[02:22] <ypwong> Does launchpad API support filing bugs?
[02:32] <wgrant> ypwong: The createBug method at https://api.launchpad.net/+apidoc/devel.html#bugs
[02:33] <ypwong> wgrant, nice! thanks.
[02:45] <DalekSec> https://code.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/cherokee/master that was turned off because it had submodules, no I believe it no longer does.
[02:58] <wgrant> DalekSec: There are still submodules in that repository's history, and due to the nature of git we need to be able to replicate the entire history in bzr.
[02:58] <wgrant> So it's still not possible to import it.
[03:12] <Fudge> hi, wanting to be made a manager of our http://launchpad.net/~vinux and looking for a link I can pass on to themuso so it can be done quick :D
[03:13] <wgrant> https://launchpad.net/~vinux/+member/fudge
[03:16] <Fudge> wgrant:  thank you yso kindly
[04:08] <jeblair> wgrant: hi, could you transfer the openstack-ci-admins team owner for us?  https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/241991
[04:08] <jeblair> wgrant: the current owner had his laptop stolen, so we're a little worried about credentials
[04:09] <jeblair> wgrant: thanks
[04:10] <wgrant> jeblair: Oh, I just replied on the ticket asking if Monty could do that.
[04:10] <wgrant> Let me see what I can do.
[04:11] <wgrant> jeblair: He still owns ~openstack-admins, which is surely just as big a problem.
[04:12] <jeblair> wgrant: oh yes that's true.  i missed that.
[04:12] <jeblair> wgrant: does that need a human owner?  or can it be self-owned?
[04:13] <wgrant> It needs a human owner (or at least an owner that it doesn't own), so there's always someone we can blame and/or who can recover everything if the team admins go evil.
[04:13] <jeblair> wgrant: then can we also change that to me (corvus)
[04:14] <jeblair> wgrant: should i add that to the question?
[04:14] <wgrant> Please do, just so we have a paper trail.
[04:15] <wgrant> jeblair: Is there someone else around to confirm these changes, just so I have some reassurance that you aren't someone who has stolen jeblair's laptop and is kicking poor Monty out? :)
[04:16] <StevenK> I can confirm jeblair is on jeblair's laptop, since I pointed him at you in the first place.
[04:16] <StevenK> If that helps.
[04:19] <wgrant> Damn, now StevenK's laptop has been stolen too.
[04:19] <wgrant> OK, will get the changes made
[04:19] <StevenK> Hahaha
[04:20] <wgrant> ~openstack-ci-admins will be owned by ~openstack-admins, and ~openstack-admins by ~corvus
[04:20] <jeblair> wgrant: thanks!
[04:20] <StevenK> wgrant: I did consider cornering a certain ~admins member here at LCA, but decided against it
[04:22] <DarrenS> StevenK: hax
[04:22] <StevenK> DarrenS: Hahaha
[04:23] <DarrenS> all aboard the duckbus
[04:30] <DarrenS> hi that's done
[04:31] <wgrant> jeblair, StevenK ^^
[04:31] <wgrant> Thanks DarrenS
[04:31] <DarrenS> NP vale laptop
[04:31] <wgrant> Heh
[09:08] <czajkowski> aloha
[13:46] <mpt> cprov, hi, you should join #launchpad-dev too :)
[13:47] <cprov> mpt: hi there! done.
[13:53] <czajkowski> mpt: ello
[14:04] <mpt> Hello … czajkowski
[19:40] <dmXE> hi! anybody to help on apparently successful ppa upload followed by nothing?
[19:53] <dobey> dmXE: if you got no e-mail it wasn't successful. you probably either signed it with the wrong gpg key, or don't have your gpg added to your lp account
[19:54] <dmXE> but this was not the first time. I have uploaded successfully many times using the same key
[19:58] <dobey> then you should get an e-mail about the package either being accepted or rejected in the ppa
[19:59] <dmXE> but I did not
[20:03] <dobey> then either the key wasn't validated, the e-mail just hasn't got to you yet because it's being slow for some reason, or you've overlooked it or it's in a spam folder or something
[20:03] <dobey> i don't know of anything else that could be the issue you claim to be seeing
[20:06] <dmXE> the last time i tried was one week ago.
[20:06] <dmXE> thank you anyway
[20:11] <TheLordOfTime> dmXE: you can always try and reupload.
[20:12] <dmXE> I am trying now
[20:15] <TheLordOfTime> dobey: we could always blame cosmic rays for random things like this, if there's no logical explanantion, those cosmic rays always mess with things in weird ways
[20:15] <TheLordOfTime> ;)
[20:28] <cjwatson> dmXE: What's your username?
[20:28] <cjwatson> (on Launchpad)
[20:29] <cjwatson> dmXE: Or the package name you were trying to upload
[20:29] <dmXE> username: dmxe
[20:30] <dmXE> package name: lifeograph
[20:31] <dmXE> ppa:dmxe/ppa
[20:35] <cjwatson> 2014-01-10 20:16:18 INFO    Failed to parse changes file '/srv/launchpad.net/ppa-queue/incoming/upload-ftp-20140110-201612-028225/~dmxe/ppa/ubuntu/lifeograph_1.0.0-1~ppa1~saucy_source.changes': GPG verification of /srv/launchpad.net/ppa-queue/incoming/upload-ftp-201
[20:35] <cjwatson> 40110-201612-028225/~dmxe/ppa/ubuntu/lifeograph_1.0.0-1~ppa1~saucy_source.changes failed: Verification failed 3 times: ["(7, 153, u'Key expired')", "(7, 153, u'Key expired')", "(7, 153, u'Key expired')"]
[20:35] <TheLordOfTime> dmXE: make sure your GPG key isn't "expired", that error there indicates the key had an expiration date and that is now passed
[20:35] <TheLordOfTime> so the key is invalid
[20:35] <TheLordOfTime> (in which case, time to create a new key)
[20:36] <dmXE> my key was going to expire a few months ago but i extended its duration
[20:36] <cjwatson> dmXE: Of your two keys registered in Launchpad, one apparently expired on 2011-08-31, and the other on 2013-11-06
[20:37] <TheLordOfTime> dmXE: if you extended it you then have to upload the changes to the key to the keyservers
[20:37] <cjwatson> dmXE: Did you upload it to keyserver.ubuntu.com with the extended duration before the expiry date?
[20:37] <cjwatson> dmXE: It might not accept it now ...
[20:37] <TheLordOfTime> ^ that
[20:37]  * TheLordOfTime was ninja'd
[20:37] <dmXE> no i didn't upload
[20:37] <cjwatson> dmXE: When I downloaded it from keyserver.ubuntu.com just now, I saw an expiry of 2013-11-06
[20:37] <cjwatson> dmXE: Then Launchpad can't possibly know about the updated expiry
[20:37] <cjwatson> dmXE: I suspect you'll need a new key now
[20:38] <dmXE> ok. thank you very much
[20:38] <dmXE> i will create a new key, import it to launchpad and try again
[20:39] <cjwatson> You can always try uploading the extended-duration key just in case
[20:39] <cjwatson> Although it would seem like a bit of a hole in the expiry system if you could do that
[20:40] <dmXE> is it sufficient to use Sync and publish keys... function of Passwords and Keys program for this purpose?
[20:40] <cjwatson> I don't know, I don't use that
[20:41] <TheLordOfTime> cjwatson: I'd say they should try and push the key anyways, if it accepts it, then security bug against `sks` or whatever the keyserver backend is
[20:41] <TheLordOfTime> because that'd seem like a hugely bad thing
[20:41] <cjwatson> TheLordOfTime: Well, depending on what the stated security model of expiry dates actually is
[20:41] <cjwatson> Which I have not checked
[20:41] <TheLordOfTime> true.
[20:41] <TheLordOfTime> dmXE: that should work, yes.
[20:42] <dmXE> Ok I did that and am reuploading
[20:42] <cjwatson> https://help.launchpad.net/YourAccount/ImportingYourPGPKey does indeed point to "Sync and Publish Keys"
[20:43] <cjwatson> dmXE: ok, that worked as far as it went, but now you have a proper rejection
[20:44] <cjwatson> dmXE: which FWIW can be fixed by building the source package with the -sa option, since this is the first upload of this .orig.tar.gz (apparently)
[20:44] <dmXE> yes. so sync worked it seems
[20:44] <cjwatson> apparently so
[20:44]  * cjwatson -> away
[20:44] <dmXE> othat is great
[20:54] <dmXE> It is accepted now. thank you everybody.
[20:56] <dmXE> just a small question: why doesn't launchpad send an email about the problems such as this one to the user? wouldn't it be helpful?
[20:59] <dobey> becasue it can't validate that you are who you say you are
[21:12] <dmXE> it looks to me like it's worth the risk. but maybe i am wrong. anyway... thank you for your time. bye...
[22:07] <TheLordOfTime> how long does it normally take for the launchpad PPAs to pick up a new upload?
[22:07] <TheLordOfTime> from near instant to 5 minutes or something?
[22:08] <dobey> somewhere between 0 and infinity
[22:18] <wgrant> TheLordOfTime: A minute or two.
[22:18] <TheLordOfTime> dobey: heh
[22:19] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: that's what i thought, thanks.
[22:41] <TheLordOfTime> is there a way to cancel dep-wait'd builds in PPAs?
[22:42] <TheLordOfTime> because I've got some that're depwait'd and they'll FTBFS because of a third-party nginx module and I have to talk to the third-party module devs to see if they can fix it
[22:42] <wgrant> TheLordOfTime: You can retry them manually and then cancel them
[22:42] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: no way to do that en masse or with an API call is there?
[22:43] <TheLordOfTime> i'd rather not have to do it for 6 separate pages :/
[22:43] <wgrant> You could use an API call, but surely it's not that terrible to click through six pages.
[22:44] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: on a netbook it is
[22:45] <TheLordOfTime> small screen, no external mouse, crap touchpad >.>
[22:45] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: meh, i've cancelled them, but that should be an option, IMO, for dep-wait builds, to just force-cancel it without first telling it to retry *shrugs*
[22:47] <KI7MT> Heello all .. I have a bit of a dilemma and not sure what the right what should eb done next. Is this the right place to ask about bzr + launchpad?
[22:48] <wgrant> KI7MT: Sure
[22:48] <KI7MT> Ok .. kinda of a long story.
[22:49] <KI7MT> Last night I pushed an MP (merge proposal) to launchpad for ubuntu-doc, that got merged as was well .. except I'd made a blunder or two and had to fixe it, so I sent aother wiht the fixes.
[22:50] <KI7MT> After send the second one up, which is still awaiting merge, I fixed another bug
[22:51] <KI7MT> and I sent that up, after bzr commit --fixes lp:1234567 -m "Mindor text fix"
[22:51] <KI7MT> I then used bzr bundle > new-bug-fix.txt
[22:52] <KI7MT> And there's the problem, it pulled for whatever reason, parts of my second MP along wiht the minor bug fix, and I dont know whay or how to fix that.
[22:52] <wgrant> Hm, why were you using 'bzr bundle'?
[22:53] <wgrant> You don't need a bundle to use merge proposals.
[22:53] <KI7MT> wgrant, Normally, I would not, but that'w hat the ubuntu-docs directions said to do, as there's only like 6 folks that are commiters.
[22:54] <wgrant> I'd check the history on that wiki page; that instruction is probably more than 5 years old.
[22:54] <wgrant> ubuntu-docs just uses Launchpad merge proposals nowadays, AFAIK.
[22:55] <KI7MT> Here's the link, it's a short page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/SystemDocumentation/Submitting
[22:55] <wgrant> "Another way it to make a merge proposal using Launchpad: "
[22:55] <wgrant> I'd use that method :)
[22:56] <KI7MT> wgrant, Yeah, Im not going to use the bundle again for sure. Quesiton , can I have more that one MP on LP for the same repo?
[22:56] <KI7MT> *more than one .. .
[22:56] <wgrant> KI7MT: You can only have one active MP between any one pair of branches.
[22:57] <wgrant> But that should be fine, since the old is merged now, right?
[22:57] <wgrant> So you can create a new MP, since the old one is no longer active.
[22:57] <KI7MT> Ok, so until they merge my second MP .. I can't send a second. What about working more fixes locally, how does that affect my local version>
[22:58] <KI7MT> sri my KB is seriously not workign well at all here, sri abt the typo's
[22:59] <wgrant> Hm, what are these new fixes?
[22:59] <wgrant> Are they fixes for problems that are blocking the previous merge proposal from being merged?
[23:00] <wgrant> Or are they unrelated fixes?
[23:00] <wgrant> In the latter case, you'd normally create a separate branch for them.
[23:00] <wgrant> And then propose that.
[23:01] <KI7MT> well, the first and second MP's were on the same set of files, the bug fix using bzr bundle, was totally unrelated.
[23:01] <wgrant> Right, totally unrelated usually means it should be a separate branch.
[23:02] <wgrant> No point conflating the two unrelated fixes.
[23:02] <KI7MT> wgrant, Well let me take that back then, the files I was working on / fixing were unrealted, but still part of the ubuntu-docs system docs.
[23:03] <wgrant> Sure
[23:03] <wgrant> But the changes aren't related, apart from being on the same project.
[23:03] <KI7MT> The bug fix was on Synaptic documentation, and the MP's were on the Online Accounts applicaiton.
[23:03] <wgrant> So it's simpler to review them separately.
[23:03] <wgrant> So it should be a separate MP, so a separate branch.
[23:04] <KI7MT> So you suggest, if I have a MP pending, pull the branch again, seperate location, and work fixes that way ?
[23:04] <wgrant> Right. Normally people have one branch per fix.
[23:05] <KI7MT> Oh, ok I didn't know that ..
[23:05] <KI7MT> Ok thank you that clears up the whole, and make it easy really.
[23:05] <wgrant> https://code.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/+branches?field.lifecycle=ALL for example
[23:05] <KI7MT> *whole deal
[23:06] <KI7MT> ok, so for each item,. module, widget, fix, you pull and use a seperate branch.
[23:07] <KI7MT> but then push that fix as an MP
[23:09] <KI7MT> SO one last question, you said I can only have one MP per papair, but I can have many pairs in my local repo ?
[23:09] <KI7MT> *per pair
[23:11] <KI7MT> wgrant, Thank you, I think I got it now.
[23:13] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: to confirm: package-1.2.3-1~precise0.1 > package-1.2.3-1~precise0 in a PPA, right?
[23:13] <TheLordOfTime> i.e. the system won't yell at me for an older version?
[23:13] <TheLordOfTime> s/for/about/
[23:13] <TheLordOfTime> ... nevermind, question answered on my own
[23:13]  * TheLordOfTime facedesks
[23:14] <wgrant> TheLordOfTime: It is
[23:14] <wgrant> You can use dpkg --compare-versions to check
[23:14] <wgrant> $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.2.3-1~precise0.1 gt 1.2.3-1~precise0 && echo yes || echo no
[23:14] <wgrant> yes
[23:14] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: yeah, i had already uploaded it but it was slow to complain is all
[23:14] <TheLordOfTime> s/complain/respond "accepted"/
[23:14]  * TheLordOfTime blames cosmic rays
[23:15] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: similarly, 1.2.3-1 is greater than 1.2.3-1~precise0.1, right?  I remember reading that ~something will basically say "this is before that actual version number"
[23:15] <TheLordOfTime> s/say/be interpreted as/
[23:15] <wgrant> Right, '~' is less than ''
[23:20] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: what's the underlying mechanism to determine that, by the way?
[23:20] <TheLordOfTime> probably not the best thing to be poking around about that, but i'm curious :P
[23:20] <wgrant> TheLordOfTime: I don't understand the question.
[23:20] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: how does the system determine '~' is less than '', and 0.1 is greater than 0 and such?
[23:21]  * TheLordOfTime failed to word the question right at first, and apologizes
[23:22] <wgrant> There is code in dpkg to implement the ordering defined by http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version
[23:23] <TheLordOfTime> "The lexical comparison is a comparison of ASCII values modified so that all the letters sort earlier than all the non-letters and so that a tilde sorts before anything, even the end of a part."
[23:23] <TheLordOfTime> ahh that answers part of that.  :)
[23:23] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: thanks for the link.  :)
[23:27] <wgrant> :)
[23:44] <TheLordOfTime> wgrant: in other news i fixed the FTBFS >.>  i had to disable a module >.>