[00:01] why is package rebuild giving me permission errors? [00:01] http://paste.ubuntu.com/5577868/ [00:03] dpkg-source -x qemu-kvm_1.2.0+noroms-0ubuntu2.12.10.2.dsc gave me same errors, permission denied [00:06] xxiao: any change if you leave off the 'fakeroot'? [00:07] sarnold: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -b messed it up [00:08] rebuilding qemu-nbd and see if that helps [00:08] how do I pass -j12 to apt-get -b? [00:09] xxiao: try DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=-j12 === wedgwood is now known as wedgwood_away [00:39] sarnold: DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=12 [00:39] $DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is keyword-based [00:40] slangasek: ah! thanks :D [03:44] kees: I assume you mean at add_id_mapping, to check for delayed write errors? [03:45] not sure the id_mapping file would do that, though, in this case. (haven't checked) [04:56] is it ok to disable beam.smp. the cpu sucker? [05:13] is ubuntu-12.10-server-powerpc.iso 32 or 64 bit? [05:13] i mean the filesystem [05:13] i'm having trouble with 64bit kernel / 32bit ubuntu 12.10 on ppc [05:15] guess it's 32bit, as it's not named ubuntu-12.10-server-powerpc64.iso, the 'server' lable confuses me... [05:16] my issue is that 32bit qemu-nbd dislikes 32bit filesystem [05:16] while runnning a 64bit kernel [09:18] xxiao: 32-bit userspace, indeed === _salem is now known as salem_ [14:08] are old daily builds of compiz somewhere? [14:08] looks like the one from feb 26 broke java apps [15:58] 21:20 < KHendrik> did I seriously just brick two phones ... [15:58] Oops, wrong window [16:00] anyone can verify this : http://paste.ubuntu.com/5579567/ === jbicha_ is now known as jbicha === fenris is now known as Guest66346 [17:02] hallyn: yup, and it does. [17:03] i noticed while trying to write without cap_setuid === salem_ is now known as _salem [20:19] How do I recommend a package (library) for inclusion in one of the Ubuntu repositories? [20:19] best would be to get it in debian first, then request inclusion for ubuntu [20:22] So I should probably dual-boot a Debian installation? [20:22] Or is there a better way [20:22] Why Debian first? [20:24] Ubuntu derives most of its packages from Debian, and getting it into Debian usually provides for more sustainable maintenance over the long term [20:24] and if it's in Debian, more people benefit from the package's availability - Ubuntu users, but also Debian users [20:24] but there's no need to dual-boot to get a package into Debian; you can do most development work in a chroot [20:24] (or VM) [20:25] OK [20:25] So pbuilder would be a good tool for this [20:25] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/ForUbuntuDevelopers === Ursinha_ is now known as Ursinha === rsalveti_ is now known as rsalveti [21:12] anyone know why gdb is not loading symbols from files placed in /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ ? [21:12] installed via the freerdp-dbg package === wedgwood_away is now known as wedgwood [22:51] NCommander: hi there, sorry to bother, I was wondering if you could be able to help with bug #1113648 [22:51] bug 1113648 in nautilus (Ubuntu) "Add a context menu entry to create a new blank file" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1113648 [23:29] Anyone know where I can look up the maintainer for a certain package or what guidelines I need to follow so I can take over? There's a package here that hasn't been updated in quite a bit even though both there is a higher stable and unstable version. (It's an audio player) [23:30] Maccer: apt-cache show will show you the maintainers [23:31] I found out through launchpad, but apparently the Debian Multimedia Maintainers group maintains this package... hrm. [23:31] ah, I think they have a mailing list [23:33] But it looks like they maintain the unstable version if it. Yeah they do. Is there a way to add their unstable repository or can I only get their files through a .deb package? [23:33] Maccer: does packages.debian.org show a newer version ? [23:35] Using debian unstable (sid), it shows 3.2.4 for the i386/i686/amd64 version, and I have 3.2.3, and I'm using a non-LTS Ubuntu 12.10 [23:36] Maccer: What does packages.ubuntu.org say ? [23:36] What surprises though is why they don't upgrade Quantal (12.10?) to 3.3.4. It's a media player. [23:36] Maccer: It's probably just not happened in time; if it's in debian sid it'll probably make it into Raring (depending when it landed) [23:37] penguin42: http://i.imgur.com/biwF6c9.png [23:37] erm what's that got to do with anything? [23:38] That's packages.ubuntu.org. [23:38] I have no idea why that's displaying. [23:38] oops - .com! [23:39] For a second there I thought my DNS server was hijacked. Seems like they rewrite the URL so as to make it work with the subdomain. [23:39] * xnox ponders how does doko make source packages with @ubuntu.com without updating Maintainer fields to say Ubuntu Developers, and whether that's bad or just ugly. [23:39] Seems like quantal is 3.2.3. Yeah but this is odd because 3.2.4 came out more than 4 months ago I believe. [23:40] Plus I'd expect the unstable version 3.3.x to be on Quantal. [23:40] Maccer: That's not how it works [23:40] Maccer: So quantal came out in October, and it's version won't be updated [23:41] Maccer: Quantal will have taken the 'current' debian version a month or so before that, probably around August-September [23:41] Mh, so what are the release cycles for ubuntu then? It's just like debian but more frequently updated? I thought that was LTS. [23:42] Maccer: Every 6 months and there's a timetable soemwhere where you can see when the sync's happen [23:43] Maccer: There's talk of moving to a rolling release; the details I don't know [23:43] Ah, that's a shame. Has there been a release model in linux distributions that's a hybrid bleeding edge or rolling? [23:44] Maccer: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RaringRingtail/ReleaseSchedule so the sync from Debian happened in Feb [23:44] Stable libraries and core libraries, but unstable things like music players. [23:46] Maccer: apart from at the moment we are actively discussing on ubuntu-devel to turn raring into a rolling release.