[04:27] <atmc> hi, where can i find the source package on a PPA site? like where the commands for the builds are encapsuled?
[04:28] <wgrant> atmc: Which package are you looking at?
[04:36] <atmc> hm for example
[04:36] <atmc> https://launchpad.net/~nschloe/+archive/ubuntu/moab-nightly/+packages
[04:38] <wgrant> atmc: Just click on the relevant package. You'll see the binary and source files listed in the "Package files" section.
[04:39] <wgrant> the .dsc, .debian.tar.xz and .orig.tar.gz comprise the source package.
[04:39] <wgrant> A source package is usually obtained by giving the .dsc URL to the "dget" tool, then extracted using "dpkg-source -x".
[04:39] <wgrant> http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/ is a good intro to how source packages work.
[04:40] <wgrant> But debian/rules is the Makefile that specifies how the binary packages are built.
[04:40] <atmc> oh shoot, there it is
[04:41] <atmc> thanks :)
[04:45] <atmc> so i could simply write a custom package let it build by launchpad so a team could use it
[06:20] <DLange> wgrant: can you check the issue with accounts that have a previously auto-created email pls.? cjwatson has the details a few pages up in backlog and I just re-tried, still fails. Error ID: OOPS-2652a3a7880bdf5d99969a6bb2df088e
[06:30] <wgrant> DLange: Ah, sorry, missed that ping. Looking.
[06:53] <wgrant> DLange: Your account is a bit confused due to a new feature. I'm working on untangling things.
[06:54] <DLange> wgrant: thank you
[07:02] <apollo13> hi, I created a new account yesterday, but on login I get a 500, error id is  (Error ID: OOPS-3b8cd7c84a850f7420c078426db2ee28)  -- could someone take a look?
[07:03] <apollo13> ahaha, "canonical OOPS tools" :D
[07:04] <wgrant> apollo13: I'm currently investigating the same issue with DLange's account. The same fix should work for yours, just give me a bit.
[07:04] <apollo13> wgrant: \o/
[07:04] <apollo13> wgrant: I had an account before if that helps
[07:05] <apollo13> probably same user and mail, and also a real launchpad account years ago
[07:05] <apollo13> also on the same email
[07:13] <wgrant> Yeah, the email address conflict is the problem.
[07:14] <DLange> always good to make a field have a unique constraint when mixing natural and technical users :)
[07:20] <apollo13> hehe, I deleted my user ages ago though (I think)
[07:22] <wgrant> apollo13: Only in February, but it's not possible to entirely purge all record of it.
[07:22] <apollo13> ah yeah, probably after the last ubuntu forum breaches or so
[07:23] <apollo13> or was that longer ago again, dunno^^
[07:43] <wgrant> DLange: You should be able to log in now.
[08:05] <wgrant> cjwatson: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1607242 FYI
[08:30] <apollo13> wgrant: if I add a second email in ubuntu one, make that my primary, can I then login?
[09:17] <yofel> anyone an idea what would be causing http://kci.pangea.pub/job/yakkety_unstable_dolphin/69/console during dput over sftp?
[09:17] <yofel> 08:59:22 Host key verification failed.
[09:17] <yofel> 08:59:22 Unable to connect to SSH host ppa.launchpad.net; EOF during negotiation
[09:17] <yofel> Is there a maximum amount of concurrent ssh connections that a host is allowed to open to launchpad?
[09:36] <mountaingoat> i'm creating a PPA package for new software not present in debian or ubuntu -- i'm a little confused as to the conventional version naming scheme, e.g. should i go with foo_0.2.0-0ubuntu1~ppa1 or simply foo_0.2.0-1ppa1?
[09:36] <mountaingoat> or also include the target series?
[09:37] <mountaingoat> e.g. 0.2.0-0ubuntu1ppa1~xenial1?
[09:49] <nacc> mountaingoat: what's the actual version in the software?
[09:51] <mountaingoat> nacc: 0.2.0
[09:52] <yofel> 0.2.0-0ubuntu1~ppa1 would be recommended, if you build for multiple releases, it would be 0.2.0-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.04~ppa1
[09:53] <yofel> the ~ causes a version to be lower than without it, i.e. 0.2.0-0ubuntu1 > 0.2.0-0ubuntu1~ppa1
[09:53] <yofel> so you always want to use a ~ suffix for ppa packages (unless you intentionally intend otherwise)
[09:53] <mountaingoat> ok
[09:53] <mountaingoat> i will go with 0.2.0-0ubuntu1~ubuntu16.04~ppa1 then
[09:54] <mountaingoat> when i target multiple releases on launchpad, which launchpad automatically update the changelog file for each one?
[09:54] <mountaingoat> and should i refer to the release as xenial or ubuntu16.04 after the version in the changelog file?
[09:57] <nacc> mountaingoat: xenial is wht goes in the changelog (or yakkety or whatever)
[09:57] <yofel> if you upload by hand, you will have to upload a version for every release yourself.
[09:57] <yofel> with it's own version set in the changelog
[09:58] <mountaingoat> heh okay
[09:58] <mountaingoat> sounds like fun
[09:58] <mountaingoat> i guess i'll target the two latest for now
[09:58] <mountaingoat> thanks guys
[09:58] <mountaingoat> last question -- is there a way to pass options to debsign through debuild ?
[10:01] <mountaingoat> builddeb*
[10:04] <mountaingoat> nevermind, looks like i may be able to use some environment vars for debsign
[10:32] <DLange> wgrant: confirmed, works like a charm now. Thank you.
[12:35] <apollo13> DLange: lucky you, my account seems to be more annoying :D
[12:35] <DLange> does it still oops, apollo13?
[12:35] <apollo13> jupp
[12:35] <DLange> then you probably have another 12 hrs wait
[12:36] <DLange> the wonderful Australian support /may/ be offline until next morning
[12:36] <apollo13> well I am not in a rush, just need a patch applied to sudo during next week :D
[12:36] <apollo13> and fixing vino would also be nice, but that I can symlink
[12:37] <apollo13> sudo in the worst case I'll have to build on my own and push to our private repos
[12:37] <DLange> ack. wgrant, pls. fix apollo13 :)
[12:38] <apollo13> wgrant: ignore DLange, no rush -- I can work around my issues :D
[12:38] <apollo13> I am in general just once again annoyed by ubuntu and their patches *gg*
[23:28] <dsmythies> I am unable to access a lauchpad page. The message says "Uh Oh, something has gone wrong. We're sorry... If the problem persists to come here... Technically the load balancer took too long to connect to an application server". I have been trying for about 4 hours. The page is http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-doc/help.ubuntu.com/help.ubuntu.com/revision/213 , which I pushed approximately 4 hours and 20 minutes ago.
[23:29] <dirtside> I get the same result.
[23:30] <dirtside> Using Chrome incognito mode in a fresh window.
[23:33] <wgrant> dsmythies: Is it a particularly large revision?
[23:33] <dsmythies> It is a big change, but I have never seen it take anywhere near as long. from the e-mail: "The size of the diff (3061461 lines) is larger than your specified limit of 1000 lines".
[23:34] <wgrant> Ah, well, that probably explains it.
[23:34] <wgrant> 3 million line diffs probably take too long to render.
[23:35] <dsmythies> it is the 15.10 EOL deletions an d a revision to the installation guide, which uses stupid random numbers for links during compile.
[23:35] <dsmythies> Are you saying I'll never be able to load that page?
[23:48] <wgrant> dsmythies: I don't think it's ever likely to work.
[23:48] <wgrant> It's simply too large a revision. The bzr code browser is not very efficient.
[23:48] <wgrant> And even if you could load it I'm not sure it'd be very useful...
[23:49] <wgrant> I'd suggest grabbing the branch locally and manually bzr diffing the files you're interested in.
[23:49] <wgrant> Rather than scrolling through three million lines.
[23:51] <dsmythies> O.K. thanks. By the way, I don't have troubles (well, other than the normal script taking too long message thingy sometimes), when I ask for this page: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~petermatulis/help.ubuntu.com/installation-guide-update-16.04_EOL-15.10/revision/213 . While not identical, to what was finally merged, it is very very close.