=== jamesh_ is now known as jamesh
=== Prodi is now known as Prod[a]
[08:59] <mgz> morning!
=== jam1 is now known as jam
=== mmrazik is now known as mmrazik|otp
=== mmrazik is now known as mmrazik|otp
=== mmrazik|otp is now known as mmrazik
[10:08] <jam> w7z: poke
[10:09] <jam> w7z, mgz: We seem to now be on a 0.5s echo, just hearing ourselves from you
=== mmrazik is now known as mmrazik|lunch
=== mmrazik|lunch is now known as mmrazik
=== mmrazik is now known as mmrazik|otp
=== mmrazik|otp is now known as mmrazik
=== mmrazik is now known as mmrazik|otp
[16:35] <ritz_> wrt https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/848064 and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bzr/+bug/1078395
[16:35] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 888615 in Bazaar "duplicate for #848064 UDD branch freshness checker breaks on incomplete history" [High,Confirmed]
[16:35] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1078395 in bzr (Ubuntu) "bzr: ERROR: Revision * not present in *" [Medium,New]
[16:35] <ritz_> how do I fix this bug ?
[16:35] <ritz_> is this an issue with lp, or with bzr ?
[16:36] <mgz> neither really, it's in udd
[16:37] <mgz> see lp:udd
=== mmrazik|otp is now known as mmrazik
[16:39] <mgz> some specific packages have had workarounds manually applied for things like that, but requires someone to dig in and find which bit of the history is problematic and blacklist it
[16:39] <mgz> you can do that yourself, if sufficiently brave, xnox managed it
[16:39] <ritz_> mgz , hmm in which case if I understand correctly, the fix is it reimport and this is to be done by upstream
[16:40] <ritz_> mgz how does one do this ?
[16:40] <mgz> it varies, the push --overwrite issue can generally be fixed by a reimport
[16:40] <mgz> having missing or oddly broken history generally means you need to add some configuration to exclude the bust bits
[16:41] <mgz> it is possible to run udd locally and try a branch import, which will give you extensive logs
[16:42] <mgz> or I could fetch a real log for a specific package from jubany for you
[16:43] <mgz> this is more the realm of #launchpad, though there aren't that many people who've done the magic incantations previously
[16:49] <ritz_> mgz hmm neither have I . Assuming I am new to this and mildly retarded. Where should I start for docs/examples/fixes/code ?
[16:49] <mgz> ritz_: though, the specific lp:ubuntu/precise/duplicity branch being borked may well not be package importer related directly, might be something launchpad/stacking specific
[16:50] <ritz_> mgz I am hitting for more than one pkg which bothers me
[16:50] <ritz_> and as per barry, bzr is looking for contributors
[16:53] <mgz> ritz: this probably needs some launchpad-side debugging to work out exactly what's wrong with the branch, which needs someone with superpowers using sftp to inspect the branch, I can't do this
[16:56] <ritz_> mgz hmmm, who would be the person for this ?
[16:57] <ritz_> or would udd mailing list be good ?
[16:59] <mgz> mailing list is good, or irc when australia is awake
[16:59] <mgz> ah, and with some tricks can get more info over http
[16:59] <mgz> so...
[17:00] <mgz> curl -L http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/precise/duplicity/precise/.bzr/branch/branch.conf
[17:00] <mgz> tells you what the branch is stacked on
[17:00] <mgz> which is then stacked on raring
[17:01] <mgz> which is non-borked
[17:04] <mgz> and on the package import, there's a very stale lock that's making life unhappy it seems
[17:04] <ritz_> hmmm
[17:04] <ritz_> is this on the server ?
[17:06] <ritz_> hmm, http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/beta/en/user-guide/stacked.html
[17:07] <ritz_> something like git tagging
[17:08] <ritz_> hmmm ,Packaging branch status: OUT-OF-DATE
[17:10] <ritz_> ./.bzr/branch/lock:     directory
[17:10] <ritz_> ./.bzr/branch-lock:     directory
[17:10] <ritz_> ./.bzr/checkout/lock:   directory
[17:10] <ritz_> ./.bzr/repository/lock: directory
[17:10] <ritz_> are we talking about these ^^^ ?
[17:15] <mgz> ritz_: sort of, but specifically some local branches on the machine the importer runs on
[17:16] <mgz> have broken it and requeued the package, will see if that gives a useful error
[17:17] <ritz_> this is also seen with pidgin package. Do I raise another lp/bug against udd for this ?
[17:17] <mgz> that looks like something else from the log
[17:17] <mgz> and the borkedness of the branches on launchpad may be unrelated anyway
[17:19] <mgz> ritz_: see http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/pidgin.html
[17:19] <mgz> looks like a history issue, but not one we have a bug filed for yet, so go ahead and do that (against lp:udd)
[17:22] <mgz> ritz_: and now duplicity.html also exists
[17:22] <ritz_> mgz another question, does running bzr branch lp:/ubuntu/precise/xyz pick the latest xyz source ( assuming we have a proposed and security branch)
[17:22] <mgz> the latest landed stuff, yes, rather than what was present at release
[17:23] <mgz> I'm not sure of the exact flow of changes with srus and -proposed and such like
[17:25] <ritz_> mgz thank you. filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/1080801
[17:25] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1080801 in Ubuntu Distributed Development "branching pidgin fails " [Undecided,New]
[17:28] <ritz_> I assume this is to be marked against udd alone, and not ubuntu(pidgin)
[17:30] <mgz> ritz_: I'm not sure how ubuntu wants to handle those kinds of things, not being able to branch the thing at all rather than it just being out of date does make life more difficult
[17:49] <ritz_> mgz thanks. kindda of late here. heading to bed
[17:50] <mgz> ritz_: have a good evening/sleep :)
[17:50] <ritz_> thank you
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel