[11:54] <io2> sorry to disturb, but after changing my email (and confirming it), I can no longer log into launchpad / ubuntu one. Anybody around to help?
[11:57] <io2> weird, old email address works
[11:59] <io2> oh, how stupid of me, forgot totally about the ubuntu one separate id confirmation :)
[11:59] <io2> solved!
[14:31] <__marco> hello, I added a new email to my launchpad account but every time I send an email from that address I get an error: the command is not signed with an openpgp key
[14:31] <__marco> before I did not need to sign the message
[14:32] <__marco> why I get that error?
[14:32] <geser> are you trying to manipulate bugs through the email interface or only add comments?
[14:33] <__marco> I am trying to manipulate bugs
[14:38] <geser> then you need to sign the message and AFAIK it was always so
[14:47] <__marco> geser: Launchpad verifies incoming email by looking for a GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) signature by the sender, or a DKIM signature by a trusted sender domain, such as GMail
[14:47] <__marco> geser: this is what exactly happened
[14:48] <__marco> I switched from a gmail account
[19:48] <teward> are PPAs i386/amd64 only, or has that changed?
[20:02] <cjwatson> teward: by default; other architectures can be supported via emulation to some extent, but only on request
[20:02] <cjwatson> (since lots of stuff fails that way and it's not worth the resources or confusion when it isn't actually needed)
[20:02] <teward> cjwatson: typically it's just i386/amd64 though?
[20:02] <cjwatson> most PPAs just have the default setup, yes
[20:03] <teward> cjwatson: and I assume the other architectures being requested are looked at on a case by case basis?
[20:03] <cjwatson> yes
[20:03] <teward> (i.e. not always approved)
[20:03] <cjwatson> it would depend on things like load yes
[20:03] <cjwatson> our capacity has improved recently
[20:04] <cjwatson> it won't really be ideal until we have native virtualisation for the non-x86 architectures though
[20:04] <teward> right
[20:33] <teward> cjwatson: i'm maybe blind here, but you or someon on the LP team with regard to PPAs is better qualified to answer - http://askubuntu.com/questions/533789/repackaging-deb-with-an-alternate-target - looks like they want to use a PPA for something, but IDK whether PPA(s) are capable of that
[20:33] <teward> (sorry for a 30 minute lagtime between pings)
[20:35] <cjwatson> teward: ok your response is way off base I'm afraid
[20:35] <cjwatson> I'll answer
[20:35] <teward> cjwatson: i deleted it
[20:35] <teward> cjwatson: i misunderstood their question :0
[20:35] <teward> cjwatson: hence the ping
[20:35] <teward> :)
[20:37] <dobey> huh
[20:37] <teward> cjwatson: to that end, I"m not sure they were precise enough with what they were trying to do, in their initial question.
[20:37] <teward> (hence confusion)
[20:38] <dobey> doesn't matter because it's not doable (and really, shouldn't be done)
[20:38] <cjwatson> Nonsense
[20:38] <dobey> you can upload binary packages to a PPA?
[20:38] <teward> oop i started an argument, i think i'll just go back to beating the nginx packages with a stick :)
[20:38] <cjwatson> Perfectly doable, it's just a cross-compiler
[20:38] <cjwatson> That's not what's being requested!
[20:39] <dobey> oh, well now it's more clear after the dits
[20:39] <dobey> edits
[20:40] <dobey> it just said "additional builds of binutils for other architectures" before
[20:41]  * dobey goes back to bashing his brains against online-accounts code
[20:41] <cjwatson> I posted an answer
[20:43] <teward> dobey: that's what confused me, initially
[20:43] <teward> dobey: it DOES help when people actually say what they mean, rather than be ambiguous :)
[20:44] <dobey> yeah, my first reading made me think he wanted to repack x86-64 builds as ia64 binaries
[20:45] <teward> dobey: that's what i had thought as well