[00:48] <MTecknology> we can almost have a penguin release :D
[00:48] <MTecknology> that just flew into my mind
[00:48] <MTecknology> perfect penguin ?
[00:53] <arand_> MTecknology: I'd rather guess at "precocious pygoscelis" or so ;)
[00:54] <MTecknology> arand_: from the name of this one - it wouldn't surprise me; but i'm hoping for something a little more off the wall this time :P
[00:54] <MTecknology> proud penguin would be nice
[00:58] <arand_> MTecknology: Actually, it being unusual words is I'd say a good thing, "natty" makes a better codename than "proud", since it isn't really used in any other context. Oneiric is bad since it's spelly, and 3-4 syllables, though (I think..)
[00:59]  * penguin42 notes a penguin release would be excellent
[01:01] <MTecknology> :P
[02:27] <evfool> If I have two separate bzr branches of a project in separate directories, how can I merge them?
[02:34] <MTecknology> evfool: do they share a common ancestor?
[02:35] <evfool> MTecknology: branched a project, made some commits, but there were more commits in the project trunk since, and I'd like to update my branch for the latest trunk
[02:37] <MTecknology> evfool: 'bzr merge' should work
[02:38] <evfool> bzr merge where? in my branch dir, something like local-branch$ bzr merge lp:project?
[02:38] <evfool> MTecknology^
[02:39] <MTecknology> evfool: example.. bzr branch lp:branch1; cd branch1; bzr merge branch2
[02:40] <evfool> thanks MTecknology
[07:09] <G> ummm is it me, or is oneiric basically uninstallable when it comes to any SSL related voodoo? seems the current ca-certificates package requires openssl >=1.0.0 but openssl is still 0.9.8...
[07:11] <broder> G: oneiric just opened a couple of days ago. it may take some time for the dust to settle
[07:11] <micahg> G: ca-certs was sync'd, openssl needs a merge
[07:12] <G> yeah, looks like ca-certificates got synced yeah
[07:12] <G> micahg: yeah, just realised that after some digging
[07:13] <G> was hoping to test a merge I was going to propose
[07:14] <micahg> G: pull the ca-certs from natty
[07:15] <broder> anybody around know about the armel ftbfs from apt? can i assume that someone will retry all of the failed builds once it gets taken care of?
[07:16] <G> micahg: yep, just trying to remember how to do it with pbuilder, it's been a while
[07:17] <ohsix> apport is pretty patronising post release
[08:55] <cjwatson> broder: yes, you can assume that
[08:55] <cjwatson> G: I would be astonished if oneiric were installable right now
[08:55] <cjwatson> I have an openssl merge in progress, but it's non-trivial
[08:56] <G> cjwatson: yeah, I was just making sure that I wasn't going crazy
[09:20] <cdbs> cjwatson: ping
[09:20] <cdbs> cjwatson: Oneiric is installable
[09:20]  * cdbs is using it
[09:20] <cdbs> cjwatson: moreover, did an autosync just take place?
[09:21] <cjwatson> cdbs: don't ping me about oneiric being uninstallable a couple of days into the cycle.  it's practically uninstallable *by design* at this point. :-)
[09:21] <cjwatson> cdbs: I'm doing more or less daily autosyncs at the moment, and yes I just did one.
[09:22] <cdbs> makes sense
[09:22] <cdbs> cjwatson: I didn't ping about it being *not* installable, I was just answering your line: < cjwatson> G: I would be astonished if oneiric were installable right now
[09:22] <cjwatson> oh, you said installable
[09:22] <cjwatson> cdbs: why ping me then?
[09:23] <cdbs> cjwatson: ignoring the autosync, I was just notifying and correcting you, since G had probably asked you earlier :)
[09:23] <cdbs> okay, then, never mind
[09:23] <cjwatson> anyway, I'm sure parts of it are installable and parts not.  we have an automatic report for such things.  http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/testing/oneiric_probs.html
[09:23] <cjwatson>     armel:743
[09:23] <cjwatson>     amd64:672
[09:23] <cjwatson>     i386:678
[09:23] <cjwatson> (uninstallable counts in main by architecture)
[09:23] <cdbs> I dunno after the autosync, before it oneiric was perfect
[09:23] <cdbs> okay, /me g2g
[09:23] <cjwatson> I stand by my previous comment. :-)
[09:24] <cjwatson> before the autosync, oneiric was mostly natty :-)
[09:24] <cjwatson> so of course it would be generally installable
[09:36] <jsimmons> It looks like there's a bug in the libglew-1.5-dev package in 11.04, to the point you can't even compile code using it.
[09:37] <jsimmons> I don't know how it could have possibly been missed but anyway.
[12:01] <lfaraone> kenvandine: In natty, I'm not seeing that bug 621953 has been fixed; scrolling via the keyboard still doesn't work.
[12:06] <echo6> I'm trying to compile splashutils from source on Narwal, /usr/lib/klibc/include/linux/posix_types.h:47:29 fata error: asm/posix_types.h: No such file or directory
[12:06] <echo6> Not sure if this is a bug in libklibc-dev or other? and whether I should report it as such on launchpad
[12:09] <lfaraone> let me see, echo6.
[12:10] <lfaraone> echo6: that's not an Ubuntu package, is it?
[12:11] <echo6> splashutils isn't, but libklibc-dev is
[12:40] <Laibsch> I have a weird pbuilder problem that I hope you can help me with.  I want to recompile the latest grub2 for lucid.  I get an error "dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libdevmapper-dev (>= 2:1.02.34) libfuse-dev mtools", yet these should be available as logging in to pbuilder shows: http://paste.debian.net/115542/
[12:44] <geser> Laibsch: have you tried to install those packages (in your pbuilder)?
[13:00] <AndreaAzzarone> hi, someone can help me?
[13:01] <AndreaAzzarone> regards libglade and gtk
[13:01] <AndreaAzzarone> *gtk3
[13:10] <Laibsch> geser: you mean to include those packages in base.tgz?  Good idea, I actually hadn't though about that.  Hopefully that will get me to build the package.  I still wonder why the installation from inside the pbuilder run itself doesn't seem to work.
[13:11] <Laibsch> AndreaAzzarone: Ask your question and you will see if somebody can help you.  libglade and gtk sounds like you want to ask in #ubuntu-app-devel, though
[13:13] <geser> Laibsch: I meant to try installing it to check if they're installable or not
[13:17] <AndreaAzzarone> Laibsch, thanks! I already solved my problem ;)
[13:27] <Laibsch> geser: yes, the packages are installable: http://paste.debian.net/115629/ (from inside the pbuilder)
[13:27] <geser> hmm, then I wonder why you got the error
[14:36] <Laibsch> geser: hehe, yes, me too.  I really don't understand that one.
[14:36] <Laibsch> I'm now including the packages in base.tgz temporarily. Build the package and then purge them again.
[16:19] <dupondje> dev's are taking a nap ? :
[16:19] <dupondje> :)
[18:40] <echo6> It would appear Narwal linux-libc-dev: 2.6.38-8.42 is missing /usr/include/asm/ directory
[18:44] <ogra_> should be in asm-generic
[18:44] <micahg> echo6: now in the multiarch path
[18:45] <echo6> yes, i had to create a symlink to ./i386-linux-gnu/asm
[18:46] <Ampelbein> echo6: that defeats the purpose of multiarch, doesn't it?
[18:46] <micahg> echo6: you shouldn't need to create the symlink
[18:46] <echo6> it was the only way I could compile something from source
[18:47] <micahg> echo6: the package is broke then, each arch has the proper path
[18:47] <Ampelbein> the application should be fixed then
[18:47] <echo6> thanks, at least I can contact the author
[18:49] <echo6> hmm, the error was generated from /usr/lib/klibc/linux/posix_types.h:47:29
[18:52] <echo6> it expects to find asm/posix_types.h
[18:52] <Ampelbein> echo6: what error? If the application uses the correct -I parameter, there should be no problem.
[18:53] <echo6> Ampelbein: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rootskel/+bug/765903
[19:03] <Ampelbein> echo6: hmm, that should be fixed with newest klibc, see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/klibc/1.5.20-1ubuntu6
[19:08] <echo6> Ampelbein: That is the version I'm using and getting errors with
[19:09] <echo6> Ampelbein: Sorry, I see now there is a patch 1.5.20-1ubuntu61.5.20-1ubuntu6
[19:21] <ScottK> slangasek: It looks like Bug 764096 may be a multiarch related issue.  Would you please have a look.
[20:40] <cjohnston> Is something wrong with apport retrace?
[21:38]  * arpan is away: Gone away for now
[22:05] <lifeless> cjohnston: why do you ask?
[22:39] <calc> anyone happen to know why the ubuntu desktop amd64 zsync file doesn't work?
[22:39] <calc> it downloads then won't proceed to download the iso itself
[22:41] <calc> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/602014/
[22:46] <arand_> calc: Seems like all of the zsync isos fail for some reason..
[22:51] <calc> arand_: any idea who should be alerted to the issue?
[23:08] <arand_> calc: 'fraid no..
[23:31] <cjwatson> calc,arand_: you can file a bug on the ubuntu-cdimage project