[00:24] helmut: Thanks for poking us about that. Do you have a timeline for those packages starting to land in sid? [03:55] (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. [04:01] DalekSec: How are you invoking it? [04:08] bzr 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/ [04:12] Also tried putting in some "saved" location in .bzr/branch/branch.conf [04:15] DalekSec: It's working fine for me. Which version of bzr are you using? [04:16] ubuntu-seeds has no development focus, so there will be no default. [04:16] Installed: 2.6.0+bzr6593-1ubuntu1.1 [04:17] It'd be a great tool, but it works about 30% of the time.:/ [04:21] But yeah, happens on many different repos, that's just the latest. :/ [04:26] DalekSec: 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. [04:27] I'm not sure why it doesn't use bzr_branch.base [04:27] But I'd be filing a bug against bzr. [04:29] I 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. [04:34] Hrm, perhaps 1078211. [04:35] Yup, that looks like it. [04:36] wgrant: As always, thanks for your help. Do you ever stop looking here? :P [04:36] Sometimes for almost eight hours a day! [04:36] \o/ [04:37] Welp, have a good night. [04:37] Night. [04:47] wgrant: 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. [04:48] helmut: Thanks. experimental's interesting for us too. I can easily formulate some example packages to test, but are there some existing samples? [04:49] wgrant: there are quite a few patches in the debian bts. most of them are in bug reports blocked by #744246 [04:49] (that's a debian number) [04:50] helmut: Thanks. [04:50] wgrant: one thing I'd like to see become common is Build-Depends: myownbinarypackage [04:51] wgrant: 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. [04:54] wgrant: 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/731798 [04:54] Debian bug 731798 in sbuild "sbuild: please add build profile support" [Normal,Open] [04:55] since debian traditionally uses a different sbuild package from the one in sid, this bug may stay open even after using build profiles. [04:55] helmut: 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. [04:56] That is the minimum, isn't it? [04:56] yes, that is perfectly ok and is what we are proposing the the wheezy-backports, see https://lists.debian.org/deity/2014/04/msg00142.html [04:57] there you can see example patches for dpkg and apt that support just the syntax without actually supporting profiles [04:58] and there is not much more to do anyway unless you actually want to use build profiles. [04:58] so just supporting the syntax may get you a long way. [04:59] the main use case currently is for cross-compilation and bootstrapping, where knowing what dependencies can be dropped in staged builds is cruicial. [05:00] Yeah, exactly. We don't do early bootstrapping directly in Launchpad. We use a modern distro sbuild for that. [05:01] Thanks. [05:02] if 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-bootstrap [05:02] should I stumble accross more infrastructure pieces in Debian that likely have a match in launchpad, I shall notify you. [05:04] helmut: Great. IRC or wgrant@ubuntu.com works, but I can't think of much else. I'll test it all out next week. [05:05] I see that launchpad will be faster in supporting build profiles than Debian will be. [05:07] I'm hoping to avoid the unpleasantness back in 2010 of having to quickly implement 3.0 (quilt) just after it started landing it sid. [05:08] I guess that is why vorlon asked me to poke you. [05:09] wgrant: my plan is to use doxygen as a test package in experimental first and only if nothing breaks upload to sid. [05:10] Sounds good. [05:10] I hate the mess of loops around doxygen :) [05:10] in what ways did it cause grief to you? [05:11] Oh, just the doxygen -> graphviz -> THE ENTIRE WORLD dep chain makes arch bootstraps annoying. [05:11] the profile stuff will not get around that issue [05:12] it only removes the qt dependency [05:12] Ahh [05:14] on 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. [05:15] my personal interest resides mostly in https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/rebootstrap === 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