=== diddledan9 is now known as diddledan
=== cpaelzer__ is now known as cpaelzer
[13:21] <seb128> hey there
[13:21] <seb128> is there a way to upload a translation template for a package which hasn't imported one yet? or does that require a source upload?
[13:21] <seb128> I can't find a link on e.g https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+source/memtest86+/+translations
[13:29] <seb128> ilasc, ^ do you know?
[13:31] <ilasc> seb128: i don't unfortunately, trying to get you some answers now
[13:31] <seb128> ilasc, thanks
[13:39] <cjwatson> seb128: I am reasonably sure it requires a source upload in the case where there's no template yet
[13:39] <cjwatson> lp.translations.browser.productseries has a ProductSeriesUploadView for that but there's no equivalent for source packages
[13:39] <seb128> cjwatson, ok, that's what it looks like, thanks
[13:39] <cjwatson> ilasc: ^-
[13:40] <seb128> it's not important for release, I will wait and do a no change upload SRU
[13:40] <seb128> (or maybe just accept/then reject)
[14:20] <seb128> other translation related question
[14:20] <seb128> any idea why when I do an export on https://translations.launchpad.net/snap-store/trunk
[14:20] <seb128> (using https://translations.launchpad.net/snap-store/trunk/+export)
[14:20] <seb128> I get a tarball (https://launchpadlibrarian.net/475716490/launchpad-export.tar.gz)
[14:20] <seb128> with the po split in 2 subdirs, po/ and snap-store/
[14:21] <seb128> there is only one domain, I would expect to have one subdir
[14:22] <cjwatson> No idea at the moment - could you file a bug?
[14:23] <seb128> sure
[14:26] <seb128> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1874269
[14:26] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1874269 in Launchpad itself "Translations export from a project give a tarball with split directories" [Undecided,New]
[16:54] <Eickmeyer> What do we do about users who insist on using profanity in the bug report and/or in comments? bug 1862383
[16:54] <ubot5> bug 1862383 in gimp (Ubuntu) "GIMP Crashes when pasted image copied from it into another app" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1862383
[16:59] <oerheks> he changed topic, but his last comment is not helpfull
[17:00] <Eickmeyer> I'm considering closing the bug as "won't fix" because of the attitude (he's not even running latest version of GIMP)
[17:00] <cjwatson> I've written a warning to the bug
[17:00] <Eickmeyer> I wrote one too, cjwatson.
[17:01] <cjwatson> In the sense of a formal warning before account-ban-type action
[17:01] <Eickmeyer> Right.
[17:02] <Eickmeyer> cjwatson: Thanks for looking into the matter. :)
[19:39] <hggdh> they are repeat offenders. I have had issues with them on our mailing lists as well, and on other LP bugs
[19:48] <cjwatson> I can indeed see a problematic history, but I think this is the first time we've given them a formal warning
[20:19] <hggdh> oh, certainly. I am a firm believer in giving out more chances for redemption
[21:42] <sim590> How does one know the version number of the package that is associated with the patch that someone links on a report page? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libappindicator/+bug/1867996 I'm on Debian and I would like to import the patches that are listed there, but they don't all apply on the version that I downloaded from Debian.
[21:42] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1867996 in libappindicator (Arch Linux) "Segfault in app_indicator_set_icon_full [patch attached]" [Undecided,New]
[21:46] <cjwatson> sim590: Patch files are just text, so the only things even theoretically available are (a) indications in the patch file itself or (b) maybe contextual clues like the time the patch was created
[21:46] <cjwatson> sim590: The top of the patches there seems to have at least part of the version number.  But if it doesn't apply even given that, then you'll just have to work out how to resolve the differences - no magic bullet for that
[21:51] <sim590> The thing is that the version number on Ubuntu seems all wrong and I don't understand why. It syas 12.10.0, but the version of the package is clearly not above 1. On Debian, it is 0.4.92. So It seems like it is really irrelevant number...
[21:54] <cjwatson> sim590: The package originated in Ubuntu, so it's more likely that Debian chose a different versioning scheme
[21:55] <cjwatson> Or didn't move forward to newer versions from Ubuntu
[21:55] <cjwatson> sim590: You can find the full Ubuntu history on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libappindicator/+publishinghistory
[21:55] <cjwatson> sim590: Looking at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libappindicator it seems likely that Debian just didn't take later updates from Ubuntu
[22:11] <sim590> The Ubuntu package version number just doesn't make any reference to the project upstream version number.... How can I /upstream,
[22:12] <sim590> Well.. I didn't want to write that last message just yet..................
[22:14] <sim590> Event the .orig tarballs don't include the version number of the upstream project....
[22:17] <cjwatson> I don't know, sorry.  All I can do is give those pointers above
[23:49] <sim590> OK. Well. I guess I will just recreate the patches because version numbers just make this impossible. Plus, it seems like debian and ubuntu have diverged on the version they both use, or may be I don't understand.
[23:55] <cjwatson> It does seem as though there has been divergence, yes.