[00:18] <lool> Hi folks, would a registry admin be around to register https://launchpad.net/bugs/bugtrackers/savannah as the bug tracker for https://launchpad.net/patch ?  it's owned by ~registry
[00:20] <lool> hmm actually I don't need that, sorry
[00:20] <lool> I was hit by https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/197250
[00:20] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 197250 in Launchpad Bugs "Savannah bug watches should match longer URL" [Undecided,Triaged]
[02:35] <ScottK> lifeless: I think that's not the first time qt4-x11 got retried since gcc was fixed.
[07:51] <flyguy> hi
[07:51] <flyguy> do any of you know the new canonicle channel?
[07:51] <lifeless> context?
[09:34] <jml> mrevell: ping
[09:34] <mrevell> Hey there jml
[10:34] <evaluate> hello
[10:35] <evaluate> I uploaded a package to my lauchpad PPA to be built and it failed and I'm not sure why. This is the log: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/60180774/buildlog_ubuntu-maverick-amd64.clipit_1.3.5-0ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[10:35] <evaluate> Any idea what I did wrong?
[10:35] <wgrant> make[1]: *** No rule to make target `totools_dev'.  Stop.
[10:35] <evaluate> wgrant, I'm not sure what totools_dev is...
[10:35] <bigjools> beat me to it
[10:36] <evaluate> I mean, that's not a dependency of my package...
[10:36] <bigjools> it's a make target
[10:36] <wgrant> evaluate: It's something in your package's build system.
[10:38] <evaluate> hmm, I'm confused... It built fine before. I have only added support for 'Application Indicator' in my last version, does totools_dev have anything to do with that?
[10:41] <evaluate> ohh, wait. I guess that should be 'autotools_dev' actually...
[10:41] <evaluate> hmm, I wonder why it says totools_dev though...
[10:43] <evaluate> ok, so in my rules file I have this: dh $@ --with autoreconf, autotools_dev
[10:44] <evaluate> I guess that's somehow interpreted wrong by the builder (that's the only place where 'totools_dev' is mentioned).
[10:44] <wgrant> I don't think that space should be there after the comma.
[10:44] <wgrant> Regardless, it's nothing to do with the builder. That goes straight into debhelper.
[10:45] <evaluate> wgrant, ok, I'll try again without the comma. I just wondered because on debian it built just fine...
[10:50] <kinkie> Hi all, a quick question: is there a way to access a branch hosted in LP via http? (not https) Thanks!
[10:51] <wgrant> kinkie: bzr branch http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~user/project/branch
[10:51] <kinkie> thanks!
[10:52] <jfi> Hello, I need to change the orig.tgz of the SAME version, but it is rejected. What is the usual solution? Is there another solution than changing the version of the orig file?
[10:52] <wgrant> jfi: You need to change the version.
[10:52] <wgrant> Why do you want to modify it? That doesn't make sense.
[10:53] <jfi> wgrant, because I want to update to the new build of the same version
[10:53] <wgrant> "new build of the same version" sounds like an oxymoron to me.
[10:53] <jfi> hum, let me explain a little:)
[10:53] <bigjools> maybe he means a rebuild
[10:53] <jfi> first, I am the author of the program
[10:54] <jfi> I have done a new version (0.6.0) to fit more to ubuntu package
[10:54] <jfi> 0.6.0 is not officially released
[10:54] <jfi> I made some mistake
[10:54] <jfi> so I have fixed it and rebuild a 0.6.0
[10:55] <bigjools> https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/soyuz/+faq/990
[10:58] <jfi> ok, so I am going to use a 0.6.0.1 `:(
[10:59] <jfi> thx for the clarification bigjools and wgrant
[10:59] <bigjools> np
[11:01] <jfi> another question: the debian/copyright is supposed to only contain the copyright of the programm itself or to program+used libraries/progs?
[11:02] <wgrant> It should contain the copyright details of everything in the package. Not anything it depends upon.
[11:02] <spiv> Just the copyright for the code in that one package.
[11:02] <jfi> I have one lib which is statically compiled and I wonder if I should incluse its copyright
[11:02] <spiv> s/code/everything/
[11:02] <wgrant> jfi: Do you really have to statically link it?
[11:02] <jfi> yes, there is no shared version of this library
[11:02] <wgrant> You shouldn't include it in the copyright file.
[11:02] <wgrant> But you also shouldn't statically link it :)
[11:03] <jfi> yes I no wgrant, but I have no other choice (that's xvnctrl for information)
[11:03] <wgrant> :(
[11:03] <jfi> s/no/know
[11:08] <jfi> last very newbie question about ppa: are the binary package automaticly rebuilt when there is a new version of a build-dependency?
[11:08] <bigjools> no
[11:09] <bigjools> you need to do a no-change rebuild, which means bumping the version
[11:10] <jfi> ok, thx
[11:19] <evaluate> after a package has finished building on launchpad, how long will it take for the changes to be visible for apt-get update?
[11:19] <evaluate> I mean if I have the PPA added...
[11:20] <bigjools> evaluate: it varies between 5 and 30 minutes.  It will get much faster after Wednesday as we're speeding it up
[11:21] <evaluate> bigjools, ok, thank you very much :-)
[11:31] <jhunt> i give up - please can someone tell me how to associate a bug report with (project? package? thing?) "natty"
[11:40] <tsimpson> jhunt: use the "Also effects distribution" link
[11:40] <wgrant> jhunt: Natty is a series of the Ubuntu distribution.
[11:40] <wgrant> jhunt: Why do you want to do that?
[11:41] <wgrant> You'd normally just file it against Ubuntu.
[11:41] <jhunt> tsimpson: tried that. The bug is already listed against the ubuntu distro, but I want to associate it with natty alpha1 (a la https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/jasper-initramfs/+bug/659754).
[11:41] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 659754 in jasper-initramfs (Ubuntu Natty) "Universe & multiverse are not enabled on OMAP4 preinstalled image" [High,Triaged]
[11:42] <tsimpson> you don't need to
[11:42] <wgrant> jhunt: That's used mostly by the release team.
[11:42] <wgrant> Users shouldn't use it.
[11:42] <jhunt> in which case I'll add a comment to state is natty-specific and hope someone actions it :)
[11:43] <jhunt> aside - weird bug with lp: try right-clicking (almost) any image and selecting view image in FF...!
[11:43] <tsimpson> you should always include what release/package-version you are filing a bug against anyway :)
[11:43] <wgrant> jhunt: You mean you get a big image with many icons?
[11:44] <jhunt> wgrant: no, I get a binary spew of the raw pngs - no image.
[11:44] <wgrant> jhunt: Hm, that's odd.
[11:45] <tsimpson> eg: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/49558155/64_logo.png
[11:46] <tsimpson> the content type is image/png
[11:49] <jhunt> tsimpson: yes, seems to be confined to launchpadlibrarian png images since the lp logo (served from lp) is fine.
[11:50] <tsimpson> jhunt, wgrant: I just found something odd though, a HTTP HEAD request give a content type of "image/png", but a GET request gives "text/html"
[11:54] <tsimpson> and now, HEAD (over telnet) gives text/html too
[12:18] <jfi> I would like my package to be built for maverick/lucid/natty, the only way is to push one version of the package for each, right?
[12:36] <maxb> correct
[12:38] <jfi> ok, thx maxb
[12:39] <bigjools> jfi: the other way is to upload it only for lucid and copy upwards, if a single build will suffice
[12:43] <jfi> bigjools, you mean copying the bin package? In my case, the source package is exactly the same for the 3 distributions but the binary has to be built for each (still due the static lib)
[12:43] <bigjools> jfi: yes.  If you need to link against the separate libs then you need to create different packages
[12:43] <bigjools> versions, I mean
[12:47] <jfi> the usual practice is to increment the source package version or there is a convention like xxx-version_prog-natty-1. xxx-version_prog-maverick-1,etc?
[12:49] <Odd_Bloke> https://answers.launchpad.net/openobject-addons/+question/136806 shows "Asked by Daniel Watkins (credativ) on 1 hour ago"
[12:50] <Odd_Bloke> The " on " should not be there.
[12:50] <Odd_Bloke> I don't have time to look for a bug report ATM, so I'm lazyweb'ing it. :)
[14:06] <zaytsev> hi folks
[14:06] <zaytsev> https://launchpad.net/~zyv/+archive/ppa/+build/2082552
[14:06] <zaytsev> [FAILEDTOUPLOAD] Failed to upload on litembilla (virtual) Retry this build  ?
[14:06] <zaytsev> anybody has a clue what's wrong with this builder?
[14:06] <wgrant> zaytsev: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/60188312/upload_2095334_log.txt
[14:07] <zaytsev> wgrant,  there is no such version in the archive
[14:09] <wgrant> zaytsev: It looks like you uploaded that version and then quickly deleted it?
[14:10] <zaytsev> wgrant, yes, I messed it up. I forgot to decrease the version number so that my package would be superseded by Ubuntu version when it comes out.
[14:11] <zaytsev> So right after the build I realized my mistake and removed the package, then started another build
[14:11] <wgrant> zaytsev: You've been hit by a bug that we were just discussing. You deleted it before the binaries were finished uploading, so they didn't get deleted. Delete ubuntu3 again, and retry the ubuntu3~lucid1 builds.
[14:13] <zaytsev> wgrant, yup, I realize my mistake, but it used to work in the past. How I am supposed to delete ubuntu3 again if it's already deleted from the interface>?
[14:13] <wgrant> zaytsev: It should still show up on the deletion page.
[14:13] <wgrant> Because it has undeleted binaries.
[14:13] <zaytsev> wgrant, oh you are right
[14:14] <zaytsev> Thanks for your help
[15:42] <zaytsev_> wgrant, thanks again. it worked fine now. I would appreciate if this delete / upload bug can be taken care of in the future
[16:40] <thorwil> hi! just uploaded my first ppa. can i expect an email notification within a few minutes?
[16:41] <bigjools> thorwil: yes, approximately 5 minutes
[16:41] <bigjools> or less
[16:46] <thorwil> after using "debuild -S" and dput, i read something about signing the .changes file and that the omission of that is a likely cause to not receive an email
[16:46] <thorwil> but apparently dput took care of that
[16:53] <bigjools> debuild will sign it for you, dput just uploads it
[16:53] <bigjools> if you don't get an email, read this:https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/soyuz/+faq/227
[17:46] <vish> hi, how do i get a mail from a lp team mailing list deleted?
[17:46] <vish>  from the list archive
[19:10] <lifeless> vish: ask a question on answers.lp.net/launchpad
[19:11] <vish> lifeless: will do, thanks.
[19:28] <vish> deryck: hi, could you a second look at Bug 685755 , the confusion is due to similar sounding team names . :)
[19:28] <ubot5`> Launchpad bug 685755 in Launchpad Bugs "Members of an Open team should *not* be allowed to assign bugs to the team" [Undecided,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/685755
[19:29] <deryck> hi vish.  sure, I can look again.
[19:29] <vish> thanks.
[19:30] <lifeless> deryck: I think its a valid issue
[19:30] <lifeless> deryck: its not bug supervisor privilege, its 'can assign to self' privilege, which we extend to team membership
[19:30] <deryck> vish, so to clarify, someone from the papercutters team (the bug supervsior) assigned the papercuts ninja team (which is open).
[19:31] <deryck> lifeless, ok.  still not following the bug, though.  why should we not allow assigning to an open team?
[19:31] <vish> deryck: no, someone from the papercuts ninja team assigned it to the papercuts ninja team
[19:31] <deryck> ok, so why is that bad?
[19:31] <deryck> sorry I'm being hard headed :-)
[19:31] <deryck> just trying to see the harm of that :-)
[19:31] <lifeless> deryck: open teams - used for:
[19:31] <lifeless>  - mailing lists
[19:31] <lifeless>  - fanboy groups
[19:32] <vish> deryck: a member of the open team just assigned it *to* the open team
[19:32] <lifeless> deryck: self assigning a bug says 'I will work on this'
[19:32] <deryck> lifeless, I know that much ;)
[19:33] <deryck> but we allow assigning to teams that want to work on it.
[19:33] <lifeless> deryck: but thats progressively less defined as you move from private->restricted->moderated->open
[19:33] <vish>  if someone joins the Ubuntu users team, they can just assign the bug to the Ubuntu users, but that does not mean the Ubuntu users will work on the bug.
[19:33] <deryck> right, I understand that now.
[19:33]  * deryck is thinking on it some more
[19:33] <lifeless> deryck: for an open team member (not admin), they have effectively no weight in terms of making the statement 'this team will work on this bug'
[19:34] <lifeless> deryck: s/not admin/(not admin and not owner)
[19:34] <deryck> I see that argument now.  the downside is that small, open teams would have to re-configure themselves.  is this really that large of an issue?
[19:34] <lifeless> also
[19:34] <lifeless> open teams + bug subscriptions
[19:34] <lifeless> same issue
[19:35] <lifeless> or do we require admin access to subscribe?
[19:35] <lifeless> if we require admin access to a team to subscribe it to a bug
[19:35] <lifeless> then I'd say the same requirement makes sense for self-assignment on a bug
[19:35] <deryck> hmmm, you know I don't know.  I don't think we do, but would need to look at code to confirm....
[19:35] <lifeless> deryck: I think we do, because it was abused when it was free for all
[19:36] <lifeless> deryck: small open teams can switch to moderated easily, which will still let folk say 'I wanna be a superhero'
[19:36] <lifeless> deryck: or
[19:36] <lifeless> deryck: you could set a flag on the team, if you felt that we need to support both use cases, and set the default to 'members of this team cannot make statements on behalf of the team'
[19:37] <lifeless> deryck: I think the quoted bit there is the basic principle I'm pointing at : assignment, subscription, joining other teams: these are statements of intent on behalf of the whole team.
[19:37] <ScottK> Sounds to me like mostly a reason for people not to want open teams.
[19:37] <lifeless> deryck: and its a rare open team that truely wants everyone in the world to be able to make such statements.
[19:38] <lifeless> ScottK: thats certainly related, but the same question applies to the other sorts of teams.
[19:38] <deryck> well the issue is we use "team" as a work team or a hang out group on launchpad. ;)
[19:38] <deryck> and the two are different uses really
[19:38] <vish> hehe!
[19:38] <davidstrauss> Is there a guide to using CVS imports? I can't figure out how to give Launchpad the requested HTTP-based URL for Drupal CVS.
[19:39] <lifeless> deryck: cvs doesn't have http urls
[19:39] <lifeless> bah
[19:39] <lifeless> davidstrauss: ^
[19:39] <deryck> heh
[19:39] <lifeless> davidstrauss: help.launchpad.net has instructions
[19:39] <deryck> lifeless, vish -- so how about this, I'll re-open the bug and clear up based on the discussion here.  I'm not convinced we should look it down for open groups yet, but I see the problem and we should figure it out/discuss it further.  Fair enough?
[19:40] <davidstrauss> lifeless, I've reviewed the help page, and it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.
[19:40] <vish> deryck: sure..
[19:40] <vish> thanks
[19:40] <lifeless> davidstrauss: which one ?
[19:40] <davidstrauss> "The URI scheme "cvs.drupal.org" is not allowed. Only URIs with the following schemes may be used: http, https"
[19:40] <davidstrauss> lifeless, https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Imports
[19:40] <lifeless> davidstrauss: what url are you getting that error on?
[19:40] <davidstrauss> cvs.drupal.org:/cvs/drupal-contrib
[19:41] <lifeless> davidstrauss: no, in launchpad.
[19:41] <davidstrauss> lifeless, that is the "URL" I'm giving it. CVS doesn't use URLs.
[19:41] <lifeless> davidstrauss: What Launchpad URL are you putting this data in ON.
[19:42] <davidstrauss> lifeless, Ah, http://launchpad.net/drupal-mongodb
[19:42] <lifeless> davidstrauss: theres no code import form at that url.
[19:43] <lifeless> davidstrauss: I would like you to copy from your location bar and paste it here.
[19:43] <lifeless> Or take a screenshot.
[19:43] <davidstrauss> lifeless, https://code.launchpad.net/drupal-mongodb/trunk/+setbranch
[19:44] <davidstrauss> lifeless, that?
[19:44] <lifeless> yes
[19:44] <lifeless> now we're getting somewhere
[19:44] <lifeless> and you're getting this error in the 'Branch URL' field ?
[19:45] <davidstrauss> lifeless, yes
[19:45] <davidstrauss> lifeless, nor is it clear what that field is asking for when using CVS
[19:45] <lifeless> benji: hi
[19:45] <benji> hi
[19:45] <lifeless> benji: IIRC registry has been tweaking stuff recently
[19:46] <lifeless> https://code.launchpad.net/drupal-mongodb/trunk/+setbranch
[19:46]  * benji edits his auto-join
[19:46] <lifeless> click on 'import a branch hosted somewhere else'
[19:46] <lifeless> then 'CVS'
[19:46] <lifeless> for branch url put in 'cvs.drupal.org:/cvs/drupal-contrib' and then test as the module, test as the branch name,
[19:46] <lifeless> click on update
[19:46] <lifeless> observe the error
[19:46] <davidstrauss> "The URI scheme "cvs.drupal.org" is not allowed. Only URIs with the following schemes may be used: http, https"
[19:47] <davidstrauss> lifeless, same error i got
[19:47] <benji> yep, that's the error I get
[19:48] <deryck> lifeless, FWIW, I don't see any restrictions on team subscriptions.
[19:48] <lifeless> deryck: remind me in jan ;)
[19:48] <benji> I assume that's not the desired outcome.
[19:48] <lifeless> benji: no
[19:48] <lifeless> benji: this is a regression, but I'm not sure who was fiddling most recently
[19:48] <deryck> lifeless, heh, ok.  You are supposed to be away now, are you not? ;) :)
[19:48] <lifeless> yah
[19:49] <lifeless> davidstrauss: so, please do this:
[19:49] <lifeless>  - file a bug
[19:49] <benji> it was probably a change of field type (and a missing test case)
[19:49] <lifeless> benji: yah
[19:49] <lifeless> davidstrauss: and then fill the form out as well as you can, with a fake http url
[19:49] <lifeless> davidstrauss: we'll see if we can edit it correctly after its created
[19:49] <benji> has there been a bug assigned to this?
[19:49] <lifeless> benji: not yet, just found out about it
[19:50] <benji> k, I'm looking at the code real quick to see if anything jumps out at me
[19:50] <lifeless> benji: thanks!
[19:50] <benji> any time
[19:53] <sinzui> lifeless, benji the cvs URL was broken a few months ago. I report a bug. I had to set an impossible url to get it the branch accepted, then fix the url as a part of the import review.
[19:54] <sinzui> lifeless, benji I think my bug was a dupe too
[19:54] <davidstrauss> lifeless, benji, https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/686134
[19:54] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 686134 in Launchpad itself "CVS import interface doesn't make sense or work" [Undecided,New]
[19:54] <lifeless> davidstrauss: thanks
[19:54] <lifeless> sinzui: thanks
[20:06] <davidstrauss> lifeless, thanks for the help. i've filed a few related (but minor) bugs i've found while troubleshooting this
[20:06] <davidstrauss> lifeless, I also found a workaround and configured the import: https://code.launchpad.net/~davidstrauss/drupal-mongodb/trunk
[20:09] <lifeless> davidstrauss: cool
[20:29] <thorwil> where's the Files: part of the.changes file supposed to come from?
[20:30] <benji> lifeless: I got sidetracked for a little bit there, but our suspicions are confirmed: that field is a URIField and I can't see any tests for giving it CVS locations.  I'll update the bug with the details.
[20:35] <lifeless> benji: did you see sinzuis comment that its probably a duplicate?
[20:35] <lifeless> benji: thumper may know more
[20:37] <benji> lifeless: oh, I thought he was talking about the bug he entered being a dupe, not 686134
[20:38] <benji> (but now I notice that 686134 is quite new, so is likely a dupe as well)
[20:39] <thumper> on?
[20:39] <thumper> benji: I think the CVS urls need http or :pserver type urls
[20:40] <lifeless> thumper: 0838, davidstrauss
[20:41] <benji> thumper: I just tried ":pserver:anonymous:anonymous@cvs.drupal.org:/cvs/drupal-contrib" but it didn't work ("...is not a valid URI")
[20:42] <thumper> benji: which form?
[20:42] <benji> https://code.launchpad.net/drupal-mongodb/trunk/+setbranch
[20:42] <thumper> hmm...
[20:42] <thumper> yeah...
[20:43] <thumper> benji: it is a fubar
[20:44] <thumper> benji: you need to use the new code import view to create a CVS import
[20:44] <thumper> benji: the +setbranch doesn't follow the same validation rules as the new code import
[20:45] <benji> thumper: oh, well... I'm not really wanting to create one, I'm following up on a bug report (686134, via lifeless, probably a dupe)
[20:46] <benji> so, what should we do about this attractive nuisance?
[20:46] <benji> if the two pages do the same thing, perhaps we should redirect visitors to the old one to the new one
[20:48] <thumper> benji: we should fix the setbranch page
[20:50] <benji> thumper: ok, thanks; any ideas on finding an older report of the bug?  I haven't been able to, but probably don't know the right place(s) to look.
[20:50] <thumper> I don't think this is an old bug
[20:56] <benji> ok, I'll use 686134 until it's proven a dupe
[21:54] <komputes> latest comment on this bug is spam : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-driver/+bug/382488
[21:54] <ubot5`> Ubuntu bug 382488 in alsa-driver (Ubuntu) "Playback sound is only audible starting at 50% on Dell Inspiron 1420" [Undecided,Fix released]
[22:28] <thumper> komputes: thanks