[00:15] <sproaty> 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] <jpds> sproaty: (Better place would probably be #ubuntu-motu), but: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/FAQ#What%20does%20XSBC-Original-Maintainer%20mean?
[00:34] <sproaty> cheers
[01:53] <rCX> Can someone mark bug #403698 as won't fix?
[01:53] <rCX> The vegastrike package has been removed from lucid meaning that the game's data won't be updated.
[01:54] <rCX> See Bug #495203 for info on removal...
[03:51] <rm200910> hi. can i upload a "b-package" to a launchpad ppa ?
[03:52] <rm200910> it's a "deb" file that I created using an old guide
[13:33] <sproaty> 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] <sproaty> saying it can't find the icon to write
[14:52] <sproaty> 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] <sproaty> e.g. have my release as 0.40.deb and not 0.40-ppa4.deb
[14:56] <crimsun> why not delete them all and just reupload 0.40?
[15:13] <sproaty> just trying that :)
[15:13] <sproaty> was getting errors before about the same tar existing with the same contents, but it wasn't in the package list
[15:39] <Kruptein> is it possible to show a download for every release on your projects home page?
[15:59] <BigWhale> Greetings
[15:59] <Kruptein> BigWhale: do you know if it's possible?
[16:00] <BigWhale> Possible? What exactly?
[16:00] <Kruptein> to show a download for every release on your projects home page?
[16:00] <BigWhale> I have no idea. :)
[16:00] <BigWhale> Unfortunately I came here with my own problem. :))
[16:01] <Kruptein> okay but you are the first that said something since I posted my question an half our ago :s
[16:03] <BigWhale> Oh, yeah, that usually happens all around here. :)
[16:03] <lwh> I think it only shows the latest one by default
[16:04] <BigWhale> 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] <Kruptein> lwh but is it possible to change this?
[16:27] <lwh> I can't see a way but I'm no expert
[18:15] <BigWhale> 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] <geser> BigWhale: what version is used in lucid and what version did you use in your PPA?
[18:38] <BigWhale> 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] <BigWhale> it was successfully built
[18:39] <BigWhale> hmmm, I see here now, that only i386 version was built. I am running 64bit ubuntu, perhaps this could be the reason?
[18:41] <maxb> That would explain it
[18:42] <maxb> 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] <maxb> *One
[18:43] <BigWhale> I only see the official build
[18:44] <maxb> That's consistent with yours not existing yet
[18:46] <BigWhale> So it seems. I wonder why launchpad didn't build amd64 versions ...
[18:47] <maxb> Oh, wait, it's an arch-all package
[18:47] <BigWhale> makes sense, since it is a python app ...
[18:47] <maxb> It only says i386 in some places in Launchpad because Launchpad arbitrarily assigns the i386 builders to build arch-all packages
[18:48] <maxb> 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] <maxb> i.e. your package is superseded by a newer version in Lucid itself
[18:49] <BigWhale> That I noticed yes, but I couldn't figure out why apt-get source gwibber would fetch older source
[18:50] <BigWhale> I did try building from gwibber-daily ppa, but then launchpad was complaining that it couldn't finde .orig.tar.gz file
[18:52] <maxb> oh, hang on, the newer version mentioned is in lucid-proposed
[18:52] <BigWhale> funny if I do apt-get source gwibber it will fetch my source ...
[18:52] <maxb> Mismatched deb and deb-src lines in sources.list perhaps?
[18:52] <maxb> Or a failure to 'apt-get update' ?
[18:53] <BigWhale> yeah I am checking both now :)
[18:53] <BigWhale> I am using a mirror ... perhaps it is outdated ...
[18:58] <BigWhale> ah I see my version now
[18:58] <BigWhale> silly local mirror
[19:00] <BigWhale> Thanks for the insight.
[20:10] <joh> Hi, what determines who is listed as the Last-Translator if exported .po files?
[20:10] <joh> Cause I'm currently listed as the Last-Translator for the Arabic translation, but I haven't touched it...
[23:09] <nopedia> There seem to be problem reaching the source code repository through http at the moment. Anyone knows more about it?
[23:09] <wgrant> nopedia: Do you have a particular URL that is giving you trouble?
[23:10] <nopedia> For example this: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/emacs/trunk/files
[23:25] <rmujica> hello
[23:27] <rmujica> hello
[23:27] <rmujica> I've got a problem
[23:27] <rmujica> i cant access http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~parabola-project/parabola/parabola-base/files
[23:32] <spiv> rmujica: hmm
[23:32] <spiv> losa ping: codebrowse seems to giving "please try again" errors even for small branches
[23:56] <Neo--> 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] <nopedia> Yes, a couple of us has seen this and I have heard that some people have had trouble with this often.