[00:04] <doctormo> I can't seem to a get my own users email address vis the launchpad api
[01:24] <Bodsda> Hello - How can I change the maintainer of a project?
[03:03] <lfaraone> bernie: you do realize I packaged rainbow for Debian, right? (there is no bitfrost package as far as I can tell, only implementations of it :)
[03:04] <lfaraone> bernie: or is this more than rainbow?
[03:05] <bernie> lfaraone: there's the bitfrost package in fedora, which comes directly from the bitfrost repo at olpc
[03:06] <bernie> lfaraone: it's for olpc-os-builder, which uses other stuff in bitfrost that rainbow doesn't use such as bitfrost.util.urlparser.py
[03:07] <lfaraone> bernie: would it be useful for me to include in Debian? (if so, let me know and I'll file a ITP)
[03:11] <bernie> lfaraone: the only things I know that use it are: rainbow, OLPC's crazy initrd with python stuff in it and olpc-os-builder
[03:11] <bernie> lfaraone: how did you do with rainbow? did you include selected parts of bitfrost?
[03:12] <lfaraone> bernie: I based off mstone's olpc-security repo.
[03:12] <lfaraone> bernie: it had no external dependencies.
[03:13] <lfaraone> (other than what's already packaged)
[03:13] <bernie> lfaraone: ah. I think this is an up to date version of it: http://dev.laptop.org/git/projects/bitfrost/
[03:14] <lfaraone> bernie: okay. I don't think rainbow depends on it but maybe I can get it and OOB submitted.
[03:15] <bernie> lfaraone: ah of course
[03:15] <bernie> lfaraone: now I get it
[03:16] <lfaraone> bernie: let me know when you figure it out :)
[03:16] <bernie> lfaraone: bitfrost is a specification for two things: 1) bios lockdown and 2) activity isolation
[03:16] <bernie> lfaraone: the security repo contains (2)
[03:16] <bernie> lfaraone: the bitfrost repository contains support code for (1)
[03:17] <lfaraone> aha. mk then.
[03:50] <micahg> is codehosting down?
[04:01] <wgrant> micahg: Looks good to me.
[04:02] <micahg> wgrant: I get an internal server error here: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mozillateam/firefox/firefox-3.6.head/revision/581
[04:02] <wgrant> Oh, that's just Loggerhead.
[04:02] <wgrant> It's often broken :(
[04:03] <micahg> ah, ok, is that down? :)
[04:09] <wgrant> Looks like it's rather broken, yes.
[04:53] <Nivex> I'm seeing some weirdness with a LP bug that is linked to a Debian bug.  The Debian bug has been marked as Done, but LP says the Deb bug no longer exists.
[04:53] <Nivex> I'd like to get it closed and off my list.
[04:53] <Nivex> It's LP#31272
[05:01] <Nivex> never mind, figured out how to close it out by hand.
[05:06] <ddecator> you can do it by hand, but is there any kind of syncing available for debian bugs? i would still like to know that
[05:08] <Ursinha> ddecator, yes, there is, don't know if it's working properly though
[05:08] <nigelbabu> there is syncing
[05:08] <Ursinha> bug 31272
[05:08] <Ursinha> oh, he's gone
[05:09] <nigelbabu> See bug 496884
[05:09] <nigelbabu> it works
[05:09] <ddecator> and so it does, thanks nigelbabu and Ursinha
[05:19] <wgrant> It sometimes works.
[05:25] <nigelbabu> wgrant: It sometimes works (tm).
[05:25] <nigelbabu> ;)
[09:05] <cemc> hi. I have a ppa and uploaded a package with dput. that package had a source tarball. Now I'm trying to upload an updated package, but the tarball has changed (version is the same). it was an error on my part I guess... but now it rejects the package. can I somehow make it forget about the old source tarball?
[09:32] <tsimpson> cemc: you'll have to update the version
[09:33] <tsimpson> something like 1.2.3a or 1.2.3-rebuild
[09:41] <wgrant> cemc, tsimpson: It should ideally not have a hyphen in it -- perhaps something like 1.2.3+repack1.
[09:41] <wgrant> But why did the tarball change?
[09:41] <wgrant> It is the original upstream tarball. It logically cannot change.
[09:55] <cemc> wgrant: I know... now it is the original tarball, before it was a tarball repacked from bz2 to tgz, as it was some rc tarball
[09:56] <cemc> wgrant: but I managed to upload it, after deleting all the old packages from the ppa
[12:56] <goundy> hi
[15:44] <bilalakhtar> people, lp is working very slowly. edge.launchpad.net is working quite fast
[15:44] <bilalakhtar> I can't find any disruption on identica page
[15:45] <bilalakhtar> fine, its ok now
[16:11] <ecanto> ih guys
[16:11] <ecanto> hi.
[16:12] <ecanto> :-)
[17:02] <doctormo> lfaraone: Morning, how are you today?
[17:05] <lfaraone> doctormo: fine, thanks.
[17:07] <doctormo> lfaraone: I'm sure I don't want to push you on what must be a busy day, but what can I do to help you for ground control?
[17:07] <lfaraone> doctormo: well, I'm just wondering A) what changes were made in 1.6.5, and B) whether 1.6.5 is ready to upload.
[17:07] <lfaraone> doctormo: tagging releases in bzr would greatly help with A :)
[17:08]  * lfaraone will be back in 20 minutes or so, lunch.,
[17:08] <doctormo> lfaraone: I should learn how to do that at some point.
[17:09] <lfaraone> doctormo: it's one of the more straightforward things you can do: http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/Tag
[17:09] <doctormo> A) 1 (fixes to login), 2 (fixes to fixes, overlooked), 3 (fixes to missing config), 4 (fixed to update-notifier), 5 (fixes to graphic that got messed up)
[17:10] <lfaraone> thanks.
[17:11] <doctormo> I pressed lots of people to get testing done, so I wasn't surprised that I needed to release a couple of a times in my ppa.
[17:12] <doctormo> So B) Yes, I 95% certain that the release is functional and contains no show-stopping bugs.
[17:42] <tim> hi, i am trying to create a debug package for an application. i have added the `dh_strip --dbg-package=my-package-dbg" into the debian/rules file, and the binaries are actually striped, but the dbg package is empty (apart from the changelog file). any idea, what i am doing wrong?
[18:06] <EyesAndEars> blueprint submission seams to be down: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/turnkeylinux/+addspec
[20:00] <wvd> When trying to view a branch I'm getting a "please try again" error - is this normal?
[20:44] <ersoy> j #ubuntu
[20:44] <ersoy> sorry
[20:45] <ersoy> hello, how can i stop mail for @bugs.launchpad.net
[21:14] <luke-jr> is there a sane way to list all branches on LP under the armagetronad project?
[21:16] <mdke> luke-jr: I suppose it depends on your definition of sane, but isn't https://code.launchpad.net/armagetronad what you are looking for?
[21:16] <luke-jr> mdke: for a script :)
[21:18] <mdke> I don't know about that
[22:16] <wgrant> luke-jr: Have you looked at launchpadlib?
[22:20] <askhl> Hi, I have a ppa package supporting two ubuntu series and want to apply an upstream upgrade.  I have followed the normal procedure to upgrade the karmic package to the new upstream version.  Since the jaunty/karmic/lucid versions are related to each other in terms of a package copy, I would like to generate an updated lucid package by copying the updated karmic package.  But LP complains that there are already binaries, i.e. I can't overwrite.  Should I do t
[22:21] <wgrant> askhl: You need to copy the binaries as well.
[22:21] <wgrant> (after verifying that they work on Lucid)
[22:21] <askhl> wgrant, I asked for them to be recompiled
[22:22] <askhl> wgrant, should I just choose the copy option without recompile?  I guess that would work, but I didn't want to break anything (I'm not that experienced with packaging), so I thought it safer to ask for a recompile
[22:23] <wgrant> askhl: You can't. They would have the same version number as the old ones, which is impossible.
[22:24] <askhl> Sorry, can't what exactly?  Copy without recompile?
[22:24] <wgrant> You can't copy and recompile.
[22:24] <wgrant> You need to copy without recompiling.
[22:25] <askhl> Ah, okay.  So I ask for a copy without then.  And it should work, provided that dependencies haven't changed between the series - is that correct?
[22:25] <wgrant> Probably.
[22:26] <askhl> wgrant, in an ideal world I should probably generate the package on my own lucid system and test it, right?
[22:27] <wgrant> askhl: Rather download the existing binaries from your PPA and try them on a Lucid system.
[22:28] <askhl> wgrant, ah, of course.  So I install the karmic package on the lucid system, and if it works, do the copy.
[22:28] <askhl> So that's great then.  Thanks!
[22:29] <wgrant> Right/
[23:21] <c_korn> is bazaar.launchpad currently broken ? http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~debfactory-devs/debfactory/devel/revision/114
[23:22] <wgrant> mwhudson/thumper: ^^ It's been broken for a couple of days.
[23:23] <thumper> loggerhead?
[23:23] <thumper> morning wgrant
[23:23] <mwhudson> it's not generally broken
[23:23] <thumper> sometimes I want to stab loggerhead through the heart
[23:23] <thumper> perhaps I'll just have to read the damn code
[23:23] <wgrant> Morning thumper.
[23:24] <mwhudson> it seems to be the revision pages for that branch which are broken
[23:24] <wgrant> mwhudson: Hm, it was generally broken over the weekend, at least.
[23:27] <c_korn> you might to add a notice in /title to prevent people from asking again and again