[05:32] <pitti> Good morning
[06:01] <didrocks> morning
[06:01] <larsu> morning :)
[06:03] <didrocks> hey larsu! How was your week-end ?
[06:05] <larsu> didrocks: great thanks (except for the weather)! How was yours?
[06:05] <didrocks> larsu: splendid, but really warm weather here. Was great! And today, thunderstorms and rain
[06:07] <larsu> you can never know in the south of france!
[08:02] <Laney> hey hey hey
[08:06] <RAOF> Ho ho ho!
[08:09] <didrocks> hey Laney, RAOF!
[08:10] <seb128> good morning desktopers
[08:10] <seb128> hey Laney RAOF didrocks
[08:10] <didrocks> hey seb128
[08:11] <Laney> greetings!
[08:11] <Laney> how's it going?
[08:11] <Laney> did you have good weekends?
[08:11] <seb128> going good!
[08:12] <seb128> yes, weather was sunny and nice, TV had some nice football games, France had music festivals this w.e (our early "music fest" where most town organize events)
[08:13] <seb128> even played some tennis yesterday ;-)
[08:13] <seb128> you?
[08:14] <Laney> yes it was quite warm here too, was scared of getting sun burn ;-)
[08:14] <Laney> I went home to visit the family, made some beer with my dad and hung out with bbq
[08:14] <Laney> quite relaxed!
[08:14] <seb128> nice
[08:15] <seb128> you are making beer? is the result drinkable? ;-)
[08:15] <Laney> find out in a few weeks :P
[08:15] <seb128> right
[08:15] <Laney> dad's taken up the hobby recently
[08:15] <seb128> was it the first time you try?
[08:15] <Laney> wanted to show me how it was done
[08:15] <seb128> oh ok, nice
[08:15] <Laney> well i have done it from beer kits before
[08:16] <Laney> but this was the full thing
[08:16] <Laney> like starting with grains
[08:16] <seb128> cool
[08:16] <seb128> sounds like a fun thing to try to do, at least once
[08:17] <Laney> could be a good hobby if you can make beer that actually tastes good ;-)
[08:17] <seb128> yeah
[08:33] <xnox> Laney: anything that my dad ever made, smelled and tasted much stronger than beer should....
[08:34] <Laney> haha
[08:34] <Laney> yeah he likes them strong too ...
[08:49] <xnox> in other news, I've ordered my first Dyson
[08:49] <xnox> which hopefully will act better than current karcher
[08:50] <seb128> xnox, Dyson is a brand, what did you buy from them? a vacuum cleaner?
[08:50] <xnox> seb128: yeah, vacuum cleaner DC54
[08:52] <xnox> seb128: well, a brand and (at least in the UK) it is assumed vacuum cleaner line of theirs.
[08:53] <seb128> right, I was just unsure because you said you had a karcher and I didn't know they did vaccum cleaners ;-)
[08:53] <xnox> oh, right =)
[08:54] <xnox> seb128: karcher in your opinion would be a high pressure  water car/garrage cleaner?
[08:54] <seb128> yes
[08:54] <xnox> yeah, should use fully qualified product names.
[08:54] <seb128> ;-)
[08:55] <ochosi> hey seb128! was away for a few days (mountains) so i only saw your comment on https://code.launchpad.net/~ochosi/xdg-utils/support_xfce/+merge/223206 today
[08:56] <seb128> ochosi, hey
[08:56] <ochosi> seb128: i guess there's no way of "redirecting" that MR apart from filing a new/correct one?
[08:57] <seb128> right, I think you need to "resubmit" in the top right corner options
[08:57] <seb128> which basically resends a new one
[08:58] <ochosi> ok, done
[08:59] <ochosi> finally the diff is more reasonable :)
[08:59] <seb128> ;-)
[09:00] <ochosi> fwiw, i'm really not sure the alternative solution that upstream suggested makes sense...
[09:00] <ochosi> thing is, xdg-screensaver already checks for specific DEs, why it doesn't act on that knowledge is a miracle to me
[09:00] <ochosi> and the fix isn't distro-specific, just DE specific
[09:02] <seb128> right
[09:02] <ochosi> i'll add another reply to the upstream bugreport though..
[09:05] <ochosi> seb128: also, this one can be done either way: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xdg-utils/+bug/1330386
[09:06] <seb128> ochosi, right, does that create any issue? I was just waiting for the other changes to batch those
[09:07] <ochosi> seb128: no, sure, you can also do both in one go. just wanted to make sure that part doesn't get lost ;)
[09:07] <seb128> yeah, don't worry, thanks for opening a bug about it ;-)
[09:08] <ochosi> :)
[09:13]  * didrocks is puzzled on some tests…
[09:55] <ochosi> seb128: m, one more question (never dealt with stuff that needs packaging), is there anything i can do for this to move along? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1000416
[09:55] <ochosi> (if the bugreport is already complete and correct, that's all i wanted to know then)
[09:56] <seb128> ochosi, not really, it's in the sponsoring queue, just need somebody picking it up there
[09:57] <ochosi> okeydokey, thanks!
[09:57] <ochosi> seb128: will try to ping you less about stuff like that, i promise!
[09:57] <seb128> ochosi, no worry, feel free to ask questions on the channel ;-)
[09:58] <ochosi> will do :)
[10:09] <thedoctor> hi
[11:23] <darkxst> pitti, can api additions be SRU'ed? we really need this to fix our biggest crasher in gjs https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=729662
[11:24] <pitti> darkxst: should be ok as long as they don't change existing API
[11:25] <darkxst> pitti, ok, it doesn't change any existing API
[13:01] <GunnarHj> Hi seb128
[13:01] <seb128> GunnarHj, hey
[13:02] <GunnarHj> seb128: Did you talk to Sweetshark about bug 1308771? I'm kind of wondering why it wasn't just uploaded.
[13:02] <seb128> GunnarHj, he asked me about it, I told him I think it's fine but he should check with the SRU team if they are fine adding new binaries that way
[13:03] <GunnarHj> seb128: Ok.. I just want it in before the 14.04.1 release.
[13:03] <seb128> k
[13:04] <seb128> Sweetshark is on holiday this week and next, but we still have some room after that (and others can sponsor that as well)
[13:05] <GunnarHj> seb128: If it's uploaded, the SRU team will have it for consideration automatically, right?
[13:05] <seb128> yes
[13:05] <GunnarHj> seb128: Any chance... ?
[13:05] <seb128> though it's easier to have a direct conversation with them to sort out details
[13:05] <seb128> than go through queue review reject/and comment back on why it was rejected
[13:07] <GunnarHj> seb128: What's the best channel to ask them directly?
[13:07] <seb128> #ubuntu-devel is probably fine for that
[13:08] <GunnarHj> seb128: Ok, I'll give it a shot.
[13:08] <seb128> k
[14:22] <tseliot> seb128: hey, do you remember how to use GDK_SYNCHRONIZE to debug the gnome-settings-daemon? exporting GDK_SYNCHRONIZE=1 doesn't seem to have any effect in Precise
[14:22] <tseliot> I'm trying to debug an issue with X that apport doesn't collect
[14:24] <seb128> tseliot, the GTK in precise maybe didn't have that yet, before you had to use --sync
[14:24] <tseliot> seb128: that doesn't seem to work either
[14:25] <seb128> tseliot, https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?id=902fd60a86e8e40b87b4ea0c4a8a9dd04f2f8d08
[14:26] <seb128> tseliot, seems like that was changed before precise
[14:26] <seb128> tseliot, well, how do you try to debug?
[14:26] <tseliot> seb128: that's from 2010, also the g-s-d suggests that I use the env variable
[14:26] <seb128> you should export GDK_SYNCHRONIZE=1
[14:26] <seb128> then b gdk_x_error
[14:26] <tseliot> that's what I'm doing
[14:26] <tseliot> but I keep getting no backtrace and the same warning that tells me to use that env variable
[14:29] <tseliot> seb128: apparently only adding a break point on _XError works
[14:29] <tseliot> still, it should be documented
[14:29] <seb128> tseliot, yeah, I was checking for that
[14:33] <tseliot> seb128: I'm glad that at least it works with _XError. I wish the error that gtk+ throws could be updated
[14:34] <seb128> yeah
[14:34] <seb128> tseliot, open a bug upstream about the error being confusing
[14:35] <tseliot> seb128: I will, when I'm done with this issue
[14:35] <seb128> great
[14:38] <seb128> cyphermox, hey
[14:39] <seb128> cyphermox, I'm playing with your u-s-s bluetooth changes but it behaves a bit weirdly
[14:39] <seb128> if I turn bluetooth off, the "discoverable" line keeps spinning for ever, and the "connect other devices" spinners goes off and on
[14:39] <seb128> cyphermox, is that known/wanted?
[14:45] <seb128> cyphermox, turning the bluetooth back on doesn't seem to work either :/
[15:11] <seb128> cyphermox, unping, I've been told you are on vac this week, enjoy ;-)
[15:29] <Laney> bahahaha merges.ubuntu.com shows a libreoffice merge for me
[15:29] <Laney> YEAH RIGHT
[15:34] <seb128> Laney, it's your lucky day, infinity just made what was needed to own it instead of you ;-)
[15:37] <Laney> perfecto
[15:39]  * didrocks sees Laney "phewing" ;)
[16:03] <cyphermox> seb128: thanks
[16:04] <seb128> cyphermox, yw ;-)
[16:04] <seb128> cyphermox, I landed those changes btw, we can deal with bugs and tweaks later
[16:07] <cyphermox> ah, cool
[16:07] <cyphermox> indeed someone pointed out tweaks to the qml
[16:37] <seb128> k, calling it a day, have a nice evening desktopers
[22:09] <robert_ancell> mterry, debian/patches/0020-support-login.defs.patch in accountsservice is causing some problems for systems with uids > 60000 - why does Ubuntu Touch need this?
[22:12] <robert_ancell> And I'm wondering if we just need UID_MIN - getting rid of the upper limit might solve this
[22:31] <mterry> robert_ancell, in Touch, we have some system users with UIDs like 1000 and 1001 (I think "system" and "radio" or some such)
[22:31] <mterry> robert_ancell, so we just need MIN
[22:32] <mterry> robert_ancell, but that patch is reverting to historical usage I thought.  Is this a new problem?
[22:32] <robert_ancell> mterry, We made u-g hide users that a-s thought were "system". It is using UID_MAX to determine this which doesn't seem correct
[22:33] <mterry> robert_ancell, right right
[22:33] <mterry> robert_ancell, and I'm just explaining why the patch continues using UID_MIN
[22:33] <mterry> robert_ancell, UID_MAX doesn't matter for Touch, so if it's causing problems, we can drop it
[22:33] <robert_ancell> Ok, so if I change it to just UID_MIN it should still work for you?
[22:33] <mterry> robert_ancell, yup
[22:33] <robert_ancell> thanks
[22:34] <mterry> robert_ancell, but again I'm just a little confused, is this a new problem or something that always happened?
[22:34] <robert_ancell> I can't think of any reason why you'd want a max value
[22:34] <mterry> because I thought that patch just put us back to historical usage
[22:34] <robert_ancell> We changed to the "correct" behaviour in lightdm 1.9.3 in hiding system users
[22:35] <robert_ancell> which would mean this was a behaviour change in 14.04 LTS. I think the LTS upgraders with big systems are now noticing it
[22:35] <mterry> ?  we've always hidden system users in greeters I thought
[22:35] <robert_ancell> nope
[22:36] <robert_ancell> well, I think we used another method, not honoring what a-s marks as system
[22:38] <robert_ancell> bug 1248541 was the change in lightdm
[22:39] <robert_ancell> ah, that's right - a-s reports logged in users which might be system users and we weren't hiding those
[23:07] <robert_ancell> mterry, yeah, the UID_MAX change is not in 12.04
[23:08] <mterry> robert_ancell, curious.  AS must have added UID_MAX before removing them both
[23:10] <robert_ancell> mterry, the first implementation from Ray Strode just used UID_MIN, then desrt updated it to use UID_MAX as well, then Ray removed all login.defs support
[23:10] <mterry> robert_ancell, sounds right
[23:10] <robert_ancell> desrt, ^ Do you happen to know if there was a particular reason to use UID_MAX?
[23:30] <robert_ancell> mterry, was those system users because they came from android?
[23:30] <mterry> robert_ancell, yeah we needed to use same UIDs as android
[23:31] <robert_ancell> mterry, because the other method was just to add them to the blacklist which is what upstream solely relies on
[23:31] <robert_ancell> I guess there's always a risk that those usernames could be real users on some systems though
[23:31] <robert_ancell> yay for shitty barely defined unix legacy stuff
[23:32] <mterry> robert_ancell, so hacky  to blacklist.  Plus what you mention.  Plus UID_MIN was a feature of Ubuntu, wasn't clear how dropping it would affect people