[01:27] <troy_s> who is working on the installer?
[01:29] <Burgwork> troy_s, that would be Kamion 
[01:29] <Burgwork> troy_s, what is your issue?
[01:36] <lifeless> morning
[01:37] <Burgwork> morning lifeless 
[01:37] <tseng> hello lifeless 
[01:37] <bluefoxicy> The morning sun has breathed life into the lifeless
[01:37] <bluefoxicy> Welcome back to the land of the living.
[02:01] <holycow> guys ... does anyone know what happened to apt-setup in dapper?
[02:01] <holycow> it doesn't seem to exist any more?
[02:51] <shawarma> I'm trying to install a new system with debootstrap (only ssh access to the box)... I used to do the debootstrap and the base-config and that pretty much took care of everything. Now that base-config is empty in Dapper is there a similar way to do it?
[02:53] <crimsun> what functionality do you need it to have?
[02:54] <crimsun> you can probably get away with editing /etc/fstab and /etc/host{,s}, executing shadowconfig on, and installing a language pack
[02:54] <crimsun> also tzconfig
[03:00] <shawarma> crimsun: Yeah, that's pretty much what I have on my checklist as well.
[03:00] <shawarma> crimsun: I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. 
[03:07] <shawarma> crimsun: How about creating the admin group? Is that done by some package or is it the installer?
[03:08] <crimsun> beyond my familiarity, probably the latter.
[03:09] <shawarma> Probably.
[03:27] <bddebian> Heya
[04:53] <Hobbsee> Kamion: thanks for dar :)
[06:06] <mantas> Hi all
[06:13] <mantiena> doko, Hi, could you tell me if you are planing to backport OpenOffice.org 2.0.3 to Ubuntu Breezy ?
[06:25] <sharms> mantiena: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
[06:29] <Burgundavia> mantiena: no, just to dapper
[06:35] <mantiena> sharms, I don't find any info about OpenOffice backports plans at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
[06:39] <mantiena> Burgundavia, I'm asking not about official backports, but about private doko backports, he oftet puts OOo backports to http://people.ubuntu.com/~doko/
[06:39] <sharms> mantiena: you find out how to request it, and that is all the information available.  Any developers are generally working on edgy, not a distribution release 2 back
[06:39] <sharms> mantiena: in that case ask doko
[06:41] <mantiena> sharms, I'm not requesting, I'm just asking about doko plans, because I need OOo 2.0.3 for Breezy and I'm planing to make backport if doko isn't planing to make backport for breezy ;)
[07:17] <liable> what are the build depends for compiz/compiz-gnome??
[07:17] <tseng> apt-get build-dep compiz
[07:17] <tseng> next time ask #ubuntu please (see topic)
[07:18] <liable> right. thanks
[10:55] <doko_> mantiena: no plans. if you do that, please name the packages openoffice.org2-*
[11:04] <mantiena> doko_, why I need to rename openoffice.org 2.0.3 packages to openoffice.org2 ?
[11:05] <fabbione> mantiena: because that's how OOo 2 was called in breezy
[11:08] <mantiena> fabbione, this was a beta/unstable version of OOo, I think such package name just confuses users - in all ubuntu and debian versions (except breezt) stable version of openoffice was called openoffice.org, because of this I think better packages name for breezy backport is openoffice.org
[11:09] <fabbione> mantiena: doesn't matter. use the same name convention or you will make people very upset
[11:09] <mantiena> are there any other important reasons why I need to change name of OOo 2.0.3 to openoffice.org2 ?
[11:09] <fabbione> specially because somebody might land with OOo in version 2 and start filing bugs
[11:10] <fabbione> ^^
[11:10] <fabbione> and that would make doko very upset
[11:11] <doko_> mantiena: fabbione already said all ...
[11:11] <mantiena> fabbione, sorry, I don't understand. If there are bugs in OOo 2.0.3 ubuntu packages, then why don't fill them in launchpad ?
[11:11] <doko_> just don't package names in a release
[11:11] <doko_> just don't change package names in a release
[11:12] <fabbione> mantiena: because bug filed again OOo in breezy automatically tells us what version to look for
[11:12] <fabbione> mantiena: if you change the version in a stable release, and we start getting bugs
[11:12] <fabbione> mantiena: it becomes impossible to track what the hell is going on
[11:13] <fabbione> mantiena: to the point in which we can't support OOo in breezy anymore. So by definition you don't override package names in a release
[11:13] <fabbione> mantiena: you do it with the proper ones
[11:14] <fabbione> mantiena: and a backport, will show a whole new world of bugs
[11:14] <fabbione> mantiena: that 1) we don't care about 2) nobody is going to fix 3) we don't care about 4) all of the above
[11:15] <mantiena> fabbione, it's too hard for me to understand you :(
[11:17] <fabbione> mantiena: well i can't help your english
[11:22] <mantiena> fabbione, ;)
[11:24] <sivang> morning
[11:25] <sivang> fabbione: is there somehwere archives devel meeting logs with dates ?
[11:26] <fabbione> simira: wiki
[11:28] <sivang> ah,okay, only two archived so far, which is probably only the ones I missed :)
[02:10] <The_8472> ok, whoever reads this, i've a little request (being from the azureus support staff):
[02:10] <The_8472> you updated your gtk build at some point which broke a little part in azureus' gui and gets us lots of of complaints...
[02:11] <The_8472> it's already fixed in the current azureus cvs tree and the current beta builds
[02:11] <The_8472> it would be nice if you could update your repository and ship a beta to fix that bug, otherwise azureus is a bit unusable because ontop slideshells aren't hideable and thus steal focus from the interface
[02:11] <The_8472> thx
[02:11] <slomo> The_8472: you might want to file a bug for that... https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/azureus/+filebug
[02:12] <The_8472> do i have to register for that?
[02:12] <The_8472> blergh... that would be the case
[02:13] <The_8472> i'm not using ubuntu, i'm just forwarding a good load of complaints ^^
[02:13] <slomo> ok, i'll file the bug for you :) but there already should be one
[02:13] <The_8472> thx
[02:14] <The_8472> yeah, but it would be nice if you guys could deploy a beta instead of the latest stable... that should fix it for the time being...
[02:15] <The_8472> https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/azureus/+bug/41813 <- that's the bug
[02:15] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 41813 in azureus "pop-up dialogs doesn't close." [Unknown,Unknown]  
[02:16] <slomo> yes, already found it :) and it's fixed in debian already
[02:17] <The_8472> as i said it causes lots of complaints and some users even don't have a clue how to locate the .jar file, so an autoupdate would be neat
[02:18] <The_8472> thx guys
[04:40] <\sh> is there any plan to propose discover to main?
[04:53] <Hobbsee> doko_: i just stole your xgsmlib (universe merge) - hope that's okay with you
[04:56] <bddebian> Howdy
[05:51] <desrt> pitti; good morning
[05:57] <pitti> hi desrt 
[05:59] <desrt> pitti; it rains here.
[06:01] <Hobbsee> hi pitti, desrt 
[06:01] <desrt> Hobbsee; hello.
[06:09] <desrt> it's a bad market to be in.
[06:25] <Arbiter> ehm... could you nuke this upload? colorscheme [Source]    0.3.91-0ubuntu1  Release  2006-07-20 11:05:07 CEST  [view] 
[06:25] <Arbiter> (it's in NEW queue)
[06:26] <Arbiter> upstream has changed the application name and i made another package
[06:26] <Arbiter> (colorscheme -> agave)
[07:29] <darius_> Is it safe to assume that someone knows that US repositories are down?
[07:37] <gnomefreak> darius_: normal
[07:58] <sebest_> why do 64 bits kernel are not available on 32bits install?
[08:02] <sharms> sebest_: #ubuntu will help you out
[08:03] <sebest_> sharms: already tryed
[08:04] <sebest_> sharms: do you know the answer?
[08:04] <sharms> sebest_: to my knowledge if you installed the 64-bit kernel, nothing on your system would run 
[08:05] <sharms> sebest_: unless you had everything in a 32-bit chroot, which would be messy and above most peoples ability
[08:06] <sebest_> sharms: you mean, that if i compile a 64 bit kernel it can't work with a 32 bit install?
[08:06] <sharms> sebest_: yes
[08:06] <sebest_> i thought that only the contrary was true
[08:06] <sharms> sebest_: if you are looking for better 32-bit performance just install linux-k7, it is still optimized for your processor.  Otherwise install an amd64 based system, so that the packages are all 64-bit and will run on your kernel
[08:07] <sebest_> i have xeon MP
[08:07] <sebest_> so i think i should use the amd64 version
[08:08] <sebest_> in fact i didn't want to reinstall everything just to have a 64 bits kernel
[08:08] <sharms> sebest_: directly from ubuntu.com download page: For computers based on the AMD64 or EM64T architecture (e.g., Athlon64, Opteron, EM64T Xeon). It is not necessary for all (even most) processors made by AMD -- only their 64 bit chips.
[08:09] <sebest_> i need a 64 bit kernel to run 64bit guest os in vmware
[08:10] <sharms> sebest_: this is really better suited for #ubuntu, this is not a support channel or discussion channel
[08:10] <zul> do you have the amd64 kernel installed?
[08:11] <sebest_> sharms: sorry, but #ubuntu seems only usefull for probleme about firefox and gnome in general
[08:12] <sharms> sebest_: #vmware can't help you?  odd
[08:12] <sebest_> zul: no, for some reason apt-cache search doesn't list this version of the kernel
[08:12] <zul> did you install from the amd64 cd?
[08:12] <sharms> zul: no this is all covered in the above test
[08:12] <sebest_> sharms: my problem is not related to vmware
[08:12] <zul> if you have an amd64 that is
[08:12] <sharms> zul: he is running a 32-bit system and wants a 64-bit kernel
[08:12] <zul> ah
[08:13] <sebest_> i don't see any reason i couldn't install a 64bit kernel
[08:13] <sebest_> they can run both 32 and 64 bit binaries IMO
[08:13] <sharms> sebest_: because the 32-bit compatibility leaves much to be desired in integration at this point.
[08:14] <sebest_> sharms: ok, thanx for your help , i'll install -amd64 version of ubuntu
[08:14] <sharms> good luck
[08:15] <sebest_> sharms: just a last question
[08:16] <sebest_> dapper contains a package  called kernel-patch-vserver, and the patch in it doesn't apply on package linux-image-2.6.15, is it considered as a bug?
[08:17] <sharms> sebest_: you cannot apply a patch to a linux-image file, because it is already compiled
[08:17] <sharms> sebest_: a patch infers that you have the source code and will later compile
[08:17] <sebest_> linux-source
[08:17] <sebest_> sorry for the confusion
[08:18] <sebest_> linux-source-2.6.15
[08:18] <sharms> sebest_: it appears it *should* apply to that
[08:18] <sebest_> 4 rejected appeared
[08:19] <sharms> sebest_: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs
[08:20] <sebest_> sharms: i know how to report bugs on ubuntu, even if i may look like a noob i'm using launchpad since a long time
[08:20] <sharms> sebest_: great! Go for it then :)
[08:44] <bluefoxicy> Is there a point to edgy's bootsplash?
[08:44] <bluefoxicy> A bunch of boxes, circles, colors, and black and white stripes seems .. I dunno.  o.o
[08:45] <gnomefreak> bluefoxicy: its a test usplash
[08:46] <crimsun> bluefoxicy: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2006-July/019435.html
[08:46] <HiddenWolf> Gees, that surely created a lot of fuss
[08:47] <bluefoxicy> ah
[08:47] <bluefoxicy> No I was just curious as to wtf it was for.
[08:47] <HiddenWolf> bluefoxicy, seriously, when did test screens on unused tv-channels go out of fashion.
[08:47] <bluefoxicy> HiddenWolf:  they were replaced with snow IIRC.  :P
[08:48] <HiddenWolf> I feel old now.
[08:48] <HiddenWolf> I knew what it was the second I saw it.
[08:48] <HiddenWolf> Which didn't stop me from having an "OMG, UGLY" moment.
[08:48] <bluefoxicy> It's unfortunate that apparently we can only use something like 16 colors
[08:49] <bluefoxicy> has anyone booted a Gentoo 2006.0 install CD?  It comes up with this friggin' awesome boot splash, shows icons as each thing loads and everything, but I think it uses every possible shade of blue and purple with <60 luminoscity
[08:50] <bluefoxicy> apparently keybuk found (new) laptops that break with anything over vga16fb though :<
[08:50] <bluefoxicy> or kamion.. .or someone else... one of those two told me something about high color bootsplash breaking things.  :/  How unfortunate.
[08:56] <HiddenWolf> bluefoxicy, yeah, hardware developers suck.
[08:57] <HiddenWolf> If they can get away with developing broken crappy stuff, they'll do it to save a dime.
[08:57] <bluefoxicy> it'd be nice if it could be tested for at least.
[08:59] <HiddenWolf> Yeah.
[09:00] <HiddenWolf> unfortunately, that will never happen. :)
[09:12] <bluefoxicy> HiddenWolf:  I want to make a desktop background that if you sub-pixel anti-alias it it spells out something :P
[09:12] <bluefoxicy> it'd be like Disney.
[09:13] <bluefoxicy> "artywulf was fired from the Ubuntu Art Team today when somebody noticed that passing the Ubuntu desktop background image through an antistropic filter produced clear writing that stated, 'Ubuntu works best on AMD processors because Intel can't design shit'"
[09:13] <HiddenWolf> eh?
[09:14] <HiddenWolf> You're kidding me?
[09:14] <bluefoxicy> what?
[09:14] <HiddenWolf> What you just pasted.
[09:14] <bluefoxicy> I didn't paste that; try reading everything I say and not just the last line
[09:16] <HiddenWolf> Yeah, you want a cool background, the inspiration is that someone messed with a background?
[09:16] <bluefoxicy> no XD
[09:16] <bluefoxicy> It's completely hypothetical wtf
[09:16] <HiddenWolf> heh
[09:17] <bluefoxicy> actually the inspiration would most nearly be Disney, since artists frequently get fired for freudian undertones in their art
[09:17] <HiddenWolf> that's why I asked if you were kidding. :)
[09:17] <bluefoxicy> the most well known are the castle in the Little Mermaid movie poster, and the writing in the dust that gets brushed up when Simba and Nala are wrestling in the Lion King
[09:18] <HiddenWolf> I did not know that.
[09:18] <HiddenWolf> I'm a typical consumer, I watch movies for the story.
[09:18] <HiddenWolf> And don't think about them for a minute when I get out.
[09:19] <bluefoxicy> Ah.  The little mermaid one I've seen, it's on http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/The-Little-Mermaid-Poster-C10313393.jpeg That one, which is also the box art for the video casset release.
[09:20] <LaserJock> jeeze that's dumb, you really have to be looking
[09:20] <HiddenWolf> What is supposed to be in it?
[09:20] <bluefoxicy> http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.htm
[09:21] <bluefoxicy> (possibly NSFW sry)
[09:21] <bluefoxicy> and yeah, it was an "accident"
[09:21] <bluefoxicy> the artist who drew it really "didn't know" that it looked like that
[09:22] <HiddenWolf> LaserJock, damn, how did you spot that so fast?
[09:25] <pygi> hey raphink
[10:50] <slomo> infinity: ping? please give-back gnucash everywhere... thanks :)
[11:00] <bluefoxicy> crap
[11:00] <bluefoxicy> speaking of gnucash I never noted how much I spent on food yesterday in my accounts.
[11:09] <zul> reall...how interesting and how offtopic
[11:11] <bddebian> :-)
[11:22] <gnomefreak> bddebian: would you happent o know where i can find latest konsole tar?
[11:22] <robertj> so once a package is synced, what has to happen for it to find it's way to the packages archive?
[11:22] <bddebian> robertj: Once it builds successfully on the buildds it gets moved in
[11:22] <bddebian> gnomefreak: You mean upstream?
[11:22] <robertj> ahh so It's time to go scrounge the build logs?
[11:23] <gnomefreak> bddebian: i want to build it from source but cant find ttar
[11:23] <bddebian> It's part of kdebase
[11:24] <gnomefreak> that means i have to build kdebase?
[11:24] <bddebian> Yep
[11:24] <gnomefreak> :( ty
[11:24] <bddebian> And why would a gnomefreak want konsole? ;-)
[11:24] <gnomefreak> lol
[11:25] <gnomefreak> i like kde but this type of thing keeps me a gnomefreak :)
[11:25] <sistpoty> gnomefreak: hm... konsole sometimes just hangs for me... do you have the same problems?
[11:25] <gnomefreak> sistpoty: nope
[11:25] <gnomefreak> sistpoty: i need to build it for links
[11:26] <sistpoty> ah... k
[11:26] <gnomefreak> konsole doesnt let you open links
[11:26] <gnomefreak> ill brb
[11:31] <robertj> bddebian: i'm stumped, I can't find the build logs. Are they somewhere besides http://people.ubuntu.com/~lamont/buildLogs/
[11:31] <bddebian> robertj: They are on launchpad now.  What's the package?
[11:32] <robertj> tremulous
[11:32] <bddebian> Hmm, should be there:  https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/edgy/+source/tremulous/1.1.0-2
[11:34] <robertj> it shows they built successfully but https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/edgy/+search?text=tremulous fails
[11:34] <crimsun> they won't be there because they're in the NEW queue.
[11:34] <crimsun> https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/edgy/+queue?queue_state=0&queue_text=trem
[11:37] <robertj> crimsun: so what happens next?
[11:38] <robertj> there needs to be a video documentary, like when Sesame Street visits the crayon factory
[11:39] <crimsun> robertj: an admin will NEW it
[11:40] <robertj> is there a very-import-and-very-obvious document that outlines this stuff?
[11:40] <robertj> I'm sure it's gotta be there somewhere
[11:56] <Amaranth> robertj: debian might have something about it
[11:56] <Amaranth> launchpad works the same way
[11:56] <Amaranth> with the NEW queue and such
[11:57] <robertj> ok sauerville now works with the new version ;)
[11:59] <robertj> doh wrong channel ;)