[00:01] <ali1234> bug 867985
[00:01] <ali1234> that bug shows up on API instantly :)
[00:21] <poolie> ali1234, wow, putting that into update-manager would be amazing
[00:22] <ali1234> (21:31:38) ali1234: you know what would be amazing?
[00:22] <ali1234> ^ that's exactly what i thought :)
[00:23] <ali1234> poolie: btw, where is your blog post about +affectingbugs?
[00:23] <ali1234> btw2: i already have this working, but only for bugs that i reported obviously. but i got the update-manager side working nicely
[01:31] <ali1234> why is isUserAffected a POST method with no arguments? is it intended only to be used when logged in?
[04:27] <idnar> argh
[04:27] <idnar> I wish my latency to launchpad was better, lots of roundtrips == pain
[07:49] <jimakira> hi everyone
[07:51] <jimakira> i have problem uploading package to the server
[07:51] <jimakira> stalled at 2k/3k
[07:51] <jimakira> http://paste.ubuntu.com/702624/
[07:51] <jimakira> here is full output
[07:51] <jimakira> i tried both ftp and sftp
[07:51] <jimakira> any ideas ??
[07:52] <wgrant> jimakira: This shouldn't cause the hang, but your OpenPGP key isn't registered with your Launchpad account.
[07:52] <wgrant> Try registering it and uploading again.
[12:48] <tumbleweed> aww, why can't we see launchpad.net/builders any more?
[12:52] <tumbleweed> ah, that's better :)
[12:52]  * tumbleweed wonders what just happened
[13:20] <Laney> mmm, long lists of idle builders
[13:21] <tumbleweed> I was getting a "you aren't allowed to see this page" message for 5 mins, then it went away again
[13:26] <daker> hi
[13:26] <daker> i am getting an OOPS-2104AW76 here https://bugs.launchpad.net/~daker/+affectingbugs
[13:27] <daker> and here OOPS-2104DY72 https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bugs?search=Search&field.affects_me=on&orderby=-date_last_updated
[15:21] <afranke> Hi!
[15:23] <afranke> I'm the admin of ubuntu-l10n-fr and I have 157 people applying that I need to contact to give them guidelines. The "Contact this user" feature will only let me send 3 messages/24h. Is there a way to raise this limit please?
[15:24] <nigelb> Do you have a mailing list for the team?
[15:24] <afranke> Yes…
[15:25] <afranke> However
[15:25] <afranke> The guidelines I send tell them to subscribe to that list.
[15:25] <nigelb> Ah! A chicken and egg problem :)
[15:25] <afranke> Voilà.
[15:25] <afranke> :)
[15:26] <nigelb> I'll defer to danilos to help you figure out something :)
[15:26] <afranke> Thanks.
[15:26] <danilos> afranke, there is no way to raise the limit
[15:26] <afranke> Bummer.
[15:27] <nigelb> afranke: You could potentially, run a launchpadlib to grab the emails of at least those that are public.
[15:27] <danilos> afranke, generally, you should have probably set up a mailing list instead, and put that into the requirements for joining the team: "first subscribe to the mailing list and introduce yourself, indicating you have read the guidelines at ..."
[15:27] <afranke> nigelb, unfortunately not that many have set a public email address.
[15:28] <nigelb> :(
[15:28] <danilos> afranke, you can reject their membership with an information notice as well (they can always rejoin later)
[15:29] <afranke> I find quite hard for them.
[15:29] <afranke> I don't want to hurt their feelings.
[15:30] <afranke> danilos, we have a lists.ubuntu.com list, not a launchpad one. Is there a way for me to put that on the launchpad team?
[15:30] <danilos> afranke, only as a link in the team description
[15:30] <afranke> Ok. We already have that.
[15:31] <danilos> afranke, but generally, I put guidelines and conditions on the team page, if people don't read them, I don't feel bad about rejecting them :)
[15:31] <afranke> Our current policy is to sent a message to applicants with guidelines and decline membership if no feedback has been received 3 months later.
[15:32] <afranke> Which happens most of the time.
[15:33] <nigelb> Addiction is a shirt, a bedsheet, and the afghan my mother made for me, now all with cigarette burns.
[15:33] <afranke> But we also have a huge backlog of candidates from times where we didn't have that policy.
[15:33] <nigelb> bah
[15:33] <nigelb> accidental paste
[15:33] <afranke> Which is why we reached 157.
[15:34] <afranke> Actually we even had 250+ at one point I think, but I already made that number go down… 3 messages at a time.
[15:34] <danilos> afranke, well, considering those candidates have been waiting for more than 3 months, declining them with an informational notice might be good enough
[15:35] <danilos> afranke, (probably more than 3 years, but hey :))
[15:35] <afranke> danilos, I might end up doing that, but I find it a bit sad nonetheless.
[15:37] <danilos> afranke, agreed, but what else can you do than admit to not being very nice in such cases? one should also note to these people that they can still translate Ubuntu to French, but they will have to have their translations reviewed
[15:38] <afranke> Yeah…
[15:47] <Phantomas> hello, my package has as a build-dependency the python-distutils-extra package, and launchpad failed to build my package because of this dependency missing, what should I do?
[16:12] <bigjools> Phantomas: you need to find out why it's missing, perhaps you're depending on the wrong version or it's building in a series that doesn't have it
[17:38] <cos^> hello, should updating an expired pgp key work?
[17:38] <cos^> https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/50469
[17:39] <cos^> i uploaded my extended key > 30 mins ago and it's still not accepted
[17:45] <cos^> when uploading sources i get "Changes file must be signed with a valid GPG signature: Verification failed 3 times: ["(7, 153, u'Key expired')", "(7, 153, u'Key expired')", "(7, 153, u'Key expired')"] : Permission denied.
[17:52] <cos^> just the day i wanted to make 1.0 release and announce on slashdot etc :-)
[17:52] <tumbleweed> cos^: was the upload actually accepted? That warning is known to be often broken
[17:54] <cos^> tumbleweed: yes, gpg: sending key A47B515C to hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com
[17:54] <cos^> was successful
[17:54] <tumbleweed> cos^: no, I mean did you get an e-mail saying your *package* upload was accepted?
[17:55] <cos^> ah, hold on..
[17:56] <cos^> yes, looks like it was accepted
[17:56] <cos^> thanks
[17:56] <tumbleweed> you can ignore that error
[20:08] <Phantomas> Is it possible to build the same version of a package for many Ubuntu series in a PPA, without having to add ~SeriesName at the end of the version number?
[20:08] <tumbleweed> Phantomas: no, because then you'd have different binaries with the same version
[20:08] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: you remind me the launchpad error messages :P
[20:09] <tumbleweed> if it doesn't actually need to be rubilt for each series, you can copy the bineries between series
[20:09] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: so, I will have to change the changelog, and make a new dput for every series?
[20:10] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: I think it needs, it uses python
[20:10] <tumbleweed> depends. If you are using dh_python2 or have C extenisons, then probably, yes
[20:11] <tumbleweed> (you'd need to rebuild for each release that has different supported python versions)
[20:11] <tumbleweed> yes, touch changelog, build, sign, upload. (actually you don't need to touch the changelog, you can accomplish it by editing the .changes file, but I probably shouldn't say that :P )
[20:12] <tumbleweed> anywa, easily scriptable
[20:12] <Phantomas> haha yes, but I was wondering if there was an easier/more quick way
[20:13] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: thanks ;)
[20:13] <Phantomas> e.g. 0.1b1~maverick should do?
[20:14] <tumbleweed> as long as newer series have newer version numbers, you are fine
[20:16] <Phantomas> else?
[20:16] <tumbleweed> users won't be able to upgrade your packages when they upgrade releases
[20:17] <Phantomas> yes, I mean, what should I use then?
[20:17] <tumbleweed> what you have sounds fine
[20:18] <Phantomas> because I see some packages use something like 2.3.2-1~bazaar1~lucid1
[20:20] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: If I use recipes, will it build automatically for many ubuntu series?
[20:21] <tumbleweed> yes
[20:22] <Phantomas> You didn't tell me :P
[20:22] <Phantomas> OK, I'll search for documentation!
[20:23] <Phantomas> (on recipes)
[20:35] <Phantomas> If I delete a PPA, is it possible to create another with the same name?
[20:35] <tumbleweed> no, ppas don't actually get deleted
[20:36] <Phantomas> ouch! :D
[20:45] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: Is it correct to have e.g. Distribution: lucid in a maverick/natty/oneiric package?
[20:46] <Phantomas> I mean, by using recipes, this is what you get
[20:46] <Phantomas> or I should have a different debian/ catalog for every ubuntu series...
[20:46] <tumbleweed> Phantomas: I don't understand the question. When the recipe builds, it'll add a changelog entry for the release its building for
[20:48] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: I have my debian directory inside the development branch, inside the debian/changelog I must have something like package (version) natty; urgency=low
[20:48] <Phantomas> isn't this correct?
[20:48] <tumbleweed> don't worry about it, it'll add a new changelog entry
[20:48] <tumbleweed> it doesn't matter what you have in the changelog
[20:50] <Phantomas> yes it adds a new changelog entry but keeps natty, even if it's for oneiric for example :-\
[20:50] <Phantomas> package (0.1b1-0~15~oneiric1) lucid; urgency=low
[20:50] <michaelh1> Hey, Im' getting a timeout on https://bugs.launchpad.net/~michaelh1/+affectingbugs with OOPS-2104CF115
[20:51] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: (lucid in this case instead of natty)
[20:53] <tumbleweed> Phantomas: which PPA?
[20:54] <janimo> jelmer, hi this page was accesible half an hour ago, but no permission anymore https://launchpad.net/builders
[20:54] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: https://launchpad.net/~phantomas/+archive/epopt-test1/+packages
[20:55] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: e.g the oneiric changelog: https://launchpad.net/~phantomas/+archive/epopt-test1/+files/epoptes_0.1b1-0%7E15%7Eoneiric1_source.changes
[20:55] <jelmer> JanC: hi
[20:55] <jelmer> JanC: sorry, wrong nick
[20:55] <jelmer> janimo: That's probably related to it wanting to display some data you don't have permission to access, like a private build on one of the builders.
[20:56] <janimo> jelmer, but that makes the whole page suddenly forbidden instead of omitting private info?
[20:56] <jelmer> janimo: that's not correct of course, ideally it should just show you that there *is* a private build rather than not displaying the entire page
[20:56] <janimo> it is the first time I see this page
[20:56] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: This is my debian/changelog http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~epoptes/epoptes/trunk/view/head:/debian/changelog    and this is the recipe: https://code.launchpad.net/~phantomas/+recipe/epoptes-daily
[20:57] <janimo> I mean first time I see it not display
[20:57] <janimo> :)
[20:57] <jelmer> janimo: please file a bug about it
[20:58] <tumbleweed> I saw that this morning too
[20:59] <tumbleweed> (and I've also been seeing the usual "private build" build description that masks anything really private
[21:00] <tumbleweed> Phantomas: the "Changes" distribution doesn't matter, the "Distribution" does
[21:01] <janimo> jelmer, filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/868710 , even though I don't think it will get more love than other years old bugs I filed on LP itself :)
[21:02] <jelmer> janimo: the Launchpad team has been fixing an amazing amount of bugs like this recently, rather than piling on new features
[21:02] <jelmer> janimo: (I'm not a Launchpad dev)
[21:02] <janimo> good to know, although some I filed were feature requests :)
[21:11] <Phantomas> tumbleweed: but is it correct to have whatever series in the changes file? I mean, I could have feisty in the changelog of a build for oneiric?
[21:11] <Phantomas> sorry for the many questions, I am trying to understand :)
[21:13] <tumbleweed> I guess it could confuse people, but there's nothing technically wrong with it
[21:14] <Phantomas> aha
[21:17] <Phantomas> and I guess there is no other way to change it when using recipes than of having a different debian directory for every ubuntu series you want to have builds for, which is insane...
[21:20] <tumbleweed> yes. You could file a bug against bzr-builder, if you feel strongly about it
[21:23] <broder> are the lp devs entertaining merge proposals to add non-gmail.com google apps domains to the dkim whitelist?
[21:23] <Phantomas> haha! tumbleweed: Thanks for all your answers! :)
[22:30] <stgraber> hello
[22:30] <stgraber> can someone please set the Ubuntu Developer Membership board as the owner of https://launchpad.net/~edubuntu-dev-owner
[22:31] <stgraber> instead of the stranger I just selected by mistake
[22:31] <stgraber> this team is for upload rights management so would be great if it could be done quickly ;)
[22:31] <wgrant> stgraber: Could you file a question at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+addquestion?
[22:32] <stgraber> wgrant: sure
[22:32] <micahg> wgrant: this should actually happen immediately, is there someone we can grab?
[22:33] <wgrant> I'll throw it to a LOSA once it's filed.
[22:33] <wgrant> Should be done in a couple of minutes :)
[22:33] <micahg> wgrant: nevermind we can work around for the moment
[22:34] <micahg> wgrant: not as bad w/the archive frozen
[22:34] <stgraber> wgrant: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/173374
[22:35] <wgrant> LOSA ping: could you please fix https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/173374?
[22:35] <thedac> wgrant: taking a look
[22:37] <thedac> wgrant: done
[22:38] <wgrant> Thanks.
[22:38] <stgraber> thedac: thanks
[22:38] <thedac> stgraber: no problem
[22:42] <tumbleweed> lifeless: if bug 868710 is a dup of bug 760303 (as you marked it) then bigjools' comment #1 on 760303 is incorrect
[22:51] <lifeless> tumbleweed: same set of code, same issue
[22:51] <lifeless> yes, his comment may well be wrong
[22:51] <lifeless> or more likely we've regressed somehow
[22:53] <tumbleweed> ok, I'll follow up, thanks