[04:02] <kklimonda> hmm.. LP died?
[04:02] <kklimonda> ah, it's back again
[04:10] <lifeless> kklimonda: what happened ?
[04:12] <kklimonda> lifeless: hmm.. something like "Couldn't connect to Launchpad, please wait and try again"
[04:12] <lifeless> please file a bug
[04:12] <lifeless> that was an edge update, which is meant to be zero-downtime.
[04:13] <kklimonda> lifeless: hmm, "a zero-downtime update wasn't zero-downtime"? :)
[04:14] <lifeless> kklimonda: 'got error page when using edge during an edge update'
[04:16] <kklimonda> lifeless: k, done
[04:16] <kklimonda> bug 631262
[04:16] <lifeless> jjthanks
[04:16] <lifeless> kklimonda: thanks
[04:21] <Laibsch> Is there anything wrong with the targets http://paste.debian.net/88062/ in ~/.dput.cf?  Whenever I upload a particular package to them it is refused with "The source apt-cacher-ng - 0.5.4-1 is already accepted in ubuntu/lucid and you cannot upload the same version within the same distribution."
[04:21] <Laibsch> that's strange for two reasons.  1) I'm uploading to maverick 2) even the lucid source in that ppa has been deleted a couple of days ago
[04:21] <Laibsch> 0.5.4-1 is in none of the official releases, yet.
[09:45] <madoman> Hi all ... I noticed that update "linux-image-2.6.32-24-generic" for 10.04 from update manager  makes my Dell E6510 boot to the "black" screen. I suppose this is a know bug? With "linux-image-2.6.32-23-generic" it works just fine. Seems that "black" screen boot is some know issue. But should this be reported as a new bug? Because it was delivered by the update manager.
[10:01] <statik> hi voidspace
[10:01] <voidspace> attempting to add a new email to my launchpad account fails - is this a known issue?
[10:01] <voidspace> statik: hi
[10:01] <voidspace> (Error ID: OOPS-1710E559)
[10:05] <lifeless> voidspace: hi.
[10:05] <voidspace> lifeless: hey - hi
[10:05] <voidspace> lifeless: which team are you on?
[10:06] <lifeless> voidspace: all of them :P
[10:06] <voidspace> lifeless: ha :-)
[10:06] <voidspace> lifeless: I just joined ISD
[10:06] <lifeless> voidspace: (it feels like that sometimes - I get /lots/ of mail - and my account (due to a bug) triggered 330 DB lookups on bug pages :P)
[10:06] <lifeless> voidspace: I'm the technical architect for launchpad at the moment
[10:06] <voidspace> :-)
[10:06] <voidspace> ah right, cool
[10:07] <lifeless> voidspace: I started in the roll, oh, 3 months back.
[10:07] <lifeless> voidspace: remember when I said 'thats nice, I promise I'll look but -boy- am I busy right now' ?
[10:07] <lifeless> that was ~ half way through week 1
[10:07] <voidspace> hehe
[10:07] <voidspace> so now you're three times as busy...
[10:07] <lifeless> actually, if things like up right for this release
[10:07] <lifeless> (thursday)
[10:08] <lifeless> we'll have vastly improved data in our OOPSes; won't be proxying massive files via the zope appservers...
[10:08] <lifeless> I should be able to sit back and look at the landscape a bit more.
[10:08] <voidspace> as in "the landscape"
[10:08] <lifeless> yes, not 'landscape' the product
[10:09] <lifeless>  Module lp.registry.browser.person, line 4631, in validate_action_add_email
[10:09] <lifeless>     owner_name = urllib.quote(owner.name)
[10:09] <lifeless> AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'name'
[10:09] <voidspace> ah
[10:09] <voidspace> so launchpad thinks I am a nobody, a None
[10:09] <voidspace> that makes me sad :-(
[10:09] <voidspace> ;-)
[10:09] <lifeless> try on edge
[10:09] <voidspace> edge?
[10:10] <lifeless> voidspace: oh, and welcome :)
[10:10] <voidspace> I got an interesting email from Ubuntu One on Saturday - I setup the iPhone integration and got an email with the repr of a Python object as my username :-)
[10:10] <voidspace> (thanks)
[10:10] <voidspace> thankfully I also got *another* email with my real username
[10:10] <voidspace> what do you mean by "try on edge"?
[10:10] <lifeless> voidspace: join this team
[10:11] <lifeless> https://edge.launchpad.net/~launchpad-beta-testers
[10:12] <lifeless> voidspace: edge is a thing we're about to delete :) - its 'get the latest changes and unreleased features' for launchpad
[10:12] <voidspace> lifeless: ah, cool - joined
[10:13] <lifeless> voidspace: we're moving to a single version deployed model, but we'll keep the latest-changes and unreleased features thing
[10:13] <lifeless> just via code switches instead.
[10:13] <voidspace> (Error ID: OOPS-1710EA751)
[10:13] <voidspace> (that's on edge.launchpad.net)
[10:17] <lifeless> voidspace: #launchpad-dev is a channel you might like
[10:17] <voidspace> lifeless: freenode?
[10:17] <lifeless> while in ISD you'll be on different stuff, the lp development channel is pretty active & we use many of the same toolchain
[10:17] <lifeless> yes
[10:18] <voidspace> ok - thanks
[10:18] <voidspace> I'm going through the new starter guys for Canonical / ISD team at the moment
[10:25] <voidspace> lifeless: sorry - computer issues...
[10:25] <lifeless> heh
[10:25] <lifeless> running Ubuntu yet ?
[10:26] <voidspace> lifeless: no :-) but hardware issues I think - or a video driver issue, not sure
[10:26] <voidspace> lifeless: once every few days I get hard crashes
[10:26] <voidspace> lifeless: I installed Ubuntu into a VM over the weekend and played with it
[10:26] <voidspace> lifeless: impressed :-)
[10:26] <voidspace> brb
[10:34] <noodles775> voidspace: fwiw, I've added a comment on bug 576757 for the registry guys.
[10:39] <lucidfox> How does the release pattern work?
[10:40] <lucidfox> I've just moved a project from Google Code to Launchpad - what would be the easiest way to import its old release tarballs?
[10:45] <voidspace> noodles775: thanks
[10:45] <voidspace> noodles775: would it be possible for an admin to delete the unused account - or should I do it?
[10:50] <noodles775> voidspace: yeah, it should be possible. Best way would be to create a question similar to the following, and reference that one (as the launchpad administrators solved it there): https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/109891
[11:04] <voidspace> noodles775: thanks - I'll do that
[11:08] <voidspace> noodles775: For the record: https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/124297
[11:17] <noodles775> voidspace: great, I've just assigned it to the losas (Launchpad admins)
[12:18] <AlanBell> hi all
[12:18] <AlanBell> is it possible to do a kind of read-only link to a launchpad bug?
[12:20] <AlanBell> so a bug could be referenced in a news publication as something interesting, but there would be an extra step for readers to jump through if they wanted to comment on the bug itself and would prevent accidental status changes etc.
[12:27] <voidspace> issue with setting location on launchpad (and edge.launchpad): "The google maps API server rejected your request. THe "client" parameter specified in the request is invalid"
[12:27] <lucidfox> How do I give someone else commit access to my project's bzr brunch?
[12:27] <nigelb> lucidfox: what is your branch named as?
[12:28] <nigelb> i.e. if its lp:~lucidfox, only you have access
[12:28] <lucidfox> lp:<projectname>
[12:28] <nigelb> if you make it lp:~teamfoo-dev, everyone will have access
[12:29] <nigelb> err. everyone in the team
[12:29] <lucidfox> Well, for example, here is one of my projects: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~sikon/qink/trunk
[12:29] <lucidfox> its primary branch, that is
[12:29] <lucidfox> If I click "Set branch reviewer" and change it to a team, will it give the entire team commit rights?
[12:30] <nigelb> ~sikon/qink/trunk => the first bit says who has commit acces
[12:30] <ricotz> please, could someone restart https://launchpad.net/~xorg-edgers/+archive/ppa/+build/1945560 which is stuck!
[12:30] <nigelb> generally most folks on lp create a team to administer commit access
[12:30] <lucidfox> or will I need to manually create a branch for the team and import it?
[12:30] <nigelb> lucidfox: just rename? isn't it possible to rename the branch?
[12:30] <maxb> lucidfox: No, that only affects who does reviews. You need "Change branch details", and change the owner to a team
[12:30] <bigjools> ricotz: noted
[12:30] <nigelb> voidspace: known issue
[12:31] <lucidfox> maxb> Rightio! Thanks
[12:31] <voidspace> nigelb: cool
[12:31] <ricotz> bigjools, thanks
[12:31] <lucidfox> I've just migrated that project from Google Code, what would be the fastest way to import its old downloads?
[12:32] <lucidfox> there are 5 releases left to import, each with a .tar.gz and a .tar.bz2
[12:36] <lucidfox> Okay, guess I'll just upload them manually
[12:46] <MichealH> Hello Can someone tell me how I log into launchpad for bzr
[12:47] <nigelb> MichealH: can you clarify further?
[12:48] <MichealH> How do I make my whoami correct so I can login to lauchpad on bzr
[12:49] <bilalakhtar> MichealH: bzr whoami Micheal Harker <e-mail>
[12:49] <bilalakhtar> MichealH: and also bzr launchpad-login michealh
[12:50] <MichealH> Okay bilalakhtar
[12:50] <MichealH> I got told to pust to branches I needed a SSH key?
[12:51] <MichealH> *push
[12:58] <nigelb> gah, he left
[12:59] <nigelb> wgrant: Is this possible currently? https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/124309
[12:59] <nigelb> (getting a url that shows the bug and comments, but no box to add comments)
[12:59] <wgrant> Not at the moment, no.
[13:00] <nigelb> hm, thanks :)
[14:13] <Laibsch> Is there anything wrong with the targets http://paste.debian.net/88062/ in ~/.dput.cf?  Whenever I upload a particular package to them it is refused with "The source apt-cacher-ng - 0.5.4-1 is already accepted in ubuntu/lucid and you cannot upload the same version within the same distribution."
[14:13] <Laibsch> that's strange for two reasons.  1) I'm uploading to maverick 2) even the lucid source in that ppa has been deleted a couple of days ago.  FWIW, 0.5.4-1 is in none of the official releases, yet.
[14:15] <bigjools> Laibsch: https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/soyuz/+faq/990
[14:17] <Laibsch> bigjools-lunch: thank you.  but please read my question more carefully.  I know generally how LP and uploading works.
[14:17] <Laibsch> if it's any help, I am official Debian maintainer of a number of packages.
[14:17] <Laibsch> I think LP is misbehaving here.
[14:17] <Laibsch> but I just want to see if I am doing something stupid.
[14:18] <Laibsch> again, I am specifically uploading to maverick, yet get a rejection message for lucid.  and even there the source has been deleted days ago.
[14:24] <soren> Laibsch: Does that PPA depend on your "stable" ppa?
[14:24] <Laibsch> lemme check
[14:25] <Laibsch> nope
[14:25] <soren> Laibsch: If it does, that explains why it's rejected. Not so much why it says lucid, but..
[14:25] <Laibsch> but that certainly was a good guess
[14:25] <soren> ok.
[14:26] <soren> Laibsch: Does it have any dependencies?
[14:26] <Laibsch> no
[14:26] <Laibsch> none at all
[14:26] <soren> ok
[14:27] <Laibsch> only ubuntu default dependencies
[14:27] <soren> ok
[14:37] <Laibsch> I guess maybe I should open a ticket against soyuz and let the devs sort out what is happening here.
[14:44] <maxb> Laibsch: apt-cacher-ng - 0.5.4-1   	 (changes file)   	2010-09-03  	Deleted  	Lucid  	Net  	 All builds were built successfully.
[14:44] <maxb> It's already there, you can't upload it again
[14:44] <Laibsch> that's three days ago
[14:44] <Laibsch> why is it still there?
[14:44] <Laibsch> that's the first question
[14:44] <Laibsch> second question is why the upload goes to lucid
[14:45] <Laibsch> although I upload to maverick
[14:45] <maxb> Well, first question, it's functioning as designed. You can delete packages, but not the metadata that records they once existed.
[14:46] <Laibsch> ?
[14:47] <Laibsch> so far I was always able to reupload a deleted package with the same version number
[14:47] <Laibsch> and again, why the problem with the lucid/maverick mixup
[14:47] <maxb> Huh. Really? I thought that was impossible
[14:47] <Laibsch> doesn't look lik "functioning as designed" to me
[14:47] <Laibsch> sure, did that a couple of times already
[14:47] <tgm4883> Can you specify the release (maverick) when you upload a source package? I thought you had to do it in the changelog?
[14:48] <Laibsch> usually it takes about 15-30 minutes for the cronjob to delete the files
[14:48] <Laibsch> tgm4883: you can force the upload to a particular release
[14:48] <tgm4883> hmm, neat
[14:48] <persia> It's *supposed* to be impossible to upload the same version number to the same PPA (regardless of target).  Any case of it working was accidental exploitation of a bug, and the bug was probably fixed.
[14:48] <Laibsch> persia: even if that file was removed?
[14:48] <maxb> Yes, even if.
[14:49] <Laibsch> sorry, but that would be terribly stupid
[14:49] <maxb> No, it's terribly sensible
[14:49] <Laibsch> and IMO that would be a real bug
[14:49] <tgm4883> why would you want to?
[14:49] <Laibsch> how do I upload the original debian version, then?
[14:49] <tgm4883> that would surely cause issues for upgrades
[14:49] <persia> It is designed to allow PPAs to be first-class archives for distribution.  This makes them somewhere between painful and useless for learning, or staging stuff.
[14:50] <Laibsch> tgm4883: ^^^ for example
[14:50] <persia> The two alternatives were discussed at length in several bugs, and the decision was to support distribution over staging.
[14:50] <Laibsch> OK
[14:50] <Laibsch> so the feature of allowing unchanged sources was deliberately broken, then
[14:51] <Laibsch> Cause I don't see how to upload that package to my PPA now
[14:51] <Laibsch> withouth creating a new PPA
[14:51] <Laibsch> and to request a sync I need to show a build log
[14:51] <Laibsch> which I haven't been able to produce for almost a week now
[14:51] <Laibsch> :-/
[14:51] <Laibsch> sorry, I stand by my word that this is stupid
[14:51] <Laibsch> I don't see the benefit
[14:51] <Laibsch> a deleted source and binary should be deleted for good
[14:53] <persia> `apt-get install sbuild ubuntu-dev-tools; mk-sbuild --arch=i386 maverick; sbuild -A -d maverick-i386 foo.dsc` will generate a build log.
[14:53] <Laibsch> tgm4883: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading#Using%20packages%20from%20other%20distributions
[14:53] <Laibsch> that's where that forced release is documented
[14:53] <persia> launchpad PPAs have been adjusted to not usefully support what you seek to accomplish, intentionally.  I happen to agree that it would be nice to use them for that, but it's not how it works today.
[14:54] <Laibsch> persia: I already see a dev asking me for a buildlog from a PPA at some time in the future
[14:54] <Laibsch> because they will be my comfortable than me uploading a build log
[14:54] <Laibsch> plus now I need to set up a maverick pbuilder
[14:54] <persia> send them here.  The decision was made a couple years ago, and isn't likely to be revisited.
[14:54] <Laibsch> boooooh!
[14:55] <Laibsch> couple of years?
[14:55] <tgm4883> Laibsch, ah I see now, however there is still "Important: Version numbers must be unique. This has implications if you want to provide packages for multiple Ubuntu series at once:", which is usually why I append +ppa# on the end
[14:55] <Laibsch> doubt that
[14:55] <Laibsch> rather a couple of months
[14:55] <tgm4883> that way I can bump a build number in LP
[14:55] <Laibsch> I've still been using that feature or bug depending on where you stand recently
[14:55] <Laibsch> tgm4883: I don't think you fully understand what I am doing
[14:56] <Laibsch> I'm intentionally not fiddling with changelog
[14:56] <tgm4883> Laibsch, I probably don't. But i'm not a LP person, so I can't do much to help you anyway
[15:00] <wgrant> Laibsch: You can still use the series override.
[15:00] <wgrant> Laibsch: You just can't upload it multiple times.
[15:00] <Laibsch> wgrant: what is the series override?
[15:00] <wgrant> 23:53:41 < Laibsch> that's where that forced release is documented
[15:00] <Laibsch> OK
[15:00] <Laibsch> wasn't sure that's what you meant
[15:00] <Laibsch> well, trust me, I'm stuck with this one
[15:01] <wgrant> How?
[15:01] <Laibsch> I incorrectly uploaded this one to lucid first
[15:01] <Laibsch> kaboom
[15:01] <Laibsch> that PPA is now forever dead for this package 0.5.4-1
[15:01] <Laibsch> IMHO that's not good
[15:01] <wgrant> It's as it should be.
[15:01] <wgrant> PPAs are not test build platforms.
[15:02] <Laibsch> ask the bugs-people
[15:02] <wgrant> Hm?
[15:02] <Laibsch> I think they would disagree
[15:02] <wgrant> Bugs-people?
[15:02] <Laibsch> a buildlog from a PPA is a common request
[15:02] <wgrant> That is odd.
[15:02] <Laibsch> for a sync request
[15:02] <Laibsch> and possibly others
[15:02] <tgm4883> Laibsch, just because the bugs people are using the PPA as a staging area doesn't mean that is what it is for
[15:03] <wgrant> But what's stopping you from doing a no-change rebuild?
[15:03] <maxb> huh? I don't even provide logs usually for sync requests, I just say I did it
[15:03] <Laibsch> tgm4883: I'm just trying to achieve whatever I feel is important for Ubuntu.
[15:03] <wgrant> maxb: FFEs require build logs
[15:03] <Laibsch> I don't care how that is done
[15:03] <wgrant> Or did back in my day.
[15:03] <Laibsch> but some consistency and common sense would be nice
[15:03] <wgrant> Laibsch: Why can't you upload with a different version number, then sync?
[15:03] <wgrant> That is, submit a build log for a slightly different version.
[15:03] <wgrant> But still sync the original.
[15:03] <Laibsch> why should I upload with a different version number?
[15:03] <Laibsch> wgrant: just a sec
[15:03] <wgrant> Because it's going to have different binaries.
[15:04] <tgm4883> because you can't use the same version :)
[15:04] <wgrant> And using the same version number for two different sets of packages is insane.
[15:04] <Laibsch> I only want one set of packages
[15:04] <wgrant> Right.
[15:04] <wgrant> But you asked for two.
[15:04] <Laibsch> but even deleting all packages, I can't do that anymore now
[15:05] <Laibsch> nope
[15:05] <Laibsch> I didn't
[15:05] <wgrant> You uploaded to Lucid.
[15:05] <wgrant> Then you tried to upload to Maverick.
[15:05] <Laibsch> wgrant: http://oss.leggewie.org/dsc-upload-hardy is the reason
[15:05] <tgm4883> I stand by my statement of appending +ppa# on the end. That should show that it is still the same version number, but the build number was bumped.
[15:05] <wgrant> tgm4883: Exactly.
[15:05] <tgm4883> I'm assuming you need to rebuild it for a packaging issue
[15:05] <Laibsch> I can upload an unmodified dsc from anywhere with a single command
[15:05] <Laibsch> tgm4883: and I stand by my statement that you don't understand what I'm doing, OK?
[15:06] <wgrant> Laibsch: And that's not necessarily a good thing.
[15:06] <wgrant> PPAs are not, primarily, a test build platform.
[15:06] <Laibsch> your opinion
[15:06] <wgrant> They are designed to behave like a sane distribution archive.
[15:06] <tgm4883> Laibsch, you are trying to produce build logs for a sync request to get a newer version of apt-cacher-ng into maverick from debian?
[15:06] <wgrant> And sane distribution archives do not reuse versions.
[15:07]  * Laibsch suggest for wgrant to read https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading#Using%20packages%20from%20other%20distributions
[15:07] <wgrant> I'm well aware of it.
[15:07] <Laibsch> I'm just doing what's intentionally supported there
[15:07] <Laibsch> for years
[15:07] <wgrant> Laibsch: that hasn't changed for a very long time.
[15:07] <wgrant> Which bit are you referring to?
[15:08] <Laibsch> the "unchanged" bit
[15:08] <Laibsch> that obviously includes the changelog
[15:08] <wgrant> You can upload it.
[15:08] <wgrant> Just not multiple times.
[15:08] <tgm4883> wgrant, I would have to agree that it would be nice to have the same version number on multiple releases. As it stands now, we have to add hte ppa# if we build for more than 1 release
[15:08] <wgrant> tgm4883: Oh yes, that would certainly be nice.
[15:09] <wgrant> But Debian repositories (and indeed package managers) don't work that way.
[15:09] <tgm4883> yep
[15:13] <Laibsch> thanks for helping me understand what the issue was
[15:13] <Laibsch> let's agree to disagree on the sensibility of completely disallowing from now uploading the unmodified source to my PPA
[15:14] <Laibsch> I'm barred from that for life now
[15:14] <Laibsch> IMHO not sensible
[15:14] <wgrant> Given how archives work, it is quite sensible.
[15:14] <wgrant> It's not sensible for a test build platform, however.
[15:14] <wgrant> Which is what some use PPAs for.
[15:15] <tgm4883> Sounds like the PPA team and the bug team need to have a chat
[15:16] <bigjools> Laibsch: you are not barred from anything, you can do a simple no-change version bump.  All the other PPA users do this.  Ubuntu uploaders do this.
[15:17] <tgm4883> It would seem however that you aren't allowed to upload packages that haven't been changed from the version that is in debian or ubuntu
[15:17] <bigjools> with respect, PPAs are not a package build testing service, they are a package publishing service
[15:17] <tgm4883> from https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading
[15:17] <bigjools> tgm4883: yes, you can upload them with no change, provided you've not already uploaded them to the same PPA
[15:18] <tgm4883> bigjools, well technically you can, i was just reading the help pages
[15:18] <wgrant> The rule has been there from day 1.
[15:18] <wgrant> It's never been enforced.
[15:18] <tgm4883> Note: We will not accept uploads of packages that are unmodified from their original source in Ubuntu or Debian, only packages that include your own changes.
[15:18] <tgm4883> wgrant, yea, I figured
[15:18] <wgrant> I'm not sure it actually has any purpose.
[15:18] <bigjools> tgm4883: that's a policy, not a rule
[15:19] <tgm4883> wgrant, sounds like they don't want to over burden the build servers. No need to duplicate work
[15:19] <tgm4883> but yea, never enforced
[15:19] <tgm4883> On a different note, is it possible to have publishing dependencies on other packages in the same PPA? eg. I have a package that depends on another package (not build depends). If that first package fails to build, and the second package publishes, then users get broken software
[15:20] <Laibsch> bigjools: how many times do I have to repeat myself?  "unchanged" is the keyword, OK?
[15:20] <bigjools> Laibsch: I'm trying to catch up the backscroll so sorry if I missed anything.  I'm happy to listen to you and explain why the service works as it does.
[15:20] <maxb> Laibsch: If 0.5.4-1 built successfully in maverick, the resulting binaries would not be "unchanged" from the binaries formerly built in lucid
[15:21] <Laibsch> maxb: the first build was for lucid, it failed
[15:21] <Laibsch> and now I can't retry for maverick
[15:22] <maxb> Laibsch: that is not true, it succeeded
[15:22] <bigjools> and you can also copy the package internally to maverick
[15:22] <bigjools> (provided you don't need a rebuild specifically for maverick)
[15:22] <tgm4883> bigjools, he needs a build log for it
[15:23] <bigjools> for maverick specifically?
[15:23] <maxb> bigjools: Laibsch does - the use case is using a PPA as a sync request build-tester
[15:23] <tgm4883> yea
[15:23] <bitdancer> OK, how do I log in to launchpad.net?  I get 'Invalid OpenID transaction'.  I've googled. I've cleared my cache and cookies.  I've made sure javascript is enabled for launchpad.net.  I still get that error and can't log in.
[15:23] <tgm4883> bigjools, apparently because the bug team told him he needed a PPA build log
[15:24] <bigjools> Laibsch: append ~ppa1 to your version, upload to Maverick and profit.
[15:24] <Laibsch> bigjools: please read what I already wrote
[15:24] <Laibsch> I don't want to state my position 10 times
[15:24] <Laibsch> I already said "agree to disagree"
[15:24] <bigjools> Laibsch: please repeat it, there's over a hundred lines of backscroll and I have no idea what you're referring toi
[15:24] <tgm4883> he wants it completly unchanged.
[15:25] <Laibsch> yes
[15:25] <bigjools> Laibsch: the bottom line is that PPAs are not a build testing service.  If you want to build repeatedly then you need to upload newer versions.  It has been like that for 3 years.
[15:25] <tgm4883> but IMHO, it's a build version bump, so it's still unchanged. But I might just think that because of how i've built things on a PPA before
[15:25] <Laibsch> which I think is clearly the intention of allowing something like https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading#Using%20packages%20from%20other%20distributions
[15:26] <Laibsch> why else would you even need that
[15:26] <Laibsch> ?
[15:26] <Laibsch> if you force people to touch changelog?
[15:26] <tgm4883> "You may be able to use your PPA to build sources from other distributions that use .deb packages"
[15:26] <Laibsch> or if supposedly you are not allowed to upload unchanged sources as some have been saying is not supported
[15:26] <bigjools> I really don't see the big deal about a version bump - it takes 10 seconds to do and re-upload.
[15:27] <tgm4883> Important: Version numbers must be unique. This has implications if you want to provide packages for multiple Ubuntu series at once:
[15:27] <Laibsch> bigjools: I've until very recently never had a problem deleting a package and reuploading that shortly afterwards
[15:27] <bigjools> Laibsch: sorry that is not true
[15:27] <Laibsch> but I understand the #launchpad position
[15:27] <bigjools> we've *never* allowed that
[15:27] <Laibsch> no need to go in circles
[15:27] <Laibsch> bigjools: nonsense
[15:27] <bigjools> and you are free to look through the code history
[15:27] <Laibsch> I know it was possible
[15:27] <bigjools> no, it was not
[15:27] <tgm4883> Laibsch, seems that page lets you know you can pull it from another another source (ie. a debian repo) and build it for another disto (ie. maverick) without changing the sources
[15:28] <Laibsch> bigjools: you believe whatever you believe
[15:28] <Laibsch> I know what I know
[15:28] <tgm4883> Laibsch, it does not say (in fact, it specifically says you cannot) have the same version numbers in the same PPA
[15:28] <bigjools> Laibsch: I am the lead developer on Soyuz, I've been there since day one of PPAs.  I *know*.
[15:28] <bitdancer> no one has a clue, eh?
[15:29]  * bigjools gives up trying to help
[15:29] <bitdancer> Doesn't look like I can even file a bug report.
[15:29] <bigjools> please, ask someone else
[15:29] <tgm4883> bitdancer, sorry, my question got lost in this other issue as well
[15:29] <bitdancer> :)
[15:31] <tgm4883> bigjools, I'll redirect at you, can you set publishing dependencies? I have a package that depends on another package (not build depends). If that first package fails to build, and the second package publishes, then uses get broken software.
[15:31] <tgm4883> and we use the PPA's to get newer builds to users every day :)
[15:32] <wgrant> There's no way to do that automatically.
[15:32] <bigjools> tgm4883: yeah that's a known issue around PPAs, because the old version gets superseded
[15:32] <wgrant> Your best bet may be to set up a staging PPA.
[15:32] <bigjools> what he said
[15:32] <wgrant> And use an API script to watch for successful builds, then copy both across to the proper PPA.
[15:32] <bigjools> tgm4883: but ideally you'd test the build locally first ;)
[15:32] <tgm4883> hmm, API might be the way to go
[15:32] <tgm4883> bigjools, we literally build every day for both trunk and from a fixes branch
[15:33] <tgm4883> pulling from upstream sources
[15:33] <bigjools> tgm4883: is it a daily build?
[15:33] <tgm4883> I don't think we will be doing local builds first, although yea, that would be ideal
[15:33] <tgm4883> bigjools, yep
[15:33] <bigjools> have you tried recipes yet?
[15:33] <tgm4883> 2 daily builds actually, one for trunk, one for fixes
[15:33] <tgm4883> we haven't yet, but have talked about it
[15:33] <bigjools> it won't solve you problem but I thought I'd ask :)
[15:33] <tgm4883> we have it set up on a build server right now
[15:34] <tgm4883> builds only if there are changes upstream
[15:34] <tgm4883> which for trunk, usually means every day
[15:34] <tgm4883> I'll look into the API, see if we can't do something with that
[15:35] <bigjools> tgm4883: the other way of doing it is to include the version in the package name. That's a little horrbile though :(
[15:35] <tgm4883> oh yea, thats not fun times
[15:36] <tgm4883> I've thought about setting hard dependencies on the version number, but that can get problematic
[15:36] <bigjools> there's a bug somewhere about supporting configurable numbers of concurrent versions
[15:36] <tgm4883> yea, theres a few bugs I have found that would be helpful to have
[15:37] <tgm4883> apparently you are supposed to be able to have multiple releases in the changlog and build for all
[15:37] <tgm4883> ie, maverick, lucid, jaunty
[15:37] <tgm4883> all for the same entry
[15:37] <wgrant> Sort of.
[15:37] <wgrant> The changelog format supports it.
[15:37] <wgrant> But no archive tools that I know of do.
[15:38] <tgm4883> yea, apparently debian doesn't support that either :/
[15:38] <bigjools> we might be implementing that in the near-ish future
[15:38] <tgm4883> ohh nice
[15:38] <bigjools> it's needed for Bin NMUs
[15:38] <wgrant> It may have been implemented in Debian before package pools.
[15:38] <wgrant> But they were introduced nearly a decade ago, which makes it impossible without mangling binary versions.
[15:38] <tgm4883> cause our build script builds 3 packages for all ubuntu supported distros from 2 branches
[15:39] <tgm4883> usually that means around 18 uploads?
[15:39] <wgrant> Do you need to build separately for each?
[15:39] <bigjools> which package(s) are you working on?
[15:39] <wgrant> Or do the eg. Hardy binaries work all the way up to Maverick?
[15:39] <wgrant> If so, you can copy the binaries from Hardy upwards.
[15:39] <tgm4883> wgrant, nope, hardy doesn't work on maverick
[15:40] <tgm4883> technically we don't build for hardy anymore though
[15:40] <tgm4883> bigjools, mythtv
[15:40] <tgm4883> bigjools, and mythplugins and myththemes
[15:40] <bigjools> ah cool, I am a myth user
[15:40] <tgm4883> bigjools, sweet deal
[15:41] <tgm4883> we build 2 packages for each ubuntu release
[15:41] <tgm4883> whatever was shipped with that version, and +1
[15:41] <tgm4883> so hardy doesn't get builds anymore because there are no upstream changes for 0.21 anymore
[15:41] <tgm4883> current version is 0.23
[15:42] <tgm4883> well, 0.23.1
[15:42] <tgm4883> karmic will stop getting builds soon tool
[15:42] <tgm4883> too
[15:43] <bigjools> I would have thought that daily builds only really make sense on the most recent LTS, non-LTS and dev version
[15:44] <tgm4883> bigjools, that is usually how it ends up based on the upstream release schedule
[15:44] <bigjools> great
[15:44] <tgm4883> but with mythtv, users tend to try and stick with what works
[15:44] <tgm4883> and update from the fixes branch
[15:44] <tgm4883> karmic will stop getting builds once 0.24 gets released, probably in about a month
[15:45] <tgm4883> karmic was released with 0.22, and also gets builds for 0.23 (per our policy of building 2 mythtv releases for each ubuntu release)
[15:46] <tgm4883> so if upstream doesn't release 0.24 for 18 months, we will build keep the karmic builds going until either karmic isn't supported anymore, or 0.24 gets released
[15:47] <tgm4883> but this is all way off topic. I'll go check out the LP API and see if we can do what we need. bigjools if you have any mythtv questions, stop by #ubuntu-mythtv
[15:47] <boracasli> Can I use google translate in launchpad translations?
[15:48] <bigjools> tgm4883: sure thing - I've been using it for ~6 years now and stuff still confuses me :)
[15:48] <vagrale> Hi! How can i rename project in launchpad?
[15:48] <boracasli> Launchpad Translations prefer only to translate in their mother tongue to users?
[15:48] <bigjools> jtv ^
[15:49] <boracasli> Launchpad Translations prefer only to translate in their mother tongue to users?
[15:49] <jtv> boracasli: I'm not sure what it is you want to do
[15:49] <dpm> hi boracasli, as we told you when you asked using the answers system, there is no integration between Launchpad and Google Translate. We also recommend only to translate in the languages the translator knows
[15:49] <jtv> Google Translate is definitely _not_ good enough to produce translations…
[15:49] <jtv> Maybe this is about translating the user interface?
[15:50] <boracasli> David Planella, auto-translated strings are deleted?
[15:50] <boracasli> in Ubuntu etc.
[15:50] <jtv> They should not be approved.
[15:50] <boracasli> David Planella (dpm), auto-translated strings are deleted?
[15:50] <jtv> There are two reasons:
[15:50] <boracasli> why?
[15:50] <jtv> boracasli: I just answered you
[15:50] <boracasli> what reasons
[15:50] <dpm> boracasli, jtv is already answering the question
[15:51] <jtv> Because Google Translate is not good enough, as I already said, and has no knowledge of a project's or translation team's translation guidelines.
[15:51] <boracasli> and
[15:51] <jtv> It's also not very consistent.
[15:52] <dpm> boracasli, furthermore, you need to join a translation team to submit translations to Ubuntu. I don't think any translation team would allow you to join them if you are not fluent in their language
[15:53] <boracasli> Are the strings translated with automatic translators such as Google Translate in ubuntu will be deleted? And I joint to any translation team.
[15:54] <boracasli> Are the strings translated with automatic translators such as Google Translate in ubuntu will be deleted? And I joint to any translation team. please answer
[15:54] <dpm> boracasli, we have already answered that question, please read it.
[15:54] <jtv> boracasli: stop shouting please
[15:55] <boracasli> Is Google Translate banned?
[15:55] <jtv> boracasli: please do not submit any google translate translations.
[15:55] <tgm4883> google isn't exactly a little known operation. I think it's safe to say that if google translate worked well enough for ubuntu translations, that canonical would already be using it on a mass scale
[15:55] <boracasli> Will you say "Stop doing this."?
[15:56] <boracasli> If yes, say "Stop doing this."
[15:56] <jtv> boracasli: we're already saying that, and you're just not listening
[15:56] <boracasli> I'm submitting google translations
[15:56]  * tgm4883 smacks head
[15:56] <boracasli> Will you say "Stop doing this."?If yes, say "Stop doing this."
[15:56]  * dpm ignores further comments
[15:56] <tgm4883> "Stop doing this."
[15:57] <boracasli> Launchpad accounts can banned?
[15:57] <jtv> boracasli: if you don't speak enough english to understand our answers, you probably shouldn't be translating
[15:58] <boracasli> I can speak enough.
[15:58] <boracasli> Is Launchpad has got a twitter?
[15:58] <boracasli> or canonical
[15:58] <jtv> lol
[15:58] <jtv> okay, that was a good joke—who are you really?
[15:59] <boracasli> Is Launchpad or Canonical has got a Twitter account?
[15:59] <boracasli> In Soviet Russia, Launchpad buys Canonical!
[15:59] <tgm4883> Ubuntu çeviriler için google çevirmen kullanmayın
[15:59] <bigjools> boracasli: launchpadstatus is the twitter accont
[15:59] <bigjools> account, even
[16:00] <tgm4883> yes, I realize the irony in my above translated statement :)
[16:00] <boracasli> niye ubuntu çevirileri için google translate kullanmamı istemiyorsunuz
[16:01] <boracasli> I'm translated Moovida to Georgian with Google Translate
[16:02] <tgm4883> yeterli Ubuntu çeviriler için iyi değil çünkü. Ayrıca Ubuntu politikasına karşı kullanmaktır.
[16:02] <boracasli> tgm4883? Türk müsün
[16:02] <tgm4883> nope
[16:02] <boracasli> where are you from?
[16:02] <tgm4883> USA
[16:02] <boracasli> hmm
[16:03] <boracasli> really do you know turkish?
[16:03] <tgm4883> no, ironically, I was using google translate
[16:03] <boracasli> yeterli Ubuntu çeviriler için iyi değil çünkü. Ayrıca Ubuntu politikasına karşı kullanmaktır. please translate to english
[16:03] <boracasli> but no gtranslate
[16:03] <tgm4883> But this is why you shouldn't use google translator  ( Türk müsün ==   Do Turkey  )
[16:04] <boracasli> yes
[16:04] <tgm4883> so ^^ was ( because it is not good enough for Ubuntu translations. It is also against Ubuntu policy
[16:05] <tgm4883> I think this proves why not to use google translations for ubuntu
[16:05] <boracasli> Çünkü o, Ubuntu çevirileri için yeterince iyi değildir. Ayrıca Ubuntu ilkesine de aykırıdır.
[16:05] <boracasli> my translation
[16:05] <boracasli> no gtranslate
[16:07] <boracasli> but "canonical" is Canonical Ltd.
[16:07] <tgm4883> true, which is probably translated incorrectly
[16:08] <tgm4883> then there is also subtle differences. ie. trash isn't even universal between US english and UK english
[16:22] <boracasli> https://translations.launchpad.net/moovida/1.0/+lang/ka
[16:23] <boracasli> my georgian moovida
[16:40] <walton> hi
[16:41] <walton> i have a question about building packages with launchpad: if i have a bzr branch with a debian directory and a watch file, can i make launchpad automatically use the watch file to build new upstream releases?
[16:43] <idnar> hmm, I proposed a branch for review 17 minutes ago, and it's still "updating diff..."
[16:43] <idnar> are there delays in branch scanning or something?
[16:43] <idnar> (it's a private branch, if that matters)
[16:56] <nhandler> I know there was some interest in this script the last time I mentioned it. Here is a small python script that will subscribe a team/person to a specified list of packages. A couple of Debian pkg-* teams are using it to monitor bugs for their packages in Ubuntu: http://www.43-1.org/tmp/lp-mass-subscribe
[17:37] <dholbach> hiya
[17:38] <dholbach> Could anyone imagine giving a session about using code review/bzr/launchpad at Ubuntu App Developer Week? :)
[18:18] <esteve> hi guys
[18:18] <esteve> we bought a subscription and our bzr repos are private now
[18:18] <esteve> however, I can't seem to make bug reports private by default
[18:19] <esteve> is there an option for doing so or do I have to post a question on launchpad answers?
[18:33] <salgado> bac, can you help esteve?
[18:34] <esteve> salgado bac: thanks, I posted a question on launchpad bugs https://answers.launchpad.net/malone/+question/124343
[18:35] <esteve> but I don't know if that's the right place
[18:45] <salgado> esteve, don't need to worry about that; someone will get to it soon
[18:45] <esteve> salgado: thanks!
[21:03] <lvh> Hey
[21:03] <lvh> is it normal that the branding icon isn't used as a favicon
[21:42] <Nightrose> hi
[21:42] <Nightrose> launchpad is giving me an error telling me to try again when submitting a bug report
[21:42] <Nightrose> "Sorry, there was a problem connecting to the Launchpad server."
[21:43] <Nightrose> can someone help?
[21:43]  * Nightrose waves at mneptok
[22:30] <thumper> Nightrose: what project were you trying to file a bug report on?
[22:30] <Nightrose> thumper: linux
[22:31] <Nightrose> using the command line tool
[22:31] <thumper> Nightrose: ubuntu-bug
[22:31] <thumper> ?
[22:31] <Nightrose> yes
[22:31] <thumper> did it work a subsequent time?
[22:32] <Nightrose> i got redirected to the website to fill out the rest of the info and submitted it then got the error
[22:32] <Nightrose> tried reloading with resubmitting the data multiple times
[22:32] <Nightrose> same error
[22:32] <Nightrose> didn't try going through ubuntu-bug again
[22:34] <thumper> hmm..
[22:34] <thumper> Nightrose: so the error was from the webbrowser after adding more info?
[22:35] <Nightrose> yes
[22:35] <Nightrose> final step
[22:35] <Nightrose> well error text was from launchpad
[22:35] <thumper> Nightrose: was it on edge?
[22:35] <Nightrose> yes
[22:35] <thumper> Nightrose: it is possible that you hit the daily edge update...
[22:35] <thumper> maybe
[22:36] <thumper> would you care to try it again?
[22:36] <Nightrose> ok
[22:36] <thumper> thanks
[22:36] <Nightrose> can do after i had food yes
[22:36] <thumper> if you are still getting an error we should file a bug
[22:36] <Nightrose> ok
[22:47] <Snorlax> anyone alive here?
[22:47] <thumper> Snorlax: yes
[22:47] <thumper> maybe
[22:47] <thumper> need more coffee though
[22:47] <Snorlax> Ha, I can understand that.
[22:49] <Snorlax> The website sent me here. I'm setting up a private launchpad machine and ran into an unusual error.
[22:49] <thumper> what do you mean a private launchpad machine?
[22:50] <Snorlax> I'm testing launchpad, deployed on an internal machine.
[22:50] <lifeless> #launchpad-dev would be a better channel for this
[22:52] <Snorlax> I see...
[23:02] <Nightrose> thumper: getting the same error again
[23:05] <lifeless> Nightrose: do you get an OOPS code?
[23:05] <lifeless> !oops
[23:05] <Nightrose> lifeless: no
[23:05] <lifeless> can you pastebin the error text / take a screen shot please
[23:05] <Nightrose> k
[23:07] <Nightrose> lifeless: http://lydiapintscher.de/tmp/launchpad.png
[23:08] <lifeless> Nightrose: do you get that immediately
[23:08] <lifeless> or after filling in the summary ?
[23:09] <Nightrose> i filled in the summary and then get to the page where it asks me if it is a dupe of some others or if i want to really file it any fill in more details
[23:09] <Nightrose> i say it's not a dupe and fill in the next page
[23:09] <Nightrose> then click submit again to finish filing it
[23:09] <Nightrose> then get that error
[23:10] <lifeless> Nightrose: thats very strange
[23:10] <lifeless> try hitting refresh
[23:11] <lifeless> your browser may prompt to resubmit
[23:11] <lifeless> - say yes
[23:11] <Nightrose> same error - also happened when i first tried filing the bug before
[23:19] <lifeless> Nightrose: try retrying - sorry.
[23:19] <lifeless> Nightrose: really not sure whats up - that page indicates a down appserver, which isn't meant to happen
[23:19] <lifeless> losa ping
[23:20] <Nightrose> lifeless: reloaded - same :(
[23:20] <lifeless> Nightrose: take the url, take edge out of it, and then hit enter
[23:20] <Nightrose> k
[23:21] <Nightrose> takes me back to the summary part of the wizard
[23:21]  * Nightrose fills in again
[23:22] <Nightrose> lifeless: same
[23:23] <Nightrose> oh no wait
[23:23] <Nightrose> i'm redirected to edge again
[23:23] <lifeless> there is alink on the bottom right of the page
[23:23] <lifeless> 'disable edge' - click it
[23:23] <Nightrose> k
[23:23] <lifeless> now try
[23:25] <Nightrose> lifeless: success
[23:25] <Nightrose> \o/
[23:25] <lifeless> thanks
[23:25] <lifeless> I'll try to get a handle on the issue when a sysadmin is around
[23:25] <Nightrose> ok
[23:25] <Nightrose> thx
[23:27] <Nightrose> lifeless: not sure if that is something for you to look into too but i said it was a graphics related bug in ubuntu-bug and it got tagged with resume suspend
[23:27] <lifeless> thats done by some distro tools not launchpad itself
[23:27] <Nightrose> k
[23:28] <lifeless> #ubuntu-bugs may be able to give some information
[23:28] <Nightrose> ok