| mark06 | can you please increase per-file upload limit for a couple of my projects? | 08:11 |
|---|---|---|
| mark06 | 200MB is not enough to me because of windows source code bundles | 08:11 |
| cjwatson | mark06: I wasn't aware there was a limit. Exactly what error message text are you seeing (so that I can grep for it)? | 08:17 |
| mark06 | cjwatson: it's documented in the wiki, but the exact message will take time as I will need to upload a big file | 08:32 |
| cjwatson | mark06: Ah, I see it now. | 08:37 |
| cjwatson | mark06: You'll have to file a bug report with more information - we don't have a way to vary that per-project right now. | 08:38 |
| cjwatson | (But maybe we can increase it across the board? Would need to investigate based on the new limit you request.) | 08:39 |
| mark06 | someone told me that it was possible, but yes maybe you can increase the limit to 500MB at least? | 08:40 |
| cjwatson | Who? | 08:41 |
| cjwatson | But in any case, please file a bug, can't do it on the spot. | 08:41 |
| mark06 | wgrant maybe? not sure | 08:43 |
| mark06 | it was about big packages of msys2 | 08:44 |
| wgrant | I indeed said that we would consider a specific request with rationale. | 08:44 |
| mark06 | I'm trying to find an existing bug, I'm surprised no one requested it already | 08:44 |
| mark06 | is this per-file limit effective? since there is no limit in number of files, it seems | 08:45 |
| wgrant | The limit is a suggestion for reasonable behaviour. | 08:46 |
| wgrant | If someone is being abusive by uploading terabytes of data across thousands of files, there are other means to stop them. | 08:46 |
| mark06 | windows gpl software will sometimes require files bigger than 200MB | 08:47 |
| mark06 | this is because gpl mandates source distribution for everything and most of open source libraries are not part of system | 08:48 |
| wgrant | Hm? | 08:48 |
| wgrant | Why don't they just use 3(b) like linux distros? | 08:48 |
| wgrant | There's no fundamental difference. | 08:49 |
| mark06 | because they are obligated to | 08:50 |
| wgrant | Or does everyone use 3(a) and say that being on the same server counts as "accompany", I forget. | 08:50 |
| wgrant | Regardless, the Windows situation is not different here. | 08:50 |
| wgrant | The source need not be in the same download. | 08:50 |
| mark06 | sorry I meant they are not obligated to | 08:51 |
| mark06 | since 3(b) just shifts the source distribution to possible future, I prefer to do it right now | 08:52 |
| wgrant | I misremembered, most Linux distros use 3(a) -- distributing the source from the same server is believed to be sufficient to satisfy it. | 08:53 |
| mark06 | I also don't find 3(b) fair to the community, see third paragraph at https://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/16502 | 08:54 |
| wgrant | Anyway, if you can file a bug outlining why the binaries are so big, we can consider the request. | 08:54 |
| wgrant | The third paragraph seems silly to me. The Pidgin wiki documents violations of the license, while the license explicitly allows the written offer option. | 08:55 |
| mark06 | while the license? which license? | 08:57 |
| wgrant | GPLv2 or GPLv3. | 08:57 |
| mark06 | well please read the full text then | 08:58 |
| mark06 | they did not opt in for 3(b) | 08:58 |
| mark06 | windows files are big because of source distribution | 08:59 |
| wgrant | But you say that even if they did opt for 3(b) it would by hypocritical, which is not the case. | 08:59 |
| wgrant | Ah, the source distribution is separate from the binary distribution, but still many hundreds of megabytes? | 08:59 |
| mark06 | the libraries you use in unixes are part of the system so you don't need to distribute source for them, even so you usually ship your software as a package alongside the used libraries | 09:00 |
| mark06 | windows is different because it does not ship the open source libraries from unix world, so you have to ship them yourself with your program | 09:01 |
| wgrant | So there are two separate files, one containing just binaries and the other containing just source, with the binary file under the limit and the source file over it? | 09:01 |
| wgrant | How much larger is it? | 09:01 |
| mark06 | this means you need to provide source for all of these libraries, this is the big difference, and I prefer doing it through 3(a) and get rid of the obligation right now | 09:03 |
| wgrant | Sure. | 09:03 |
| mark06 | if it was a single file with binary and source the file would be even bigger | 09:04 |
| mark06 | but I prefer to keep them separate (installer + source zip) because people usually want only the installer which is much smaller | 09:05 |
| wgrant | Indeed, I hadn't realised they were split. | 09:06 |
| wgrant | How big is the source zip? | 09:06 |
| mark06 | one example to make things clearer: https://launchpad.net/winutils/+download | 09:06 |
| mark06 | well the projects in question are this and pidgin++ | 09:07 |
| mark06 | source bundle is 150MB but because few libraries are used, but pidgin++ is about 300MB I think | 09:07 |
| wgrant | OK. | 09:08 |
| wgrant | File a bug with *specific details* and we'll see what we can do. | 09:08 |
| mark06 | the msys2 build system also helps making things bigger because of pacman, for example source packages will include the whole vcs repository instead of current snapshot | 09:08 |
| wgrant | Ah, that's unfortunate. You can't fix that? | 09:09 |
| mark06 | ah ok, I can't find existing bug so will file new one | 09:09 |
| mark06 | it will be hard to fix because I will need to convince msys2/arch about it, anyway it's just one example | 09:11 |
| mark06 | the real reason behind it is the windows versus unix thing | 09:11 |
| mark06 | wgrant: I will ask for removal of the limit ok? | 09:12 |
| mark06 | or increase for all, since it will be probably easier than implementing just for single project | 09:13 |
| wgrant | mark06: We cannot remove the limit, and we are unlikely to increase it for a single project. | 09:17 |
| wgrant | Raising it for all projects is more likely. | 09:17 |
| mark06 | ok | 09:18 |
| mark06 | cjwatson: "Cannot upload files larger than 209715200 bytes" | 09:22 |
| === keithjarret is now known as garr | ||
| === dpm_ is now known as dpm | ||
| mapreri | wow launchpad bug triaging /o\ | 12:12 |
| cjwatson | mapreri: ? | 12:16 |
| mark06 | cjwatson, wgrant: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1479441 | 16:43 |
| ubot5 | Ubuntu bug 1479441 in Launchpad itself "Increase single file upload limit" [Undecided,New] | 16:43 |
| cjwatson | Thanks | 16:45 |
| mark06 | thanks too, I hope you address it quickly since it would simplify my code :) | 16:48 |
| mapreri | cjwatson: nothing, just "ranting" about wgrant doing bug triaging and me receiving tons of email :) | 17:35 |
| cjwatson | Oh right | 17:35 |
| Philip5 | i just uploaded to my ppa on launchpad and got the files rejected with "utopic is obsolete and will not accept new uploads." what's this about? have i missed something or is it a bug? | 19:10 |
| costello | utopic might refer to a historical ubuntu release name?? | 19:14 |
| costello | you might want to replace it with something else, like "trusty" or whatever is current at the moment. | 19:15 |
| Philip5 | have there been changes on how to name releases? | 19:15 |
| Philip5 | utopic is the release after trusty | 19:15 |
| costello | hmm. interesting. | 19:16 |
| Philip5 | utopic is the name of 14.10 | 19:16 |
| costello | ok, I'm out of ideas then, myself I've only targeted trusty in my ppa releases. | 19:17 |
| costello | that was working all right last week | 19:17 |
| dobey | utopic is end of life already | 19:35 |
| dobey | oh no | 19:36 |
| dobey | yes, it was end of life last week | 19:36 |
| dobey | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases | 19:36 |
| dobey | Philip5: ^ | 19:36 |
| Philip5 | so then it's pulled even from launchpad? | 19:37 |
| dobey | yes, launchpad doesn't support building for obsolete releases | 19:38 |
| Philip5 | ok, then i know | 19:38 |
| sidi | Is there a way to unpublish a package from my PPA temporarily, without losing the built package? If not, would copying the binary to another series and removing the package from the series I actually use do the trick or should I expect complications? | 21:06 |
| sidi | well, I guess I already know what to do... | 21:10 |
| cjwatson | sidi: You can remove temporarily and copy it back in from the same archive as long as you don't take too long about it, but it would be safer to create another PPA and copy it to that. | 22:10 |
| cjwatson | sidi: Just make sure to copy with binaries. | 22:10 |
| sidi | cjwatson, thanks, that's what I did. It's just easier to test my PPA this way -- i know this package is faulty and want to check all the other ones before attacking it | 22:11 |
| cjwatson | Sure | 22:11 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!