version #... [02:07] I'd rather not bump my version #... [02:07] jldupont: the version number is specified in debian/changelog [02:07] PLEASE help! [02:08] he just did [02:08] mwhudson: ok, I'll try. thanks [02:08] jldupont: if you changed something, you have to change the version number, them's the rules [02:08] It's not the same version, so it should not have the same version number. [02:08] jldupont: if you just changed the packaging info though, you'd usually change the part after the '-' in the version number [02:08] I just need to re-package because I screwed up something. [02:08] the codebase is the same. [02:08] or add a part after the '-' [02:08] I just messed up the package... not the source. [02:09] right [02:09] so make the new package 1.0-1jldupont1 or something [02:09] mwhudson: I give it a try. thanks [02:09] great. [02:09] wgrant and maxb know far more than me about good taste in version numbers though :-) [02:10] :-) [02:10] jldupont: Also, they're not NMUs. [02:10] jldupont: It looks like you are erroneously building 'native' packages [02:10] And you really do wnat to make them non-nativ.e [02:10] How do I fix that? [02:11] tintian was complaining about not seeing NMU [02:11] so I just stuck NMU [02:11] So you've got your http://erlang-dbus.googlecode.com/files/erlang-dbus-0.3.zip ... now it's slightly more complicated as it's not a tarball [02:12] maxb: no no [02:12] So first you repack it into erlang-dbus-0.3.tar.gz, since upstream don't give you one of those [02:12] the stuff on GC is not up to date [02:12] I am building locally ... no upload to GC [02:12] For manual review of translations, is a waiting time of one week worrying? The docs say "few days" so it may be okay and I wouldn't pester the admins. [02:12] I can do the full cycle to Launchpad with no issue [02:12] ....yet you are using the same version number as that [02:12] yes [02:12] I mean the codebase is 0.3 [02:13] Right [02:13] just I messed up the packaging part [02:13] So you take your erlang-dbus-0.3.tar.gz [02:13] yes [02:13] and you rename it to erlang-dbus_0.3.orig.tar.gz, following dpkg conventions for an upstream tarball [02:13] well, no [02:14] I needed to change debian/changelog [02:14] and then you set the version number in debian/changelog to 0.3-something [02:14] I am going thourhg a cycle now... I'll update you guys in a sec [02:14] 0jldupont1 is a good value for something [02:14] This issue comes up to frequently that I think we need to stick an FAQ somewhere. [02:15] And then, when you build the debian source package, you get a erlang-dbus_0.3-0jldupont1.diff.gz containing the packaging changes relative to the .orig.tar.gz [02:16] did all that... waiting for accept/reject from Launchpad now... [02:16] BTW, I am packaging another project... a dependency to erlang-dbus... epapi [02:16] http://epapi.googlecode.com/ [02:17] "Within Temptation"... those guys ROCK! [02:21] accepted !! thanks guys!! [02:23] err.... except you've not done what I said at all [02:23] You've just made a native package with a dash in its version [02:23] I wish dpkg didn't allow that [02:24] maxb: not sure what you mean. [02:24] newbie here... please explain. [02:24] You haven't done what I said about using an .orig.tar.gz [02:25] I just execute "debuild -S -sa" [02:25] like @cyphermox told me [02:26] I get epapi_0.7-2_source.changes [02:26] jldupont: do you know what a 'native package' is? [02:26] epapi_0.702.tar.gz [02:26] no I do not know what a "native package" is. [02:26] newbie here,,, sorry [02:26] jldupont: debian packaging is not simple [02:27] for better or for worse [02:27] (and I thought that Python PyPi packaging was tricky) [02:27] trying to pretend it is doesn't really work [02:27] but it's not that bad either [02:27] (thank god packaging extension for Google CHrome is much simpler) [02:28] jldupont: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide is probably a good place to start [02:28] so, what's a native package and why can't I do one? [02:29] the idea of debian packaging is to take an upstream release [02:29] this is the orig.tar.gz [02:29] ok [02:29] and produce a diff that adds the packagingn information [02:29] (the .diff.gz) [02:29] ... but I am the "upstream"... that's my stuff [02:30] if you don't do this, if the packaging is in the upstream tarball, then it's a native packaging [02:30] jldupont: it's still the debian way to separate upstream and packaging information [02:31] hmm... I am closer to understanding... but not quite. [02:31] the sutff in epapi.googlecode.com [02:31] is my stuff. I am just trying to package it [02:31] for easier distribution. [02:31] i'm not really an expert [02:31] It's still cleaner to separate the upstream code and packaging. Plus it makes for better version numbers. [02:32] The point is: either the package is being built for Debian/Ubuntu itself *only* - in which case there is no separation between upstream and distro - and this is a native package - e.g. dpkg itself [02:32] Or it's a piece of software that just happens to be being packaged for Debian/Ubuntu [02:32] maxb: right. [02:33] of course I'll consider packaging for Fedora. [02:33] In which case, one upstream version, 0.7, may very well be packaged many times - e.g. for hardy, jaunty, karmic etc. [02:33] oh [02:33] I think I understand now. [02:33] what you are suggesting is that I name my pakacge better: [02:34] epapi_0.7-2_jaunty [02:34] Hence a dash has a special meaning in a debian version number: it separates the upstream part of the version from the packaging part of the version [02:34] or something like it? [02:34] I am strating to grok it [02:34] uhoh, no, an underscore is a separator for other things, you don't want one of those in a version number [02:35] so, epapi_0.7-2jaunty then? [02:35] Reasonable [02:35] and when I get to karmic, I do epapi_0.7-2karmic [02:35] -2 sounds like a lie, however. [02:35] ?? [02:36] oh [02:36] It should probably be -0, since -1 would be the first Debian version. [02:36] don't be too picky... newbie here [02:36] -2 conventionally implies it's derived from an official debian package [02:36] ah! [02:36] But with the current proliferation of repositories, sane versioning is becoming harder. [02:36] there is convention there too... I get it. [02:36] point me in the right direction. [02:36] and I am happy to oblige [02:36] Basically, it should start with a zero after the dash unless it's derived from a version in Debian [02:37] And ideally should be less than -0ubuntu1 [02:37] epapi_0.7-0jldupont-jaunty [02:37] So that if you get the package into Ubuntu, the official version will supersede the one in your PPA. [02:37] ok [02:37] So you could do 0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty1 [02:37] Fortunately, 'U' is late in the alphabet [02:37] I normally do -0ppa1, because 'wgrant' > 'ubuntu' :( [02:38] I see [02:38] I get it now... you guys rock!! [02:38] epapi_0.7-0jldupont-jaunty <-- but dashes are special, so that one would not do what you wanted it to [02:38] let me resubmit to Launchpad now... [02:39] jldupont: Your next problem is to deal with all the binary build artifacts that are messily included in the upstream tarball, and are not cleaned [02:39] yeah, I'll do epapi_0.7-0jldupont~jaunty1 [02:39] ? mess in the tarball ? [02:40] from where are you taking this??? the source tarball is not on GoogleCode... [02:40] it is only on my machine... at least the tarball I use for packaging to Launchpad that is. [02:41] the one you may probably see contains the right source code... but that's not the one I am working from to package here. [02:41] Having multiple tarballs with the same version number but different contents is a very bad idea. [02:42] granted... I am trying to move away from GC. [02:42] I'll clean up. [02:42] I'll point the main page on GC to the one on Launchpad. [02:42] Your hosting provider is irrelevant - there's still the concept of "the upstream tarball" which then gets packaged [02:43] maxb: yes [02:46] ok now... changes applied... shipped to launchpad... waiting. [02:47] What exact version did you upload? [02:48] epapi_0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty1 [02:48] I'll cancel the other one. [02:48] will be rejected because it's a lower version than the current publication [02:48] !@&#*!(@#& [02:49] so then, how about epapi_0.7-3jldupont1~jaunty1) ? [02:50] Launchpad should accept epapi_0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty1 if you delete the 0.7-2 first [02:50] I tried deleting stuff before... it seems there is a lag of many minutes... not fast enough... I want to get to bed at some point! [02:51] There won't be a problem here [02:51] As soon as you've done the deletion in the UI, it'll be happy to accept the new upload [02:52] maxb: are you working for Launchpad? [02:52] Even if the files don't disappear from disk until some time later [02:52] No. Just a contributor [02:52] I delete 0.7-2 ... can I dput now? [02:52] yes [02:52] done [02:53] ... will it go through now? [02:55] Is there a delay for ppa dependencies taking effect? [02:55] I'm a little confused and I'm hoping someone can help me out.. During UDS it was mentioned about LoCo teams creating and using roadmaps... [02:55] I don't believe so. It should take effect from the next build started after you reconfigure [02:55] In order to create a roadmap, am I correct that you need to create a project? [02:56] I've added some ppa deps to a ppa, uploaded a new package, I see the new package but it says it can't resolve [02:56] maxb: hm maybe the build started before, I could check [02:56] maxb: accepted! [02:56] I'll do anew upload but I'm pretty sure I had the deps before [02:56] mrooney: You can see the actual apt lines used for a particular build in the buildlog [02:57] I don't need to do anything special with the deps in debian/control right, just the package name I need from whatever archive ends up satisfying it? [02:57] yes [02:57] What's the package? [02:58] FFEMTcJ: 'roadmap'? What's one of those? [02:59] https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/encouraging-team-roadmaps-and-planning maxb look at that [02:59] When the build machine builds, would it pull in an old cache or not? [02:59] sorry.. not roadmap.. blueprint [02:59] sorry maxb [02:59] The specific ppa is ppa:elementaryart/elementarydesktop [03:00] wrote what i was looking at not what i was thinkin about [03:00] Right... a blueprint is a Launchpad thing, which may point at an arbitrary URL, which might be a roadmap [03:01] And yes, blueprints need to be associated with a project or distro [03:01] Hm I see the ppas listed in http://launchpadlibrarian.net/35903735/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.elementary-desktop_0.1-0ubuntu1~ppa4_FULLYBUILT.txt.gz [03:01] ok maxb.. thanks [03:01] maxb: Synaptic complains that my package can't be authenticated... what should I do? [03:03] maxb: I thought Launchpad was taking care of all the authentication bits. [03:03] mrooney: yes, that's where to look [03:04] jldupont: I guess you haven't trusted your own ppa then [03:04] where do I get the key file? [03:05] I mean, this must be made public, no? [03:06] sorry again for the newbie questions... [03:07] ok... got it I think: http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xEC7AE4B5E4179E846B8AE0CF1A1E287CA6E4A2FB&op=index [03:07] maxb: am I responsible for displaying this info to the public? [03:08] or does Launchpad somehow exposes this? [04:19] i have used dput to upload a package,and sucess.then i can't see it on my ppa.why [04:21] wzssyqa: You'll receive an email of acceptance or rejection within five minutes, as long as you've signed the package with a key attached to your Launchpad account. [04:23] wgrant: o ,i have not attatched my key to launchpad [04:24] wzssyqa: You'd best do that and upload again. [04:24] wgrant: o ,thx [04:27] wgrant: Launchpad could not import your OpenPGP key why? [04:29] have you uploaded your key to a key server? [04:29] i don't know [04:30] wzssyqa: 'gpg --send-key' [04:30] gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --send-key YOURKEYID [04:32] argl [04:32] argl? [04:32] upload sucess [04:32] https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/UploadErrors -> "# The signing key that you used is not known to Launchpad, you need to add it to your account" -> links to https://edge.launchpad.net/+me/+editsshkeys [04:35] which is actually wrong in two ways [04:36] still, yay for wikis [05:13] mwhudson: if i want to make it for several distro ,how to edit changlog? [05:13] wzssyqa: you can't [05:14] the usual practice is to upload it to the oldest appropriate distroseries and then copy it to the newer ones [05:14] mwhudson: thx [05:22] mwhudson: Unable to find distroseries: Karmic why? [05:22] wzssyqa: maybe it's case sensitive? [05:22] karmic [05:32] mwhudson: PPA uploads must be signed by an Ubuntu Code of Conduct signer. omg [05:32] yep [05:32] only nice people pls [05:33] mwhudson: i can't understand [05:34] sorry [05:34] you have to sign the ubuntu code of conduct before you can use a ppa [05:34] the ubuntu code of conduct very roughly says "don't be a nasty person" [05:35] wzssyqa: https://edge.launchpad.net/codeofconduct [05:55] <[BIOS]dnivra> i tried opening launchpad.net and i keep getting server is down [05:55] <[BIOS]dnivra> i tried doing this again after 5 minutes and same problem [05:55] <[BIOS]dnivra> is the server down or something else is wrong? [05:55] <[BIOS]dnivra> the page asked me to inform on this channel [05:56] <[BIOS]dnivra> is the server down? [05:56] it seems down [05:56] spm: ^^ [05:56] getting 503 errors on ubuntu one login even [05:56] <[BIOS]dnivra> does this happen often? [05:57] [BIOS]dnivra: No. I haven't seen it broken like this in a very long time. [05:57] woulden't know, i just got back on linux yesterday after being away for almost a year [05:57] <[BIOS]dnivra> ok [05:57] <[BIOS]dnivra> raziel420: :O [05:58] <[BIOS]dnivra> hey I am able to ping the server, doesn't it mean the server is still up [05:58] i'm surprised myself, it took a year for xp to finnaly die on this machine, either i'm getting better at anti-internet or the other people who use my computer are finnnaly listening, plus tiny xp was actually the best xp i've ever used [05:59] i don't think your actually pinging the server, i think your pinging a backup server, which seems to only have the offline message [06:00] and yes the ip is probably the same, but the mac addy is probably different [06:01] <[BIOS]dnivra> hmmm ok [06:01] i couldn't get launchpad to work either, i gave up for now [06:01] Is it maintenance? [06:02] <[BIOS]dnivra> it's up again [06:02] [BIOS]dnivra: i'm not completely certain, but a load balancing cluster is likely for launchpad [06:03] There are a lot of machines behind the scenes, yes. [06:03] it's back [06:03] <[BIOS]dnivra> true [06:03] <[BIOS]dnivra> lot of machines drive these servers [06:04] i was trying the PPA Search works ok now [06:05] of course sadly, it's also likely that someone tripped over a power cord, and they all managed to go down at once, except the dns and backup "offline" page [06:05] <[BIOS]dnivra> raziel420: he he he [06:06] i know i'd have those either at a completely different location, or at least with a ups and a seperate plug [06:07] <[BIOS]dnivra> i think a completely different location should be the ideal one: no chance of it going down unless someone went with that intention [06:07] but it was probably maintnance, since it was just a few minutes [06:08] the problem with a different location is response time for the balancing dns [06:09] well i'm out [06:31] mwhudson: if have change my file ,how to re-upload? === sale_ is now known as sale === henninge-afk is now known as henninge [09:10] For manual review of translations, is a waiting time of one week worrying? The docs say "few days" so it may be okay and I wouldn't pester the admins. [09:15] This week was the UDS, so a substantial amount of the devs were in Dallas discussing, rather than developing. [09:15] That could explain your delay. === ursula_ is now known as Ursinha [17:24] i just added my ssh key to launchpad, however when i try to get some source i get the following: http://www.pastie.org/708981 === qense_ is now known as qense === ursula is now known as Ursinha [18:29] Hey, anyone around familiar with PPA dependencies on other PPAs? I added some last night, did two rebuilds, and this morning I still have unsatisfiable deps [18:29] which go away if I add the PPA deps myself to my machine [18:30] I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong [18:40] mrooney: I don't know much, but maybe you have to add the -dev packages as well? Maybe you already did that, just the only thing I can come up with. [18:41] hm, I don't think, it builds fine on LP [18:45] are those only the deps for building the package? does the user manually have to add the required PPAs? [18:46] I think that might be how it works [18:53] anyway if someone reads this and knows, please ping to me to confirm or deny [19:00] mrooney: if your PPA need packages from other PPAs, the user needs to have both enabled on his system [19:05] geser: ah okay, I was really confused, I thought PPA dependencies handled that, it took me two days banging my head against this to realize that only works for launchpad builds [19:07] Does Launchpad have Code Review? [19:07] That's based around patches and not Code Hosting? [19:08] Because some of us actually like to use Git or Mercurial. [19:08] is it possible to publish the same package for more than 1 distribution? (provided it works of course) e.g. Package X for jaunty & Karmic [19:12] anyone?? [19:18] jldupont: you can copy a package between series [19:20] I guess I need to change debian/changelog and go through all the cycle with Launchpad anyhow, right? [19:27] only if you want to do a proper upload [19:27] for copying packages between series you can use the webinterface [19:28] geser: thanks. [19:54] Do I need a separate PPA per serie? i.e. PPA X1 for Jaunty, PPA X2 for Karmic? [19:54] no [19:54] @tsimpson: I guess debian/changelog suffice to Launchpad then./ [19:54] right? [19:54] yeah [19:55] tsimpson: cool. thanks. [19:55] you can also upload to a specific series [19:55] hmmm... checking dput options... [19:56] you use "incoming = ~/ppa/ubuntu/" [19:56] you can call it something like [my-ppa-] [19:56] then just: dput my-ppa-jaunty file.changes [19:56] in dput.conf I guess [19:57] right? [19:57] yeah [19:57] ok, thanks for bearing with me... newbie to PPA here. [19:57] but the changelog way is probably better anyway, as you can't upload the same version of a package to different releases [19:58] got it. [19:58] right now, in my dput.cf, I've got "www.wampserver.com/en/" [19:58] sorry... [19:59] incoming = ~jldupont/jldupont/ubuntu/ [19:59] is this even remotely correct?? [19:59] I think I have just cut&pasted from a tutorial .... [19:59] it's ~//ubuntu/ [20:00] ok, check. [20:00] ... and the series is specified in debian/changelog [20:00] I get it now. [20:00] yes [20:00] Now, let's say I want to pbuild for different series, [20:01] but if you upload to "~jldupont/jldupont/ubuntu/karmic/" that will override what's in the changelog [20:01] ok, got it. [20:01] then I am not forced to go through a full build cycle... [20:02] except I have to a package name more generic... [20:02] i.e. not with the series in the filename... [20:02] right? [20:02] right now, I've got "epapi_0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty2 [20:03] wait, I thought the "series" parameter needs to appear in debian/changelog... [20:04] it does, you're just changing the version of the package so the binaries (.debs) don't conflict with each other [20:04] you'll have to build for each series you want unfortunately, so you'd need to change the version to "epapi_0.7-0jldupont1~karmic1" for example, then debuild -S and dput the changes [20:04] ... but once I fiddle with debian/changelog, I have to go through the full pbuilder cycle, no?? [20:05] you don't pbuild anything [20:05] launchpad does the building [20:05] you just upload the source (the .orig.tar.gz, .dsc, .diff.gz and .changes) [20:05] I know pbuild isn't stricly required... I just want to make sure it builds on my side [20:05] before waiting many hours for Launchpad... [20:05] I guess if I am confident enough, I skip the pbuild step... [20:06] unless you want to test build on every release, let LP do it for you :) [20:06] right. [20:07] I just need to be patient I guess. [20:07] for pbuilder, I need to use a separate VM per series I guess... right? [20:07] a separate chroot, yeah [20:08] separate chroot... hmmm... how do I do that...? [20:08] I followed https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto [20:09] you need to create each one with something like "pbuilder --create [--basetgz karmic-base.tgz --distribution karmic" [20:09] oh yes... sorry... makes sense. [20:09] cool... thanks again. [20:09] :) [20:10] and when I do "pbuilder build", [20:10] pbuilder will switch to the appropriate chroot environment? [20:10] no, you have to do that manually ;) [20:10] based on what is in the .dsc file? [20:11] pbuilder --build --basetgz karmic-base.tgz --distribution karmic [20:11] it's a pain [20:11] that's my line in my makefile: @cd "/tmp/$(PRJ)/" && sudo pbuilder build *.dsc [20:11] I don't see a reference to a series... [20:13] tsimpson: are you sure you need the "--distribution" switch? [20:13] this is my ~/.pbuilderrc: http://paste.ubuntu.com/324756/ [20:14] you may not, but I tend to use it for the above [20:14] then I don't need to worry about the --basetgz part [20:14] or I can just do "sudo pbuilder --build ../.dsc" and it'll figure out the distribution for me [20:14] (from inside the source dir) [20:16] that means that when I do "pbuilder create", I have to specify a $DIST-base.tgz, right? [20:17] with that .pbuilderrc you should just have to do "sudo pbuilder --create --distribution " and it'll do the rest [20:17] the name of the basetgz is figured out from the distribution [20:17] yes right... unlike what they say in the tutorial then.... [20:17] sudo pbuilder create --debootstrapopts --variant=buildd [20:18] yeah, if you don't specify a distribution, it'll use your current one (the output from "lsb_release --short --codename") [20:18] right. [20:19] it just makes my life that little bit easier :) [20:19] cool. [20:19] I want that too ;-) [20:22] oopppsss... just doing "sudo pbuilder --create --distribution karmic" on my jaunty machine doesn't work... [20:22] help ! [20:23] E: No such script: /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/karmic [20:24] help! [20:25] install debootstrap from -backports [20:25] or just add a symlink manually [20:25] they all point to /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/gutsy [20:25] nice to know ! [20:25] is that what you do, just symlink? [20:26] ls -l /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/karmic [20:26] lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 5 2009-10-30 02:42 /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/karmic -> gutsy [20:26] so just "sudo -i" then "cd /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/; ln -s gutsy karmic" [20:26] done [20:27] done... cool! [20:31] when creating own PPA, I don't see a button to "activate" it? Do I have to wait for the first build? Is there a way to see a status of the build? [20:31] it activates itself when it is built correctly. [20:32] can I see any progress on the build or ETA until build starts? [20:32] tsimpson: don't you have a typo in your .pbuilderrc? DISTROBUTION ? [20:32] @Gandalfar: there is a link through your PPA homepage somewhere. [20:32] jldupont: ohh, thanks [20:32] ah [20:32] it showed up now! [20:33] excited :) [20:33] >> Pending (2505) , what does the number mean? [20:34] it is a "score"... there is a man page somewhere on LP. [20:34] i.e. package pending build. [20:34] ah [20:34] https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/BuildScores [20:34] I thought it's ETA :) [20:34] funny! [20:34] the higher the score, the earlier it'll build [20:35] maybe I should just do a binary upload [20:36] you can't [20:37] ahh, found the ETA :) [20:37] is there a robot for the common questions? [20:44] I am setting up a PPA. All has gone well until launchpad sends me the code of conduct I have to sign and send back. If I sign it and send it back I get a message that says the text is not the same as the code of conduct. If I send it unsigned I get a message that says contains no data. How might I fix this? [20:44] seems like a cut&paste error... [20:46] I have checked the text word for word in the pasted area before I submit [20:46] Lostinspace_46, did you paste the signature part also? [20:47] Gandalfar, Yes I did, that's when I get the "text is not the same" message [20:48] hmm, I wgeted the code .txt file and then ran the signature, cat-ed the result and copy/pasted using firefox [20:48] s/signature/gpg signing [20:49] have you imported your gpg signature? [20:50] and make sure you download from: https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct/1.0.1/+download [20:50] rather than copy + paste [20:51] Gandalfar, I did notice there is a begin and an end for the signature but only a begin for begin signed message. also the acs file won't open with "verify sigmature" [20:51] Yes i imported the sig [20:51]