[08:48] <mardy> jelmer: hi, about that git import, should I file a bug?
[09:04] <mrevell> Morning
[11:06] <jelmer> is there anything I can do about some of these broken build requests scheduled to run on 26 October? They're still pending, and preventing any other builds of the recipes in question.
[11:45] <geser> I guess only ping a LP admin to kill them
[11:52] <bigjools> jelmer: I can cancel them, give me URLs
[12:34] <jelmer> bigjools: that'd be great - I've listed the URLs in pastebin here: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/733035/
[12:36] <allenap> jelmer: Can I borrow you to discuss a stacking problem?
[12:37] <allenap> jelmer: It doesn't seem possible to bzr push --stacked-on lp:project/series unless you manually expand it to bzr push --stacked-on bzr+ssh://.../~owner/project/series
[12:37] <jelmer> allenap: bug 296592 ?
[12:38] <allenap> jelmer: That'll be the one. Thank you :)
[12:39] <bigjools> jelmer: all done
[12:39] <jelmer> bigjools: thanks!
[12:39] <allenap> jelmer: Actually, what happens is that the branch pushes fine, but then the page in Launchpad says "Invalid stacked on location: lp:project/series"
[12:39] <allenap> jelmer: https://code.launchpad.net/~dle-credativ/openobject-addons/test-6.0 for example.
[12:39] <jelmer> allenap: can you clone the branch ok afterwards?
[12:40] <allenap> jelmer: I was able to branch it fine, but I did it into a repo that already had revisions from the stacked on branch. I can try outside now.
[12:41] <allenap> s/repo/shared repo/
[12:41] <jelmer> allenap: translating lp: URLs requires an extra step in bzr, so it might just be that bzr is doing that when it's interpreting the stacked-on location but the scanner is not
[12:42] <allenap> jelmer: Ah, okay. It seems to be branching fine (it's a ~500MB branch so there's rather a long wait to see if it completes...), so that sounds reasonable. Shall I file a bug or would you prefer to?
[12:43] <jelmer> allenap: it looks like we're doing a lookup in BranchSet of the location, so it seems like that's not interpreting lp:openobject-addons/6.0
[12:45] <jelmer> yeah, we're relying on getByUniqueName() to work. Perhaps we should also be checking getByUrl
[12:46] <jelmer> allenap: either works for me
[12:47] <jelmer> mardy: hi
[12:47] <jelmer> mardy: I'm going to file a bug about the issue you ran into
[12:47] <allenap> jelmer: Can you file it? You have a better context, and can probably judge its importance better than I can. And my wife is nagging me to go and have lunch.
[12:49] <mardy> jelmer: thanks! please ping me with the bug number once it's done, so I'll subscribe to it
[12:49] <jelmer> allenap: sure
[12:50] <allenap> Thanks.
[12:52] <jelmer> allenap: actually, I wonder if this is a dupe of bug 660358
[13:36] <allenap> jelmer: Yes, sounds like it. Thanks for doing that.
[14:31]  * czajkowski hugs sinzui 
[14:32] <sinzui> :)
[14:34] <czajkowski> thank you
[15:06] <askhl> I have a PPA with a package for Maverick, Natty and Oneiric.  I fixed a bug in the maverick package and dputted it successfully.  How do I release the same package to natty and oneiric?
[15:07] <geser> does it need a rebuild?
[15:07] <askhl> I tried changing 'maverick' to 'natty' and re-running debuild.  And the changes-file says it's natty now.  But dput says 'Package has already been uploaded to askhl on ppa.launchpad.net'
[15:08] <maxb> Tweak the changelog to specify a different verion and upload target, then reupload
[15:08] <askhl> geser, not really, but I wanted a changes-file which had the correct series info (natty)
[15:08] <maxb> (Note that you need to change the version too)
[15:08] <askhl> Thanks, I hadn't changed the version
[15:08] <geser> askhl: how you did do it the first time? just repeat what you did for the first version
[15:08] <maxb> You should ensure that the version increases from older to newer distroseries
[15:09] <maxb> This will ensure that upgrades work sensibly
[15:10] <askhl> geser, the first time I uploaded for maverick, then used 'copy package' (rebuilding binaries in case there were any dependency changes I needed to fix).  This seemed to work.  But for the update, I tried to copy packages and it gave an error.  Hmm, which one was it...
[15:10] <askhl> It said there were already existing binaries for that package.
[15:10] <askhl> (even though the package version number had been ramped up)
[15:10] <maxb> uhm
[15:11] <maxb> You cannot "Copy packages" between series in a single PPA, and rebuild the binaries
[15:11] <askhl> Evidently not...
[15:11] <askhl> Is there a good reason for this?
[15:12] <maxb> Yes - without changing the version, there's nothing to identify the separate builds
[15:12] <askhl> At that time I had name_version~ppa2 for maverick and  ...~ppa1 for natty/oneiric.  And I tried to copy the ppa2 to the two newer series
[15:13] <geser> having different packages with different dependencies for different release doesn't make apt really happy and it doesn't help you while debugging a bug
[15:13] <maxb> You can do that if you do not rebuild the binaries
[15:13] <geser> askhl: what is your PPA url?
[15:13] <maxb> You cannot rebuild the binaries because then you would have multiple .deb files with the exact same filename
[15:14] <askhl> https://launchpad.net/~askhl/+archive/ppa
[15:15] <askhl> The debfilename includes ~ppa2, however.  So I don't understand that there should be a naming conflict
[15:15] <geser> askhl: make sure you copy the binaries too (not only the source)
[15:16] <askhl> geser, regarding the dependencies: Between two ubuntu versions a number of MPI/BLAS dependencies changed radically (packages were added/removed/renamed), and I *had* to change the dependencies
[15:16] <askhl> So now I'm explicitly asking it to rebuild for each new series
[15:17] <askhl> Not sure which two versions it was.  But it broke the gpaw package at least
[15:17] <maxb> The conflict is between ~ppa2 (maverick-built), ~ppa2 (natty-built) and ~ppa2 (oneiric-built)
[15:17] <geser> then you need to upload different version (e.g. ~ppa2~maverick, ~ppa2~natty, ~ppa2~oneiric) to get then rebuild for each release
[15:18] <askhl> Ah, okay
[15:18] <askhl> How do "normal people" deal with the possibility of dependencies changing?
[15:18] <askhl> I mean the whole package repository is subject to this, and presumably it isn't a big problem
[15:19] <askhl> If I simply copied, *keeping* the binaries, would that be considered perfectly all right?
[15:20] <askhl> Sorry for all these questions, but perhaps I can avoid coming back asking more if I figure these things out :)
[15:20] <maxb> For packages that do not contain any binary code, it is often sufficient
[15:20] <maxb> Binary code tends to have awkward things like ABIs and such, that may differ from release to release
[15:20] <askhl> okay, so for the ASE package it is sufficient.  But GPAW is quite complicated so that one I will explicitly rebuild
[15:20] <maxb> Of course, binary code isn't the only issue - paths on disk might change from release to release
[15:21] <maxb> e.g. a package which just existed to do something with a CUPS printer driver might need to refer to the driver with a different ID string in different releases
[15:21] <geser> other PPA user have the same problem, the main archive is not really affected as the devs only upload to the current development version
[15:22] <maxb> Or, in the case of SRUs, backports, etc., the package is individually prepared for a specific release anyway
[15:24] <askhl> But do I really need to ramp up to ~ppa3 or write ~ppa2~natty?  I can see that other complicated packages (python-numpy) do apparently not need something like that.  Although they come from debian, not ppa
[15:24] <maxb> In the case of the ~bzr PPA, for example, we have a separate packaging branch for each Ubuntu release, for packages for which differences are required in various releases
[15:25] <maxb> ~ppa2~natty is fine, but make sure you understand what the ~ means
[15:25] <maxb> For example, if you currently have ~ppa2 in maverick, ~ppa2~natty would be wrong
[15:25] <maxb> I find people overuse ~ a lot in PPAs for some reason
[15:27] <askhl> Embarrassingly, a lot of this information is actually on https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading .  But I think some of it has been changed after I read it the first time.
[15:29] <askhl> I think I can figure it out from here.  Thank you very much for the help, maxb and geser
[15:30] <maxb> IRC is here for a reason, and Debian versioning is tricky until you're familiar with it :-)
[15:35] <askhl> So if I ramp up to ~ppa3~maverick and ~ppa3~natty etc., then it should work.  Right?
[15:38] <zyga> hi
[15:38] <zyga> https://code.launchpad.net/lava-deplyoment-tool
[15:38] <zyga> could someone rename this project
[15:38] <zyga> I just made a typo there :P
[15:38] <zyga> deployment
[16:11] <deryck> rick_h, hi! :)
[16:31] <rick_h> deryck: party!
[16:44] <Wardje> I know karma decays over time, but is there a log somewhere of all things you've done on Launchpad over time?
[16:50] <bigjools> Wardje: https://launchpad.net/~/+karma is the closest thing
[16:51] <Wardje> I feared as much, thanks anyway
[18:22] <Kre10s> hello.
[18:23] <Renegade15> hello
[18:23] <Kre10s> I have made a package, and uploaded it to my ppa repository... however when the package is installed, the executable is not copied into /usr/local/bin/...
[18:24] <Renegade15> well, I've never dealt with LP's PPA system, but if the package is installed, that sounds like the PPA is working just fine
[18:24] <jelmer> Kre10s: that's really more of a packaging question, #ubuntu-packaging is probably a better place to ask
[18:24] <Kre10s> I have a install target in my makefile. what else do i have to do to get the compiled binary installed?
[18:24] <Renegade15> iow, your package is the issue
[22:20] <gustonegro> hey, how can I send a message or request to a group in launchpad?
[22:20] <EvilResistance> gustonegro:  define "Request" or "message"
[22:21] <EvilResistance> gustonegro:  if the group has an email address email it.
[22:21] <gustonegro> specifically, I want to ask the maintainers of the libpeas package for ubuntu why they don't include a JS loader (seed or gjs)
[22:22] <gustonegro> EvilResistance: oh, okay
[22:22] <EvilResistance> one sec
[22:22] <EvilResistance> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libpeas
[22:22] <EvilResistance> that's the source package, you could try there
[22:22] <EvilResistance> or here https://launchpad.net/libpeas
[22:22] <gustonegro> I'd like to make  a feature request, I guess.  Or maybe its abug in their  build
[22:22] <gustonegro> oh, how did you find that?
[22:23]  * EvilResistance searched launchpad for 'libpeas' :po
[22:23] <EvilResistance> :P *
[22:23] <EvilResistance> youi'd have to file a question to the source  package
[22:23] <EvilResistance> or send it to the Gnome Project
[22:23] <EvilResistance> since the package's project is a part of the Gnome Project
[22:24] <gustonegro> I searched lp for libpeas too...but wasn't given anything where I could send a message - "ask a question"
[22:24] <EvilResistance> https://launchpad.net/gnome  <-- "Ask a Question"
[22:24] <EvilResistance> since libpeas' project is part of the gnome project :p
[22:24] <gustonegro> when I go here, however, there is not "ask a question" https://launchpad.net/libpeas
[22:24] <gustonegro> it's all blanked out
[22:24] <EvilResistance> you dont read do you
[22:25] <EvilResistance> <EvilResistance> youi'd have to file a question to the source  package
[22:25] <EvilResistance> <EvilResistance> or send it to the Gnome Project
[22:25] <EvilResistance> <EvilResistance> since the package's project is a part of the Gnome Project
[22:25] <EvilResistance> and
[22:25] <EvilResistance> <EvilResistance> https://launchpad.net/gnome  <-- "Ask a Question"
[22:25] <EvilResistance> <EvilResistance> since libpeas' project is part of the gnome project :p
[22:25] <EvilResistance> oop, i'm hungry...
[22:25] <EvilResistance> mustbe dinner time
[22:25] <gustonegro> yes, I read that.  thank you for your patience too.  I'm only aksing how am I suppse to know that ahead of time as a user of the website
[22:25]  * EvilResistance walks off to get dinner
[22:26] <EvilResistance> gustonegro:  you sometimes need to be able to do some digging
[22:26] <EvilResistance> here's an idea.
[22:26] <EvilResistance> "If a project has nothing configured for asking questions, btu the project page shows "Part of <other project>", then post to that other project.
[22:26] <EvilResistance> Otherwise, contact the maintainer if they accept emails
[22:27] <EvilResistance> Otherwise, file a bug against the source package itself.
[22:27] <EvilResistance> at least that's my advice to ya
[22:27]  * EvilResistance really must eat now
[22:29] <gustonegro> Thanks for you help EvilResistance.  Sorry if I am testing your patience.  I only find the lp way confusing.  Not sure why though, its all there.  I just can't ever seem to find what I am looking for.