[08:18] <dm8tbr> hi, uds schedule desk just directed me here.
[08:18] <dm8tbr> would someone please be so kind to have a look at bug 1072818 ?
[08:37] <bigjools> dm8tbr: that looks like an SSO bug, can you try #canonical-support
[08:37] <bigjools> ah wrong chan
[08:37] <bigjools> who can remember it ...
[08:37] <czajkowski> bigjools: #canonical-isd
[08:37] <bigjools> that's the badger
[08:38] <lifeless> mmm badget
[08:38] <lifeless> mushroom!
[08:41] <dm8tbr> k
[09:05] <FloSoft> hi, how can I copy a existing package to "maverick" - I cant select that anymore :/
[09:09] <tsimpson> FloSoft: Maverick has reached end of life and is no longer supported
[09:09] <FloSoft> tsimpson: hmm
[09:11] <tsimpson> FloSoft: this is the announcement: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2012-April/000158.html
[09:11] <LordOfTime> FloSoft, you can't have Maverick in PPAs anymore.  when it went EOL, PPAs no longer built for maverick
[09:11] <LordOfTime> any already-published Maverick packages i think will stay, but you can't copy new stuff to Maverick nor can they build for Maverick
[09:12] <FloSoft> LordOfTime: hmm okay, thats what I wanted to know if I can still copy something to maverick
[09:12] <FloSoft> how safe is it to upgrade the distribution?
[09:12] <LordOfTime> tsimpson, got a link to the "EOL Upgrades" process?
[09:12] <LordOfTime> he'd have to go from Maverick to at least Oneiric
[09:13] <tsimpson> !eol
[09:13] <tsimpson> the last link ^
[09:20] <FloSoft> how safe is it to upgrade via ssh? ;)
[09:23] <tsimpson> it should be ok, though you may want to start an sshd instance manually on another port so it doesn't get killed during the upgrade
[09:23] <tsimpson> #ubuntu would be more helpful for those kinds of questions though
[09:33] <FloSoft> tsimpson: okay thx
[09:33] <FloSoft> tsimpson: I think I'll wait until tomorrow where I am directly at the server's location
[09:35] <tsimpson> the last time I remember upgrading over ssh I remember it working quite well
[10:50] <FloSoft> Is there a way to automate the "Copy Packages" - thing? i.e build package for karmic and copy them automatically to oneiric etc?
[10:58] <maxb> FloSoft: Yes, there are http apis you can call from a script
[10:58] <maxb> Although I have to point out.... karmic is incredibly obsolete now
[11:54] <FloSoft> maxb: yes karmic was only an example - have you an url for that api?
[15:30] <buzz_> I appreciate the ppa service but - "Reduced PPA builder capacity" - this seems to be the norm rather than an exception in the last year
[15:30] <buzz_> certainly everytime I go to update my PPAs it's the case :/
[15:33] <dobey> there's something wrong with the builders page, but i don't see any especially reduced capacity there
[15:33] <buzz_> well it says in the channel topic here
[15:33] <dobey> a few builders disabled, but mostly it's going fine
[15:33] <buzz_> 4 hour wait currently for an i386 build. and yesterday was the same
[15:34] <dobey> well builders aren't infinite
[15:34] <buzz_> i suppose its good it's not 15 hours as it has been previously
[15:34] <czajkowski> actaully the topic is out of date
[15:34] <czajkowski> and our builder is ok
[15:34] <dobey> right; i don't even pay attention to the topic
[15:35] <dobey> but https://launchpad.net/builders does seem to have a bit of an issue
[15:36] <dobey> the status summary on the upper right says "empty" for some archs, when there are clearly several builds happening, and surely more queued
[15:36] <buzz_> there used to be more i386 builds im sure than the current 15
[15:36] <buzz_> builders
[15:38] <buzz_> anyway, if 4-5 hours wait is usual, ill jsut have to be patient and not gripe. not much I can do :) cheers
[15:40] <dobey> it would be nice if the builders had cpu time quotas for the builds, so things that take way too long get auto-killed
[15:41] <micahg> dobey: there is a timeout
[15:42] <dobey> micahg: only if things hang though, not if they're actively building, iirc
[15:43] <micahg> dobey: right, but if they're building, what's the problem?
[15:44] <dobey> micahg: there are some builds that take > 24 hours
[15:47] <micahg> dobey: and, why shouldn't they be allowed to build (maybe having those as daily recipies would be problematic, but occassional builds...)
[15:47] <dobey> micahg: right, it's the fact that they're daily builds that's problematic i think
[15:48] <dobey> and to prevent DoS
[15:51] <buzz_> i have solved the 4 hour wait issue anyway, by deciding to go to the pub :)
[17:45] <RobinJ> Using saved push location: bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~robinj/raspberrydroid/trunk/
[17:45] <RobinJ> ssh: connect to host bazaar.launchpad.net port 22: Connection refused
[17:45] <RobinJ> bzr: ERROR: Connection closed: Unexpected end of message. Please check connectivity and permissions, and report a bug if problems persist.
[17:45] <RobinJ> :/
[17:45] <RobinJ> Why does it reject my connection?
[17:54] <beuno> RobinJ, authentication issue
[17:54] <beuno> most likely
[17:55] <beuno> try: sftp bazaar.launchpad.net
[17:55] <beuno> may be a bit clearer on what the issue i
[17:55] <beuno> *is
[17:55] <beuno> have you set your launchpad username in bzr?
[17:58] <dobey> or general network issues
[20:34] <zequence> Had a problem merging accounts. I guess it's being looked at without my involvement, but if I did want to ask someone about it, where would be the best place?
[20:37] <dobey> zequence: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad probably
[20:39] <zequence> dobey, Thanks. They do have merge requests there. Will try that
[21:49] <exarkun> is launchpad hosed for everyone or just me
[21:50] <dobey> working ok here
[21:51] <exarkun> just oopsed three times and then produced some other error page that looks even worse than an oops
[21:51] <lifeless> exarkun: url ?
[21:51] <wgrant> exarkun: OOPS IDs?
[21:51] <wgrant> And URL, yes
[21:51] <exarkun> submitting the form on https://bugs.launchpad.net/quotient/+bug/1073368/+addbranch
[21:51] <exarkun> just did it again, it both succeeded and oopsed simultaneously
[21:51] <exarkun> OOPS-3bf36767fbf7225bb8aba92fd5816968
[21:52] <exarkun> well, it /said/ it succeeded, I don't think it actually did
[21:52] <wgrant> Oh, +addbranch, I bet the branch scanner is holding a lock on the branch row
[21:53] <exarkun> so, try again tomorrow?
[21:54] <wgrant> Actually, no, looking at the OOPS it's a search timeout. If you specify the full path to the branch, and not just the name, it'll work
[21:54] <wgrant> Not sure why the search is timing out today, though
[21:56] <czajkowski> lifeless: morning
[21:56] <exarkun> Okay, thanks.
[21:57] <lifeless> czajkowski: hi! how is UDS ?
[21:58] <czajkowski> it's ok, horrible food. very busy but good. working on my ation items and catching up on LP work
[21:58] <czajkowski> lifeless: but it's been nice to meet the folks from the rest of the team and put the faces to the names
[21:59] <lifeless> czajkowski: yeah, thats good isn't it ;)
[21:59] <czajkowski> yeah puts a whole new level on context
[21:59] <czajkowski> so I can gague comments and humour
[21:59] <czajkowski> so that's been nice for me
[22:05] <czajkowski> lifeless: hope all is well with your new role
[22:07] <lifeless> it is indeed!
[22:08] <czajkowski> yay
[22:13] <lifeless> of course, I'm now finding a whole new raft of bugs to tackle :)
[22:13] <czajkowski> on launchpad :)
[22:13] <lifeless> not so much :)
[22:13] <lifeless> though I did just file a grub2 bug
[22:14] <lifeless> with reproduction script
[22:14] <czajkowski> lol
[22:18] <slank> launchpad ping, are users able to change their own usernames?
[22:18] <slank> never mind that, I've figured it out