[02:50] <ScottK> kees: apachelogger is complaining he's not in ubuntu-sponsors, but too lasy to switch channels at 3:50 AM in .at.  Since you're a team admin, would you please add him.
[02:59] <TheMuso> Whaaa? Linux 3.0-rc1?
[03:00] <ScottK> TheMuso: Would you please add apachelogger to ubuntu-sponsors.
[03:01] <TheMuso> ScottK: Sure.
[03:01] <ScottK> Thanks.
[03:01] <TheMuso> Done.
[03:02] <ScottK> Thanks.
[03:02] <ScottK> kees: Unping.
[03:03] <TheMuso> np
[03:13] <RAOF> TheMuso: Yeah.  The release numbers are “getting too high”, so it's time for 3.0 :)
[03:13] <TheMuso> Fair enough.
[03:14] <TheMuso> I just wonder whether 3.0 is bringing anything *significant*.
[03:15] <micahg> TheMuso: no, http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTUwMg
[03:15] <ajmitch> looks like it's nothing nig, just a nice shiny version number
[03:15] <ajmitch> s/nig/big/
[03:15] <TheMuso> Right.
[03:18] <TerminX_> it would be nice to see crap like support for MFM and RLL hard drives go away in 3.0
[03:19] <TheMuso> Thats a good read.
[04:45] <TheMuso> c
[05:28] <pitti> Good morning
[05:29] <pitti> slangasek: fixed now (seems Debian dropped the python:Provides)
[06:19] <pitti> kees, jdstrand: releasing lucid kernel to -updates/-security: linux linux-backports-modules-2.6.32 linux-meta linux-ports-meta
[06:41] <pitti> argh
[06:46] <micahg> pitti: you do realize they're off today, right?
[06:46] <pitti> they usually read backscroll, though
[06:46] <micahg> pitti: no, I mean Monday :)
[06:46] <pitti> right
[06:46] <micahg> k
[06:46] <micahg> wasn't sure if a USN had to go out at the same time
[06:46] <pitti> (I didn't know that they are off, but now I do)
[06:47] <micahg> US holiday today
[06:47] <pitti> ah, I see
[06:47] <pitti> it's nice if the USN gets out timely, but *shrug*, too late now :/
[06:48] <micahg> mdeslaur: ^^
[07:02] <pitti> @pilot in
[07:41] <pitti> james_w: hm, the package importer spits out branch diffs for feisty, edgy, gutsy, etc. like mad :/
[07:41]  * pitti plays whack-a-mole to set them to rejected
[07:41] <pitti> like https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/gutsy/cyrus-sasl2/gutsy-201105300151/+merge/62828
[07:41] <pitti> (empty diff)
[07:44] <didrocks> good morning
[07:52] <dholbach> good morning
[07:57] <pitti> james_w: seems I can barely keep up with the closing :/
[07:59] <geser> good morning
[08:00] <micahg> pitti: re bug 766559, shouldn't it just be changed from an depends to enhances?
[08:01] <pitti> I'm not sure whether software-center looks at "enhances", but I'm not fussed about suggests vs. enhances
[08:02]  * micahg thought enhances makes it show up as a "plugin"
[08:03] <soren> micahg: That's the intent, but I think support for it in the various package managers is somewhat lacking.
[08:05] <micahg> ah, I'll chat with someone tomorrow about that :)
[08:06] <RAOF> I think software-centre actually looks at that, but I'm not sure.
[08:11] <dholbach> broder, thanks for the backport
[08:34] <broder> dholbach: np
[09:24] <Sweetshark> Hi guys!
[09:27] <Sweetshark> pitti: do you agree that https://bugs.launchpad.net/df-libreoffice/+bug/709778 would deserve a SRU? OTOH I guess we will be releasing LO 3.3.3 in some form to natty, right? I that case we can keep it in the ppa until then.
[09:28] <Sweetshark> (that bug makes base completely unusable)
[09:28] <pitti> hey Sweetshark
[09:29] <pitti> Sweetshark: yes, that's SRU worthy indeed
[09:30]  * Sweetshark is a bit scared that not only Ubuntu, but at least also Debian and OpenSUSE did ship this and nobody seemed to have cared about it.
[09:32] <Sweetshark> pitti: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan/3.3#3.3.3_release upstream release 3.3.3 is around the corner too though. Shall we wait for it?
[09:34] <Sweetshark> I dont know it debian even packages a 3.3.3
[09:34] <Sweetshark> s/it/if/
[09:37] <pitti> Sweetshark: I'd say it depends on how realistic it is to get 3.3.3 into -updates fast; I remember previous microrelease updates which caused regressions and which never made it past -proposed
[09:41] <Sweetshark> pitti: does all the microrelease code change have to be reviewed?
[09:41] <pitti> not every line, but we do review the changelog for sanity at least
[09:43] <Sweetshark> pitti: alas
[09:44] <Sweetshark> pitti: a) there is no changelog b) there are 20 repo logs to look into c) it could well be that all changes are by me.
[09:47] <infinity> Sweetshark: If (c) is true, that makes is easy to audit, via draconian interrogation techniques.
[09:48] <geser> or write a changelog
[09:51] <Sweetshark> infinity: I am happy to report that that is not the case.
[09:53] <Sweetshark> there are 35 commits in total over all repos
[09:56] <Sweetshark> pitti: given that, SRU is the way to go IMHO. And 3.3.3 release to ppa.
[09:58] <pitti> Sweetshark: ah, that sounds fine; I was afraid it was more like 3000 :)
[10:17] <Sweetshark> pitti: no, after 3.3.2 there are not many patches anymore, as people are more interested in breaking the next release
[10:33] <debfx> cjwatson: could you please update the kubuntu packageset so it picks up kamoso? it's seeded on the dvd
[10:34] <jibel> mvo, Hi
[10:35] <jibel> mvo, there's definitely a problem with apt and MergeList in Natty, there are 2 new reports today
[10:35] <jibel> mvo, and bug 346386 is accumulating duplicates.
[10:35] <jibel> see also http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=627642
[10:37] <juliank> jibel: Invalid package files do simply not work, and we can't really check them after download, as that violates abstraction layering and is just to slow.
[10:37] <juliank> Most of those bugs are wrongly configured networks sending 200 OK messages with wrong content
[10:38] <jibel> juliank, I don't think leaving the user with an unresolvable situation does work either.
[10:38] <pitti> how come that apt accepts them anyway? They should certainly not match the md5sum from the releasea file?
[10:38] <jibel> juliank, and this situation regressed in natty.
[10:42] <juliank> pitti: that's a good question.
[10:43] <juliank> jibel: It does not regress, the number of public hotspots using such schemes increases
[10:47] <juliank> pitti: If it does not verify those files, we actually have a serious security bug
[10:47] <Sweetshark> pitti: I had a look at the commit, they all look rather sane. so back to the plan to get 3.3.3 to -updates, right?
[10:47] <pitti> juliank: *nod* -- but I suspect it also downloads a bad Release file then?
[10:47] <pitti> Sweetshark: sounds good to me
[10:48] <juliank> pitti: Release files are downloaded of course, but verified using gpg, so there is no problem from a security perspective. And they are always re-downloaded completely AFAIK, so the other problem is not that critical either
[10:56] <mvo> thanks jibel
[10:57] <mvo> jibel: i will work on reproducing this today
[10:57] <juliank> mvo: The Release file must be missing for this to happen, as otherwise it should check the signatures
[10:58] <mvo> juliank: yeah, I suspect that is the case, I need to look at the various reports to figure out what is happening exactly
[10:58] <juliank> mvo: I'm writing a test server for it.
[10:58] <mvo> juliank: and how to reproduce it, it may well be that its just more visible now
[10:58] <mvo> juliank: I have a fault-injecting-proxy for this if you want to try it
[10:59] <juliank> mvo: I just sent 200 OK messages from a nodejs server containing HTML, as in the Debian bug
[10:59] <mvo> juliank: ok, that should be fine as well, lp:~mvo/+junk/fault-injecting-proxy  fyi
[11:00] <mvo> but your approach should be fine too
[11:00] <mvo> juliank: I need to go for lunch now, I will check afterwards
[11:04] <jibel> juliank, for info, the actual content of the faulty files are, in most of the cases, a router/proxy error page when a remote file doesn't exist (the device probably returns a code 200 instead of a propagating the 404) or a hotspot landing page. You're approach to reproduce should be fine.
[11:04] <jibel> juliank, thanks for helping on this.
[11:04] <juliank> jibel: I reproduced it already.
[11:18] <doko> stgraber: why is bug #781516 assigned to you?
[11:43] <juliank> jibel: mvo: Posted a patch at https://launchpadlibrarian.net/72655592/lp-346386.diff
[11:44] <juliank> This makes it reject indexes (Packages,Sources,Translation) without a 'Package' field in the first section, and Release files without hashes
[11:45] <juliank> That's not the final patch, though
[11:50] <TheMuso> cjwatson: Do you have a bzr branch of your live-build migration work somewhere, or are you still analysing live build-livecd-rootfs?
[12:22] <bdrung_> tumbleweed: around?
[12:23] <juliank> jibel: mvo: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/346386/+attachment/2147672/+files/lp-346386v2.diff should now reject all invalid files (Packages, Sources, Translation, i18n/Index, InRelease, Release, Release.gpg)
[12:23] <tumbleweed> bdrung_: yeah, back at my desk for the first time in a month :)
[12:24] <juliank> I'll be back in about 10 to 20 minutes
[12:25] <juliank> and finalize and commit this thing then
[12:25] <bdrung_> tumbleweed: why do you use try assert instead of a simple if construct?
[12:26] <tumbleweed> bdrung_: partly because it was there, partly so it'll still throw an exception when there's no error output
[12:26] <mvo> thanks juliank!
[12:27] <bdrung_> tumbleweed: but you just catch the AssertionError
[12:27] <tumbleweed> no it's raised again if there's no error output
[12:37] <juliank> mvo: It could actually break some repositories shipping an unsigned Release file not containing hashes. Is that actually supported?
[12:38] <bdrung_> tumbleweed: please fix the build failure
[12:41] <cjwatson> TheMuso: I have a private git branch, but I've pushed all the changes in it as Debian bug reports
[13:04] <hrw> can someone from TB grant me PPU which I got week ago?
[13:07] <tumbleweed> bdrung_: sorry, will do. I couldn't test because my local mirror is borked
[13:08] <bdrung_> tumbleweed: a local build is sufficient
[13:09] <tumbleweed> bdrung_: I didn't have a local environment with an up to date devscripts installed.
[13:10] <pitti> @pilot out
[13:10] <cdbs> pitti: I'm a second late, but could you kindly sponsor a merge that's blocking gnome-shell from building? Thanks
[13:10] <pitti> hrw: yes, can you please send me a pointer to the confirmation email?
[13:10] <hrw> pitti: sure
[13:10] <pitti> cdbs: sure, which one?
[13:10] <cdbs> pitti: bug #789748
[13:12] <hrw> pitti: but should I get any for it? when I got 'ubuntu contributor' status I got email that I got added to LP group. After last week DMB meeting I did not get any emails regarding PPU stuff.
[13:13] <pitti> hrw: there should be a voting about your application on the dmb list
[13:13] <hrw> pitti: so far the only place where I see that I got them is log from last DMB meeting
[13:13] <pitti> maybe they didn't prepare/send out the minutes yet
[13:13] <hrw> pitti: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/05/23/%23ubuntu-meeting.html - end of log
[13:13] <geser> hrw: usually the chair of the meeting sends a mail to the TB requesting it (as only TB can add PPU to LP)
[13:14] <hrw> so will have to catch persia first probably
[13:14] <pitti> hrw: ah, can do now if it's blocking you
[13:15] <hrw> pitti: few things less on todo list - upload of whole cross toolchain for oneiric with gcc 4.6 as default instead of natty's versions
[13:17] <pitti> hrw: done
[13:17] <geser> hrw: alternatively you could ask pitti to sponsor your uploads :) (although a little bit late for his piloting today)
[13:17] <mvo> juliank: I think its ok to break for that case, I doubt its supported anymore
[13:17] <pitti> geser: nah -- sponsor a man, and he's got enough uploads for a day; edit_acl for a man, and he's got enough uploads for a lifetime!
[13:17] <hrw> geser: I know. I went this way for >100 versions of cross toolchain packages
[13:17] <juliank> mvo: I removed it for now, as I created such repositories from time to time IIRC
[13:18] <pitti> hrw: happy uploading!
[13:18] <hrw> pitti: danke
[13:18] <juliank> mvo: revno 2126 and revno 2127 of debian-sid
[13:18] <cdbs> hrw: Rock with Linaro! (/me's a linaro fan)
[13:18] <tumbleweed> bdrung_: looks like a bug in pylint
[13:22] <pitti> cdbs: done
[13:22] <cdbs> pitti: Thanks a lot, that was fast!
[13:22] <pitti> well, it builds fast, and my computer reboots fast, too :)
[13:22] <pitti> (for testing)
[13:25] <cdbs> pitti: Boots fast? My oneiric's boot time is now at par with windows :(
[13:25] <pitti> well, for this computer it's still slow (some 20 s)
[13:25] <cdbs> Due to the plethora of changes that trickled in
[13:25] <pitti> I had 7 s in maverick
[13:25] <cdbs> pitti: Its over a minute for me
[13:26] <mvo> juliank: thanks, I will merge into the ubuntu branch and if its all looking well in oneiric backport as a SRU
[13:27] <geser> mine oneiric boots slow too (slower than natty), sometimes it even doesn't find the md-device for my /home
[13:28]  * cdbs faces the same issue as geser 
[13:30] <geser> not to mention the issues with auto-login (the 1st login tells me on one screen that something has gone wrong and I've to log out while I seem to be able to use Gnome on the other one; but the 2nd (manual) login works)
[13:30] <geser> and logouts are also taking long (don't know what happening in the background that a logout takes so long)
[13:34] <azeem> anybody know what creates /etc/php5/apache2/php.ini and what's the default value for session.gc_probability in lucid?
[13:35] <cdbs> azeem: libapache2-mod-php5 creates that
[13:35] <cdbs> azeem: in oneiric, its 1, I dunno about lucid.
[13:36] <azeem> thanks
[14:02] <stgraber> doko: because slangasek wanted me to write the MIR. I should have removed that once it was written.
[14:23] <dholbach> can somebody else please take a look at https://code.launchpad.net/~andrewsomething/ubuntu-packaging-guide/debian-dir-overview/+merge/62803 too?
[14:23]  * dholbach just gave it a review
[14:25] <ScottK> If only all this effort was going into improving existing documentation instead of making Ubuntu docs that duplicate existing Debian work, it would be more interesting to review.
[14:26] <dholbach> ScottK, I think part of it was taken from the old packaging guide
[14:26] <ScottK> I think it's a mistake to have a completely separate set of Ubuntu documentation for things that are largely common to Debian.
[14:27] <ScottK> It's a real missed opportunity for collaboration.
[14:27] <dholbach> right
[14:27] <hrw> Successfully uploaded packages.
[14:27] <hrw> now waiting for build results ;D
[14:27] <dholbach> on the other hand is it a bit tough to draw the line - there are parts (infrastructure, processes, some packaging bits) that are different
[14:28] <dholbach> ... if you want to give somebody who reads the guide a feeling for some kind of semi-complete document
[14:28] <hrw> dholbach: make one doc for debian/ubuntu with some extra ubuntu sections?
[14:30] <dholbach> it's not a completely separate set of Ubuntu documentation - as you can see in the article that Andrew wrote, there's quite a few links to debian documentation
[14:30] <dholbach> nobody wants to replace that :)
[14:30] <ScottK> cjwatson: kphotoalbum may be some kind of record.  12 minutes from sync request filed to fix released with no prodding anyone to get it done.
[14:31] <hrw> [ubuntu/oneiric] armel-cross-toolchain-base 1.64 (Accepted)
[14:31] <hrw> yay!
[14:31] <cjwatson> ScottK: lucky :-)
[14:32] <ScottK> hrw: First upload?
[14:32] <pitti> hrw: congrats!
[14:33] <ogra_> oh my ! hrw can upload to the archive now ?
[14:33]  * ogra_ ducks and covers :)
[14:33] <ogra_> hrw, congrats :)
[14:33] <ScottK> hrw: Congratulations.
[14:34] <hrw> thx guys
[14:34]  * hrw -> lunch
[14:34] <highvoltage> hrw: whohoo!
[14:35] <hrw> ogra_: PPU for cross compilers for now
[14:35] <hrw> ogra_: too many people told me 'motu is dead, apply for universe contributor' so motu has to wait a bit
[14:36] <ScottK> Rumors of MOTU's death are greatly exaggerated.
[14:38] <geser> The dead (MOTU) are still alive
[14:47] <Satoris> Zombies of the Universe.
[14:52] <qchn> Does anyone know where the difference in the initramfs between Debian and Ubuntu is?
[14:53] <qchn> I need to hook something there in Ubuntu which works under Debian.
[14:59] <Laney> I want to know who all of these 'too many people' are
[15:08] <dpm> hi doko, I'm looking at the translations imports queue in LP, and there are a couple of .pot templates coming from gcc which I'm not sure what to do with. They are the same template but come from different paths. My guess is that I should approve one (the one from src/) and block the other one (the one from src-spu/), could you please confim? They're these:
[15:08] <dpm> src/libcpp/po/cpplib.pot
[15:08] <dpm> src-spu/libcpp/po/cpplib.pot
[15:09] <doko> dpm: ignore the src-spu one (only built on powerpc)
[15:09] <dpm> doko, ok, cool, thanks
[15:37] <stgraber> cjwatson: Hi! I'm currently looking at dhcpv6 support in d-i. I did my initial test with the mini iso and noticed that it doesn't contain the isc-dhcp-client udeb but instead uses busybox's udhcpc.
[15:37] <stgraber> cjwatson: as udhcpc doesn't support dhcpv6, I was wondering how difficult it'd be to use isc-dhcp-client in the mini.iso image instead?
[15:38] <stgraber> (apparently we use the isc-dhcp-client udev for our other images, downloading one of them now to verify that it's indeed the case and that the -6 option works)
[15:43] <didrocks> doko: I was promoting the at-spi2 to main, I was puzzled why it was already done
[15:43] <didrocks> same for atk
[15:44] <doko> well, that's why I added a comment. didn't know that you were archive admin
[15:45] <didrocks> doko: ok, I was puzzled for a minute as I didn't get the bugmail meanwhile, you'll know for next time then :-)
[15:45] <slangasek> pitti: thanks for the python-gnome fix :)
[15:50] <fta> doko, http://paste.ubuntu.com/613946/ (from the chromium devs)
[15:53] <doko> fta: thanks. could you attach it to the bug report?
[15:54] <fta> sure
[15:54] <fta> doko, against binutils?
[15:54] <fta> doko, btw, i filed 2 already last week, and i Cced you
[15:57] <doko> fta: works in oneiric. please could you check with the binutils from the ubuntu-toolchain-r ppa?
[15:57] <fta> doko, they need it in the LTS...
[15:59] <doko> not sure I want to do that ...
[15:59] <fta> doko, too bad :( they are forced to recommend all devs to build their own binutils from trunk, for lucid :(
[16:01] <doko> fta: 2.21 did need fixes in a lot of packages. can't just update from 2.20 to 2.21
[16:01] <doko> will upload 2.21 to ubuntu-toolchain-r/test
[16:04] <doko> which bug report did you update?
[16:05] <fta> i didn't do it yet
[16:05] <fta> doko, i'm wondering if it's worth it now that you said it won't happen
[16:07] <fta> my problem is with the ubuntu chromium builds for which ld-fbd is now so slow builders timeout, and ld-gold is either not usable or unreliable.
[16:08] <doko> this is bug #673893
[16:08] <doko> fta: write your own standard output while you see progress on the output file
[16:29] <doko> fta: uploaded to ppa:ubuntu-toolchain-r/test (this one already has 2.21)
[16:42] <roel-> I'm working with preseeding the ubuntu installation here, and it works fine so far
[16:42] <roel-> but:
[16:42] <roel-> I would like the installation to prompt for two things: the ip address and the hostname of the new ubuntu installation
[16:43] <roel-> but the installer defaults to hostname 'ubuntu' without asking for it
[16:43] <roel-> can I force it to ask for a hostname?
[16:43] <roel-> where can I find the code for this so I can analyze it?
[16:51] <fta> doko, thanks
[16:56] <cjwatson> stgraber: there's already a netcfg branch for that, and I have a work item to integrate it; it uses wide-dhcpv6-client-udeb
[16:57] <stgraber> cjwatson: any reason it uses wide-dhcpv6-client-udev instead of isc-dhcp-client-udev (that handles both v4 and v6 and is already on our CDs)?
[17:01] <cjwatson> stgraber: I don't know off the top of my head, it would be worth going back to the debian-boot@ discussion if you're curious
[17:01] <cjwatson> we might well be able to use isc-dhcp for it, sure
[17:02] <cyphermox> hi, would someone be so kind as to ACK network-manager from NEW?
[17:18] <vmlinuz> after I upgraded my Lucid to the latest kernel today, my compiz is freezing from time to time... is there any way to run compiz in debug mode and troubleshoot that? maybe file a bug
[17:56] <micahg> doko: BTW, it seems the s/xulrunner/firefox/ change was dropped again for icedtea-web (currently in depwait)
[18:10] <micahg> doko: re chromium and lucid, can we upload a new binutils with new source/binaries that could be used on demand?
[19:04] <doko> micahg: sorry, will fix it later this week
[19:04] <micahg> doko: k, thanks
[19:09] <stgraber> cjwatson: Just finished doing some tests with isc-dhcp-client-udeb (as I had a WI for that in the ipv6 spec). Seems like we ship it by default but it's not installed by default. Installing it manually gives a working dhcp client for ipv4 and ipv6 (obviously netcfg only knows about the -4 mode)
[19:10] <stgraber> (updated the spec with the test results)
[19:10] <stgraber> I also tried to find that IPv6 branch of d-i but it looks like the instructions in the ML post aren't working anymore :(
[19:28] <cjwatson> stgraber: right, changing netcfg to depend on isc-dhcp-client-udeb would be sufficient to cause it to be pulled into CD images, mini.iso images, etc.
[19:29] <cjwatson> we actually only switched to udhcpc recently, AIUI ;-)
[20:45] <hemin> Hi guys, I want to contribute in development ubuntu operating system.. where should I start from?
[20:47] <iulian> hemin: http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/files/study-guide/index.shtml
[20:47] <iulian> Oups.
[20:47] <iulian> I meant https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing.
[20:49] <hemin> iulian, thanks!
[20:50] <tumbleweed> hemin: and you are welcome to ask lots of questions :) #ubuntu-motu is a good place for that
[20:50] <hemin> ok.. sure i will join #ubuntu-motu
[20:51] <tumbleweed> hemin: there's also a new guide in progress: http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/
[20:52] <hemin> ok
[21:14] <micahg> hi ahasenack
[21:14] <ahasenack> hi micahg
[21:15] <ahasenack> so in natty we have smart-1.3-1.3build1, what version/release should I use for an SRU?
[21:15] <micahg> so, for something like 1.3-1.3build1, the version would be 1.3-1.3ubuntu0.1 if it's the only release with that version, if it's a no change rebuild SRU, then 1.3-1.3build2
[21:15] <ahasenack> micahg: it will have a code patch
[21:16] <micahg> so, 1.3-1.3ubuntu0.1 for natty and 1.3-1.3ubuntu1 for oneiric
[21:16] <ahasenack> micahg: no distro name in it?
[21:16] <micahg> ahasenack: no, since they will have different versions, the only time to use a distro name in an SRU if for a full version backport
[21:17] <ahasenack> micahg: the released natty and oneiric builds have the exact same version/release
[21:17] <micahg> and even then, it's a matter of preference to use the codename or the number
[21:17] <ahasenack> 1.3-1.3build1
[21:17] <tumbleweed> ahasenack: but you fix it in the devel release before SRUing
[21:17] <ahasenack> well, oneiric wasn't relesaed, ok
[21:17] <micahg> ahasenack: right, but the oneiric one will follow the standard dev conventions which will make the suffix ubuntu1 and natty will follow SRU conventions with an ubuntu0.1 suffix
[21:17] <ahasenack> tumbleweed: yeah, I have to upload it to oneiric too, ok
[21:18] <ahasenack> ok, and maverick? It has "1.3-1"
[21:18] <ahasenack> so, 1.3-1ubuntu0.1?
[21:18] <micahg> ahasenack: correct!
[21:18] <ahasenack> and lucid, which has 1.2-5, will get 1.2-5ubuntu0.1?
[21:18] <micahg> ahasenack: yep
[21:18] <ahasenack> ok, I better save these logs
[21:19] <ahasenack> micahg: tumbleweed: thanks
[21:49] <cr3> how can I prepare a package and all its dependencies on a usb key so that it can be installed offline, knowing the target release for example?
[21:50] <soren> cr3: apt-offline
[21:50] <cr3> soren: thanks dude, checking it out
[21:52] <soren> cr3: Sure thing.
[22:32] <hallyn> hm, quilt upgrade not working with trees created under previous quilt?
[22:35] <hallyn> oh, no.  that's not it.  i guess my crash yesterday cost me some file integrity.