=== x-spec-t is now known as Spec [01:12] is a 2GB file size limit a property of the kernel or filesystem? [01:13] Filesystem. Don't use fat, it's borken :) [01:13] I'm not using fat [01:13] I'm using ext3 [01:14] * RAOF looks at his various >4GB files sitting on ext3 [01:14] And is surprised. [01:15] then maybe it is the kernel? [01:15] or maybe an old version of ext3 [01:16] or a < 2gb HD [01:16] leonel: LOL. [01:16] LaserJock: 2GB is such a weird size [01:16] LaserJock: what inode size did you set up? [01:17] LaserJock: you didn't hit that news server button thing for fun did you? :) [01:18] no [01:18] I just have an old Debian version [01:18] it's a 120GB hard drive [01:19] and I was writing a data file and it said it reached a 2Gb limit [01:19] LaserJock: 2GB file size limit is likely the result of silly inode sizes [01:19] how can I check that? [01:19] preferably without destroying my data :-) [01:20] LaserJock: dumpe2fs dev_node [01:20] LaserJock: I think that's Block size: 1024 you should be lookin for [01:26] jdong: so it's not because I'm running a 2.4 kernel? [01:26] I get a block size of 1024 it looks like [01:27] LaserJock: I'm at least not aware of kernel 2.4 limiting filesizes down to that extremity [01:27] LaserJock: I know some userland apps have trouble with >4GiB but I'm unaware of a 2GB barrier [01:27] really? [01:27] we used to have 2GB barriers all the time [01:27] LaserJock: maybe I was just really really poor when I started with Linux 2.4 :D [01:27] was a problem when DVD .isos started being made [01:28] LaserJock: oh yeah, wget had a 2GB barrier didn't it. [01:28] yep [01:28] yeah you're right, you might be hitting userland size type barriers [01:28] I believe that stemmed from "well, we can't make a file bigger than 2GB anyway" [01:29] btw I liked your piece on Fedora [01:29] I think it roughly mirrors my experience with the distro and its community too [01:30] glad somebody thought it was ok [01:30] next up I'm gonna look at Fedora and Ubuntu SRU policies [01:30] that's the one I'm gonna put my fire suit on for ;-) [01:31] I thought Fedora didn't freeze, and as such didn't really have a SRU policy? [01:31] LaserJock: yeah you're really gonna need a fire suit for that [01:31] RAOF: they partially freeze [01:31] RAOF: i.e. they won't bring in big things that'll break the world [01:31] they have a "be sensible" freeze [01:31] RAOF: i.e. toolchain, certain kernel updates, GNOME core [01:31] RAOF: but they will feel free to bring in basically anything we call universe [01:31] Right. That makes sense. [01:32] IMO it's sensible for the home Linux enthusiast [01:32] but there are some other more philosophical things as well I'm gonna try to hit on [01:32] it's not terribly appropriate for the enterprise deployment [01:32] and I think that's something that needs to be addressed in your thoughts on it, LaserJock [01:32] Which means that their SRU policy is likely at least as stringent as Ubuntu's, right? [01:32] i.e. Ubuntu tries to cater to both enterprise and enthusiast users [01:32] while Fedora only has to dealw it hthe latter. [01:32] RHEL's SRU policy is even more stringent than Ubuntu's [01:32] (If we restrict 'stable' to mean 'the part that's frozen') [01:33] RAOF: correct [01:33] RAOF: they do RHEL-style backporting for the part that's frozen [01:33] "As a 32-bit UNIX system, Linux can handle files not longer than 2Gb." [01:33] RAOF: but that's less of a concern for the end user that just wonders why the latest K3b isn't available in a 4-month-old release [01:34] jdong: Yeah. It makes a lot of sense for some fraction of the userbase. [01:35] bye bye reiser [01:35] RAOF: I like Ubuntu's duality and I think ultimately our best solution is to cater to Fedora-like users with a more expanded, open Backports-style effort, while still doing traditional SRUs side by side [01:35] RAOF: there's no reason why they have to be mutually exclusive the way they are now [01:36] if someone wants to bring in KTorrent 2.0.4 to fix a bug in KTorrent 2.0.3, there's no reason why we should reject that just because we *can* do a SRU patch-backport [01:36] zul: I saw that. [01:36] jdong: Have some sort of Debian-testing like backports thing? [01:36] LaserJock: Yeah I liked your piece on Fedora. I intend installing Fedora on a new box I got recently alongside other distros. I want to see whats going on elsewhere. [01:36] TheMuso: let the jokes begin :) [01:36] I was honestly surprised [01:36] RAOF: yeah, I'm thinking a backports-proposed repo that all MOTUs are allowed to upload any (reasonable) packaging of their choosing [01:36] for my laptop Fedora would be my #2 distro [01:37] Debian's nice but takes quite a bit of work on my laptop [01:37] RAOF: and then the backports team ACKs such packages for copying into backports [01:37] LaserJock: I feel better having some OS diversity across my systems too [01:37] LaserJock: I'm strongly considering turning one of my systems to Fedora [01:37] jdong: the problem I personally have -backports is I almost never want the whole thing [01:38] jdong: it's well worth having a look at what they're doing [01:38] LaserJock: perhaps we need to handle pinning better via update-manager and apt/preferences then [01:38] Isn't it by default pinned so that you can install individual things & pull in the necessary deps? [01:38] RAOF: no default, backports is shut off entirely [01:38] RAOF: turning it on, update manager recognizes backports separately but checks them all by default [01:38] jdong: I mean, once you turn it on. [01:39] RAOF: and also, update-manager nags about backports updates just like any other update [01:39] RAOF: when you turn it on, it's not pinned at all [01:39] Oh, right. Yeah, that could be better. [01:39] jdong: what if we did something more like Main -> more enterprise like, Universe -> more desktop like [01:39] and have a strict SRU policy for Main and Fedora-like for Universe? [01:39] LaserJock: doesn't handle the use case of transmission, KTorrent, and other universe-like apps that seeped into main [01:40] LaserJock: but in general that distinction works well [01:40] jdong: but those could be perhaps handled via exceptions? [01:40] LaserJock: perhaps the added provision that we are allowed in universe-SRU to override a main package [01:40] (puts on flamesuit!) [01:40] yikes [01:40] Or a reworking of the archive structure, ala that u-d thread. [01:40] LaserJock: it sounded better before I wrote it down! [01:41] RAOF: that would be a rather messy SRU policy [01:41] I'm not sure how we'd do it there [01:41] per-seed SRU policies sounds like not-so-fun times [01:41] LaserJock: my opinion still stands that we should open backports uploads to all SRUs and filter them through a -proposed queue on backports [01:42] and keep SRUs there too [01:42] hmm [01:42] there's defintiely some packages in universe we want to do regular SRUs for, like lighttpd, clamav, etc [01:42] I kinda am not found of that idea [01:42] *fond [01:42] and IMO those two styles of updating should be kept as independent efforts in independent repos [01:42] Fedora makes no attempt to combine them [01:42] which is why Fedora is not designed for an enterprise environment [01:42] if an SRU should be done it should be done, doing it in -backports seems like a workaround [01:43] LaserJock: it might be a workaround but is a faster , more effortless soltuion that satisfies the enthusiast user [01:43] LaserJock: it doesn't preclude the delivery of a SRU [01:43] maybe we can have an SRU policy that accommodates that though [01:43] LaserJock: that's like the archive admins refusing to pull a faulty update because it's a workaround of uploading a new fixed one tomorrow ;-) [01:43] well, let me rethink this [01:43] they should be complementary [01:44] I guess in a broad definition of SRU it makes sense [01:44] so if we break it up into bug SRUs and feature SRUs [01:44] LaserJock: I think it makes more sense to break this down in terms of use cases [01:44] then we have a reasonable definition of -updates and -backports [01:44] we clearly have two different usecases that Ubuntu tries to meet: [01:45] (1) Joe User is running Ubuntu on his personal laptop. He hears about the newest KTorrent that fixes 2 bugs and adds a major new feature. He wants to try it out. [01:45] (2) Bob Sysadmin manages an enterprise KDE rollout. He is concerned about 1 of the bugs in KTorrent which is a remote crasher but doesn't want the risk of regressions from the unrelated updates. [01:45] #1 should be handled as a backport and #2 should be a traditional SRU [01:46] sure [01:46] both can be offered side by side because typically it's different people who want them [01:46] that's the current situation, IMO [01:46] and in fact different people who will perform the update [01:46] LaserJock: current situation is technically we're not allowed to backport for the purpose of bugfixing [01:46] LaserJock: and also backports must be derived from development packaging, when sometimes current packaging + uupdate is more appropriate [01:46] but that would be a SRU under your scheme [01:46] (i.e. when Intrepid undergoes some migration or rocky packaging) [01:47] what I'm saying is we should be allowed to do both. Both backport with intent to fix bugs AND introduce new features [01:47] well [01:47] that's kinda grey [01:48] the only major issue I see is versioning convention [01:48] if doing a new upstream releases fixes bugs I don't think anybody is going to complain ;-) [01:48] but the purpose of -backports is for user 1) [01:48] LaserJock: indeed , but the current imposed limitations on backports doesn't satify user #1 [01:48] jdong: why? [01:48] LaserJock: I'd estimate 25% of backports requests get approved ultimately. [01:49] jdong: Backports shouldn't be a workaround for SRUs are to hard. [01:49] hi [01:49] i hope here am right [01:49] LaserJock: the remaining 25% are packages that FTBFS due to a migration, 25% are bugfix-only updates that the archive admins would reject, and the remaining are during a freeze or other case where development branch cannot receive the new version necessary [01:49] can someone help me with this bug ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/223843 [01:49] i found out it have nothing to do with the xrdb error messages in .xsession-errors [01:49] jdong: I think backporting for non-sru worthy bug fixes should be fine. [01:50] ScottK: I don't think we need to preclude backporting SRU-worthy fixes either [01:50] I've been accepting that all along in fact. [01:50] ScottK: because there's no reason why the presence of that backport would discourage/preclude a SRU anyway [01:50] jdong: but they should be fixed in -updates? [01:50] LaserJock: ideally they should be fixed in both [01:50] jdong: I think they should do the SRU first if it's feasible. [01:50] LaserJock: independently at their own pace [01:50] jdong: well, sure [01:50] but there's nothing that says you can't do that now [01:50] one should not discourage/preclude the other [01:51] jdong: I think that's a good theory, but in practice backports do take the pressure off getting an SRU done. [01:51] I just don't know why you'd want to do the same thing twice [01:51] ScottK: should we really be artificially be imposing that pressure to favor SRUs though? [01:51] It's not the same thing twice. [01:51] jdong: We should. -updates is enabled by default and -backports is not. [01:52] LaserJock: a SRU fix is often not the same as a backport both in the patch itself and the validation process involved [01:52] Each for good reasons.. [01:52] ScottK: why isn't it? [01:52] LaserJock: volatility and reduced QA [01:52] I'm just not sure I have good realistic cases here [01:52] LaserJock: backports is pretty lax on letting new packages in and they're probably at a higher regression risk [01:52] jdong: so? [01:53] LaserJock: users might cry and whine when backports breaks things [01:53] not like they don't when -updates breaks things ;-) [01:53] what I'm saying is, if a bug is SRU worthy, then should get it into -updates [01:53] The standard for backports is "Builds, Installs, Runs". Updates go through rather more QA. [01:53] why would we then do the same thing in -backports? [01:53] when the user is getting the fix from -updates [01:53] We wouldn't do the same thing. [01:53] LaserJock: because it's often not the same thing [01:53] then I don't see the problem [01:53] you can already do it [01:53] LaserJock: the backport would be we take the latest upstream tarball and package it and upload it [01:53] just upload your new upstream release [01:53] -updates would get a targetted patch. -backports gets the whole new version. [01:53] ScottK: that's my point [01:53] LaserJock: the SRU would be examining the changes line-by-line and isolating only the useful ones [01:54] there's no reason you can't do that now [01:54] LaserJock: other than the limitations the TB imposed on backports [01:54] no [01:54] LaserJock: i.e. speicifcally we are not allowed to backport for bugfixing reasons [01:54] but you aren't [01:54] you're backporting a new version that happens to fix a bug [01:54] no biggie [01:54] LaserJock: try telling the archive admins that ;-) [01:54] why would they object? [01:55] LaserJock: I've gotten rejected backport approvals for that reason before [01:55] how would they know? [01:55] LaserJock: i.e. "this looks like it should be SRU, won't do" [01:55] LaserJock: they read the backports bug tickets [01:55] hmm, I guess I'm not really up on -backports, I can't imagine why there's an issue [01:56] if a bug is SRU worthy then it should be in -updates [01:56] that says *nothing* about -backports [01:56] LaserJock: agreed [01:56] ScottK: do you think I'd be in a shark-infested pool alone to propose that -backports get a -backports-proposed where all MOTUs are allowed to upload? ;-) [01:57] jdong: what would that do for us? [01:57] I suspect the rationale is that a bugfix oughtn't be backported before it goes to -updates, rather than that bugfixes oughtn't go to backports. [01:57] LaserJock: increase the accessibility of the backports path [01:57] persia: I think the ultimate rationale is that IF we allow backports to do it, then nobody would bother separating out the patch for SRU because it's more work [01:57] i.e. people would start saying that Backports "fixes" some bug as a solution. [01:58] jdong: and why do we want that? [01:58] jdong: I think anything that increases archive admin steps is a bad idea in the current archive management paradigm. [01:58] jdong: Right, [01:58] jdong: I think that's correct [01:58] LaserJock: why do we want the current system that I have to keep ScottK on a leash for sponsoring backports? ;-) [01:58] we want to push people to -updates for bug fixes [01:59] as that's turned on by default and is the minimal use-case for getting a fix to people [01:59] jdong: I just wondered if you're having a hard time getting backports done or what. I just don't know [02:00] LaserJock: at times, yes. I feel like the burden is mostly on ScottK and I to do all of the grunt of the work and people who can be testing can't really test because packages are not readily available [02:00] We have choke points all along the path. [02:00] k [02:00] I don't do backports because I don't use -backports [02:00] Not enough testers, not enough core-dev support, not enough archive admin time. [02:00] that's sort of a limitation === twanj____ is now known as twanj [02:01] LaserJock: backports would work great from a community testing model where users volunteer as guinea pigs for a -proposed archive of just generously-built backports [02:01] LaserJock: msot of the users I speak to have no reservations about putting their systems up for such a job [02:01] LaserJock: but they also are afraid of the pbuilder/prevu build process [02:02] hmm [02:02] what if you had a PPA? or do you do that already? [02:02] LaserJock: imagine if all SRU verifications had to be done by posting a debdiff and asking users to "go test" [02:02] LaserJock: well I've considered using a PPA to simulate such a build but I'd like it better if it were something official [02:03] hmm [02:03] it just seems to me that we should be able to create common testing grounds/tools/strategies [02:04] I don't think we get nearly enough testing from -proposed [02:04] LaserJock: the other advantage of having an archive is the ability to directly copy a tested backport verbatim, without having to deal with the race condition of the devel branch getting a new upload [02:04] We get 'go path' is the bug fixed testing, not are there regressions testing. [02:04] LaserJock: I don't think users are too aware of the SRU -proposed archive sheerly because of its low volume and "uninteresting" updates [02:05] LaserJock: I'd venture a bet that a theoretical testing backports repo that accepted new version backports of everything to be quite "popular" ;-) [02:05] (good thing or not, I won't say!) [02:06] *sigh* [02:06] I suppose [02:06] maybe I've just completely lost my sanity tonight :) [02:06] if we could get more testing though I think we could have more interesting uploads to -proposed [02:06] s/tonight//g [02:06] LaserJock: there is this viscous cycle :) [02:08] jdong and LaserJock: My clamav updates to Dapper are perhaps an interesting hybrid. That went PPA (test) -> dapper-backports (test) -> dapper-updates [02:09] clamav and a all the needed rdepends [02:12] in reality, I think -proposed is almost useless [02:13] for almost all SRUs your not gonna just enable -proposed and say, "Oh, they fixed that, cool" [02:13] When there was a bad upload of svn to gutsy-proposed a few months ago we got a lot of bug. [02:13] * ScottK would never just enable proposed (although apparently people do). [02:13] people most often have to read the bug report, check out the use cases, and actively test [02:14] you're pretty much just as well to attach a .deb or link to a PPA [02:15] What proposed gets you is knowing exactly what's going to end up in -updates is what got testing. [02:15] yep [02:15] assuming that people actually test & give feedback on -proposed [02:15] That and you aren't encouraging people to install random software from bug reports/third party repos. [02:16] but having an option for it in "Software Sources" does pretty much nothing [02:16] if you know what I mean [02:16] -proposed and -backports should really be pinned when enabled... why don't we do that? [02:17] Good question. [02:17] * wgrant hasn't read the whole conversation, as he's at work. [02:18] I'm just trying to think of some ways that we can actually get some testing for SRUs [02:18] as I think that opens up a lot of possibilities [02:19] Have people subscribe to a mythical testing ML, to which emails soliciting SRU testing are sent. [02:20] that's a good idea [02:21] hmm, I wonder if something along the lines of the iso tracker could be used [02:21] and plugging more into the QA team [02:23] say we had a page with a list of packages [02:23] and then individual pages for them that give the test case and a place to click on a "worked for me" [02:23] then promote the snot out of it [02:25] Heya gang [02:26] * ScottK is envisioning this page on Launchpad. It will be slow and very confusing, but look really cool. [02:26] heya bd. [02:26] bddebian even [02:27] Gotta hit tab for the tab completion to work. [02:27] Heya ScottK [03:21] leonel: Debian package of clamav 0.93 is up in the clamav PPA. [03:42] soyuz eating ppa uploads for anyone else? [03:50] Nevermind. Finally showed up. === dmb_ is now known as dmb [04:11] Three cheers for upstreams that rely on internal interfaces of things they build against. [04:11] * ScottK slaps klamav across the room and heads for bed. === greeneggsnospam is now known as jsgotangco [04:22] so when I try to build a package with dpkg-buildpackage it complains about no Makefile [04:22] ..but it has the instructions it needs in the rules file. I'm lost.. [04:22] Zelut: Is the rules file executable? [04:23] TheMuso: it is [04:23] Well obviously a makefile is not found, which the rules file in calling the make command, says it needs. [04:24] http://pastebin.ca/1001327 - this is the output of my attempt. [04:25] the application does not need to be compiled. the rules file just needs to install them to a few locations. [04:26] I guess I don't see / am not familiar enough with the rules file to see why/where its looking for a Makefile [04:29] Line 27. It calls make. This implicitly looks for a Makefile. [04:30] this is my first rules file.. let me paste what I have and maybe ya'll can tell me what to trim [04:31] * persia suspects the problem is the use of dh_make [04:31] http://pastebin.ca/1001333 [04:31] OK. Quick look: firstly, do you have a ./configure in the source? [04:32] I don't. [04:32] OK. Then you likely don't need either of the configure or configure-stamp rules. [04:32] all this package needs to do is place 'origami' in /usr/bin and the docs in /usr/share/doc. [04:32] Keep walking through the file with the same sanity check. [04:33] For something that simple, I'd recommend just having a CDBS include of debhelper.mk, and an entry in debian/origami.install [04:33] I'm fine with that too if you want to walk me through that :) [04:37] Zelut: OK. Rules file is two lines. [04:37] #!/usr/bin/make -f [04:38] include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk [04:38] debian/origami.install is one line [04:38] origami usr/bin [04:38] add CDBS to the build-dependencies in debian/control [04:39] done [04:40] do I need to add the docs I want in /usr/share/doc/origami into the origami.install file? [04:41] what is the proper way to use dh_compress and dh_installman? [04:41] assuming I have a prog.1 file already [04:41] Zelut: List them in debian/origmai.docs [04:41] coppro: List it in debian/package.manpages [04:42] dh_compress first, right? [04:42] coppro: I think you shouldn't have to give any arguments to dh_compress [04:42] No. [04:42] StevenK: thank you. [04:42] dh_man first. [04:42] ok [04:42] persia: ok, so what do I use to build this voodoo magic? [04:42] thanks. let's see if this works [04:42] Zelut: debuild :) [04:43] (assuming CDBS and debhelper are installed) [04:43] % debuild :) [04:43] zsh: parse error near `)' [04:43] * StevenK hides. [04:43] mksh: syntax error: ')' unexpected [04:43] Right then. `debuild # :)` [04:43] 1| [04:44] haha [04:44] persia: wow.. so it built. cdbs is magical voodoo isn't it :) [04:45] Yes. It's magic. For simple things, magic is quick and easy. If it gets complex, it may be worth unwinding (I really don't like the sendmail debian/rules) [04:46] now, lets say I wanted this package to run three basic commands to clean something up. How would I do that? [04:47] See, that's where you start getting into deep magic. You'd add an override rule. Look at the CDBS documentation from perso.duckcorp: it has a list of common overrides. When you get longer than about 30 lines, you likely don't want to be using CDBS anymore. [04:48] ok. [04:52] and where can I find the correct list of possible options to fix a doc-base-unknown-section error? [04:52] I can't figure it out! === RAOF_ is now known as RAOF === dmb_ is now known as dmb [05:08] i wrote a patch to fix a bug (LP: #221661). would someone be willing to review it and tell me if it's OK? [05:13] (perhaps ubuntu-devel is a better place to ask... i'll try there) [05:13] bug #221661 [05:13] a7x: it might be easier to apply the patch and upload to revu [05:13] persia: bot is gone [05:14] Erm, no. bugfixes don't belong in REVU: that's for new packages. [05:14] ah [05:14] debdiff on bug report thats right [05:14] For bugfixes, best to generate a patch, either put it in a debdiff (or have someone else do that), and subscribe the sponsors. [05:17] i'm new: what's debdiff? [05:18] a7x: you'd really want to catch mvo or Amaranth who are both familiar with compiz enough to give you a meaningful answer [05:18] ScottK: Great diffs I'll send them tomorrow [05:18] a7x: intuitively from looking at the patch I side with you that the current use of export $ENV does nothing useful [05:18] a7x: You might want to take a look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Contributing (although you may well find someone here who would review your patch) [05:19] jdong and persia: thanks [05:19] how do I get rid of doc-base-unknown-section [05:20] br1|: /win 11 [05:23] well that was deft [06:13] Good morning [06:18] * persia is amused by intrepid FTBFS reports, and wonders if the FTBFS tracker is watching intrepid yet [06:20] Hah [06:22] persia: It is now. [06:22] It's not right, but... [06:24] I can't see why. [06:26] Hey, what exactly do I put into dput to upload to hardy-proposed for an SRU? [06:27] incoming = /hardy-proposed/ ? [06:27] All 0? Strange. I received at least two reports for hppa. [06:27] persia: As did I. [06:27] Well, they were for lpia, and one for hppa. [06:27] actually launchpad rejected incoming = /hardy-proposed [06:27] YokoZar: just upload to ubuntu as usual, with hardy-proposed in your .changes file [06:28] Actually, I've a couple powerpc failures as well. [06:28] YokoZar: new wine for -proposed already? :) [06:28] Ah. [06:28] rmadison is broken. [06:28] persia: you mean as distribution? [06:29] YokoZar: preceisely [06:29] ajmitch: Yeah the package needs to depend on lib32nss-mdns otherwise dns can't be done on amd64 [06:29] You can set this in your changelog entry [06:30] Hmm, I think intrepid is borked. [06:30] It has no packages. [06:31] borked, or just not setup fully yet? [06:31] YokoZar: yes, that's a definite issue [06:31] Both. [06:31] YokoZar: Isn't that only the case when libnss-mdns is installed? [06:32] wgrant: The Packages files seem large enough [06:32] Hrm. Somehow I don't think the buildds ought be running intrepid before it's set up... [06:34] StevenK: Ah, it didn't have any packages a few hours ago, and I presumed that was why rmadison was being empty. I see it has packages now. [06:34] (hardy)root@liquified:~# grep -c Package /var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_intrepid_*Packages | cut -d: -f2 | numsum [06:34] 24819 [06:35] I see LP even says it has packages. [06:36] So rmadison ought catch up with the next run of some cronjob? [06:36] So somebody needs to fix rmadison. [06:36] Is rmadison using a dak import, or some new Soyuz-specific implementation? [06:36] Neither [06:37] StevenK: What, then? [06:37] wgrant: It runs madison-lite [06:37] Aha. [06:43] StevenK: Should I poke some archive person about it when they appear? [06:44] I don't see the point bugging them until the toolchain is uploaded. [06:51] Is it not yet? Why am I getting build failure messages then? [06:52] Is it just trying to rebuild packages with the old toolchain when the binary version doesn't match the source version? [06:53] persia: That's right. [06:54] IIRC the build queue thing creates build records for the next distroseries if the build in the previous distroseries failed. [06:54] Nifty. All the FTBFS's that don't with the latest build tools ought get fixed then :) === Coper_ is now known as Coper [06:56] Yay, we have a bot. [07:35] wgrant: rmadison should be sorted. [07:38] siretart: hi, do you know if the pulseaudio fixes and improvements mentioned in libxine 1.1.12 relnotes are the same ones backported in ubuntu's 1.1.11.1-1ubuntu3? [07:52] hey kahrytan can't you get to terminal? ctrl+alt+f1? [07:52] Taylor, What? [07:53] kahrytan: because if you can get to the terminal by pressing ctrl+alt+f1, then the monitor isn't supported by xorg by default [07:54] I can get to it but screen resolution is messed up. Text is enlarged. [07:54] You must have been in club. [07:55] janimo: yes, at least they should be. why? [07:55]