[08:38] <agateau> morning!
[08:38] <agateau> having spent the weekend with the new kmail maintainer, I decided to give it another try (call me crazy or something...). Thus a first question: am I the only one who can't send email?
[08:39] <agateau> (that's a quite serious problem for a mail client...)
[08:40] <jussi> agateau: whats your email address? 
[08:41] <agateau> jussi: I have been using aurelien.gateau@free.fr for my tests, why?
[08:42] <jussi> agateau: it appears to have sent. did you get it?
[08:43] <agateau> jussi: yes, got it
[08:43] <agateau> so it works for you
[08:43] <jussi> agateau: so it works here
[08:43] <agateau> mmm
[08:44] <agateau> jussi: are you running 4.7.2?
[08:44] <jussi> jussi@squirrel:~$ apt-cache policy kmail
[08:44] <jussi> kmail:
[08:44] <jussi>   Installed: 4:4.7.2+git111007-0ubuntu1
[08:44] <jussi>   Candidate: 4:4.7.2+git111007-0ubuntu1
[08:46] <agateau> jussi: same here, thanks
[08:46] <agateau> will ping maintainer then
[08:46] <jussi> agateau: you sure you have yoursmtp settings correct? 
[08:47] <agateau> jussi: I checked them twice, and I don't get any error: the message just stay there
[08:47] <jussi> agateau: and authentication/security is all good?
[08:47] <agateau> jussi: it is
[08:48] <jussi> strange. Im using gmail for mine, but still.
[08:48] <agateau> jussi: it is the same settings which used to work with kmail 1.x
[08:48] <agateau> my mail host provides multiple smtp configs though, I am going to try a few others
[08:49] <jussi> agateau: double check the port - when I selected tls here it gave me a strange port
[08:49] <agateau> jussi: ok, but then it should at least complain that it doesn't work
[08:50] <jussi> agateau: yes, I agree.
[08:51] <jussi> agateau: also, while I have you - do you have the same spacing issue as me: http://wstaw.org/m/2011/11/28/plasma-desktopGm2166.jpg
[08:51] <jussi> (thats the number of mails for each folder)
[08:51] <agateau> jussi: what is the issue here?
[08:52] <jussi> agateau: those numbers are _really_ close to the divider...
[08:52] <jussi> looks horible
[08:53] <agateau> jussi: ah right, it's close here as well
[08:53] <agateau> jussi: but what I do is just get rid of the column by unselecting it from the header context menu
[08:53] <jussi> agateau: if you speak to the maintainer, please let him know that IMHO that is horrible.
[08:53] <agateau> jussi: i don't really need it
[08:54] <agateau> jussi: it's just a little less annoying than not being able to send mail :)
[08:54] <agateau> i'd rather get rid of the column for good (and keep the info in a tooltip), but people would complain
[08:55] <jussi> agateau: yes, this is very true - and not being able to send mail *and* have no error message iis even worse
[09:12] <agateau> jussi: so... in case you hear someone else with the same problem, the answer was: I probably had a wrong password for my smtp server. kmail just did not ask for it again
[09:13] <agateau> jussi: I restarted akonadi and it prompted me for my password, then send the email
[09:18] <jussi> agateau: ahh, thought it might be something like that.
[11:26] <danimo> debfx: ping?
[11:26] <debfx> danimo: pong
[11:27] <danimo> debfx: had to close https://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTCREATORBUG-6582
[11:27] <danimo> debfx: for OSes with GCC 4.6, you need Qt 4.8
[11:27] <danimo> debfx: luckily this won't be a problem for 12.04
[11:27] <danimo> debfx: and for older versions of Ubuntu (i.e. backports): They use GCC 4.5
[11:28] <danimo> debfx: so a backport of the 12.04 packages should be fine
[11:29] <debfx> heh, that information comes a little late
[11:32] <debfx> danimo: we can't backport it to 11.10 then, right? since 11.10 uses gcc 4.6
[11:33] <danimo> debfx: too bad then, but 11.04 should be possible
[11:33] <danimo> debfx: well, it's always possible to try and backport the patch that fixes the problem. I doubt it will apply cleanly against 4.7.4 though
[11:35] <debfx> not in the official backports since later ubuntu releases need to have at least the same version of the package
[11:39] <danimo> debfx: is Creator compiled without strict-aliasing as well?
[11:40] <debfx> danimo: not unless it's enabled in qtcreator's build system
[11:40] <debfx> nope, you think that's worth a try?
[11:41] <danimo> debfx: better than giving up
[12:03] <danimo> debfx: I did install 12.04 in a vm, and I can try and play a bit with it
[12:48] <debfx> danimo: -fno-strict-aliasing doesn't help
[12:56] <danimo> debfx: damn
[12:57] <danimo> debfx: anyway, 4.8.0 is around the corner
[13:39] <Mamarok> hi everyone :)
[13:40] <Mamarok> Riddell: when can we expect a newer libsoprano4 in Oneiric? You ship a very old version, there have been a lot of bug fixes since 2.7.0, current is 2.7.3 and it is highly recommended to upgrade the version.
[13:41] <Mamarok> most Nepomuk related bug reports from Oneiric are related to it BTW, so a backport is needed
[13:42] <Mamarok> see also http://trueg.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/kde-4-7-3-the-first-nepomuk-stability-release/
[14:12] <ScottK> Mamarok: I think "You ship a very old version" is a little unfair.  Up until two days before Oneiric was released, it was the version upstream recommended.
[14:14] <Mamarok> ScottK: OK, but it should really be upgraded, as it fixes most bugs reported in Oneiric
[14:14] <Mamarok> and it is recommended for the version shipped with KDE 4.7.3 which is in our backports after all
[14:17] <Mamarok> it is actually that backports I was refering to
[14:18] <Mamarok> so if we provide backports they should be complete
[14:18] <ScottK> Generally we just backport KDE SC, but this does seem like a good exception.
[15:09] <apachelogger_> Mamarok, ScottK: until .3 is in updates I do not see a valid case for putting the new soprano into updates
[15:10] <ScottK> apachelogger_: Yeah, I'm looking at it for precise now.
[15:10] <apachelogger_> the new soprano was *only* QA'd against 4.7.3, and considering the history of soprano 'bugfix' updates I'd argue that this is bogusy
[15:10] <apachelogger_> ScottK: makes sense for precise
[15:11] <ScottK> Then we can decide about oneiric.
[15:11] <ScottK> It's actually nepomuk trying to reindex akonadi maildirs on every frickin' resume that's the reason I'm on Thunderbird for mail.
[15:12] <ScottK> So it'd be nice to get it working better.
[15:13] <apachelogger_> ScottK: file a bug as long as upstream cares about fixing bugs :)
[15:13] <ScottK> Right.  I'd like to see if it's fixed already first.
[15:34] <ScottK> Mamarok: I just uploaded it to precise, so that's the first step ...
[15:58] <Mamarok> apachelogger_: I was talking about backports, not about updates, sorry id I expressed myself badly
[15:58] <Mamarok> where KDE 4.7.3 is
[15:58] <Mamarok> if*
[16:06] <apachelogger_> Mamarok: PPA you mean?
[16:06] <Mamarok> apachelogger_: exactly, since it is required for KDE 4.7.3's Nepomuk
[16:07] <agateau> Riddell: hi, when you have time, can you have a look at my new massif-visualizer upload on revu ( http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=9348 )?
[16:34] <apachelogger_> Mamarok: putting it into the .3 ppa would disturb .3 testing as soprano i not part of the KDE SRU exception
[16:35] <apachelogger_> soo the way to go would be: get .3 into -updates, then get SRU soprano into -updates
[17:20] <ScottK> apachelogger_: I think they could be done in separate bugs at the same time.
[17:51] <Riddell> ooh la la
[19:07] <apachelogger_> ScottK: aye, but for PPA testing it certainly makes sense to do it without soprano
[19:08] <apachelogger_> for actual SRU testing we can do both at the same time ... should issues appear that cannot be reproduced without proposed soprano it'd clearly be a problem with the new soprano
[21:17] <ScottK> Is 4.7.3 all done (lost track)?
[21:18] <ScottK> Assuming it is, I think it's OK to put soprano in the PPA.
[21:25] <highvoltage> Darkwing: hey, are you around?
[21:26] <highvoltage> Darkwing: we just talked to the TB about the Edubuntu LTS status, and since it's dependent on Kubuntu's LTS status we're kind of keen to see what's going to happen with it
[21:26] <highvoltage> Darkwing: The TB has another meeting in 2 weeks from now, do you think you could put together a wiki page for Kubuntu's LTS proposal?
[21:27] <ScottK> Kubuntu LTS is in question?
[21:30] <micahg> ScottK: I think it's more about how it wants to be an LTS vs whether or not it will be
[21:31] <ScottK> Not sure what that means?  "How?"
[21:31] <micahg> 3 yr vs 5 yr, what level of support can be expected
[21:31] <micahg> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedDerivatives
[21:34] <ScottK> Since KDE is in Main and there's no ISO respins after the next LTS, the additional support requirements for 3 versus 5 for Kubuntu are nil.
[21:54] <utusan> I see all these 4.7.3 updates but aren't those a waste if PP is 4.8?
[22:01] <utusan> And OO is still at 4.7.2 when it should benefit from all these updates
[22:33] <micahg> is someone working on the qt4-x11 .txt files + multiarch = breakage on precise?
[22:34] <micahg> ah, I found the bug