=== jjohansen is now known as jj-afk | ||
=== smb` is now known as smb | ||
doko | Riddell: please could you wait a few hours with the kde uploads? | 14:26 |
---|---|---|
doko | especially not uploading a new kdebindings before the armel build is in the archive | 14:27 |
Riddell | doko: why? | 14:33 |
doko | did you read my email about making python 2.7 the default today? | 14:34 |
Riddell | don't think I did | 14:38 |
=== bjf[afk] is now known as bjf | ||
=== jj-afk is now known as jjohansen | ||
GrueMaster | Can someone publish linux-image-2.6.35-24-omap? It is pending publication, and I need to get it tested from -proposed before it can be released. | 18:27 |
GrueMaster | Still waiting for a kernel to get published. | 20:54 |
cjwatson | GrueMaster: processed; should be visible in ~1.5 hours | 21:16 |
GrueMaster | Thanks. I've been asked to test it for two days now. | 21:22 |
cjwatson | it only appeared in the NEW queue six or seven hours ago. | 21:27 |
GrueMaster | I know. But the kernel team released it yesterday. | 21:33 |
GrueMaster | And it was published for everything BUT armel. | 21:34 |
cjwatson | I can't make armel builds go faster :-) I imagine somebody looked at the queue when armel hadn't finished building yet, that's all. | 21:34 |
GrueMaster | So it is a manual process. Good to know. | 21:35 |
cjwatson | Any time package names change it requires manual intervention. | 21:35 |
cjwatson | Thus, any kernel ABI change requires manual intervention. | 21:36 |
=== bjf is now known as bjf[afk] | ||
sconklin | How can I solve this problem? - A source package containing an incorrect .orig.tar.gz (which had the correct file name) was uploaded to a ppa, and now I need to make that orig.tar.gz go away, or replace it with the correct one. | 22:53 |
cjwatson | sconklin: you'll have to ask #launchpad if there's a way - the Ubuntu archive admins have no control over PPAs | 23:02 |
sconklin | cjwatson: thanks | 23:02 |
cjwatson | (for Ubuntu the answer would be "the only way is to bump the upstream version") | 23:02 |
sbeattie | that's also pretty much true for ppas, as well. | 23:03 |
sconklin | that's a bit of a problem for the kernel ;-) | 23:06 |
sbeattie | sconklin: I don't disagree, and I also think it should be relaxed for PPAs versus the ubuntu archive, but that's what people in #soyuz tell me. | 23:07 |
cjwatson | there are some good reasons for it in corner cases around making corresponding source available, even for PPAs | 23:08 |
sbeattie | sconklin: it's *possible* for it to go away eventually from the ppa, if you delete it and wait on the order of a couple of weeks. | 23:08 |
sconklin | yeah. It's a case of totally understanding the rules and why they exist, but trying to unwind a mistake | 23:08 |
sconklin | ok, I tried deleting it and waiting an hour | 23:08 |
cjwatson | anyway, #launchpad may be able to advise on adminy options that are available | 23:09 |
sconklin | I'm asking there | 23:09 |
ScottK | sconklin: Make a different PPA and upload it there. consistency among PPAs is not enforced. | 23:09 |
sconklin | ScottK: this is our non-virtualized kernel build PPA | 23:10 |
ScottK | Yeah, well that makes it a bit tough. | 23:10 |
ScottK | You might arange for a hot spare in case it's needed. | 23:11 |
cjwatson | (corner cases: imagine that your new version fails to build on one architecture. now ppa.launchpad.net is distributing source for the new version but can't distribute source for the old version due to a filename clash. imagine you never bother to fix this. is ppa.launchpad.net now violating the GPL?) | 23:11 |
sconklin | cjwatson: totally understood. And it's possible that someone (anyone) grabbed a copy of the built package | 23:12 |
ScottK | cjwatson: That wouldn't necessarily be an issue for a private PPA. Perhaps the rules could be relaxed for those (I've got a use case for that). | 23:13 |
cjwatson | I expect actually that it's just too annoying to figure out the publication rules :-) | 23:18 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!