[01:27] <ojwb> 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] <ojwb> i can forward the mail I received if you want it
[01:48] <lifeless> ojwb: sure, or open a bug and attach it
[01:48] <ojwb> lifeless: I could, but if there's not much that can be done it seems a waste of everyone's time
[01:50] <lifeless> hard to say what can be done without the nfo
[02:01] <ojwb> lifeless: hmm, what's best to file it against?
[02:02] <lifeless> launchpad ?
[02:06] <Pikkachu> hi, how to avoid a PPA build to use LP translations instead of original po files?
[02:08] <EvilResistance> and he quits before getting an answer xD
[03:05] <ojwb> lifeless: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/967936
[06:36] <mwotton> 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] <bigjools-afk> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+faq/227
[10:01] <chrisccoulson> is anyone else struggling to upload to PPA's?
[10:01] <chrisccoulson> Connection failed, aborting. Check your network [Errno 111] Connection refused
[10:01] <apw> is launchpad being updated, or is 'Uh oh!' something to worry about
[10:01] <wgrant> It was down for 70 seconds for a DB update
[10:02] <czajkowski> chrisccoulson: has it been like this all morning or just now ?
[10:02] <wgrant> 1000-1005 daily is a DB upgrade window
[10:02] <chrisccoulson> czajkowski, just now
[10:02] <czajkowski> chrisccoulson: well what wgrant said then :)
[10:02] <czajkowski> daily maintence window
[10:02] <wgrant> Nope
[10:02] <wgrant> This is different :/
[10:02] <czajkowski> :(
[10:03] <apw> wgrant, perhaps we could get the 'Uh oh!' page to list the maintenance window so i don't come and complain :)
[10:03] <apw> wgrant, and general lp pages are back for me
[10:05] <wgrant> chrisccoulson: OK, turns out the upload downtime is related, should be back shortly.
[10:06] <chrisccoulson> wgrant, thanks
[10:06] <wgrant> chrisccoulson: It's back.
[10:07] <apw> czajkowski, actually perhaps we could add the downtime window to the /topic here
[10:07] <chrisccoulson> excellent, thanks
[10:09] <wgrant> 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] <wgrant> The topic is already very long :(
[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] <czajkowski> ScottK: odd have you gotten any other question mail ?
[19:06] <ScottK> Nope.  Just that one.
[19:06] <ScottK> X-Launchpad-Message-Rationale: Subscriber
[19:06] <czajkowski> lifeless: any idea how that would happen ?
[19:07] <lifeless> ScottK: whats in the body of the mail ?
[19:07] <lifeless> ScottK: e.g. can you pastebin the raw message somewhere ?
[19:07] <ScottK> Sure. Just a moment.
[19:08] <ScottK> lifeless: http://paste.debian.net/161392/
[19:11] <lifeless> ScottK: are you an answer contact for Ubuntu ?
[19:12] <ScottK> Not as far as I know.
[19:12] <ScottK> I end up subscribed to stuff due to having weird permissions sometimes.
[19:12] <lifeless> so you're clearly not a subscriber direct or indirect *now*
[19:12] <ScottK> How do check?
[19:13] <lifeless> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu somewhere
[19:13] <lifeless> sinzui: ^ oh hai. I think you might be able to help.
[19:15] <ScottK> I am not an answer contact for Ubuntu.
[19:16] <sinzui> I agree that ScottK is not an answer contact for anything: https://answers.launchpad.net/~scottk/+answer-contact-for
[19:17] <lifeless> sinzui: http://paste.debian.net/161392/ I cannot see a linked bug.
[19:17] <sinzui> the pastebin say a subscriber to question 192063
[19:18] <lifeless> 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] <ScottK> No.  Not this time.
[19:18] <sinzui> I agree he is not listed
[19:18] <lifeless> sinzui: I am at a loss
[19:18] <ScottK> Might be fun to try some other time though.
[19:19] <czajkowski> hmm we didnt have very many questions logged today
[19:19] <czajkowski> and you've not gotten any other mail
[19:19] <ScottK> No.  I didn't get the original mail for the question.
[19:20] <ScottK> 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] <lifeless> ScottK: lets see
[19:20] <ScottK> I'll pastebin that one too
[19:21] <lifeless> ScottK: bug 117155 and
[19:22] <ScottK> http://paste.debian.net/161394/
[19:22] <ScottK> This one should never have been sent.
[19:22] <ScottK> Vague or not.
[19:23] <lifeless> yes, I got that
[19:23] <lifeless> bug 684450 might be related
[19:24] <lifeless> bug 473580
[19:24] <lifeless> I think thats the one
[19:24] <lifeless> bug  798497 looks simila
[19:24] <lifeless> r
[19:25] <ScottK> Yes.  That's the one (473580)
[20:05] <lifeless> sinzui: ScottK: mystery solved. Someone has subscribed ubuntu-members. And someone else noticed and unsubscribed.
[20:05] <ScottK> lifeless: Thanks.
[20:05] <lifeless> however, we don't supply enough detail in the rationale to figure this out
[20:05] <lifeless> ScottK: thank czajkowski :P
[20:06] <sinzui> oh fab. lifelessI was suspecting that but there is no trail in the UI. How did you discover this?
[20:06] <czajkowski> ScottK: you weren't the only one to notice folks in locoteams noticed it as well
[20:06] <lifeless> I'm just bearing good news.
[20:06] <lifeless> sinzui: czajkowski was told on irc/in some channel I don't lurk in
[20:06] <czajkowski> sinzui: someone did in -locoteams
[20:06] <czajkowski> :)
[20:06] <sinzui> excellet
[20:06] <czajkowski> community to the rescue :)
[20:07] <lifeless> ScottK: could you perhaps look for/file a bug noting that the rationale was insufficient to determine why you got the mail ?
[20:09] <ScottK> Sure.
[20:10] <ScottK> If I type bugs.l my firefox gives https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+filebug as the first choice.
[20:11] <lifeless> nice
[20:14] <ScottK> lifeless: Bug #968578
[20:16] <lifeless> thanks
[20:24] <ScottK> You're welcome
[22:34] <balloons> 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] <wgrant> balloons: Yes, you'll get a rejection email in that case.
[22:36] <balloons> thanks wgrant
[23:35] <Pikkachu> 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] <Pikkachu> what's happening??
[23:36] <EvilResistance> Status: Deleted
[23:36] <EvilResistance> its already not published
[23:36] <Pikkachu> a deleted status is not a deletion
[23:36] <Pikkachu> I already saw that
[23:37] <Pikkachu> the docs say it would be really deleted within 7 days
[23:37] <Pikkachu> I was waiting for that happen, but it didn't
[23:37] <wgrant> Pikkachu: Why are you waiting?
[23:37] <wgrant> It means nothing.
[23:37] <Pikkachu> wgrant: it what?
[23:38] <wgrant> It's purely a disk space recovery measure. Them being permanently deleted provides no benefit to you.
[23:38] <wgrant> So there's no reason to wait.
[23:38] <Pikkachu> and I'm expecting, because docs are supposed to be correct
[23:39] <wgrant> Pikkachu: The docs are there to warn you that things may not be recoverable after a week.
[23:39] <Pikkachu> it does provide benefit to me because they are all wrong packages
[23:39] <wgrant> We don't delete them the moment they're a week + 1 second old.
[23:39] <wgrant> No.
[23:39] <wgrant> You still can't upload the same version ever again.
[23:39] <wgrant> Even once we delete the files.
[23:40] <Pikkachu> 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] <Pikkachu> still can't even when truly deleted? this is odd...
[23:41] <wgrant> 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] <Pikkachu> so I messed up with my ppa without even noticing :(
[23:42] <wgrant> Hm?
[23:42] <wgrant> Just change the version.
[23:42] <wgrant> Easyu.
[23:42] <Pikkachu> the current one is already ok
[23:42] <Pikkachu> I just appreciate real deletion of really really useless stuff
[23:43] <Pikkachu> I think the reminders for avoiding upload to the same versions are just ok, as the versions are date-based
[23:46] <ojwb> even if it's gone from the PPA, someone may have installed it, so reusing the version is still bad
[23:46] <Pikkachu> 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] <Pikkachu> ojwb: yeah I understand the version reusing problem... but it won't affect me as I use date as version
[23:47] <ojwb> ~<something> sorts before nothing
[23:48] <Pikkachu> ojwb: now I know
[23:49] <Pikkachu> well there's one package which is not yet 7 days old, but all the others are almost 11 days old
[23:49] <Pikkachu> I think I'll come back here later for requesting the deletion then, thanks all...
[23:49] <wgrant> Pikkachu: Why do you care that they are deleted?
[23:50] <wgrant> They will still appear on that page.
[23:50] <wgrant> It's just that the files are unrecoverable.
[23:50] <Pikkachu> 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] <wgrant> I'm confused.
[23:51] <Pikkachu> wgrant: all the wrong packages are available for download
[23:51] <wgrant> If someone goes looking for them, yes.
[23:51] <Pikkachu> which is undesirable
[23:51] <Pikkachu> given that they're wrong packages
[23:51] <wgrant> 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] <wgrant> If you're installing deleted packages without knowing exactly what you're doing, you probably have bigger problems.
[23:52] <Pikkachu> I don't want to join the wrong people
[23:52] <Pikkachu> well, ok
[23:53] <Pikkachu> I will ask later I think, but this is really personal... I do not like false deletions
[23:53] <Pikkachu> I would call it "deactivated" instead
[23:53] <Pikkachu> thanks all anyway
[23:55] <Pikkachu> 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...)