=== fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === yofel_ is now known as yofel === mordred_ is now known as mtaylor === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === d1b is now known as d-b === d-b is now known as d1b === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === sebi_` is now known as sebi` === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta [08:32] dspstv: all the launchpad devs are in Prague this week for a sprint, and most are travelling right now [08:33] dspstv: there should be more people around tonight, or tomorrow [08:33] dspstv: sorry I can't be more help [08:54] i'm moving a project to launchpad and i did "bzr push lp:~voights/txrecaptcha/trunk" [08:54] but the project page still says "You haven't yet told Launchpad where your source code is for txreCAPTCHA trunk series." [08:57] figured it out, but that interface isn't really intuitive [09:03] I'm looking for some help with launchpad email. A launchpad user tried to send mail to @launchpad.net, got a bounce and asked me to "enable" @launchpad.net. How to do this has escaped me so far. Suggestions? [09:04] pajatopmr: normal users don't get those addresses [09:04] * micahg doesn't know if anyone has one [09:05] OK, I'll pass that along to the User, who is also a project administrator, fwiw. [09:11] pajatopmr: Yeah, normal users certainly don't get those. I only know of a couple of working @launchpad.net addresses, and none of those are personal. [09:14] hi wgrant [09:14] currently all email to launchpad.net are handled by the email processing scripts [09:14] to do things like create new bugs, comment on reviews, bugs or answers === fta_ is now known as fta [09:15] I had in the past thought it would be interesting to have @launchpad.net work, but.. [09:15] alas no [09:15] probably not going to happen [09:15] it wouldn't be hard to write [09:16] but not likely something we are likely to do without a lot of thought [09:16] thumper: No problem from my perspective. Actually I don't think an additional email address is necessarily a good idea. I do wonder why the admin assumed it was set up by default, though. [09:17] * thumper shrugs [09:49] do PPAs support debsrc 3.0 (git)? [09:57] hyperair: No. [09:57] Does dak? === fta_ is now known as fta [10:06] It doesn't look like it. [10:27] Hello [10:27] someone can help me please? [10:28] i have problem or bug with launchpad [10:28] sarhan: Hi. What's the problem? [10:28] i can't translate any thing [10:28] What happens when you try? [10:29] this : http://a.yfrog.com/img257/5919/capture2zp.png [10:30] and the project is with open permisson [10:31] sarhan: Can you go to https://translations.launchpad.net/people/+me/+licensing, and check that you've selected the "License all my translations in Launchpad under the BSD license" option? [10:32] i select it now [10:32] and it works [10:32] thx [10:32] :) [10:32] OK. I'll file a bug that that's really unobvious. [10:33] thank you very much [10:33] No problem. [10:33] bye === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta [15:28] hey I'm still having trouble with ppa's, I've made a .deb file for my project, how can I upload this to the ppa? [15:29] Kruptein: you can't, PPAs build from source [15:29] Kruptein: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading [15:32] well that's not so funny :( [15:33] Kruptein: what's the problem, upload a source package instead of a .deb [15:33] micahg okay I first have to make one then.. [15:33] why does the doc mention .debs then? https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/BuildingASourcePackage (3thd paragraph) [15:34] Kruptein: because the same folder you use for generating the .deb, you can generate the source upload in most cases [15:35] hi again, i was looking yesterday for help [15:35] i wanted to understand how to troubleshoot my friend [15:35] who got a deb from my PPA [15:36] and gets and error related to the version of jack not being available [15:36] deb is karmic and his system is also karmic [15:36] i guess its all related to his system [15:36] but, the question is: [15:37] could it be related to launchad? [15:37] sorry for being so unclear, im also trying to learn the whole process === fta_ is now known as fta [15:59] dspstv: does your friend have the universe component enabled? The package "jack" is in universe. === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha [16:25] geser he does have jack installed but an older version according to dpkg [16:26] it fails telling a more recent version is requiered but tries not to get it [16:26] he tried with gdebi also but failed [16:26] dspstv: what version is required? [16:27] now hes not online, i think .18 and he has .16 or so [16:27] dspstv: there's the same version of jack in karmic, lucid, and maverick [16:28] ok, i get back with his exact error [16:28] thanks micahg, geser === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta [18:43] has someone an explanation why ma PPA upload landed in the main archive? As far as I currently see I've only missed to specify my PPA when doing an upload through SFTP === fta_ is now known as fta [19:01] micahg: the package built by launchpad says this: libjack0 (>= 0.118+svn3796) [19:01] the version in the karmic my friend has is 0.116 [19:02] the error is this one: [19:02] 20:00 < jag> The following packages have unmet dependencies. [19:02] 20:00 < jag> din: Depends: libjack0 (>= 0.118+svn3796) but 0.116.1-4ubuntu2 is to be installed [19:02] 20:00 < jag> Depends: liblo7 (>= 0.26~repack) but it is not installable [19:04] so my question is, how can i understand how to do this package? [19:04] i could compile under lucid and use the software [19:04] then decided to build the .deb via launchpad [19:05] any ideas where to look? [19:05] google brings me to many results... [19:06] have you a link to the PPA? [19:06] my guess is that the package got uploaded to the lucid PPA and then copied to karmic [19:09] hey I added a package to my ppa, but nothing appears when I go look to my ppa page.. ? what is wrong [19:09] Kruptein: did you got a mail that your upload got accepted (or rejected)? [19:09] darragh@kruptools:~/development/ppa$ dput ppa:darragh-ssa/kruptools deditor_0.1-1_source.changes [19:09] Package has already been uploaded to ppa on ppa.launchpad.net [19:09] Nothing more to do for deditor_0.1-1_source.changes [19:09] geser no I didn't get a mail [19:10] Kruptein: did you sign the upload with the key 0xC88E1FA1? [19:11] you can check the signature with "gpg --verify deditor_0.1-1_source.changes" [19:11] geser well I'm not sure :s isn't dput ppa: darragh-ssa/kruptools deditor_0.1-1_source.changes enough? [19:12] geser yes, i did a copy [19:12] geser the last command does give me: Good Signature from Darragh ... [19:12] Kruptein: it is if you signed the source package with the right key at source package creation time (or with debsign before the upload) [19:12] geser I indeed did the last one [19:13] dspstv: that explains it, with "copy" the debs are also published for karmic but not rebuild for karmic. For a rebuild you need an upload targeting karmic. [19:13] https://launchpad.net/~puredyne-team/+archive/ppa/+sourcepub/1229147/+listing-archive-extra [19:13] geser: arggg i knew it (somehow) [19:13] dspstv: only lucid has that version [19:13] and i came here asking what was the difference between those 2 options [19:14] geser, so... what did I do wrong? [19:14] i thnik those options should be explained [19:14] in the formulaire [19:14] ok, will try to make a copy from the sources [19:15] Kruptein: and the keyid from the output is the same as the keyid in your LP profile? uploads get only accepted when they are signed by a key attached to an LP account [19:16] geser, yep it's exact the same [19:16] can it be that it takes some time to appear? [19:16] the uploads get processed every 5 minutes [19:16] well I don't see the problem then :( [19:17] I'm out of ideas now too [19:17] it maybe has todo with this: [19:18] sudo add-apt-repository ppa:darragh-ssa/kruptools produces: Error: can't find signing_key_fingerprint at https://launchpad.net/api/1.0/~darragh-ssa/+archive/kruptools [19:18] is that because I added the fingerprint after I added the ppa? [19:19] Kruptein: it's because it's empty [19:19] geser: micahg: now i have this problem, even though i had deleted the package i get this: [19:19] din 1.1.1-0ubuntu-6~planktum in lucid (same version already has published binaries in the destination archive) [19:20] dspstv: you can't upload the same version, you need to add a number on the end [19:20] dspstv: LP remembers the version of accepted uploads even if you delete id [19:20] dspstv: or in some way make the version higher [19:20] back to zero.. chaging the chngelog [19:20] ok, thanks [19:20] learning here [19:21] wonder why the copy binary option is offered when going from say lucid to karmic? [19:21] use something like 1.1.1-0ubuntu-6~planktum1~karmic for your karmic upload and 1.1.1-0ubuntu-6~planktum1~lucid for your lucid upload [19:21] ok [19:22] dspstv: e.g. for a python script it should be no difference if the package got build on lucid or karmic [19:22] (as long as the dependencies are available in both karmic and lucid) === fta_ is now known as fta [19:48] Well, that kind of blows... I've merged a new account I created with an old one, and lose the old one's karma and (better) openid :/ [19:49] and only a couple of my old posts reflect the new username, too. Kind of wish I'd just nixxed the new one I created [19:56] How do you add a signing_fingerprint to a ppa? === fta_ is now known as fta [20:48] StevenK: do you have an explanation why my SFTP PPA upload landed in the main archive? As far as I currently see I've only missed to specify my PPA when calling dput. [20:51] geser: the package has the main archive set as default I believe. unless you override it in your .dput.cf that would be where unspecified uploads land. [20:53] geser: If you didn't specify anything, it defaults to whatever your config is set to? [20:53] Surely stuff like this can't be the sftp service? [20:56] considering ppa.lp.net and upload.u.c goes to different hosts I'd kind of doubt the service being the problem. [20:59] StevenK: see http://paste.ubuntu.com/462194/ [21:00] it contains the used dput stance for SFTP upload to PPA, the command I used (I missed to specify a value after the ppa-sftp) and the contents of the only .upload file for that package [21:01] and instead of getting an accepted mail for my PPA, I got one for the main archive [21:02] geser: what does the logfile for the main archive upload say? [21:02] I think that's the upload processor on ppa.launchpad.net being clever, rather than the service being wrong [21:03] I'll mention it to others tomorrow. -> bed [21:03] Nafallo: what logfile for the main archive upload? I intented it upload it to my PPA for test-building and not the main archive (at least not with that version). [21:05] geser: so, in the manpage for dput, "If omitted, dput uses the host specified by default_host". have you defined default_host in your .dput.cf ? [21:05] geser: because if not, default_host is bound to be upload.ubuntu.com [21:06] dput by default make .upload files after run. in that file the "dput without specified host" is likely to state the package getting uploaded to upload.ubuntu.com [21:07] Nafallo: I specified a host (ppa-sftp) but no value to replace it in the config stance (ppa-sftp:geser) [21:08] Nafallo: and as you can see in the .upload file dput uploaded it to ppa.launchpad.net (using my ppa-sftp config) [21:08] geser: ehrm. your original questions states that you "only missed to specify my PPA when calling dput", isn't that the upload that went to the main archive? [21:09] if you missed to specify where you want to upload it, it will upload to the DEFAULT stanza, which is likely to reside in /etc/dput.cf [21:09] Nafallo: I called "dput ppa-sftp librep..." instead of "dput ppa-sftp:geser librep..." what I really wanted [21:10] oh, I see. I thought you called "dput librep..." [21:11] I wouldn't be surprised if it thought that was invalid and therefor uploaded to default though ;-) [21:12] but yeah, thats just speculation on my part... [21:12] but wouldn't in that case the .upload file contain upload.ubuntu.com? [21:13] yeah, I would argue it should... [21:14] ..that is strange indeed.. o_O [21:15] anyway. food time === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === fta_ is now known as fta === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === fta_ is now known as fta [23:46] geser: The upload processors on ppa.launchpad.net and upload.ubuntu.com are identical. [23:46] It's the path that matters. [23:46] Paraselene_: The karma merge should complete within 24 hours. [23:46] I'm not sure about OpenID. [23:47] wgrant: I've fixed the OpenID. The accounts overview page is deceptive in that respect (you'd think the lock would indicate that the openid is not configurable) [23:48] Paraselene_: On Launchpad, a lock normally indicates privacy.