tpham3783dobey, yeah, notice that too..... thanks and good bye00:00
karstensrage:( wgrant im having a hard time getting my head around this04:00
karstensragemy library depends on libssl and libxml2 and it seems like it shoud be compiled against the distribution its being put on04:01
karstensragebut i dont get really how this is supposed to work with changelog04:01
karstensrageit seems like changelog should be templated... so that you just build multiple .changes and .dsc that have the exact same stuff but different versions04:02
karstensragebut nothing changes in changelog except the version and distribution04:02
karstensrageim kind of curious why launchpad deleted the previous package maybe cause it failed to build?04:04
karstensrageor is always only going to keep the last version if the version changes?04:04
karstensragethis seems to reflect that, all you can do i just change the version04:14
karstensragein changelog04:15
karstensragehas anyone thought of the idea of jinja2 templating changelog and have the build process take a distribution and the ppa/ubuntu thing?04:15
wgrantkarstensrage: You need to upload a different source package for each set of binaries that you want to be built.04:52
wgrantLaunchpad only keeps the most recent version of each package in each series.04:52
karstensragewgrant, but nothing is changing for (what's 11.10), 12,04, 13.10, 14,04, etc04:59
karstensragethe docs said something like 1.0-1ubuntu~trusty105:00
karstensrageso *ALL* that changes is that damn string in changelog05:00
wgrantkarstensrage: That's the only change in the source, yes.05:00
wgrantBut different series will build different binaries, and different binaries must have different versions.05:01
karstensrageso if i write some script that templates changelog, debbuild -S and get 7 .changes and 7 .dsc's just upload all of those?05:01
karstensragedoes 12.04 (precise) work for 13.10 ?05:02
wgrantUbuntu 13.10 has been unsupported for nearly two years.05:02
wgrantThe only supported series today are 12.04, 14.04, 15.04, 15.1005:03
karstensragepeople still have them05:03
wgrantTheir machines are probably part of a botnet by now :)05:03
wgrantLaunchpad does not build for EOL Ubuntu series.05:03
karstensragewhat im asking is not that05:03
karstensragedo you have to have specific version for everything ubuntu puts out?05:04
wgrantIt depends on your package's dependencies.05:04
karstensrageheres the way i think about it05:04
wgrantIf, for example, a library that you depend on changes its ABI, you'll have to build a separate version for each ABI.05:04
karstensragei put up the source, its the source05:05
karstensragebuild it for whatever machine asks for it05:05
karstensrageis there someone thats whole life is just chasing ubuntu versions and resubmitting tomcat for every single version?05:06
karstensrageor any package really?05:06
wgrantThere is one Ubuntu release every six months; it is not particularly onerous.05:06
karstensrageand what about older versions?05:07
wgrantWhat do you mean/05:07
karstensrage11.10, 12.04, 13.1005:07
wgrant12.04 is still supported, the others are not.05:07
karstensragethey are still out there05:08
wgrantAnybody running them is reckless, as they have numerous unpatched security vulnerabilities.05:08
wgrantWe cannot support them.05:08
karstensragei want them to be able to install my stuff regardless of what they have05:09
karstensragejust like back then i could install apt-get install tomcat605:10
karstensragetoday i just apt-get install tomcat705:10
karstensrageand later apt-get install tomcat805:10
karstensragefor me its all three apt-get install mylib05:10
wgrantLaunchpad does not build for obsolete Ubuntu series.05:10
wgrantIf you want to support people with vulnerable machines, you'll need to distribute the packages from somewhere else.05:11
karstensragewhere does 15.10 get its stuff?05:11
karstensragefrom 14.04 packages?05:11
wgrantWhich stuff?05:11
karstensrageits tomcat805:11
wgrantSome binary packages are copied, others are rebuilt.05:11
wgranthttps://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tomcat8 shows the version in each supported series.05:12
orangedquick question.. i am logged in however the 'report a bug' link takes me to a wiki..05:12
wgrantoranged: Ubuntu overrides their Launchpad bug filing link to point to that page. The wiki explains the various avenues for filing an Ubuntu bug.05:12
wgrantkarstensrage: 14.04 doesn't have tomcat8, and 15.04, 15.10 and xenial all have different versions.05:13
orangedwgrant; thanks05:13
orangedwgrant; i thought i was nuts.05:13
karstensragexenial is 16.04?05:17
wgrantxenial will be 16.04, yes.05:17
karstensrageok hmm05:18
karstensragemaybe i should move all this to 14.04 and just resubmit every 6 months like you said?05:18
wgrantMove all which?05:18
karstensrageall my work so far as been on a 12.04 vm that i use for a lot of development work05:18
karstensrageso everything is built and tested on 12.0405:19
wgrant12.04 is only supported for another 14 or so months. It would be unwise to deploy anything new on it at this point.05:19
wgrant14.04 is the current LTS release, and 16.04 will be the next.05:19
karstensragei think you underestimate how many old systems are out there05:19
wgrantOh, I'm well aware, and running 12.04 today is fine.05:19
wgrantBut if you are making any significant changes to deployment, it's probably wise to upgrade to something that will last more than a year.05:20
wgrantAnd if you're running an EOL Ubuntu release, tell me your address so I can come and unplug that machine from the Internet :)05:20
karstensragei thought botnets were all windows machines05:21
wgrantRegrettably not, though there are an awful lot of those.05:21
wgrantI guess you know you've really made it as an OS when there are botnets of your machines!05:21
=== rbasak_ is now known as rbasak
sunweavergood morning (CET)09:22
sunweaverI am unable to log into wiki.ubuntu.com using my Ubuntu ONE account.09:22
=== axino` is now known as axino
cjwatsonsunweaver: We can't help you here; we maintain neither of those systems.  Try #canonical-sysadmin10:30
sunweavercjwatson: thanks.10:39
=== FourDollars_ is now known as FourDollars
=== rvba` is now known as rvba
=== kickinz1|afk is now known as kickinz1
xnoxthe target must be the path within the targer repository12:21
xnox-> shouldn't that be like preset to :master ? and/or whatever development focus (aka remote HEAD) are?12:21
cjwatsonwe need a better picker for that in general12:22
cjwatsondefinitely a known problem12:22
tsimonq2just curious, If I make a merge proposal and it needs fixing, how do I get that fix to the reviewer? Do I jommit to the branch? what?12:22
cjwatsontsimonq2: Just add further commits on top of your branch with your fixes.12:23
tsimonq2cjwatson: ahh okay thanks :)12:23
kamalI've just gotten ARM builds enabled for a PPA which supplies > 200 packages.  How can I make LP rebuild all the existing packages in that PPA for the ARM arches?  (And bumping the version numbers and re-uploading all those packages is not a palatable solution!)15:58
tewardkamal: select all the packages, copy existing binaries to the same PPA15:59
tewardwait an eon15:59
tewardthough, if you're sending 200 builds to the builders, I think the LP admins will be annoyed15:59
tewards/will be/may be/15:59
kamalteward, I tried exactly that, but LP doesn't buy it ...15:59
kamal"Launchpad encountered an error during the following operation: copying a package.  trustedqsl 2.2-2~kamal~vivid in vivid (same version already has published binaries in the destination archive)"15:59
tewardkamal: FWIW vivid went EOL16:00
kamalteward, :-)    Launchpad encountered an error during the following operation: copying a package.  trustedqsl 2.2-2~kamal~xenial in xenial (same version already has published binaries in the destination archive)16:00
kamalteward, i.e. same result for supported releases as well16:00
tewardi can't replicate, but I also can't see what you're selecting16:02
tewardMy GUESS is you have "Rebuild" ticked...16:02
tewardnot "copy existing binaries", but don't quote me on that16:02
tewardthe people who can help are the LP admins; however, again, without knowing the build system fluently, you may want to consider NOT throwing 200 armhf builds into the queues16:03
kamalteward, yes I did tick "Rebuild" (since I wanted it to build something)...  "Copy existing binaries" makes no sense here, I think.16:03
tewardkamal: actually, 'copy existing binaries' makes more sense16:04
tewardit'll sense armhf is misisng, and build16:04
tewardit's how i kicked the ZNC and NGINX PPAs I run into rebuilding for missing releases16:04
tewardand how i'm getting ppc64el building right now for my nginx ppas :P16:04
tewardkamal: missing binaries then get built, I believe16:04
tewardsounds counter intuitive, but it apparently works16:05
kamalteward, wow!  "Copy existing binaries" does indeed work!   ok, I still don't get the logic of that verbiage at all, but . . .  THANKS!16:05
tewardkamal: note though that if your armhf builds take up all the builders, I think myself, many others, and the LP admins might squish you :P16:05
teward(just saying)16:05
kamalteward, they know where to find me  ;-)16:05
=== cjwatson_ is now known as cjwatson
cjwatsonkamal: Copy the packages in question over the top of themselves, including binaries16:25
cjwatsonkamal: i.e. "Copy packages" in the PPA in question, select the relevant packages, "This PPA", "The same series", "Copy existing binaries"16:26
kamalcjwatson, teward sorted me out ... the magic solution was that I needed to select "Copy existing binaries".16:26
tewardcjwatson: wouldn't 200 packages going for armhf builds take up a majority of the builders though?16:26
kamalcjwatson, yup :-)16:26
tewardand clog the queue?16:26
cjwatsonteward: *shrug*16:26
cjwatsonteward: will clear quick enough16:26
dobeyteward: no different than 200 different people requesting builds at the same time, of the same priority.16:27
cjwatsonteward: (also may not be quite that many sources)16:27
cjwatsonteward: anyway, we can deal with abuse if it happens, but the build farm is there to be used16:28
* teward just sent all his nginx packages through the ppc64el builds :P16:28
tpham3783wgrant, !16:30
tpham3783hi dobey, i think i understand why you said packaging information shouldn't be included in the source package... b/c thats just to much to info to maintain as a developer..16:35
tpham3783i was just wanting to adopt the way wireshark included the packaging info for debian in their source tree,16:36
tpham3783to e20... but may not be a good choice16:36
tpham3783furthermore, packaging info can only support **most likely** the latest flavors .... it wont be able to support old flavors like precise etc....16:37
tpham3783that's just too much combination, and overhead for the developer to maintain16:38
dobeypackaging can support multiple series easily enough16:38
dobeythe main problem is that binaries built on different series, are different, and so should have different versions16:38
dobeythis will especially be a problem with the enlightenment stack, because there are many libraries and such16:39
tpham3783dobey, i ran info this problem the other day, i had a build dependency libjson, and its not available on precise... so pretty much, i would need to write another recipe for precise, particularly16:39
dobeyjson is available on precise16:39
tpham3783i think it was lib json,, here: https://code.launchpad.net/~tpham3783/+recipe/edkit-daily16:42
tpham3783dobey, is the file at debian/<pkg>.install neccessary?  what if I do not have it?  is it like an install mask?16:47
=== chrisccoulson_ is now known as chrisccoulson
dobeyfor packages that build a single binary is't not necessary; if you build multiple binaries, you must have .install files because they list the files that go in that package16:50
cjwatsondebian/*.install is described in "man dh_install"16:52
cjwatsonin general the various debhelper manual pages are excellent and you should consult them16:52
tpham3783dobey, i have a closed source project but I want to leverage LP to build for all flavors of U., is it possible to write a recipe but yet somehow keep the source closed?16:53
cjwatsonRecipes don't yet support builds of private code.16:53
cjwatson(It's hopefully coming in the next few months, although probably only for git)16:53
=== marcoceppi_ is now known as marcoceppi
=== kiko` is now known as kiko
=== caraka_ is now known as caraka
tpham3783cjwatson, as a developer and a packager of a private software app, what's the best way to create deb installation packages?  At one point, i added a debian folder to the root source tree of my project, then install (using DESTDIR) to the debian folder; then used dpkg-deb to create a .deb installable package from it... I am sure its not the right way?  can you recommend a correct way please?19:29
tpham3783 cjwatson, i've been researching, i some recommended that I create another branch, say debian-package, and then merge with the master branch if i want to create a deb package.. not sure what is the ideal best solution w/o reverting to LP19:30
dobeydebuild/dpkg-buildpackage is "the correct way" to build a debian package19:31
tpham3783dobey, thanks, i want to know the correct work flow from other people too, also, I would like not to depend on debuild/dpkg-buildpackage if possible19:33
dobeywell, if you want to build debian packages, the correct way is to use the supported proper tools for building those packages. trying to do things manually with dpkg-deb will eventually result in problems19:36
tpham3783dobey, where would you store your packaging info (debian folder), in a upstream git/svn branch, then merge in with the master branch?  just want to know common practices?  thanks19:39
dobeytpham3783: well, i've set up daily builds of several things, and i typically stick the packaging in a separate bzr branch which i nest into the upstream code as debian/. for git, that could be a separate branch on the upstream repository, or it could be a separate repository or something.19:41
tpham3783dobey, that makes sense, thanks.....19:42
tpham3783dobey, do you always rely on LP to make builds for different flavors of U?  or u use some kind of jailroot on ur dev machine to build them manually?19:45
dobeyi use recipes all the time19:47
dobeyi only build things on my machine while developing and to test things out, and pretty much never install directly to / from source19:48
tpham3783"never install to /", how would you test though? b/c i test E20, and i had to install it to /, bc it would be complicated if not set to /, say /usr/local/e20_install; had to change all kind of env paths just to test E19:49
dobeydepends on what i'm working on. i probably wouldn't test the entire enlightenment stack as if it were a single thing, because it's not. and anything i need to install to test, i'd build packages of first19:51
cjwatsontpham3783: I agree with dobey that the correct approach is to use dpkg-buildpackage.  I'm sorry but I'm not willing to help you work around that.19:53
cjwatsonYou can always use chroots if you're building on some other distribution.19:53
tpham3783cjwatson, thanks, i was just wanting to know of other ways...19:53
cjwatsonObviously it's *possible* to do it by hand (after all dpkg-buildpackage is just a script wrapping debian/rules etc.) but it's not something I'm prepared to help with.19:54
cjwatsonBecause IME advising people on that just results in them coming back to me with problems they wouldn't have had if they'd used a more standard route. :-)19:55
dobeyit's completely open source and an open format, so it's totally possible to manually construct a .deb; it's just not worth the trouble to do it19:56
cjwatsonAssuming that the app in question has its own existence independent of packaging, then it likely does make sense for the packaging to be in a separate branch of some kind, not embedded in the upstream tree.19:56
tpham3783Thanks guys, I will use dpkg-buildpackage from now on....20:02
tpham3783for a brand new project, how do i tell dpkg-buildpackage to auto install all dependencies listed in the control file, prior to building?20:42
cjwatsontpham3783: not dpkg-buildpackage's job - that's generally up to higher-level tools, IMO the best of which is sbuild (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SimpleSbuild)21:05
karstensragei tested my ppa and it seems to have worked21:54
karstensragehow big generally are chroots21:54
tewardvaries release to release21:54
* teward pulls his sbuild schroots sizes21:54
karstensrageim going to test in natty and saucy but i cant put those on launchpad right?21:55
wgrantI'm going to pretend I didn't hear that.21:56
tewardthese are the filesizes for my chroots... though, I also have Debian chroots 'cause I use them...22:05
tewardand yes I have a Vivid chroot there - it's just not been deleted yet :)22:07
dobeybut it's so new22:08
tewardokay, that made me chuckle22:08
tewarddobey: thanks for making my day a little better xD22:08

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!