gloved_handssudo apt-get build-dep linux-image-$(uname -r) is not working03:32
gloved_handskernel-wedge cannot be found03:33
gloved_handssudo apt-get build-dep linux-image-$(uname -r) is not working03:55
gloved_handskernel-wedge cannot be found03:55
gloved_handsapw where is obake04:10
gloved_handsapw: key up?04:44
fingertipsapw more secure?06:27
fingertipsapw: have you been on the www lately?07:26
apwgloved_hands (N,BFTL), well kernel-wedge _is_ a package so that makes no sense, i would expect you to be using sudo apt-get build-dep linux, though.08:14
apwfingertips, i have literally no idea what that refers to08:14
fingertips1apw: the original 408:25
fingertips1This is sme amazon cloud08:26
fingertips1It doesn't even connect to darpa08:26
fingertips1the internet was started with 4 machines08:27
fingertips1this is some virtual cloud routing system 08:28
fingertips1apw: why doesn't lucid have a kernel-wedge?08:30
apw kernel-wedge | 2.29ubuntu3 | lucid            | source08:30
apwit does ...08:30
fingertips1apw: build-dep complains when using apt-get but not aptitude08:33
apwperhaps it is a bug in teh apt resolver in that release, dunno, seems supprising as that is how08:33
apwthe deps get installed on a builder when we build the kernel in the archive ...08:34
fingertips1apw using this routine wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BuildYourOwnKernel?08:37
apwthe builders follow a subset of that, that in concept, unpack a chroot for the series, unpack <.dsc>, apt-get build-dep <srcpackge>, dpkg-buildpackage -b, upload results08:38
fingertips1apw: it doesn't even download the same source package as uname -r reports08:44
fingertips1What is the lucid amd64 version string?08:45
fingertips1apw: When you say 'we' what is that supposed to mean?08:46
fingertips1apw: Try to communicate.08:47
fingertips1apw: A bit faster.08:49
fingertips1apw: we need to get secured with myself08:54
fingertips1apw: key up?08:56
apwwe == "the ubuntu distro" in that sentence09:06
fingertips1apw: apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r) this is downloading some other version09:12
apwsome other version?  which version and what is uname -r saying09:12
fingertips1Yes a version different from what uname -r shows.09:14
apwand which are they, else i have no way to try and reproduce that09:15
apwno way to understnad the problem09:15
fingertips1and the string goes on after that wih a -09:16
apwuname -r won't be saying that09:17
apwright .. i need the whole of it09:17
apwelse i can't reproduce your exacty command09:17
fingertips1the -xx part differs09:18
apwwell i want the one you say is producing a download of the wrong version09:18
fingertips1apw: it looks like it is compiled against the debian sources with some scripts to make changes09:19
fingertips1apw: It doesn't matter what the exacty version strings are they differ.09:21
apwfingertips1, ok tested with my local version 3.13.0-39-generic which downloaded linux 3.13.0-39.66, which is correct, so it is specifi to you09:25
fingertips1and what commands build it?09:26
fingertips1did build deps run?09:27
apwi am referring to apt-get source linux-image-$(uname -r) 09:27
apwif you want someone to figure out your isue with it, you need to tell me the actual version your uname -r returns, if ou won't do that, i can't help09:28
fingertips1apw: will you install it?09:31
apwfingertips1, there is almost no way i could know what the "it" in that sentence refers, so ... i have no idea09:32
fingertips1apw: connect to my jabber server09:36
fingertips1apw: this is downstream09:43
fingertips1apw: there is something changing the code09:43
fingertips1do you want to come oon this side of the wall?09:44
apwthis is a simple question with a simple non-secret answer, there is no point in being coi about it09:44
apwi am perfectly happy out here in public thanks, that is the nature of open source09:44
fingertips1To help identify what is going on.09:45
fingertips1brb apw09:48
liveusermaking progress10:45
liveuserapw does ubunu support skype?11:18
liveuserCAN THE MIND GO INTO an intel cpu?11:21
liveuserapw: Why would anybody wan't Ubuntu on a chromebook?12:02
amitkliveuser: to use it for development?12:03
liveusernetsplit google?12:13
liveuserthe crypto keys installed oon chromeboks12:14
liveuserWhy does lspci persist in reporting the wrong model for the wireless chip? This happened after loading a non working kernel module driver. Before loading it no model number was reported.Now, after unloading it the wrong model persists to bve reported.Is this a sign that wrong firmware was sent to the chip?12:39
apwit is a sign that the kernel module you loaded thought it identified the device and recorded that in the kernel12:40
apwlikely it will remain the same until something else identifies it differently12:41
ogra_or reboot ... 12:43
=== ara is now known as Guest1529
VadimTHi. I have some problem with kernel. Error: Read-error on swap-device. What it can be? P.S: Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS. Kernel: 3.13.0-24-generic14:24
VadimTThank you.14:25
apwVadimT, could be a lot of things including a bad disk under the swap partition, it would depend somewhat on the errors just before14:28
VadimTapw, Thank you for answer. 14:33
=== _ruben_ is now known as _ruben
fingertipsapw: wrong eeprom14:43
apwVadimT, np, you might want to pastebin the error, and we might be able to help, never know14:48
VadimTapw, I have only a photo with this error... http://1drv.ms/1ytucTU14:52
VadimTapw, I can find this error in /var/log/syslog and in other same places too.14:57
smbVadimT, from the picture your kernel crashed. It is relatively normal that in those cases there is no time to write to any logs. What it says is that your second hard drive seems to have gone away from the kernels point of view. One could not say why for sure from that information.15:01
apwVadimT, well that error says that the drive returned a failure with additional sense information, but that that information was nothing valid according to the spec.  therefore the IO was failed and that happened to be a page from init, so the world ended15:02
VadimTapw, Hmm... Some tips?15:04
apwVadimT, that really says the disk behind your swap space had a hickup, if it was mine15:07
apwVadimT, i would test the swap space and see if it recurrs, if not, i'd write it off as sunspots or similar15:07
fingertipsapw wrong eeprom15:13
apwthat is a matter of oppinion15:16
VadimTapw, thx for answer.15:16
fingertipsOh it doesn't work apw15:17
fingertipsThere is no wlan0 interface created.15:17
VadimTapw, Okay. I`ll try you advice. Good day you. One more time thank you. Bye 15:19
fingertipsapw I need skynet back up15:21
fingertipsapw I can run netsplits on a compute cloud15:22
apwdidrocks, hi?15:22
didrocksapw: some question, we are striking on bug #1387090 with some systemd case. After asking on system-devel, there are multiple proposals that Lennart is suggesting at http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-November/025370.html15:22
ubot5bug 1387090 in systemd (Ubuntu) "boot breaks if /etc/machine-id is missing" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/138709015:22
fingertipsapw: make the eeprom15:22
didrocksapw: on his proposal a), which is having the / writable from the initrd, is there practical reason to not do that?15:23
didrocksI can think of fsck happening quite early, before plymouth as a drawback15:23
didrocksanything else I'm missing?15:23
apwdidrocks, well fsck can't happen before plymouth as we use its output channels15:24
didrocksyeah, so, it would silence it and we will have no feedback on fsck status15:25
didrocksapw: this would be the only reason? (I'm trying to have some reasonable answer on why preferring e) to a) on the ML)15:26
apwdidrocks, on a call, i'll read it in bit15:27
didrocksapw: no hurry, thanks :)15:27
didrockspitti is suggesting we do a) (mounting / as rw in initrd, and so fsck) only if /etc/machine-id is empty15:29
ogra_didrocks, what if there are errors fsck wants input for ? 15:37
didrocksogra_: exactly my point and why I'm arguing against it :)15:38
didrocksthat and having 2 code paths/behavior/user feedback channels15:38
didrocks(on the condition /etc/machine-id being empty, like after a factory reset)15:38
didrocksbut I want to ensure that my arguments are rights, hence the questions here :)15:39
ogra_drop the old code path and pull machine-id into the initrd 15:39
ogra_note that on the phone i plan to pull Mir into the initrd at some point, for exactly this reason15:41
didrocksogra_: machine-id is per machine identification15:41
didrocksnot something static15:41
didrocksit's like the dbus id if you prefer, which is stable for a machine once initialized15:42
ogra_yes, pull it fromm the rootfs ... at this point you already know where it lives ... mount it ro ... cp it over and then run your fsck15:42
ogra_i assume with systemd mountall will be dead in debian ... and i doubt we want to carry it along either ... 15:43
didrocksogra_: hum, however, there are tricks, if /etc/machine-id is empty, but you have the dbus-id in /var/lib/dbus/machine-id, this one is reused15:43
ogra_so the old code path is a dead end 15:43
didrocksyeah, I'm not looking at the old code path for now15:43
apwdidrocks, ok what i am not clear on is how we get into this situation of not having a system-id, is this in a virgin image booting for the first time ?16:43
didrocksapw: yeah, the foundation team is trying to have some clean instance that you can use and spawn16:44
apwdidrocks, so what stops us say, having it empty n th16:45
apwdidrocks, so what stops us say, having it empty in the virgin image, let systemd do its thing, putting a tmpfs on it and making one up16:45
apwand then postprocessing that at ro->rw time to copy it down into the image16:46
didrocksapw: that's proposal e) and I'm in favor of that one16:46
apwinto the persistant part16:46
didrocksapw: just wanted to ensure we couldn't do sanely a) first16:46
apwdidrocks, i'd say you are asking a lot to do that, making those images rather different16:47
didrocksapw: agreed, I'm happy thus to do e), it's an interesting exercise to make it race-free anyway :)16:48
apwi think e) is interesting in your namespace world, unmount the overmount in there and create a file underneath :)16:48
didrocksright ;)16:49
didrocksthanks for your feedback btw! :)16:58
jodhapw: I'm seeing an entry in the mount table that cannot be unmounted (mount claims: "not mounted"). It could be related to the fact we're bind mounting on top of a sym link. Ever seen this?17:53
apwjodh (N,BFTL), not seen that no, if you have a reproduce by, perhaps i can try and figure it out18:30

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!