=== bellasbells is now known as PrincessSandy [01:00] ychaouche: Only the owner of a branch can write to it, so if you want shared access you need it to be owned by a team. [01:01] wgrant: ok thanks [01:01] but people can still propose merges, right ? [01:01] Right [05:19] Hi, when I try to access https://api.launchpad.net/1.0/people/+me by my own program, it always returns 'This nonce has been used already.', is it normal? [05:19] FourDollars: You're reusing an OAuth nonce value. [05:19] That's not permitted. [05:21] wgrant: My nonce value comes from 'Math.floor(Math.random() * +new Date);' in JavaScript. [05:21] wgrant: It should not be reused. === broder_ is now known as broder [05:24] FourDollars: Well, it clearly is reused :) [05:25] FourDollars: Oh, does it only happen for /people/+me? [05:25] wgrant: You got it. [05:25] That will redirect. If you're following the redirect without resigning the request with a new nonce, it will do that [05:32] wgrant: Yes, you are right. It is 303. [05:32] wgrant: Thank you. :) [05:35] np [06:15] wgrant: could you please rename https://launchpad.net/os-config-applier to os-apply-config ? [06:15] lifeless: With alias? [06:16] wgrant: it would be nice [06:16] lifeless: Done [06:17] thanks! [06:17] np [08:22] morning [08:28] I have a question about 'Using the credentials' of https://help.launchpad.net/API/SigningRequests . [08:28] If I want to use POST method, where should I put those keys? [08:31] Now I only get '401 Unauthorized' from POST method. :( === tasdomas_afk is now known as tasdomas [08:38] FourDollars: The Authorization header, as described in that section [08:38] wgrant: Thanks. [08:41] I get '401 Unauthorized' from a private PPA, but 'Archive must be private.' from a public PPA. Err... [08:42] By using getArchiveSubscriptionURL of https://api.launchpad.net/1.0/~ . [08:43] FourDollars: Is your token authorized to access private objects? [08:44] wgrant: I can access https://api.launchpad.net/1.0//+archive/ . [08:45] wgrant: I can access https://api.launchpad.net/1.0//+archive/?ws.op=getPublishedBinaries . [08:49] I can use GET method to getPublishedBinaries from a private PPA but can not use POST method to getArchiveSubscriptionURL of it? [08:51] FourDollars: What is the body of the 401 Unauthorized response? [08:51] wgrant: Empty. [08:53] FourDollars: Can you post to getPublishedBinaries? [08:54] wgrant: I don't see the usage on https://launchpad.net/+apidoc/1.0.html . [08:55] FourDollars: It's not documented, but a POST to a read operation should still work, or at least give an invalid method error after authorization [08:55] I suspect you're not signing POST requests properly; this will test that. [08:55] I see. [08:56] Let me try it. [08:59] wgrant: it returns 'No such operation: getPublishedBinaries'. [09:00] FourDollars: Can you show me the getPublishedBinaries and getArchiveSubscriptionURL request headers, omitting the oauth token and signature? [09:01] OK. Wait a minute. [09:25] wgrant: The headers of GET /1.0/~oem-archive/+archive/somerville?ws.op=getPublishedBinaries HTTP/1.1\r\nAccept: application/json\r\nAuthorization: OAuth realm="https://api.launchpad.net/",oauth_consumer_key=" [09:25] just+testing",oauth_token="C0WQmN1jP1cb489Zwb26",oauth_signature_method="PLAINTEXT",oauth_signature="&tk2PRZzG8sQMCsGXBfNxtSKNT8Sbh6mJD9VC2wv3zWJ3XQTtzksC33sp3F07gcsvGNgSn5XDTDd5F5GN",oauth_timestamp="13 [09:25] 74052977.539",oauth_nonce="1270871078501",oauth_version="1.0"\r\nhost: api.launchpad.net\r\nConnection: keep-alive\r\n\r\n [09:25] Oops [09:26] I can revoke it. :) [09:28] wgrant: 'POST /1.0/~oem-archive HTTP/1.1\r\nAccept: application/json\r\nAuthorization: OAuth realm="https://api.launchpad.net/",oauth_consumer_key="just+testing",oauth_token="C0WQmN1jP1cb489Zwb2 [09:28] 6",oauth_signature_method="PLAINTEXT",oauth_signature="&tk2PRZzG8sQMCsGXBfNxtSKNT8Sbh6mJD9VC2wv3zWJ3XQTtzksC33sp3F07gcsvGNgSn5XDTDd5F5GN",oauth_timestamp="1374053227.348",oauth_nonce="995638075736",oauth [09:28] _version="1.0"\r\nhost: api.launchpad.net\r\ncontent-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=utf-8\r\ncontent-length: 118\r\nConnection: keep-alive\r\n\r\n' [09:45] wgrant: Well formatted version http://paste.ubuntu.com/5883638/ [09:52] FourDollars: Are you sure the response body is empty? [09:53] wgrant: Yes, but let me check again. [09:54] Oh [09:54] FourDollars: I don't think it's an OAuth problem [09:55] FourDollars: I think you're requesting the subscription URL for someone that isn't you [09:56] wgrant: https://api.launchpad.net/1.0/~ is a private team, but I only have some read and download perssions. [09:56] s/perssions/permissions/ [09:56] FourDollars: You can only request your own subscription URL to a PPA, not someone else's. [09:58] wgrant: Yes! You are right! [09:58] wgrant: I use it in wrong way. Orz... [09:59] wgrant: Thank you very much. [10:00] np [10:00] Glad it's working [10:40] wgrant: Do you have any idea that I often get '503 Service Unavailable' with http://paste.ubuntu.com/5883756/ when using GET /1.0/~oem-archive/+archive/somerville?ws.op=getPublishedBinaries? [10:42] FourDollars: That's a timeout. You probably want to add some filtering so you're not retrieving the whole history. [10:43] wgrant: I see. === stub` is now known as stub === tasdomas is now known as tasdomas_afk [13:46] hi, i have a question about launchpad and RSA/GPG keys, someone can answer? [13:48] just ask your question. if anyone can answer, they will [13:49] ok, i think that is easy.. [13:50] i create a account and generate my RSA and GPG keys, but i had to format my computer and lost my keys.. [13:51] have i generate again? or has someway to recovery this keys? [13:51] Launchpad doesn't have a copy of your private keys (it would be very bad if it did). There's no way to recover them if you don't have a copy. You'll have to generate new ones and attach them to your account. [13:52] fine, is a good way save my private keys in somewhere? [13:52] You should make backups, but keep them tightly under your control as they can be used to impersonate you. [13:53] For example, a USB storage drive on your keyring. [13:54] i understand.. thanks cjwatson [13:54] ubuntu one is a good idea? [13:54] The brand of the drive doesn't matter [13:55] Er, I mean, "yes, buy our merchandise" :-) [13:55] But don't store them on Ubuntu One [13:55] You want your private keys under your control [13:55] Not on some server that you someone else can access. [13:55] Oh, I read that as "an Ubuntu one", not as "Ubuntu One" [13:55] Indeed, storing your private keys on Ubuntu One is not a good idea [13:56] its not secure? [13:56] It's as secure as anything else [13:56] It doesn't matter how secure it is; you should never let your private keys out of your sole control [13:57] On a remote server somewhere in a cloud isn't in your sole control, even if you trust the hoster [13:57] But an online service is probably easier to compromise, particularly without you noticing, than your pocket. [13:58] jonathas, https://one.ubuntu.com/help/faq/are-my-files-stored-on-the-server-encrypted/ [13:58] cjwatson, wgrant: you have a backup of the keys? [13:58] I'm not sure it'd be awfully wise to have the keys in the cloud even if they were encrypted :) [13:59] jonathas: I have a backup of my keys, but not of yours. :-) [13:59] wgrant: That would just move the problem to "where do you back up your decryption key", anyway [13:59] Yeah [14:00] cjwatson, hasuhasua.. good.. [14:01] ok, i just need to know if the keys is more or less disposable.. [14:02] i mean, if a lost, "thats ok, i generate other".. [14:02] but you dont think this way.. right? [14:04] bueno, thanks by the link [14:04] jonathas: Ideally, you shouldn't lose your private keys [14:04] beuno, thanks by the link [14:11] saiarcot895, yes, thats it! [14:11] i needed that.. [14:12] thanks guys.. [14:54] I twice tried the dput command, first according to my personal page: dput ppa:lafeber-dumoleyn/ubuntuhandleiding [14:54] Rejected [14:54] Second try from this example: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading $ dput my-ppa P_V_source.changes [14:54] Rejected [14:54] I created the .dput.cf file [14:56] First time rejected: Could not find distribution 'ppa'. [14:57] Second time rejected: Could not find a PPA named 'ppa' for 'lmy_name'. [14:57] in Launchpad, for most users creating their first PPA the PPA name will be literally just the string ppa. [14:59] Could anyone here tell me exactly how the dput command should be? [15:00] It looks like you tried to use ppa:lafeber-dumoleyn/ubuntuhandleiding/ppa rather than ppa:lafeber-dumoleyn/ubuntuhandleiding ... [15:00] ah, let me see.... [15:00] You don't need a special .dput.cf for this - the stock /etc/dput.cf should do it [15:01] ok, I will delete .deput.cf first [15:02] * dput [15:03] I'll try again [15:04] I'll do dput ppa:lafeber-dumoleyn/ubuntuhandleiding ubuntumanualnl_12.04ubuntu1_source.changes [15:05] That should be fine [15:18] May I ask one more question (it is the first time I am packaging ): ) [15:18] Rejected: ubuntumanualnl_12.04ubuntu1.dsc: Unknown section 'unknown' [15:19] I do not know what section expects me to use [15:19] I did notice it in the control file I think [15:21] Indeed. In control I see: Section: unknown [15:26] "Section: doc" sounds appropriate for a manual [15:26] I uses "Books & Magazines" which is a category in USC [15:27] Not a valid archive section [15:27] ok, I'll change it to doc [15:27] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections lists the allowed ones (for Debian, but they're either in sync or only very slightly different) [15:27] thanks for the link [15:43] I have changed my control file Section: doc Architecture all. Is it necessary to do debuild -S -sa again? [15:46] Yes [15:46] thanks I'll do it right away :) [15:50] cjwatson, thank you for your help so far. I got to go. Hope everything works now === matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch [16:54] is this a good place to ask questions about bzrlib? [17:01] wedgwood: #bzr might be better [17:01] ta === matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara [17:22] What does this mean, as a rejection message? "already exists in Primary Archive for Ubuntu" [17:25] And, how do I find out the name of it in the primary archive? [17:25] It's difficult to say more than 'it means exactly what it says' unless you give us more context [17:26] Specifically: "File modules_3.2.10.orig.tar.gz already exists in Primary Archive for Ubuntu"... [17:26] I'm trying to package this http://modules.sourceforge.net/ [17:26] And when I uploaded the .changes, it gave me that error. [17:27] http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/m/modules/modules_3.2.10.orig.tar.gz <--- already exists [17:28] Oh cool. It's called environment-modules. [17:28] Thanks [17:28] The message, combined with your confusion, suggests that you are trying to upload to a PPA but are actually sending the upload to the actual real Ubuntu distribution archive itself [17:29] dput ppa:douglasjacobsen/mpas-test *.changes [17:29] That's what I used. [17:36] It [17:36] It's weird that even in precise it's rejected. Though the package isn't backported for precise yet. [17:41] Dougie187: did you previously upload the file to your PPA? [17:41] No, this is the first time. [17:42] Dougie187: in debian/changelog, what is the first line? [17:43] modules (3.2.10-1ubuntu1ppa1~raring1) raring; urgency=low [17:43] and s/raring/precise/g [17:43] you do want a ~ between 1ubuntu1 and ppa1 though [17:44] Oh ok. So I want it to be 3.2.10-1ubuntu1~ppa1~precise1? [17:45] yes [17:47] Thanks. I'll give that a shot. [17:47] Dougie187: If this try doesn't work, instead of specifying the ppa in the command line, can you try editing .dput.cf to add you ppa's entry and then use that? [17:47] Dougie187: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/Uploading [17:47] sure [17:48] the ~ won't fix the upload problem [17:49] i was just pointing out that it kind of needs to be at that spot :) [17:49] I don't really understand what the difference between the ~ and - are. but it's not a big deal. [17:50] Dougie187: it's in the sorting/ordering [17:51] Dougie187: if you were to sort all allowed characters A-Z style, ~ would be the first character, while - would appear somewhere later (is it after the letters?) [17:51] Oh ok [17:51] I think - would be after the letters and numbers. [17:51] but I could be wrong. [17:51] I thought all symbols were after the numbers. [17:52] Dougie187: ~ is an exception specifically made by dpkg [17:52] Yeah [17:53] Dougie187: I saw a perl script somewhere online that allowed you to plug in two versions, and it would tell you which one was greater (and therefore be considered more recent) === benji___ is now known as benji [17:53] That's pretty cool [17:54] - separates the upstream version and the debian version [17:55] there should only ever be ONE - character in a version string in the changelog. [17:55] ok [17:55] ~ tells dpkg that what follows it should be sorted lower than what preceeds it. [17:55] Ok, I setup the version name properly, and the .dput.cf and re-uploaded. [17:56] let's see what happens. [17:56] saiarcot895: dpkg --compare-versions [17:56] dobey: ooh, nice [17:57] ok, well I have to run to a meeting. but I'll let you guys know how it works out. [17:57] Thanks [18:39] Just so you guys know, they were rejected again [18:40] Same error message too [18:44] You can build a changes file that only includes the debian diff. debuild -S -sd is your friend. The ppa builder will pull the orig.tar.gz from the main archive. === vednis is now known as mars [18:50] That was rejected too [18:51] it really sounds like you're trying to upload into the ubuntu archive, and not your ppa [18:52] Dougie187: What is the topmost entry of debian/changelog of your package? (Post to paste.ubuntu.com) [18:52] Dougie187: can you re-post the command you used to upload the changes file? [18:52] saiarcot895: dput mpas-test-ppa modules*precise*.changes [18:53] Dougie187: and you set up the .dput.cf file, right? [18:53] Yeah, one sec. I'll put my changelog (top line) and my .dput.cf in a pastebine [18:53] bin* [18:53] Dougie187: And can you pastebin the .upload file? [18:54] http://pastebin.com/wfKg1Dug [18:55] that has all of them in it [18:57] I have to run to another meeting now, but let me know if I should try anything and I'll do it when I get back [18:57] thanks [18:58] Can you post the reject message when you do an upload without the orig.tar.gz? [19:34] Ampelbein: it's the same [19:34] Ampelbein: "File modules_3.2.10.orig.tar.gz already exists in Primary Archive for Ubuntu," ... [19:37] Dougie187: Can you upload after building with debuild -S -sd and show the .upload and the .changes file please? [19:37] Because that sounds like you aren't actually uploading without orig.tar.gz [19:37] The upload file is the one I pastebinned earlier (for debuild -S -sd). Let me paste the .changes. [19:39] http://pastebin.com/xbh4cWEK [19:39] That's the changes file. [19:39] Hmm, ok. I'm at a loss then. [19:40] me too. :/ [19:44] Dougie187: Could you put your packaging somewhere to investigate? A bzr branch maybe? [19:44] You just want the debian folder? [19:45] yeah [19:47] Ampelbein: https://github.com/douglasjacobsen/modules-packaging (I don't know bzr :/) [19:47] It's ok, I can work with that [19:57] Dougie187: http://paste.debian.net/16626/ - works here. [19:58] debuild -S -sd ; dput ppa:amoog modules*.changes [20:00] It doesn't get rejected? [20:00] Nope. [20:01] Dougie187: https://launchpad.net/~amoog/+archive/ppa/+packages There it is, in all it's glory, waiting to be build. [20:01] That's weird. [20:01] I wonder what's different. [20:05] Just an idea: Did you already earlier upload the same orig.tar.gz to your ppa and then deleted the package? [20:08] No, this is the first time I've tried this package. [20:10] So, what did you do to get it to work? Just clone my git repo, and then debuild -S -sd? [20:14] Dougie187: Yes, cloned the repo, got the orig.tar.gz from the archive, debuild -S -sd, dput. [20:22] dobey: No, I checked the logs, Dougie187 is definitely uploading to a PPA [20:22] weird [20:22] Looks like archiveuploader looks up the file by name [20:23] http://paste.ubuntu.com/5885451/ [20:23] Seems a bit tenuous to me for PPAs [20:23] right, but i never get such errors when backporting packages from the archive to a ppa [20:23] even when using -sa [20:24] No doubt you have a matching orig [20:24] The workaround is just to make the orig be an exact match [20:24] Oh ok [20:24] so, my problem is my modules*.orig.tar.gz is different. [20:24] oh. someone is trying to upload an invalid tarball [20:24] Dougie187: Right [20:24] dobey: different != invalid [20:24] I made my tarball, because at the time I didn't realize I was backporting something that existed. [20:25] Right, a repack would have that effect. [20:25] a repack shouldn't. it would only have that effect if it was actually a different version of the contents, or produced in a different way which resulted in different contents [20:26] Repacks almost invariably wind up being not bitwise-identical. [20:26] Not least because gzip has a timestamp field unless you take care to suppress it. [20:27] I do think this is a bug that you should file against Launchpad itself. Arguably it shouldn't throw that error at all; but at the very least the message is very confusing. [20:27] So, how do I get the orig from the archive? Do I just manually download it? or is there a command to do it? [20:27] Just wget it - maxb gave you the URL earlier. [20:28] k [20:28] I just wasn't sure if I should use some apt-src or something command. [20:28] Or pull-lp-source will download it along with the rest of the source package [20:28] You probably want the -d option so that it doesn't unpack it over your working tree [20:28] eh. I can always just make a new dir for it. [20:28] No need though [20:29] You just need the .orig.tar.gz, you don't need it unpacked [20:29] ok [20:33] Thanks for your help btw. [20:33] And everyone else. :P [20:35] I submitted a bug report too. [20:35] And that upload worked fine. === tasdomas_afk is now known as tasdomas === tasdomas is now known as tasdomas_afk