[13:44] <DarkPlayer2> wgrant: hi, which requirements do I need to fulfill to get the permission to build on armhf?
[13:45] <czajkowski> DarkPlayer2: https://dev.launchpad.net/CommunityARMBuilds
[13:47] <DarkPlayer2> czajkowsk2: thanks
[13:47] <DarkPlayer2> lol without the 2 ;-)
[15:00] <ionelmc> after uploading the .changes file to my ppa what do i do next ?
[15:00] <ionelmc> i don't see any package in the web interface
[15:01] <cjwatson> it should show up within ten minutes or so.  If not and you haven't got a rejection mail, check whether you remembered to sign your .changes with a key registered in Launchpad
[15:02] <ionelmc> aaah
[15:02] <ionelmc> i didn't register any key ...
[15:02] <cjwatson> ionelmc: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/UploadErrors
[15:04] <ionelmc> how do i publish my gpg key?
[15:05] <cjwatson> there's a link in the page I just gave you
[15:05] <ionelmc> cjwatson: there's no command to publish it explicitly
[15:06] <ionelmc> is it done automatically?
[15:06] <ionelmc> i get this in the ui "Launchpad could not import your OpenPGP key"
[15:11] <ionelmc> it would appear this is `gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --send-keys XXXX` - someone might want to update this https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/UploadErrors
[15:11] <cjwatson> ionelmc: It's documented on the +editpgpkeys page in Launchpad itself
[15:12] <cjwatson> ("How to get the fingerprint" -> pop-up saying "You must ensure your key is in the Ubuntu keyserver", containing a link to instructions
[15:12] <cjwatson> )
[15:12] <ionelmc> there's no such thing in https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/UploadErrors
[15:13] <ionelmc> cjwatson: maybe you sent me link to the wrong page ?
[15:13] <cjwatson> ionelmc: Packaging/UploadErrors links to https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+editpgpkeys which is as I described
[15:14] <ionelmc> cjwatson: there's absolutely no help about actually publishing via command line, are you trolling me?
[15:15] <cjwatson> I'm attempting to help you and resent that implication
[15:15] <cjwatson> (I'm going to clarify Packaging/UploadErrors as soon as my network connection stops being even slower than usual)
[15:15] <cjwatson> (Oh, and phone call now ...)
[15:16] <cjwatson> The full help page linked indirectly from +editpgpkeys is https://launchpad.net/+help-registry/import-pgp-key.html
[15:17] <TheLordOfTime> are PPAs set up yet to build for trusty?
[15:17] <cjwatson> And it's true that https://launchpad.net/+help-registry/openpgp-keys.html#publish doesn't have a --send-keys based option; I wonder if that's somewhere else
[15:17] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: Yes
[15:17] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: awesome, wasn't sure if they were configured yet.  :)
[15:17] <TheLordOfTime> thanks.
[15:18] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: I don't think any specific configuration is involved any more, once the archive is open
[15:18] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: well, apart from me updating whatever i'm uploading for the version-specific build-deps and such
[15:18] <cjwatson> Sure
[15:19] <TheLordOfTime> ... pffffffffft the only thing I hate about PPAs and updating them with Debian's stuff is when they add a build-dep that's in Saucy and later but not earlier versions >.>
[15:19] <TheLordOfTime> (nginx ppas fall into this category)
[15:21] <ionelmc> is it just me or it's normal that +editpgpkeys asks me to relogin every minute ?
[15:23] <ionelmc> i have follower the confirmation link in the email but no gpg keys appear to be attached to my account in lauchpad
[15:24] <saiarcot895> ionelmc: I think it's for security purposes that you have to relogin every time you access +editpgpkeys
[15:25] <ionelmc> odd, worked the second time
[15:27] <ionelmc> strange enough, before i added my gpg key i got "Successfully uploaded packages." from dput - shouldn't that be an error?
[15:28] <ionelmc> when uploading with dput, can i make a package be available for multiple distros ?
[15:46] <ionelmc> how can i remove something that i uploaded with dput ?
[15:47] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: upload a newer version to the PPA, it'll overwrite
[15:48] <TheLordOfTime> or rather, replace. (and by newer version, even if you just bump up the package revision number and not the software version number that should work, but it depends partly on your versioning schema on whether it works or not)
[15:48] <ionelmc> what if i want to have multiple versions uploaded ?
[15:48] <TheLordOfTime> (versioning schema = 1.2.3-1 for example)
[15:48] <TheLordOfTime> define "multiple versions"
[15:49] <ionelmc> i want to have 1.1 and 1.2 in my ppa
[15:49] <ionelmc> but you said 1.2 will override the prev releease
[15:49] <TheLordOfTime> upload different source package names, program1.1 and program1.2 for example
[15:50] <ionelmc> is this a limitation of the ppa ?
[15:51] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: that's a limitation of debian repositories in general, isn't it, you can't upload two source packages with the same name but different versions to the same release target?
[15:51] <TheLordOfTime> (since you obviously know the system better than me :P)
[15:51] <ionelmc> cause i remember mongodb having available multiple versions in the same repo
[15:52] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: i think they did that by having separate package names for the differing versions, but that's something cjwatson would be more familiar with
[15:52] <ionelmc> you could install the latest or prev release if you specify "=2.2" or something like that
[15:52] <TheLordOfTime> i very rarely upload two versions of the same software to one PPA
[15:52] <ionelmc> eg, i had done "apt-get install mongodb-10gen=2.2.4"
[15:53] <ionelmc> that means they had multiple versions available in the repo for the same distro
[15:53] <ionelmc> that wasn't a ppa, that's why i asked if it's a ppa limitation
[15:53] <TheLordOfTime> that doesn't mean they had them both simultaneously available as separate distinct packages, that just means that 2.3.2 was uploaded to the repo for that release after 2.2.4 and was available
[15:54] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: i'm unfamiliar with howt he PPA systems are actually set up, but in theory you can upload 1.1
[15:54] <ionelmc> isn't it the same with ppas then ?
[15:54] <TheLordOfTime> and then 1.2 (which will supersede the 1.1. version by default)
[15:54] <TheLordOfTime> and then people would have to specifically specify package=1.1 when they do apt-get install
[15:54] <TheLordOfTime> but if you want them to eliminate that step i think you'd have to create separate source packages with a different name, like if the software is foo
[15:54] <TheLordOfTime> foo = 1.1, and foo1.2 = 1.2
[15:55] <TheLordOfTime> but again, cjwatson would know more
[15:55] <ionelmc> ok, so only minor releases are kept ... maintenance releases are not ?
[15:55] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: i can't answer that, so you'll need to be patient and wait for someone more familiar with the system to answer
[15:55] <TheLordOfTime> they'd be able to answer better than I
[16:11] <ionelmc> cjwatson: still around?
[16:12] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: he's in a couple channels i think, doing a few things at once...
[16:13] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: The repository format permits multiple packages with the same name but different versions, but since they're mostly pointless (apt will only select the newest), they generally only exist transiently
[16:13] <cjwatson> If you want to publish multiple versions in parallel you should use different package names
[16:13] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: i.e. what i recommended, right?
[16:13] <cjwatson> ionelmc: It's not an error from dput because dput just dumps things into a queue and doesn't know that there's going to be an error later
[16:13] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: yes
[16:14] <cjwatson> ionelmc: minor vs. maintenance is a policy question that's up to the packager
[16:14] <cjwatson> ionelmc: For most packages it's entirely pointless (in fact, a negative) to have more than one version published in parallel for a single series - it increases your support burden
[16:14] <cjwatson> So you have to take a positive step to offer multiple versions at once, i.e. rename the package
[16:15] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: Actually not quite what you recommended - Launchpad will supersede the old version unless you rename it, there isn't a "by default" here because that implies the ability to override the default
[16:16] <cjwatson> And yes, this is a policy decision in Launchpad; other Debian-format repositories might choose to keep multiple versions
[16:17] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: well, the general concept then, my initial suggestion was to have two source packages with different names, i.e. foo1 and foo2 for version1 and version2 or something
[16:18] <TheLordOfTime> that was the "basic concept" i menat
[16:18] <TheLordOfTime> meant*
[16:18] <TheLordOfTime> ... grrrr FTBFS is evil *shifts attention*
[16:18] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: Sure
[16:39] <ionelmc> cjwatson: is there a way to have package "variants" in a ppa ?; eg: i want to upload a patched version of python but there are 3 variants of patches
[16:39] <ionelmc> maybe it's just better to have 3 ppa instead
[16:40] <saiarcot895> ionelmc: you would either need 3 PPAs or 3 source packages
[16:40] <cjwatson> (a) such things are generally a terrible idea :-) (b) not really PPA-specific; either prepare suitable source packages or use multiple archives
[16:40] <TheLordOfTime> s/3 source packages/3 separate source packages/
[16:40] <TheLordOfTime> (just in case they didn't catch that)
[16:40] <TheLordOfTime> s/catch/assume/
[16:40] <cjwatson> or one source package with multiple build passes with different patches applied, although that gets pretty cumbersome
[16:41] <TheLordOfTime> mhm
[16:41] <cjwatson> (and is probably a nightmare for python given how low down the dependency stack it is)
[16:41] <ionelmc> ok nevermind, i go with only 1 patch :)
[16:42] <ionelmc> if i upload a custom build of python in a ppa i don't need to fiddle with the version right?
[16:42] <ionelmc> god damn it, /boot is full again
[16:44] <saiarcot895> ionelmc: you may need to, to make sure your version doesn't conflict with a published version and that your version is installed
[16:45] <cjwatson> Clashing versions with the primary archive you're based on is a really bad idea.  Versions are cheap, use a new one
[16:47] <cjwatson> I think LP will reject attempts to do that though I haven't yet found it in the source
[16:48] <ionelmc> cjwatson: ok, so if the version from ubuntu's repo is "2.7.3-0ubuntu3.4" should i name it something like "2.7.3-mypatch1"
[16:48] <ionelmc> what's the "0" in "2.7.3-0ubuntu3.4" for ?
[16:49] <ionelmc> first message is a question, if forgot the question mark
[16:50] <cjwatson> ionelmc: We recommend you follow https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/BuildingASourcePackage#versioning
[16:50] <cjwatson> And see the Debian Policy Manual for general questions about versions
[16:51] <cjwatson> You should certainly not delete the "0ubuntu3.4" part
[16:52] <ionelmc> allright, thanks
[16:54] <ionelmc> "NOTICE: 'python2.7' packaging is maintained in the 'Bzr' version control system" i should not care about this right?
[16:56] <ionelmc> there was a way to quickly add an entry to the changelog - can anyone help me with a link ?
[16:57] <tsimpson> use debchange or dch from the decscripts package
[17:01] <cjwatson> You don't need to care about the version control system containing the Ubuntu package if you aren't attempting to contribute your changes to Ubuntu
[17:03] <ionelmc> how do i make dch use my email ?
[17:04] <cjwatson> export DEBEMAIL=whatever@example.org
[17:04] <ionelmc> and the name?
[17:04] <cjwatson> man dch
[17:05] <cjwatson> it documents all this
[17:05] <ionelmc> i was looking for some configuration file, like in git
[17:05] <ionelmc> all so confusing :)
[17:05] <cjwatson> I'm telling you what exists ...
[17:10] <ionelmc> cjwatson: is there a way to make dch append a message in the changelog without opening the editor
[17:10] <ionelmc> i've looked in the man, did not notice an option for that
[17:10] <TheLordOfTime> why would you not want to edit the changelog and specify your changes, which is why the changelog exists?
[17:11] <cjwatson> ionelmc: "If the text of the change is given on the command line, debchange will run in batch mode and simply add the text, with line breaks as necessary, at the appropriate place in debian/changelog (or the changelog specified by options, as described below)."
[17:11] <cjwatson> first paragraph of the DESCRIPTION section
[17:12] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: it's sometimes convenient to do it from a script
[17:12] <ionelmc> oh damn, it was too obvious, that's why i didn't see it
[17:12] <ionelmc> :)
[17:17] <ionelmc> cjwatson: can i make building run sooner ? it say 1h
[17:18] <ionelmc> what does the build score mean ? it's some sort of priority ?
[17:18] <cjwatson> Yes
[17:19] <cjwatson> There's a "What's this" link right next to the score that explains it, even
[17:21] <cjwatson> I've moved a couple of builders around to level out the queues a little, but it's a shared system
[17:22] <ionelmc> nice, now it say 46minutes
[17:25]  * cjwatson recovers a few disabled builders too
[17:28] <cjwatson> Hmm, or not, I suspect those need more empowered intervention
[17:29]  * cjwatson -> dinner
[17:30] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: true.
[18:12] <esing> hi, I want to report a bug for ubuntu on launchpad, but I get this bug message when trying to report the bug  "Invalid OpenID transaction"
[18:16] <dobey> esing: clear your cookies/cache for launchpad and retry
[18:19] <esing> dobey, Clearing cache/cookies, restarting firefox doesn't help. With chromium it works though
[19:36] <esing> How do I report a bug on launchpad? I logged in and clicked on "report a bug" but Iam always forwarded to the FAQ
[19:44] <dobey> esing: you have to report a bug against the source package for the thing you're wanting to report a bug about. easiest way is to just run "ubuntu-bug $packagename" on your computer
[19:45] <dobey> esing: it will collect any extra info relevant to the package, and open a browser window for you to report the bug, and will attach the extra info automatically
[20:19] <ionelmc> what's an easy way to upload a package to my ppa for a different distro than i have installed ? (it's still ubuntu, i have precise installed)
[20:20] <ionelmc> like a way to do `apt-get source pkg` but get it from other distro
[20:20] <ionelmc> and then upload to my ppa
[20:30] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: create another version of the package, same source package name, but with a version that is specific to that ubuntu release?  Such as, for example, 1.2.3-3-ubuntu12.04 (for precise), and in the debian/changelog just specify "precise" instead of the other version of ubuntu?
[20:37] <ionelmc> TheLordOfTime: yeah but i want to pull the sources from, say, saucy while i work on precise
[20:37] <ionelmc> cause saucy might have totally different versions or source
[20:38] <ionelmc> is there a way to do that?
[20:40] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: perhaps i sohuld ask exactly what you're trying to do.  Assuming for a minute you are talking about some example package, say, foobarbaz, are you trying to download the source for foobarbaz in Saucy so that you can tweak it on Precise, then upload it to a PPA for Saucy or something?
[20:40] <TheLordOfTime> upload it back to a PPA*
[20:40] <TheLordOfTime> (for clarification)
[20:42] <ionelmc> TheLordOfTime: i have this patch that i want to apply for every version of python in every ubuntu release
[20:43] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: "for every version of python"
[20:43] <TheLordOfTime> there's python2 and python3 in the repos ;)
[20:43] <ionelmc> i mean i could make a vm for every ubuntu release, but it just a pain in the ass having to setup everything 4x times
[20:43] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: that's not what i was saying
[20:44] <TheLordOfTime> i was going to say that if you know the name of the source package you can get the .dsc files from Launchpad, and then dget -u the URL for the dsc
[20:44] <TheLordOfTime> and then download that source package for a given release
[20:44] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: what's the actual source package name, though, since there's a couple python source packages in the repos :p
[20:45] <ionelmc> and then i can just debuild+dput after patch right ?
[20:45] <ionelmc> pythonX.x-minimal
[20:45] <TheLordOfTime> that wasn't my question
[20:45] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: what is the "source package" not the binary package
[20:45] <ionelmc> and -dev
[20:45] <TheLordOfTime> for example, python2.7 is the source package for python2.7-minimal and python2.7-dev
[20:46] <ionelmc> aaah
[20:46] <TheLordOfTime> as well as libpython2.7-*
[20:46] <ionelmc> right
[20:46] <TheLordOfTime> so i ask again, what's the source package, not the built binaries
[20:47] <ionelmc> python2.7 and 3.3 or whatever is the 3.x
[20:47] <ionelmc> the thing is, the changelog from python2.7's source has only precise/unstable tags
[20:48] <TheLordOfTime> well i just told you what python2.7 was.  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python2.7 is the list of the source packages in each release.
[20:48] <ionelmc> so it must mean that in other distros there is a **different** source package
[20:48] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: i think you need to research debian packaging a little more, no offense, because each release has its own section in the repositories
[20:48] <TheLordOfTime> that's why different releases can have different versions of the same source package
[20:49] <TheLordOfTime> anyways, if you know the source package, you can look at the list of the packages of that source package in each release, and there's dropdown arrows next to there to get more details
[20:49] <TheLordOfTime> and a link to the .dsc
[20:49] <TheLordOfTime> use whichever one has the latest version tag and is *not* in proposed
[20:49] <ionelmc> ok
[20:49] <TheLordOfTime> so for example
[20:49] <ionelmc> i'm more newbie than you think
[20:49] <ionelmc> i don't even know what the .dsc is for :)
[20:49] <TheLordOfTime> to get 2.7.3-5ubuntu4.3 for Quantal, open the terminal.
[20:49] <TheLordOfTime> make a directory to store them in, somewhere.
[20:50] <TheLordOfTime> go to that directory (cd dirname    replace dirname with the actual directory name)
[20:50] <TheLordOfTime> then do this, assuming you've got dget (it's not default): dget -u https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/primary/+files/python2.7_2.7.3-5ubuntu4.3.dsc
[20:50] <TheLordOfTime> assuming you installed the packaging tools it should be in there
[20:52] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: for very good reasons, though, i'm going to ask what exactly this patch is for and why you need to apply it to *every* version of python..
[20:52] <TheLordOfTime> because python2 != python3 and such
[20:53] <TheLordOfTime> (and patches for one might not work on the other)
[21:23] <ionelmc> TheLordOfTime: allright, thanks
[21:23] <ionelmc> TheLordOfTime: these are the patches https://github.com/wyplay/pytracemalloc/
[21:24] <ionelmc> i just want to have a ppa for that, it's a hassle to apply it every time you need to trace memory usage
[21:25] <ionelmc> now before you wonder why i would use such a nasty way of tracing memory usage, it's the best - very reliable (tracks freelists) and fast-ish compared to everything else
[21:26] <TheLordOfTime> wasn't wondering that at all, was just wondering what you were doing messing with the python packages :)
[21:26] <TheLordOfTime> 'tis all
[21:31] <esing> Thanks dobey, that worked
[22:21] <ionelmc> TheLordOfTime: still there?
[22:21] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: eating pizza, sup
[22:22] <ionelmc> i got "PPA uploads must be for the RELEASE pocket. This upload queue does not permit SECURITY uploads."
[22:22] <ionelmc> i pulled the .dsc from the security section
[22:22] <ionelmc> was that a bad idea
[22:22] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: replace precise-security or whatever it is with just precise
[22:22] <ionelmc> what's the difference?
[22:23] <TheLordOfTime> just how the actual repository prioritizes them.  just remove the -security or -updates part wwhen you make a new changelog entry before dput-ing into your ppa
[22:23] <TheLordOfTime> prioritizes and handles them*
[22:25] <ionelmc> aah ok
[22:25] <ionelmc> TheLordOfTime: but the .dsc i want is from the precise-security, cause it is newer than precise right?
[22:26] <TheLordOfTime> ionelmc: correct, you want the newest (latest) version of the package as exists in the repositories, that would either be in precise-updates or precise-security, but ultimately the new changelog entry (for PPA uploads) is only going to be the release, not release-security (where RELEASE = precise, quantal, etc.)
[22:30] <ionelmc> allright
[22:30] <ionelmc> thank you
[22:36] <cjwatson> ionelmc: the much easier answer to your question about downloading a source package from a different series is: pull-lp-source
[22:36] <cjwatson> (read its man page)
[22:39] <ionelmc> cjwatson: but that's not available in precise right?
[22:39] <ionelmc> 13.10 ?
[22:40] <ionelmc> i hacked some shell scripts together (with dget as TheLordOfTime told me) to do it if you wanna critique: https://gist.github.com/ionelmc/7109195
[22:41] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: didn't know about that one, available in 12.04?
[22:41]  * TheLordOfTime is used to the old dget method :p
[22:41] <ionelmc> i have to keep that list of dsc files uptodate sadly
[22:42] <ionelmc> damn, it's available in precise
[22:42] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime,ionelmc: dates back to intrepid
[22:42] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: didn't know, thanks.
[22:42] <cjwatson> i.e. all currently supported releases have it
[22:44] <TheLordOfTime> (yep)
[22:50] <ionelmc> cjwatson: thanks
[22:51] <ionelmc> looks much better now https://gist.github.com/ionelmc/7109195
[22:51] <ionelmc> how do people usually maintain ppas with patched packages ?
[22:51] <TheLordOfTime> recipes, or the old fashioned, do everything by hand way
[22:52] <TheLordOfTime> (i prefer the hands on, do it myself way, because then I can testbuild with sbuild locally)
[22:52] <TheLordOfTime> (before pushing to the PPAs)
[22:52] <cjwatson> I'm certainly not the person to ask, I get my patches into Ubuntu ;-)
[22:52] <TheLordOfTime> ^ that
[22:52] <TheLordOfTime> i usually don't author patches myself, I just cherry-pick em from upstream...
[22:53] <TheLordOfTime> unless you count the patch which radically redesigned how php5-fpm works for everyone and has screwed over many a new server admin
[22:53] <TheLordOfTime> :P
[22:53] <TheLordOfTime> (or rather, the patch which changed where php5-fpm listens :P)