[02:29] hello i have a question.... since my cloacks was "Timido" and now it's aaron. but i cannot use the email address for my user example aaron@ubuntu.com any hints. or tips? [02:30] Aaron: Your @ubuntu.com email address is based on your Launchpad username, not your freenode cloak. === jrgifford is now known as jrgifford_away [02:30] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuEmail [02:30] wgrant, what i want it to change it.... is it possible? [02:30] i know that.... ;( [02:30] thank you.... === philipn_ is now known as philipn === LoganCloud_ is now known as LoganCloud [10:26] hi all [10:27] why is it not possible actually to upload a file which size is 175M. The maximum is set to 200M. [10:27] The request is falling in timeout. [10:29] frankb_: Can you try from an Internet connection with more upstream bandwidth? [10:31] I was at home when i tried to upload my file and I can't do it from work === geser_ is now known as geser === teknico_ is now known as teknico [12:48] hi [12:49] is it possible to upload binary-only third party executables to launchpad (as a source package) ppa [12:49] the executable litsel is accompanied by this document: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/5689307/ [12:50] it's not explicitly covered by https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse [12:53] I wonder if there is any similary to packages that are a part of restricted repository [12:53] binary drivers, ec [12:53] etc [12:55] zyga: i think it probably fails the restricted/main test, becasue it requires you to contact the author if you want to distribute via "cd/dvd or other bundles" [12:55] dobey: oh, good point [12:55] The restriction against being sold is also problematic [12:56] dobey: thank you very much [12:56] and that [12:56] thanks, I think that settles it [12:56] You certainly can't upload it under the PPA Terms of Use [12:56] right [12:56] you can, i guess, perhaps do what the flash package does (download it from orig source on install, rather than redistribute) [12:56] yes, we've considered that already [12:57] sadly it's not possible in the specific use case (it would not be of value for us then) [12:57] why is that? [12:58] dobey: being a part of a deb-based offline bundle that one can install and perform some testing === jamestunnicliff_ is now known as jamestunnicliffe === marcoceppi_ is now known as marcoceppi [13:00] so the case gets interesting [13:00] apparently we're in touch with the author and got his consent to package it in a deb file [13:00] I wonder what kind of legal document / license would we need to obtain, in written form, to put this in a PPA [13:01] would the very same license, sans the bundle/sale clause work? [13:01] you'd need the restriction on sale, and/or cd/dvd bundling removed i'd guess [13:01] ok, that's a start then [13:01] thanks [13:02] zyga: It needs to comply with http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/licensing [13:02] Or just open source the thing ;) [13:02] heh [13:02] I'd wish he did [13:02] wgrant: thanks, that will be our guideline [13:03] open source would be good. because then at least you could also build it on 32 bit === milleja46_ is now known as milleja46 === frankb_ is now known as frankb_away === stgraber_ is now known as stgraber [16:49] Hey there fella's. Is there a way to edit your bug submissions?...I've only found I can add more (error containing comments) rather than correcting the old one. Am I missing something? === jrgifford_away is now known as jrgifford [16:49] my searching on launchpad help and FAQ's are not turning up any answers either [16:53] you cna edit the summary [16:53] RabidCicada: what bug in particular [16:56] #1166211 tools/xen/install_os_domU.sh Fail with enable_service() call. [16:56] Launchpad bug 1166211 in devstack "tools/xen/install_os_domU.sh Fail with enable_service() call." [Undecided,New] [16:56] I ended up adding more comments [16:56] but it would be cleaner for me to just edit the original [16:56] and keep it concise [16:57] RabidCicada: can you not just click the pencil icon around the bug description [16:57] that changes that [16:57] the same appears for the bug title [16:58] ok...I can edit hte bug description but not the comments? [16:58] no not a comment [16:58] I can edit the attachment to the comments...just not the comment body itself [16:59] ahhh...ok....Same for attachments?...As in people are going to have to look at every comment to get the attachments I want with the main bug description? [16:59] or do attachments appear in a unified location from different view? [17:00] thye view them from there [17:01] to make sure I understand "they must scan all comments that happen to have attachments to get the attachment" [17:01] so...make sure I put everything I want in the main description/comment...and don't forget stuff too many times [17:02] RabidCicada: yes exactly, ever time you comment on the bug [17:02] all that list of people down the side may get notified if they have notifications turned on [17:02] ahh...ok. [17:02] Thanks...relatively new...and thought it was wierd you cannot fix typos etc [17:02] in comments === deryck is now known as deryck[afk] === BradCrittenden is now known as bac === jrgifford is now known as jrgifford_away === deryck[afk] is now known as deryck === cinerama_ is now known as cinerama