[09:21] <lordievader> Good morning.
[10:38] <BluesKaj> Howdy all
[11:12] <murthy> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339536
[11:12] <murthy> How to proceed with the above bug? It is resolved as downstream, but the bug is actually in libarchive. The comments in libarchive git page say its fixed in the latest version. Should I file for an package update request  in launchpad?
[11:23] <debfx> murthy: you can file a bug against the libarchive package. unless there is a new upstream release the way forward is to find and cherry-pick the commit that fixes the issue.
[11:25] <murthy> debfx: no upstream stable release on libarchive. Will ubuntu do a downsteam patch?
[11:26] <debfx> yes, if it's not too invasive.
[11:27] <debfx> putting the latest libarchive git snapshot into the archive is however not an option.
[11:27] <murthy> ya i know
[11:30] <murthy> Ok I will file a request to patch libarchive downstream
[11:34] <murthy> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libarchive/+bug/1460038
[11:36] <murthy> There is this bug report for libarchive already in launchpad
[11:37] <BluesKaj> ahh , no wonder I couldn't get a downloaded widget zip file to work, good find murthy!
[11:38] <BluesKaj> it was a cpu temperature monitor widget built for plasma 5 
[11:39] <murthy> BluesKaj: thank you. I am trying to get this bug fixed soon. I was not aware it cant extract the widgets too. So can you extract with any other archive managers?
[11:41] <BluesKaj> murthy, normally I use unp, but for convenience sake i triek ark  "extarct here"
[11:41] <BluesKaj> err tried
[11:42] <BluesKaj> I just thought the file was corrupted when built , not when it was extracted 
[11:42] <murthy> BluesKaj: ok should I change the status in the bug report from new to confirmed?
[11:42] <BluesKaj> yes
[11:44] <BluesKaj> if that's possible with out it being examined by the devs first , unless you're one
[11:45] <murthy> done changing the status
[11:46] <murthy> I am dev?
[11:46] <BluesKaj> developer?
[11:46] <murthy> ya I know, but I am?
[11:48] <BluesKaj> usually a confirmation is required by another launchpad memeber, I think, the devs usually get the bug assigned to be triaged for fixing
[11:48] <BluesKaj> err member
[11:49] <murthy> I thought the membership expires after certain time? no?
[11:49] <BluesKaj> if you were a dev you'd be a kubuntu or ubuntu member
[11:50] <murthy> BluesKaj: https://launchpad.net/~murthy
[11:51] <BluesKaj> maybe someone could clarify the membership/developer status relationship
[11:53] <BluesKaj> murthy, https://launchpad.net/~kaj , a launchpad member isn't  necessarily a dev as you can see :-)
[11:54] <lordievader> Developers should have a launchpad account, else they cannot upload things to the archive.
[11:54] <murthy> BluesKaj: Can I bookmark your profile page?
[11:56] <BluesKaj> murthy, if you wish, but it's just old me :-)
[11:57] <murthy> BluesKaj: Actually I feel happy to know you. Thanks
[11:58] <BluesKaj> ok 
[12:00] <BluesKaj> nice to know you too, murthy 
[12:00] <murthy> :)
[13:33] <BluesKaj> 'Morning mparillo_, tsimpson
[13:57] <mparillo_> Good morning BluesKaj. Are you using Konversation? The auto-spell-check stopped working for me on konversation Version 1.6 Using KDE Frameworks 5.9.0
[14:00] <BluesKaj> mparillo_, yes, same here ..gave up on spell check ;/
[14:05] <mparillo_> OK then I will file a bug.
[14:37] <mparillo_> BluesKaj: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349151
[14:53] <BluesKaj> mparillo_, that url doesn't give an option to confirm your bug, otherwise i would.
[16:15] <mparillo_> Thank you, I believe on B.K.O (unlike launchpad.net), you need a certain karma or authority to officially confirm a bug.  But, you can comment on it to that effect.
[16:57] <soee_> someone had problems upgrading /var/cache/apt/archives/libqtkeychain0_0.5_amd64.deb ?
[17:56] <Quintasan> aw shit
[17:57] <Quintasan> wine can't be installed with xorg-edgers ppa which in turn allows me to play games
[17:57] <Quintasan> bloody hell
[18:30] <ejat> http://paste.ubuntu.com/11715754/
[18:30] <ejat> can i ignore?
[18:33] <ejat> bugs 1464753
[21:33] <micahg> COuld I please get someone to look at a build failure for zygrib, it's the last piece of the puzzle for the libproj transition, here's the end of the build log that fails, this works in Debian, so I think it has to do with the new qwt 6.1.1, but I'm not so familiar with Qt libraries
[21:33] <micahg> http://paste.ubuntu.com/11716623/
[22:04] <debfx> micahg: from a quick look: qwt doesn't care/known about ABI compatibility. zygrib uses bundled qwt 6.0 headers but links against system qwt 6.1
[22:04] <debfx> -> big mess
[22:05] <micahg> sigh
[22:06] <micahg> I guess I could try the system headers, alternatively, there's a 7.0.0, not sure what's easiest ehre
[22:07] <debfx> ok, so qwt also happily removes entire header files
[22:07] <debfx> so just using the system header files won't work