[00:42] Hey all! Is Launchpad down for maintenance? I didn't see anything on the status Twitter or Mastodon, and it's been down for a little while now. Did I miss something? [00:57] Guest66: seems to be back now [01:00] e [01:00] Is launchpad down? [01:01] no [01:02] Looks to be, thank you! I was able to get the php8.2 packages. [01:02] it apparently was a little while ago [01:03] It came back finally, thanks!1 [05:21] There were some firewall issues causing the unannounced downtime. It should be resolved by now. === guruprasad changed the topic of #launchpad to: Help contact: guruprasad (05:00-13:00 UTC) | Launchpad is an open source project: https://dev.launchpad.net/ | This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ | User Guide https://help.launchpad.net/ | Support and spam reporting: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad === cpaelzer_ is now known as cpaelzer [09:41] Hi, my recipe-based PPA builds fail since lunar due to "invalid version", e.g.: [09:41] setuptools.extern.packaging.version.InvalidVersion: Invalid version: '23.08-1-202308210928-ubuntu23.10.1' [09:42] If I test with `from packaging.version import Version; v=Version('23.08-ubuntu23.10.1')` it still fails. [09:42] Is there a way to ask launchpad to create a python-compatible version? [09:44] Or, is there any way to build a python package in lunar+ PPAs? [09:47] Example failed build: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/682985917/buildlog_ubuntu-mantic-amd64.epoptes_23.08-1+202308210928~ubuntu23.10.1_BUILDING.txt.gz [10:05] https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/distributing-packages-using-setuptools/#local-version-identifiers says that this form is allowed: Version('23.08+ubuntu23.10.1') [10:05] So, any way to tell launchpad to append "+ubuntu23.10.1" with plus, instead of "~" or "-"? [10:16] Reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/2032185 [10:16] -ubottu:#launchpad- Launchpad bug 2032185 in Launchpad itself "Recipe builds of python packages fail with invald version since lunar" [Undecided, New] [11:40] -1 on changing ~ to + [11:40] I hear you that there is a problem, but that is not a viable fix [11:41] can't you mangle the version somewhere before it gets passed to `packaging.version`? [19:24] cjwatson: thank you, I'll try to do some mangling there