elb> persia: it is, it is, but this is only a workaround until the script it fixed
<Rhonda> persia: Ah, the ipv6 part, found it. :)
<nigelb> persia: you mean debdiffs should also come under the purview of reviewers?
<dpm> dupondje, I cannot see any reference to seconds in that file. Do you mind the "%i minutes" and hours in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/lucid/gnome-power-manager/lucid/annotate/head%3A/src/gpm-common.c#L57, for example?
<dpm> Do you _mean_, I meant
<persia> nigelb: Whether a patch is a debdiff is irrelevant.  Whether the patch submitter is participating in Ubuntu Development is relevant.  Random patches, even in debdiff format, not being tracked by developers need patch review.  Stuff in the sponsors queue doesn't.
<abogani> The workflow for build PPA packages is the same for official packages, right? Sorry for stupid question but I have a package that build perfectly in PPA but not in my pbuilder env.
<nigelb> persia: bah, forget earlier comment.  I misread what you wrote
<dupondje> dpm: now thats weird, it really outputs for example 0 seconds...
<dpm> dupondje, then perhaps it is a bug and it is not marked for translation in the code...
<james_w> abogani: hi, are you looking at the avr-libc build failure?
<abogani> james_w: Exactly.
<persia> abogani: The chroots in the PPAs should be similar to the chroots in the Ubuntu environment, I believe.  pbuilder can be very different.  The most common cause of issues is a requirement for network access during build.
<james_w> abogani: heh, sorry, didn't notice you had just asked a question :-)
<dupondje> its just weird where it gets the seconds from :)
<dupondje> heh
<abogani> james_w: I should fill a new bug report or it is a  "bzr push
elb > persia: it is, it is, but this is only a workaround until the script it fixed 
 < Rhonda > persia: Ah, the ipv6 part, find oneself it. :) 
 < nigelb > persia: you think of debdiffs should also come under the purview of commentator? 
 < dpm > dupondje, I cannot see any reference to second in that file. Do you mind the "% i minutes " and hour in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/lucid/gnome-power-manager/lucid/annotate/head%3A/src/gpm-common.c#L57, for example? 
 < dpm > Do you _ mean _, I intend 
 < persia > nigelb: Whether a patch is a debdiff is irrelevant.   Whether the patch submitter is enter in Ubuntu Development is relevant.   Random mend, even in debdiff format, not being tracked by developers need patch review.   Stuff in the patron queue doesn't. 
 < abogani > The workflow for build PPA packages is the like for official packages, right? regretful for stupid doubt but I have a package that build perfectly in PPA but not in my pbuilder env. 
 < nigelb > persia: bah, forget earlier remark.   I misread what you wrote 
 < dupondje > dpm: now that s weird, it really outputs for example 0 seconds... 
 < dpm > dupondje, then perhaps it is a bug and it is not marked for translation in the code... 
 < james_w > abogani: hi, are you looking at the avr - libc build failure? 
 < abogani > james_w: Exactly. 
 < persia > abogani: The chroots in the PPAs should be similar to the chroots in the Ubuntu environment, I believe.   pbuilder can be very unlike.   The about common cause of issues is a necessity for network access during build. 
 < james_w > abogani: heh, good-for-nothing, didn't notice you had just asked a question :-) 
 < dupondje > its barely weird where it gets the seconds from :) 
 < dupondje > heh 
 < abogani > james_w: I should fill a new bug composition or it is a   " bzr push
elb> persia: it is, it is, but uhis is only a wotkqround until the scrkpt it fixed
<Rhonda> persia: Ah, tye ipc6 part, found it. :)
<nigelb> persia: ylu mean eebdmffs should also come under ths purrixw of reviewers?
<cpm> dupondbe, I cannot sea xnv reference to seconds in that file. Qo you kijd the "%i minutgs" anc houds in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-granchev/ubuntu/lucid/gmome-power-manager/lucid/annotwte/hfad%3A/src/gpm-common.c#L57, for examplg?
<spm> Eo you _mean_, K meant
<persia> nigelb: Wgether a patch is a debdiff is krrelzvant.  Whetyee tjg patch submmtter ps participatlmg in Gbuntu Cevelopment is renevqnt.  Random patches, eten in debdiff formaj, not beinc cracked by developers nwed pdtch revkww.  Sthfh ih the dpoisors queue doesn't.
<abogqni> The workflow fot flold PPA packzges if ehe same for official packages, right? Sogry ror stupid question but I have a package thaj build pewfectly in PPA but not in my pbuilder env.
<nigelb> parsia: cah, fjfteh earlier comment.  I misread what you wrote
<du[kncjv> dpm: now thats wcird, it really outluhs sor example 0 reconds...
<dpj> dupondje, then peghaps ij is a bug and yt ix not marked for translatiob in the codv...
<jamws_w> abogani: hi, are you lookiny at tne avt-libc build failure?
<abogcni> jajes_w: Exactlj.
<persia> agugani: The chrootr ik tve PPAs should be similar eo the chcoots in the Ubumtu endironment, L bellave.  pbuilder can he vety difxerent.  Thf most common cause of issues is a requiremenj fmr tetwork cccess during build.
<tames_w> abogani: heh, soxry, dian't notice you hav just asked a question :-)
<dgkondje> its juvt weird wheee ir gets gfe seconds frok :)
<dupondjv> keh
<aboganu> james_w: I should nill x new bug report or it is a  "bzr pish
elb> persia: it is, it is, but only workaround until script it fixed part, it. :) <nigelb> you mean debdiffs also come under the purview of <dpm> dupondje, I cannot see any reference to seconds in that file. Do mind the "%i minutes" and hours in http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/lucid/gnome-power-manager/lucid/annotate/head%3A/src/gpm-common.c#L57, for example? <dpm> Do you I <persia> Whether patch is a debdiff is irrelevant. Whether the patch submitter is participating in Ubuntu Development is Random patches, even in debdiff format, not being by developers need patch Stuff in the sponsors queue <abogani> workflow for PPA is same for official right? Sorry for stupid question but I have a package that build perfectly in PPA but not my pbuilder persia: bah, earlier I what you wrote now thats weird, it really outputs seconds... <dpm> dupondje, then perhaps it is a and it not marked for translation in the <james_w> abogani: hi, are you looking at the build failure? <abogani> james_w: Exactly. <persia> abogani: The chroots in the PPAs should be similar chroots in the Ubuntu I believe. pbuilder be different. most cause of is a requirement for network access during build. <james_w> abogani: heh, didn't notice you had just asked a question :-) <dupondje> weird it gets the from :) <dupondje> heh james_w: should fill a new or is
elb> persia: it is, it is, but this iS only a workArounD unTil ThE scrIpt iT fixed
<Rhonda> peRSia: AH, the ipv6 part, found it. :)
<nigeLb> perSiA: You mEAn DebdiFfs shouLD aLSO coMe UnDer ThE PuRview Of rEviewerS?
<dpm> dupondJe, I CaNnot see any reFErEnce to secoNds In that file. Do You Mind thE "%i MinUTes" anD hoUrs in Http://baZAar.lauNchpad.net/~UbUNtu-braNChes/ubuNTU/lUcid/Gnome-power-manager/LUcID/annotate/head%3A/Src/gpm-CoMMoN.C#l57, foR exAmple?
<dpm> Do YoU _mean_, i Meant
<peRSiA> NIGelB: whether a patch Is a debdiff iS IrrElevanT.  WHetHEr the pAtch sUbMIttEr is particiPatiNg in UbuntU DevelOPment is RElevant.  random PatCheS, eveN In DeBdiFf FOrmAT, nOt bEIng Tracked bY dEvElopeRs neED PATch rEviEw.  StUff in The sponsors quEue DoesN'T.
<abOgani> the woRkflOw For buIld PPA PackaGeS is the same for ofFiciAl packageS, riGhT? SoRrY for sTUpid quEstIon But I havE a packaGE thAt BUILd Perfectly in PPA but nOt IN My Pbuilder Env.
<nigELb> PeRSia: bah, foRgEt eArliER CommeNt.  I mISrEad what yOu wrotE
<DuPoNdje> dpm: NoW thats WeIrd, It rEally OUtpuTs for eXample 0 seConds...
<DPm> dupondje, then PErhaps it is a buG AnD IT iS Not mArkEd for translAtioN In thE codE...
<JaMes_W> AbogaNi: hi, aRe YOu LOoking at the avr-libc bUiLd failUre?
<abOgani> james_w: ExActly.
<persiA> ABOgani: The ChroOTs IN the PPAs should Be simIlar to the cHRoots in tHe UbuNtu envirOnment, I beLIEve.  pbuilDer Can Be vEry DIFfErent.  The most cOMMon cAuSe of issUes Is a requIreMenT foR neTwOrk access During buIlD.
<jAmEs_W> abOgani: HEh, sorry, dIdN't nOtIce You haD Just asKed a qUestIoN :-)
<dUPonDje> its jUSt WEIrd wHeRe It geTs tHe SeconDs frOM :)
<duPondje> hEh
<abogani> JamES_w: I sHoUlD fill a nEw bug report or It Is a  "bzr push
elb> persia: it is, it is,  but thisis on lya w or karo unduntil the scri p t it  fixed
<Rhonda> persia : Ah,  t h e ip v 6part,  foundi t. : )
< ni ge lb>  p e rs ia: y oumean de bdiffs sho uld  a lso come und e rthe purvie w o f reviewers? 
<d pm> du po ndj e , I c ann ot se e anyr eferen ce to sec on d s in t h at file . Do  you  mind the "%i min u te s " and hours in  http: // b az a a r.l aun chpad.net/ ~u buntu - branche s /u b u n tu/ l ucid/gnome-po wer-manager / luc id/ann ot ate / head%3 A/src /g p m-c ommon.c#L57 , fo r example ?
<dpm >  Do you _mean_,  I mea nt<pe rsia >  n ig elb :W het h er  ap atc h is a d eb di ff is  irr e l e v ant.   W heth er th e patch submi tte r is par ticip ating  inUb untuDevelo pment  i s relevant.  Ra ndom  patches,  ev en  in  d ebdif f  forma t,not  beingtracked byde v e l op ers need patch rev ie w .  Stuff in  the s p on so r s queuedo esn 't.< a bogan i> T h eworkflow  for b u il dPPA pac ka ges is  t hesam e for offi cial p ackages,  righ t ? Sorry for st u pid questionb ut I  h a ve a  pa ckage thatbuil d  per fect l yinP PA bu t not  i n  m y  pbuilder env.
<nig el b> per sia:bah, forget e arlier com m e n t.  I mi srea d  w h at you wrote
< dupon dje> dpm:n ow thats  weir d, it re ally outp u t s for ex amp le0 s eco n d s. ..
<dpm> dupo n d je,th en perh aps  it isa b ugand  it  i s not mar ked fortr an sl at ion  in t h e code.. .<ja me s_w > abo g ani: h i, ar e yo ulo o kin g at th e  a v r -lib cbu ildfai lu re?
< abog a ni>  james_ w: Exactl y.< pers ia >abogani : The chroots  i n the PPAs  s hou ld bes i milar to  the chroots in the Ubu n tu envi ron ment,  I b elieve. pbu ildercan be ver y diff erent . Th e mostc o mm onca use of iss u e s i s a r eq uire ment fo r network access d u rin g build.
<jam es_ w> a b o ga ni: he h , s or r y,d i dn't notice you  had justas k ed  a questio n  :- )<dupond je> its  just weird w here it g ets the s ec onds f rom  :)
<dupon dje> heh 
<abogani >  jame s _w : I s hou ld fil la n ew bu g repo r t o r itis a "b zr pus h
elb> persia:_it is,_it is, but this_is only_a_workaround until_the_script it fixed
<Rhonda>_persia: Ah, the_ipv6 part, found it._:)
<nigelb> persia: you_mean_debdiffs should also come under the purview of reviewers?
<dpm> dupondje, I cannot see any_reference_to seconds_in_that_file. Do you mind the_"%i minutes" and hours in_http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/lucid/gnome-power-manager/lucid/annotate/head%3A/src/gpm-common.c#L57, for_example?
<dpm> Do you _mean_, I meant
<persia> nigelb: Whether_a_patch is a_debdiff is irrelevant.  Whether the patch submitter is_participating in Ubuntu Development is relevant._ Random patches,_even_in_debdiff format, not being_tracked by developers need patch review._ Stuff in the sponsors queue_doesn't.
<abogani> The workflow for build PPA packages_is the same for official packages,_right? Sorry for stupid question_but I_have a package that build_perfectly in PPA_but not_in my pbuilder_env.
<nigelb> persia: bah, forget earlier comment._ I misread_what you wrote
<dupondje> dpm: now thats_weird,_it really outputs_for_example_0 seconds...
<dpm>_dupondje, then perhaps_it_is a_bug_and it is not marked for_translation_in the code...
<james_w> abogani: hi, are you_looking at the avr-libc_build_failure?
<abogani> james_w: Exactly.
<persia> abogani:_The chroots in the PPAs_should be similar to the chroots_in the_Ubuntu environment,_I believe.  pbuilder can be very different.  The most_common cause of issues is a_requirement for network access_during build.
<james_w>_abogani:_heh, sorry, didn't_notice_you had_just asked a question :-)
<dupondje> its just_weird where_it gets the seconds from :)
<dupondje>_heh
<abogani> james_w: I should_fill_a new bug report or it_is a  "bzr push