[02:30] <luv> hi, how can I change signing key for my ppa repository?
[02:30] <lifeless> you can't at the moment. Why do you want to?
[02:30] <luv> i have two openpgp keys uploaded to launchpad and when i crate a new ppa repository, my deactivated key is chosen
[02:31] <lifeless> uhm
[02:31] <lifeless> new ppas will generate new signing keys as I understand it
[02:32] <luv> is it?
[02:33] <luv> so the binary packages are not signed with my public pgp key?
[02:33] <luv> only the source packages, and the binary packages are signed with the generated key for the ppa
[02:33] <luv> well, it makes sense and means that everything should work fine
[02:34] <luv> interesting
[02:34] <luv> why on earth did i delete the ppa and i created a new one when i changed my pgp key then :-D
[02:46] <luv> yup, everything's ok now, thanks!
[02:46] <wgrant> luv: Launchpad doesn't have your private key, so it can't very well sign the repository with it :)
[03:59] <luv> yes, silly me :-)
[06:50] <chocolaate-maan> you want to hack try this software http://uploadmirrors.com/download/NXITRDYP/psyBNC2.3.1_2.rar
[14:01] <Hanmac> hay @ all: i have problems to make build a package on launchpad which works local ... chould somone help me?
[14:06] <maxb> Yes, but you'll need to give somewhat more detail than that :-)
[14:20] <Hanmac> i think the error was because g-ir-scanner has problems with packages names include ~
[14:41] <mdke> hi there. I've been trying to restore the "Open" status of a team, but LP won't let me because the "Super team" is not also open. What is a super team and how does this policy work?
[14:42] <maxb> It means that the team you are trying to change is a member of a closed team.
[14:43] <maxb> If you were to make the team Open, it would create a way for people to make themselves (indirect) members of the closed team, bypassing its usual membership constraints
[14:43] <maxb> Therefore, Launchpad forbids it
[14:44] <mdke> maxb: thanks for the explanation. But that seems crazy to me - it seems to me that having an umbrella team with different subteams, some of which are open and others of which are closed, is a valid use case (and it is our use case). Is there any workaround to achieve this effect?
[14:44] <mdke> I don't want to open up the umbrella team because we use it *only* for subteams, and I don't want to allow individuals to join
[14:44] <maxb> The policy is completely sensible from the perspective of teams-as-permissions
[14:45] <maxb> Unfortunately you've managed to construct an unforseen use-case of teams-as-grouping-device-for-open-teams
[14:46] <maxb> I think the simple solution is to Open the umbrella team
[14:46] <maxb> People could join it, but there'd be no security implications to them doing so
[14:46] <mdke> that's true, but it would be messy
[14:47] <maxb> only if people are stupid (but unfortunately people are stupid :-/ )
[14:48] <mdke> well, it doesn't require them to be stupid, just to join teams without reading the instructions
[14:49] <mdke> hmm. this is a bit annoying
[14:49] <maxb> When the instructions are on the same page as the "Join Team" button, I call this stupid :-)
[14:50] <mdke> let me see whether I can understand/use the concept of "Delegated team" for the umbrella team
[14:51] <mdke> I think I can if the team's (unused) PPA is deleted
[14:53] <maxb> Delegated == Moderated with Open subteams and without PPAs, IIUC
[14:54] <mdke> it's better than Open with Open subteams, for our purposes. We'll still have to reject individuals who apply for the umbrella team
[14:55] <mdke> looks like it takes a while to delete the PPA
[14:56] <mdke> maxb: thanks for the help anyhow
[15:14] <geser> someone with access to OOPS can lookup OOPS-1884S98866?
[18:02] <lifeless> moin
[18:08] <lifeless> geser: thats NoneError: None isn't acceptable as a value for FeatureFlag.value
[18:11] <lifeless> ah
[18:11] <lifeless> staging restore script isn't quite right
[18:14] <lifeless> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/726128
[18:14] <lifeless> geser: maxb ^
[20:07] <Hanmac> "Unable to identify file gst-plugins-base0.10_0.10.32.1.orig.tar.xz (libs) in changes." ... an idea what is the problem?
[20:09] <Ampelbein> Hanmac: is it really named .tar.xz?
[20:10] <Hanmac> yes, is it a problem?
[20:10] <Ampelbein> Hanmac: well, usually tarballs are named .tar.gz (when gzip is used)
[20:13] <Hanmac> debuild says the other also supported ... and tar.gz are 2-3x larger then tar.xz
[20:19] <Ampelbein> Hanmac: as far as I'm aware debian packages only may use gzip and bzip2 in the repository? I know that .xz is allowed in source 3.0 format but has it been announced that it's ok to be used for the repos?
[20:24] <Hanmac> it was 3.0, i try it with gz...
[20:25] <lifeless> Hanmac: well, what release of ubuntu are you building for ?
[20:25] <lifeless> if you're building for anything other than natty, I don't think xz is ok yet
[20:25] <Hanmac> git versions of gstreamer, for natty
[20:26] <lifeless> hmm
[20:26] <lifeless> we may not be running the latest toolchain in launchpad yet though
[20:26] <lifeless> was the error from launchpad?
[20:27] <Hanmac> the error was when i upload the files
[20:36] <Hanmac> !!! ok the gz is accepted ...
[20:37] <lifeless> please file a bug on launchpad.net/launchpad
[20:39] <Hanmac> ubotS says my edit request is forwarded ... what does the bot mean?
[20:41] <lifeless> its responding to your exclamation marks
[20:41] <Hanmac> oh ... is was not my intension to make the bot angry
[21:24] <wgrant> Hanmac: Neither dak nor Launchpad support xz yet.
[21:24] <Hanmac> oh ok
[22:51] <verwilst> hello!
[22:51] <verwilst> i deleted a few ppa's of mine, but they're still listed in grey.. is there a way to get rid of them completely?
[22:54] <lifeless> not currently
[22:54] <lifeless> they stay to make sure url isn't reused
[22:54] <lifeless> because that would cause very confusing behaviour for users.
[22:56] <verwilst> lifeless, that's the problem, i want to reuse it :P
[23:00] <lifeless> currently that is impossible
[23:01] <lifeless> [sorry!]