[01:26] <SpamapS> @pilot out
[04:35] <pitti> Good morning
[04:37] <mdeslaur> good morning pitti
[05:46] <pitti> jibel: is this a temporary glitch, or config error? https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/Precise/job/precise-upgrade-lucid-server/lastFailedBuild/ARCH=amd64,LTS=lts,PROFILE=server,label=upgrade-test/artifact/lts-server-amd64/bootstrap.log
[07:46] <dholbach> highvoltage, happy birthday! :)
[08:56] <highvoltage> thanks dholbach_ :)
[08:56] <dholbach_> :)
[09:03] <jibel> pitti, it was a temporary error. qemu failed to setup correctly for some reason. I restarted the test and it's ok. results will be published in less than an hour
[09:05] <pitti> jibel: *phew*, thanks
[10:08] <Sweetshark> lamont, infinity: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/92227283/buildlog_ubuntu-precise-amd64.libreoffice_1%3A3.5.0~rc1-0ubuntu1~ppa2_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz <- did you guys also raise the fs-size for amd64? i386 now builds just fine, but amd64 still fails ...
[10:47] <jamespage> BenC: OK with you if I pickup a merge of nodejs from Debian?  need to transition to new version of libv8
[11:19] <azza> is anyone online
[11:20] <seb128> azza, likely yes but most people don't reply to questions which are not asked yet ;-)
[11:21] <azza> where do i find the download link for ubuntu source code
[11:21] <azza> or the link to where i can download the files
[11:21] <seb128> azza, http://www.ubuntu.com/download/ubuntu/download
[11:22] <seb128> azza, you can get any source on http://launchpad.net/ubuntu as well
[11:23] <azza> thank you
[11:24] <seb128> you're welcome
[11:29] <azza> where can i find the original source code files (that is, official, unedited code)
[11:30] <seb128> azza, source of what?
[11:31] <azza> source code files for ubuntu. the code that is used in the version currently released
[11:31] <seb128> azza, usually it's the orig.tar.gz,bzr2,xz from source packages
[11:31] <YokoZar> azza: right, it's all available, but it consists of many different components
[11:32] <azza> i know that
[11:32] <azza> but where can i find the original files? what's the url to the page containing the original code files?
[11:32] <YokoZar> For which part?
[11:37] <azza> the whole OS
[12:00] <tjaalton> damn.. @pilot in
[12:00] <tjaalton> @pilot in
[12:01] <lamont> Sweetshark: 1) build URLs rather than buildlog URLs are more useful.  2) it's luck-of-the-draw on what builder you get, with most of them being the standard "too small for you" size...
[12:02] <lamont> Sweetshark: and fixing the build to not be so fat is going to be (I suspect) a faster path to happiness
[12:07] <Tm_T> tjaalton: aww
[12:08] <Tm_T> pulled the short straw?
[12:09] <tjaalton> Tm_T: just starting late, that's all
[12:10] <Sweetshark> lamont: so you want me to remove superflous stuff like "running the test suite" from the build?
[12:10] <justgord> is there a short command to list all installed PPAs ?
[12:16] <lamont> Sweetshark: that would be one way to do it, I don't know the packgae well enough to recommend specific ways to reduce the disk footprint.  In the case of the kernel, they originally kept all the intermediate stuff around for the entire build (building multiple kernels), and switched to removing the intermediate objects after each kernel was linked
[12:21] <justgord> to answer my own newbie question - ls /etc/apt/sources.list.d  # lists installed PPAs
[12:26] <Sweetshark> lamont: well, we just added testing to the build because it is the Right Thing(tm) to do. And I sure will not adapt the package for artificial limitations of the tooling. Tools are a service to the product and not the other way around.
[12:50] <diwic> is it just me, or did the theming in 12.04 just become very broken?
[12:59] <seb128> diwic, it's a gtk change how theming work, Cimi has to catch up and update our themes game
[13:00] <seb128> which is happening to every tarball recently
[13:00] <seb128> the issue from yesterday should be fixed in a theme update today
[13:00] <seb128> Cimi just got that done
[13:02] <diwic> seb128, okay, thanks, no use reporting bugs for that then
[13:02] <seb128> diwic, there are some bugs on light-themes (ubuntu) already, but yeah, wait for today updates before reporting
[13:19] <mvo> micahg: synaptic finally build !
[13:42] <ppisati> i just dist-upgraded, and it seems audio is dead in flash
[13:42] <ppisati> am i the only one experiencing it?
[13:46] <lamont> so... wtf would debuild -S decide that we should have 'Architecture: any all'?
[14:19] <soren> Don't builds on the buildd's run as root?
[14:20] <soren> (PPA buildd's if it matters)
[14:24] <soren> If they are running as root, why on Earth would /proc/<pid of some process I started in the build> not be owned by root? It's owned by uid 2001.
[14:30] <rbasak> Is this fakeroot related?
[14:32] <soren> rbasak: Shoulnd't be. buildd's don't use fakeroot, AFAIK.
[14:33] <soren> Gosh.
[14:33] <soren> They do.
[14:33] <soren> Ah, that may be debhelper's doing.
[14:33] <soren> ..but..
[14:34] <soren> rbasak: Hm. I always assumed this all ran as root.
[14:34] <soren> Darn it, have to run.
[14:39] <hallyn> zul: could you please syncpackage -d unstable numactl
[14:41] <zul> hallyn: yep will do
[14:43] <zul> hallyn: done
[14:43] <hallyn> zul: thanks
[14:58] <micahg> mvo: great, thanks!
[16:34] <barry> jtaylor: let's coordinate later today or tomorrow on numpy
[17:04] <doko> stgraber, do you cover cjwatson for the release meeting?
[17:07] <stgraber> doko: apparently we both replied at the same time, but as I said I'm always attending the meeting anyway and I'm used to writing these team reports, so I'm happy to cover for cjwatson
[17:07] <doko> ok
[17:44] <mwhudson> does python2.7-dbg no longer include detached debugging symbols for the non debug python?
[17:46] <mwhudson> ah it does
[18:09] <smoser> slangasek, can i get someone on foundations to look at bug 898373
[18:11] <slangasek> smoser: I think you're really going to need someone to look at it from the kernel side
[18:11] <slangasek> because there's nothing else in the foundations stack that would be holding that device open
[18:11] <smoser> why? its something user space that has got it open.
[18:11] <slangasek> how do you know?
[18:12] <smoser> why would the kernel have it open? it hasnt even been yet told to mount it
[18:12] <smoser> (yes, i realize thats a good argument for why user space didn't open it too)
[18:14] <slangasek> smoser: I don't know why the kernel would have it open, but I know there's nothing in the core userspace stack that should have it open :)
[18:15] <smoser> smb, ^
[18:15] <smoser> aroudn ?
[18:15] <smoser> can you think of anything?
[18:23] <tjaalton> @pilot out
[18:23] <barry> slangasek: do you have any idea where this warning comes from when i apt-get install packages on precise: Sorry, your system lacks support for the snapshot feature
[18:24] <tjaalton> jdstrand: hey, what's the status of bug 903752?
[18:24] <slangasek> barry: when you apt-get install?  Nope - interesting
[18:24] <slangasek> barry: maybe check what's installed hooks in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ ?
[18:24] <barry> slangasek: doesn't seem to affect anything, so i've been ignoring it, but it's slightly annoying and da googlz is no help
[18:25] <barry> ah good idea, will look
[18:25] <jdstrand> tjaalton: review of ssd is not completed yet. hope to finish soon
[18:25] <tjaalton> jdstrand: ok, thanks
[18:26] <psusi> barry: do you have apt-btrfs-snapshot installed?
[18:26] <barry> psusi: apparently so, that must be it
[18:51]  * jussi hugs Laney
[19:07] <Laney> \o/
[19:22] <bjf> barry, we are seeing some breakage in LP scripts that we have. bug_task.date_created is returning 'unicode' objects when it should be returning 'datetime' objects
[19:22] <bjf> barry, does this seem like a recent python library change or a LP api change ? (looking for a wild ass guess)
[19:22] <barry> bjf: probably an lp api change
[19:23] <bjf> barry, ack, will trot over an inquire there
[19:23] <barry> bjf: cool
[19:23] <bjf> barry, by the way, this breakage is only on Precise
[19:28] <barry> bjf: all signs point to lpapi :)
[20:38] <EtienneG> guys, I am a bit confused.  I want to request a sync from Debian testing.  I use requestsync, it creates an FFe bug on LP. So far so good.  Now, someone points out that FF is not past so need for an FFe.   But DebianImportFreeze is passed.  Do I need an FFe bug or not?    *confused*
[20:39] <Sarvatt> EtienneG: feature freeze is feb 16th, debian import freeze just means packages arent automatically pulled from debian and need a sync request/merge  to get updated
[20:40] <EtienneG> Sarvatt, that makes ton of sense.  So, to do a sync request, should I use syncrequest?
[20:41] <EtienneG> (sorry to be so daft, I am a little slow)
[20:41] <Sarvatt> requestsync, just dont pass -e that you passed to it
[20:41] <EtienneG> Sarvatt, ah ha!  then, *that* is what I did wrong
[20:41] <EtienneG> Sarvatt, thanks mucho
[21:05] <TheMuso> diwic: I'm onto the alsa conf.d bits, I used the wrong path. :S
[21:05] <highvoltage> devious secure boot details revealed in Windows 8 announcement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rHceul_3U8&feature=related
[21:15] <bdmurray> barry: I'm inclined to think that bug 898851 might be fixed in aptdaemon
[21:16] <bdmurray> but without knowing which version of update-manager those people had installed when the crash happened its hard to tell
[21:20]  * Sweetshark -> eod
[21:22] <Ampelbein> bdmurray: Doesn't the Dependencies attachment contain the needed version? update-manager-core 1:0.154.6
[21:22] <adam_g> stgraber: ping
[21:24] <bdmurray> Ampelbein: that attachment gets (or was getting) removed by the apport-retrace - there is a change that stops that
[21:24] <bdmurray> and when I said which version of update-manager I meant aptdaemon
[21:25] <bdmurray> but the dependencies.txt thing is still true
[21:25] <stgraber> adam_g: pong
[21:25] <Ampelbein> bdmurray: ok, didn't know it was removed when apport sets dupes.
[21:26] <bdmurray> well it should stop soon
[21:29] <adam_g> stgraber: some issue in openstack and i just noticed differing return iproute return codes between versions: http://paste.ubuntu.com/834491/  which ive tracked tohttp://git.jauu.net/?p=iproute2.git;a=commitdiff;h=7397944de6c11519a5951fc1bcff20225e71c4bd  figured id ask you, if that is a known thing and an issue anywhere else
[21:32] <stgraber> adam_g: I don't believe I saw something else break because of it though I'm guessing some other things probably didn't like the change in behaviour ...
[21:35] <adam_g> hmm, actually that git repositroy is not the upstream, but in any case...
[21:36] <adam_g> stgraber: first place ive noticed any breakage, and a quick check going back as far as maverick shows 254
[21:37] <stgraber> adam_g: do you know if the issue was reported in the Debian BTS?
[21:37] <stgraber> adam_g: the only change I made to this package is adding a Multi-Arch field, so I'd rather avoid diverging more for a package that seems pretty well maintained in Debian
[21:38] <barry> bdmurray: i think so too actually, but as you say it's hard to tell, so that's why i marked it incomplete
[21:43] <adam_g> stgraber: nope. i wasn't suggesting we patch, just curious if you knew anything about it
[21:44] <stgraber> adam_g: nope, first time I hear about it. Thanks for mentioning it though, might end up useful when trying to track down some bugs ;)
[22:11] <arges> slangasek, hello
[22:13] <arges> slangasek, i just backported a patch for lp #688550 to lucid. what format would you prefer for the SRU of that bug? should i create a bzr branch? provide the debdiff? or something else?
[22:13] <tomreyn> pitti + others: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/873424/comments/10 says this fixed package was built on Jan 13, but it doesn't seem to be available in oneiric-proposed, yet? Did it FTB?
[22:16] <slangasek> arges: IMHO, debdiffs are the most practical to work with for SRU
[22:17] <arges> slangasek, ok cool. will provide that then
[22:19] <bdmurray> tomreyn: looking
[22:19] <bdmurray> tomreyn: its there but the patch happens to be incomplete
[22:20] <bdmurray> speaking of that if I want to upload a new version to proposed when one is already there what do I do?
[22:24] <stgraber> doko: ping
[22:24] <stgraber> doko: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.15), libdbus-1-3 (>= 1.0.2), libexpat1 (>= 1.95.8), libnih1 (>= 1.0.0)
[22:24] <stgraber> doko: that's in nih-dbus-tool
[22:25] <stgraber> doko: obviously doesn't work with libc6 being 2.15~pre6-0ubuntu10 :)
[22:25] <stgraber> doko: and it's breaking my upstart upload as a result (which build-depends on nih-dbus-tool)
[22:27] <doko> stgraber, I uploaded libnih for a rebuild. is this one already installed?
[22:28] <stgraber> doko: yes, that's the one that's not installable
[22:28] <doko> shit
[22:28] <stgraber> doko: the new binaries from the libnih rebuild have libc6 (>= 2.15) instead of (>= 2.15~)
[22:29] <doko> cursing the use of private symbols in libnih
[22:29] <doko> yeah, will have to ask for a manual eglibc build
[22:40] <stgraber> doko: I'll be looking for another libnih upload before doing a mass give back of upstart (though it managed to build on at least i386 where the new nih wasn't published yet ;))
[22:41] <doko> stgraber, yeah, will work for armel and armhf. you need to edit the libc b-d
[22:41] <doko> s/-d/d/
[22:41] <doko> s/b-d/d/
[22:42] <doko> stgraber, please use a b-d on (>= 2.15). I'm preparing packages
[23:10] <doko> stgraber, ohh, lucky day! this dependency only is in nih-dbus-tool, not libnih1, so it builds normally
[23:11] <stgraber> doko: yep, it's just blocking upstart as upstart b-d on nih-dbus-tool :)
[23:11] <stgraber> doko: anyway, I'm monitoring LP now, as soon as it's published I'll give back the upstart FTBFS and everything should be good
[23:11] <doko> who cares about upstart ;-P
[23:11] <stgraber> (well, except for upstart's test failing on some architectures but that's not new, my change doesn't touch the code ...)
[23:12] <stgraber> yeah, nobody uses that ;)
[23:13] <tomreyn> bdmurray: thanks for reporting back. and i'm afraid i have no idea what to do then...
[23:13] <bdmurray> tomreyn: what do you mean? or what problem are you having?
[23:20] <tomreyn> bdmurray: i'm saying i have no idea how to upload a new version to proposed when one is already there. and my problem would be that check-new-release-gtk currently in oneiric-proposed still fails (we discussed this here an hour ago).
[23:22] <bdmurray> tomreyn: oh, I'm working on a new version of update-manager for oneiric proposed.
[23:30] <tomreyn> cool, thanks.