[02:07] <jldupont> for building a package with a different revision # (package revision #), where do we put htis information ?
[02:07] <jldupont> launchpad doesn't let me re-upload under the same version #...
[02:07] <jldupont> I'd rather not bump my version #...
[02:07] <mwhudson> jldupont: the version number is specified in debian/changelog
[02:07] <jldupont> PLEASE help!
[02:08] <maxb> he just did
[02:08] <jldupont> mwhudson: ok, I'll try. thanks
[02:08] <mwhudson> jldupont: if you changed something, you have to change the version number, them's the rules
[02:08] <wgrant> It's not the same version, so it should not have the same version number.
[02:08] <mwhudson> jldupont: if you just changed the packaging info though, you'd usually change the part after the '-' in the version number
[02:08] <jldupont> I just need to re-package because I screwed up something.
[02:08] <jldupont> the codebase is the same.
[02:08] <mwhudson> or add a part after the '-'
[02:08] <jldupont> I just messed up the package... not the source.
[02:09] <mwhudson> right
[02:09] <mwhudson> so make the new package 1.0-1jldupont1 or something
[02:09] <jldupont> mwhudson: I give it a try. thanks
[02:09] <jldupont> great.
[02:09] <mwhudson> wgrant and maxb know far more than me about good taste in version numbers though :-)
[02:10] <jldupont> :-)
[02:10] <wgrant> jldupont: Also, they're not NMUs.
[02:10] <maxb> jldupont: It looks like you are erroneously building 'native' packages
[02:10] <wgrant> And you really do wnat to make them non-nativ.e
[02:10] <jldupont> How do I fix that?
[02:11] <jldupont> tintian was complaining about not seeing NMU
[02:11] <jldupont> so I just stuck NMU
[02:11] <maxb> 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] <jldupont> maxb: no no
[02:12] <maxb> So first you repack it into erlang-dbus-0.3.tar.gz, since upstream don't give you one of those
[02:12] <jldupont> the stuff on GC is not up to date
[02:12] <jldupont> I am building locally ... no upload to GC
[02:12] <bronger> 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] <jldupont> I can do the full cycle to Launchpad with no issue
[02:12] <maxb> ....yet you are using the same version number as that
[02:12] <jldupont> yes
[02:12] <jldupont> I mean the codebase is 0.3
[02:13] <maxb> Right
[02:13] <jldupont> just I messed up the packaging part
[02:13] <maxb> So you take your erlang-dbus-0.3.tar.gz
[02:13] <jldupont> yes
[02:13] <maxb> and you rename it to erlang-dbus_0.3.orig.tar.gz, following dpkg conventions for an upstream tarball
[02:13] <jldupont> well, no
[02:14] <jldupont> I needed to change debian/changelog
[02:14] <maxb> and then you set the version number in debian/changelog to 0.3-something
[02:14] <jldupont> I am going thourhg a cycle now... I'll update you guys in a sec
[02:14] <maxb> 0jldupont1 is a good value for something
[02:14] <wgrant> This issue comes up to frequently that I think we need to stick an FAQ somewhere.
[02:15] <maxb> 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] <jldupont> did all that... waiting for accept/reject from Launchpad now...
[02:16] <jldupont> BTW, I am packaging another project... a dependency to erlang-dbus... epapi
[02:16] <jldupont> http://epapi.googlecode.com/
[02:17] <jldupont> "Within Temptation"... those guys ROCK!
[02:21] <jldupont> accepted !! thanks guys!!
[02:23] <maxb> err.... except you've not done what I said at all
[02:23] <maxb> You've just made a native package with a dash in its version
[02:23] <maxb> I wish dpkg didn't allow that
[02:24] <jldupont> maxb: not sure what you mean.
[02:24] <jldupont> newbie here... please explain.
[02:24] <maxb> You haven't done what I said about using an .orig.tar.gz
[02:25] <jldupont> I just execute "debuild -S -sa"
[02:25] <jldupont> like @cyphermox told me
[02:26] <jldupont> I get epapi_0.7-2_source.changes
[02:26] <mwhudson> jldupont: do you know what a 'native package' is?
[02:26] <jldupont> epapi_0.702.tar.gz
[02:26] <jldupont> no I do not know what a "native package" is.
[02:26] <jldupont> newbie here,,, sorry
[02:26] <mwhudson> jldupont: debian packaging is not simple
[02:27] <mwhudson> for better or for worse
[02:27] <jldupont> (and I thought that Python PyPi packaging was tricky)
[02:27] <mwhudson> trying to pretend it is doesn't really work
[02:27] <mwhudson> but it's not that bad either
[02:27] <jldupont> (thank god packaging extension for Google CHrome is much simpler)
[02:28] <mwhudson> jldupont: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide is probably a good place to start
[02:28] <jldupont> so, what's a native package and why can't I do one?
[02:29] <mwhudson> the idea of debian packaging is to take an upstream release
[02:29] <mwhudson> this is the orig.tar.gz
[02:29] <jldupont> ok
[02:29] <mwhudson> and produce a diff that adds the packagingn information
[02:29] <mwhudson> (the .diff.gz)
[02:29] <jldupont> ... but I am the "upstream"... that's my stuff
[02:30] <mwhudson> if you don't do this, if the packaging is in the upstream tarball, then it's a native packaging
[02:30] <mwhudson> jldupont: it's still the debian way to separate upstream and packaging information
[02:31] <jldupont> hmm... I am closer to understanding... but not quite.
[02:31] <jldupont> the sutff in epapi.googlecode.com
[02:31] <jldupont> is my stuff. I am just trying to package it
[02:31] <jldupont> for easier distribution.
[02:31] <mwhudson> i'm not really an expert
[02:31] <wgrant> It's still cleaner to separate the upstream code and packaging. Plus it makes for better version numbers.
[02:32] <maxb> 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] <maxb> Or it's a piece of software that just happens to be being packaged for Debian/Ubuntu
[02:32] <jldupont> maxb: right.
[02:33] <jldupont> of course I'll consider packaging for Fedora.
[02:33] <maxb> In which case, one upstream version, 0.7, may very well be packaged many times - e.g. for hardy, jaunty, karmic etc.
[02:33] <jldupont> oh
[02:33] <jldupont> I think I understand now.
[02:33] <jldupont> what you are suggesting is that I name my pakacge better:
[02:34] <jldupont> epapi_0.7-2_jaunty
[02:34] <maxb> 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] <jldupont> or something like it?
[02:34] <jldupont> I am strating to grok it
[02:34] <maxb> uhoh, no, an underscore is a separator for other things, you don't want one of those in a version number
[02:35] <jldupont> so, epapi_0.7-2jaunty then?
[02:35] <maxb> Reasonable
[02:35] <jldupont> and when I get to karmic, I do epapi_0.7-2karmic
[02:35] <wgrant> -2 sounds like a lie, however.
[02:35] <jldupont> ??
[02:36] <jldupont> oh
[02:36] <wgrant> It should probably be -0, since -1 would be the first Debian version.
[02:36] <jldupont> don't be too picky... newbie here
[02:36] <maxb> -2 conventionally implies it's derived from an official debian package
[02:36] <jldupont> ah!
[02:36] <wgrant> But with the current proliferation of repositories, sane versioning is becoming harder.
[02:36] <jldupont> there is convention there too... I get it.
[02:36] <jldupont> point me in the right direction.
[02:36] <jldupont> and I am happy to oblige
[02:36] <maxb> Basically, it should start with a zero after the dash unless it's derived from a version in Debian
[02:37] <wgrant> And ideally should be less than -0ubuntu1
[02:37] <jldupont> epapi_0.7-0jldupont-jaunty
[02:37] <wgrant> So that if you get the package into Ubuntu, the official version will supersede the one in your PPA.
[02:37] <jldupont> ok
[02:37] <wgrant> So you could do 0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty1
[02:37] <maxb> Fortunately, 'U' is late in the alphabet
[02:37] <wgrant> I normally do -0ppa1, because 'wgrant' > 'ubuntu' :(
[02:38] <jldupont> I see
[02:38] <jldupont> I get it now... you guys rock!!
[02:38] <maxb> epapi_0.7-0jldupont-jaunty  <-- but dashes are special, so that one would not do what you wanted it to
[02:38] <jldupont> let me resubmit to Launchpad now...
[02:39] <maxb> 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] <jldupont> yeah, I'll do epapi_0.7-0jldupont~jaunty1
[02:39] <jldupont> ? mess in the tarball ?
[02:40] <jldupont> from where are you taking this??? the source tarball is not on GoogleCode...
[02:40] <jldupont> it is only on my machine... at least the tarball I use for packaging to Launchpad that is.
[02:41] <jldupont> 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] <wgrant> Having multiple tarballs with the same version number but different contents is a very bad idea.
[02:42] <jldupont> granted... I am trying to move away from GC.
[02:42] <jldupont> I'll clean up.
[02:42] <jldupont> I'll point the main page on GC to the one on Launchpad.
[02:42] <maxb> Your hosting provider is irrelevant - there's still the concept of "the upstream tarball" which then gets packaged
[02:43] <jldupont> maxb: yes
[02:46] <jldupont> ok now... changes applied... shipped to launchpad... waiting.
[02:47] <maxb> What exact version did you upload?
[02:48] <jldupont> epapi_0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty1
[02:48] <jldupont> I'll cancel the other one.
[02:48] <maxb> will be rejected because it's a lower version than the current publication
[02:48] <jldupont> !@&#*!(@#&
[02:49] <jldupont> so then, how about epapi_0.7-3jldupont1~jaunty1) ?
[02:50] <maxb> Launchpad should accept epapi_0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty1 if you delete the 0.7-2 first
[02:50] <jldupont> 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] <maxb> There won't be a problem here
[02:51] <maxb> As soon as you've done the deletion in the UI, it'll be happy to accept the new upload
[02:52] <jldupont> maxb: are you working for Launchpad?
[02:52] <maxb> Even if the files don't disappear from disk until some time later
[02:52] <maxb> No. Just a contributor
[02:52] <jldupont> I delete 0.7-2 ... can I dput now?
[02:52] <maxb> yes
[02:52] <jldupont> done
[02:53] <jldupont> ... will it go through now?
[02:55] <mrooney> Is there a delay for ppa dependencies taking effect?
[02:55] <FFEMTcJ> 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] <maxb> I don't believe so. It should take effect from the next build started after you reconfigure
[02:55] <FFEMTcJ> In order to create a roadmap, am I correct that you need to create a project?
[02:56] <mrooney> 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] <mrooney> maxb: hm maybe the build started before, I could check
[02:56] <jldupont> maxb: accepted!
[02:56] <mrooney> I'll do anew upload but I'm pretty sure I had the deps before
[02:56] <maxb> mrooney: You can see the actual apt lines used for a particular build in the buildlog
[02:57] <mrooney> 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] <maxb> yes
[02:57] <maxb> What's the package?
[02:58] <maxb> FFEMTcJ: 'roadmap'? What's one of those?
[02:59] <FFEMTcJ> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/encouraging-team-roadmaps-and-planning maxb look at that
[02:59] <mrooney> When the build machine builds, would it pull in an old cache or not?
[02:59] <FFEMTcJ> sorry.. not roadmap.. blueprint
[02:59] <FFEMTcJ> sorry maxb
[02:59] <mrooney> The specific ppa is ppa:elementaryart/elementarydesktop
[03:00] <FFEMTcJ> wrote what i was looking at not what i was thinkin about
[03:00] <maxb> Right... a blueprint is a Launchpad thing, which may point at an arbitrary URL, which might be a roadmap
[03:01] <maxb> And yes, blueprints need to be associated with a project or distro
[03:01] <mrooney> 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] <FFEMTcJ> ok maxb.. thanks
[03:01] <jldupont> maxb: Synaptic complains that my package can't be authenticated... what should I do?
[03:03] <jldupont> maxb: I thought Launchpad was taking care of all the authentication bits.
[03:03] <maxb> mrooney: yes, that's where to look
[03:04] <maxb> jldupont: I guess you haven't trusted your own ppa then
[03:04] <jldupont> where do I get the key file?
[03:05] <jldupont> I mean, this must be made public, no?
[03:06] <jldupont> sorry again for the newbie questions...
[03:07] <jldupont> ok... got it I think: http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xEC7AE4B5E4179E846B8AE0CF1A1E287CA6E4A2FB&op=index
[03:07] <jldupont> maxb: am I responsible for displaying this info to the public?
[03:08] <jldupont> or does Launchpad somehow exposes this?
[04:19] <wzssyqa> i have used dput to upload a package,and sucess.then i can't see it on my ppa.why
[04:21] <wgrant> 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] <wzssyqa> wgrant: o ,i have not attatched my key to launchpad
[04:24] <wgrant> wzssyqa: You'd best do that and upload again.
[04:24] <wzssyqa> wgrant: o ,thx
[04:27] <wzssyqa> wgrant: Launchpad could not import your OpenPGP key   why?
[04:29] <mwhudson> have you uploaded your key to a key server?
[04:29] <wzssyqa> i don't know
[04:30] <mwhudson> wzssyqa: 'gpg --send-key'
[04:30] <wgrant> gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --send-key YOURKEYID
[04:32] <mwhudson> argl
[04:32] <wzssyqa> argl?
[04:32] <wzssyqa> upload sucess
[04:32] <mwhudson> 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] <mwhudson> which is actually wrong in two ways
[04:36] <mwhudson> still, yay for wikis
[05:13] <wzssyqa> mwhudson: if i want to make it for several distro ,how to edit changlog?
[05:13] <mwhudson> wzssyqa: you can't
[05:14] <mwhudson> the usual practice is to upload it to the oldest appropriate distroseries and then copy it to the newer ones
[05:14] <wzssyqa> mwhudson: thx
[05:22] <wzssyqa> mwhudson: Unable to find distroseries: Karmic why?
[05:22] <mwhudson> wzssyqa: maybe it's case sensitive?
[05:22] <mwhudson> karmic
[05:32] <wzssyqa> mwhudson: PPA uploads must be signed by an Ubuntu Code of Conduct signer.  omg
[05:32] <mwhudson> yep
[05:32] <mwhudson> only nice people pls
[05:33] <wzssyqa> mwhudson: i can't understand
[05:34] <mwhudson> sorry
[05:34] <mwhudson> you have to sign the ubuntu code of conduct before you can use a ppa
[05:34] <mwhudson> the ubuntu code of conduct very roughly says "don't be a nasty person"
[05:35] <mwhudson> 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] <raziel420> it seems down
[05:56] <wgrant> spm: ^^
[05:56] <raziel420> getting 503 errors on ubuntu one login even
[05:56] <[BIOS]dnivra> does this happen often?
[05:57] <wgrant> [BIOS]dnivra: No. I haven't seen it broken like this in a very long time.
[05:57] <raziel420> 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] <raziel420> 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] <raziel420> 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] <raziel420> and yes the ip is probably the same, but the mac addy is probably different
[06:01] <[BIOS]dnivra> hmmm ok
[06:01] <Tanoshii> i couldn't get launchpad to work either, i gave up for now
[06:01] <dailystruggle> Is it maintenance?
[06:02] <[BIOS]dnivra> it's up again
[06:02] <raziel420> [BIOS]dnivra: i'm not completely certain, but a load balancing cluster is likely for launchpad
[06:03] <wgrant> There are a lot of machines behind the scenes, yes.
[06:03] <Tanoshii> it's back
[06:03] <[BIOS]dnivra> true
[06:03] <[BIOS]dnivra> lot of machines drive these servers
[06:04] <Tanoshii> i was trying the PPA Search works ok now
[06:05] <raziel420> 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] <raziel420> 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] <raziel420> but it was probably maintnance, since it was just a few minutes
[06:08] <raziel420> the problem with a different location is response time for the balancing dns
[06:09] <raziel420> well i'm out
[06:31] <wzssyqa> mwhudson: if have change my file ,how to re-upload?
[09:10] <bronger> 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] <qense> This week was the UDS, so a substantial amount of the devs were in Dallas discussing, rather than developing.
[09:15] <qense> That could explain your delay.
[17:24] <fcuk112> 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
[18:29] <mrooney> 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] <mrooney> which go away if I add the PPA deps myself to my machine
[18:30] <mrooney> I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong
[18:40] <qense> 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] <mrooney> hm, I don't think, it builds fine on LP
[18:45] <mrooney> are those only the deps for building the package? does the user manually have to add the required PPAs?
[18:46] <mrooney> I think that might be how it works
[18:53] <mrooney> anyway if someone reads this and knows, please ping to me to confirm or deny
[19:00] <geser> mrooney: if your PPA need packages from other PPAs, the user needs to have both enabled on his system
[19:05] <mrooney> 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] <magcius> Does Launchpad have Code Review?
[19:07] <magcius> That's based around patches and not Code Hosting?
[19:08] <magcius> Because some of us actually like to use Git or Mercurial.
[19:08] <jldupont> 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] <jldupont> anyone??
[19:18] <geser> jldupont: you can copy a package between series
[19:20] <jldupont> I guess I need to change debian/changelog and go through all the cycle with Launchpad anyhow, right?
[19:27] <geser> only if you want to do a proper upload
[19:27] <geser> for copying packages between series you can use the webinterface
[19:28] <jldupont> geser: thanks.
[19:54] <jldupont> Do I need a separate PPA per serie? i.e. PPA X1 for Jaunty, PPA X2 for Karmic?
[19:54] <tsimpson> no
[19:54] <jldupont> @tsimpson: I guess debian/changelog suffice to Launchpad then./
[19:54] <jldupont> right?
[19:54] <tsimpson> yeah
[19:55] <jldupont> tsimpson: cool. thanks.
[19:55] <tsimpson> you can also upload to a specific series
[19:55] <jldupont> hmmm... checking dput options...
[19:56] <tsimpson> you use "incoming = ~<lp_name>/ppa/ubuntu/<a ubuntu suite>"
[19:56] <tsimpson> you can call it something like [my-ppa-<release>]
[19:56] <tsimpson> then just: dput my-ppa-jaunty file.changes
[19:56] <jldupont> in dput.conf I guess
[19:57] <jldupont> right?
[19:57] <tsimpson> yeah
[19:57] <jldupont> ok, thanks for bearing with me... newbie to PPA here.
[19:57] <tsimpson> but the changelog way is probably better anyway, as you can't upload the same version of a package to different releases
[19:58] <jldupont> got it.
[19:58] <jldupont> right now, in my dput.cf, I've got "www.wampserver.com/en/"
[19:58] <jldupont> sorry...
[19:59] <jldupont> incoming = ~jldupont/jldupont/ubuntu/
[19:59] <jldupont> is this even remotely correct??
[19:59] <jldupont> I think I have just cut&pasted from a tutorial ....
[19:59] <tsimpson> it's ~<lp ID>/<ppa name>/ubuntu/
[20:00] <jldupont> ok, check.
[20:00] <jldupont> ... and the series is specified in debian/changelog
[20:00] <jldupont> I get it now.
[20:00] <tsimpson> yes
[20:00] <jldupont> Now, let's say I want to pbuild for different series,
[20:01] <tsimpson> but if you upload to "~jldupont/jldupont/ubuntu/karmic/" that will override what's in the changelog
[20:01] <jldupont> ok, got it.
[20:01] <jldupont> then I am not forced to go through a full build cycle...
[20:02] <jldupont> except I have to a package name more generic...
[20:02] <jldupont> i.e. not with the series in the filename...
[20:02] <jldupont> right?
[20:02] <jldupont> right now, I've got "epapi_0.7-0jldupont1~jaunty2
[20:03] <jldupont> wait, I thought the "series" parameter needs to appear in debian/changelog...
[20:04] <tsimpson> it does, you're just changing the version of the package so the binaries (.debs) don't conflict with each other
[20:04] <tsimpson> 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] <jldupont> ... but once I fiddle with debian/changelog, I have to go through the full pbuilder cycle, no??
[20:05] <tsimpson> you don't pbuild anything
[20:05] <tsimpson> launchpad does the building
[20:05] <tsimpson> you just upload the source (the .orig.tar.gz, .dsc, .diff.gz and .changes)
[20:05] <jldupont> I know pbuild isn't stricly required... I just want to make sure it builds on my side
[20:05] <jldupont> before waiting many hours for Launchpad...
[20:05] <jldupont> I guess if I am confident enough, I skip the pbuild step...
[20:06] <tsimpson> unless you want to test build on every release, let LP do it for you :)
[20:06] <jldupont> right.
[20:07] <jldupont> I just need to be patient I guess.
[20:07] <jldupont> for pbuilder, I need to use a separate VM per series I guess... right?
[20:07] <tsimpson> a separate chroot, yeah
[20:08] <jldupont> separate chroot... hmmm... how do I do that...?
[20:08] <jldupont> I followed https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto
[20:09] <tsimpson> you need to create each one with something like "pbuilder --create [--basetgz karmic-base.tgz --distribution karmic"
[20:09] <jldupont> oh yes... sorry... makes sense.
[20:09] <jldupont> cool... thanks again.
[20:09] <tsimpson> :)
[20:10] <jldupont> and when I do "pbuilder build",
[20:10] <jldupont> pbuilder will switch to the appropriate chroot environment?
[20:10] <tsimpson> no, you have to do that manually ;)
[20:10] <jldupont> based on what is in the .dsc file?
[20:11] <tsimpson> pbuilder --build --basetgz karmic-base.tgz --distribution karmic <file.dsc>
[20:11] <tsimpson> it's a pain
[20:11] <jldupont> that's my line in my makefile: @cd "/tmp/$(PRJ)/" && sudo pbuilder build *.dsc
[20:11] <jldupont> I don't see a reference to a series...
[20:13] <jldupont> tsimpson: are you sure you need the "--distribution" switch?
[20:13] <tsimpson> this is my ~/.pbuilderrc: http://paste.ubuntu.com/324756/
[20:14] <tsimpson> you may not, but I tend to use it for the above
[20:14] <tsimpson> then I don't need to worry about the --basetgz part
[20:14] <tsimpson> or I can just do "sudo pbuilder --build ../<file>.dsc" and it'll figure out the distribution for me
[20:14] <tsimpson> (from inside the source dir)
[20:16] <jldupont> that means that when I do "pbuilder create", I have to specify a $DIST-base.tgz, right?
[20:17] <tsimpson> with that .pbuilderrc you should just have to do "sudo pbuilder --create --distribution <dist>" and it'll do the rest
[20:17] <tsimpson> the name of the basetgz is figured out from the distribution
[20:17] <jldupont> yes right... unlike what they say in the tutorial then....
[20:17] <jldupont> sudo pbuilder create --debootstrapopts --variant=buildd
[20:18] <tsimpson> yeah, if you don't specify a distribution, it'll use your current one (the output from "lsb_release --short --codename")
[20:18] <jldupont> right.
[20:19] <tsimpson> it just makes my life that little bit easier :)
[20:19] <jldupont> cool.
[20:19] <jldupont> I want that too ;-)
[20:22] <jldupont> oopppsss... just doing "sudo pbuilder --create --distribution karmic" on my jaunty machine doesn't work...
[20:22] <jldupont> help !
[20:23] <jldupont> E: No such script: /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/karmic
[20:24] <jldupont> help!
[20:25] <tsimpson> install debootstrap from -backports
[20:25] <tsimpson> or just add a symlink manually
[20:25] <tsimpson> they all point to /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/gutsy
[20:25] <jldupont> nice to know !
[20:25] <jldupont> is that what you do, just symlink?
[20:26] <tsimpson> ls -l /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/karmic
[20:26] <tsimpson> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 5 2009-10-30 02:42 /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/karmic -> gutsy
[20:26] <tsimpson> so just "sudo -i" then "cd  /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/; ln -s gutsy karmic"
[20:26] <tsimpson> done
[20:27] <jldupont> done... cool!
[20:31] <Gandalfar> 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] <jldupont> it activates itself when it is built correctly.
[20:32] <Gandalfar> can I see any progress on the build or ETA until build starts?
[20:32] <jldupont> tsimpson: don't you have a typo in your .pbuilderrc?  DISTROBUTION ?
[20:32] <jldupont> @Gandalfar: there is a link through your PPA homepage somewhere.
[20:32] <tsimpson> jldupont: ohh, thanks
[20:32] <Gandalfar> ah
[20:32] <Gandalfar> it showed up now!
[20:33] <Gandalfar> excited :)
[20:33] <Gandalfar> >>  Pending (2505) , what does the number mean?
[20:34] <jldupont> it is a "score"... there is a man page somewhere on LP.
[20:34] <jldupont> i.e. package pending build.
[20:34] <Gandalfar> ah
[20:34] <tsimpson> https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/BuildScores
[20:34] <Gandalfar> I thought it's ETA :)
[20:34] <jldupont> funny!
[20:34] <tsimpson> the higher the score, the earlier it'll build
[20:35] <Gandalfar> maybe I should just do a binary upload
[20:36] <jldupont> you can't
[20:37] <Gandalfar> ahh, found the ETA :)
[20:37] <jldupont> is there a robot for the common questions?
[20:44] <Lostinspace_46> 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] <jldupont> seems like a cut&paste error...
[20:46] <Lostinspace_46> I have checked the text word for word in the pasted area before I submit
[20:46] <Gandalfar> Lostinspace_46, did you paste the signature part also?
[20:47] <Lostinspace_46> Gandalfar,  Yes I did, that's when I get the "text is not the same" message
[20:48] <Gandalfar> hmm, I wgeted the code .txt file and then ran the signature, cat-ed the result and copy/pasted using firefox
[20:48] <Gandalfar> s/signature/gpg signing
[20:49] <tsimpson> have you imported your gpg signature?
[20:50] <tsimpson> and make sure you download from: https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct/1.0.1/+download
[20:50] <tsimpson> rather than copy + paste
[20:51] <Lostinspace_46> 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] <Lostinspace_46> Yes i imported the sig
[20:51] <Gandalfar> it looks there is a problem with your signature process
[20:51] <Gandalfar> like you're missing last line or something
[20:53] <Gandalfar> fun, my build failed
[20:53] <Lostinspace_46> I used the email that was sent, I will try the download. thanks and I will be back in a few.  Also the missing line crossed my mind.
[20:54] <jldupont> Gandalfar: ... time to setup a "pbuilder" environement ;-)
[20:54] <Gandalfar> jay
[20:54] <Gandalfar> do you have doc handy? :)
[20:54] <jldupont> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PbuilderHowto
[20:54] <Gandalfar> thanks :)
[20:54] <jldupont> I am documenting on my end as I go along.
[20:56] <Lostinspace_46> Understand that most of this is a bit beyond me.  But I know a working openoffice 3.1.1 is available at launchpad.  That is the reason I am doing this.
[20:56] <Lostinspace_46> I assume I need a PPA to access a PPA
[20:56] <Gandalfar> Lostinspace_46, you don't need PPA
[20:57] <Gandalfar> Lostinspace_46, you can grab PPA as anonymous user
[20:57] <Gandalfar> you need PPA env only if you want to make your own PPA repository, as in .. you're a developer
[20:57] <Lostinspace_46> Gandalfar,  AARRRGGHHH!!  I spent hours trying to get this to work
[20:58] <Gandalfar> well, the good news is .. you can stop now :)
[20:58] <Gandalfar> Lostinspace_46, https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/InstallingSoftware
[20:59] <Gandalfar> even though, this guide looks a bit unfriendly
[20:59] <Lostinspace_46> Gandalfar,  Thanks I am checking that now. Back in a few, and thanks
[21:11] <Gandalfar> hmm, I guess I created a bad pbuilder repository
[21:13] <Gandalfar> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
[21:13] <Gandalfar>   pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy: Depends: libplot-dev which is a virtual package.
[21:13] <Gandalfar> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
[21:13] <jldupont> where is "libplot-dev" located?
[21:13] <jldupont> maybe you need OTHERMIRROR ?
[21:13] <Gandalfar> universe
[21:14] <jldupont> then, .pbuilderrc COMPONENTS is missing.
[21:14] <Gandalfar> I see
[21:14] <Gandalfar> found it in the faq now :)
[21:14] <jldupont> cyphermox: is there a robot sitting around here?
[21:14] <jldupont> for common queries etc.
[21:16] <Lostinspace_46> Copy the first line from the apt sources.list entries section of the PPA overview page.  I can't find that page :(  No laughing at the noob, now..lol
[21:16] <Gandalfar> Lostinspace_46, which ppa are you trying to install?
[21:17] <Lostinspace_46> Openoffice 3.1.1
[21:17] <Gandalfar> url?
[21:17] <Lostinspace_46> Gandalfar,  LOL..I think that is what I am trying to find
[21:18] <Gandalfar> PPA repositories are very specific
[21:18] <Gandalfar> you need to get a link to one first
[21:18] <Gandalfar> go to the source of your ifnormation about this OOo 3.1.1 and they should have it
[21:19] <Lostinspace_46> Gandalfar,  OK let me see what I can do.
[21:34] <jldupont> To whoever cares: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgstxrxv_443fx3845cr
[21:34] <jldupont> I'll be documenting the LP process (to some extent)
[21:38] <Gandalfar> jldupont, turn around first part
[21:38] <jldupont> ?
[21:38] <Gandalfar> jldupont, introduce correct .builderrc first and then sudo command
[21:38] <jldupont> oh , ic
[21:39] <jldupont> better?
[21:42] <Gandalfar> yep :)
[21:57] <Gandalfar> can I kill a build?
[21:59] <wgrant> No.
[22:00] <Gandalfar> I hope it doesn't recurse but just dies
[22:00] <Gandalfar> err, fails
[22:00] <Gandalfar> wgrant, who can kill it?
[22:00] <Gandalfar> it's this one - https://launchpad.net/~gandalf/+archive/pspp/+build/1358375
[22:02] <wgrant> Gandalfar: Only a sysadmin, none of whom are likely to be around at the moment.
[22:03] <Gandalfar> will the system autokill it after a while?
[22:03] <wgrant> If it stops producing output for a couple of hours, yes.
[22:03] <wgrant> Otherwise somebody will notice it has been going for ages and kill it manually.
[22:03] <Gandalfar> it's recursing in the ./configure part
[22:04] <Gandalfar> so the output will keep going
[22:04] <wgrant> Ah.
[22:05] <Gandalfar> maybe there is an admin channel or something where it's possible to raise this before it kills buildd for a couple of hours
[22:26] <mwhudson> unlikely to get a response on a sunday
[22:26] <Gandalfar> :(
[22:27] <Gandalfar> at least I learned how to test my builds prior to upload in pbuilder
[22:27] <mwhudson> i mentioned it in the company sysadmin channel anyway in case someone with permissions happens to see it
[22:28] <Gandalfar> k, thanks :)
[22:28] <wgrant> I really should fix the abort feature.
[22:28] <wgrant> I know why the backend of it is broken now.
[22:36] <Gandalfar> wgrant, would uploading a newer version kill the current job?
[22:37] <wgrant> Gandalfar: No.
[22:37] <wgrant> Gandalfar: It probably should, but that hasn't been implemented.
[22:38] <wgrant> Gandalfar: The queue will clear in a couple of hours, at which point a single builder out of action will not matter much.
[22:38] <Gandalfar> ok :)
[22:51] <fta> this build seems stuck since yesterday: https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa/+build/1354329
[23:09] <wgrant> bohrium again.
[23:09] <wgrant> It likes doing that.