[03:37] <crass> can someone tell me what's going on with this build? https://code.launchpad.net/~crass/+archive/ubuntu/update-manager/+build/11914423
[03:38] <crass> It's been literally many hours, and there's no log of what's going.
[03:40] <wgrant> crass: There's no log because it's still in the queue.
[03:40] <wgrant> "Needs building [...] Start in 48 minutes"
[03:41] <crass> yeah, its said that for hours
[03:41] <crass> most of my other stuff starts building in a matter of minutes
[03:42] <wgrant> Build queues happen sometimes -- it's a shared resource.
[03:42] <wgrant> Fortunately rarely nowadays.
[03:43] <crass> yeah, I have no issue with that, it just seemed like something might be wrong.  Could it have a super low priority because of how its labeled in the changelog?
[03:44] <wgrant> Ah, indeed, hadn't noticed it was the result of a recipe build.
[03:44] <wgrant> So the changelog specifies the urgency as low, whereas the default for other things was changed to medium.
[03:45] <wgrant> So manual uploads will be preempting it, which is fine when recipes are used as automatic daily builds, and fine when the queues are short, but not good when you're using recipes interactively and there are long queues.
[03:45] <wgrant> I'll bump the priority of that build and see if there's anything obvious causing the queue.
[03:45] <crass> hmm, the urgency is set to medium, where are you seeing it as low?
[03:47] <wgrant> https://code.launchpad.net/~crass/+archive/ubuntu/update-manager/+sourcepub/7434204/+listing-archive-extra
[03:48] <wgrant> The changelog entry that bzr-builder generates has urgency=low.
[03:51] <crass> hmm, ok, its never been this long for my other recipe builds, so I thought I might have hit a bug somewhere.
[03:53] <wgrant> crass: The queue is the longest it's been for months.
[03:53] <crass> ah, ok, thanks for checking it out.  I'll see if it completes by tomorrow
[10:25] <Sweet5hark> so I checked the "build dbgsyms" box on a lp ppa, and building those seem to have worked as the uploader complains about them: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/303754104/upload_11913268_log.txt
[10:25] <Sweet5hark> so ... how do I get launchpad to both build those and not get upset about uploading them?
[10:32] <cjwatson> Sweet5hark: You've somehow managed to cause your build to emit those as debs (Debian-style) rather than as ddebs (Ubuntu-style).  Are you overriding dh_strip maybe, or something in that area?
[10:45] <Sweet5hark> cjwatson: well its libreoffice with a 3000 line rules file, so no simple "overriding dh_strip", but lots of manual calls to dh_strip ...
[10:47] <Sweet5hark> cjwatson: see e.g. https://git.launchpad.net/~libreoffice/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/tree/rules?h=ubuntu-zesty-5.3&id=319cb7ddf857b333eda674c2dfa3933589c3a4ef#n2984
[10:49] <cjwatson> Sweet5hark: I suspect it isn't sensible for me to attempt to debug that debian/rules.  But the effect of that checkbox in LP is (a) to add "Build-Debug-Symbols: yes" to /CurrentlyBuilding (b) (as of more recently, and intended to replace (a) eventually) to refrain from setting DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noautodbgsym
[10:50] <cjwatson> Sweet5hark: These have an effect on the diverted dh_strip installed by pkg-create-dbgsym.
[10:51] <cjwatson> So it must have something to do with all that ...
[10:52] <ShinyCyril> Hi there, I'm being locked out by the Ubuntu SSO service and Canonical support are not contacting me back. Can anyone point me somewhere for support?
[10:52] <Sweet5hark> cjwatson: is there a concise lists of how "emit those as debs (Debian-style) rather than as ddebs (Ubuntu-style)" differs and why?
[10:52] <cjwatson> ShinyCyril: #canonical-sysadmin on this server may be able to help
[10:52] <ShinyCyril> cjwatson: Thank you, I will try there :)
[10:52] <cjwatson> Sweet5hark: er well the extension is .deb rather than .ddeb
[10:53] <Sweet5hark> cjwatson: heh, thats all?
[10:53] <cjwatson> Sweet5hark: Ubuntu implemented this first and then Debian did it a slightly different way; we haven't adjusted as yet (and may not) because it's pretty awkward to do so in Launchpad
[10:53] <cjwatson> Sweet5hark: I may be missing some subtle detail, but at this level I think so
[10:54] <cjwatson> Sweet5hark: I believe this is mostly handled by pkg-create-dbgsym, with a bit of code in the Ubuntu debhelper patch to turn off the Debian behaviour
[11:18] <Sweet5hark> cjwatson: hmm, to test that hypothesis would it make sense to add a "for f in `find debian -name '*dbgsym*.deb'`; do mv $f ${f/.deb/.ddeb}; done" after the dh_strips to see if it makes the nagging go away?
[11:19] <cjwatson> Err
[11:20] <cjwatson> That will probably lead to confusion because the wholewrong thing will be in debian/files
[11:20] <cjwatson> I think you need to rummage through the build log for where it the debs get created
[11:20] <cjwatson> sorry for typos, lag
[11:27] <Sweet5hark> cjwatson: hmm in the build log I find: dpkg-deb: building package 'libreoffice-core-dbgsym' in '../libreoffice-core-dbgsym_5.3.0~rc2-2ubuntu1~zesty2_amd64.ddeb' etc.
[11:28] <Sweet5hark> cjwatson: thats Ubuntu style, right? so maybe this already build (Ubuntu-style) ddebs. But for some reason _also_ builds Debian-style debs.
[11:29] <cjwatson> Sounds like it
[18:21] <nacc> is it possible to use a LP group's mailing list as the primary contact address for a LP user (a bot user)? It seems like the ML is filtering out the confirmation e-mail, possibly?
[18:28] <dobey> i don't think it is
[18:28] <dobey> (feasible to do, that is)
[18:28] <dobey> no idea about filtering
[18:29] <nacc> dobey: ok, thanks!
[18:31] <sergio-br2> seems lp is unstable
[18:31] <dobey> seems fine here
[18:31] <nacc> here as well
[18:31] <nacc> fine, that is
[18:32] <sergio-br2> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/303871540/buildlog_ubuntu-trusty-amd64.libretro-stella_3.9.3-r201701251733-cdbc9cc-9~ubuntu14.04.1_BUILDING.txt.gz
[18:32] <sergio-br2> i'll just try to build again
[18:32] <dobey> oh, that's not lp being unstable
[18:33] <sergio-br2> repositories
[18:33] <dobey> there's some maintenance going on right now that affects firewall
[18:33] <sergio-br2> humm
[18:33] <dobey> oh no, that announcement is for maintenance next week
[18:34] <dobey> so not that. but does seem like a temporary issue with firewall there
[18:34] <dobey> so yeah, try a rebuild
[18:36] <cjwatson> I see it's built now
[18:53] <sergio-br2> yup
[20:24] <crass> so recipe builds do not respect version epoch?
[20:24] <crass> I'm confused as to why this build is failing: https://code.launchpad.net/~crass/+archive/ubuntu/update-manager/+recipebuild/1303483/+files/buildlog.txt.gz
[20:24] <dobey> you have put an epoch in if you want an epoch. epoch is not part of the upstream version
[20:25] <crass> ok, I did that and got the above failure
[20:25] <dobey> you need to change the -2 to -2.1 or -3 or something. 2~ < 2 in dpkg version comparisons
[20:26] <crass> ah, yes, I see that error now, thanks
[22:41] <mlankhorst> can someone bump the repository size on ubuntu-wine/ppa? itś' s 1.5G over its limit already
[23:33] <wgrant> mlankhorst: Done.