[01:38] <dickelbeck> can someone help me with merge@code.launchpad.net?
[01:39] <spiv> dickelbeck: probably, what's up?
[01:40] <dickelbeck> I sent a couple of emails to that address today, the first few were not properly signed, and finally the very last one was.
[01:40] <dickelbeck> All had the same merge bundle attached.
[01:41] <dickelbeck> One good email at the end which was not bounced back.
[01:41] <dickelbeck> The nature of the bundle was that it was against a private branch, so the patch was included.
[01:42] <dickelbeck> launchpad created 3 new branches at project kicad, and did not actually modify the merge request list at all.
[01:43] <dickelbeck> It looks like a bug, but I am finding the workflow requirement of launchpad net to be not a good match for our project.
[01:58] <spiv> thumper: you around?  I think you could help dickelbeck.
[05:18] <MTecknology> I'm not able to tell my project that I want to have code in Launchpad....
[05:20] <MTecknology> I feel like I may have found a bug in LP..
[05:22] <wgrant> MTecknology: Why can't you?
[05:23] <MTecknology> wgrant: usually there's a nifty link off to the right side saying Configure Code or something simmilar
[05:24] <MTecknology> Now it's a grayed out "Submit code" with a /!\ beside it
[05:24] <wgrant> MTecknology: Is the no 'Configure project branch' link underneath it?
[05:24] <micahg> MTecknology: is this for your private project?
[05:24] <wgrant> There should be, if you have sufficient privileges.
[05:25]  * micahg doesn't know if it makes a difference
[05:25] <MTecknology> micahg: no
[05:25] <MTecknology> wgrant: no
[05:25] <wgrant> MTecknology: Which project?
[05:25] <MTecknology> err - wait - there it is
[05:25] <MTecknology> it won't find the branches though
[05:26] <MTecknology> here...
[05:26] <MTecknology> https://code.launchpad.net/~nginx     https://code.launchpad.net/ninx
[05:27] <wgrant> MTecknology: Why is the project name missing the 'g'?
[05:27] <wgrant> The branches owned by ~nginx are in the 'nginx' project.
[05:27] <MTecknology> https://code.launchpad.net/nginx **
[05:28] <wgrant> So searching in the 'ninx' project won't find them.
[05:28] <MTecknology> .........
[05:28] <MTecknology> facepalm
[05:29] <MTecknology> wgrant: any change I could get a rename from ninx to nginx-server ?
[05:29] <MTecknology> probably with an answer request..
[05:30] <wgrant> why nginx-server?
[05:30] <wgrant> Isn't nginx a server?
[05:30] <MTecknology> ya, but I guess somebody took nginx and never did anything with it
[05:31] <MTecknology> I missed the g creating the project
[05:31] <wgrant> Doesn't mean you should create a new project.
[05:31] <wgrant> You could perhaps convince an admin to give the project, or configure it in the way you require.
[05:32] <MTecknology> I'll try to get a hold of that guy first
[05:41] <MTecknology> wgrant: could you read the mail I'm about to send him and let me know what you think?
[05:42] <wgrant> MTecknology: I suppose.
[05:42] <MTecknology> wgrant: If you don't want to that's fine
[05:42] <MTecknology> I can just fire it off
[08:49] <Green00000> hi
[08:49] <Green00000> there is a problem.
[08:50] <Green00000> hello???
[08:50] <wgrant> Hi.
[08:50] <wgrant> What's the issue?
[08:50] <Green00000> https://answers.launchpad.net/canonical-identity-provider/+question/115024
[08:50] <Green00000> that is the problem.
[08:51] <Green00000> i have an email-adress, but i can not delet it.
[08:51] <wgrant> The last comment in that question suggests that it has been manually removed.
[08:51] <Green00000> is there a chance for a quick delet??
[08:52] <Green00000> sure
[08:52] <spm> Enry, I deleted it for you last week?
[08:52] <Green00000> ah hi.
[08:52] <Green00000> no.
[08:52] <Green00000> i am another person.
[08:53] <Green00000> BUT with the same problem. :(
[08:53] <spm> Ah ha! :-) much is clearer!
[08:53] <Green00000> good.
[08:53] <wgrant> Bug #507214
[08:53] <spm> in that case, please raise the same style of request, so we can verify you are *you* :-) and it will be acted up.
[08:54] <spm> upon!
[08:54] <wgrant> It's fixed, but not yet rolled out.
[08:54] <spm> Green00000: https://answers.launchpad.net/canonical-identity-provider/+addquestion
[08:55] <Green00000> i read the faq.
[08:56] <Green00000> okay, same request.
[08:58] <Green00000> this point:
[08:58] <Green00000> this point:
[08:58] <Green00000> https://answers.launchpad.net/canonical-identity-provider/+addquestion
[08:58] <Green00000> ????????
[09:01] <spm> Green00000: atm I have no idea who you are, what account you may have etc. by formally asking a request to delete an email address via that linked form, we can make such a determination. Going and deleting someones email because some random person on IRC asked for it, would be ... uncool. :-)
[09:02] <Green00000> okay, i am writing. thx.
[09:34] <Green00000> okay, thx ...... i posted the problem connected with the BUG-#.
[10:01] <rioch> does launchpad generate .po files from a .pot, or do I need to provide both?
[10:12] <rioch> does launchpad also generate the .mo files?
[11:08] <poolie> jtv, danilos ^^?
[11:18] <danilos> rioch, it can, but only when you request it manually for download; it cannot put them in a branch yet if that's what you are asking
[11:18] <danilos> anyway, gotta run out for a bit
[12:28] <dickelbeck> why is my merge/bundle/patch request send to merge@code.launchpad.net is not going into https://code.launchpad.net/kicad/+activereviews
[12:28] <dickelbeck> The email was signed, the openpgp key is on file, no bounce back error was received.
[12:37] <deryck> dickelbeck, hi.  Not sure if I can help, but can you point me at a branch that you requested a merge for?
[12:39] <dickelbeck> lp:kicad  aka https://code.launchpad.net/~kicad-testing-committers/kicad/testing
[12:40]  * deryck looks
[12:41] <deryck> dickelbeck, I don't see a proposed merge there.  To what branch did you want it merged, and how did you propose the merge?
[12:42] <dickelbeck> by email to merge@code.launchpad.net,  using bzr send -o fullpath.bundle and then attaching it and signing it in my mail client.
[12:42] <dickelbeck> I first got 3 bounce backs because I was not signing it properly, then on the last attempt it seemed OK.
[12:43] <dickelbeck> Funny thing, for awhile yesterday, there were 3 new branches created under the project umbrella that had my name in them, and "merge" also in the branch name.
[12:44] <dickelbeck> Now they are gone.  I think the email handler that receives these emails is very weak.
[12:44] <deryck> dickelbeck, ok, were you proposing merging lp:kicad into another branch?  Or trying to propose another branch into lp:kicad?
[12:44] <dickelbeck> merge into lp:kicad
[12:46] <dickelbeck> I can send you the bundle if you want.
[12:46] <deryck> dickelbeck, what is the link of the branch you proposed from then?
[12:46] <dickelbeck> it was a local branch, launchpad would not have access to it, therefore the bundle included the patch.
[12:47] <dickelbeck> It was a problem fix branch, made locally here from a checkout (copy of lp:kicad)
[12:49] <deryck> dickelbeck, I'm not a code expert on lp, but I believe the branch you're proposing from has to be pushed to lp, which may be the problem here.
[12:50] <deryck> rockstar or abentley could help us here if they were around.
[12:51] <dickelbeck> "has to be pushed to lp", if true, would contradict the documentation I think.  This is the reason why the bundle includes the patch (optionally).
[12:51] <dickelbeck> when are these guys available? what time zone?
[12:52] <deryck> dickelbeck, rockstar is normally GMT -7 but is sprinting this week so generally hit or miss.  abentley is GMT -4, I believe, so should be around soonish.
[12:53] <thekorn> dickelbeck, I'm also not an expert, but your three branches from yesterday are marked as "merged" https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~dickelbeck/+branches?field.lifecycle=ALL&field.lifecycle-empty-marker=1&field.sort_by=most+recently+changed+first&field.sort_by-empty-marker=1
[12:54] <dickelbeck> thekorn, what is this supposed to be telling me, about 3 branches that I did not even create?
[13:10] <rockstar> deryck, hi
[13:10] <rockstar> dickelbeck, hi, how can I help?
[13:10] <deryck> yo rockstar!
[13:11] <deryck> rockstar is better than windows 7 bitches!
[13:11] <dickelbeck> Hi rockstar, can you see any history in the discussion?
[13:11] <rockstar> deryck, that doesn't really set the bar high does it?
[13:11] <deryck> heh
[13:11] <rockstar> Getting kicked in the balls is better than Windows 7.
[13:12] <rockstar> dickelbeck, I can, and am reading.  Why don't you summarize?
[13:13] <dickelbeck> I unable to affect https://code.launchpad.net/kicad/+activereviews by mailing to merge@code.launchpad.net
[13:14] <dickelbeck> My merge bundle is in hand, I can send it to you somehow.  It wants to merge into lp:kicad from a local, non-accessible bug fix branch, and includes the patch in the bundle.
[13:14] <rockstar> dickelbeck, how did you generate the bundle?
[13:15] <dickelbeck> bzr send -o
[13:15] <rockstar> dickelbeck, so the bundle got attached then?
[13:16] <dickelbeck> do you want to see the bundle?   Sorry, that was "bzr send -o fullpath.bundle"
[13:16] <dickelbeck> then I attached it to a new email, signed it, sent it.
[13:33] <Italian_Plumber> when I click on "How to get the fingerprint" on the launchpad page for "Change your OpenPGP Keys", I get a pop up that shows its loading but never loads any content.  Is there somewhere else I can find out how to get the fingerprint?
[13:36] <poolie> Italian_Plumber, just do 'gpg --fingerprint me@example.com' or whatever is the address in your key
[13:38] <Italian_Plumber> ok thanks i'll try that
[13:40] <Italian_Plumber> hmmm... why would my ".gnupg" directory be owned by root?
[13:59] <dickelbeck> rockstar, what's next?
[13:59] <rockstar> dickelbeck, sorry.
[13:59] <rockstar> dickelbeck, you signed the email?
[14:00] <rockstar> dickelbeck, and out of curiousity, why not `bzr send` ?
[14:00] <dickelbeck> I sent the same email a couple of times, fighting with my email client at first.  On the 3rd or fourth attempt it was signed properly, the first few not.
[14:00] <rockstar> Er, why not let bzr take care of attaching the email, etc.
[14:00] <rockstar> Does launchpad know about your key?
[14:01] <dickelbeck> bzr send, did not put in the destination address properly, the recipient field in thunderbird was empty.
[14:01] <dickelbeck> yes launchpad has the key.  The first few bad emails gave me bounce backs, the last one did not trigger any objections.
[14:02] <rockstar> dickelbeck, if you put "submit_to = merge@code.launchpad.net" into your ~/.bazaar/bazaar.conf, it'll set the recipient properly.
[14:02] <rockstar> dickelbeck, and where's the branch you're proposing for merge?
[14:03] <dickelbeck> on my hard drive, not accessible to launchpad.net
[14:05] <rockstar> dickelbeck, and what's the target?
[14:05] <dickelbeck> lp:kicad
[14:05] <dickelbeck> Again, I still have the bundle, all this information is in there.
[14:10] <rockstar> dickelbeck, hm, I'm not sure here.
[14:11] <dickelbeck> where is the source to this email processor?  how can we get a look at it?
[14:12] <dickelbeck> This is a big deal to me, since it affects the overall utility of launchpad.net.  our contributors are drive by contributors, don't want to push branches.
[14:12] <rockstar> dickelbeck, bzr branch lp:launchpad/devel
[14:13] <rockstar> dickelbeck, they already have accounts on Launchpad, right
[14:13] <dickelbeck> and patches on the mailing list seem to be hard to keep track of and comment on.ulling things from the mail list
[14:13] <dickelbeck> Yesterday was a big blow to my enthusiasm about moving this project to launchpad as a whole.
[14:13] <wgrant> Hmm, why can't they push branches?
[14:14] <dickelbeck> Because they cannot afford to spend 3 days learning how, they are drive by contributors.
[14:14] <dickelbeck> I need a patch manager.
[14:14] <wgrant> Add SSH key, bzr push lp:~username/project/branch
[14:14] <dickelbeck> The launchpad model is not meeting my needs.
[14:15] <dickelbeck> Right now I pull most of the patches down from the mailing list.  I am getting buried.  The website needs a patch manager.
[14:17] <bigjools> it's easy enough to attach patches to bugs
[14:17] <dickelbeck> bigjools, true.   That may be what I will have to institute.
[14:18] <dickelbeck> No way can I trash launchpad now that I was the guy the moved the project here by less than a fully democratic process.
[14:19] <Meths> Can you merge a bug attachment?  How does having a patch on a bug differ that much from having a patch on an email?
[14:19] <bigjools> I think that pushing branches is probably easier than emailing or attaching them to bugs, it's just the case that people like to do what they know already
[14:20] <dickelbeck> The whole usage model is not ideal.  The site needs a patch manager, or google for "code review software".  If I cannot get bundles in by email, then what?
[14:20] <bigjools> abentley may have more advice than I can offer when he's around
[14:21] <wgrant> You can email bundles in.
[14:21] <wgrant> it's obviously just not quite working in this particular case.
[14:21] <wgrant> But pushing branches is almost always easier...
[14:21] <dickelbeck> wgrant, please.  It is not working, please read the history of this dialog.
[14:21] <wgrant> I know it's not working *in this particular case*.
[14:21] <wgrant> In the general case it works fine.
[14:21] <bigjools> people are put off because it's "different"
[14:22] <bigjools> or perceived to be hard
[14:22] <maxb> However it's not well documented, and the gpg signing requirement can be tricky
[14:22] <MTecknology> Is there any help page for building recipe contents?
[14:24] <dickelbeck> I'm was even willing to volunteer to take patches off the mailing list and put them into https://code.launchpad.net/kicad/+activereviews
[14:24] <dickelbeck> by way of email, but I am unable to do it.
[14:25] <bigjools> I effectively email patches by doing "bzr send"
[14:25] <bigjools> MTecknology: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/SourceBuilds/GettingStarted
[14:25] <dickelbeck> bigjools, are these bundles from a private branch against a public branch?
[14:27] <MTecknology> bigjools: thanks
[14:27] <bigjools> dickelbeck: it generates a diff of two branches, doesn't matter where they are
[14:27] <bigjools> well, one is local obviously
[14:27] <bigjools> when abentley comes in, I'll ask him to chat to you, he knows more than I on this
[14:27] <dickelbeck> bigjools, yes the documentation says that should work.  It did not work for me, and I got no complaints from the mail server back.
[14:28] <bigjools> ok
[14:28] <bigjools> I'm sure he'll be able to figure out your problem
[14:29] <dickelbeck> when is abently working, I can come back then?
[14:30] <bigjools> he should be here soon, he's UTC-4
[14:35] <dickelbeck> thats about 10:30 in the morning for him, doing something else probably.
[14:40] <MTecknology> yay, now I just need to get a branch import approved and I can become very excited
[14:56] <hannie> danilos, ping
[14:57] <danilos> hannie, hi
[14:58] <hannie> May I ask you something?
[14:58] <danilos> hannie, sure
[14:58] <lifeless> losa ping - can someone unsubscribe the 'ipv6 task force' from https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eglibc/+bug/417757 - hugely noisy for lots of people
[14:58] <hannie> About Ubuntu manual Lucid-e1 and Lucid-e2
[14:59] <lifeless> added before we restricted subscriptions of teams
[14:59] <hannie> We had translated 70% of Lucid-e1 so far
[14:59] <danilos> hannie, yeah, are you still having problems with translations disappearing?
[14:59] <danilos> hannie, oh, something else, sure :)
[14:59] <wgrant> lifeless: Done.
[14:59] <hannie> Yes, all my translations have become suggestions
[14:59] <mthaddon> lifeless: er, that seems quite relevant to ipv6 task force
[14:59] <danilos> hannie, again? on lucid-e1 or lucid-e2?
[14:59] <hannie> Both
[14:59] <mthaddon> lifeless: who can confirm we really want to unsusbcribe that user?
[15:00] <wgrant> People have been complaining.
[15:00] <hannie> Kevin Godsby suggested not to start with e2 until end of july
[15:00] <lifeless> mthaddon: yes, we're sure: it was subscribed in the 'please fix for me' sense
[15:00] <danilos> hannie, that's weird
[15:00] <lifeless> mthaddon: by someone not in the team
[15:00] <hannie> But now e2 has changed from 70 % translated to 39%
[15:01] <mthaddon> lifeless: can't someone from within the team unsubscribe?
[15:01] <danilos> hannie, oh, right, that's because they are using message sharing: I should have thought of that earlier
[15:01] <hannie> Can it be fixed?
[15:02] <danilos> hannie, basically, since those two have mostly the same messages, they get applied to both when lucid-e2 messes them up
[15:02] <lifeless> mthaddon: I have a suspicion that we made the permission thing there symetric
[15:02] <hannie> But can it be fixed?
[15:02] <danilos> hannie, it's a bug that I'll bump the priority for so we'll get it done soon
[15:02] <wgrant> lifeless: You didn't. The subscription is gone now.
[15:02] <danilos> hannie, a work-around is still simple: project maintainers would need to set up lucid-e2 to import only templates as well
[15:02] <mthaddon> lifeless: bug#134577
[15:02] <danilos> hannie, i.e. on https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu-manual/lucid-e2/+translations-settings
[15:02] <hannie> ok, danilos
[15:03] <danilos> hannie, I'll also make sure we fix the actual bug soon
[15:03] <hannie> I thank you for it, it will save me a lot of time
[15:03] <lifeless> bug 134577 ?
[15:03] <mthaddon> thx wgrant
[15:03] <danilos> hannie, I am very sorry for the trouble
[15:04] <hannie> That's ok, but it gave me a few more gray hairs
[15:04] <hannie> Danilos, I have no access to the link you gave me
[15:05] <danilos> hannie, are you project maintainer/driver for ubuntu-manual?
[15:06] <hannie> I am just a translator
[15:06] <danilos> hannie, right, then you don't have access to it; it's something project maintainers can do
[15:07] <danilos> hannie, for yourself, you should probably download a PO file as soon as you are done with translation for a while, and if it turns it into suggestions, you can just re-upload it (at least until we fix the bug)
[15:07] <danilos> anyway, got to go out for a bit now, ttyl
[15:08] <hannie> danilos, thanks
[15:56] <maxb> MTecknology: Have you noticed that you've actually misspelt the project ID of nginx as ninx? :-)
[15:57] <MTecknology> maxb: https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+question/118418
[15:57] <MTecknology> maxb: oops
[15:57] <maxb> ah
[16:04] <MTecknology> maxb: thanks for the approval :) Once it imports I'm going to try out a recipe :)
[16:15] <shadeslayer> anyone around to help with bug 608302 reported by X3
[16:17] <wgrant> shadeslayer: That's impossible.
[16:17] <bigjools> shadeslayer: I can't parse that description
[16:17] <wgrant> shadeslayer: The binaries themselves are not signed.
[16:17] <wgrant> The archive is.
[16:17] <shadeslayer> wgrant: i know the binaries are not signed,the archive is
[16:18] <bigjools> "the ppa where the packages where copied to ppa B if added to sources reports packages are untrusted"
[16:18] <shadeslayer> but strangely even after importing the key
[16:18] <X3> well importing the ppa where the packages have been signed when installing come from untrusted source and could be a security risk
[16:18] <bigjools> no
[16:18] <X3> importing the origin ppa key fixed bug
[16:18] <X3> er ya
[16:18] <bigjools> echan
[16:19] <shadeslayer> packages do not get authenticated
[16:20] <bigjools> I don't understand the problem, can you please explain exactly what you're doing?
[16:21] <X3> copy binaries from ppa A to ppa B, add ppa B to system, install packages ~ security warning
[16:21] <bigjools> X3: what is generating the security warning?
[16:22] <X3> the apt-get or aptitude install line
[16:22] <bigjools> what you're describing is impossible
[16:22] <bigjools> I have done this myself and it's fine
[16:22] <X3> it just spews out these packages are from untrusted source and could compromise your system bla bla bla
[16:23] <bigjools> it means that either, your Releases file is out of date (transparent proxy?) or you don't have the gpg key installed
[16:23] <X3> gpg key shows up on sources manager
[16:24] <bigjools> can you provide a screen log of your actions?
[16:24] <X3> it is fixed by either a) add orgin ppa key or b)rebuild sources inead of copying binaries
[16:24] <bigjools> basically, if you're not installing packages from PPA A then there is *no way* that it can affect PPA B
[16:25] <bigjools> the binaries are re-published in PPA B if they are copied
[16:25] <X3> yes just because there is *no way* doesn mean I been imagining this all morning
[16:26] <bigjools> [16:24:24] <bigjools> can you provide a screen log of your actions?
[16:27] <bigjools> and do you know if there's a proxy in your way?
[16:27] <X3> well not at the moment since then I have deleted packages from ppa B in order to rebuild packages on ppa B and fix issue
[16:27] <bigjools> I've seen people have GPG issues before when there's a proxy that's not refreshing Releases
[16:27] <X3> no proxy
[16:27] <X3> well unless the VM is making proxy
[16:28] <bigjools> don't take offence but I'm going to mark your bug invalid - there will be another explanation, I can try and help you find it
[16:29] <shadeslayer> unfourtunately i cant test it out since im on maverick
[16:30] <X3> ya I take no offense n wasting most of my day
[16:30] <X3> :/
[16:30] <bigjools> I offered to help, would you like me to help or not?
[16:31] <X3> sure
[16:32] <bigjools> which PPA is affected?  I can install it here.
[16:32] <X3> however im unsure how this is gonna get resolved unless I rebuild packages on ppa B which is now complaning about exsiting sources
[16:32] <bigjools> you can't publish the same version again
[16:32] <bigjools> apt clients don't like that
[16:32] <bigjools> so it's prevented
[16:32] <X3> https://edge.launchpad.net/~team-iquik/+archive/alsa
[16:33] <X3> well I tried delinting the copied packages
[16:33] <maxb> What is delinting?
[16:33] <shadeslayer> X3: i just copied them back
[16:33] <shadeslayer> maxb: deleting
[16:33] <X3> its a typo for deleting
[16:34] <X3> ah u copied them I was wondering what the hell they were doing still there
[16:34] <X3> if it helps sort this out
[16:35] <X3> i rebuilt the packages from ppa A to a ppa C to test and the error was gone
[16:35] <bigjools> I suspect that is a coincidence
[16:35] <X3> idk
[16:35] <bigjools> can you paste the exact error you got from apt please?
[16:36] <X3> its no longer up on terminal buffer is past it
[16:36] <X3> sec Ill try to recreate agin
[16:39] <bigjools> I tried here and it worked fine
[16:41] <X3> funny now the error is not there, perhaps having deleted packages and re-copying fixed it
[16:42] <bigjools> The only thing that will have caused is a timestamp change on Releases
[16:42] <bigjools> but seeing the original error will help
[16:43] <X3> cant really oblige the buffer on terminal is gone unless there is a way to dig it out
[16:43] <X3> if there is a way and u can help dig it out
[16:44] <bigjools> I don't know of a way once it's off buffer
[16:44] <X3> nor I :(
[16:44] <bigjools> I keep huge scrollback buffers for that reason :)
[16:45] <X3> ya well
[16:45] <bigjools> ok what I think happened here is that the signing key for your PPA was not generated yet because that doesn't happen until packages are put in it
[16:45] <bigjools> so you copied packages in, then immediately tried to download them
[16:45] <bigjools> apt-get update complains because there's no signing key yet
[16:46] <X3> not quite immediatly it was a whle after, but that makes sense
[16:46] <bigjools> then it got added a few minutes later and co-incided with you adding PPA A
[16:46] <X3> idk most likely
[16:46] <bigjools> generating keys is not that quick unfortunately
[16:46] <X3> makes sense
[16:47] <bigjools> so you should be all set now
[16:47] <X3> ya thx for help
[16:48] <X3> was a bit frsutrating having to find this out after a day wasted
[16:48] <bigjools> is there anything you think we can do to make the experience better?
[16:49] <X3> i knew about keys but once the ppa has packages and they published if key is not ready then it shouldnt appear on ppa until it is
[16:49] <X3> yes pls
[16:49] <X3> if the keys are not ready for that ppa, the ppa should not show ready status
[16:49] <bigjools> some people accept the warning and download the packages anyway
[16:49] <bigjools> we could put a status on new PPA pages saying the key is not ready yet
[16:50] <X3> aye that not the problem
[16:50] <X3> ya the satus is good way to go
[16:50] <bigjools> ok thanks for the feedback
[16:50] <X3> thx for help
[16:51] <bigjools> got there in the end ;)
[16:51] <X3> and sorry if I sounded a bit frsutrated
[16:51] <bigjools> we've all been there ...
[16:51] <X3> i bet
[16:52] <X3> put a health warning on Linux
[16:52] <X3> trying to get things to work as they should may cause your brains to fry
[16:53] <bigjools> same goes for all OSes I've tried
[16:59] <dickelbeck> bigjools, next time you email in a bundle to merge@code.launchpad.net, can you cc:  dick@softplc.com ?  TIA.  Just want to compare email constructions.
[17:10] <dickelbeck> abentley: can you help with merge@code.launchpad.net mail processing?
[17:11] <abentley> dickelbeck, sure, what's the issue?
[17:13] <dickelbeck> Yesterday I emailed a bundle, which included  a patch since the changes were from a local branch, and they never made it to the destination branch.
[17:13] <dickelbeck> the destination branch was lp:kicad and the mail was signed.
[17:14] <dickelbeck> I did not get any email error notification back on the last attempt, whereas I had gotten some bounce backs until I got my signing to happen.
[17:14] <maxb> dickelbeck: Perhaps you could pastebin the source of the message you sent?
[17:15] <dickelbeck> maxb: excellent idea, you are the first to ask.
[17:16]  * maxb wonders why this doesn't have more than a one-sentence mention on help.lp.net
[17:16] <abentley> maxb, it's not our recommended way of submitting changes.
[17:17] <maxb> Yet its existence is public, and not cautioned against. Thus, it ought to be documented sufficiently to not be a path to frustration
[17:19] <abentley> dickelbeck, our logs don't indicate that we attempted to process a merge directive yesterday, much less that processing failed.
[17:20] <abentley> dickelbeck, so how about that pastebin?
[17:20] <dickelbeck> you want me to use http://paste.ubuntu.com/ ?  if so, it seems hung now.
[17:21] <abentley> dickelbeck, I'm not picky.
[17:21] <dickelbeck> http://pastebin.com/qZFnttuX
[17:22] <dickelbeck> I see some thunderbird applied line wrapping, this text was from my "sent" folder.
[17:25] <Quintasan> james_w: well, thanks for the help on Qt, got it working now :)
[17:26]  * Quintasan is now waiting for space increase in PPA
[17:42] <abentley> dickelbeck, I'm sorry, but it looks like we don't have sufficient logging to track down what happened.
[17:43] <dickelbeck> well this particular bundle is already obsolete.  How can I get this to work?  Can bzr send the bundle itself, not using a mail client?
[17:44] <dickelbeck> maybe somebody can just cc: me on an email that is expected to pass the codehandler.py and I can look for differences.
[17:44] <abentley> dickelbeck, yes, it can use the "editor" mail client for example.
[17:44] <shadeslayer> Quintasan: :D
[17:45] <dickelbeck> abentley: never header of the editor mail client, what is that and why would it be better than thunderbird w/ enigmail?
[17:46] <abentley> dickelbeck, it's documented in the "send" command.  It's not better than thunderbird, but it is the answer to the question "Can bzr send the bundle itself, not using a mail client."
[17:47] <MTecknology> I'm trying to build a recipe that drops the debian/ from another branch into the source and builds. When I try to build it I get the error bzr: ERROR: Branches have no common ancestor, and no merge base revision was specified.
[17:48] <dickelbeck> No, it does not answer the question.  If "editor" is going to send the email, then bzr is not sending the email?  My question was can the python code in bzr do the SMTP protocol and send the bundle?
[17:50] <abentley> dickelbeck, "editor" is a pseudo-mail client supported by the "send" command, and is entirely bzr.  Mail sent using this pseudo-mail client is sent by bzr itself.
[17:50] <maxb> abentley: editor cannot be used to send to Launchpad, because it cannot gpg-sign..... unless I've missed a trick?
[17:50] <abentley> maxb, this is true.
[17:52] <MTecknology> If anyone has the chance, could you peak at my build recipe and tell me what I screwed up on? https://code.launchpad.net/~nginx/+recipe/nginx-stable
[17:52] <maxb> abentley: Regarding the auto-create MP via email thingy - am I correct in thinking that this entails LP creating a branch from the bundle first, and that the name of the branch you want created needs to be in the bundle metadata?
[17:52] <abentley> dickelbeck, here is the source of a message I sent that was successfully handled by merge@code.launchpad.net: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/467103/
[17:53] <abentley> maxb, the name of the branch does not need to be in the bundle metadata.
[17:53] <abentley> maxb, It's true that LP creates the branch from the bundle.
[17:53] <maxb> How will launchpad decide it, then?
[17:54] <abentley> maxb, It prefers to use the name in the merge directive, but if there is none, it uses "merge" with an optional digit prefix.
[17:54] <maxb> ah, ok
[17:54] <abentley> digit *suffix* actually.
[17:54] <dickelbeck> btw, yesterday LP created these funny branches yesterday for me, one for each failed attempt I think.  So the sequence is out of kilter, these first 3 attempts were not properly signed emails.
[17:55] <dickelbeck> Then the final email was signed, and it was dropped?  Should I switch the project back to sourceforge?  :)
[17:55] <maxb> MTecknology: I think, perhaps, that you want to *nest* not *merge* the packaging
[17:55] <abentley> dickelbeck, I would suggest using the lp-propose command instead.
[17:56] <MTecknology> maxb: thanks :)
[17:56] <maxb> MTecknology: also, I'd suggest testing whether the recipe works locally, rather than waiting for Launchpad to process
[17:56] <dickelbeck> abentley:  Only if you remove all the documentation from the LP site that says I can use email, and that cost me 3 days so far.
[17:57] <MTecknology> maxb: how do I do that?
[17:57] <dickelbeck> The documentation should not be there if somebody is not to use it.  I am not able to ask my developers to push a branch, some of them are "drive by" contributors.
[17:58] <dickelbeck> lunch.
[18:00] <abentley> dickelbeck, your request to remove documentation is overbroad-- one aspect of doing this by mail didn't work, not all aspects.
[18:00] <abentley> dickelbeck, I routinely use email for commenting and making reviews.
[18:00] <abentley> dickelbeck, this is the first report I've had that this feature doesn't work.
[18:01] <MTecknology> That's about the only way I add comments for merging
[18:02] <abentley> dickelbeck, anyone who wants to propose a merge must have a launchpad account and bzr, so I don't understand why pushing would be an undue burden on drive-by contributors.
[18:03] <MTecknology> abentley: nest pyfoo lp:pyfoo foo <-- pyfoo is just a tag that you add and foo is?
[18:03] <MTecknology> abentley: sorry to cause you headaches today
[18:04] <abentley> MTecknology, foo is the directory where you want to place the contents of lp:pyfoo
[18:04] <MTecknology> if you want it just in / then omit?
[18:04] <abentley> MTecknology, in the common case, it will be "debian".
[18:04] <MTecknology> the branch I'm adding has a debian/ in it
[18:05] <abentley> MTecknology, the nest command does not support that.
[18:05] <abentley> MTecknology, if possible, use "merge" instead.
[18:05] <bullgard4> I am familiar with reporting a bug to Launchpad.  Today I would like to put a question concerning Empathy 2.28.3 to Launchpad. How to do that?
[18:05] <MTecknology> abentley: I tried that and it didn't like me
[18:05] <MTecknology> abentley: I got an error in the build log pasted a little further up
[18:06] <MTecknology> Here's the whole build log  http://launchpadlibrarian.net/52269713/buildlog.txt.gz
[18:06] <abentley> MTecknology, you'll need to create a new branch whose contents are just the debian directory, then.
[18:08] <MTecknology> abentley: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~nginx/ninx/debian
[18:09] <MTecknology> abentley: or do you mean a new branch that has only a debian directory and nothing else that I merge?
[18:09] <abentley> MTecknology, no, without a debian directory in it.
[18:09] <abentley> MTecknology, just the contents of the directory.
[18:09] <abentley> In the root.
[18:10] <MTecknology> abentley: I suppose it'd be easy enough to change that import..
[18:11] <MTecknology> just append /debian to it
[18:11] <francovalledor> hi
[18:11] <dickelbeck> abentley: thanks for your help.  I will study the pastebin and send a few email to myself until they look like yours.
[18:11] <francovalledor> somebody speak english?
[18:11] <MTecknology> abentley: maxb approve it, should I ask him?
[18:11] <francovalledor> i need help
[18:11] <MTecknology> francovalledor: just ask :)
[18:11] <dickelbeck> if you say it works, I will persist a little longer, thanks agian.
[18:11] <francovalledor> mi english is beginner
[18:12] <francovalledor> my english is beginne
[18:12] <francovalledor> r
[18:12] <francovalledor> i wanna register a project
[18:13] <francovalledor> i don't know "branch"
[18:14] <MTecknology> maxb: Is there any chance you could change the svn import location for that branch - or is it not changeable?
[18:14] <dickelbeck> abentley:  your pastebin does not show the full email, I believe you have to ask thunderbird to "View -> Message Source" to get the full signature stuff at the end.
[18:14] <francovalledor> somebody help me
[18:15] <abentley> dickelbeck, no, the signatures are inline and only the message body is signed.
[18:15] <dickelbeck> abentley:  wait, I do see your signature, but not at the end.  So we are seeing a difference here.
[18:16] <maxb> MTecknology: bzr-builder really doesn't support nesting a branch containing just a debian dir?!
[18:16] <maxb> that's a fairly obvious thing to want to do
[18:16] <abentley> maxb, yes really.
[18:16] <dickelbeck> abentley: I wonder what I have to do in thunderbird, but I know enigmail has about 3 ways to send a signed email.  I will experiment.
[18:16] <MTecknology> yay features :)
[18:17] <abentley> MTecknology, see bug #479705
[18:17] <MTecknology> maxb: in https://code.launchpad.net/~nginx/ninx/debian - the pull location is svn://svn.debian.org/svn/collab-maint/deb-maint/nginx/trunk - is it possible to add /debian to that without having to make a new one?
[18:17] <abentley> sorry, maxb, see bug #479705
[18:18] <maxb> MTecknology: I don't think it would import right if we changed the URL to something semantically different after some revisions had been imported
[18:19] <MTecknology> maxb: aight - I'll make a new request - it'll work perfect with the recipe then :)
[18:19] <maxb> So, we could either create a special mangled import for bzr-builder. Or we could attempt to trick it. Does builder on launchpad support the "run" recipe command?
[18:20] <abentley> maxb, no
[18:20] <maxb> shame :-/
[18:21] <MTecknology> maxb: I think the stand alone branch with a stand alone debian/ + contents is relativley rare - though much easier to deal with :P
[18:22] <MTecknology> maxb: any chance you could check it out?  https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~nginx/ninx/debian
[18:22] <maxb> done
[18:22] <MTecknology> maxb: thanks :D
[18:23] <francovalledor> i wanna register a project
[18:24] <francovalledor> i don't know what is "branch"
[18:24] <MTecknology> francovalledor: go to launchpad.net - create an account - sign in - click "Create a project"
[18:24] <MTecknology> francovalledor: a "branch" is a collection of code that is version controlled
[18:24] <MTecknology> francovalledor: you don't need to have a project to create a branch
[18:27] <francovalledor> i already have a project
[18:27] <francovalledor> Corina
[18:27] <francovalledor> i wanna paste the code
[18:28] <MTecknology> francovalledor: paste?
[18:28] <francovalledor> i wanna load the code to launchpad
[18:28] <MTecknology> You want to create a branch
[18:28] <francovalledor> how make it
[18:28] <francovalledor> ok
[18:29] <francovalledor> Hosted , Mirrored, Remote
[18:29] <MTecknology> hosted
[18:30] <MTecknology> 1) Go into the directory you have your code in. 2) bzr init 3) bzr add 4) bzr commit -m "Your commit message" 5) bzr push lp:~francovalledor/corina/trunk
[18:30] <francovalledor> status
[18:30] <dickelbeck> abentley:  I found a thunderbird 3.0 setting which formats the signed mail like your sample.   Later today I will try emailing to LP.
[18:31] <dickelbeck> abentley: again, thanks for your help!
[18:31] <dickelbeck> bye.
[18:35] <MTecknology> francovalledor: I see you created the branch. There's a whole lot you can do in Launchpad - it's best to get comfortable with what you're doing and discover new things as you go. I think devs even discover new features every now and then. :)
[18:42] <francovalledor> now how load the code?
[18:43] <MTecknology> francovalledor: what do you mean by load?
[18:43] <francovalledor> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/467122/
[18:44] <MTecknology> francovalledor: you want to push that code to launchpad?
[18:44] <francovalledor> yes
[18:45] <MTecknology> francovalledor: make a directory on your system for the code to be in
[18:45] <MTecknology> francovalledor: then put your code in there
[18:45] <MTecknology> francovalledor: then follow that series of steps I mentioned above
[18:47] <francovalledor> ok
[18:48] <francovalledor> thanks
[18:49] <MTecknology> francovalledor: let me know if you have more troubles
[18:49] <MTecknology> francovalledor: If you're up for some reading and some detailed information - https://help.launchpad.net/
[18:50] <francovalledor> really i don't understand so much
[18:50] <francovalledor> because my english is beginner
[18:55] <mtu> hey there! say, is there a launchpad-builtin way of accouncing/reporting for some package that there is a news upstream version?
[18:55] <mtu> or will i habe to just send a message to the maintainer?
[18:56] <mtu> (i'm speaking of the ubuntu section of launchpad.net)
[18:56] <MTecknology> abentley: maxb: I think I may have liftoff! :D
[18:56] <MTecknology> It built
[18:57] <MTecknology> mtu: You can be notified of new upstream builds - but I don't think it goes the other way - they can be subscribed to the branches it you want
[18:58] <bullgard4> I am familiar with reporting a bug to Launchpad.  Today I would like to put a question concerning Empathy 2.28.3 to Launchpad. How to do that?
[18:59] <mtu> MTecknology: i'm sorry, i didn't understand the second part of your answer. so you're saying there's no builtin way of telling the maintainer, ”hey, a new upstream version is out”?
[18:59] <MTecknology> mtu: I don't think there is unless they subscribe to the branch
[19:00] <mtu> i see. hum. that's a pity. so i guess i'll just message the maintainer then
[19:00] <MTecknology> bullgard4: https://answers.launchpad.net/empathy
[19:01] <MTecknology> mtu: Sometimes it can be a pain - especially if you need to fix a bug in LP and then convince upstream to accept the patch
[19:02] <mtu> MTecknology: i see that for the particular package i'm talking about, there's a bug registered that says "please update". i guess that's one way to do it...
[19:04] <MTecknology> mtu: now... if the whole world used launchpad - things would be easier :D
[19:04] <mtu> true :P
[19:06] <MTecknology> mtu: separate bug tracking systems always get to be a pain - separate main branches is always a pain too - LP has some features that help integrate other code bases and trackers though
[19:10] <bullgard4> MTecknology: Thank you for your help.
[19:11] <Jeeves_> (and features to freeze your browser :))
[19:24] <MTecknology> maxb: is it possible to cancel a queued build? I sent it to the wrong PPA
[19:24] <maxb> recipe build? no, I don't think it is
[19:24] <maxb> Normal builds you can cancel by deleting their source before the build starts
[19:25] <MTecknology> maxb: so maybe if I delete the branch?
[19:26] <MTecknology> maxb: ... awesome - thanks :D
[19:31] <MTecknology> maxb: So.. to bug you more.. I tried a build again - it succeeded - so I fired it off again with the other versions - and failed
[19:32] <MTecknology> or.. some succeed and some fail
[19:34] <MTecknology> oh... it's just breaking for maverick
[19:37] <maxb> link to failing buildlog?
[19:37] <MTecknology> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~nginx/+recipe/nginx-stable/+build/370/+files/buildlog.txt.gz
[19:39] <MTecknology> maxb: Is there any way to make the version something like 1-ppa{latest-tag-of-branch} ?
[19:40] <maxb> MTecknology: I know nothing more than what `bzr help builder` tells me :-)
[19:40] <MTecknology> maxb: and that plugin comes from?
[19:40] <maxb> bzr-builder
[19:41] <MTecknology> thanks
[19:44] <MTecknology> maxb: sounds like {debupstream} is what I need
[19:44] <MTecknology> maxb: thanks :)
[19:48] <MTecknology> tyarusso: it's shorter
[19:53] <tyarusso> MTecknology: work nick
[19:53] <tyarusso> Huh.  Just discovered this concept of "packaging recipes" for code branches on LP - how's that work?
[19:57] <jasem> Hi. I have a weird problem. Tried to upload my package to ppa several times but didn't get an email, then suddenly I get an email saying: The source libindi - 0.6.2-0ubuntu1 is already accepted in ubuntu/maverick and you cannot upload the same version within the same distribution
[19:57] <jasem> However, there is no such version in Maverick (it's 0.6.1 there). Why do I get this error?
[19:57] <micahg> jasem: https://edge.launchpad.net/~mutlaqja/+archive/ppa/+builds?build_state=built
[19:58] <jasem> micahg: nothing there for today
[19:58] <micahg> jasem: that version has already been uploaded
[19:59] <jasem> micahg: uploaded where exactly? to my PPA? I deleted the package and reuploaded then got this error
[19:59] <micahg> jasem: yes, you can't reupload the same version
[20:00] <jasem> micahg: I actually changed the control file under debian, is that still considered the "same" version?
[20:01] <jasem> plus, I deleted it from my ppa, so why can't I reupload?
[20:01] <micahg> jasem: the version string in the changelog is what changes the "version", you can't reupload 0.6.2-0ubuntu1 once it's been accepted, but you can upload 0.6.2-0ubuntu1~ppa1 if the other one was deleted
[20:03] <geser> jasem: LP remembers the version you uploaded and doesn't reupload it as it confuses apt clients
[20:03] <jasem> micahg: hmmm OK.
[20:05] <maxb> MTecknology: It looks to me like recipe builds are broken on maverick due to aptitude being removed from the base system, and pbuilder not being fixed to compensate
[20:06]  * beuno is said to see aptitude go
[20:06] <beuno> and sad
[20:06] <maxb> Well, not *gone*, just not default
[20:07] <jamalta> hmm? aptitude not default?
[20:07] <jamalta> did i miss some important news?
[20:07] <maxb> I'm a dedicated aptitude user, but I can understand the argument that aptitude is only used by people who are fully capable of running "apt-get install aptitude"
[20:10] <tyarusso> I forget - how do I delete things from my PPA?
[20:12] <maxb> "View packages" then "Delete packages"
[20:13] <tyarusso> Oh, I see it - hidden in a corner
[20:19] <Darxus> "Sorry, there was a problem connecting to the Launchpad server." - https://launchpad.net/+search?field.text=firefox  (haven't waited two minutes to see if it persists yet)
[20:23] <dickelbeck> abentley: no luck with merge@code.launchpad.net
[20:24] <dickelbeck> Launchpad encountered an internal error during the following operation: creating a merge proposal from message with subject [MERGE] Because almost all toolbar items are not in the menubar of  the module.  It was logged with id OOPS-1663CMP2.  Sorry for the inconvenience.
[20:27] <abentley> dickelbeck, that oops doesn't seem to have synced yet.
[20:28] <dickelbeck> abentley, I am finding it very difficult to coax enigma/thunderbird into doing what LP wants.  I suspect bugs in newer thunderbird/enigma.  It is not even consistently signing when I ask it to.  This from Lucid.
[20:29] <dickelbeck> Many times I have selected "sign mail" and it simply ignores the request.  I know its not your problem.
[20:31] <abentley> dickelbeck, I'll have a better idea once it syncs, which should be any minute now.
[20:32] <blueyed> Sourcebuild recipes appear to require a separate branch for the packaging? Wouldn't it be possible to nest a particular directory ("debian") of another branch (e.g. "lp:ubuntu/$PKG")?
[20:34] <dickelbeck> abentley:  I am seeing a new  https://code.launchpad.net/~dickelbeck/kicad/merge-4 which I believe came from the email being received.
[20:34] <dickelbeck> but no code review entry yet.
[20:35] <dickelbeck> FYI:  why make the branch if the bundle is bad?
[20:36] <abentley> blueyed, that issue is discussed here: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr-builder/+bug/479705
[20:36] <blueyed> ok. that's what I was talking about: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-builder/+bug/479705
[20:36] <blueyed> thanks, abentley  :)
[20:36] <abentley> dickelbeck, well, it could be bad in a way that isn't immediately apparent.
[20:37] <dickelbeck> stepping away for 10 mins..
[20:37] <abentley> dickelbeck, and so we would have to create the branch in order to determine that it is bad.
[20:38] <maxb> Hmm, I just did a test of my own - looks like it has branched the specified target branch, but not applied the bundle
[20:48] <tyarusso> Oh dear.  I think I just managed to create an account only on edge...
[20:48] <beuno> tyarusso, that's not really possible
[20:49] <tyarusso> It seems like it might be happy now, but for a bit it wouldn't let me log in.
[20:50] <tyarusso> Meanwhile, why does LP always make me log in twice before it takes?
[20:50] <beuno> if you're using edge, it may
[20:50] <beuno> edge and production don't share sessions
[20:53] <tyarusso> Also, the fact that the new login service doesn't give me any way to get to my normal page without manually typing a URL as far as I can tell is horrendous - what's up with that?
[20:53] <beuno> tell me more about this normal page
[20:56] <tyarusso> Well, anything on Launchpad would do actually.  launchpad.net or launchpad.net/~tonyyarusso would be good
[20:57] <tyarusso> Instead I just get https://login.launchpad.net/
[20:57] <maxb> Can someone tell me stuff about OOPS-1663CMP3? Or just public-pastebin it?
[20:57] <tyarusso> Listing my name, e-mail, and sites I've authenticated to.
[20:58] <dickelbeck> abentley, why does LP "propose" not simply take a bundle in as a form handler?
[20:58] <maxb> tyarusso: What are you trying to do, and what is not working? I don't understand your explanation so far
[20:58] <tyarusso> Then I have to go change the URL to remove "login.", then log in *again* to Launchpad with OpenID, and then sometimes I have to do that step twice.
[20:59] <tyarusso> maxb: Trying to log in.  What is not working is that after doing so I end up on a completely useless page instead of where I was trying to go, and have to jump through more hoops to do anything.
[21:00] <abentley> dickelbeck, lp-propose is intended to be used instead of bundles.
[21:01] <dickelbeck> abentley, I am on the edge now.  I have reached the conclusion the Launchpad was a mistake, we should have stayed at sourceforge, where they have a bug tracker.
[21:01] <maxb> tyarusso: I do not have that experience. Let me log out and in again and see what happens.
[21:02] <dickelbeck> abentley, I suspect it is not for lack of effort, but the whole concept is not meeting our needs.  We have too many patches, coming in from too many folks who will simply not be able to jump all the hoops you have set.
[21:02] <tyarusso> maxb: Log all the way out, clearing openid identification.
[21:03] <maxb> tyarusso: So, it works properly in the page flow when you visit launchpad.net, and get prompted to authenticate
[21:03] <abentley> dickelbeck, I'm sorry it didn't work out.  I hope you're happier at sourceforge.
[21:03] <dickelbeck> Any body know of a good code review software that let's a project maintainer post patches, have them be commented on, and eventually merged?  I don't see it here.
[21:03] <maxb> What does suck rather is that if you explicitly log out, you get transferred to login.lp.net, and don't get redirected back even if you log back in
[21:06] <maxb> abentley: Do you have a moment to pastebin me OOPS-1663CMP3?
[21:06] <dickelbeck> No sense taking any feedback from a user in an effort to improve the experience.  That would actually be very open source unnatural.
[21:06] <dickelbeck> Add the form for posting a bundle to "propose"!
[21:06] <dickelbeck> bye
[21:11] <abentley> maxb, http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/467180/
[21:12] <maxb> *blink*
[21:12] <maxb> That's deeper into bzr than I expected
[21:12] <MTecknology> maxb: this really really really ticks me off that they're doing it - it's yet another package I have to add on every system :(
[21:13] <abentley> maxb, my guess is that stacked branches don't support bundles.
[21:13] <MTecknology> maxb: can you tell the recipe to only build on amd64 and i386? I was looking for it but not finding it
[21:13] <maxb> MTecknology: *shrug* I don't really care - the defaults are never going to be *exactly* what I want. I expect to need to customise the package selection.
[21:14] <poolie> MTecknology, what package is that?
[21:14] <MTecknology> poolie: aptitude
[21:14] <abentley> MTecknology, doesn't the package itself specify the architectures?
[21:14] <maxb> MTecknology: I do not know. But I wouldn't care about it. After all, PPAs only support those two anyway, from lucid onwards
[21:14] <MTecknology> abentley: oops- it does
[21:15] <maxb> abentley: That sounds depressingly possible.... in which case this entire feature is broken in any project with a development focus branch? :-/
[21:17] <MTecknology> Getting the recipe to work just so is very hard for the beginner :P
[21:18]  * maxb breaks the development focus designation and resubmits email
[21:18] <abentley> maxb, the same symptoms are here: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/522637
[21:19] <MTecknology> I just realized that the changelog between versions can be different....
[21:19] <MTecknology> will be*
[21:19] <MTecknology> I was trying to build two version with the same debian/
[21:20] <MTecknology> Which works except for the actual version created is wrong then
[21:21] <MTecknology> If only the recipe allowed me to download a changelog file and run a script inside of another branch to get the actual changelog :P
[21:21] <MTecknology> maxb: probably a feature that won't ever exist?
[21:22] <maxb> It seems unlikely
[21:23] <maxb> Hmm, still oopses without stacking in the equation: OOPS-1663CMP4
[21:27] <MTecknology> maxb: so - can a 'nest' overwrite files?
[21:27] <maxb> I do not know :-)  I have never actually tried a recipe build!
[21:28] <MTecknology> oh..
[21:30] <abentley> MTecknology, I don't think it can.
[21:31] <MTecknology> abentley: poopy - I was going to nest the upstream debian/ contents and then just overwrite the changelog file
[21:31] <MTecknology> abentley: otherwise I need to just make a whole clone of it
[21:32] <abentley> MTecknology, you're aware that the recipe specifies the debian version, right?
[21:33] <abentley> maxb, OOPS-1663CMP4 looks like the same issue.
[21:33] <tyarusso> I wish there was a way to make the recipe just use the entire version for changelog
[21:33] <maxb> hmm. Not stacking related then.
[21:33] <tyarusso> and not build if it hadn't been changed.
[21:33] <abentley> tyarusso, daily builds only build if one of the branches has changed.
[21:34] <abentley> tyarusso, I don't know what you mean about "just use the entire version for changelog".
[21:34] <tyarusso> abentley: I know - I want to base it off debian/changelog instead of bzr revision.
[21:34] <abentley> tyarusso, I believe there's a substitution for that.
[21:34] <tyarusso> eg, use "1.0-1ppa7"
[21:34] <MTecknology> abentley: Ya, but I was trying to make the deb version actually 'right' - like '0.8.46-0ppa1' or s/ppa1/~lucid/ - If I use the default it builds as revno~lucid - but the revno has nothing to do with the version
[21:34] <tyarusso> abentley: I found one for the upstream part (1.0) but can't find anything for the rest so far.
[21:35] <MTecknology> {debupstream} won't work because the upstream version will change
[21:36] <MTecknology> Now... If I could do {lasttag:branch}+0 <- that would be awesome
[21:36] <MTecknology> because I tagged each commit with the actual version number
[21:37] <MTecknology> abentley: any chance that could be an approved feature request? :D - Without suggesting I have a clue how to add that feature
[21:38] <abentley> MTecknology, you'd do much better talking to james_w.  I don't control the featureset of bzr-builder.
[21:39] <MTecknology> james_w: pretty please :)
[21:39] <MTecknology> tyarusso: is that something that would work well for you?
[21:39] <tyarusso> MTecknology: uh, maybe
[21:40] <abentley> MTecknology, could you explain why it's bad that the upstream version will change?
[21:41] <micahg> deryck: is it worth filing a bug if I get a timeout?
[21:42] <micahg> or should I just comment on the timeout bug?
[21:42] <deryck> micahg, depends.  It might be a dupe of one lifeless has already filed.  So a comment or further info would be more helpful on those bugs.
[21:42] <deryck> if you can find the other bugs with all the timeouts now ;)
[21:42] <micahg> deryck: ok, I've been getting a few a day, so I'll comment when I have them
[21:42] <deryck> micahg, thanks!
[21:43] <MTecknology> abentley: not that it changes - if the changelog says 0.7.34-0 <- that's great. The problem is when I build two versions - the source code for 0.8.37 will still use that changelog version (makes sense that it would) even though it's actually a different version
[21:43] <MTecknology> abentley: {debupstream} works perfect for the one source - not the other
[21:44] <abentley> MTecknology, what makes it perfect for one but wrong for the other?
[21:44] <MTecknology> abentley: https://code.launchpad.net/~nginx/+recipe/nginx-stable   https://code.launchpad.net/~nginx/+recipe/nginx-development
[21:46] <MTecknology> stable is at version 0.7.67 ={debupstream} &&  development is at version 0.8.46
[21:47] <abentley> MTecknology, if your changelog has the wrong version number, you wouldn't want to use it with development anyhow, right?
[21:48] <MTecknology> abentley: the debian/ for both is exactly the same except for version number
[21:48] <MTecknology> abentley: that's why I was wondering about overwriting one file like that
[21:49] <abentley> MTecknology, what about just specifying the right version number in the recipe?
[21:49] <MTecknology> abentley: because then I'd need to change it every time I build it - I was shooting for magicness
[21:50] <MTecknology> granted a separate branch would be about the same..
[21:52] <MTecknology> hrm..
[21:57] <MTecknology> How can I specify what a branch is stacked against?
[21:58] <MTecknology> or - what it refers too -however that's stated
[21:58] <MTecknology> or I can look at the help :P
[22:07] <abentley> MTecknology, the default stacking branch is the development focus.  You can try specifying one at the commandline, but I can't remember whether that works.
[22:09] <MTecknology> abentley: doesn't seem to
[22:09] <MTecknology> abentley: I feel like I'm being a huge thorn :P
[22:10] <abentley> MTecknology, sometimes it goes that way, and recipe builds are a new feature, so of course there are gaps.
[22:11] <MTecknology> abentley: I just learned how to use bzr build :D
[22:12] <MTecknology> abentley: and you're right.. can't overwrite the changelog... I suppose unless I do the nest - and then merge
[22:14] <MTecknology> abentley: the ability to make a package just by changing a branch is really amazing - I WILL make it work :P
[22:30] <MTecknology> abentley: YES!
[22:31] <MTecknology> abentley: wait.. I built a recipe that worked perfect locally - but I can't use it in LP
[22:33] <MTecknology> 'run' isn't allowed in recipies on launchpad?.. :(
[22:34] <MTecknology> That would have been absolutely perfect.
[23:10] <MTecknology> rockstar: any chance you could help me out in query a little bit?
[23:11] <MTecknology> instead of flooding the channel more..
[23:26] <wookey> hello, just uploaded my 1st PPA and it got rejected with an error that doesn;t seem to be covered on https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/UploadErrors
[23:27] <wookey> dpkg-source failed for therion_5.3.3-1.dsc [return: 29]
[23:28] <wgrant> wookey: Urgh. Can you pastebin the complete email?
[23:29] <wgrant> Which format is the source?
[23:30] <wookey> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/467228/
[23:30] <wookey> I changed it to quilt
[23:30] <wookey> that email seems to be reporting v1.8, which I'm not sure is valid?
[23:30] <wgrant> That's the .changes version, which is fine.
[23:31] <wookey> ah, OK
[23:31] <wookey> so debian/source/format says 3.0 (quilt)
[23:32] <wgrant> Give me a sec, I'm grabbing the package.
[23:46] <wgrant> wookey: Sorry, had to create a new hardy chroot.
[23:46] <geser> wookey: unrelated to your current problem, you should replace the "unstable" with an Ubuntu release name before you upload it again else it will get rejected again
[23:46] <wgrant> dpkg-source: error: remove patch backup file therion-5.3.3/lxGLC.cxx.orig.dpkg-orig: No such file or directory
[23:46] <wgrant> That's the error that our backported dpkg gives.
[23:46] <wgrant> I think we may need a new backport.
[23:47] <wgrant> Or just wait until the production servers are upgraded to Lucid.
[23:51] <wookey> wgrant, I left it as stable because I was following the docs for 'Using packages from other distributions' on https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading
[23:51] <wookey> s/stable/unstable/
[23:51] <wgrant> wookey: That's fine.
[23:51] <wgrant> The override exists for just this purpose.
[23:53] <wookey> OK, cheers for checking. looks like a dpkg-source behaviour mismatch. Still that file should be there, so I'll kill it and try again
[23:53] <wookey> s/should/shouldn't
[23:53] <wookey> getting late!
[23:54] <wgrant> Lucid's dpkg extracts it fine, but our Hardy backport does not.