[11:40] <Kilos> greetings all, i need access granted for http://pad.ubuntu.com/eiEDBfo63Q  please
[11:41] <Kilos> or tell me what i am doing wrong
[11:41] <Kilos> i get Authorization is required to access http://pad.ubuntu.com/eiEDBfo63Q
[11:44] <cjwatson> Kilos: You need to be an Ubuntu member, or be in the ubuntu-etherpad team.
[11:44] <cjwatson> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-etherpad
[11:45] <cjwatson> Kilos: Although since you're an Ubuntu member according to your cloak, you ought to have access already.
[11:46] <cjwatson> You do need to go through single-sign-on.
[11:46] <Kilos> yeah i dont know why im struggling, but i joined that team now and will try again, thanks alot cjwatson
[12:02] <Kilos> thank you its working now
[12:04] <cjwatson> OK, cool.  Very odd that it didn't work already, since you should already have been an indirect member.
[12:05] <Kilos> lol some glitch somewhere
[16:18] <Kilos> thanks for the help guys, enjoy your day
[18:43] <kartojal> Hi all! :) Can someone help me a bit with launchpad PPA? I have a error while building a single binary package :/
[18:48] <dobey> fix the error :)
[18:49] <dobey> building locally with sbuild should let you debug what is failing
[18:50] <kartojal> Locally works like a charm...
[18:50] <kartojal> it builds perfectly
[18:51] <kartojal> here is the log
[18:51] <kartojal> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/206213032/buildlog_ubuntu-trusty-amd64.gpuplotter-x64_4.0.3.2-0ubuntu2_BUILDING.txt.gz
[18:54] <dobey> not locally, build it in a clean chroot that doesn't already have everything installed
[18:55] <kartojal> mmmmm kk i understand now, just installed sbuild, any guide to use it for debugging?
[18:55] <dobey> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SimpleSbuild
[18:55] <dobey> is this in a commercial ppa?
[18:56] <kartojal> Commercial ppa? i think no, its my personal ppa
[18:57] <dobey> you need to upload a source package which includes source and compiles the binaries from that, then
[18:57] <dobey> what is "gpuplotter" exactly?
[18:59] <kartojal> the problem is the original source code makefile isnt multiarch (need to change a variable in makefile to set it 64 or 32), and dont know very well about the makefile and rules file to make it multi-arch
[18:59] <dobey> is it this? https://github.com/bhamon/gpuPlotGenerator
[18:59] <kartojal> yes!
[18:59] <dobey> ah, well then it should be patched
[18:59] <dobey> and the correct package naming and such used
[19:01] <dobey> hmm, manual makefiles are annoying, but doesn't look to hard to fix it
[19:01] <kartojal> sure??
[19:02] <kartojal> i ll try to do it
[19:02] <kartojal> want to learn how to and headhaches :P
[19:02] <kartojal> thanks for all the info!
[19:07] <dobey> yeah, i'm sure. :)
[19:32] <kartojal> now just set up sbuild in ram and do the build, its fails like the previous log
[19:33] <kartojal> how can i search the dependecy?
[19:33] <kartojal> and where to place the dependency package? in debian/control?
[19:34] <dobey> yes, dependencies are specified in debian/control
[19:35] <dobey> but like i said, you need to build from source, not just upload pre-build binaries
[19:35] <dobey> pre-built
[19:35] <dobey> the same for burst-wallet
[19:37] <kartojal> mmmh, i get it, thanks dobey!
[19:39] <dobey> Homepage: <insert the upstream URL, if relevant>
[19:39] <dobey> wow, i'm surprised launchpad even accepted that upload
[19:40] <dobey> description is also the <inser description here> :(
[19:42] <dobey> where did you get burst-wallet from exactly?
[19:43] <kartojal> yes im surprised too hahaha, well it 's for a study project, a live cd hat includes a PPA with all packages related about a new cryptocurrence, like bitcoin, dont have time to convert all the sources to .deb packages, but learn a lot how to do for future
[19:44] <kartojal> How NOT upload/make pakcages
[19:45] <kartojal> its from https://github.com/BurstProject/burstcoin
[19:49] <dobey> ah, java. so annoying with including the .jars in source repositories
[20:11] <ThaNerd> Errr. Sounds like this channel is not about novation launchpad :-)
[20:46] <wxl> cjwatson: remember we talked about signing messages for the email interface? i just sent one that got bounced back with a bad signature, then copied and pasted the original text and verified it with gpg and all is well. seems like there is indeed something wrong with launchpad.
[21:39] <cjwatson> wxl: I'd need to see a sample of the text that you *have not copied and pasted*.  Copying and pasting can cause whitespace differences, which will matter.
[21:42] <wxl> cjwatson: that's the weird thing is that copying and pasting actually seems to work :)
[21:42] <cjwatson> wxl: Do you have the message-id?
[21:43] <wxl> cjwatson: of the sent message?
[21:43] <cjwatson> er - yes?  what else?
[21:43] <wxl> here's the message id of the message i sent: Message-ID: <CAFe_ewgmz-si=EtOzJ5dizRVNjC2dkd+gvVfrmifg+B5m9JQnQ@mail.gmail.com>
[21:44] <cjwatson> wxl: what address did you send that to?
[21:44] <wxl> cjwatson: <1246906@bugs.launchpad.net>
[21:45] <cjwatson> back in a bit, kids
[21:49] <cjwatson> wxl: hm, I see it in the logs but there isn't much to go on there
[21:49] <wxl> well that's unfortunate cjwatson. should i just file a bug against launchpad itself then?
[21:49] <cjwatson> wxl: do you still have the original message?  can you forward it with full headers to cjwatson@canonical.com ?
[21:50] <wxl> cjwatson: sure, on it
[21:50] <cjwatson> it's very important that whatever you do to forward it preserves it byte-for-byte as it was sent
[21:50] <cjwatson> I don't want one of those "forwards" that just tacks some body text on the front
[21:51] <wxl> ohhhhh
[21:51] <wxl> hm
[21:51] <cjwatson> because I need to be able to see it just as Launchpad did
[21:51] <wxl> crap
[21:51] <wxl> i'll have to think about how to bounce this easily
[21:51] <wxl> might havbe to install mutt and all
[21:52] <cjwatson> yeah, I believe you can save it as a file
[21:52] <wxl> going to have a think abut it whilst grabbing coffee
[21:52] <wxl> oh
[21:52] <cjwatson> at which point you could send it as an attachment in mutt
[21:52] <wxl> ok well brb
[21:54] <cjwatson> wgrant: is there any reason we don't run process-mail with DEBUG logging, other than usual awfulness?
[21:54] <cjwatson> this might be less painful to debug if we did ...
[21:56] <cjwatson> actually, you know what, that's just obviously wrong, will prepare a branch to crank the debug level
[22:35] <wxl> cjwatson: i think you should have got a redirected mail from me
[22:44] <cjwatson> wxl: only your first one; but I'm waiting for increased logging to be applied on our servers
[22:44] <wxl> cjwatson: the forward? not the redirect? i sent that latter one just a few minutes ago
[22:44] <wxl> cjwatson: well 9 minutes ago :)
[22:46] <cjwatson> I haven't seen it yet, though my mail goes through a few twisty paths
[22:46] <wxl> okie dokie
[23:00] <cjwatson> wxl: can you try sending that (or similar) to Launchpad again?
[23:02] <wxl> sent cjwatson
[23:03] <cjwatson> huh, it didn't even try to check the signature
[23:04] <wxl> that would explain the problem
[23:04] <wxl> i have three different programs telling me the signature is good
[23:07] <cjwatson> wxl: I really do need the full message though, and your attempted redirect hasn't come through.  Is there any way you can save it to a file and send it as an attachment or even put it on a pastebin or something?
[23:07] <wxl> cjwatson: annoying the redirect didn't go through
[23:08] <cjwatson> (because I'm fairly sure that I need to look at the fine details of LP's signed message parsing)
[23:09] <wxl> cjwatson: http://paste.ubuntu.com/11086415/
[23:09] <wxl> i am using sha2. hopefully it's not choking on THAT. :)
[23:11] <cjwatson> thanks, will look in a bit
[23:11] <wxl> ping me if you need anything else from me cjwatson and thanks again
[23:12] <cjwatson> thanks for the information, it's much more tractable with an example message
[23:17] <cjwatson> wxl: so, I get a bad signature here; but it could be whitespace differences of some kind
[23:17] <cjwatson> wxl: (I had to convert it to Unix line endings before mutt/gpg would accept it as a signed message at all)
[23:18] <wxl> cjwatson: did you just download the paste?
[23:18] <cjwatson> yes
[23:19] <cjwatson> and then stuffed into a new Maildir so that I could look at it in mutt
[23:20] <wxl> ah interesting
[23:20] <wxl> there is some sort fo error with it
[23:20]  * wxl sighs
[23:21] <wxl> i think it's choking on the html content
[23:21] <wxl> gpg --verify gives me an invalid armor header that ends with /a>\r\n
[23:22] <cjwatson> no, I'm getting this even from just the text part
[23:22] <cjwatson> and I know that LP walks part by part
[23:23] <wxl> there's also a CRC error of some kind
[23:23] <cjwatson> same error if I leave DOS newlines in place
[23:23] <wxl> i wonder if it's not pastebin that causes the problem
[23:23] <wxl> 1s
[23:24] <wxl> must not be
[23:24] <cjwatson> that was why my first option was to send as an attachment
[23:24] <wxl> same md5
[23:24] <cjwatson> did you copy and paste into pastebin, or use a program?
[23:24] <cjwatson> ok
[23:24] <wxl> so it could be the way thunderbird saves the message but that seems unlikely
[23:24] <cjwatson> still, it's not a straight signature verification failure on LP's side
[23:25] <wxl> right
[23:25] <wxl> well, i'll keep exploring options i guess
[23:25] <wxl> maybe i should try thunderbird/enigmail
[23:25] <cjwatson> a signature failure would (now) leave a debug message
[23:26] <wxl> so where do you think the problem lies?
[23:27] <cjwatson> my best theory so far is that it's in the code which walks through MIME messages looking for signatures - that is, it simply doesn't think the message is signed at all, good or bad
[23:31] <cjwatson> but when I run that by hand it seems fine ...
[23:31] <wxl> well let's see what enigmail does
[23:31] <wxl> just sent one
[23:31] <wxl> i have a strong suspicion it won't fail
[23:39] <wxl> still no reply
[23:41] <cjwatson> wxl: worked, though, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxterminal/+bug/1246906
[23:41] <wxl> yeah bizarre
[23:42] <wxl> i wish there was a way to test messages directly with lp
[23:43] <wxl> so i could test things without having to have something to do it to :)
[23:44] <wxl> i note there's no mime
[23:44] <cjwatson> You could probably use staging for this
[23:44] <wxl> oh that's a thought
[23:45] <cjwatson> Mail to same address but @bugs.staging.launchpad.net
[23:45] <cjwatson> Assuming the bug exists there, otherwise pick another one
[23:45] <wxl> well i could probably make a new bug too
[23:45] <wxl> well not really make one, but you get the idea :)
[23:45] <wxl> to new@
[23:46] <cjwatson> wxl: Actually, could you try again with your previous setup?  Because I've just looked more closely and it would appear that the crontab change I requested was live briefly, then reverted, and is now live again
[23:46] <cjwatson> wxl: Which means that a good part of the debugging I did earlier was on the wrong track :-(
[23:46] <wxl> ahhh
[23:46] <cjwatson> (Because debugging was in fact switched off)
[23:46] <wxl> so you want me to do the original message?
[23:46] <cjwatson> Yeah
[23:46] <wxl> k 1sd
[23:47] <cjwatson> But maybe to something on staging now to avoid confusion
[23:47] <wxl> should i send it to staging
[23:47] <wxl> yeah ok
[23:47] <wxl> bug 1 maybe XD
[23:47] <cjwatson> Oh
[23:47] <cjwatson> Hang on
[23:47] <cjwatson> I bet staging doesn't have my debugging change
[23:47] <cjwatson> So it would actually be more helpful in this case to pick a different bug on production
[23:47] <wxl> ok lemme dig something up
[23:48] <cjwatson> If I really have to, I'll set something up on dogfood, but that won't be tonight
[23:49] <wxl> i can't imagine others are having this problem otherwise you'd hear more griping
[23:49] <wxl> then again maybe people don't really use the email interface
[23:51] <cjwatson> It gets some use, but I suspect most people who use it aren't using gmail
[23:51] <wxl> sent
[23:51] <cjwatson> Haven't actually checked, difficult to mine it out of logs due to spam
[23:51] <wxl> yeah well such is the case with email :(
[23:52] <cjwatson> ok, that cron job is */3 so wait a couple of minutes
[23:55] <cjwatson> ah, there we go
[23:55] <cjwatson> 2015-05-11 23:54:14 DEBUG   attempt gpg authentication for <Person at 0x961de10 wxl (Walter Lapchynski)>
[23:55] <cjwatson> 2015-05-11 23:54:14 DEBUG   Signature couldn't be verified: (7, 8, u'Bad signature')
[23:58] <wxl> cjwatson: and indeed that's the message i get :)