[08:35] <jfi> Any way to ask to extend today quota for recipe build? I am trying to debug errors and have exceeded the quota:(
[08:45] <czajkowski> jfi: ask a question on lp or ping wgrant nicely
[08:45] <cjwatson> There's no way, it's hardcoded
[08:46] <jfi> cjwatson, ha ok, so will wait tomorrow to fix my issues, thx for the info
[13:02] <dobey> jfi: don't use recipe builds to debug problems. do the debugging locally with bzr dailydeb, sbuild, etc…
[13:11] <jfi> dobey, the issue is about the build of the recipe itself
[13:11] <dobey> jfi: bzr dailydeb is for building recipes
[13:13] <jfi> Oo did not know that I can do that part locally (https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/SourceBuilds/BzrBuilder)
[13:13] <jfi> sorry for that
[13:54] <patdk-wk> buildlogs missing?
[13:54] <patdk-wk> https://launchpad.net/~patrickdk/+archive/general-lucid/+build/5901781
[13:55] <cjwatson> happens if the builder guest crashes hard enough
[13:55] <patdk-wk> ya, it was a striaght rebuild, didn't expect it to have any issues
[13:55] <cjwatson> hit retry and watch the logtail as it goes past?
[13:57] <patdk-wk> had one last night, I think crashed
[13:57] <patdk-wk> it ws building, but wasn't doing a logtail
[13:58] <patdk-wk> then after 15min or so, it was being build by a different builder
[14:20] <diwic> Hi, I get timeout errors when trying to create a recipe
[14:21] <patdk-wk> use less yeast
[14:22] <diwic> ha ha
[14:23] <diwic> any ideas on how to create a launchapad code recipe?
[14:28] <dobey> diwic: carefully
[14:28] <dobey> diwic: timeout errors happen occasionally, if you hit them, you just have to be patient and try again
[14:29] <diwic> dobey, any recommended time to wait between "reload page" hits?
[14:29] <diwic> dobey, I think I've tried 10 - 15 times now
[14:30] <dobey> no
[14:30] <dobey> do you have aa lot of recipes set up already?
[14:31] <diwic> dobey, hmm, not for ~diwic, I have a few for ~ubuntu-audio-dev
[14:31] <dobey> not sure then
[14:31] <dobey> i've gotten plenty of timeouts as well, but things eventually load after a while
[14:33] <diwic> I guess I could try again tomorrow...
[14:33] <diwic> maybe there is less work going on on Saturdays
[14:34] <dobey> i'm not sure that's why you're getting a timeout
[14:44] <diwic> \o/ it went trhough now
[14:45] <diwic> maybe it's clicking a few times in a row that did it, then it was hot in cache or something
[14:49] <patdk-wk> heh, rebuild was perfect, dunno what happened, builder crashed :)
[14:50] <dobey> patdk-wk: if there was no log, then yes, it failed before it could create a chroot
[14:50] <patdk-wk> chroot? says it's using qemu
[14:50] <dobey> yes
[14:51] <dobey> one is not exclusive of the other
[15:13] <cjwatson> dobey: no, it's also possible for that to mean it crashed later - the full buildlog is only retrieved at the end of the build
[15:13] <cjwatson> LP doesn't keep hold of the logtail snippets it fetches during a build
[15:14] <dobey> oh
[15:14] <cjwatson> and qemu is only actually used on architectures other than x86, so not this build
[15:15] <dobey> indeed (i didn't look at the arch, just stating that even when qemu is used it's still building in a chroot)
[15:16] <patdk-wk> odd, it said building using qemu
[15:16] <patdk-wk> on the i386 build
[15:17] <patdk-wk> same deal on the x64 build
[15:32] <diwic> gaah, now it time outs when I try to edit the recipe :-(
[15:33] <diwic> hmm, but the edit seems to have succeeded anyway
[15:55] <cjwatson> patdk-wk: that's just the fixed builder title
[15:55] <cjwatson> patdk-wk: it doesn't actually signify anything about the build, apologies for the confusion
[15:55] <patdk-wk> ah, ok
[16:11] <n00bnoxious> Hey folks. I've been putting together a PPA with the intention of supporting Precise and Saucy... The control file definitely works locally for both and x86 and x64 in pbuilder, but I notice that it's only building the Saucy version, even though the changelog has 2 entries, one for Precise and one for Saucy. I assume I'm missing a pretty basic fact, and any advice is appreciated!
[16:12] <n00bnoxious> Oh btw pbuilder will build for precise OR saucy fine
[16:12] <n00bnoxious> And both arches, but on Launchpad it isn't building for Precise...
[16:25] <n00bnoxious> Anybody?
[16:26] <n00bnoxious> The long story short of my question is: Does Launchpad only build the very top revision in the changelog?
[16:26] <dobey> any debian build system does, yes
[16:27] <dobey> pbuilder isn't building the older changelog entry
[16:27] <dobey> with pbuilder you are explicitly stating what to build on in the command line
[16:27] <n00bnoxious> Ah I see
[16:28] <n00bnoxious> So I have to upload two separate revisions with the same content, but different versions in the changelog?
[16:28] <n00bnoxious> *different releases
[16:28] <dobey> ideally, yes. you'd have 1.0-0ubunt1~ppa1~precise1, and 1.0-0ubuntu1~ppa1~saucy1 for example
[16:28] <n00bnoxious> Ah ok I see :) Thank you for your help dobey :D
[16:30] <n00bnoxious> And one last thing: I understand it doesn't accept binary uploads, but I also checked an older repository I had (a few days old) and it still said no packages had been uploaded even though the builds succeeded. Do I have to do anything after uploading the changes?
[16:32] <dobey> no, you can't upload binaries
[16:32] <dobey> no, if the source succeeds the binaries will be published automatically
[16:33] <n00bnoxious> Is there some kind of waiting period until it publishes them?
[16:34] <n00bnoxious> Ah ignore me
[16:34] <n00bnoxious> It's all good I just saw packages come up now :D
[16:35] <n00bnoxious> Thank you very much for your help!
[18:12] <spayno> i'm just learning about launchpad now (though linaro).  Alot of the web pages haven't been updated since 2011 or 2012 (e.g. the most Recent Launchpad blog post is Nov 2012).  Was there an exodus in 2012?
[18:12] <dobey> no
[18:13] <beuno> spayno, I think it's mostly that the tool got good enough for Ubuntu, so a lot of developers were re-assigned
[18:13] <spayno> bueno: thanks for the context/thoughts
[18:18] <cjwatson> That said, there's still development; see https://code.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/devel
[18:18] <dobey> yeah, "last blog post" is a horrible metric for whether a piece of software is actively used/developed
[18:19] <cjwatson> For some reason the front page is behind on the blog
[18:19] <cjwatson> http://blog.launchpad.net/
[18:19] <spayno> i do know it's being used, and I'm happy to hear it is
[18:20] <spayno> (more than it might appear from where I landed first)
[18:22] <spayno> I do have a bonafide linaro question.  If you look at a build, can you find the configuration and scripts used to do the build (eg like in Jenkins?).  Specifically I'm looking at the following build and I want to know how they did it: https://launchpad.net/~linaro-maintainers/+archive/staging-overlay/+build/5617474
[18:23] <spayno> the build log gives me some hints, but I"m wondering if there is a real config file somewhere
[18:23] <dobey> the source package is the "configuration"
[18:23] <cjwatson> Yes, follow the link under Archive, then "View package details", then expand the relevant entry and you can grab the source package from there
[18:24] <cjwatson> The entry points to the build system are in debian/rules
[18:24] <cjwatson> Oh and you can unpack the source package (.dsc plus whatever it refers to, usually .diff.gz / .debian.tar.gz plus .orig.tar.gz, or similar) using dpkg-source -x
[18:29] <spayno> cjwatson: trying your first way I picked a package, then expanded it.... now I'm not sure where to find the configuration
[18:30] <cjwatson> I only gave one way :)
[18:31] <cjwatson> so, expand acpi-abat, dget -x https://launchpad.net/~linaro-maintainers/+archive/staging-overlay/+files/acpi-abat_0.2-0linaro1.dsc, look in acpi-abat-0.2/debian/rules
[18:32] <cjwatson> (possibly dget -u if you aren't likely to have the relevant key available)
[18:37] <spayno> cjwatson: dget-u worked great thanks.
[18:41] <spayno> if I want to create a test/play project, should I just create one on qastaging.launchpad.net?
[18:42] <cjwatson> You can do that, yeah
[18:42] <dobey> or just staging.launchpad.net (i'm not sure what the difference between those two is exactly)
[18:42] <cjwatson> I can never remember the precise details, but I'd probably use staging, I think it's overwritten slightly less often
[18:46] <spayno> cjwatson: I'm now reading your blog post btw about your arm build farm
[18:47] <spayno> cjwatson: do you an linaro share ARM build infrastructure or do they have their own hardware?
[18:54] <cjwatson> spayno: I believe they have their own hardware, but they do run some ARM builds on Launchpad.  I don't know the details of how Linaro builds things.
[20:28] <bekks> Hi! What could be wrong when I dont see a bug in "Affecting bugs" after just clicking "This bug affects me" in a bug?
[22:13] <RFleming> Greetings.  I was redirected here to ask about an abandoned account