[01:27] not sure if there's much you can do about it, but vector.us seem to be spamming people who have translated things on launchpad [01:28] i can forward the mail I received if you want it [01:48] ojwb: sure, or open a bug and attach it [01:48] lifeless: I could, but if there's not much that can be done it seems a waste of everyone's time [01:50] hard to say what can be done without the nfo [02:01] lifeless: hmm, what's best to file it against? [02:02] launchpad ? [02:06] hi, how to avoid a PPA build to use LP translations instead of original po files? [02:08] and he quits before getting an answer xD [03:05] lifeless: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/967936 [03:05] Ubuntu bug 967936 in Launchpad itself " is spamming launchpad translators" [Undecided,New] === Pikkachu is now known as Guest31457 === Guest31457 is now known as Guest31457Away === Guest31457Away is now known as Guest31457 === Guest31457 is now known as Pikkachu === Pikkachu is now known as PikkachuAway === PikkachuAway is now known as Pikkachu [06:36] hi all. having a bit of trouble - i've created a source package, and dput tells me it's been correctly signed and uploaded, but i can see no trace of it on the PPA page. is there a way to check progresS? [06:39] https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+faq/227 === bigjools-afk is now known as jtvs-evil-twin === jtvs-evil-twin is now known as bigjools_ === ojwb is now known as Guest37340 === Guest37340 is now known as ojwb [10:01] is anyone else struggling to upload to PPA's? [10:01] Connection failed, aborting. Check your network [Errno 111] Connection refused [10:01] is launchpad being updated, or is 'Uh oh!' something to worry about [10:01] It was down for 70 seconds for a DB update [10:02] chrisccoulson: has it been like this all morning or just now ? [10:02] 1000-1005 daily is a DB upgrade window [10:02] czajkowski, just now [10:02] chrisccoulson: well what wgrant said then :) [10:02] daily maintence window [10:02] Nope [10:02] This is different :/ [10:02] :( [10:03] wgrant, perhaps we could get the 'Uh oh!' page to list the maintenance window so i don't come and complain :) [10:03] wgrant, and general lp pages are back for me [10:05] chrisccoulson: OK, turns out the upload downtime is related, should be back shortly. [10:06] wgrant, thanks [10:06] chrisccoulson: It's back. [10:07] czajkowski, actually perhaps we could add the downtime window to the /topic here [10:07] excellent, thanks [10:09] It's getting shorter and shorter, and people ask here maybe 1/10 times we do it, so it seems not entirely necessary. [10:09] The topic is already very long :( === matsubara-afk is now known as matsubara === matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch === Ursinha_ is now known as Guest92471 === deryck is now known as deryck[lunch] === matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara === czajkowski changed the topic of #launchpad to: https://launchpad.net/ | Help contact: -| Launchpad is an open source project: https://dev.launchpad.net/ | This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ | User Guide: https://help.launchpad.net/ | Support: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad | For packaging help: join #ubuntu-packaging === deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck [19:04] * ScottK got an email about https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/192063 allegedly because I'm subscribed. Any idea how that might be the case? [19:06] ScottK: odd have you gotten any other question mail ? [19:06] Nope. Just that one. [19:06] X-Launchpad-Message-Rationale: Subscriber [19:06] lifeless: any idea how that would happen ? [19:07] ScottK: whats in the body of the mail ? [19:07] ScottK: e.g. can you pastebin the raw message somewhere ? [19:07] Sure. Just a moment. [19:08] lifeless: http://paste.debian.net/161392/ [19:11] ScottK: are you an answer contact for Ubuntu ? [19:12] Not as far as I know. [19:12] I end up subscribed to stuff due to having weird permissions sometimes. [19:12] so you're clearly not a subscriber direct or indirect *now* [19:12] How do check? [19:13] https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu somewhere [19:13] sinzui: ^ oh hai. I think you might be able to help. [19:15] I am not an answer contact for Ubuntu. [19:16] I agree that ScottK is not an answer contact for anything: https://answers.launchpad.net/~scottk/+answer-contact-for [19:17] sinzui: http://paste.debian.net/161392/ I cannot see a linked bug. [19:17] the pastebin say a subscriber to question 192063 [19:18] sinzui: Indeed, but he doesn't seem to be there, and I am hopeful that ScottK has enough clue not to have unsubscribed and be setting us a brain teaser [19:18] No. Not this time. [19:18] I agree he is not listed [19:18] sinzui: I am at a loss [19:18] Might be fun to try some other time though. [19:19] hmm we didnt have very many questions logged today [19:19] and you've not gotten any other mail [19:19] No. I didn't get the original mail for the question. [19:20] lifeless: New topic: Yesterday I got an email for a rejected upload to somebody's PPA that was an attempt to reupload a Debian upload of mine. Is it known that LP emails Uploaders: for failed PPA uploads? [19:20] ScottK: lets see [19:20] I'll pastebin that one too [19:21] ScottK: bug 117155 and [19:21] Launchpad bug 117155 in Launchpad itself "soyuz emails are vague about why they are being sent to a given user" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/117155 [19:22] http://paste.debian.net/161394/ [19:22] This one should never have been sent. [19:22] Vague or not. [19:23] yes, I got that [19:23] bug 684450 might be related [19:23] Launchpad bug 684450 in Launchpad itself "Totally unrelated PPA referenced in subject of upload rejection email" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/684450 [19:24] bug 473580 [19:24] Launchpad bug 473580 in Launchpad itself "Sends reject emails to Changed-By address when signed + uploaded to a third-party PPA" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/473580 [19:24] I think thats the one [19:24] bug 798497 looks simila [19:24] Launchpad bug 798497 in Launchpad itself "Email mistakenly sent to unrelated party when a build is cancelled" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/798497 [19:24] r [19:25] Yes. That's the one (473580) === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === yofel_ is now known as yofel [20:05] sinzui: ScottK: mystery solved. Someone has subscribed ubuntu-members. And someone else noticed and unsubscribed. [20:05] lifeless: Thanks. [20:05] however, we don't supply enough detail in the rationale to figure this out [20:05] ScottK: thank czajkowski :P [20:06] oh fab. lifelessI was suspecting that but there is no trail in the UI. How did you discover this? [20:06] ScottK: you weren't the only one to notice folks in locoteams noticed it as well [20:06] I'm just bearing good news. [20:06] sinzui: czajkowski was told on irc/in some channel I don't lurk in [20:06] sinzui: someone did in -locoteams [20:06] :) [20:06] excellet [20:06] community to the rescue :) [20:07] ScottK: could you perhaps look for/file a bug noting that the rationale was insufficient to determine why you got the mail ? [20:09] Sure. [20:10] If I type bugs.l my firefox gives https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+filebug as the first choice. [20:11] nice [20:14] lifeless: Bug #968578 [20:14] Launchpad bug 968578 in Launchpad itself "Unable to figure out why I got mail" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/968578 [20:16] thanks [20:24] You're welcome [22:34] quick question on using dput with ppa's.. seems like lp doesn't process my build if I use an older version number than what is currently contained in the package.. it this correct? [22:34] balloons: Yes, you'll get a rejection email in that case. [22:36] thanks wgrant [23:35] hi, these packages should already be deleted completely (passed 7 days): https://launchpad.net/~renatosilva/+archive/ppa/+packages?field.name_filter=&field.status_filter=&field.series_filter= [23:35] what's happening?? [23:36] Status: Deleted [23:36] its already not published [23:36] a deleted status is not a deletion [23:36] I already saw that [23:37] the docs say it would be really deleted within 7 days [23:37] I was waiting for that happen, but it didn't [23:37] Pikkachu: Why are you waiting? [23:37] It means nothing. [23:37] wgrant: it what? [23:38] It's purely a disk space recovery measure. Them being permanently deleted provides no benefit to you. [23:38] So there's no reason to wait. [23:38] and I'm expecting, because docs are supposed to be correct [23:39] Pikkachu: The docs are there to warn you that things may not be recoverable after a week. [23:39] it does provide benefit to me because they are all wrong packages [23:39] We don't delete them the moment they're a week + 1 second old. [23:39] No. [23:39] You still can't upload the same version ever again. [23:39] Even once we delete the files. [23:40] I accidentally created them in the process of building them (I assumed the docs were ok about the packages being truly deleted within 7 days) [23:41] still can't even when truly deleted? this is odd... [23:41] We are allowed to irretrievably remove the files after one week. But that doesn't change the usual archive consistency rules, which prevent a duplicate version from being uploaded. [23:42] so I messed up with my ppa without even noticing :( [23:42] Hm? [23:42] Just change the version. [23:42] Easyu. [23:42] the current one is already ok [23:42] I just appreciate real deletion of really really useless stuff [23:43] I think the reminders for avoiding upload to the same versions are just ok, as the versions are date-based [23:46] even if it's gone from the PPA, someone may have installed it, so reusing the version is still bad [23:46] the error with "-P20120311" and "-P20120315" was using debian version (dash), and with "~P20120323" was that it does not supersede "0ubuntu2" as I was naturally thinking, and the error with "1:2.10.0-0ubuntu2" I can't really recall [23:47] ojwb: yeah I understand the version reusing problem... but it won't affect me as I use date as version [23:47] ~ sorts before nothing [23:48] ojwb: now I know [23:49] well there's one package which is not yet 7 days old, but all the others are almost 11 days old [23:49] I think I'll come back here later for requesting the deletion then, thanks all... [23:49] Pikkachu: Why do you care that they are deleted? [23:50] They will still appear on that page. [23:50] It's just that the files are unrecoverable. [23:50] oh sorry I think there were more differences in the packages, like one with standalone patch and other with separate ones in debian/patches [23:50] I'm confused. [23:51] wgrant: all the wrong packages are available for download [23:51] If someone goes looking for them, yes. [23:51] which is undesirable [23:51] given that they're wrong packages [23:51] There are lots of wrong things available for download all over the Internet if people go looking at things that people have said not to look at. [23:52] If you're installing deleted packages without knowing exactly what you're doing, you probably have bigger problems. [23:52] I don't want to join the wrong people [23:52] well, ok [23:53] I will ask later I think, but this is really personal... I do not like false deletions [23:53] I would call it "deactivated" instead [23:53] thanks all anyway [23:55] a diff between the apt-get sourced versions should be empty or mostly empty though (if you suspect I'm trying to do something malicious...)