[02:05] <rebel> so apparently there's a bug in launchpad bazaar
[02:06] <rebel> https://code.launchpad.net/~rebel/+archive/ppa/+recipebuild/195476/+files/buildlog.txt.gz
[02:06] <SamB> isn't there always at least one?
[02:06] <rebel> heh ;)
[02:06] <rebel> I've filed it here https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/954651
[02:06] <rebel> would be great if someone could up my quota once it's fixed so I can build when I wake up later..
[02:07] <bigjools> it's a dupe of bug 915505
[02:08] <rebel> ic, thanks for marking it
[02:19] <jalcine> https://launchpad.net/bugs/915505
[02:32] <ScottK> bigjools: We think shadeslayer figured out your digikam bug.
[02:33] <bigjools> ScottK: cool
[02:33] <bigjools> I saw a request to test it
[02:35] <ScottK> Please do.
[02:38] <bigjools> ScottK: fwiw, I no longer get a device notification when I plug my camera in
[02:38] <ScottK> bigjools: OK.  Please ping shadeslayer on #kubuntu-devel.
[02:39] <bigjools> ack
[10:43] <ikonia> is ppa.launchpad.net just another mirror of the core repo's or is it actually posting a PPA ?
[10:43] <ikonia> s/posting/hosting
[10:46] <wgrant> ikonia: http://ppa.launchpad.net/ serves PPAs, not the Ubuntu primary archive.
[10:48] <ikonia> wgrant: I'm seeing a lot of people in the support channel with lines such as this
[10:48] <ikonia> http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric
[10:48] <ikonia> I'm trying to understand where this is comfing from as it's too many people for it to be someone just making a manual mistake
[10:49] <wgrant> ikonia: apt-get doesn't usually show the path
[10:49] <wgrant> Just the scheme, domain and release.
[10:49] <wgrant> So that's normal if it's from 'apt-get update' output.
[10:50] <ikonia> wgrant: even the lines (I pasted the wrong one in my example) http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric/main i386 Packages
[10:51] <ikonia> normally you see the archive it's referencing eg: http://ppa.launchpad.net oneiric/wgrant-software
[10:51] <wgrant> ikonia: No
[10:51] <wgrant> main is the component
[10:52] <wgrant> That line is normal, and is the same for every oneiric PPA
[10:52] <ikonia> ahh good, so I'm ujust reading it wrong, thank you
[10:52] <wgrant> You need to check /etc/apt/sources.list and /etc/apt/sources.list.d
[10:52] <wgrant> Yep, nothing to worry about.
[10:52] <ikonia> that's fine, it's my reading it wrong, I thought I was having a moment here,
[10:52] <ikonia> thank you
[11:51] <soaringsky> what's with all the oopses on lp lately?
[11:53] <czajkowski> soaringsky: in what way? what are you doing to see the oopses
[11:53] <soaringsky> just using launchpad. searching ubuntu bugs, working on bugs, etc
[11:54] <soaringsky> I've filed bugs for all of the oopses
[11:54] <czajkowski> soaringsky: in some cases it's due to the bugs having many duplicates or lots of subscribers
[11:55] <soaringsky> didn't see that. I'm randomly seeing oopses just about everywhere
[11:56] <wgrant> OOPSes, or timeouts?
[11:56] <wgrant> Timeouts still have an OOPS ID, but they're a rather different situation.
[11:56] <wgrant> And by "everywhere" you mean the occasional bug page?
[11:57] <soaringsky> timeouts mostly. not just bug pages
[11:57] <wgrant> The only thing that's likely to be timing out often is Ubuntu and global bug listings.
[11:57] <wgrant> Sometimes some Ubuntu bug actions will time out the first couple of times.
[11:57] <wgrant> But everything else should be pretty much OK.
[11:57] <soaringsky> bug searches, package searches, performing operations, etc
[11:57] <wgrant> Ah yes, package searches are the other big one.
[11:58] <wgrant> Performing operations?
[11:58] <wgrant> Only on bugs should that be slow.
[11:58]  * ScottK has had timeouts on package searches quite a bit recently.
[11:58] <wgrant> Yeah, /ubuntu/+search is thoroughly broken.
[11:59] <soaringsky> timeouts are happening a lot lately pretty much everywhere for me
[11:59] <soaringsky> lp seems to be having issues recently
[12:00] <wgrant> There are known issues with operations that include Ubuntu bugs.
[12:00] <wgrant> And Ubuntu package searches.
[12:00] <wgrant> But those are the only commonly used pieces of functionality which time out more than ~once an hour.
[12:01] <wgrant> So, there are major issues, but they're not *everywhere*.
[12:01] <soaringsky> I get timeouts much more often than once an hour. try once every 10 min
[12:01] <wgrant> On Ubuntu bug operations, sure.
[12:02] <wgrant> And package searches time out around 5 times an hour over the entire site.
[12:02] <soaringsky> not just there
[12:03] <soaringsky> overall, performance has been bad lately
[12:04] <wgrant> Performance on Ubuntu bug and package search operations has been worse than normal, but overall performance is better than it has been in many years.
[12:04] <wgrant> There's 7 pages that timed out more than 3 times an hour yeterday, and they're all either Ubuntu bug searches or /ubuntu/+search
[12:04] <soaringsky> well, performance was good until a few days ago
[12:05] <wgrant> OK, now that I can entirely refute :)
[12:06] <soaringsky> true, lp is better than it was years ago
[12:06] <wgrant> There have been no more timeouts this week than last.
[12:06] <wgrant> Our page performance report says we're doing about 5% better overall than last week.
[12:06] <soaringsky> but some days it's just more sluggish than others
[12:07] <wgrant> It depends on what you're doing.
[12:07] <wgrant> I have some work in progress which will hopefully make Ubuntu bug operations several times faster in a few weeks.
[12:07] <wgrant> And that will resolve around 3/4 of our total timeouts.
[12:07] <soaringsky> OTOH, are lp servers in other locations being considered?
[12:08] <soaringsky> packet travel time to America is in the hundreds of ms
[12:09] <StevenK> Launchpad is not in the US.
[12:10] <soaringsky> I know, that's why. packets have to travel across the pond
[12:10] <StevenK> Try it from Australia. :-)
[12:10] <soaringsky> StevenK: ouch
[12:12] <soaringsky> lp servers in other locations would probably help page load times a lot
[12:32] <ScottK> wgrant: If I used the +queue page more durning non-freeze periods it'd show up on your list too.
[12:34] <StevenK> DistroSeries:+queue appears in the top ten from time to time.
[12:34] <StevenK> Sadly. :-(
[12:34] <wgrant> Yeah
[12:35] <bigjools> I hate that page
[12:43] <czajkowski> bigjools: and good morning to you :)
[12:44] <aleksander_m> hey; can I copy a package from official ubuntu precise repo to my oneiric ppa?
[12:45] <aleksander_m> or do I need to build it myself for my oneiric ppa using the .orig.tar.gz and debian dir from precise?
[14:17] <geser> aleksander_m: not sure if the web UI allows that (it should be possible with the LP API), but are you sure that you don't need a rebuild of the package (are the dependencies fulfillable in oneiric)?
[14:49] <dobey> aleksander_m: you would need to backport it to your ppa. you should append ~oneiric1 to the version in debian/changelog for example, and may need to make other changes to the source if it doesn't build on oneiric as-is.
[14:50] <aleksander_m> geser, dobey: I just found the required package version for oneiric in another PPA, and there I can copy packages from that PPA to mine
[14:52] <aleksander_m> a rebuild would be needed if I were taking the package from precise, yes; but when I copy a package from one PPA to another one I can request to get the package rebuilt
[14:53] <aleksander_m> I just don't see why I cannot copy a package from ubuntu repos (i.e. no PPA) into my PPA; assuming the ubuntu repo for the release targeted in the PPA doesn't have the package being copied
[14:55] <aleksander_m> its probably just a feature not exposed in the web interface, as geser says probably possible with the LP API
[14:55] <dobey> aleksander_m: because the ubuntu repo for the release doesn't have the package. at that point you might as well just require the new version of ubuntu for your own package, and build for it, than for the older one that doesn't have it
[14:55] <dobey> aleksander_m: it's called backporting for a reason :)
[14:56] <dobey> new package in precise might require other newer packages, which might require other newer packages, and so on and so forth. it's better to backport and rebuild against the older versions if it can be done
[14:56] <aleksander_m> dobey, but with PPAs I can request to copy a package from PPA A (precise) to PPA B (oneiric) with a rebuild in between
[14:56] <dobey> aleksander_m: you can't copy to a different release
[14:56] <dobey> aleksander_m: you can copy a package from one ppa to another, but it will build for the same release
[14:56] <aleksander_m> you sure? I just saw the combobox 1 hour ago
[14:57] <dobey> yes
[14:57] <aleksander_m> let me recheck
[14:57] <dobey> you can copy it, but it will build for precise, not oneiric, if it was for precise in the original ppa
[14:57] <dobey> you can't copy across releases
[14:58] <aleksander_m> dobey, humm.. then why the "Destination series:" combobox when copying packages?
[14:59] <dobey> i don't know. it makes no sense to me
[14:59] <wgrant> dobey, aleksander_m: It will build in the target series if you tell it to rebuild.
[14:59] <wgrant> Otherwise it will copy the existing binaries into the target series.
[14:59] <aleksander_m> that's whay I assumed, yes
[15:00] <dobey> wgrant: that seems broken
[15:00] <wgrant> dobey: Howso?
[15:00] <dobey> wgrant: does it copy any needed dependencies from the newer series automagically?
[15:00] <wgrant> dobey: No.
[15:00] <dobey> right
[15:01] <wgrant> Just as it won't stop you from uploading something that will FTBFS.
[15:01] <wgrant> We have little choice but to trust you to not do broken things :)
[15:01] <dobey> well, that seems like a feature destined to create a world of broken PPAs
[15:02] <dobey> like, you don't really need to know what you're doing to break things that way. at least having to download, make changes, and re-upload and try to do a backport, it requires *some* attempt to avoid breaking things
[15:04] <aleksander_m> I prefer to just try to install the new deb in the system, and if it goes in, it should be safe to just copy it to the PPA, even without rebuild
[15:05] <aleksander_m> as long as the original deb's dependencies are well stated of course
[15:05] <wgrant> dobey: Sure, but people can only break their own PPAs :)
[15:05] <wgrant> dobey: This is a useful feature for many people.
[15:06]  * wgrant sleeps.
[15:09] <dobey> well, in providing answers to people, i prefer to tell them the best way to do something, that avoids breaking things :)
[20:36] <bdrung> comment 8 in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xmms2tray/+bug/219389 is spam
[20:37] <czajkowski> removed