[00:13] <bdrung> kklimonda: but i can make it 4 % faster by using float instead of double
[00:13] <bdrung> :)
[02:10] <ari-tczew> bdrung: could you check wrap-and-sort on wallch package? Indeed, doesn't do anything.
[02:17] <slooksterpsv> Hi, I have a simple question, what does MOTU stand for or mean? (Acronym-wise)
[02:19] <Nafallo> Masters of the Universe
[02:20] <slooksterpsv> oh ok, thank you
[03:30] <ebroder> brung: worrying about a 1.3% performance overhead seems kind of silly to me
[03:30] <ebroder> at the very least, i'd make sure that things blow up if you don't call kibi_init, instead of working but being wrong
[03:31] <ebroder> there's a lot of value to failing spectacularly when things are used out of spec
[03:31] <ebroder> otherwise people won't notice they're doing something wrong
[03:34] <s1aden> reliable >= faster
[05:11] <lifeless> sladen: its not always that simple :)
[13:05] <ari-tczew> randomaction: nice to see you again involved!
[13:06] <randomaction> hello
[13:06] <randomaction> finally got some time for Ubuntu
[13:06] <ari-tczew> :)
[14:34] <bdrung> ari-tczew: running wrap-and-sort a second time doesn't change anything. wrap-and-sort worked as expected (read the man page).
[14:36] <bdrung> ebroder: it's significant faster than the  glib function. i can live with the performance overhead. kibi_init is gone. :)
[14:36] <ari-tczew> bdrung: I still don't understand.
[14:38] <bdrung> ari-tczew: wrap-and-sort is idempontent
[14:38] <bdrung> :)
[14:40] <ari-tczew> bdrung: and your script never change this package?
[14:40] <bdrung> ari-tczew: it did. run "wrap-and-sort -v" to see which files are touched
[14:41] <bdrung> ari-tczew: you should read the man page. quote: "By default the lists will only split into multiple lines  if  the  entries are longer than 80 characters."
[14:42] <ari-tczew> bdrung: why only longer than 80 chars?
[14:47] <sebner> bdrung: is requestsync b0rken atm? http://pastebin.com/kwHxEEXf
[14:51] <tumbleweed> sebner: that looks like a gpg configuration issue?
[14:51] <tumbleweed> sebner: also, --lp :)
[14:51] <sebner> ah true
[14:52] <sebner> tumbleweed: worked, thx :)
[14:55] <bdrung> ari-tczew: 80 chars are a common line maximum
[14:56] <bdrung> sebner: file a bug. it shouldn't give you an assertion error
[14:56] <ari-tczew> bdrung: IMO there should be an option to wrap anyway, even if it's less than 80 chars
[14:56] <sebner> bdrung: aye aye
[14:56] <bdrung> ari-tczew: there is. read the man page!
[14:57] <bdrung> ari-tczew: but the default is what i prefer :P
[14:57] <ari-tczew> bdrung: I did it, don't yell. I'm blind.
[14:57] <ari-tczew> -a, --wrap-always     wrap lists even if they fit into one 80 character long
[14:58] <bdrung> *applaus* you found it
[14:58] <ari-tczew> bdrung: why default is 80? IMO
[14:58] <ari-tczew> always should wrap
[14:58] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: because that's a sensible length limit
[14:58] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: it's a matter of personal preference
[14:58] <tumbleweed> ari-tczew: I added the -s option because I don't like the wrapping bdrung does :)
[14:59] <ari-tczew> tumbleweed: aha. I like the case as bdrung does. :P
[14:59] <bdrung> ari-tczew: e.g. http://richarddingwall.name/2008/05/31/is-the-80-character-line-limit-still-relevant/
[15:02]  * ari-tczew has noticed that day is visibly longer!