[05:22] <lherrera> Uhm... guys... sandbox environment is down... any news? https://qastaging.launchpad.net
[09:13] <pipedream> Why is there no Packages file here? Index of /aims/aims-desktop/ubuntu/dists/trusty/main/binary-amd64
[09:13] <pipedream> http://haetae.canonical.com/aims/aims-desktop/ubuntu/dists/trusty/main/binary-amd64/
[09:40] <wgrant> pipedream: Only compressed indexes are provided.
[09:41] <pipedream> There were always packages files, no? Our debmirror now started failing on this, with this PPA, not others which still have a Packages file uncompressed
[09:41] <pipedream> is this a new development?
[09:41] <wgrant> Ubuntu and Debian's official archives have been like this for perhaps a decade. PPAs only dropped the uncompressed variants recently.
[09:42] <wgrant> Did you somehow configure debmirror to only use the uncompressed ones?
[09:43] <pipedream> will check
[10:23] <cjwatson> Also, though it doesn't make a difference for this, don't use http://haetae.canonical.com/, that's an implementation detail (and I'm a little surprised it works).  Use http://ppa.launchpad.net/
[11:04] <pipedream> cjwatson: our proxy was caching the Release file, so debmirror still thought there was a Packages file to download.
[11:04] <pipedream> cjwatson: we hijack ppa.launchpad.net dns on campus so we can run debmirror and redirect people to local cache
[11:04] <pipedream> then the debmirror uses haetae (since that hasn't changed in forever)
[11:08] <cjwatson> ah, I see (where forever = 2012, but OK)
[11:08] <cjwatson> pipedream: still, the uncompressed Packages is expected to still be in the Release file
[11:08] <cjwatson> pipedream: apt uses that as a sanity check after decompression
[11:09] <cjwatson> pipedream: what version of debmirror are you using?
[11:10] <cjwatson> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=375381 would suggest that this can be caused by leftover cruft in .temp sometimes
[11:44] <pipedream> 1:2.16ubuntu1
[11:45] <pipedream> 42% /srv
[11:50] <cjwatson> I wasn't specifically asserting that your disk was full; any debmirror failure that leaves it in a state with weird cruft in .temp could have this kind of effect.
[11:52] <pipedream> yes, the real reason was a corrupted cached Releases file. I think it mentioned only Packages not Packages.gz. That seems to have fixed itself now.
[20:05] <Faux> Is the owner of popcon.ubuntu.com here, or is that a different service?  It's failing to upload reports for me with: File "/srv/popcon.ubuntu.com/www/popcon-submit.cgi", line 30, in &lt;module&gt;     mkdirs(hashDir,0755)    NameError: name 'hashDir' is not defined
[20:19] <qengho> Is building a snap supposed to work on launchpad? I tried my first. Fails on unknown-command-assemble.
[20:19] <qengho> I know this is bleeding edge and I should expect blood.
[20:58] <wgrant> qengho: it's complicated due to all the snapcraft compatibility breaks.
[20:58] <wgrant> qengho: I think we need to update it for some more recent snapcraft changes.
[20:58] <cjwatson> Faux: Not us, I'm afraid.  I don't remember who runs that.  #canonical-sysadmin might have some way to figure that out.
[20:59] <cjwatson> wgrant: I made some suggestions about that in a recent snappy-internal thread and apparently you had agreed a plan with Sergio?
[20:59] <Faux> Okay.  I might just bug-report the popcon package and let them figure it out.  Cheers.
[21:00] <wgrant> cjwatson: Ish.
[21:00] <wgrant> But I see there's another incompatible change in the pipeline this morning.
[21:00] <wgrant> So I might wait.
[21:02] <cjwatson> My suggestion was to make bare "snapcraft" without args work again, and then that would be usable with both 1.x and current 2.x.
[22:15] <ricotz> hello, please take a look at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/286299