please do not show SP that have never seen light in the system.

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto]

<SteveA> hi
<fabbione> hey
<SteveA> sorry to bother you by phone... just trying to fit this in between meetings
<fabbione> no big deal
<SteveA> so, I chatted with kiko, and we had an idea that is maybe a non-UI problem in soyuz
<fabbione> ok
<SteveA> and I want to check with you some things about what you've noticed
<SteveA> about this issue with rejected uploads
<fabbione> ok
<SteveA> can you talk me through an upload that you've seen this on? I'm interested in particularly what name is used for the source package.
<SteveA> see, in soyuz, the name of a source package is a thing in its own right
<SteveA> separate from any source packge in a distro-release having that name
<fabbione> last week it was openais
<fabbione> but i did upload the package on friday
<SteveA> so, it is possible that the following happens:
<fabbione> so there is no such case anymore
<SteveA> - you upload a SP with a name that doesn't exist in dapper, to dapper
<SteveA> - the upload gets rejected
<SteveA> - but, the system erroneously creates a record for that SP name
<SteveA> - so, that SP name can get bugs and translations etc.
<SteveA> does that sound feasible?
<fabbione> i did try that to edgy..
<fabbione> i don't know about dapper
<fabbione> but yes
<SteveA> dapper or edgy
<SteveA> anything
<SteveA> the exact release isn't important
<fabbione> i was marked as maintainer for that SP
<SteveA> it's that there is a release without that SP name in it
<fabbione> and there were all placeholders enabled for that pacakge
<SteveA> and you upload a SP with that *new* name
<fabbione> like bugs and translations
<SteveA> and then the SP is rejected, but the name remains
<fabbione> exactly
<SteveA> if this is exactly the case, then we have an interesting bug
<SteveA> great
<SteveA> so, it is not a UI issue
<SteveA> it is a bug in the upload processor
<fabbione> well i am not sure where the bug lives, but you can reproduce it easily in dogfood i think
<fabbione> upload a SP called foo and mark yourself as maintaienr
<SteveA> yep, now we know that particular unexpected detail
<SteveA> there is no SP called foo?!
<fabbione> get the ftp-master to reject that source
<SteveA> :-)
<fabbione> and if you go trough your package list, you will be listed as foo maintinaer
<fabbione> that's ONE way to get to the indo
<fabbione> info that there is/was a foo SP
<SteveA> cool
<SteveA> so, the guys will look into this, but would you put the above steps to reproduce into a bug report on soyuz?
<fabbione> the other use cases i gave to you were just examples of more consistent reasons to NOT show infos
fabbione> sure i can do that without any problem
<SteveA> yep
<fabbione> ok
<fabbione> perfect
<SteveA> but it's a low level bug
<SteveA> the UI should be fine as is
<SteveA> well in the sense that any launchapd UI is fine ;-)
<fabbione> ahaha ok
<fabbione> can i just copy paste from here?
<fabbione> there is nothing sensible in this irc log
<SteveA> nothing sensitive
<SteveA> the examples we discussed are fine

[Daniel Silverstone (dsilvers)]

To resolve this, we believe the process is:

1. Make sure SourcePackage raises NotFoundError when its currentrelease would be None
2. Make sure this 404s the offensive /distros/ubuntu/+source/<thing>
3. Make sure this cleans up .../+packages

[Curtis Hovey (sinzui)]

This issue could be consider fixed. Lp doesn't make links to unpublished packages. Showing a 404 may not be the right thing to do. When a package is being published, or it has been removed, it looks just like a an unpublished package. The page correctly states that the package is not published. The only people why see these cases are url hackers.