[07:40] <didrocks> hey, I think it's known (and related to this week-end issues), but I get some FTBFS on amd64 where the build succeeds: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/116381491/buildlog_ubuntu-quantal-amd64.ruby-revolution_0.5-8ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[07:56] <geser> didrocks: implicit functions declarations (see end of log)
[07:57] <geser> Function `e_cal_new_system_tasks' implicitly converted to pointer at revolution.c:40
[07:57] <wgrant> didrocks: There weren't any issues over the weekend
[07:57] <wgrant> Yeah, what geser said
[07:58] <didrocks> geser: wgrant: oupsss, will take more coffee I guess :) was mislead by Built successfully
[07:58] <geser> the i386 build has probably the same warnings about this but it's non-fatal on i386
[07:58] <didrocks> geser: wgrant: hum, weird, if it was fatal, it would have failed immediately
[07:58] <didrocks> it runs until dpkg-deb
[07:58] <didrocks> those are just warnings
[07:59] <StevenK> Not on amd64 they aren't
[07:59] <geser> the buildd filters the log for those warnings and marks the build as FTBFS on amd64 (and other 64-bit archs) when those appear
[07:59] <didrocks> ah, interesting, didn't know that
[08:00] <didrocks> weird it's not the same behavior on i386
[08:00] <didrocks> thanks for the hint!
[08:00] <StevenK> didrocks: Because pointers on i386 are 32 bit? :-)
[08:00] <StevenK> Implicit pointer conversions are harmless on i386, and usually fatal on alpha/ia64/amd64/etc
[08:01] <didrocks> ok, will fix those, thanks :)
[08:01] <wgrant> On amd64 it usually won't crash
[08:01] <wgrant> But it's still wrong and not reliable
[08:01] <wgrant> On other 64-bit archs or even ABIs it is always fatal
[08:02] <didrocks> yep, got it :)
[08:02] <wgrant> ;/win 3
[08:02] <wgrant> blah
[08:19] <czajkowski> wgrant: StevenK wallyworld_ can ye keep an eye on this channel for about 30 mins if you're about need to nip over to get blood work done at GP
[08:23] <mgz> bloodwork always sounds so messy...
[10:22] <ssam> for past day, when i try to add an "also affects distribution/package" to a bug i get a timeout.
[10:23] <lifeless> ssam: whats the oops id you get ?
[10:23] <ssam> Error ID: OOPS-3af127f38699989d9eba99c2b3c383d5
[10:25] <lifeless> !ubot5
[10:26] <lifeless> !help
[10:26] <lifeless> ubot5: help
[10:26] <mgz> where's the source, we should just fix that link...
[10:26] <lifeless> right
[10:26] <lifeless> would you like to chase it to ground ?
[10:26] <lifeless> cause, I would love it if someone did ;)
[10:28] <mgz> have asked in tech, I'll bug a l-osa if I get no joy.
[10:28] <lifeless> its not canonical run
[10:28] <lifeless> AFAIK
[10:30] <mgz> hm, only mup is?
[10:31] <lifeless> Laney: do you know who runs ubot5 ?
[10:31] <Laney> lifeless: no, try #ubuntu-irc
[10:41] <czajkowski> Laney: I asked alanbell the last day to look at updating the link
[10:41] <czajkowski> lifeless: ^^
[10:42] <Laney> there should be a URL to the source in /whois
[10:44] <mgz> there doesn't seem to be, but lp:ubuntu-bots looks hopeful
[10:45] <czajkowski> Laney: mgz lifeless asking in #ubuntu-ops
[10:47] <mgz> I can propose a merge with the fix and hope the reviewers handle deployment for me
[10:52] <mgz> bug 1051902 and branch upcoming
[10:54] <czajkowski> mgz: can you join #ubuntu-ops please
[10:57] <mgz> ah, -ops not -bots
[11:09] <mmrazik> Hi.  I have a question regarding the new sharing stuff in Launchpad.
[11:09] <mmrazik> I have a project-team and organisational-team. Now organisational-team is a member of project-team
[11:09] <mmrazik> In project I shared all the information with organisational-team
[11:10] <mmrazik> but still if I try to push into lp:~organisational-team/project/trunk I get permission denied
[11:10] <mmrazik> I had to share all project information with project-team in order to push there as a member of organisational-team
[11:10] <mmrazik> is this expected or bug?
[11:11] <mmrazik> err.. soryy. I'm trying to push into lp:~project-team/project/trunk and not lp:~organisational-team ...
[11:15] <czajkowski> mmrazik: have you read http://blog.launchpad.net/general/information-sharing-is-now-in-beta-for-everyone
[11:15] <czajkowski> wgrant: ^^
[11:15] <mmrazik> czajkowski: yes. I just watched the youtube video
[11:15] <mmrazik> I'm just unsure how indirect membership affects sharing
[11:15] <mmrazik> if in project I share with group X
[11:16] <mmrazik> and then X is member of Y
[11:16] <mmrazik> I would assume I can push branches into Y
[11:16] <mmrazik> mhmm.. .now when I'm reading this it doesn't make that much sense to me
[11:16] <wgrant> mmrazik: Yes, team membership in Launchpad is always transitive
[11:16] <wgrant> Members of team X always count as members of team Y
[11:18] <mmrazik> in my private project I shared all the info with canonical-product-strategy and nobody else
[11:18] <wgrant> mmrazik: Can you describe your particular case again? You've reversed the teams at least once
[11:19] <mmrazik> then there is a project team (lets call it project-team) who is driver of project
[11:19] <mmrazik> I, as canonical-product-strategy member, was not allowed to push into lp:~project-team/project/trunk
[11:19] <mmrazik> canonical-product-strategy is a member of project-team
[11:20] <wgrant> Right, which means that canonical-product-strategy gets project-team's privileges
[11:20] <wgrant> Not vice-versa
[11:20] <mmrazik> I think I start to understand. What confused me is that traditionally, canonical-p-s would be able to push as a member of the team
[11:21] <mmrazik> but I think it makes sense now
[11:21] <wgrant> ~canonical-product-strategy and its members can own branches, as you shared everything with them
[11:21] <wgrant> ~project-team itself doesn't have any access privileges
[11:21] <wgrant> Though its members probably do
[11:22] <wgrant> Through ~canonical-product-strategy
[11:22] <mmrazik> wgrant: thanks. I understand this now.
[11:22] <mmrazik> or at least I hope so:)
[11:23] <wgrant> Heh
[11:23] <wgrant> If you're still confused, PM me the project name or something and I'll check out the config
[16:55] <ssam> still getting the timeout on adding an "also affects" (Error ID: OOPS-1f56120addc778765c2491bde1ee924e)
[16:57] <czajkowski> ssam: what bug ?
[17:24] <ssam> czajkowski, 412647, trying to add a debian bug to it
[17:30] <TheLordOfTime> LP bug 412647
[17:30] <TheLordOfTime> ssam, what debian bug are you trying to add?
[17:30] <ssam> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682917
[17:31] <TheLordOfTime> now explain to me how the two are related
[17:31] <TheLordOfTime> !info iceweasel
[17:31] <TheLordOfTime> right wrong channel
[17:31] <TheLordOfTime> or not
[17:31] <ssam> iceweasle is firefox without the mozilla branding
[17:32] <ssam> firefox can play h264 in <video> tags if you enable gstreamer
[17:33] <ssam> both bugs are asking to change the build options of firefox to enable h264
[17:33] <TheLordOfTime> i see iceweasel and firefox as different packages, and afaict upstream has already released such functionality
[17:34] <ssam> gstreamer is a build time option, and its off by default
[17:35] <TheLordOfTime> and you checked the Ubuntu firefox package to make sure that that's the case?
[17:35] <TheLordOfTime> i've seen debian packages and Ubuntu packages diverge, where as the build options change for Ubuntyu
[17:35] <TheLordOfTime> Ubuntu*
[17:35] <ssam> look at about:buildconfig
[17:36]  * TheLordOfTime isnt on Ubuntu atm, he's stuck on a god-forsaken Windows machine that should die
[17:36] <TheLordOfTime> keep that in mind :P
[17:36] <ssam> ditto, sitting on a fedora machine :-)
[17:36] <TheLordOfTime> TRAITOR!
[17:36] <TheLordOfTime> lol I kid.
[17:36] <ssam> :-)
[17:38] <ssam> even if there is debate over whether iceweasle and firefox are the same or not, and whether its a good thing (tm) allow firefox to play stuff through gstreamer codecs, it should not give a timeout
 iceweasel (source: iceweasel): Web browser based on Firefox. In component main, is optional. Version 10.0.7esr-2 (unstable), package size 1422 kB, installed size 6403 kB
[17:39] <TheLordOfTime> "based on Firefox" doesn't sound like "is Firefox" to me
[17:41] <ssam> its a rebranded firefox. the mozilla trademark policy means that you can't patch (for example to fix a security bug) firefox and still call it firefox
[17:41] <TheLordOfTime> i'm going to consult with whomever is the packager in Ubuntu for that, according to the release team the packaging was forked long ago
[17:41] <TheLordOfTime> so i have to make sure they're related
[17:41] <ssam> ubuntu has a special agreement with mozilla, debian does not
[17:42] <ssam> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat
[17:42] <infinity> What's the iceweasel/firefox discussion going on?
[17:42] <TheLordOfTime> infinity, standby for logburst
[17:43] <ovnicraft> hello i did a proposal to merge, then update my branch proposed, Q: i need to make a proposal again or LP update the diff ?
[17:43] <TheLordOfTime> infinity, http://paste.ubuntu.com/1211479/
[17:43]  * TheLordOfTime must disappear for a minute
[17:45] <infinity> ssam: Right then, yeah, our firefox packaging isn't directly derived from iceweasel's packaging, so just filing one bug with Debian and one with Ubuntu is fine, linking them is generally only useful if you're tracking a fix-in-progress (like a big upstream mangling), to avoid duplication of work.
[17:46] <infinity> ssam: But linking them to convey the "hey, it's fixed in Debian, just needs a merge/sync" thing isn't helpful, cause we don't merge iceweasel into firefox (mostly due to us not being remotely in lockstep with versions, etc)
[17:47] <ssam> the debian bug mentions some issues when enabling gstreamer (and i've seen similar in fedora), so the discussion there maybe useful for someone testing the option in ubuntu
[17:47] <TheLordOfTime> infinity, my stance as a Bug Control member is they aren't related, but i wasnt sure of whether we diverged from the packaging or not, so sorry for dragging you here :P
[17:48] <infinity> ssam: Sure, it might all relate somehow, and adding trackers to debian/upstream/fedora doesn't hurt.
[17:49] <ssam> was the timeout because they are different package names?
[17:49] <infinity> Well, shouldn't hurt. :P
[17:49] <ssam> i am sure i have seen an evince bug link to an upstream poppler bug for example
[17:49] <TheLordOfTime> doubtful, but still :P
[17:49] <TheLordOfTime> ssam, timeouts happen all the time for random reasons, i've seen it happen with "old" bugs
[17:50] <TheLordOfTime> relatively speaking :P
[17:50] <TheLordOfTime> but my concern is the relationship of that bug to the Firefox package here in Ubuntu
[17:50] <TheLordOfTime> hence me poking -release about that relationship, and asking infinity to hop here. :P
[17:50] <ssam> i have been getting that timeout for 2 days
[17:50] <infinity> Honestly, if you want to see how the bugs relate to Ubuntu, just talking to chrisccoulson might be a better option.
[17:50] <TheLordOfTime> infinity, indeed, is he alive? :P
[17:50] <TheLordOfTime> like right now?
[17:51]  * TheLordOfTime has to run to Sociology right now
[17:51] <infinity> But I don't see much point arguing over how the packages relate, either.  If the bug is being tracked in several places and has issues arising, it's always nice to learn from the mistakes of others, even if the packaging codebases don't directly relate.
[17:51] <infinity> TheLordOfTime: Dunno.  I am not my firefox maintainer's keeper.
[17:51] <TheLordOfTime> well, i defer to your judgement, the release team is above me in knowledge :P
[17:51] <TheLordOfTime> lolol
[17:52] <TheLordOfTime> infinity, well, you should be!  </randomdisplacedblame>
[17:52] <TheLordOfTime> ... CRAP, i'm going to be late to my sociology course!
[17:52] <TheLordOfTime> *runs at max speed*
[17:57] <ssam> for now i have mentioned the other distros bugs in a comment
[17:58] <ovnicraft> hello  after update my branch proposed to merge, LP update the diff ?
[18:45] <mdeslaur> how hard would it be to be able to download a PPA gpg key from launchpad itself instead of from a keyserver?
[18:46] <mdeslaur> wgrant: ^
[21:39] <michaelh> Hi there.  I see on the blog that blueprints can now be made private.  How can I enable that for gcc-linaro?
[21:59] <TheLordOfTime> arent private blueprints / ppas / projects part of the commercial system...?
[21:59] <TheLordOfTime> the one that costs $250 a year?
[22:08] <michaelh> TheLordOfTime: I think there's a mix - you can do some private features in all projects to handle security vulnerabilities
[22:08] <michaelh> TheLordOfTime: in any case, Linaro has a commercial subscription FWIK
[22:09] <wgrant> mdeslaur: Launchpad doesn't have keys
[22:10] <mwhudson> michaelh: are you in ~launchpad-beta-testers or whatever the team is called?
[22:11] <michaelh> mwhudson: it is a beta feature and no I am not.
[22:11] <mwhudson> i think if you join the team, you should be able to access the new shiny bits
[22:11]  * michaelh joins
[22:13] <michaelh> mwhudson: right, I now see an access control box on the blueprint that has Public as the only option
[22:14] <mwhudson> ah
[22:14] <michaelh> Hmm, who should I ask about enabling private blueprints for Linaro?
[22:14] <mwhudson> michaelh: maybe you need to fiddle some stuff in general project settings
[22:15] <mwhudson> michaelh: sinzui would know i guess, maybe also wgrant, StevenK
[22:15] <StevenK> Orange is working on private blueprints, not Purple.
[22:15] <StevenK> I don't think it's ready yet.
[22:17] <michaelh> StevenK: hmm, the blog says http://blog.launchpad.net/general/privacy-for-blueprints-enabled-for-beta-testers
[22:17] <StevenK> Ah, I didn't know that.
[22:18] <michaelh> deryck, any comments?