[00:18] <Guest690000> hola
[00:21] <Guest690000> hola
[00:21] <wgrant> Hi.
[00:22] <Guest690000> someones speaks spanish here?
[00:23] <wgrant> Not me.
[00:24] <Guest690000> whatever
[00:24] <Guest690000> i report this bug in launchpad
[00:26] <Guest690000> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/711086
[00:50] <charlie-tca> Guest28688: are you using an encrypted system?
[00:51] <charlie-tca> Guest28688: ¿Está utilizando una unidad de cifrado?
[01:51] <Guest690000> charlie-tca the question its for me?
[09:20] <mrevell> Morning
[10:04] <mpt> Other than the reporter, assignee, and direct subscribers, who can see a project's private bug reports? Is it the maintainer, the driver, or both?
[10:05] <wgrant> mpt: At the moment it's just the assignee and direct subscribers. But the reporter is normally a direct subscriber, and projects with private bugs by default have the bug supervisor subscribed.
[10:05] <wgrant> Unless there is no bug supervisor, in which case the owner is subscribed.
[10:05] <wgrant> And unless the security flag is checked, in which case the security contact is subscribed instead.
[10:07] <mpt> wgrant, what does "owner" mean? Does it mean what Launchpad presents as the "maintainer", or what Launchpad presents as "Registered ... by"?
[10:09] <wgrant> mpt: Maintainer, sorry.
[10:09] <wgrant> It's owner in the DB.
[10:09] <mpt> ok, thanks wgrant
[10:09] <wgrant> This will hopefully have all changed in a few months.
[10:44] <tjaalton> hey, I can't access bug 512096, it oopses every time
[10:44] <tjaalton> too many dupes?
[13:29] <Daviey> Using launchpadlib, is it possible to get a set returned of only the greatest source_package_version?
[13:29] <Daviey> (when using getPublishedSources)
[13:43] <soren> Daviey: http://pastebin.com/fryFq19v <--- I use this, but I'd love to hear about it if you find a cleaner way
[13:43] <Daviey> soren... yup.. i'm using a lamda
[13:45] <Daviey> soren, Although.. i didn't use the order of preference
[13:45] <Daviey> that is cleaner than i was doing..
[16:12] <rodrigo_> hi
[16:12] <rodrigo_> I'm having a problem when pushing a branch, it takes ages and uses the wrong stacking branch
[16:12] <rodrigo_> what I did is:
[16:12] <rodrigo_> bzr branch lp:~ubuntu-desktop/gnome-menus/ubuntu wip
[16:12] <rodrigo_> hack on it
[16:12] <rodrigo_> commit
[16:13] <rodrigo_> and then bzr push lp:~gnome3-team/gnome-menus/ubuntu
[16:13] <rodrigo_> but this push command takes 4/5 hours, and shows:
[16:13] <rodrigo_> Using default stacking branch /~vcs-imports/gnome-menus/main at lp-60609488:///~gnome3-team/gnome-menus
[16:13] <rodrigo_> I've tried using --stacked, --stacked-on, but same issue
[16:13] <rodrigo_> any idea?
[16:17] <jml> rodrigo_: once the branch is created, you'll have to delete it and then specify --stacked-on when pushing it.
[16:18] <rodrigo_> already deleted it
[16:18] <rodrigo_> ok, trying with --stacked-on
[16:18] <jml> rodrigo_: as in, once a branch is created, --stacked-on gets ignored, pretty much.
[16:19] <rodrigo_> ok
[16:19] <rodrigo_> hmm, puishing with --stacked-on was much quicker now
[16:19]  * rodrigo_ checks the branch in lp
[16:20] <rodrigo_> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~gnome3-team/gnome-menus/ubuntu
[16:21] <rodrigo_> it says 'invalid stacked on'
[16:21] <rodrigo_> but this workflow used to work, just bzr push lp:.... just worked
[16:21] <rodrigo_> so, has anything changed?
[16:32] <akoskm> hi! I tried to upload the package sources to launchpad with both ftp and sftp methods as described here: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading. with ftp method it stalled a KB before the complete size, with sftp it reported Broken pipe after the upload.
[16:33] <bigjools> the latter message is a bug in dput's sftp, it should be ok
[16:42] <akoskm> bigjools: thank you. indeed the .upload file says that the uploads were successfull but my ppa is still empty, where should the source appear?
[17:00] <bigjools> akoskm: is it there yet?
[17:02] <akoskm> I assume it should appear somewhere around https://launchpad.net/~qtjambi-community/+archive/libqtjambi (because there are the upload instructions), but I can't find it
[17:05] <akoskm> http://pastebin.com/61aAce4i in the .upload file
[17:08] <bigjools> akoskm: ok, sorry I was on the phone.  Let me take a look.
[17:10] <bigjools> akoskm: you have not registered the key you signed the package with in Launchpad
[17:11] <bigjools> so the upload is thrown away
[17:11] <akoskm> oh, I see. I just didn't get any notification about that
[17:12] <bigjools> no you won't
[17:12] <bigjools> it would be a spam vector
[17:12] <bigjools> https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+faq/227
[17:16] <akoskm> bigjools: I'll follow the instructions and report back. thank you!
[17:16] <bigjools> akoskm: you just need to register your gpg key
[17:21] <akoskm> bigjools: yes I got it, I'm on that
[21:16] <slangasek> hi, I'm getting a rather opaque (reproducible) error on a build in a ppa; it may be a bug in a package given that I'm fiddling rather aggressively with the system's guts in this ppa, but the error happens before the build even starts.  Can someone clue me in on how to debug this?http://launchpadlibrarian.net/64415926/buildlog_ubuntu-natty-amd64.zlib_1%3A1.2.3.4.dfsg-3ubuntu1%2Bmultiarch.3_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[21:16] <slangasek> the error is '/usr/bin/apt-cache exit status 32512', called by sbuild
[21:17] <slangasek> but I don't know the command line to debug
[21:25] <lostogre> Anybody around?
[21:26] <lostogre> I'm trying to understand how launchpad works. Do I just upload the source.changes file and then launchpad compiles the changes?
[21:27] <lifeless_> lostogre: hi, do you mean for PPAs ?
[21:27] <lostogre> yeah.
[21:27] <lifeless_> https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA is the start of the docs for them
[21:28] <slangasek> lifeless_: hi there, any pointers on where I should look to figure out this ppa build failure?  Where do I look in the launchpad tree to find the buildd bits? (Given that I'm hoping not to check out the entire bzr branch and just want to browse it from the web)
[21:28] <lifeless_> slangasek: code.launchpad.net/launchpad and follow your nose to get to the branch
[21:29] <lifeless_> slangasek: just looking at that log
[21:29] <lostogre> I've read all of that and it sounds like what happens is that you take a source file from the repos for that distro, make changes and then upload the source.changes file. It sounds like then launchpad then takes that file patches the source and then compiles the new version. Am I correct?
[21:30] <lifeless_> lostogre: broadly; a changes file doesn't contain patches though
[21:30] <lifeless_> its metadata that tells dput what to upload to launchpad
[21:30] <lostogre> ok. but that is essentially correct?
[21:30] <mwhudson> slangasek: i bet you'll end up wanting to talk to infinity, lamont` and/or wgrant :)
[21:31] <mwhudson> the latter two being more likely these days
[21:31] <lifeless_> apt-cache blowing up is rather spectacular
[21:31] <lamont`> slangasek: lib/canonical/buildd
[21:31] <slangasek> lamont`: thanks!
[21:31] <slangasek> lifeless: yes... multiarch provides many opportunities for spectacular blow-ups
[21:32] <slangasek> ;)
[21:32] <lamont> slangasek: and typically ~lamont/launcpad/lp-buildd-NNNN is the actually deployed branc
[21:32] <lamont> h
[21:32] <lostogre> lifeless, so how does on create a package from a source file that is not in the repos? e.g. ISC BIND 9.8.0b1
[21:32] <lamont> multiarch: bringing dynamite to bumper-cars
[21:32] <lifeless> lostogre: same way
[21:32] <lifeless> lostogre: launchpad does not care if a package is in the main repositories or not
[21:33] <lamont> lostogre: interesting you should mention that package... I should have 9.8.0rc1 in a ppa this weekend
[21:34] <lostogre> lamont, really? I've been working on getting that in because I need the new TSIG functionality.
[21:34] <wgrant> slangasek: I'm sure you will have fun with our version of sbuild.
[21:39] <slangasek> lamont: ok, so the sbuild-package command is calling into sbuild and that's where it dies, so where do I get /that/ code? :)
[21:39] <slangasek> oh, perhaps that's the sbuild file right next to it
[21:40] <lostogre> lamont, should I stop working on this, then?
[21:40] <wgrant> slangasek: yes, it's self-contained at the moment.
[21:41] <wgrant> slangasek: I have a port to a more modern sbuild, which I guess I probably should get merged given that multiarch is coming.
[21:41] <lamont> lostogre: I'm going to be afk for most of saturday, but with my laptop and probably some time to play.  I give you carte blanche to pester me starting sunday if I haven't uploaded it by then.
[21:42] <lostogre> lamont, I see. I am just curious, though. Is it bad form for me to publish a copy of this when you are already doing so?
[21:43] <lamont> no harm at alll
[21:43] <lostogre> Ok. I think that I will continue, then, since I'd like to learn how.
[21:43] <lamont> I would prefer to not see it in the ubuntu disto archive until it is 9.8.0, but PPAs?  'tever.
[21:43] <lamont> btw, your version wants to be 1:9.8.0~rc1-0ubuntu1 or so.
[21:44] <komputes> LP SPAM FOUND - https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/alsa-driver/+question/123718
[21:44] <lostogre> I was going for 1:9.8.0b1-0ubuntu1, will that work?
[21:46] <ari-tczew> I think so
[21:46] <lostogre> k
[21:47] <wgrant> lostogre: 9.8.0b1 > 9.8.0
[21:47] <wgrant> lostogre: You probably want 9.8.0~b1
[21:47] <lostogre> ah.
[21:47] <lostogre> ok.
[21:47] <wgrant> ~ is less than the empty string.
[21:47] <lostogre> ok.
[21:49] <lostogre> wgrant what is the significance of the number at the end of ubuntu? e.g. ubuntu1, ubuntu3...
[21:50] <wgrant> lostogre: -0ubuntu1 means that the upstream version isn't in Debian, and it's the first Ubuntu upload of that version.
[21:51] <lostogre> k, thanks.
[21:55] <slangasek> lamont: so I've looked at sbuild now, and I don't think I have enough info to tell which code path is breaking things; any way you could help here?
[21:56] <slangasek> (it's somewhere in merge_pkg_build_deps, but there are only a half dozen calls to apt-cache from there)
[22:15] <slangasek> ah, can reproduce locally, though with a different exit val
[22:15] <slangasek> neat
[22:22] <slangasek> hmm, no, completely different error
[22:24] <lifeless> have you checked the apt-cache code?
[22:25] <wgrant> slangasek: If you can't reproduce it, I'll run it through a local lp-buildd with extra spam added to sbuild.
[22:26] <slangasek> wgrant: I'd appreciate it; the error I was seeing earlier was an sbuild setup issue, now sbuild seems to be running happily here with no complainst
[22:26] <slangasek> lifeless: I can't yet work out how apt-cache is being invoked that causes this error
[22:29] <wgrant> slangasek: OK, will do that shortly.
[22:30] <slangasek> thanks :)
[23:59] <slangasek> wgrant: did my multiarch ppa eat you? :)