[00:31] <MTecknology> This may or may not be a bug in Launchpad.. I had some branches that were stacked against the development focus. When the name of the project changed, the branch that it was stacked against wasn't updated. So so I'm unable to pull the branch at all..
[00:32] <MTecknology> kiko: how've you been?
[00:32] <wgrant> It's arguably a bug.
[00:32] <wgrant> You can go in with hitchhiker or an sftp client and change the stacked-on name.
[00:34] <MTecknology> wgrant: how does an individual do that?
[00:35] <wgrant> MTecknology: sudo apt-get install hitchhiker
[00:36] <wgrant> hitchhiker lp:~path/to/branch
[00:36] <wgrant> edit .bzr/branch/branch.conf
[00:36] <wgrant> <change stacked_on_location>
[00:38] <MTecknology> wgrant: .... woah
[00:38] <wgrant> Hm?
[00:38] <MTecknology> wgrant: weird
[00:39] <MTecknology> wgrant: thanks :)
[00:39] <wgrant> Weird, but effective.
[00:39] <MTecknology> what does hitchhiker do?
[00:39] <MTecknology> oh...
[00:39] <MTecknology> Access locations using Bazaar transports
[00:41] <wgrant> Yep.
[00:41] <wgrant> You could do the same thing with an sftp client, I guess.
[00:42] <MTecknology> firefox is my sftp client
[00:42] <MTecknology> either that or scp is the next closest :P
[00:42] <mwhudson> lftp is an actually usable sftp client
[00:42] <mwhudson> unlike, say, the command line program called 'sftp'
[00:43] <wgrant> Right.
[00:43] <wgrant> But hitchhiker is even easier.
[00:44] <mwhudson> yeah
[00:45] <mtaylor> hitchhiker ftw
[00:45] <mtaylor> wgrant: however, I had no idea I could changed stacked on location so easily... will remember that for next time I royally screw things up
[00:45] <mwhudson> i guess i'm biased towards lftp a bit because i spent ages making launchpad's sftp server work ok with a range of clients :-)
[00:46]  * mtaylor likes hitchhiker because it understands lp: aliases
[00:46] <wgrant> mtaylor: You can probably do the same thing through bzrlib, but this seems simpler.
[00:46] <wgrant> And I know it works.
[00:47] <mtaylor> yeah. I'm all for simple and works
[01:46] <thumper> MTecknology: bug 377519
[02:58] <lfaraone> Is there a tool like "bts" for launchpad?
[03:00] <wgrant> lfaraone: No. But someone could write one using launchpadlib.
[03:00] <lfaraone> wgrant: you'd advise against writing one using mail and gpg? (which was my first idea)
[03:00] <wgrant> lfaraone: Well, you could do that, I guess.
[03:01] <wgrant> That would work offline, but that's the only benefit I can see.
[03:01] <lfaraone> wgrant: but launchpadlib would be easier, you're right :)
[03:01] <thumper> what is BTS?
[03:01] <yofel> bug tracking system
[03:01]  * thumper shakes his head
[03:01] <lfaraone> thumper: part of devscripts, it interacts with the Debian BTS, which, as yofel said, is the bug tracking system.
[03:02] <thumper> lfaraone: and here I was just thinking "well LP is a bug tracking system"
[03:02] <lfaraone> thumper: I can say `bts retitle 544651 "I've fallen and I can't get up!"` and it'll send mail to the tracker taking that action.
[03:03] <thumper> cool
[03:03] <micahg> lfaraone: Debian BTS is a lot more open than LP is due to its prominence
[03:03] <thumper> as wgrant said, launchpadlib would be good for that
[03:03] <lfaraone> micahg: Debian BTS's way of operating benefits from being obtuse enough to ward off most uninteresting bug reports, you know, the ones from actual, like, users.
[03:04] <micahg> lfaraone: exactly :_)
[03:04] <lfaraone> although I have to say I really like the BTS's email interface.
[03:04] <wgrant> lfaraone: Well, the discussion on debian-devel over the last couple of days portrays that as a feature.
[03:04] <wgrant> (that users can't really file bugs)
[03:05] <spm> really?
[03:06] <yofel> I do consider that as a feature too
[03:25] <lfaraone> wgrant: which, "How to make Debian more attractive..."? I just read through the entire thread and didn't see it.
[03:27] <wgrant> lfaraone: Neil Williams' message from 16 or so hours ago, and a couple of replies slightly later.
[03:30] <lfaraone> wgrant: "If users don't do that, there can hardly be complaints if those publicly discussed issues cause the removal of the package from Debian mirrors."?
[03:31] <mwhudson> lfaraone: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/07/msg00475.html
[03:31] <mwhudson> i guess
[03:33] <lfaraone> ah
[03:36] <MTecknology> thumper: yay
[03:47] <MTecknology> so.. I get an email (4) telling me all 4 recipes built successfully
[03:48] <MTecknology> and then 8 more telling me about pieces that failed
[03:48] <MTecknology> 4 failed for amd64, 4 failed for i386
[10:29] <bulldog98> hi @all
[10:30] <bulldog98> I’m currently trying an recipe and the build process in maverick forgot to install the build-deps, is that a bug
[10:30] <bulldog98> ?
[10:32] <geser> bulldog98: does the log perhaps mention that aptitude was not found? if yes then it's sort of a known problem
[10:32] <bulldog98> geser: I’ll check for that just a minute please
[10:34] <bulldog98> geser: not it even doesn’t trys to install the build-deps
[10:35] <bulldog98> here the log is: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~rekonq/+recipe/rekonq-daily/+build/412/+files/buildlog.txt.gz
[10:35] <geser> yep, near the end "/usr/lib/pbuilder/pbuilder-satisfydepends: line 92: aptitude: command not found
[10:36] <geser> that's the (known) problem, don't know if a bug exists for it
[10:37] <wgrant> Bug 599102
[10:37] <bulldog98> geser, wgrant: thanks for your help, I‘ll suscribe myself to that bug, so I’ll know when it’s fixed
[10:40] <bulldog98> seems like it will maybe be fixed today: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/599102/comments/4
[10:41] <wgrant> bulldog98: Very unlikely at this stage.
[10:42] <bulldog98> wgrant: hm, it not that important, cause it’s the dev system, but I‘m on it ^^
[10:49] <nae_> hello:
[10:51] <nae_> I have ppa with the lattest development version  1.0.3 and I'd like to keep another more stable version as for now is 1.0 for this package ..
[10:51] <nae_> question:  Can I upgrade to my current ppa the 1.0 version again and create another ppa for the devel version?
[10:53] <bulldog98> nae_: you would have to purge the package in your PPA to upload an older version
[10:54] <bulldog98> or you add an Epoche
[10:54] <bulldog98> e.g. 1:1.0
[10:54] <nae_> bulldog98: thanks ..
[10:56] <wgrant> Be very, very wary about adding an epoch.
[10:56] <wgrant> Ah, he's gone. Sad.
[11:01] <falktx> hi guys
[11:01] <falktx> all my ppa builds are failing
[11:01] <falktx> is this normal?
[11:01] <falktx> example:
[11:01] <falktx> https://launchpad.net/~falk-t-j/+archive/lucid-latest/+build/1887049
[11:04] <bigjools> falktx: that looks special.
[11:04] <falktx> bigjools: really?
[11:04] <falktx> bigjools: it's not a usual thing that is happening?
[11:04] <bigjools> falktx: where special == broken
[11:04] <falktx> oh
[11:04] <bigjools> I've asked an admin to take a look
[11:04] <falktx> thanks
[11:05] <bigjools> but timezones are not in your favour
[11:05] <wgrant> Hm, yeah, the internal NTP server looks broken :(
[11:06] <falktx> no point of doing more uploads then
[11:07] <falktx> is this something easy to fix?
[11:10] <falktx> this doesn't happen for other ppas...
[11:14] <falktx> oh it's happening after all
[11:14] <falktx> all build from all ppas are failing
[11:20] <bigjools> the NTP server was restarted
[11:23] <falktx> bigjools: should I test it now?
[11:23] <bigjools> yes
[11:25] <falktx> ok, retrying the builds
[11:28] <falktx> seems fixed
[11:28] <falktx> https://launchpad.net/~falk-t-j/+archive/lucid-latest/+build/1887049
[12:28] <falktx> confirming it is fixed, packages got build sucessfully
[13:13] <FloSoft> hi
[13:14] <FloSoft> im created a branch currently, when i try to upload my initial revisions, it says that it cant find the .bzr directory on the remote host, what am i doing wrong?
[13:14] <FloSoft> i used: bzr init ; bzr add ... ; bzr commit -m "initial" ; bzr push lp:~...
[13:19] <FloSoft> any ideas?
[13:35] <candrea> FloSoft: try pushing with --use-existing-dir
[13:44] <FloSoft> candrea: i already found it out, but thanks, perhaps it should be added to the "help" of launchpad
[13:45] <candrea> FloSoft: bzr itself should have suggested you do to so
[14:14] <FloSoft> candrea: yes but i tried to find a "non errorness" way
[14:14] <FloSoft> because i thought, if i create a repository on lp, i can "normally" us it, not by using some obscure commandline switches
[15:44] <lfaraone> If I send a gpg-signed mail to launchpad containing nothing other than a command, will the email be published in the tracker?
[16:06] <geser> yes
[16:07] <ActionParsnip> hey guys
[16:07] <ActionParsnip> why is the CoC signing is so convoluted!!
[16:10] <geser> can you explain it little more?
[16:10] <ActionParsnip> well it involves so many steps, plus I dont use email clients nor firefox so I am having a hard time decrypting the gpg mail which needs firegpg
[16:12] <ActionParsnip> so all in all its a bit of a mess
[16:12] <geser> have you a better idea how to prove that you're in control of that email address (from the key id) and the private key?
[16:13] <ActionParsnip> i can send anyone a pre-ordained email from my account
[16:14] <ActionParsnip> i would need my username and password for my email address to send that
[16:15] <ActionParsnip> much much simpler
[16:16] <ActionParsnip> might just ironically install firefox as I have no other option in an OS which promotes freedom of choice
[16:16] <geser> and what prevents that someone other send that email in your name? email headers can be falsified
[16:17] <ActionParsnip> many things can be falsfied, my girlfriend knows all my passwords and she could equally do this whole procedure
[16:17] <ActionParsnip> masquerading as me
[16:17] <beuno> so you should change your password
[16:18] <ActionParsnip> beuno: thats not the point, the fact is that it can be falsified even if I play the stupid browser game. I dont mind her knowing my passwords and I know hers as we trust each other
[16:18] <geser> sure but when she abuses that knowledge you have the trouble not her (it depends on how much you trust her)
[16:18] <ActionParsnip> beuno: its what you et from 7 years together
[16:19] <ActionParsnip> geser: its not happened in 7 years and we are very happy, the fact is she could, so the signature would be falsified
[16:19]  * nhandler notes you can copy store the message as a file and use the gpg tool from a terminal to decrypt it
[16:20] <ActionParsnip> see my point, the whole convoluted way of signing it is ridiculous
[16:20] <ActionParsnip> and I'm sure less technical users than myself will get very confused with it all
[16:20] <geser> it easier to trust someone who stands in front of you and you know for a certain amount of time instead of a person at the opposite side of the world where you don't even know if the used name is true
[16:21] <ActionParsnip> geser: it can still be circumvented which is what you were saying, it can be falsified
[16:24] <geser> true, nothing is perfect. It depends on how one makes it to break it. One has to find a balance between making it hard to falsify and ease of usage while one still trust the result.
[16:26] <ActionParsnip> its ridiculously hard, i think I have about 3 keys now, not even sure of that
[16:41] <ActionParsnip> nope, this is officially lame, I have 3 keys pending validation now
[16:42] <ActionParsnip> how can I validate please, i've been trying for literally 45 mins
[16:47] <ActionParsnip> ok i have an active key :D  can somebody please advise the next step...
[16:49] <X3> you have to wait
[16:51] <ActionParsnip> jesus, finally. only took an hour
[16:51] <X3> ur lucky it only took that
[16:51] <ActionParsnip> its all done and I am all signed
[16:51] <X3> the instructions are clear it takes a long time
[16:51] <ActionParsnip> thats more complicated than getting a british passport
[16:52] <ActionParsnip> it didnt take long to process stuff, just the steps are so ridiculous
[16:52] <X3> you wait until u want to compile and upload stuff to a ppa
[16:53] <ActionParsnip> i just wanted to sign it, i dont compile
[16:53] <X3> backport whatever
[16:53] <ActionParsnip> seems to be part of the ubuntu member application though ;)
[16:54] <beuno> to some extent the CoC is not meant to be a ToS people ignore, so adding some weight to the process isn't really that bad
[16:54] <X3> ??
[16:55] <X3> wait your saying that making something purpusefully difficult is good
[16:55] <lfaraone> X3: that way it requires effort and thought, and hopefully, consideration of what is being signed.
[16:55] <X3> ah I see
[16:55] <X3> nerd only need apply
[16:57] <X3> sorry this logic, does not compute
[16:59] <X3> much of the linux is still imo shrouded in needless technicalities, whic only serve to hinder a process of transparency ubuntu so much preaches
[17:01] <beuno-lunch> I am not saying to make it hard on purpose, I am saying that one positive aspect of it being in this state, is that it's a less lightweight process
[17:02] <X3> you a polititian?
[17:03] <X3> lol
[17:05] <X3> the difficulty of something or how difficult a process is only serves to keep the regular folk in the dark, theres no benefit imo
[17:08] <geser> I didn't have any technical difficulties with signing the CoC
[17:08] <X3> nor I
[17:09] <X3> but I aggree with actionparsnip its a jump trough hoops process needs revising and simplyfing
[17:11] <geser> have you any ideas to simplify it without losing the little trust the current process gives?
[17:11] <nhandler> I think the issue is less with the process of signing and more with the fact that a lot of the users having issues are simply unfamiliar with gpg and have never used a key or signed a doc like that before
[17:12] <X3> you emplying that the current process makes "shady" ppl less likely to sign it?
[17:13] <X3> or that a easier process mean that my signature is less worthy than "insert your trustworthy character name here"
[17:14] <vadi2> Has anyone else who uses a mobile phone to check email noticed that lp emails for package rejection/acceptance don't have all of their titles fit into the screen size - and with the status being said at the end, you have to open each mail to see the status?
[17:15] <X3> in fact not to mention Linux or ubuntu just for sake of argument google now requires a user to insert mobile phone nr in order to create account
[17:16] <X3> vadi2 use opera browser on mobile
[17:16] <vadi2> I use androids built-in gmail program, which works just fine
[17:16] <vadi2> I find mobile gmail to be less steamlined :/
[17:17] <X3> if it worked just fine why you complaining?
[17:18] <X3> i use opera to access all sorts online and all emails subjects read just fine
[17:18] <geser> X3: a really malicious user would have any technical (or moral) problems to sign the CoC
[17:18] <vadi2> X3: Okay, thanks for your opinion :) in my case, the launchpad ppa package emails get ellipsified and the important part is gone
[17:19] <X3> geser: dont think so specially a malicious user which would cover their tracks, this argument is not valid excuse
[17:20] <geser> but I hope the chance that people who sign the CoC read it before signing is higher than compared to a webpage with a checkbox "Yes, I read the CoC" and an OK button
[17:20] <X3> vady2: well you can but try a dif method
[17:20] <X3> geser: I didnt read it
[17:20] <X3> nor do I care what it says
[17:21] <X3> i didnt want to be dead b4 I had sined it
[17:22] <X3> in fact any ToC which waffles away I doubt 1% of peeps read it
[17:24] <X3> all that txt is there to serve one purpose, to make sure that the ubuntu community is exempt of "your" actions
[17:24] <geser> I don't really care if somebody reads the CoC or not as long as he doesn't complain afterwards that he didn't know what exactly he signed when he oversteps the CoC
[17:24] <X3> hehe
[17:24] <bigjools> PPAs are a free service provided at great expense.  I'd consider it common courtesty to read the CoC if nothing else.
[17:25] <bigjools> courtesy, even
[17:27] <X3> I admit I didnt read it, not for lack of consideration for the "FREE" service, in fact this is a two way door
[17:29] <X3> my "FREE" tie also comes at a great expense, so any contribution I make should hopefully offset
[17:29] <X3> *tie=time
[17:30] <X3> if i wanted to remain a leecher I wouldnt have bothered
[17:31] <X3> this apprent reasoning of morality behing a drawn out process only serves to abuse my already finite free time
[17:33] <X3> anywho just wanted to say make it easier doesnt mean just have a checkbox at end of a webpage and im certainly not saying ignore security in favor of simpler processes
[17:34] <X3> thankfully its a one off process
[17:38] <X3> bigjools: no offense intended to anyone or to the service or people behind it specially the ones giving their free time to help
[17:39]  * X3 fades away to bg
[18:07] <romaia> any soyuz developers around?
[18:08] <romaia> I am having some trouble with an loop in the builder.
[18:28] <lfaraone> In the advanced bug search, I can search by subscriber. Can I search for packages which match a pattern that a person *isn't* subscribed to?
[18:32] <lfaraone> X3: since you haven't read the CoC, I don't think you can make a judgement about what it says :)
[18:33] <lfaraone> it's actually remarkably short IMHO. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct
[18:33] <X3> it was never about what it says
[18:33] <hyperair> X3: i think you spent far more time complaining about the CoC than you would have reading and signing it
[18:33] <X3> again it was never about the CoC or the contents
[18:34] <X3> it was about the whole process
[18:34] <lfaraone> X3: "12:24  X3$ all that txt is there to serve one purpose, to make sure that the ubuntu community is exempt of "your" actions"
[18:34] <X3> not the contents of the agreement
[18:34] <lfaraone> that itself shows a complete misunderstanding of the document.
[18:35] <X3> again its not about the document your nit picking, thx for input
[19:51] <j^> hi, is it possible to use dpkg-source format 3.0 (bzr) in ppas?
[20:18] <jenkins> hello can someone tell me how to aprove the imports here https://translations.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu-manual/+imports?field.filter_extension=all&field.filter_status=all&start=0&batch=50 ? Our team admins can not do it.
[20:43] <pindonga> hi, I have the following issue: I have my series registered with the trunk branch, and then I also have a branch called stable from which I do the releases, when I merge branches into trunk they get marked automatically as merged, but this does not happen if I merge into stable
[20:43] <pindonga> is this normal behaviour?
[21:49] <simulacrum> Why the heck I see deleted PPA in launchpad I don't want to see them anymore !! That why I deleted them!
[21:49] <simulacrum> What can I do about this annoying fact ?
[21:51] <micahg> simulacrum: was it empty?
[21:51] <micahg> simulacrum: you can disable a PPA, but not delete AFAIK
[21:51] <micahg> unless it was empty
[21:51] <micahg> i.e. never used
[21:52] <simulacrum> micahg: It was empty
[21:52] <micahg> simulacrum: I think you need to file a request on answers.launchpad.net/launchpad to delete then
[21:52] <simulacrum> omg
[21:52] <simulacrum> this is crazy
[21:52] <simulacrum> thanks anyway