[00:20] <quark2> greetings, anyone here might be able to help me with a mount issue?
[00:20] <ScottK> quark2: Help is in #ubuntu.
[00:21] <quark2> tried that got no response, was searching out another room
[00:24] <LaserJock> ScottK: +1 on the UDS email
[00:24] <ScottK> LaserJock: Thanks.
[00:24] <ScottK> quark2: Understand.  That does't make this a support channel.
[03:45] <gbear14275> I'm trying to debug an error with virt-manager using strace... looking grim.  There are a few dev packages associated with libvirt but I'm not familiar with how to use them... can anyone offer up some advice on perhaps this as a better way to try to troubleshoot
[03:45] <gbear14275> the problem is am trying to spawn a new VM using virt-manager on a remote machine.  I put the .iso's into the /var/lib/libvirt/images directory and can browse to them and select them but am getting this error on trying to hit next: Checking installer location failed: Could not find media '/var/lib/libvirt/images/debian-504-amd64-netinst.iso'.
[04:56] <Drakeson> I have a vala question: How does one instanciate http://www.valadoc.org/gio-2.0/GLib.OutputVector.html
[05:05] <xnox> Drakeson, try #vala on GIMPNet irc network ?
[05:17] <Drakeson> xnox: I had already done so. I posted here out of despair.
[05:17] <Drakeson> anyways, sorry about that.
[05:18] <xnox> Drakeson, on a holliday weekend both in US&UK all channels can be unresponsive ;-)
[10:15] <antivirtel> re
[10:42] <antivirtel> !bug 321012
[13:27] <blue_anna> I think my system implimentation of binary64 is broken http://pastebin.ws/6tahvb
[14:36] <blue_anna> I think my system implimentation of binary64 is broken http://pastebin.ws/6tahvb -- according to the ieee754 standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE754) doubles should never be inaccurate for 16 digits, and only have a rounding error at the 17th digit
[15:20] <David-T> oh. he's gone.
[15:21]  * David-T assumes the rounding error is introduced at the 17th digit of 91.6, which ends up being the 16th digit of 8.4
[16:02] <blue_anna> are there any scripts that automate making an ubuntu .deb package given a standard configure/make/make install setup?
[16:06] <Chipzz> blue_anna: dh_make
[16:06] <blue_anna> Chipzz: thank you :)
[16:06] <Chipzz> blue_anna: also note that your question regarding binary64 was off-topic for this channel
[16:07] <blue_anna> Chipzz: I think that the MPC that we use is buggy, I'm building gcc with mpc 0.8.2 to see if it fixes it
[16:07] <Chipzz> I think the package is called dh_make, and the command dh-make
[16:07] <ebroder> Chipzz: other way around
[16:08] <Chipzz> dh-make is not specific to packages using auto* though, it's mostly a convenient way of creating the debian dir for packages in general
[16:08] <Chipzz> ebroder: ah, I always got that mixed up
[16:08] <ebroder> blue_anna, Chipzz: dh_make won't do all the work for you, though - you still need to handle setting build-dependencies and dependencies and any special flags to ./configure and stuff like that
[16:08] <ebroder> Chipzz: Package names can't have underscores; that's how you can tell which is which
[16:08] <Chipzz> ebroder: I'm aware of that
[16:09] <BlackZ> I think the right place for that is #ubuntu-motu :)
[16:09] <Chipzz> ebroder: right, I thought of that after you told me dh-make was the package name :)
[16:10] <Chipzz> BlackZ: it would be more appropriate there probably, yes, but apparently the channels' rules were changed a couple of months ago, so this isn't off-topic here anymore
[16:13] <Chipzz> blue_anna: anyway, all dh-make does is generate a skeleton debian dir for you, which you still have to edit afterwards
[16:13] <Chipzz> but a big step in the right direction nevertheless
[16:13] <blue_anna> beats typing :)
[16:13] <blue_anna> even if there's some leftover
[16:14] <Chipzz> although I'm not sure how usefull that actually still is with the convenience of latest debhelper dh commands
[16:14] <Chipzz> (note that I said dh commands, not dh_* :))
[16:14] <blue_anna> I guess I should ask on motu?
[16:15] <blue_anna> well it won't matter unless this gcc does what I think it is going to
[16:15] <blue_anna> man this thing takes a day and a half to compile
[16:37] <wladimir> is there something like a pluginapi available for MeMenu?
[18:22] <ebroder> Ugh. Looks like linux is stuck in NEW, but linux-meta went through, which is blocking installs
[21:05] <dav_it> hi
[21:05] <dav_it> please, someone can explain me why we need this? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Policies#Execute-Permission%20Bit%20Required
[21:11] <blue_anna> dav_it: its possible that you could find a way to make a system program execute a downloaded file even though it was never set to execute
[21:11] <blue_anna> dav_it: never set executable
[21:12] <blue_anna> dav_it: the expectation, I guess, is that users generally will not be allowed to download anywhere else on the system
[21:12] <dav_it> blue_anna: ok, but for example if I open a terminal, and I type "wine foo.exe" the file will open w or w/out permission bit.
[21:12] <blue_anna> dav_it: which really blows my mass-data storage drive :P
[21:13] <dav_it> blue_anna: so, my question is: isn't this only a freakin' workaround?
[21:13] <blue_anna> dav_it: for you .. I don't ahve wine
[21:14] <blue_anna> **maybe wine is broken, actually
[21:14] <blue_anna> because I'd think that's a security bug too
[21:14] <dav_it> blue_anna: actually it shouldn't be checked that all application that can run .exe can't run files w/out executable bits
[21:14] <dav_it> ?
[21:15] <blue_anna> dav_it: well, you're saying that's the way it is now right?
[21:15] <blue_anna> so ... there you are :)
[21:16] <dav_it> blue_anna: "there you are" is a synonim for fix it if you want?
[21:17] <blue_anna> dav_it: fno I thought you said the reverse. are you saying that wine is broken in your opinion, or that if ubuntu is going to have that policy, it should apply to to apps like wine too?
[21:18] <dav_it> blue_anna: the second one.
[21:18] <blue_anna> dav_it: yeah ok, I agree with you ...
[21:18] <dav_it> blue_anna: I think that if Nautilus can't open that file, also wine shouldn't.
[21:19] <dav_it> who did introduced this feature?
[21:20] <dav_it> s/introduced/introduce/
[21:20] <blue_anna> dav_it: wine?? yeah I'm sorry I don't know that, maybe someone else will pipe up
[21:20] <blue_anna> dav_it: what are the requirements for wine?
[21:21] <blue_anna> I'm just wondering what scripting language the wrapper script should be in if it's going to be protected
[21:21] <dav_it> blue_anna: I'm wondering also.
[21:22] <blue_anna> dav_it: are you going to write one? do it in whatever you want and then offer that as a prototype .. if they want to change languages after the fact someone will translate it
[21:22] <dav_it> blue_anna: it seems to me somethin' like that security advices from windows vista.
[21:23] <blue_anna> reading that description, it can't be a wrapper script .. 4th bullet
[21:24] <dav_it> blue_anna: I'd like to talk before with the guy that introduced this feature, that atm seems me totally nonsense.
[21:24] <blue_anna> got to actually impliment it in the code -- unless there's a kernel security thing for it there must be a library for it.
[21:24] <blue_anna> dav_it: I dunno man, looks like crossed wires to me
[21:25] <dav_it> is there an ubuntu security channel?
[21:25] <blue_anna> yes, but I think it is for a variant of ubuntu
[21:26] <arand> dav_it: #ubuntu-hardened
[21:28] <arand> dav_it: But wine is not their business, afaik
[21:28] <dav_it> arand: it's their business that a policy doesn't work, I guess.
[23:31] <blue_anna> what provides tr1/cstdio? I just compiled gcc-4.5 and it won't build anything without it :)