[04:02] <CarlFK> http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=default&section=all&arch=any&searchon=contents&keywords=pxelinux.0
[04:03] <CarlFK> <a href="/karmic/syslinux">syslinux</a>
[04:03] <CarlFK> "error:  two or more packages specified (syslinux karmic) "
[04:03] <CarlFK> hmm, maybe #u-bugs will know what to do with this
[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] <jelmer> I had one of those as well
[11:31] <bigjools> [Dmitry]: I cancelled it - re-request one
[11:32] <bigjools> we had a little snafu in the build farm the other day
[12:01] <[Dmitry]> bigjools: thx.
[13:55] <GatoLoko> 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] <GatoLoko> is there any other way to set the contact address?
[19:09] <czajkowski> sidnei: nice to meet you
[19:10] <sidnei> czajkowski, erm me too *wink*
[19:10]  * sidnei ponders if it was another message misdirected to sinzui
[19:10] <czajkowski> ahh
[19:10] <czajkowski> stupid tab completing and similar names
[19:11] <czajkowski> Curtis
[19:11] <sidnei> :P
[19:11] <czajkowski> sidnei: I'm sure it'd be nice to meet you
[19:11] <sidnei> eh
[22:14] <ilmari> How can I flag a comment on a bug as spam?
[22:14] <ilmari> specifically https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aptitude/+bug/181406/comments/15
[22:15] <lifeless> ilmari: tell us here
[22:16] <ilmari> I believe I just did :)
[22:16] <lifeless> and you'll note the comment is gone ;)
[22:17] <ilmari> indeed, thanks :)
[22:40] <Lekensteyn> 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] <wgrant> Lekensteyn: You can't. You need to give it a new name.
[22:47] <StevenK> Or a new version.
[22:48] <Lekensteyn> I've just read that it could help to get the old tarball and run debuild -S with it
[22:49] <wgrant> That will make the new package use the old tarball.
[22:49] <wgrant> But it won't help you upload two different files with the same version.
[22:50] <Lekensteyn> 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] <Lekensteyn> Also, what would you suggest to use? If I bump the version number, future releases will conflict with it
[23:03] <wgrant> Lekensteyn: foo_1.2.3+repack1.orig.tar.gz is a commonly used style.
[23:03] <wgrant> 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] <tumbleweed> 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] <tumbleweed> does it assume UTC for TZ-naive datetimes?
[23:07] <wgrant> I believe it does, but I forget exactly.
[23:08] <wgrant>                 raise ValueError("Time not in UTC.")
[23:08] <wgrant> Bah
[23:08] <wgrant>             if timezone not in ['Z', '+0000', '-0000']:
[23:08] <wgrant>                 raise ValueError("Time not in UTC.")
[23:08] <wgrant> That's at the end of the marshaller.
[23:08] <tumbleweed> thanks :)
[23:08] <wgrant> So it'll either fail or be UTC.
[23:08]  * tumbleweed should have actually tested with non-UTC :P
[23:10] <wgrant> 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] <Lekensteyn> 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] <wgrant> Lekensteyn: Hm, that's an interesting version. Why is the git version after the -?
[23:12] <wgrant> Is it not a git snapshot tarball?
[23:12] <wgrant> Normally it'd be 2.4.1+git20111102.932b245-1~lucidppa2.
[23:12] <wgrant> As it is now, it looks like the git snapshot is part of the Debian changes.
[23:14] <Lekensteyn> Hmm, mistake in our version policies then. The package is a development snapshot for a testing PPA
[23:15] <Lekensteyn> Would I need to change the directory in the tarball if I name it pkg_1.2.3+repack1.orig.tar.gz?
[23:20] <wgrant> Lekensteyn: No, the name in the tarball doesn't matter.
[23:21] <wgrant> 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] <wgrant> Otherwise you'll have to keep the diff in diff.gz/debian.tar.gz
[23:22] <Lekensteyn> 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