[02:48] <olly> cjwatson: ah "In the main `debian/control' file in the source package" rather than "in the .dsc"
[02:49] <cjwatson> yep
[02:51] <olly> agreed then, will follow up shortly and close that
[02:53] <olly> i don't see in my command history where I uploaded it before, though dput doesn't generate an ".upload" file thanks to the "/" in the "ppa:foo/bar" so it's hard to know for sure from my end
[02:53] <olly> but the ppa doesn't have the package I tried to upload in it: https://launchpad.net/~xapian-backports/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+packages
[02:55] <olly> cjwatson: do you want the dsc to look at?
[02:56] <cjwatson> olly: no, it was clearish from the log that it was just due to the identical version number
[02:57] <cjwatson> olly: there's a 1.4.0-4.99precise there, which AFAICS is the one you tried to upload
[02:57] <cjwatson> grep xapiancjwatson@carob:~$ grep xapian-backports /srv/launchpad.net-logs/production/haetae/lp_queue/process-upload.log
[02:57] <cjwatson> 2016-11-22 19:10:14 DEBUG   Considering changefile ~xapian-backports/ppa/ubuntu/xapian-core_1.4.1-1.99precise_source.changes
[02:57] <cjwatson> 2016-11-22 19:10:19 DEBUG     Subject: [~xapian-backports/ubuntu/ppa/precise] xapian-core 1.4.1-1.99precise (Rejected)
[02:58] <olly> reject message was for:  [~xapian-backports/ubuntu/ppa/precise] xapian-core 1.4.1-1.99precise (Rejected)
[02:58] <cjwatson> oh, I can't read
[02:58] <cjwatson> yeah, in that case I'd like to see .changes and .dsc
[02:59] <cjwatson> (though I may be falling over into bed soon)
[03:03] <olly> cjwatson: https://survex.com/~olly/xapian-core_1.4.1-1.99precise.dsc https://survex.com/~olly/xapian-core_1.4.1-1.99precise_source.changes
[03:04] <olly> (i also uploaded for some other codenames in the same command, but those seem to have disappeared without a sound)
[03:05] <cjwatson> olly: somehow that PPA has ended up being configured to only build for lpia
[03:05] <cjwatson> which isn't a thing any more
[03:06] <olly> odd, I'm sure I didn't deliberately do that, and struggle to think how I might have by accident
[03:06] <cjwatson> olly: go to https://launchpad.net/~xapian-backports/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+edit, check amd64 and i386, save, try the upload again
[03:06] <cjwatson> it might have happened if you were editing something else about the PPA and had an accident with keyboard navigation, maybe?
[03:07] <cjwatson> (at least conceivable)
[03:07] <cjwatson> it looks like several previous uploads have been accepted but ended up with no builds
[03:07] <olly> oh i wonder if the last upload was actually built in another ppa and then I copied it here
[03:07] <olly> so it could have been like this for a while
[03:08] <olly> anyway, thanks for spotting what's up
[03:08] <cjwatson> yeah, that could be
[03:08] <cjwatson> https://launchpad.net/~ojwb/+archive/ubuntu/xapian-1.3
[03:08] <cjwatson> sorry that took a while to spot due to my misreading of the log entry!
[03:08] <olly> yeah, then someone pointed out that the 1.3 was confusing
[03:09] <olly> cjwatson: so should I be able to reupload?  or do I need an upload with different bits, or a new version number?
[03:09] <cjwatson> you can reupload with the same version in this case, since it was rejected
[03:09] <olly> cool, thanks
[03:10] <cjwatson> the version is only burned if it's accepted
=== chihchun_afk is now known as chihchun
[13:10] <zhipengh> hello, could someone with admin power help me with https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/404209
[13:19] <cjwatson> zhipengh: done; please update the display name and description and such yourself
[13:27] <zhipengh> thx cjwatson !
[14:04] <om26er> Hello! Can I have armhf builds enabled for this ppa please: https://launchpad.net/~autopilot/+archive/ubuntu/1.7
[14:06] <om26er> cjwatson: ^
[14:07] <cjwatson> om26er: you can do that yourself, just go to +edit
[14:08] <om26er> cjwatson: that was simple. Is that a new feature ?
[14:09] <cjwatson> om26er: some months ago
=== JanC_ is now known as JanC
=== chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk
[16:06] <nacc> I noticed recently that 'vivid', 'wily' are still 'active' in launchpad's API? Is 'active' the right flag to look at for current development releases (this is for the importer, to determine which -devel refs to create, e.g., trusty-devel, xenial-devel, to help with SRUs)
[16:07] <iliv> cjwatson, > iliv: out of curiosity, any reason you keep creating ... afresh over and over? // I still can't get it to build a snap package so I tried importing repo with branches and without branches, renamed repo to be more meaningful and such.
[16:12] <iliv> oh i see
[16:12] <iliv> I have to request builds
[16:42] <cjwatson> nacc: it's the right flag; vivid and wily are trailing in terms of being EOLed due to phone and such
[16:45] <nacc> cjwatson: oh right, thanks!
[16:45] <cjwatson> nacc: (it might not be completely stupid to special-case them for now ...)
[16:47] <nacc> cjwatson: yeah, i was considering that, it's probably the right thing to do just to keep it less confusing (it's not wrong, per se, to have -devel branches for them, they'll just go unused)