[00:15] I'm trying to add my project to revu, and am getting "The Maintainer field is invalid. It has to contain an @ubuntu.com address (usually the Ubuntu Developer Team's)" errors. what address should I put? [00:18] sproaty: (Better place would probably be #ubuntu-motu), but: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/FAQ#What%20does%20XSBC-Original-Maintainer%20mean? [00:34] cheers [01:53] Can someone mark bug #403698 as won't fix? [01:53] Launchpad bug 403698 in vegastrike-data "Please sync with upstream 0.5" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/403698 [01:53] The vegastrike package has been removed from lucid meaning that the game's data won't be updated. [01:54] See Bug #495203 for info on removal... [01:54] Launchpad bug 495203 in vegastrike "[Lucid] Can't install many games (unresolved dependancies)" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/495203 [03:51] hi. can i upload a "b-package" to a launchpad ppa ? [03:52] it's a "deb" file that I created using an old guide === sebi_` is now known as sebi` [13:33] my PPA that was building fine in January is now having xdg-icon-resource issues, when nothing's changed in terms of icon names/location/the command to install them -- http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48522693/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-i386.whyteboard_0.40_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz [13:33] saying it can't find the icon to write [14:52] If I've uploaded a PPA as version 0.40 which failed, and then failed with versions 0.40-ppa1; -ppa2; -ppa3...how can I delete the 0.40 one so that a package I'm ulpoading that I know will work can have the "best" name? [14:52] e.g. have my release as 0.40.deb and not 0.40-ppa4.deb [14:56] why not delete them all and just reupload 0.40? [15:13] just trying that :) [15:13] was getting errors before about the same tar existing with the same contents, but it wasn't in the package list [15:39] is it possible to show a download for every release on your projects home page? [15:59] Greetings [15:59] BigWhale: do you know if it's possible? [16:00] Possible? What exactly? [16:00] to show a download for every release on your projects home page? [16:00] I have no idea. :) [16:00] Unfortunately I came here with my own problem. :)) [16:01] okay but you are the first that said something since I posted my question an half our ago :s [16:03] Oh, yeah, that usually happens all around here. :) [16:03] I think it only shows the latest one by default [16:04] I build my own ppa for gwibber and when I use Lucid source everything is up I was able to upload and package was built. Then I decided to use gwibber-daily sources now launchpad is complaining that there is .orig.tar.gz missing. :/ [16:06] lwh but is it possible to change this? [16:27] I can't see a way but I'm no expert [18:15] Hmm, my ppa was build, but it doesn't want to supersede the default one in lucid if I add the necessary ppa to my sources. [18:29] BigWhale: what version is used in lucid and what version did you use in your PPA? [18:38] geser, the version number? or the sources? I did apt-get source gwibber, patched it, then changed changelog and I added bigw1 to the version number. [18:38] it was successfully built [18:39] hmmm, I see here now, that only i386 version was built. I am running 64bit ubuntu, perhaps this could be the reason? [18:41] That would explain it [18:42] On thing you can do is to run 'apt-cache policy package-name' to see information on which versions of a binary package apt knows about [18:42] *One [18:43] I only see the official build [18:44] That's consistent with yours not existing yet [18:46] So it seems. I wonder why launchpad didn't build amd64 versions ... [18:47] Oh, wait, it's an arch-all package [18:47] makes sense, since it is a python app ... [18:47] It only says i386 in some places in Launchpad because Launchpad arbitrarily assigns the i386 builders to build arch-all packages [18:48] However, if you go to https://edge.launchpad.net/~bigwhale/+archive/gwibber-dm/+packages, you can see that it says "Newer version available" [18:49] i.e. your package is superseded by a newer version in Lucid itself [18:49] That I noticed yes, but I couldn't figure out why apt-get source gwibber would fetch older source [18:50] I did try building from gwibber-daily ppa, but then launchpad was complaining that it couldn't finde .orig.tar.gz file [18:52] oh, hang on, the newer version mentioned is in lucid-proposed [18:52] funny if I do apt-get source gwibber it will fetch my source ... [18:52] Mismatched deb and deb-src lines in sources.list perhaps? [18:52] Or a failure to 'apt-get update' ? [18:53] yeah I am checking both now :) [18:53] I am using a mirror ... perhaps it is outdated ... [18:58] ah I see my version now [18:58] silly local mirror [19:00] Thanks for the insight. [20:10] Hi, what determines who is listed as the Last-Translator if exported .po files? [20:10] Cause I'm currently listed as the Last-Translator for the Arabic translation, but I haven't touched it... [23:09] There seem to be problem reaching the source code repository through http at the moment. Anyone knows more about it? [23:09] nopedia: Do you have a particular URL that is giving you trouble? [23:10] For example this: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/emacs/trunk/files [23:25] hello [23:27] hello [23:27] I've got a problem [23:27] i cant access http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~parabola-project/parabola/parabola-base/files [23:32] rmujica: hmm [23:32] losa ping: codebrowse seems to giving "please try again" errors even for small branches [23:56] hey guys - I'm trying to access duplicity's source files and keep getting an error... http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~duplicity-team/duplicity/0.7-series/files [23:58] Yes, a couple of us has seen this and I have heard that some people have had trouble with this often.