[09:03] <_shaun_> hi guys i have a massive image that ubuntu insists on printing to one page, how do i print this image to multiple pages?
[09:22] <apw> _shaun_, as in like a picture, a camera picture?
[09:34] <_shaun_> hi apw, a png picture
[09:45] <apw> _shaun_, i suspect that is outside our expertise; for me i might use imagemagik to make tiles out of it and print those, #ubuntu might know better ways
[12:59] <_shaun_> thanks apw
[15:57] <apw> tseliot, it looks like we may have a new regfression in bcmwl in trusty for linux-lts-wily with the latest update
[15:58] <davmor2> apw: an actual one or is the fix not showing up again?
[15:59] <apw> davmor2, i have not looked closely, i have just noted that adt is whining about it
[15:59] <davmor2> apw: ah okay
[16:01] <apw> davmor2, ok this might be a compiler change .... cc1: warning: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-date-time" [enabled by default]
[16:01] <apw> oh no, that is just a warning
[16:01] <apw> /var/lib/dkms/bcmwl/6.30.223.248+bdcom/build/src/wl/sys/wl_cfg80211_hybrid.c:2056:4: error: too few arguments to function ‘cfg80211_disconnected’
[16:01] <apw> so likely real and via a stable update
[16:02] <davmor2> apw: I ask because it regularly has to have a patch to make it install so wondered if that might od regressed but it isn't sound like that is the issue at all :)
[16:03] <apw> davmor2, na i think we just mashed the kernel api on it by applying a stable update
[16:55] <tseliot> apw: fun++
[16:56] <tseliot> apw: can I get the full log, please?
[16:56] <apw> tseliot, ok you might want to wait a sec, this might be testing fail --- becuse the testing says you made a .2 and that iwas testing that version but the test has .1 in it
[16:56] <apw> tseliot, so i have asked for those to be rerun, and we should recheck when that compltests
[16:57] <tseliot> apw: ok
[16:58] <apw> tseliot, we did find an error in pinning on trusty not that long ago which might account for these, so i'd like to eliminiate same before i waste any more of your time on this
[17:01] <tseliot> apw: thanks
[18:12] <apw> tseliot, confirmed this is fixed and working when we test the right combinations; panic over
[18:13] <tseliot> apw: good :)
[18:54] <tomreyn> hi there. are there known bugs or regressions in 3.13.0-72.115 on trusty, making it fail to boot?
[18:55] <apw> tomreyn, yes, it think there is on that one
[18:55] <tomreyn> for me, 3.13.0-70.113 boots fine, 3.13.0-72.115 gets stuck while mounting encrypted drives
[18:56] <apw> bug #1522766
[18:56] <apw> that one is already replaced in -proposed iirc
[18:56] <tomreyn> thanks a bunch
[18:56] <apw> tomreyn, oh yes encrypted drives for sure
[18:59] <tomreyn> i'm also a bit disappointed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1274320 still hasn't made it to LTS
[19:01] <tomreyn> comment #125 seems to suggest what needs to be done, but i'm not sure i understand what exactly is being asked for
[19:02] <tomreyn> i.e. it seems that mathieu is suggesting that someone who can reproduce this issue should edit the first post and add some information, but i'm not clear which.
[19:05] <apw> tomreyn, i think he is asking someone to say that this affects trusty as well (which it clearly does) in the top description and have the bug nomination created for trusty
[19:06] <apw> i can nominate it for trusty i would think, if you want to update the description
[19:06] <apw> though actually he has already nominated it, and claims it to be in progress
[19:07] <apw> yeah he did it for himself, which is confusing having asked :)
[19:07] <apw> (see between #126 and #127)
[19:08] <tomreyn> hmm, right
[19:08] <tomreyn> but nothing since
[19:12] <cyphermox> oi
[19:12] <apw> oh hey, we were discussing bug #1522766
[19:13] <apw> which you fixed up for wily i think it was, and have tasks open for T
[19:14] <cyphermox> surely you mean https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1274320 ?
[19:14] <apw> yes i mean that one, i am a wally, wrong paste as always
[19:14] <apw> discussing two things at once, is apparently beyond me today
[19:15] <cyphermox> tomreyn: to clarify, what I was asking was for people to read the wiki page that shows how to request a SRU, and update the bug description with the [Impact] [Test Case] and [Regression Potential] tags so we could know how people plan to test it
[19:16] <tomreyn> oh hi cyphermox - I'm the one who brought it up and just updated the bug report.
[19:16] <tomreyn> i guess that's not something the average Ubuntu user who is impacted by this bug is into.
[19:17] <cyphermox> that only reduces the work for me a tiny little bit but it also makes sure that some people care enough about the bug report that it will eventually get tested in -proposed when the SRU is available, otherwise we might block other things
[19:17] <cyphermox> well, that's why there is documentation for it :)
[19:17] <tomreyn> i'm a sysadmin and have a little bit of development experience, too, but basically gave up on understading what i should have done after 15 minutes
[19:18] <cyphermox> ok
[19:18] <cyphermox> then let's take this as a bug to the doc that it should be made cleare
[19:18] <cyphermox> *clearer
[19:18] <cyphermox> tomreyn: are you able to reproduce the bug easily, say, on a new install?
[19:18] <apw> tomreyn, do you have a test system you could try an update on and validate it, without eating your production kit ?
[19:19] <tomreyn> cyphermox: i don't have a new install to test on. i have an old one on this system i'm chatting from where i can reproduce it
[19:19] <tomreyn> so no, i don'T have a test system for this purpose.
[19:20] <tomreyn> i guess i could install a VM, but that'd take a while.
[19:20] <tomreyn> could do it, though
[19:20] <cyphermox> well, it's not that different from what I'd do anyway
[19:20] <cyphermox> tomreyn: I'll prepare a package to upload to trusty-proposed now, and we'll see if we can't convince someone in the SRU team to let it in right away so you can test it
[19:21] <tomreyn> great, thank you
[19:21] <tomreyn> i guess i could just updat grub on one of my disks and keep it as it is now on the others
[19:22] <tomreyn> got multiple disks here
[19:22] <tomreyn> (if that would work for testing)
[19:27] <cyphermox> I don't know
[19:31] <cyphermox> tomreyn: there's already another update going through proposed which should be verified and all before I upload grub2, so this patch will need to wait a bit
[19:33] <tomreyn> that's fine ;)
[19:33] <tomreyn> i might not be awake enough to test tonight anyways, but surely one of these days.
[19:34] <cyphermox> I think it's 2 days away from having stayed there the mandatory 7 days
[19:34] <cyphermox> so in the meantime I'll poke the right people so they test their stuff
[19:34] <tomreyn> thank you
[19:35] <cyphermox> np
[21:05] <Quintasan> Bug #1523675 could someone take a look at this and help me debug this? I raised the issue at bug #1389201 but I didn't get much response.
[21:10] <arges> Quintasan: so you commented out the hwdb rules and this happened?
[21:10] <Quintasan> arges: I did not comment them out.
[21:10] <Quintasan> This obviously wouldn't help.
[21:10] <Quintasan> xev somehow fires no events for the zoom in/out slider
[21:10] <Quintasan> but it does fire events for the multimedia keys
[21:11] <arges> Quintasan: I'm unfortunately not a systemd expert, did this work with earlier versions and only broke recently?
[21:12] <Quintasan> arges: I'm still on 14.04 which doesn't use systemd.
[21:14] <arges> Quintasan: i marked your bug as affecting udev/systemd I believe these packages are synced somehow anyway. I would re-ask in #ubuntu-devel to see if there are other debugging techniques to figure out whats going on
[21:14] <Quintasan> Alright.
[21:15] <arges> Quintasan: if you have the ability live testing a newer ubuntu version would be useful to see if it exhibits the same problem
[21:15] <Quintasan> I could try a live cd I guess. I'm not really going to upgrade now since thesis and stuff.
[21:16] <arges> Quintasan: understood; good luck