=== seelaman` is now known as seelaman
=== seelaman is now known as manonmani
=== manonmani is now known as seelaman
[18:26] <hjd> Hm, I tried to rebuild an Ubuntu package in my PPA (https://code.launchpad.net/~hjd/+recipe/oxide-qt-test), but it looks like it failed to check out the code https://launchpadlibrarian.net/214034054/buildlog.txt.gz Any suggestions why this might be the case?
[18:26] <hjd> My wily vm isn't 100% up to date, but it was able to check out the code without any problems.
[18:41] <dobey> hjd: why are you trying to build lp:ubuntu/oxide-qt from wily, in wily?
[18:42] <dobey> wow, and it took 12 hours to fail? that's not cool
[18:44] <hjd> dobey: and there's another one ongoing not looking too much better... I've disabled the daily build, but I don't know if I can kill the running job :/
[18:48] <hjd> The underlying is that I saw bug 1473680 and tried to merge the latest version of ninja-build from Debian. The latest comment suggested someone should do a test build of oxide. From what I've understood if I build a package for a PPA it will prioritize packages from that over those in normal archives when installing dependencies, so that seemed like the easiest way of building it with the merged ninja-build available.
[18:48] <ubot5> bug 1473680 in ninja-build (Ubuntu) "Please update Ninja from Debian" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1473680
[18:49] <dobey> you have ninja-build in a PPA?
[18:50] <dobey> hjd: just use pull-lp-source or apt-get source to grab the wily oxide-qt source, and then upload that to your PPA
[18:51] <dobey> creating a recipe is too complex
[18:52] <hjd> Yes, ninja-build is already in the same PPA (https://code.launchpad.net/~hjd/+archive/ubuntu/ubuntu-dev)
[18:53] <hjd> Ok, how do I upload the source to the PPA? :)
[18:55] <dobey> dput
[18:55] <dobey> dput ppa:$yourusername/$yourppaname foo.dsc
[18:56] <hjd> Ok, and when I upload the source it will automatically build the binary packages like if it had been a recipe uploading the source?
[18:57] <hjd> (I haven't really looked into manual uploads before now)
[18:57] <dobey> it will build the source package, yes
[19:20] <hjd> dobey: Pushing the original (read: from `apt-get source oxide-qt`) should work, right? http://paste.ubuntu.com/12050396/
[19:21] <hjd> *original .dsc
[19:22] <dobey> hjd: yes
[19:22] <dobey> hjd: oh right, sorry, you need to use the .changes file instaed
[19:22] <dobey> hjd: you might need to run "debuild -S" to recreate it
[19:23] <dobey> so that it is signed with your gpg key and such
[19:25] <hjd> Ah, ok. :)
[19:26] <hjd> I'll look more into it later. Thanks for your help :)
=== Larry is now known as Guest87859
[21:32] <gbkersey> question:  I created a new PPA today and when I try to install packages from it, I get "WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!"
[21:33] <mark06> can anyone please delete references from deleted ppas in my +related-packages page? they only show up when I'm logged in
[21:33] <gbkersey> I have added the PPA gpg key (actually I used apt-add repository) which added the key and I have verfied that it was there.
[21:33] <gbkersey> with apt-key list
[21:34] <gbkersey> when I run apt-get install with Debug::pkgAcquire::Auth, I can see that the PPA is tagged as Trusted=0
[21:34] <gbkersey> Is this a timing issue because the PPA is so new, or is there something wrong with the PPA?
[21:38] <wgrant> mark06: +related-packages is a log of what you've done. Things cannot be removed from it.
[21:39] <wgrant> gbkersey: There's a race that sometimes hits a user's first PPA, where the key isn't generated before the PPA is published. Any further changes to the PPA will cause it to be properly signed, and the auth error to go away.
[21:39] <gbkersey> wgrant: figured it was something like that....  OK, I'll publish something else.
[21:40] <mark06> wgrant: I know it's a log as you explained earlier in a bug, but I want to delete it, it's useless and confusing
[21:41] <wgrant> mark06: Then don't look at that page.
[21:41] <wgrant> If you don't want to see a log, don't look at a page that is a log.
[21:41] <mark06> wgrant: I'm forced to, because it's mixed with  existing ppas
[21:41] <wgrant> Why do you need to look at that page?
[21:42] <mark06> wgrant: how about splitting it into two pages, e.g. +related-packages-full, for whoever cares about it (who?), and +related-packages-active
[21:42] <wgrant> mark06: But what are your use cases for the page that aren't reviewing a log?
[21:43] <wgrant> It's the sort of page that very few people use regularly. We know no good use cases.
[21:44] <mark06> is there another page where one's ppas is listed? if not, that's everyone's use case
[21:44] <wgrant> https://launchpad.net/~
[21:45] <mark06> ah, duh
[21:48] <mark06> I would just remove that related packages link, not sure if anyone cares about it
[21:48] <mark06> but yes I don't need looking there, thanks
[21:48] <wgrant> Heh, that makes more sense now :)
[21:49] <mark06> about bug 1479441, thanks wgrant, cjwatson!
[21:49] <ubot5> bug 1479441 in Launchpad itself "Increase single file upload limit" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1479441
[21:49] <mark06> I will test soon
[21:49] <wgrant> Great, let us know how it goes.
[21:51] <gbkersey> wgrant: Thanks, that fixed me right up.
[21:51] <knome> wgrant, any chance to look at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/270038 ? cheers