=== jtechidna is now known as JontheEchidna
[02:15] <maslen> Hi guys; I'm on Ubuntu 13.10 and thought that this VLC/OpenGL bug might be relevant: https://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/8952
[02:15] <maslen> Either the VLC dev is making a false assumption or there is a bug in the openGL code it's referencing.
[02:17] <SonikkuAmerica> maslen: From the info provided on the ticket we don't even know if the submitter was using Ubuntu.
[02:18] <maslen> I was using ubuntu 13.10; I filed the ticket.
[02:18] <maslen> x86
[02:18] <maslen> "Tested on Ubuntu 13.10 x86 with the trunk version of VLC with git commit"
[02:18] <maslen> (wow, I was tired when I filed that one)
[02:20] <SonikkuAmerica> maslen: Oh wow, I'm slow. I never bothered to look @ the introductory text. Slap me now.
[02:20]  * maslen slaps SonikkuAmerica with a slimy politician
[02:20] <SonikkuAmerica> Ouch. Thank you.
[02:21] <SonikkuAmerica> maslen: Has a bug been filed against the vlc package in Launchpad?
[02:21] <maslen> SonikkuAmerica: Not AFAIK
[02:22] <SonikkuAmerica> maslen: Well, if it happens again, Apport should appear, if it doesn't, run [ ubuntu-bug vlc ] in a terminal.
[02:23] <maslen> Hmm? That bug was just something I triggered will attempting to build a PoC for (what I'm hoping is) a security vulnerability in VLC.
[02:25] <SonikkuAmerica> maslen: Aaaaaaaaaaand what's stopping you from filing the report in Launchpad? I have a hunch that the Ubuntu devs working on the VLC packaging can direct it to the correct place.
[02:30] <maslen> SonikkuAmerica: Laziness - I'm not going to fight to get a crash fixed. One bug report if sufficient on my end. I'm willing to hand it off - that's why I mentioned it here.
[02:30] <SonikkuAmerica> Believe me, we don't fight. We just get things done :) Besides, we need to reproduce stuff.
[07:45] <sm0x> hey guys, is in the actual daily-build of saucy "Mir" already included ?
[07:47] <bazhang> there's a PPA for that iirc
[07:49] <sm0x> bazhang: thx
[11:23] <BluesKaj> Hiyas all
[11:46] <penguin42> hmm, muon software/updater seems to be hanging for me after doing updates - it just sits there 'Loading software list...'
[12:10] <penguin42> reported as kde bug 322340
[12:11] <ubottu> KDE bug 322340 in updater "Muon hang after successfully downloading/installing updates" [Crash,Unconfirmed] http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322340
[13:54] <jalcine> Hey everyone, got a problem with grub-efi-amd64=2.00-15ubuntu1
[13:55] <jalcine> I'm attempting to use apport to push a bug report now
[14:04] <jalcine> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1201112
[14:04] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1201112 in grub2 (Ubuntu) "64-bit GRUB refuses to Install" [Undecided,New]
[14:07] <penguin42> jalcine: You say an error occurs - what error?
[14:07] <jalcine> Well, I'm getting a configuration error, `dpkg --configure grub-efi-amd64` fails each and every time.
[14:08] <jalcine> http://paste.kde.org/pb9b7db8a/
[14:08] <penguin42> right but you say something about ust line 529
[14:09] <jalcine> ah, yes, line 529 within /usr/bin/uct seems to be hit every time
[14:09] <penguin42> so how did you find that ?
[14:10] <jalcine> it explicitly stated that in the console, but after uninstalling (*cringe*) and then reinstalling 'grub-common', the error message went away, but it kept failing.
[14:10] <penguin42> do you have the exact error that uct said?
[14:10] <jalcine> How would I get more output from `dpkg --configure`?
[14:11] <penguin42> it's tricky - that says it's the post installation script - so I'd try running it manually
[14:12] <jalcine> error from /usr/bin/ucfq: "Undefined subroutine &conffile::abs_path called at /usr/bin/ucfq line 529, <HASH> line 21
[14:12] <jalcine> I spelled the file's name wrong, sorry.
[14:12] <penguin42> ahha - ok, add that detail to the bug
[14:14] <penguin42> also say what you did to try and install saucy - is this an upgrade? How? Did you have any ppas installed? Anything else odd?
[14:17] <jalcine> updated
[14:17] <jalcine> is it okay if I gzipped my /etc/apt/source.list.d to a tar.gz for the bug reports?
[14:17] <jalcine> it's nothing big
[14:18] <penguin42> you could do if it was small and you thought it would help (not sure if it would for this)
[14:18] <penguin42> jalcine: you said 'I fixed it' - how?
[14:19] <jalcine> updated with how I did.
[14:19] <jalcine> I just forced it to call the method in question: `Cwd::abs_path`
[14:20] <jalcine> but it didn't change anything, so I undid it.
[14:20] <penguin42> ok, I'll leave that to the grub guys to figure out
[14:21] <jalcine> thanks!
[14:21] <penguin42> thanks for adding the info
[14:22] <jalcine> glad I could help!
[14:27] <jalcine> I'm looking at the postinst script right now, I'd have to manually run this script, you said?
[14:31] <jalcine> AH! man, how would I get in touch with the grub team?
[14:31] <penguin42> jalcine: Well, there is the maintainer address shown on the pacakge, but if you know what's wrong then add it to the bug and I can set the bug to triaged
[14:39] <jalcine> I have an idea of it, I'm updating the bug now.
[14:48] <jalcine> Yup, I think I fixed it
[14:48] <jalcine> it's one number that always get us.
[14:48] <jalcine> I'll continue adding to the bug.
[14:48] <jalcine> I'd send a patch if I knew how.
[14:49] <jalcine> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1201112/comments/4
[14:49] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1201112 in grub2 (Ubuntu) "64-bit GRUB refuses to Install" [Undecided,New]
[14:49] <jalcine> that's my results
[14:50] <jalcine> I wish that Launchpad had some kind of markup for the comments.
[14:51] <penguin42> jalcine: so it sounds like you've got two things there, one is ucf that needs to put a cwd:: in, and the other the cut field
[14:51] <jalcine> yup
[14:51] <jalcine> man, I haven't fretted this hard in a while, I was scared I wouldn't be able to boot!
[14:51] <penguin42> jalcine: Can you include your /etc/default/grub
[14:51] <jalcine> sure
[14:51] <penguin42> it sounds like perhaps it's a little odd - I doubt this failed for everyone
[14:53] <penguin42> jalcine: In my ucfq I have the line    use Cwd qw{abs_path};    at line 504 - why doesn't that work for you?
[14:53] <jalcine> I don't have that there.
[14:54] <penguin42> which version of the ucfq package do you have?
[14:54] <jalcine> My last-mod date for this file (in the file itself is) Fri Apr 14 19:30:45 2006 with an update count of 81
[14:54] <penguin42> sorry, ucf package
[14:54] <penguin42> jalcine: What does dpkg -l ucf   say ?
[14:55] <jalcine> 3.0027
[14:55] <penguin42> hmm I have 3.0027+nmu1
[14:56] <jalcine> http://paste.kde.org/pfc50b292/
[14:57] <penguin42> ah, I see - the +nmu1 variety is in saucy-proposed
[14:57] <jalcine> so something got missed! happens to the best of us!
[14:58] <jalcine> looks like I might have to add that sourcelist
[14:58] <penguin42> no, I think it's just that it was fixed recently but not made it into the main release yet
[14:59] <jalcine> ah, so I can wait then
[14:59] <penguin42> ok, so attach your /etc/default/grub
[15:00] <jalcine> attached
[15:01] <jalcine> yup, that debbug definitely is it.
[15:02] <penguin42> jalcine: I don't think the change of the 2 to 1 is needed - that's expecting a package name
[15:02] <jalcine> Well, I wouldn't say it's the solution, but it's what got it working here locally.
[15:02] <jalcine> a hack, if you may.
[15:02] <penguin42> what does    ucfq --with-colons /etc/default/grub | cut -d : -f 2  say to you?
[15:03] <jalcine> completely empty
[15:03] <penguin42> huh
[15:03] <penguin42> ok, what about   ucfq --with-colons /etc/default/gru
[15:03] <jalcine> /etc/default/grub:grub-efi-amd64:Yes:Yes
[15:03] <jalcine> but it didn't show that before
[15:03] <penguin42> ok, that's fine - so why doesn't the cut work?
[15:04] <jalcine> I'm not sure.
[15:04] <penguin42> jalcine: Can you try   echo   red:green:blue | cut -d : -f 2
[15:05] <jalcine> green
[15:05] <jalcine> ah. I think I understand now.
[15:05] <jalcine> makes sense with the old output
[15:05] <penguin42> good, so lets try that    ucfq --with-colons /etc/default/grub | cut -d : -f 2     again ?
[15:05] <jalcine> It was "/etc/default/grub::Yes" originally
[15:05] <jalcine> grub-efi-amd64 outputs now
[15:06] <penguin42> any idea what changed it?
[15:06] <jalcine> it looks like my GRUB config was faulty before but after running the postinst + 'update-grub', it corrected the value.
[15:06] <jalcine> I'm going to say it was 'update-grub'
[15:08] <penguin42> I don't think so, I mean ucf seems to get it's stuff from /var/lib/ucf/registry - not sure what put it in there
[15:09] <jalcine> probably not useful: but my /var/lib/ucf/registry >> http://paste.kde.org/p537092c7/
[15:09] <penguin42> yeh mine has grub-pc - but I wonder when it is added
[15:10] <jalcine> there's only one way I could think of testing this: via qemu + 13.04 to 13.10a1
[15:10] <penguin42> yeh
[15:15] <penguin42> jalcine: I don't know the ucf stuff but I think it's only trying to read the package name just to test if it needs to change the ucf data
[15:16] <jalcine> that looks like the flow, yeah
[15:16] <jalcine> actually, to determine what to do within the postinst script
[15:16] <jalcine> being that there's a HUGE block for grub-pc and then a small on for grub-efi-{i386,amd64}
[15:17] <penguin42> jalcine: grub-pc has had another 10+ years of weird stuff found it has to deal with
[15:19] <jalcine> indeedy
[16:49] <Kow> just going to throw this one out there: anyone had issues with ubuntu 13.10 not booting within the last week or so due to networkmanager? I am using virtualbox.
[17:03] <FernandoMiguel> Kow: wfm
[17:03] <FernandoMiguel> strange your stops
[17:03] <FernandoMiguel>   Installed: 0.9.8.0-0ubuntu16
=== Jikan is now known as Jikai
=== Jikai is now known as Jikan
=== Jikan is now known as Jikai
=== Jikai is now known as Jikan
[21:25] <Noize__> Is mir stable enough to use at its current state?
[21:25] <holstein> no
[21:28] <Noize__> What isn't working currently?
[21:29] <holstein> Noize__: if you are looking for "stable", you dont want the development release, or MIR
[21:29] <holstein> !mir
[21:29] <ubottu> Mir is the next-generation display server currently under development by Canonical and Ubuntu. It's slated for inclusion in Ubuntu 14.04. For more information on it, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Mir/Spec . For code, see https://launchpad.net/mir
[21:30] <Noize__> Is the development release in 13.10?
[21:30] <holstein> Noize__: 13.10 *is* the development release
[21:31] <Noize__> Thought u mentioned mir dev release
[21:31] <holstein> Noize__: theres a PPA if you want to help test or whatever
[21:31] <holstein> Noize__: MIR is not release yet, so there is only develpment release of that AFAIK
[21:32] <Noize__> I usually stay ahead a stable release,  I just wanna know if 13.10 is usable in a basic sense
[21:32] <holstein> Noize__: no
[21:33] <holstein> Noize__: you should not use the development release of *anything* if you are wanting stability
[21:33] <holstein> Noize__: even if its "fine" now, it can break, anytime
[21:34] <Noize__> Lol I don't mind if it breaks, always looking to help...
[21:35] <holstein> Noize__: OK.. enjoy then. i thought you were asking if it will break
[23:10] <jo-erlend> is the software center broken, or is it just me?
=== jimerickson is now known as jje
[23:27] <hachre> its broken ya
[23:54] <roasted> hello friends
[23:54] <roasted> I understand 13.10 is getting mir (or has mir?) would it be in a daily image?
[23:56] <FernandoMiguel> roasted: nope. not yet
[23:56] <FernandoMiguel> you can add it via ppa
[23:56] <FernandoMiguel> but X is broken there
[23:59] <roasted> FernandoMiguel: ah I'll be patient. Whenever Mir lands in 13.10, is that something that would require a new daily build install? I wonder if it'll simply come down in the regular update system...
[23:59] <FernandoMiguel> upgrades should just be fine
[23:59] <FernandoMiguel> my system is from 12.10 +1