[11:52] hi all, something wrong with buildd's snap store uploads? https://code.launchpad.net/~saviq/+snap/subsurface-stable [11:52] I've retried these a couple times now and the upload continues to fail [12:00] Saviq: -> #snapstore [12:01] folks have been investigating something similar this morning [12:01] (internal channel) [12:01] AFAIK it's not an LP problem [12:01] ack === epod is now known as luk3yx === coreycb_ is now known as coreycb === tintou_ is now known as tintou === nottrobin_ is now known as nottrobin === igitoor_ is now known as igitoor [16:20] cjwatson, hi :), would you have a moment for https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/681165 [16:22] This might be a stupid question, but I have a package that I have updated (I have PPU rights to this one) and it's been "pending publication" for a few days. Any idea what's going on? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntustudio-look [16:22] "pending publication" in Proposed, might I add. [16:25] Eickmeyer: NEW queue [16:25] NEW binaries. [16:25] teward: That shouldn't be in the NEW queue, it's not new. [16:26] Eickmeyer: you have a new binary [16:26] ubuntustudio-wallpapers-disco_0.61_all.deb (7.0 MiB) NEW [16:26] Eickmeyer: the SOURCE package isn't new [16:26] but it produces a NEW binary [16:26] that needs AA acceptance [16:26] go to the queue at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/eoan/+queue, set it to "new", exapdn ubuntustudio-look [16:26] see the red "NEW" next to that package. [16:27] NEW queue affects *new binary packages* as well as new source packages previouisly not introduced [16:27] so you need AAs to look at it [16:27] Oh, I see. [16:28] Eickmeyer: prime example was my recent 'nginx' upload which added the third party geoip2 module. The new binary produced containing the dynamic module for that needed AA approval/review before it was published or made available in proposed. [16:28] any new source **OR** produced binary needs AA review typically, AIUI [16:29] Okay, that makes sense. [16:29] Seems to be a slow process. Do we not have enough AAs? [16:30] AAs have a lot of work ;) [16:30] Well, yes, but I have had a package that has been sitting in there for weeks. [16:30] (as you and I previously discussed) [16:30] Eickmeyer: that's a discussion for elsewhere. [16:30] ricotz: done [16:30] Indeed. [16:31] you can always ask an AA to look at it in #ubuntu-release though [16:31] except vorlon who is always too busy :p [16:31] cjwatson, thank you [17:24] this https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers-430 report bug always seems to Oops [17:25] It's end of week, please file a bug about it or it will be forgotten [17:25] cjwatson: rgr [17:25] I expect it has something to do with it not actually being a package in Ubuntu though [17:25] Are you sure you didn't typo the name? [17:26] cjwatson: it's only in PPAs at the moment, correct [17:26] It shouldn't OOPS, but we are unlikely to make it actually do anything. [17:26] PPAs don't support bugs [17:26] So any fix would just be to say no gracefully rather than to OOPS [17:26] so Report bug shouldn't even be an option, alright :) [18:12] relevant LP bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/179873 [18:12] Launchpad bug 179873 in Launchpad itself "Can't report bugs on packages installed from a PPA" [High,Triaged] [18:22] gQuigs: That indeed documents the fact that this feature is not present; the OOPS is a separate issue though [18:23] gQuigs: But it's https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1635118 [18:23] Launchpad bug 1635118 in Launchpad itself "Submitting bug for non-existent distro source package triggers OOPS on submission, should not allow you to start" [Critical,Triaged] [18:24] thanks, your bug search foo is better then mine :) [18:24] Coupled with vague memory ... === gQuigs is now known as bryanquigley