[02:15] <ries> Hello, is there the right place to ask about PPA?
[02:20] <spiv> ries: this channel is a good place
[02:22] <ries> spiv: People ask me to create a PPA, I am trying to understand what sort of work is needed... currently I setup the applicaiton to be run-in-place after compilation
[02:22] <ries> should I make a dep package and just upload?
[02:25] <spiv> ries: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA may help you
[02:26] <spiv> ries: you can upload source deb packages to your PPA, and Launchpad will build them for you, and people can install those.
[02:26] <ries> Ahh ok.. so when I make a deb that works on Debian, then launchpad can pick that up...
[02:26] <ries> I will read how to make a dep first then...
[02:26] <ries> deb...
[02:28] <spiv> ries: I think https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide is the recommended starting point for that.
[02:29] <ries> spiv: very helpfull... I will give this : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/QtApplication a shot
[04:58] <mtaylor> I'm guessing that if an upstream branch autoimport fails I don't need to inform anyone
[05:00] <lifeless> it depends
[05:00] <lifeless> do you want it fixed?
[08:07] <Devil505> hello
[08:07] <Devil505> I'm looking for a Registry Administrator
[08:07] <jtv> Devil505: what is it you need done?
[08:08] <Devil505> jtv, I've registered frugalware linux project https://launchpad.net/frugalware but i just want a page like https://launchpad.net/debian or https://launchpad.net/fedora or https://launchpad.net/gentoo
[08:10] <jtv> Devil505: let me find one for you…
[08:11] <Devil505> ok thx:)
[08:11] <jtv> bac: is that something you could help with perhaps?
[08:15] <Devil505> I just need the window with CD mirrors, Builds...
[08:15] <wgrant> Devil505: Those are only supported for Ubuntu. They're empty for all other distributions at the moment.
[08:18] <Devil505> ok and how to change the page to have the same thing as the debian one for example ?
[08:19] <wgrant> What about it do you want?
[08:21] <Devil505> just want to have Frugalware registered like that https://launchpad.net/gentoo :)
[08:21] <wgrant> Devil505: What difference does it make?
[08:21] <wgrant> There is extra awkwardness around distros.
[08:23] <Devil505> oh ok
[08:55] <jtv> hi henninge!
[08:55] <jtv> You have mail.
[08:57] <henninge> jtv: Hi!
[08:57] <henninge> Yes, let me read it. ;)
[09:25] <jtv> henninge: it's well past mumble
[09:28] <henninge> jtv: yes, sorry
[09:28] <jtv> henninge: I got a patch number for recife, so am about to push that change.
[13:59] <BlackZ> any launchpad buildd around? http://launchpadlibrarian.net/59451168/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-i386.apr_1.4.2-6_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[14:00] <BlackZ> launchpad buildd admin*
[14:15] <geser> BlackZ: you probably need to talk to lamont about this
[14:15] <BlackZ> lamont: ^
[14:16] <Andphe> hey guys, I'm having problems with gpg keys on mi PPAs, I had a key 2082CDED, but I lost that one, I created a new one 6AE14EF2, and my packages are signed with this one and everything is ok uploading packages, the problem is that when I try to use this PPA as a dependencie for another PPA, the build bot gets the old key  and shows the error NO_PUBKEY 2F9D58B92082CDED
[14:16] <Andphe> any clue ?
[14:17] <bigjools> Andphe: do your packages build?
[14:18] <Andphe> yes, the ones that doesn't require a PPA as dependency to build
[14:18] <Andphe> bigjools, ↑↑
[14:18] <bigjools> Andphe: do the other builds fail?  NO_PUBKEY is just a warning.
[14:19] <bigjools> BlackZ: file a bug on launchpad-buildd please
[14:19] <geser> BlackZ, bigjools: there should already be one about it
[14:19] <bigjools> ok thanks
[14:20] <bigjools> do you know the number?
[14:20] <geser> bigjools: bug 671441 (the title could use an update)
[14:20] <Andphe> bigjools, not sure, this is what I get W: GPG error: http://ppa.launchpad.net maverick Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 2F9D58B92082CDED
[14:21] <bigjools> Andphe: that's just a warning and appears for all builds
[14:21] <Andphe> bigjools, hmmm
[14:22] <BlackZ> bigjools: I confirmed it
[14:22] <Andphe> bigjools, ok thanks, at least now I know it's no the keys
[14:22] <bigjools> np
[14:25] <BlackZ> geser: and I updated the title with one more better than the precedent one
[14:42] <nerd_bloke> I asked the papercut team about the following bug, as it is the start of a new development cycle... but they said it wasn't desktop so not appropriate. It seems like basic functionality and has been open a while, does it deserve a look?
[14:42] <nerd_bloke> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/68277
[14:52] <Andphe> Can I pin a package for the build proccess ? I'm trying to build something whose dependencies an older than official release
[15:00] <geser> unless I misunderstood your questions, only the latest version is published for a specific archive (PPA, official archive, etc.)
[15:14] <Andphe> geser, I'm building a extension for PHP 5.2.14 but the official one is 5.3.3, the php5-dev 5.2.14 package is on my ppa, but the build is getting 5.3.3, so what I'm looking is to fix the build to use mine instead the official one
[15:19] <bigjools> Andphe: set a build dependency on an explict version
[15:22] <Andphe> bigjools,  what I currently have is Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 5), libmcrypt-dev, php5-dev (= 5.2.14) and the package php5_5.2.14.dfsg.1-0ubuntu0ppa3~maverick. is already on my PPA
[15:23] <bigjools> I don't know whats up then
[15:24] <Andphe> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/59451010/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-amd64.php-mcrypt_5.2.14-0ubuntu0ppa1~maverick_MANUALDEPWAIT.txt.gz
[15:25] <Andphe> this is the log
[15:25] <SpamapS> anybody have ideas what might cause the error about tar here:  http://launchpadlibrarian.net/58855548/buildlog_ubuntu-lucid-i386.mongodb_1:1.2.2-1ubuntu1.1~ppa1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz ?
[15:25] <SpamapS> dpkg-deb: building package `mongodb' in `../mongodb_1.2.2-1ubuntu1.1~ppa1_i386.deb'.
[15:25] <SpamapS> tar: ./usr/bin/mongo: file changed as we read it
[15:25] <SpamapS> The build works fine in lucid pbuilder and using sbuild
[15:57] <lamont> BlackZ: yeah - we don't have /dev/shm mounted in the build chroots - I'm looking into if we care enough
[15:58] <BlackZ> lamont: will it be mounted? otherwise seems like we will have to fix all packages using that to not mount it
[15:59] <lamont> BlackZ: that's what I'm looking at figuring out this week
[16:14] <flacoste> rockstar: call?
[16:16] <rockstar> flacoste, now?  I thought it wasn't for a while.
[16:16] <flacoste> rockstar: my calendar says now
[16:17] <flacoste> rockstar: if you aren't available, we can reschedule
[16:17] <rockstar> flacoste, hm, I probably got my UTC math wrong.  I can do it now.  Mumble?
[16:17] <flacoste> rockstar: sure, Code 1-1