[06:47] <igalic> hello happy people o/~
[06:48] <igalic> i've been trying to upload a new release, and it's been hanging here for about 15 minutes now: https://gist.github.com/igalic/51382ff0dd7296670fe6
[07:04] <igalic> pretty cool. i've restarted the upload, and now the first file is stalling at 7040k/7490k
[07:04] <igalic> sadness.
[07:28] <wgrant> igalic: Any better now?
[09:32] <igalic> wgrant: checking, but then it's gonna be hard to tell if it's because i've relocated to a different office ;)
[09:32] <igalic> Successfully uploaded packages.
[09:33] <wgrant> igalic: There was an issue with one of our upload servers that we discovered and fixed a few minutes after you asked.
[09:34] <igalic> wgrant: nice! thank you!
[09:40] <igalic> trafficserver_5.2.0-2ah1~trusty1.dsc: Version older than that in the archive. 5.2.0-2ah1~trusty1 <= 5.2.0-rc5-2ah1~trusty1
[09:40] <igalic> duh.
[09:40] <igalic> now i have to delete those...
[09:42] <igalic> is there any commandline utility that lets me verify those versions *before* i punch them into debian/changelog and push them out?
[09:43] <igalic> cuz, i was totes convinced that rc5 < ''
[09:53] <wgrant> igalic: dpkg --compare-versions
[09:54] <igalic> wgrant: in retrospect, that now seems obvious._.
[09:54] <wgrant> igalic: One would generally use 5.2.0~rc5. '~' < ''
[09:54] <igalic> wgrant: ACK.
[09:54] <igalic> thank you!
[09:55] <igalic> hrm.. maybe we should put that in our makefile that way.
[09:55] <wgrant> igalic: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version
[09:56] <igalic> hhaaaahhhahaha
[09:56] <igalic> " The upstream_version may contain only alphanumerics[36] and the characters . + - : ~ (full stop, plus, hyphen, colon, tilde) and should start with a digit. If there is no debian_revision then hyphens are not allowed; if there is no epoch then colons are not allowed."
[09:57] <igalic> very optimistic ;)
[09:57] <igalic> (but works in this case for trafficserver ;)
[10:13] <cjwatson> igalic: It's not really optimism, it's enforced rules.  If your upstream versions don't fit that format then the packager is expected to transform them into that format.
[10:20] <igalic> *nod*
[10:21] <igalic> :(
[10:21] <igalic> so, i just tried patching up our makefile.am, and now git is unhappy :(
[10:21] <igalic> fatal: '5.3.0~rc0' is not a valid tag name.
[10:25] <igalic> oh, great, apparently we dropped 32bit support and i didn't realize it...
[10:26] <cjwatson> debcommit transforms "~" to "." for the purposes of git tags.
[10:30] <igalic> cjwatson: thanks, ammended.
[10:37] <igalic> i wonder, should (can?) i configure the package to not build on 32bit? https://launchpad.net/~apache-helpdesk/+archive/ubuntu/trafficserver-ppa/+packages
[10:37] <igalic> makefile simplified: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TS-3298
[10:38] <cjwatson> igalic: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Architecture
[10:40] <igalic> so, right now it says any, but i'm pretty sure we don't build on sparc, or vax, or anything... other than arm and x86
[10:40] <cjwatson> FWIW I don't think it's at all necessary to change upstream's RC naming; the ~ is quite Debian(family)-specific
[10:40] <cjwatson> You can do it if you like, but you don't need to
[10:40] <cjwatson> It's common enough to just rename for the purpose of packaging
[10:40] <igalic> cjwatson: that's just for our RC process..
[10:41] <igalic> cjwatson: and we do rename ourselves when the rc is final.
[10:41] <igalic> but this would make rcs testable as packages of themselves.
[10:41] <igalic> without much fuzz.
[10:41] <cjwatson> Sure, I'm just saying that you don't need to switch from -rc to ~rc upstream in order to satisfy Debian-format packaging rules
[10:41] <cjwatson> Nothing stopping you if that's your primary target, either
[10:42] <igalic> yeah, it's not....
[10:43] <igalic> cjwatson: added this above convo as comment to the issue.
[14:28] <shadeslayer> wgrant: can I get more space re https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/260611 :3
[14:28] <shadeslayer> apparently firefox is super fat package
[17:32] <Saviq> hey folks, is there a process we would need to follow to get a ppa to build packages for rtm? we'd probably need it to be nonvirt, too, something akin to https://launchpad.net/~unity-team/+archive/ubuntu/phone-right-edge
[17:41] <cjwatson> Saviq: It's not possible through the web UI, but you can create the PPA using the Person.createPPA API call, which takes a distribution parameter.  You'll then need to ask webops to make it non-virtualised and enable armhf, after making sure that the owning team has and will only ever have members who are Canonical employees.
[17:42] <Saviq> cjwatson, thanks!
[17:42] <cjwatson> Saviq: You'll need to be the owner or an admin of the team in question.
[17:43] <Saviq> "You indirectly own this team.", sounds good