[00:30] <jablko> how can i build an alpha 1 iso from source?
[00:31] <jablko> are there scripts to build the ISOs - under version control somewhere?
[00:36] <lamont2> jablko, debian-cd, iirc
[04:04] <Hobbsee> pitti: interestingly, i didn't get a black X on my next boot, after shutting down my machine for the night (with a splash screen).  is it only a reboot thing, or does it only happen the first time after you reboot after that update?
[04:11] <Hobbsee> cjwatson: definite blink.
[10:57] <pitti> Hobbsee: always happens to me so far, even after several boots
[10:57] <pitti> might be a race
[11:00]  * wgrant is happy that his i915 is working fine.
[13:22] <rleigh_> Hi folks, sorry if this is OT.  When launchpad was set up, IIRC Debian developers were created accounts automatically; does the same apply to the forums?  I've tried to register using "rleigh" as the user, but apparently I can't do that (or reset the password--is it locked?).
[13:24] <james_w> hi rleigh_
[13:24] <james_w> there is a #launchpad channel that will probably be more helpful
[13:25] <rleigh_> james_w: Thanks!
[13:26] <Hobbsee> james_w: ...?
[13:27] <Hobbsee> james_w: does launchpad deal with the forums now?
[13:38] <gnomefreak> Hobbsee: no LP doesnt support forums as in LP account is not transfered over for simple reasons like names aval. in one may not be in another
[13:39] <Hobbsee> gnomefreak: i didn't think so
[13:46] <gnomefreak> rleigh_: see my comment above for your answer
[13:49] <rleigh_> gnomefreak: OK, thanks.
[13:50] <gnomefreak> rleigh_: np
[14:23] <mo> i have a problem with the dm_crypt password dialog at boot time. it does not take my password. if i wait and let me drop into initramfs-shell, i can mount everything with cryptsetup and go on booting. any ideas!?
[14:28] <Chipzz> !weekend | mo
[14:29] <Chipzz> also I'm not sure exactly how stable the functionality you're inquiring about is
[14:29] <stgraber> Chipzz: encrypted LVM is a supported partitioning using Ubuntu Alternate
[14:30] <stgraber> it's currently (at least the installer part) a bit broken in Intrepid but it's stable in Hardy and works well (at least here)
[14:30] <stgraber> anyway, it's always best to file a bug report on LP and let the triagers and developers have a look at it
[14:33] <alex-weej> need to pick someone's brain before i try and file this bug on behalf of a friend
[14:33] <alex-weej> he has one of the apple mighty mouse things, bluetooth and all
[14:33] <alex-weej> crap.. wrong channel
[14:37] <mo> i first tried it by myself and then the alternate installer. allways the same
[14:38] <mo> first i thought the enrypt modules are not loaded or not included in the initramfs, but as is said in the initramfs shell i can easly mount them by myself en continue booting
[16:00] <alex-weej> is there some way to get "foreign" file systems whose UIDs don't match up with the running system's UIDs to just grant full access?
[16:00] <alex-weej> i think i need to write a blueprint.
[16:44] <Chipzz> any sysadmin here? packages.ubuntu.com appears to be down
[16:44] <zorglu_> on hardy, ulimit by default is "max locked memory       (kbytes, -l) 32" so program refuses to run in normal cases. as one can not requires from user to change the ulimit, we have to change remove the mlock
[16:44] <zorglu_> not a good move as it decrease security for no reason
[16:45] <superm1> Chipzz, /j #canonical-sysadmin
[16:45] <laga> zorglu_: ulimit says "unlimited" on my box
[16:45] <geser> superm1: is p.u.c already hosted by canonical?
[16:45] <superm1> geser, i thought it was?
[16:46] <Adri2000> it wasn't until very recently at least
[16:47] <zorglu_> laga: try "ulimit -a"
[16:47] <geser> superm1: afaik frank lichtenfeld hosted p.u.c and packages.debian.org but there was a question about hosting on the ubuntu-devel ml but I don't remeber the outcome of it and if it switched in mean time
[16:47] <superm1> geser, i was assuming that it had switched when the new SW interface was loaded on p.u.c
[16:47] <superm1> but i may be wrong
[16:48] <laga> zorglu_: indeed
[16:48] <Adri2000> it seems you're right superm1: packages.ubuntu.com has address 91.189.94.219 and 219.94.189.91.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer sulfur.canonical.com.
[16:48] <geser> superm1: I don't know, but I didn't see it mentioned either
[16:50] <zorglu_> ok need to workaround this no more mlock on ubuntu, now :) security ++ :)
[16:52] <Chipzz> geser: p.u.c is ambiguous btw :)
[16:52] <Chipzz> geser: could be both planet or packages ;)
[16:52] <emgent> heheh true :P
[16:52] <Chipzz> but packages.u.c was recently moved I believe
[16:52] <Chipzz> which is supported by the fact that packages.debian.org *does* respond to http requests
[16:52] <emgent> pa.u.c seems donw
[16:53] <emgent> s/donw/down/
[16:53] <Chipzz> emgent: 17:44 < Chipzz> any sysadmin here? packages.ubuntu.com appears to be down
[17:05] <slangasek> superm1, laga: ping, re: mythbuntu alternates for 8.04.1
[17:05] <laga> slangasek: pong
[17:05] <laga> slangasek: still no luck with the SRUs :)
[17:05] <slangasek> laga: ok :)
[17:05] <laga> except that superm1 tested one of them. yay.
[17:06] <slangasek> laga: any sort of time table?
[17:07] <laga> uh, 2 weeks before i can do anything.
[17:07] <slangasek> hmm, ok
[17:07] <slangasek> sooner would be nice, I guess I'll pester superm1 :)
[17:07] <laga> and i guess if people dont test the SRUs there's no demand for a mythbuntu 8.04.1 :)
[17:08] <Mirv> any PS3 devels here? I wonder if PS3 images from http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/8.04/release/ should be removed, as I heard even 8.04.1 is simply not functional? 8.04 images were never released over there and people were directed to the enchanced 7.10 build at least before
[17:09] <slangasek> laga: well, I haven't pulled the 8.04 ISOs yet for mythbuntu, but I feel that we should at some point soon because of the OpenSSL vuln
[17:10] <slangasek> laga: and of course I would like to be able to put something in its place, rather than just removing it...
[17:12] <superm1> sladen, the MCC one is cleared.  i'm trying to assemble a good test VM to verify the other SRU
[17:13] <alex-weej> can someone explain the mailing list situation to me briefly please -- ubuntu-devel still moderated?
[17:16] <laga> superm1: is it? great. also, you probably meant to talk to slangasek
[17:16]  * laga hugs superm1 
[17:16] <slangasek> superm1: ok, good to hear :)
[17:17] <slangasek> alex-weej: Ubuntu developers are allowed to post without moderation; other posts are moderated
[17:17] <superm1> laga, well cleared in the sense that i verified it.  someone needs to copy it to hardy-updates probably still
[17:18] <laga> superm1: is one ACK sufficient?
[17:20] <superm1> laga, i dont anticipate we'll (easily) get any more testing on it.  i dont believe the SRU spec calls for any specific number of ACK's
[17:20] <laga> well, basically, we have two ACK's, but mine probably does not count :)
[17:20] <laga> SRU spec is overrated anyways.
[17:22] <Chipzz> I'm not sure if this is appropriate here, or if I should ask on #ubuntu-motu (which I already did), but are there any people here who have experience in packaging php extensions?
[17:36] <alex-weej> why is the default "configured mouse" in xorg.conf using the "vmmouse" driver?
[17:36] <alex-weej> i don't even use vmware
[17:59] <superm1> slangasek, laga okay I verified that the other SRU works out correctly too
[18:19] <slangasek> superm1: spiff - should I go ahead with copying the current alternate images over as 8.04.1, or do they still need further testing?
[18:19] <superm1> slangasek, i am doing one more test install with the alternate 8.04.1 image to make sure nothing else is broke
[18:19] <slangasek> ok
[18:19] <superm1> so in a little bit
[18:27] <superm1> slangasek, okay test install just finished.  alternate looks OK
[18:35] <Keybuk> ok, that was _deeply_ suspicious
[18:36] <Keybuk> both my desktop and laptop both hung at the same time
[18:36] <ion_> Some kind of a spike in the power supply perhaps?
[18:39] <Keybuk> ion_: the laptop is on battery power!
[18:39] <ion_> Huh. :-)
[18:39] <Keybuk> was just after I did an apt-get
[18:40] <geser> cosmic radiation
[18:40] <Keybuk> Jul  5 18:24:50 quest kernel: [199208.875533] ip6_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilte
[18:40] <Keybuk> r Core Team
[18:40] <Keybuk> Jul  5 18:24:51 quest exiting on signal 15
[18:40] <Keybuk> Jul  5 18:33:50 quest syslogd 1.5.0#1ubuntu1: restart.
[18:40] <Keybuk> ?!
[18:42] <Keybuk> weird, it looks like it just shutdown normally
[18:43] <Keybuk> probably iz upstart bug then :-/
[19:06] <[reed]> is packages.ubuntu.com supposed to be down?
[19:06] <Chipzz> [reed]: already known
[19:06] <[reed]> k
[19:07] <Chipzz> [reed]: I talked to elmo about it, he's aware of the problem, but rebooting the hardware needs physical access
[19:07] <[reed]> no iLO, kvm, or remote hands? :)
[19:12] <masood> hi
[19:13] <masood> can anyone help me out about a question? Why some packages in the ubuntu repository have a strange version such as 4:3.5.9 ?
[19:13] <LaserJock> masood: you mean the 4: part?
[19:13] <masood> yep
[19:14] <LaserJock> masood: that's called an epoch
[19:14] <LaserJock> it allows packagers fix bad versioning
[19:14] <masood> LaserJock: is that actually a standard practice?
[19:14] <LaserJock> yes
[19:14] <LaserJock> but you only want to use it if you have to
[19:15] <masood> LaserJock: why does dh_make complain about it then?
[19:15] <LaserJock> depends on the complaint
[19:16] <masood> LaserJock: an error message like unknown version
[19:16] <LaserJock> well, that could be because you don't usually create a new package with an epoch
[19:17] <LaserJock> masood: is there a reason why you're using an epoch?
[19:17] <masood> LaserJock: Also, if lets say we have pidgin packages with versions 3.4 and 1:3.5, which packages apt-get consider the newer version?
[19:18] <LaserJock> 1:3.5
[19:18] <LaserJock> in fact if it was version 1:1.0 and 3.4, 1:1.0 would be bigger
[19:18] <masood> LaserJock: sorry i gave a bad example.. how about 3.5 and 1:3.4
[19:18] <masood> ?
[19:18] <LaserJock> 1:3.4
[19:18] <masood> ok
[19:18] <LaserJock> that's the purpose of the epoch
[19:19] <masood> LaserJock: last time i tried to add new pidgin in my ppa and I came across this new versions..
[19:19] <LaserJock> if the upstream developers change version schemes, or if we need to go back to a previous version, or if we make a mistake
[19:20] <LaserJock> those are times when you'll see an epoch
[19:21] <masood> LAserJock: how can we actually go back to old versioning scheme if we have one of these epoched version in the repo?
[19:21] <LaserJock> you have to bump the epoch
[19:21] <LaserJock> so you'd have to go to 2:
[19:22] <masood> LaserJock: bump? meaning delete it?
[19:22] <LaserJock> no
[19:22] <LaserJock> increase it
[19:22] <LaserJock> you can't go back
[19:22] <LaserJock> that's why you only want to use an epoch if you have to
[19:23] <masood> LaserJock: i got it now. thanks a lot for the help.
[20:03] <Mirv> alex-weej: ubuntu-devel is moderated, ubuntu-devel-discuss is open for everyone
[20:04] <alex-weej> yeah thought so. thanks.
[20:04]  * alex-weej is surprised people read IRC logs that far back.