[02:27] <RAOF> Does anyone know what happened here: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/137513813/buildlog.txt.gz ?
[02:27] <RAOF> It's a bzr-builder recipe that works fine locally and exceptions in bzr on Launchpad.
[02:40] <wgrant> RAOF: Launchpad doesn't support format 0.4 yet
[02:40] <wgrant> You need to use 0.3
[02:40] <RAOF> Aha. So the build recipe page that talks about 0.4 is a lie. Gotcha :)
[02:40] <wgrant> Well
[02:40] <wgrant> Launchpad is meant to support it
[02:40] <wgrant> But the buildds still aren't upgraded to something that support it
[02:41] <wgrant> Maybe once they're on something more modern than hardy..
[02:41] <ScottK> Oh my.
[02:41] <ScottK> Best hurry up.
[02:42] <wgrant> Yes.
[03:02] <RAOF> wgrant: When https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/SourceBuilds/Recipes says that {debversion} is available in 0.1, is it lying?
[03:04] <wgrant> RAOF: Not sure. But it's certainly available in 0.3, which is what you'd want to use.
[03:06] <RAOF> Grr. So why is it throwing ‘bzr: ERROR: Invalid deb-version: {debversion}+xmir2316: Invalid version string '{debversion}+xmir2316'’
[03:11] <wgrant> Oh
[03:11] <wgrant> RAOF: Sorry, got debupstream and debversion mixed up
[03:11] <wgrant> debversion is new in 0.4
[03:11] <wgrant> debupstream has been around forever
[03:12] <RAOF> Ok. Where's the right place to report that documentation bug?
[03:12] <RAOF> Also, get Launchpad upgraded, damnit! debversion is super-useful!
[03:12] <wgrant> I've been trying for 18 months...
[03:13] <wgrant> Docs fixed.
[03:58] <RAOF> Hm. Next up in the WTF stakes - https://launchpad.net/~mir-team/+archive/staging/+build/4487198 has been building for an *awfully* long time.
[03:59] <ScottK> You could cancel it and retry.
[03:59] <ScottK> If you can't, I can do it for you.
[04:00] <RAOF> I should be able to.
[05:22] <george_e> Is there a known problem with uploading to PPAs at the moment?
[05:23] <StevenK> What issue are you having?
[05:30] <george_e> StevenK: I backported a package nearly 50 minutes ago and haven't received an "accepted" email yet.
[05:30] <StevenK> Was it signed?
[05:31] <george_e> Yes.
[05:32] <george_e> I had uploaded one earlier (maybe 30 minutes earlier) without any issues.
[05:32] <george_e> But the last two aren't showing up.
[05:33] <StevenK> george_e: Can you tell me what package and PPA?
[05:33] <wgrant> 2013-04-16 05:05:19 INFO    Upload was rejected:
[05:33] <wgrant> 2013-04-16 05:05:19 INFO        File nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-5ubuntu1~ubuntu12.04.1~ppa1.debian.tar.gz already exists in LESS for Precise, but uploaded version has different contents.
[05:33] <wgrant> You have an email about that.
[05:34] <george_e> Oh.
[05:34] <george_e> I'll check my email again.
[05:34] <wgrant> 2013-04-16 05:05:19 DEBUG     Subject: [PPA george-edison55-less-precise] nodejs_0.6.19~dfsg1-5ubuntu1~ubuntu12.04.1~ppa1_source.changes rejected
[05:34] <george_e> Odd.. nothing in my inbox and nothing in spam.
[05:35] <george_e> Well, thanks for clearing it up.
[14:04] <kelkoobenoitr> hello: i am new to launchpad, and going through the doc to create my first source package.
[14:06] <kelkoobenoitr> so far so good, but i don't understand how we should handle a new upstream version once first version is created
[14:13] <jpds> kelkoobenoitr: How do you mean?
[14:14] <kelkoobenoitr> let's say i have locallly a source package named hello-v1
[14:14] <kelkoobenoitr> that one is uploaded to launchpad
[14:14] <jpds> kelkoobenoitr: Old version: 0.1-0ubuntu1, new upstream release would be: 0.2-0ubuntu1 or whatever upstream release it as.
[14:14] <kelkoobenoitr> now upstream released hello-v2
[14:14] <jpds> kelkoobenoitr: You wouldn't have the version number in the source package name.
[14:16] <kelkoobenoitr> well upstream is only providing me with a tar.gz
[14:16] <kelkoobenoitr> my question is how to handle it locally
[14:16] <jpds> kelkoobenoitr: So there's no 'released' version?
[14:16] <kelkoobenoitr> should i work in the same directory as hello-v1
[14:17] <kelkoobenoitr> is there some bzr commands to handle the new upstream version
[14:17] <kelkoobenoitr> sshould i start from scratch again ?
[14:17] <kelkoobenoitr> and copy debian/ directory from hello-v1
[14:17] <jpds> kelkoobenoitr: I would start from scratch and keep bzr out of the picture until you're familiar with the packaging itself.
[14:18] <kelkoobenoitr> well, i think i got the way to build the source package
[14:19] <kelkoobenoitr> as i said: builddeb -- -us -uc works
[14:19]  * jpds sticks to debuild.
[14:26] <kelkoobenoitr> jdbs: i followed this: http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/packaging-new-software.html
[14:27] <kelkoobenoitr> and i have to say i am a bit lost now: i don't get the main picture, for the workflow on launchpad
[14:27] <kelkoobenoitr> can you point me to the right doc to start with debuild ?
[14:28] <kelkoobenoitr> and tell me what should be the next step once i am ok with debuild ?
[14:28] <kelkoobenoitr> oops this not jdbs but jpds ;_)
[14:28] <dobey> i think #ubuntu-packaging might be a better channel for you to ask your questions in
[18:13] <semiosis> hi all, i get uploads rejected from a ppa because it says the orig.tar.gz already exists, but uploaded version has different contents.  how can I delete the existing one, or otherwise resolve this issue?
[18:21] <dobey> semiosis: don't upload the same tarball with different contents in it. you can't. deleting the existing one won't fix it. if the tarball contents are different, the file name must be different. usually this means the version number is different
[19:08] <semiosis> dobey: ok i'll try to work around that limitation
[19:08] <semiosis> thank you
[19:09] <maxb> semiosis: FWIW, it's a feature by design, rather than an accidental limitation
[19:11] <semiosis> maxb: i'm sure it is.  just inconvenient for me because i uploaded an alpha release tarball with the name that the future stable release will have, so now that name is tainted until the next stable rellease comes out
[19:11] <dobey> that would be true regardless of whether you uploaded it to launchpad, or anywhere else
[19:12] <semiosis> yes but not being able to delete & start over is what bugs me most
[19:13] <dobey> yes, well, that doesn't help users that might have downloaded the one you deleted and suddenly replaced with different contents; especially if they've got a bug that was fixed by that change in contents, and they think they have the same version already, because the version is the same :)
[19:13] <semiosis> yes that would be unfortunate, but not the case here
[19:14] <semiosis> i mean, if someone downloaded the orig, then yes, but the packages being built had version modifiers, those modifiers just werent part of the orig filename :(
[19:14] <semiosis> new at this, learning the hard way