[01:08] <jdstrand> xnox, dupondje: fyi, to make sure we get notified, you can use the 'apparmor' tag
[01:09] <jdstrand> filing it against apparmor does the trick too though
[03:28] <micahg> xnox: the apparmor tag is subscribed to by the Ubuntu security team, it's best to file the bug against the package where the profile exists
[04:09] <rsalveti> tjaalton: more arm-related bugs, if you can please review and sponsor: bug 1041727 and bug 1041686
[04:10] <rsalveti> needed now that modesetting is also installed by default from xorg-video-all
[15:17] <Kalidarn> seriously what's the likelihood of seeing a reply from canonical about bug 750437 (affects multiple users, latest version of the ATI driver confirmed by multiple users to fix the crash)
[15:17] <Kalidarn> and it's been around for ages
[15:17] <Kalidarn> affects 62 people, and has a heat of 292 :P
[15:18] <Kalidarn> and was originally reported in 2011-04-04
[15:19] <Kalidarn> given ubuntu 12.04 LTS has 5 year support, it's not going to go away until the package is updated.
[15:41] <tjaalton> rsalveti: yup, pushed
[15:42] <rsalveti> tjaalton: great, thanks!
[16:09] <penguin42> Kalidarn: There seem to be a few bug reports that are similar; I think it wasn't obvious from the title it was also 12.04 - do you happen to know if it's fixed in 12.10 ?
[16:26] <Kalidarn> no i didn't have an ATI card at that time
[16:26] <Kalidarn> oh 12.10 is afterwards, rather no i haven't tested that
[16:27] <Kalidarn> penguin42: the bug would be fixed in 12.10 if the drivers have been updated
[16:27] <Kalidarn> as installing the drivers manually from ATI's catalyst package fixed it for me (and a few others)
[16:28] <Kalidarn> i assume that 12.10 installs a later driver
[16:29] <penguin42> Kalidarn: Do you happen to know what version is needed to fix it?
[16:29] <Kalidarn> it gets a bit complicated with ATI
[16:29] <Kalidarn> because 12.6 was the latest one available they had (when i tested it)
[16:30] <Kalidarn> they're now on 12.7 which is also fixed.
[16:30] <Kalidarn> not sure what version ubuntu uses, they name them differently i think
[16:30] <Kalidarn> i would assume there isn't a release
[16:31] <Kalidarn> [ 12.460] (II) fglrx(0): Version: 8.96.4
[16:31] <Kalidarn> [ 12.460] (II) fglrx(0): Date: Mar 12 2012
[16:31] <Kalidarn> being the buntu release
[16:31] <Kalidarn> [ 12.508] (II) fglrx(0): Version: 8.98.2
[16:31] <Kalidarn> [ 12.508] (II) fglrx(0): Date: Jun 11 2012
[16:31] <Kalidarn> that one being 12.6
[16:31] <Kalidarn> i think ubuntu probably ships with 12.5
[16:31] <penguin42> Kalidarn: I stick to the free ATI drivers; the fglrx-updates package in quantal is 2:8.960-0ubuntu6 so I suggest that's still the 8.96.?
[16:34] <Kalidarn> hmm not sure
[16:34] <Kalidarn> because the latest version ubuntu was installing of the proprietary drivers was 8.96.4
[16:35] <Kalidarn> the catalyst 12.6 were 8.98.2
[16:35] <Kalidarn> 960 looks older or maybe the version string doesn't include the .X
[16:35] <Kalidarn> penguin42: can you look in Xorg.log
[16:36] <Kalidarn> grep for "fglrx(0): Version:"
[16:37] <penguin42> Kalidarn: I'm not running fglrx; I've marked that bug 'high', which seems reasonable - but I don't know what the process with fglrx stuff is - if there's a newer released binary one that works on precise then I guess it could be updated; but I'd assume that's something the fglrx packager know about
[16:38] <Kalidarn> oh :)
[19:30] <barefoot138255> I'm developing a simble bash script that allows multiple installations at once... It's actually pretty easy.
[19:59] <xnox> jdstrand: micahg: thanks, didn't know about that trick =) but didn't do too bad ;-)
[22:22] <Laney> BenC: yo, got a real FTBFS for you ;-)
[22:22] <Laney> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/haskell-cryptocipher/0.3.5-1build1/+build/3743028
[22:54] <penguin42> Laney: oh that's not going to be a fun one is it - miscompare on a crypto algorithm