[01:37] <schnoomac> Does anyone know if there has been a problem with ubuntu users pushing to bazaar branches on launchpad? I keep on getting this "bzr: ERROR: Connection closed: Unexpected end of message. Please check connectivity and permissions, and report a bug if problems persist." Although a few weeks ago it was working...
[01:38] <mwhudson> it was working for me earlier
[01:39] <mwhudson> schnoomac: can you pastebin the complete output?
[01:45] <schnoomac> Getting another error because i just regained my SSH key but the end part is always the same --> http://pastie.org/private/ojsrvahsim2yu2ou7dwviw
[01:54] <schnoomac> ok adding bar launchpad-login seems to have worked. It is weird I've never done this step :\
[03:51] <mwhudson> on the countdown to bug 1 million!
[03:57] <nigelb> woo
[04:49] <hlamer> beep. https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/798957 reproduced
[04:50] <spm> hlamer: bah. one sec.
[04:52] <spm> hlamer: give it a whirl now, should be good.
[04:53] <hlamer> yes, thanks)
[04:54] <hlamer> Is it possible to restart the server in the exception handler?
[04:54] <spm> possibly. whether that's a good idea or not is probably the real question; ideally the bug would be fixed instead.
[04:55] <hlamer> yes, but since it is open for a long time, launchpad at least should remain operational
[06:31] <Optiicfanboy> ...
[06:31] <Optiicfanboy> hello?
[07:28] <ochosi> morning everyone, i have a trivial issue, my commits to bzr don't point to my launchpad account, instead they show my name and email address. i thought i did set up bzr correctly (i set the launchpad-login), what did i miss?
[07:45] <maxb> ochosi: 'bzr launchpad-login' only deals with how the connection to Launchpad is authenticated. Each commit has its own author information associated, and that's what Launchpad uses to link commits to accounts - by matching the email address in the commit author to the Launchpad account with that email address.
[08:18] <ochosi> maxb: yeah, but looking at my commits in https://code.launchpad.net/~xubuntu-art/xubuntu-artwork/precise i can't see an email-address problem here
[08:19] <nigelb> ochosi: If you fix it, it doesn't get fixed for previous commits.
[08:19] <ochosi> yeah, sure, but i tried both email-addresses associated with my lp-account
[08:56] <danhg> morning
[09:12] <czajkowski> aloha
[09:12] <mrevell> Howdy :)
[09:14] <czajkowski> nice to see more folks back in here this week, was rather quiet without you lot!
[11:56] <diwic> hi, I'm trying to delete a branch but it fails persistently with the error "If the problem persists, let us know in #launchpad"
[11:58] <diwic> the branch is https://code.launchpad.net/~diwic/sound-2.6/trunk
[12:01] <jelmer_> diwic: hi
[12:01] <jelmer_> diwic: that's odd; I can try deleting it for you if you like (since it's a code import)
[12:02] <diwic> jelmer_, sure.
[12:02] <diwic> jelmer_, the branch has always been strange, it's always stuck in "Updating branch...
[12:02] <diwic> Launchpad is processing new changes to this branch which will be available in a few minutes. Reload to see the changes." as well
[12:03] <jelmer_> hmm, it's not working here either - it forwards to the code browsing for some reason
[12:03] <jelmer_> diwic: can you file a bug about it?
[12:03] <diwic> jelmer_, against launchpad?
[12:03] <jelmer_> diwic: yep
[12:04] <diwic> jelmer_, ok, will do
[12:05] <jelmer_> diwic: thanks!
[12:06]  * diwic filed bug 917122
[12:07] <wgrant> jelmer_: It's not forwarding to codebrowse.
[12:08] <wgrant> But I'm not sure why it's not properly timing out :/
[12:49] <soren> Is ARM support for PPA's only available for commercial PPA's?
[12:49] <wgrant> It's only available for PPAs owned by Canonical employees.
[12:49] <wgrant> Because the buildds aren't virtualized.
[12:50] <wgrant> Because ARM virt is sort of terrible/nonexistent at present.
[12:52] <soren> Tell me about it :(
[12:52] <soren> wgrant: ok, thanks.
[13:28] <jelmer_> diwic: btw, ISTR you had issues with imports and daily builds of kernel-sized trees earlier
[13:29] <jelmer_> diwic: several of the issues related to that have been fixed; the only remaining one should be bug 808930
[13:30] <diwic> jelmer_, cool, might make another try (without my script that filters the branch) later, when all bugs have been resolved
[14:24] <till___> hello
[14:24] <till___> was wondering how i instruct a build to use a dep from another launchpad repo
[14:31] <till_> fwiw, there is an "edit dependencies" link on your PPA
[14:31] <till_> just found it :)
[14:40] <ScottK> Is there anyone here that can kill a build?  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pykde4/4:4.7.4-0ubuntu0.1/+build/3091719 has been stuck on "Unpacking chroot for build ..." for two days.
[14:52] <Daviey> ScottK: might just be a really big chroot :)
[15:57] <ochosi> hm, i think i tried pretty much everything, but my lp-account is still not linked to in commit-logs. any clues what to check? (email-address is set correctly i think)
[16:00] <beuno> ochosi, it just matches by email address
[16:01] <beuno> so whatever the email address is in the author of the commit, you need to have it in your launchpad profile
[16:01] <ochosi> beuno: hm weird. this is my lp-profile: https://launchpad.net/~simon-steinbeiss
[16:01] <ScottK> beuno: Do you know if there's a LOSA around that can kill https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pykde4/4:4.7.4-0ubuntu0.1/+build/3091719 ?
[16:01] <ochosi> beuno: and here you can see some commits: https://code.launchpad.net/~xubuntu-art/xubuntu-artwork/precise
[16:02] <beuno> ochosi, it's not the correct syntax
[16:02] <beuno> it should be "Name <email>"
[16:02] <gnuoy> ScottK, I can take a look
[16:03] <ochosi> beuno: oh, hm, odd. i'm wondering whether i entered that by hand or used some bzr command...
[16:03] <ScottK> gnuoy: Thanks.  It's been hung for two days.
[16:03] <ochosi> beuno: thanks for that anyway, i'll try it immediately
[16:04] <beuno> np
[16:25] <ScottK> gnuoy: I see it's restarted.  Thanks.
[16:25] <gnuoy> np
[18:28] <pfarrell> hi! I have a question. I want to know how the dolfin package is built into this PPA: https://launchpad.net/~fenics-packages/+archive/fenics
[18:29] <pfarrell> unfortunately on the ppa website, I don't see any link to where the package recipe might be
[18:29] <pfarrell> any ideas?
[18:49] <haraldj> Hello I have a question regarding working on launchpad bug reports
[18:51] <haraldj> Specifically I was wondering how to get the rights to work on bug reports from a package for which I'm uploader in Debian
[18:52] <lifeless> haraldj: uhm, I *think* we have package set based bug permissions these days
[18:52] <lifeless> haraldj: if so, getting registered as an uploader for your package (using the exact-match semantics) would probably do what you want
[18:53] <haraldj> Well I wanted to close bug 311139 as won't fix but can't
[18:54] <haraldj> What does "registered as an uploader for your package" mean in this case? I'm mentioned in the package, but not in old versions...
[18:55] <haraldj> Could this be the problem?
[18:55] <lifeless> I've marked it up for you
[18:56] <lifeless> haraldj: ubuntu has a few different groups of uploaders; there are the can-do-anything (core-dev), then there are can-do-anything-unseeded (motu), can-do-anything-for-a-package-set (e.g. server, kde), and finally can-do-specific-packages (e.g. upstream maintainer of $FOO)
[18:56] <lifeless> haraldj: none of these are driven by the 'Maintainer:' header
[18:56] <haraldj> Thanks for your help but I do not want to bother anybody everytime I deal with a bug report :-) - is there a method by which I could be made responsible for all openswan bug reports
[18:56] <haraldj> Ok
[18:57] <haraldj> THe issue is: The maintainer is mostly out of time so the last releases where primarily done by me
[18:57] <lifeless> so I'm proposing you apply for upload rights in Ubuntu to openswan
[18:58] <lifeless> which should be an easy discussion given your upstream involvement
[18:58] <haraldj> Ok can you point me to a document how to do this?
[18:58] <haraldj> Well I have commit rights in Debian and also openswan upstream
[18:58] <haraldj> So this would ease work a lot
[18:58] <lifeless> yes, just digging :)
[18:59] <haraldj> ;-) no stress
[19:00] <lifeless> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#PerPackage
[19:00] <lifeless> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess says 'team membership' but I think thats a thinko on someone drafting docs - it still covers per-package-upload
[19:01] <lifeless> I wouldn't worry much/at all about endorsements given you have upload rights in debian; it -should- be a trivial discussion
[19:01] <lifeless> they will want to know that you are up to date on Ubuntu process etc
[19:01] <haraldj> Ah cool thanks - and another question, although in the same direction: It seems like the version of openswan in Hardy is lacking ppp support so I'm wondering how to solve this best
[19:01] <lifeless> for that, I'll refer you to #ubuntu-devel :)
[19:02] <haraldj> Ok
[19:02] <tumbleweed> haraldj: if you just need to triage bugs, not upload, you should join ubuntu-bugcontrol (you need to appyl to join)
[19:02] <haraldj> Well mainly I want to work on the bugs
[19:03] <haraldj> Uploading to Ubuntu may be necessary for fixing bugs
[19:03] <haraldj> But rather on a per case basis
[19:03] <tumbleweed> right, you get automatic bugcontrol membership with PPU
[19:04] <haraldj> I guess the main question is how to best tackle the bugs in current Ubuntu openswan packages
[19:04] <maco> for starters, get other devs to sponsor your patches
[19:05] <maco> after you've uploaded a few times to each of the packags you're interested in, apply for per-package-uploader status for those packages (go to the developer membership board for this)
[19:05] <haraldj> Yes but for example for Hardy there may be a longer discussion necessary
[19:05] <maco> !sru
[19:06] <maco> the stable release update approval team approves/rejects fixes for older releases
[19:06] <maco> if its fixed in the current dev version and not very invasive, its more likely to get approval in stable versions
[19:07] <maco> iirc, they approve/reject after upload these days
[19:07] <haraldj> Like Debian I guess... the main issue here is Ubuntu Hardy's openswan version is a little security hell...
[19:07] <maco> lovely
[19:07] <haraldj> Yes, 2.4 tree is pretty much abandoned upstream
[19:08] <maco> if its bad enough, having the hardy version removed and the precise version put into hardy's backports repo might be the better plan
[19:08] <haraldj> The version currently in lenny-security would be a good compromise
[19:08] <maco> there's a backports team too
[19:08] <maco> ScottK can be helpful for backports
[19:08] <haraldj> It's still 2.4 although with all security fixes for all problem
[19:09] <haraldj> I would not propose this as 2.6 has some great config and handling changes
[19:09] <maco> ah ok
[19:10] <tumbleweed> also, backports aren't for fixing bugs
[19:10] <haraldj> Correct - the only reason for me backporting openswan is to make KLIPS work with backport kernels
[19:11] <haraldj> So my course of action should be to apply for PPU for openswan correct? Or just join ubuntu-bugcontrol?
[19:11] <maco> ubuntu-bugcontrol lets you triage, so that's an easy first step
[19:12] <maco> if you want to do something similar to being in Uploaders: on a package, that's what PPU is for
[19:12] <haraldj> Ok
[19:12] <maco> but generally expected that you've uploaded it with a sponsor once or twice before they give you that
[19:12] <maco> tumbleweed: at the same time, jumping version numbers is usually reserved for backports, not srus...
[19:13] <maco> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-sru are the people you need to convince the sru is a good idea, so if you know one of them, they might be up for helping you with the sru documentation
[19:13] <haraldj> Well I have the intention to apply for DM this year so I guess this may solve problems ;-)
[19:13] <lifeless> uploading upstream really should count as uploading in Ubuntu :)
[19:13] <lifeless> (where upstream is a distro that is)
[19:14]  * maco finds it weird that there are people in the sru team whom she DOESNT know
[19:14] <tumbleweed> lifeless: yes and no. DDs maky not know anything about the ubuntu release schedule
[19:14] <haraldj> *ggg* well I usually try to solve problems as near to the root as possible
[19:14] <maco> tumbleweed: that just means the DMB just asks them about the schedule and skips tech questions though
[19:15] <tumbleweed> maco: yup
[19:15] <lifeless> tumbleweed: I know :)
[19:15] <maco> why am i in this channel anyway?
[19:15] <lifeless> tumbleweed: see above where I say '08:01 < lifeless> they will want to know that you are up to date on Ubuntu process etc'
[19:15] <haraldj> True I guess the release schedule in Ubuntu makes work somewhat more calculable but Debian is working on it too ;-)
[19:15]  * tumbleweed used to leave it after my question was answered, but I stopped bothering after a while
[19:16] <lifeless> maco: because launchpad is line-of-business for Ubuntu ? :P
[19:16] <maco> but i dont even do ubuntu stuff anymore...
[19:16] <lifeless> maco: I forgot :(
[19:17] <haraldj> What are you doing maco (if I may ask?)
[19:17] <maco> i got a spinning wheel for christmas, so now i spin and knit instead of doing foss
[19:18] <maco> also got a boyfriend, and his sister is a good friend, so ya know...got a social life
[19:18] <haraldj> ;-) well then at least you have something in your hands
[19:19] <haraldj> Hmmm social what ;-) ?
[19:20] <haraldj> So thanks everybody for your help, will do some reading and writing today...
[19:21] <haraldj> byebye everbody