[01:10] <dev001> what package installs/provides "stddef.h"?
[01:20] <penguin42> dev001: Interesting I don't see one in /usr/include, but gcc-4.4 provides one in  /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4/include/stddef.h
[01:21] <dev001> penguin42: I have gcc-4.4 installed, but i still get lots of 'makedepend: warning: ... cannot find include file "stddef.h"' messages
[01:21] <ebroder> I only see a /usr/include/linux/stddef.h on my machine
[01:22] <ebroder> (in linux-libc-dev)
[01:22] <dev001> been googling for hours ... lots of instanced of the problem, no solutions that actually SOLVE it
[01:22] <ebroder> Do you need to #include <linux/stddef.h> instead of just <stddef.h>?
[01:22] <penguin42> dev001: That sounds like a makefile problem though, I *think* if you #include <stddef.h> it should pick it up from the gcc directory (if it doesn't thats broken)
[01:23] <dev001> ebroder: perhaps ... it's a "standard" build from source of openssl that's throwing the error, atm.  no my own pkg.  works perfectly on every _other_ platform I build on.
[01:23] <dev001> i've also installed requisite "gcc build-essential libc6 libc6-dev xutils-dev".  no help -- still getting that error.
[01:23] <ebroder> dev001: Are you building with the Ubuntu source package, or with a download from upstream?
[01:23] <penguin42> dev001: a hello world that #include's <stdef.h> works for me
[01:24] <dev001> ebroder: upstream
[01:24] <dev001> all our openssl builds are latests source, from upstream
[01:26] <dev001> fwiw, this is a nominal, headless install -- adding packages only as req'd.  _maybe_ something's missing, but i'll be darned if i can find it atm
[12:01] <jubei> hello. I am doing "make" on some software but the output is too long and dissapears on the terminal's buffer. I tried make | more but doesn't work. I tried make >> make.log but I only get the 1st line. Any tips?
[12:12] <lennix> make >log 2>logerreur
[12:18] <jubei> lennix, thank you I'll try it
[14:21] <BUGabundo> Boa tarde o/
[14:42] <ggeorgy> hi  :D
[15:01] <jubei> hello. my compiler complains during linking that it cannot find some libraries i.e. cannot find -lopencv and others
[15:05] <micahg> jubei: in Natty?
[15:05] <jubei> I have compiled and make install opencv manually soo.. I'm kinda lost
[15:05] <j1mc> micahg: howdy
[15:05] <jubei> micahg, natty? i:ve no idea what it is. I'm trying to compile a ustom app
[15:06] <micahg> jubei: which version of Ubuntu?
[15:06] <jubei> micahg, latest
[15:07] <micahg> jubei: yes,  but is that 10.10 or 11.04
[15:07] <jubei> micahg, 10.10
[15:09] <micahg> jubei: if you're installing opencv from source and you're missing opencv, I think that's beyond the scope of the channel, you might want to try #ubuntu-app-devel
[15:09] <micahg> hi j1mc
[15:10] <jubei> micahg, thanks
[16:15] <bitshuffler> Hello. Is there some site that allows me to identify which package contains a file? (reasoning is that I'm trying to setup a 10.10 chroot on OBS which doesn't work ootb so I now have to debug it without having an Ubuntu version installed so any help would be really great)
[16:17] <bitshuffler> Or more verbose: it currently fails during procps' postinstall - sctrace is http://pastie.org/pastes/1245069/text . I'm just wondering what makes it fail there ;D
[16:18] <penguin42> bitshuffler: packages.ubuntu.com
[16:19] <penguin42> bitshuffler: You can also use apt-file to search or dpkg -S to find which package a file on your system comes from
[16:19] <bitshuffler> penguin42: Thanks you :)
[16:20] <bitshuffler> penguin42: heh, yes, but that only works if it is already installed
[16:20] <penguin42> yes
[16:20] <penguin42> apt-file finds it even if it isn't
[16:20] <bitshuffler> penguin42: but that doesn't work in a minimal chroot, right?
[16:20] <penguin42> true, you need apt-file installed
[16:20] <penguin42> but apt-file is a truly wonderful thing
[16:21] <bitshuffler> (as in I don't have any real Ubuntu installation available but just trying to fix 10.10 for OBS)
[16:34] <bitshuffler> Hm, why does procps fail if it can't connect to upstart? As in in a chroot that is only used for building packages I don't run any services so I _thought_ I wouldn't need upstart. Any ideas what the "proper" solution would be?
[16:36] <penguin42> is it trying to do    start procps ?  Thats an upstart command isn't it?
[16:37] <penguin42> (although I spent an hour fighting procps start up this week - any incompatibility in the set of sysctl settings causes it to fail....)
[16:38] <bitshuffler> penguin42: yes, "start procps" is what it is trying to do which fails with "cannot connect to upstart" (somehow obviously since it is only a chroot with no servies running).
[16:38] <penguin42> bitshuffler: Yeh well start is an upstart command
[16:40] <bitshuffler> penguin42: well, upstart should be installed but not running - am I right that /com/ubuntu/upstart is a socket which only exists when upstart is actually running?
[16:41] <penguin42> bitshuffler: I'm not sure where that path comes from - there is no /com
[16:42] <bitshuffler> penguin42: the postinstall of procps fails with "start: Unable to connect to Upstart: Failed to connect to socket /com/ubuntu/upstart: Connection refused" when trying to do "start procps"
[16:42] <penguin42> yeh I can see from that strace
[16:44] <bitshuffler> penguin42: on what version are you? (we have that problem only with / since 10.10)
[16:45] <penguin42> bitshuffler: 10.10
[16:45] <bitshuffler> hm, makes me wonder how that postinst worked for you ;D
[16:46] <penguin42> I think it's just something I don't understand about socket naming - I can also see the connect(3, {sa_family=AF_FILE, path=@"/com/ubuntu/upstart"}, 22) = 0
[16:47] <bitshuffler> where do you see that?
[16:49] <penguin42> strace of start procps
[16:49] <penguin42> ah - Linux has a private namespace for sockets that aren't in the filesystem - I can see it with a netstat
[16:50] <ion> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickMeerkat/ReleaseNotes, search for “Upstart jobs cannot be run in a chroot”, run the two commands in the chroot.
[16:51] <penguin42> yeuch nasty work around :-)
[16:52] <bitshuffler> ion: thanks for the pointer :)
[16:53] <bitshuffler> hm, when exactly would I run that command since I currently can't create the chroot?
[16:54] <penguin42> bitshuffler: What OS are you running on?
[16:54] <bitshuffler> penguin42: opensuse - but what I'm trying to do is to fix the 10.10 chroots on their build service so it should work on pretty much any linux distro
[16:55] <penguin42> bitshuffler: If I was trying to create an ubuntu chroot I'd use debootstrap
[16:55] <bitshuffler> penguin42: well, all that stuff is a bit hard to do if you have no native ubuntu install around ;D
[16:56] <penguin42> bitshuffler: No, I think you can download debootstrap from somewhere and use it to unpack a minimal chroot
[16:58] <bitshuffler> hm, reading about that it sounds somehow sensible, not sure why it isn't used
[17:00] <penguin42> can use it for most debian and ubuntu
[17:01] <bitshuffler> otoh it makes me wonder how that debootstrap then installs the chroot since it must run into the same problem
[17:01] <ion> debootstrap seems to handle the initctl thing automatically. /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/maverick:echo \"Warning: Fake initctl called, doing nothing\"" > "$TARGET/sbin/initctl"
[17:02] <penguin42> bitshuffler: Get yourself a debootstrap from the most recent ubuntu and it should handle older ones as well
[17:03] <bitshuffler> hm, sounds shiny. Do I have to compile debootstrap myself or is it just some perl script?
[17:05] <ion> It’s implemented in sh.
[17:05] <bitshuffler> ah, nice
[17:13] <bitshuffler> Hm, your repo layout is pretty confusing tbh - where would I find a debootstrap package at http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/linux/debian/ubuntu/dists/maverick/ ?
[17:15] <Laney> http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/linux/debian/ubuntu/pool/main/d/debootstrap/
[17:16] <bitshuffler> oh, so the distro just contains the package lists with versions and then it gets taken from the pool which contains packages for all the distro versions?
[17:16] <penguin42> bitshuffler: Yeh pretty much
[17:17] <bitshuffler> ah, now it make sense :D Thanks a lot :)
[17:17] <ion> One can find a link to the package quite easily via http://packages.ubuntu.com/
[17:18] <ion> Also https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debootstrap
[17:18] <bitshuffler> Where would that link be? (I was at http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/debootstrap but saw no link to a repo)
[17:19] <Laney> click wher eit says "all"
[17:20] <Laney> or the .tar.gz on the right for the source package
[17:20] <ion> The architecture: all link under “Download debootstrap” for the built .deb; “Download Source Package” for the sauce.
[17:20] <bitshuffler> heh, that prolly was the only link I didn't click, cheers :)
[17:32] <bitshuffler> hm, does debootstrap have some "minimal" option - as in 144 packages is a bit much, not?
[17:33] <ion> The minbase variant perhaps.
[17:34] <bitshuffler> ion: is there a list with what variants exists? --help claims there are just "buildd, fakechroot & scratchbox
[17:36] <dev001> hi. i can't seem to find the 'right place' to get this actually posted, so, while i figure THAT out, a courtesy fyi in here ... for anyone that may be interested.
[17:36] <dev001> i've tried to submit an openssl-on-ubuntu bug to openssl-rt last week; it never posted.  tried again today -- waiting.  i see also that @launchpad, openssl trunk is tracked only @ openssl-rt. hm.  in any case, i've filed this @ RT (https://gist.github.com/991e5c720926687bb620).  Will try again to get it to appear there ...
[17:36] <dev001> thx
[17:38] <ion> bitshuffler: The man page mentioned minbase. The help text seems to lag behind the code. /usr/share/debootstrap/scripts/maverick contains the authoritative list of variants supported for maverick.
[17:42] <bitshuffler> ion: ah, nice, thanks for the pointer
[19:42] <yassine> is there some mutter developer in here?
[19:46] <yassine> i get this here when i try to start any application in my ubuntu maverick box: Oct 24 20:32:53 suncemoje kernel: [  793.258275] mutter[1988]: segfault at 0 ip 01dfa11c sp bf8a3a00 error 4 in libclutk-0.3.so.0.360.0[1deb000+4e000]
[21:32] <darkenvy6> hello, I just have a question
[21:32] <darkenvy6> a handheld device that runs ubuntu? (non ARMEL)
[21:32] <darkenvy6> an eee-pc is the closest I found but its not pocket sized. I figured this channel would know