wgranthelmut: Thanks for poking us about that. Do you have a timeline for those packages starting to land in sid?00:24
DalekSec(Instrusted to try asking here.) So why is it when I use bzr lp-propose (with or without target branch), it seemingly randomly targets whatever it wants, not what I specify?  Most recently, I targetted nothing and it errord out, I targetted branch/utopic and it tried to submit to branch/trusty.03:55
wgrantDalekSec: How are you invoking it?04:01
DalekSecbzr lp-propose  or  bzr lp-propose lp:~xubuntu-dev/ubuntu-seeds/xubuntu.utopic   or   bzr lp-propose bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/xubuntu-dev/ubuntu-seeds/xubuntu.utopic/04:08
DalekSecAlso tried putting in some "saved" location in .bzr/branch/branch.conf04:12
wgrantDalekSec: It's working fine for me. Which version of bzr are you using?04:15
wgrantubuntu-seeds has no development focus, so there will be no default.04:16
DalekSecInstalled: 2.6.0+bzr6593-1ubuntu1.104:16
DalekSecIt'd be a great tool, but it works about 30% of the time.:/04:17
DalekSecBut yeah, happens on many different repos, that's just the latest. :/04:21
wgrantDalekSec: It's a bug in bzr. It tries to turn the given submit branch URL into a Launchpad API URL using lp_api.LaunchpadBranch.from_bzr, which calls candidate_urls, which looks up the branch's parent branch.04:26
wgrantI'm not sure why it doesn't use bzr_branch.base04:27
wgrantBut I'd be filing a bug against bzr.04:27
DalekSecI would if I knew what was going on more than bzr being bzr..  I'll use that info and see if I can find any reported bug.04:29
DalekSecHrm, perhaps 1078211.04:34
wgrantYup, that looks like it.04:35
DalekSecwgrant: As always, thanks for your help.  Do you ever stop looking here? :P04:36
wgrantSometimes for almost eight hours a day!04:36
DalekSecWelp, have a good night.04:37
helmutwgrant: we are in the process of updating the tools and updating the infrastructure. the next steps (hopefully) are uploading to wheezy-backports, updating ftp-master's installation and then uploading to experimental. I think sid should be safe for a month at least.04:47
wgranthelmut: Thanks. experimental's interesting for us too. I can easily formulate some example packages to test, but are there some existing samples?04:48
helmutwgrant: there are quite a few patches in the debian bts. most of them are in bug reports blocked by #74424604:49
helmut(that's a debian number)04:49
wgranthelmut: Thanks.04:50
helmutwgrant: one thing I'd like to see become common is Build-Depends: myownbinarypackage <profile.cross>04:50
helmutwgrant: that's a good test-case, because it uses a profile in a positive way, so you need to ignore this build-dependency unless the cross profile is activated.04:51
helmutwgrant: cjwatson pointed out to me that lp:launchpad-buildd and sbuild likely need changes. I didn't check the former, but patches for the latter can be found at http://bugs.debian.org/73179804:54
ubot5Debian bug 731798 in sbuild "sbuild: please add build profile support" [Normal,Open]04:54
helmutsince debian traditionally uses a different sbuild package from the one in sid, this bug may stay open even after using build profiles.04:55
wgranthelmut: Our sbuild is currently a fork of DSA sbuild from ~2004, so sadly the patches won't be terribly useful. Until we upgrade to something more modern, I intend to do the minimum and just drop any dep that is restricted and doesn't have at least one negative term.04:55
wgrantThat is the minimum, isn't it?04:56
helmutyes, that is perfectly ok and is what we are proposing the the wheezy-backports, see https://lists.debian.org/deity/2014/04/msg00142.html04:56
helmutthere you can see example patches for dpkg and apt that support just the syntax without actually supporting profiles04:57
helmutand there is not much more to do anyway unless you actually want to use build profiles.04:58
helmutso just supporting the syntax may get you a long way.04:58
helmutthe main use case currently is for cross-compilation and bootstrapping, where knowing what dependencies can be dropped in staged builds is cruicial.04:59
wgrantYeah, exactly. We don't do early bootstrapping directly in Launchpad. We use a modern distro sbuild for that.05:00
helmutif you have any other questions at a later time or need patch review, just ask. you'll reach those driving build profiles in oftc #debian-bootstrap05:02
helmutshould I stumble accross more infrastructure pieces in Debian that likely have a match in launchpad, I shall notify you.05:02
wgranthelmut: Great. IRC or wgrant@ubuntu.com works, but I can't think of much else. I'll test it all out next week.05:04
helmutI see that launchpad will be faster in supporting build profiles than Debian will be.05:05
wgrantI'm hoping to avoid the unpleasantness back in 2010 of having to quickly implement 3.0 (quilt) just after it started landing it sid.05:07
helmutI guess that is why vorlon asked me to poke you.05:08
helmutwgrant: my plan is to use doxygen as a test package in experimental first and only if nothing breaks upload to sid.05:09
wgrantSounds good.05:10
wgrantI hate the mess of loops around doxygen :)05:10
helmutin what ways did it cause grief to you?05:10
wgrantOh, just the doxygen -> graphviz -> THE ENTIRE WORLD dep chain makes arch bootstraps annoying.05:11
helmutthe profile stuff will not get around that issue05:11
helmutit only removes the qt dependency05:12
helmuton the bright side, bootstrapping is already in way better shape than it was recently (at least in sid) due to the amount of patches applied.05:14
helmutmy personal interest resides mostly in https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/rebootstrap </advertisement>05:15
=== miika_ is now known as miika
=== ersi_ is now known as ersi
=== chandan_kumar is now known as chandankumar
=== czchen_ is now known as czchen

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!