=== TheEvilPhoenix is now known as Resistance [04:02] http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=default§ion=all&arch=any&searchon=contents&keywords=pxelinux.0 [04:03] syslinux [04:03] "error: two or more packages specified (syslinux karmic) " [04:03] hmm, maybe #u-bugs will know what to do with this === stub1 is now known as stub === stub1 is now known as stub === stub1 is now known as stub === stub1 is now known as stub [11:00] <[Dmitry]> Hello [11:01] <[Dmitry]> it's seems to a bug: https://code.launchpad.net/~itmages/+archive/software/+recipebuild/107546 [11:01] <[Dmitry]> Started on 2011-10-26 [11:01] <[Dmitry]> Estimated finish 2011-10-26 [11:02] I had one of those as well [11:31] [Dmitry]: I cancelled it - re-request one [11:32] we had a little snafu in the build farm the other day [12:01] <[Dmitry]> bigjools: thx. === head_v is now known as head_victim [13:55] hi, i'm having trouble setting a team contact address. In june i reported #801423 (oops on trying to change it), but now it doesn't oops any more, it shows a message telling me a confirmation message was sent but that confirmation email never arrives [13:56] is there any other way to set the contact address? === yofel_ is now known as yofel === chrisccoulson_ is now known as chrisccoulson === joey is now known as zz_joey === deryck is now known as deryck[lunch] === TRB143_ is now known as TRB143 === bulldog98_ is now known as bulldog98 === deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck [19:09] sidnei: nice to meet you [19:10] czajkowski, erm me too *wink* [19:10] * sidnei ponders if it was another message misdirected to sinzui [19:10] ahh [19:10] stupid tab completing and similar names [19:11] Curtis [19:11] :P [19:11] sidnei: I'm sure it'd be nice to meet you [19:11] eh === zz_joey is now known as zz_zz_joey === micahg_ is now known as micahg [22:14] How can I flag a comment on a bug as spam? [22:14] specifically https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aptitude/+bug/181406/comments/15 [22:14] Ubuntu bug 181406 in aptitude (Ubuntu) "aptitude crashed with SIGSEGV in pkgRecords::Lookup()" [Critical,Fix released] [22:15] ilmari: tell us here [22:16] I believe I just did :) [22:16] and you'll note the comment is gone ;) [22:17] indeed, thanks :) [22:40] Hi, I made a mistake in uploading a broken .orig.tar.gz file to a PPA. When I tried to upload the fixed one, it was rejected. How can I make LP accept my new tarball? [22:45] Lekensteyn: You can't. You need to give it a new name. [22:47] Or a new version. [22:48] I've just read that it could help to get the old tarball and run debuild -S with it [22:49] That will make the new package use the old tarball. [22:49] But it won't help you upload two different files with the same version. [22:50] I also tried adding a prefix, but it was rejected by debuild, something like pkg_1.2.3dev.tar.gz. Is n.n.n the only allowed name? [22:50] Also, what would you suggest to use? If I bump the version number, future releases will conflict with it [23:03] Lekensteyn: foo_1.2.3+repack1.orig.tar.gz is a commonly used style. [23:03] Lekensteyn: You'll also need to make a corresponding change to the version in debian/changelog, so it knows to use the new tarball. [23:04] if I pass a timezone aware date to a launchpadlib method, I see it includes the TZ in the request, and if I don't, it doesn't. [23:04] does it assume UTC for TZ-naive datetimes? [23:07] I believe it does, but I forget exactly. [23:08] raise ValueError("Time not in UTC.") [23:08] Bah [23:08] if timezone not in ['Z', '+0000', '-0000']: [23:08] raise ValueError("Time not in UTC.") [23:08] That's at the end of the marshaller. [23:08] thanks :) [23:08] So it'll either fail or be UTC. [23:08] * tumbleweed should have actually tested with non-UTC :P [23:10] The ISO8601 parser we use (zope.datetime.DateTimeParser) defaults to an offset of 0. So yes, timezone-naive datetimes on the wire will be treated as UTC. [23:11] wgrant: What do I need to change in the changelog then? My versions are now like 2.4.1-1+git20111102.932b245~lucidppa2. I'm now trying it with debian/patches [23:12] Lekensteyn: Hm, that's an interesting version. Why is the git version after the -? [23:12] Is it not a git snapshot tarball? [23:12] Normally it'd be 2.4.1+git20111102.932b245-1~lucidppa2. [23:12] As it is now, it looks like the git snapshot is part of the Debian changes. [23:14] Hmm, mistake in our version policies then. The package is a development snapshot for a testing PPA [23:15] Would I need to change the directory in the tarball if I name it pkg_1.2.3+repack1.orig.tar.gz? [23:20] Lekensteyn: No, the name in the tarball doesn't matter. [23:21] Lekensteyn: If you are packaging regular snapshots, you probably want to name the tarball pkg_1.2.3+git12341212.blahblah.orig.tar.gz [23:21] Otherwise you'll have to keep the diff in diff.gz/debian.tar.gz [23:22] wgrant: Many thanks for your help, I've now used a debian/patches approach (since I also manage upstream, and this is a non-official development snapshot, it should not be the end of the world). The next time, I'll try the pkg_x.y.z+repackN.orig.tar.gz method === spm` is now known as spm