[01:01] <xnox> cjwatson: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-r-fastpath-install
[01:01] <xnox> interesting new blueprint.
[01:02] <cjwatson> Yeah, I know about it
[01:02] <xnox> ack =)
[11:36] <smartboyhw> Hi any wubi developer's here?
[11:44] <xnox> sure.
[11:44] <xnox> smartboyhw: what's up?
[11:44] <smartboyhw> xnox,  we want to add Ubuntu Studio to Wubi
[11:45] <xnox> smartboyhw: ok.
[11:45] <xnox> smartboyhw: that needs correct links to how/where your images are called.
[11:45] <smartboyhw> xnox, just wondering what should I write in the isolist.ini. Should I use the 12.10 metalinks or the 13.04 links
[11:46] <xnox> smartboyhw: well, currently wubi is targetting 12.10 & we didn't update the links for the 13.04.
[11:46] <smartboyhw> xnox, so the 12.10 links then
[11:46] <xnox> smartboyhw: for now yeah, and then we will update all of them to 13.04 in bulk.
[11:47] <smartboyhw> xnox, same for the debian/changelog?
[11:47] <xnox> smartboyhw: what do you mean for the debian/changelog? $ dch -i and keep it UNRELEASED.
[11:48] <smartboyhw> xnox, I mean the version number in debian/changelog. Is it that I should use 13.04?
[11:48] <xnox> smartboyhw: don't worry about debian/changelog, it's a bit out-of-date and we need to fix it up =))))
[11:48] <smartboyhw> =)))))0
[11:51] <smartboyhw> xnox, is it that we must have lupin-support package in our images in order to install Ubuntu Studio on Wubi?
[11:51] <smartboyhw> From Bug 1070682
[11:51] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1070682 in Ubuntu Studio "wubi and ubuntu studio" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1070682
[11:53] <xnox> smartboyhw: sounds about right, have you seeded it already?
[11:53] <smartboyhw> xnox, that is the problem . No
[11:53] <smartboyhw> Let me find the guys in my team to add it
[11:55] <smartboyhw> xnox, told them to add...Just wait till it seeds to ubuntustudio-meta
[11:59] <smartboyhw> xnox, hmm I now got the code in https://code.launchpad.net/~smartboyhw/ubuntu/raring/wubi/bug-1070682 but I can't see how to propose merge proposals
[12:00] <xnox> smartboyhw: huh.... wubi predates package branches. base your changes on lp:wubi & push to lp:~/wubi/bug-1070682 and propose into lp:wubi.
[12:00] <xnox> smartboyhw: ubuntu archive does not build windows binaries yet....
[12:00] <smartboyhw> xnox, so I do like lp:~smartboyhw/wubi/bug-1070682 right?
[12:01] <xnox> smartboyhw: you have just created wubi package in ubuntu =((((( because of that branch....
[12:01] <smartboyhw> xnox, oops
[12:01] <smartboyhw> xnox, immediate delete
[12:01] <xnox> smartboyhw: in the future make sure you push back branches to the same project you got them from......
[12:02] <smartboyhw> Phew got it now
[12:02] <ogra-cb_> iirc using push :parent actually makes suggestions for branch names if you cant push due to missing credentials
[12:03] <ogra-cb_> that should give a proper "to-merge" branch name
[12:03] <smartboyhw> Got it now xnox https://code.launchpad.net/~smartboyhw/wubi/bug-1070682/+merge/134446
[12:05] <cjwatson> It doesn't need to go in ubuntustudio-meta
[12:05] <cjwatson> The seed it should probably be in is not one that generates a metapackage
[12:06] <cjwatson> (Kaj did it right)
[12:07] <smartboyhw> cjwatson, yeah
[12:18] <smartboyhw> cjwatson, sorry on the edubuntu typo
[12:18] <smartboyhw> fixing
[12:22] <smartboyhw> cjwatson, resubmitted proposal
[12:23] <smartboyhw> https://code.launchpad.net/~smartboyhw/wubi/bug-1070682/+merge/134453
[12:45] <cjwatson> FWIW you should never resubmit proposals
[12:45] <cjwatson> At least not for minor corrections like this
[12:45] <cjwatson> The way you use the system is that you simply commit a fix and push it
[12:45] <cjwatson> Resubmitting is awkward and overcomplicated and basically just for the situation where you proposed against the wrong branch
[12:47] <mpt> cjwatson, hi, is bug 220961 that Ubiquity never checks for enough disk space, or that it normally checks but is sometimes mistaken?
[12:47] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 220961 in ubiquity (Ubuntu) "[MASTER] ubiquity crashes instead of notifying the user of not enough disk space" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/220961
[12:47] <mpt> I'm just trying to work out whether it needs a design for the error message.
[12:48] <cjwatson> smartboyhw: At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, see https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/refactor-cron-germinate/+merge/84624 for an example; if you scroll down you can see review comments nicely interleaved with revisions fixing them
[12:48] <cjwatson> mpt: It normally checks but is (probably inevitably) sometimes mistaken.  The bug is that it falls over in varying different kinds of heaps rather than dying gracefully.
[12:48] <xnox> mpt: there are conditions/code-paths in ubiquity which allow you to proceed to installation and later it will trip over itself that there is not enough disk space.
[12:49] <mpt> ok, thanks
[12:49] <xnox> cjwatson: the classic is Laney's "typical install": 8GB disk + 8GB RAM in a VM, with swap taking over most of the space and / being the minimal size of ~800MB (whatever hardcoded in partman-auto recipe as minimal size)
[12:50] <xnox> which falls flat on it's face.
[12:50] <cjwatson> Yeah, we have separate bugs for lots of the special cases of this kind of thing
[12:50] <cjwatson> The "ridiculous amounts of swap" case is one
[12:51] <xnox> cjwatson: interesting this blueprint got superseeded: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-r-default-swap-disk-size-calculation
[12:51] <cjwatson> *shrug* I lose track
[12:51] <xnox> not sure what happened there....
[12:51] <cjwatson> But that's the sort of thing that's stupid as a blueprint anyway
[12:51] <cjwatson> It's just a bug, albeit a complicated one
[12:51] <xnox> yeah.... blueprints are funny.
[12:51] <mpt> cjwatson, have you considered using RecoverableError for that? Then you could pick off the causes in order of frequency
[12:51] <cjwatson> No
[12:51] <mpt> Blueprints are bug reports with delusions of grandeur
[12:52] <cjwatson> Because I've only spent a fairly minimal amount of time on ubiquity at all since errors.u.c et al were created, and that really only in support of other project
[12:52] <cjwatson> s
[12:52] <mpt> fair enough
[12:52] <mpt> I should have addressed that to xnox :-)
[12:52] <cjwatson> There's a point to blueprints when we need complex design across multiple pieces of software, but they do get massively overused
[12:52] <cjwatson> That said, it should only be a recoverable error if it's actually recoverable; half the point of the bug is that it isn't
[12:52] <xnox> mpt: I like that definition =)
[12:53] <cjwatson> (Except by restarting the installation from scratch, which I don't think counts)
[12:54] <mpt> cjwatson, that might be reading a little too much into the name ... Recoverable in that sense only means "doesn't crash".
[12:54] <cjwatson> Maybe the name is wrong? :-)
[12:54] <mpt> maybe.
[12:54] <cjwatson> I'm reading the dictionary words
[12:54] <mpt> (I didn't choose it, therefore it must be, right?)
[14:53] <smartboyhw> cjwatson, so you are just not going to merge the fix since I (stupidly) resubmitted the proposal?
[15:10] <cjwatson> smartboyhw: Where did I say that?
[15:10] <cjwatson> smartboyhw: I'm not merging it since it's my day off today :-)
[15:11] <cjwatson> smartboyhw: I was just recommending that you use an approach that's both easier and better in future
[15:13] <smartboyhw> cjwatson, ah OK:P