[01:52] <cjohnston> kenv[phone]: its been 5 hours since gwibber updated FB
[01:52] <kenv[phone]> Gt
[01:52] <kenv[phone]> That is facebook throttling us :(
[01:53] <cjohnston> :-(
[01:53] <cjohnston> when you get a chance to chat, I have something I want to talk to you about.
[01:53] <cjohnston> I thought that there was supposed to be a chance that fixed the throttling
[04:52] <kenvandine> cjohnston, yeah it'll take time
[04:52] <kenvandine> we need enough users to get the update so the usage goes down
[07:37] <pitti> Good morning
[07:48] <baptistemm> heya
[07:48] <pitti> mvo: guten Morgen
[07:49] <mvo> hey pitti, good morning
[07:49]  * pitti hugs mvo
[08:35] <and471> mvo, hi, to work on the logindialog stuff, do I use the trunk branch or my branch? (have you done more work on in, on top of mine in trunk)?
[08:37] <and471> hi mpt, vish
[08:37] <mpt> Good morning
[08:37] <and471> grhh, I just read the whole GNOMe census thing and now I am grumpy :(
[08:38] <mvo> and471: I think best is to just merge my changes into your branch and then work from that
[08:38] <and471> mvo, ok, will do
[08:45] <didrocks> good morning
[08:45] <and471> didrocks, mornin
[08:45] <didrocks> hey and471
[08:54] <didrocks> vish: thanks for the link, I'll have a look at next cheese upload
[09:01] <pitti> hey didrocks
[09:02] <didrocks> good morning pitti, how are you?
[09:02] <pitti> I'm great, thanks. how are you? last guadec day?
[09:02] <seb128> hey
[09:02] <seb128> hey pitti
[09:02]  * pitti hugs seb128
[09:02]  * seb128 hugs pitti back
[09:03] <didrocks> pitti: yeah, last guadec day :)
[09:13] <and471> mvo, I have some conflicts in appdetailsview_gtk
[09:13] <and471> mvo, what is the 'application-request-action' signal?
[09:14] <mvo> and471: its when the app wnats to get installed or removed
[09:15] <mvo> and471: we handle that in app.py to not have action code in the view itself
[09:15] <and471> mvo, ok
[09:15] <and471> mvo, is that recent?
[09:16] <mvo> and471: yeah, sometimes last week iirc
[09:16] <and471> ah ok
[09:17] <and471> mvo, is the signal (that I have created) ok 'review-submit-requested' (in terms of phrasing etc.)
[09:18] <mvo> and471: yeah, I thnk that is fine
[09:26] <vish> hey didrocks and471 :)
[09:26] <and471> mvo, http://paste.lisp.org/display/112974
[09:26] <vish> didrocks: np , neat thanks.
[09:28] <vish> and471: yay! michael committed the lernid fix ;)
[09:28] <seb128> mvo, hey
[09:28] <and471> vish, :)
[09:28] <vish> and471: pretty soon upstreams are going to get tired of me ;)
[09:28] <and471> vish, haha
[09:28] <seb128> mvo, is there any way to run something in a package directly after unpack?
[09:28] <seb128> ie not wait on the postinst to run
[09:29] <vish> and471: i think we would need a debdiff for that to get fixed for the Ubuntu package
[09:29] <and471> vish, yeah or wait for a new packaging
[09:30] <and471> vish, ask michael if he intends to do a new release in ubuntu anytime soon because if not then we will need to make a debdiff
[09:31] <vish> and471: hmm , i dont think he does the packaging , didrocks uploaded it last time
[09:31] <vish> and471: lernid hasnt changed much either , since the last upload
[09:32] <and471> vish, I shall have a look later today
[09:32] <vish> and471: or maybe it has, there have been a few commits since 2/24.. :)
[09:34] <huats> morning
[09:37] <mvo> seb128: hi, what is the use-case?
[09:38] <seb128> mvo, gtk update
[09:38] <seb128> mvo, there is a cache for the pixbuf loaders
[09:39] <seb128> but the cache update happens in the postinst and triggers now
[09:39] <mvo> seb128: so you want to break the "unpack/configure" cycle for gtk so that its immediatley configured
[09:39] <seb128> but it seems some other postinst scripts need the loaders and run before the gtk postinst script
[09:39] <mvo> seb128: what about a dpkg trigger? not quite immediate though
[09:39] <seb128> well we have a trigger
[09:39] <seb128> asac had the issue yesterday
[09:39] <seb128> I had similar issues in my log
[09:40] <mvo> seb128: so the cache format is no longer compiatible, is that the issue?
[09:40] <seb128> gtk-update-icon-cache can be used in other postinsts before gtk update the cache
[09:40] <seb128> no
[09:40] <seb128> we used to patch gtk to not use a cache but go read all the files in a dir rather
[09:40] <seb128> slomo dropped that in favor of a trigger now
[09:40] <seb128> but it seems that's not doing the job
[09:43] <mvo> seb128: do you have a bugreport or something to look at? I don't fully understand what breaks, if something else updates the icon cache, that should be fine, no? its a cache etc?
[09:43] <seb128> what I understand of the issue is
[09:43] <seb128> gdk-pixbuf is unpacked
[09:44] <seb128> other things are unpacked
 is configured
[09:44] <seb128> the software.postinst runs update-gtk-icon-cache
[09:44] <seb128> which complains that there is no svg gdk pixdbuf loader installed
[09:44] <seb128> that's because it doesn't find the cache which lists the pidbuf loaders
[09:45] <seb128> then gdk-pixbuf is configured
[09:45] <seb128> which creates the cache
[09:45] <seb128> but the update-gtk-icon-cache call in the middle failed to work
[09:46] <seb128> mvo, you can ask asac for a debug log
[09:47] <seb128> asac, I got your email but the log file is not in your userdir
[09:47] <and471> mvo, I seem to have python-debian installed, but 'from debian import deb882' doesn't work - no module named debian
[09:47] <geser> and471: which version of python-debian?
[09:48] <and471> geser, in the lucid repos
[09:48] <seb128> mvo, did you upgrade gtk yet since yesterday?
[09:48] <and471> geser, do I need the maverick version?
[09:49] <seb128> mvo, could you watch your upgrade log to see if you had warnings about loaders.cache?
[09:49] <geser> and471: yes, python-debian 0.1.15 renamed "debian_bundle" to "debian"
[09:49] <and471> geser, ah okay, thanks
[09:50] <mvo> and471: you need the maverick version, but you can also add
[09:50] <mvo> hey geser :)
[09:50] <and471> mvo, thanks, geser got it sorted :)
[09:50] <mvo> and471: you can add "try: import debian except ImportError: import debian_bundle
[09:51] <mvo> and471: that is actually a good idea, as I suspect some people will follow development on lucid systems
[09:51] <and471> mvo, will do
[09:51] <and471> mvo, where did all the fancy hover effects for the categoryview go?
[09:51] <mvo> thanks and471
[09:51] <mvo> and471: a couple of days ago, I like them
[09:52] <and471> mvo, sorry maybe you misunderstand, when I
[09:52] <and471> used SC before
[09:52] <and471> in the catview, there was a hover effect, like a GTK button
[09:52] <and471> but now it is not there?
[09:53] <mvo> and471: mpt did not like them
[09:53] <mvo> and471: I liked them though
[09:53] <and471> mvo, ah, yeah me too :(
[09:57] <seb128> kenvandine, pitti: hey
[09:58] <seb128> kenvandine, pitti: could one of you attend the r-t meeting today for our team?
[09:58] <seb128> I will be in the train to the airport at that time
[09:58] <pitti> unfortunately not, I have a job interview at 17:00
[09:58] <seb128> ok
[09:58] <seb128> kenvandine, ^
[09:58] <seb128> I guess you are still sleeping but I don't know when I will be online later on
[09:58] <seb128> just tell them that most people are at GUADEC and be available for questions if we can
[09:58] <seb128> we -> you
[10:02] <asac> seb128: the url i gave you doesnt work?
[10:03] <asac> seb128: https://chinstrap.canonical.com/~asac/term.log
[10:03] <and471> mvo, could you explain what the different login backends (SSO and launchpad) are actually for? I don't really understand :)
[10:08] <mvo> and471: its a bit of a historal thing, LP was first, ideally eventually LP will go away
[10:08] <mvo> and471: and we use single-sign-on exclusively
[10:09] <and471> mvo, ok
[11:21] <and471> mvo, how are we going to store the credentials of the SSO?
[11:39] <mvo> and471: the gnome-keyring
[11:44] <and471> mvo, I am setting it up, so that it should be able to work with remebered passwords and not ask everytime
[11:44] <and471> mvo, however I don't have experience with gnome-keyring so I cannot do that backend part
[11:45] <mvo> and471: there is a a tests/gnome-keyring.py
[11:45] <mvo> and471: should should help you getting started (if you are interessted :)
[11:45] <and471> mvo, ah ok, maybe I can then :)
[11:58] <and471> mvo, yay reviewing is now hooked up :)
[16:14] <cjohnston> kenvandine: gotcha
[16:21] <nigelb> mvo: poke?
[16:22] <nigelb> mvo: can you take a look at bug 399711? Somone just came into #ubuntu-reviews asking if someone can review it.
[16:22] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 399711 in software-properties (Ubuntu) "add-apt-repository ppa:username does not add deb-src entry (affects: 5) (heat: 36)" [Low,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/399711
[16:23] <mvo> nigelb: sure
[16:25] <mvo> nigelb: looks fine
[16:25] <nigelb> awesome :)
[16:25] <nigelb> you're set as reviewer, so maybe you can accept for now and merge it in later when you get the time :)
[16:30] <asac> hmm ... pixbuf the second. firefox trunk doesnt build anymore here ;)
[16:30] <asac>                  from /home/asac/Development/upstream/mozilla/mozilla-central/xpcom/base/nsSystemInfo.cpp:45:
[16:30] <asac> ../../dist/system_wrappers/gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf.h:3: fatal error: gdk-pixbuf/gdk-pixbuf.h: No such file or directory
[16:30] <asac> chrisccoulson: ^^
[16:32] <asac> chrisccoulson: ignore it for now ;)
[16:32] <chrisccoulson> asac - micahg saw that yesterday too with other software
[16:32] <asac> i wanted to do a clean rebuild to update pkg-config info etc. but failed to do so it seems
[16:32] <asac> chrisccoulson: yeah. i already had that with other software, but usually a reconfigure was enough
[16:32] <asac> lets see what comes out of the fresh build i am doing now
[16:33] <chrisccoulson> i've not had a chance to look at it yet
[16:33] <asac> dont bother. most likely its fine
[16:33] <asac> just a header relocation, which means you need to rerun configure in built trees
[16:33] <asac> i will let you know what happens with the fresh rebuild here
[16:43] <and471> mvo, you here?
[16:43] <mvo> and471: yes
[16:44] <mvo> and471: yes
[16:46] <and471> mvo, I have hooked gnome keyring into the login backend so we can remember authorisations
[16:46] <and471> mvo, is it okay we store the item in the login keyring?
[16:46] <mvo> and471: I think it is
[16:47] <and471> mvo, let me rephrase that, is that where you planned to put it?
[16:47] <mvo> heh :)
[16:48] <mvo> and471: I had/have not fully made up my mind yet, I'm not a keyring expert, but I think its fine, epiphany and friends use it too for this purpose, but its worth double checking that they actually do
[16:48] <and471> mvo, yeah I was looking and eveything seems to store it in there, I don't think we want the user to have a separate password just for SC
[16:53] <and471> sabdfl, great post :)
[16:53] <sabdfl> thanks and471
[16:53] <sabdfl> now trying to follow my own advice and not get sucked into the vortex
[16:54] <and471> it is hard, I read that this morning and wanted to write some flamey blog post, but instead I watched Mock the Week and that calmed me down :D
[17:01] <vish> and471: heh , will fizz out soon... ;)
[17:01] <and471> I hope so Dr vish :D
[17:01] <vish> :)
[17:07] <and471> mvo, the gnome-keyring stuff is fully hooked up now, works perfectly :)
[17:07] <and471> mvo, I shall push my fixes, not quite ready for merging tho
[17:07] <mvo> and471: sweet
[17:07] <and471> mvo, I need to speak with mpt as we can't remember the password - only the auth
[17:07] <and471> mvo, so this https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=review-single-sign-on.jpg
[17:08] <and471> mvo, doesn't really work
[17:08] <and471> rephrase - make sense
[17:09] <and471> mvo, do you know about the status of the online review service? Is that going to be ready anytime soon?
[17:11] <mvo> and471: not for maverick I think, it would be awsome though. its not hard, just takes a person willing to work on the django code
[17:11] <mvo> most of it is there
[17:11] <and471> mvo, that would be too big a leap for me :)
[17:11] <and471> mvo, for the keyring, do we need the secret?
[17:11] <mvo> what secret?
[17:12] <mvo> sorry, faulty memory :)
[17:12] <and471> mvo, ah maybe I have implemented this incorrectly
[17:12] <and471> mvo, right so with a keyring item you have an attribute called a 'secret'
[17:12] <and471> mvo, and then a set of attributes/details
[17:13] <and471> mvo, I have put all the auth stuff into the details, but maybe it should be in the secret
[17:13] <and471> is there anyone with some expertise/knowledge on gnome-keyring?
[17:13] <mvo> and471: yeah, the secret stuff needs to go there
[17:13] <and471> mvo, ah ok
[17:14] <and471> mvo, it is unfortunate, as the details are really easy to parse, they just come out as a python dictionary :)
[17:46] <and471> mvo, you will see in the keyring stuff, instead of updating values, I have just told it if we already have a keyring in there, to delete it and create a new one
[17:47] <and471> mvo, I have found it not to be reliable to update existing one, I just lost pretty much all of my keyrings :)
[18:02]  * pitti pokes mvo
[18:21] <mvo> and471: *meh* bad
[18:21] <mvo> hey pitti - sorry was at dinner
[18:21] <pitti> mvo: no problem :)
[18:34] <and471> mvo, are there some docs for ubuntu sso? I need to find out the name of the person signing in
[18:40] <mvo> and471: hold on, I vaguely remember about that
[18:47] <and471> mvo, thanks, also I cam across this https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-sso-client. I just wanted to check there was no duplication of effort here
[18:47] <and471> *came
[18:48] <pitti> good night everyone, have a nice weekend!
[18:48] <and471> you too
[18:49] <mvo> and471: oh, this one. yeah, this is work that we may use. it depends on how far it is and how unbranded
[18:49] <and471> mvo, I haven't done all this work for nothing have I?
[18:50] <mvo> and471: no, I don't think so. but I hope the two can merge in the long run
[18:50] <and471> mvo, oh good :)
[18:51] <mvo> and471: but its a good point that you raise, we definitely need to talk
[18:51] <and471> mvo, any luck with the docs?