[02:17] <greg-g> IDEA: add an extra button/link on bug reports that members of the Bug Control team can see that does the search that LP does when submitting a new report, the list of similar bugs.  (only for Bug Control to curb the resources requirement)
[02:44] <derelicked> moo
[03:22] <techno_freak> :)
[09:25] <iwkse> hi all, I was searching for a duplicate of a bug i'm experiencing but i could not find. In few words, livecd can't boot and give the (initramfs) prompt when is used a usb-cdrom device. The problem seems to be due to initramfs which mount too fastly the new root before the cdrom is probed. It's a known bug?
[09:28] <hggdh> anyone noticed the number of g_slice_alloc SIGSEGV we have been having?
[09:30] <techno_freak> iwkse, feel free to report the bug, if you do not find a duplicate :)
[09:31] <iwkse> techno_freak: :) i'm saying so cause i told it to my friend and he said..ah it's a known bug....i wondered how much is known:)
[09:31] <techno_freak> iwkse, have you checked the forums?
[09:32] <iwkse> techno_freak: i surfed a on launchpad
[09:32] <iwkse> techno_freak: but forums, no..
[09:33] <techno_freak> iwkse, still feel free to report a bug, it will help us to know what went wrong :)
[09:33] <iwkse> techno_freak: oki :)
[12:43] <Iulian> Hey
[12:43] <pedro_> hello
[12:44] <Iulian> Hiya pedro_
[12:45] <thekorn> hey Iulian, pedro_
[12:48] <pedro_> hello thekorn
[12:49] <Iulian> Hi thekorn
[14:51] <bddebian> Boo
[14:52] <jpatrick> bddebian: Moo.
[14:58] <bddebian> jpatrick: :-)
[15:48] <bdmurray> hello bug hunters
[15:50] <james_w> hi bdmurray
[15:50] <bdmurray> james_w: hey, you mentioned some samba upgrade bug / debconf question right?
[15:51] <james_w> bdmurray: yeah, slangasek looked at it and it is kind of intentional behaviour.
[15:51] <james_w> or rather unaviodable unwanted behaviour.
[15:51] <bdmurray> okay, I personally saw it this weekend and saved some logs
[15:51] <james_w> it should only happen in hardy->hardy upgrades, not dapper-> or gutsy-> so it's fine for release
[15:52] <james_w> bdmurray: you didn't happen to look at the diff in the gtk window did you?
[15:53] <bdmurray> Yes, I believe I looked at it.
[15:53] <james_w> did it look ok to you?
[15:53] <james_w> I wish I had had a proper look at it, rather than just deciding it was unreadable and carrying on
[15:56] <bdmurray> It seemed okay yes
[15:56] <qense> hello
[15:56] <bdmurray> hello!
[15:57] <james_w> bdmurray: ok, thanks for looking, I'll keep my eye out in future
[15:57] <james_w> or maybe I could try and provoke it.
[15:57]  * james_w finds my pointy stick
[15:57] <bdmurray> james_w: I captured the 2 config files during the process if you want them
[15:58] <james_w> bdmurray: I should just be able to do it by editing the file, thanks.
[17:04] <james_w> thekorn: another cool looking tool, thanks :)
[17:05] <thekorn> james_w, hehe
[17:07] <bdmurray> mvo: hello there
[17:10] <mvo> hey bdmurray
[17:11] <Iulian> james_w: Indeed :)
[17:16] <bdmurray> mvo: we are going to be looking at update-manager again for tomorrow's hug day. Is there anything new / special we should be aware of?
[17:16] <mvo> not that I know of right now
[17:16] <mvo> log files are still the most imporant bit required
[17:19] <bdmurray> mvo: I also ran across bug 182350 the other day and wasn't clear on the design decision there.
[17:19] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 182350 in update-manager "no longer reports installed and available versions" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/182350
[17:28] <nxvl> hi
[17:28] <nxvl> how do i get privilegies to edit the bugs priority?
[17:28] <bdmurray> nxvl: you need to be a member of the ubuntu-bugcontrol team to edit bug priority
[17:30] <nxvl> bdmurray: so i just need to "join this team" and wait for one admin to accept it, or do i need to send some extra documentation?
[17:31] <bdmurray> nxvl: there is some more information at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl
[17:33] <nxvl> bdmurray: ok, i have appied and i have al de requirements
[17:33] <nxvl> i will now searh for 5 bug reports i have triage and i will send you by PM
[17:34] <nxvl> is that correct?
[17:35] <bdmurray> nxvl: yes, an e-mail to me with those bugs would be great
[17:37] <nxvl> ok, looking for them now
[17:38] <nxvl> bdmurray: fixed bugs doesn't count, doesn't it?
[17:39] <bdmurray> nxvl: We are looking for bugs that you have triaged / worked with reporters on, so the bugs can absolutely be fixed.
[17:39] <bdmurray> Additionally, since as a member of the bug control team you will be able to assign importance it is good to know what importance you would give the bug reports.
[17:51] <mvo> bdmurray: bug 182350 was a design desision
[17:51] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 182350 in update-manager "no longer reports installed and available versions" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/182350
[17:52] <bdmurray> mvo: Okay, I was wondering where it was duplicated.
[18:42] <qense> are there hal developers on? I think they might find bug 203094 interesting
[18:42] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 203094 in libsmbios "hal cannot set brighness on Dell notebook computers if a BIOS password is set" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/203094
[18:43] <qense> (btw, maybe there should be a function added to this channel that you can poke a group)
[18:49] <andrea-bs> qense: please try on #ubuntu-dev ;)
[18:51] <james_w> #ubuntu-devel
[18:54] <andrea-bs> james_w: #ubuntu-dev redirects to -devel ;)
[18:55] <james_w> ah, thanks, never knew that, might save some characters.
[18:56] <andrea-bs> :D
[19:37] <Nightrose> bdmurray: thx for approving me :)
[19:37] <bdmurray> Nightrose: no problem!
[19:39] <bdmurray> thekorn: Do you have an idea of how much work it would be to make another html bug listing page parsable?
[19:40] <bdmurray> Nightrose: I saw you were having an issue with the Gutsy version of python-launchpad-bugs is that right?
[19:40] <Nightrose> jep
[19:41] <bdmurray> Did you look at the upstream version i.e. pull it from bzr?
[19:42] <thekorn> bdmurray, it depends on how well structured the page is,
[19:42] <Nightrose> nope - I just tried the packaged one
[19:42] <thekorn> but parsing pages with  xpath is easy
[19:42] <bdmurray> thekorn: it's pages like https://launchpad.net/bugs/bugtrackers/gcc-bugzilla
[19:44] <bdmurray> thekorn: I forget did you make a gutsy ppa version of python-launchpad-bugs?
[19:46] <thekorn> bdmurray, yes 0.2.28 for gutsy is in PPA
[19:47] <thekorn> bdmurray, parsing of these bugtracker pages should be easy,
[19:48] <thekorn> when we find a way to handle the different status/importance values of the different trackers
[19:49] <bdmurray> I'm really just interested in getting the ubuntu bug numbers out of pages like than and then looking for upstream tasks
[19:49] <bdmurray> The url I posted is a list of ubuntu bugs with http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ showing up in the comments
[19:50] <bdmurray> As I understand it
[19:50] <Nightrose> thekorn: which ppa? and would you reccomend me to use it? the packaged version in gutsy doesn't work for me
[19:50] <thekorn> Nightrose, https://edge.launchpad.net/~bughelper-dev/+archive
[19:50] <bdmurray> Nightrose: we need to do release a new version of python-launchpad-bugs for Gutsy.  I'm sorry about that.
[19:51] <Nightrose> thekorn: thx :)
[19:51] <thekorn> Nightrose, I tested it for gutsy like two weeks ago
[19:51] <Nightrose> bdmurray: no prob
[19:51] <Nightrose> ok
[19:51] <bdmurray> If you go from that list to bug 172326 you'll see that it doesn't have an upstream watch.
[19:51] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 172326 in gcc-4.1 "Reproducable SIGSEGV (char ************* etc.)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/172326
[19:52] <bdmurray> But it should because in the last comment someone says they opened a bug but it just isn't linked to.
[19:52] <thekorn> bdmurray, right
[19:53] <thekorn> will work on parsing this buglist soon
[19:54] <thekorn> bdmurray, after finishing a first patch to fix bug 200457
[19:54] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 200457 in python-launchpad-bugs "URLBugListFilter missing milestones" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/200457
[20:07] <Nightrose> thekorn, bdmurray: still getting some warnings about API not being stable but it seems to work better now - will play around a little with it - thx
[20:07] <bdmurray> Nightrose: that is expected.  Please let us know if you have any questions.
[20:07] <Nightrose> will do :)
[20:30] <nxvl> bdmurray: i have send you an e-mail one second ago
[20:33] <bdmurray> nxvl: I've received two of them
[20:33] <nxvl> mm
[20:33] <nxvl> strange
[20:33] <nxvl> :S
[20:33] <nxvl> but you received it, so it's fine
[20:33] <bdmurray> Indeed!
[20:41] <danage> hi! my 0.6.6 network manager in hardy does not save my wpa2 key
[20:42] <danage> network manager editor remains empty, key manager too
[20:42] <danage> gconf shows an entry for the network
[21:09] <thekorn> bdmurray, added a patch to 203312
[21:09] <thekorn> bug 203312
[21:09] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 203312 in python-launchpad-bugs "add ability to parse bugtracker overviews" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/203312
[21:09] <thekorn> I hope this works...
[21:14] <bdmurray> thekorn: Awesome!  I'll test it today.
[22:13] <owh> Hiya, where do I find the buildd logs to see what the output was of a particular package being built?
[22:18] <james_w> owh: the launchpad overview page for the package links to it
[22:19] <owh> Tah
[22:48] <owh> Hiya, I'm following the recipe at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/Debdiff to create a debdiff. Thus far the way I've done this is to create a .orig directory, fix the bug, update the changelog appropriately and generate a diff -ruN between the .orig and the new directory. I'm doing this in a temporary alpha-6 hardy VM and setting it up as a build machine seems a lot of wasted effort. It needs a build environment, 
[22:51] <pochu> owh: you got cutted: "It needs a build  environment,
[22:51] <pochu> "
[22:52] <owh> ...needs a build environment, gpg keys, dev scripts to name a few. Is there a better way?
[22:53] <james_w> to create a debdiff you don't need to be on hardy.
[22:53] <owh> james_w: Well the package I'm fixing is in hardy.
[22:53] <james_w> you do to test it properly, but for a lot of things a chroot suffices for that (pbuilder)
[22:53] <james_w> owh: you can download it to gutsy or wherever if you like.
[22:54] <owh> So, I need to test it, make sure it builds, make sure that the debdiff I'm supplying will build, ultimately it's heading for a FFE.
[22:55] <james_w> if it's not a GUI app then you can do all of that in a chroot. If it is you only need to test it in a VM
[22:55] <james_w> you don't need a GPG key either.
[22:56] <owh> It's not a GUI. How do I stop debbuild failing with a GPG key error?
[22:57] <james_w> it should still have built the package.
[22:57] <pochu> "-us -uc"
[22:58] <james_w> but as pochu says that will stop it from trying to sign.
[22:58] <pochu> (unsign source unsign changes)
[22:58]  * owh has a go with those instructions.
[23:03] <owh> Now isn't that interesting. After all that, I get the same result :)
[23:03] <owh> Excellent :)
[23:04] <owh> Should I update the recipe to add pochu's comment about the GPG key error?
[23:05] <pochu> feel free to add a note or a comment
[23:09] <owh> Hmm, just on the wording. I was thinking "If you're not signing this, then use...", but that's not really what's happening and I didn't think you'd want to encourage not signing stuff. Any suggestions on a better wording?
[23:13] <pochu> "If you don't have a GPG key, or if you aren't uploading the package by yourself to Ubuntu..."
[23:14] <pochu> perhaps note that only ubuntu devs can upload, so it's useless to sign it otherwise
[23:14] <james_w> pochu: I think the latter is probably true of most people reading the guide isn't it?
[23:14] <pochu> right
[23:14] <james_w> does REVU require signed uploads?
[23:14] <pochu> yes
[23:14] <pochu> and you need to be on ~ubuntu-universe-contributors
[23:15] <james_w> so it's more likely that someone less experienced will need to sign the package because of that.
[23:16] <pochu> well since you're making a debdiff in that recipe, it doesn't matter whether you sign the package or not
[23:16] <james_w> pochu: that's true.
[23:17] <james_w> anyway I'm done for the day.
[23:17] <pochu> so perhaps directly adding "-us -uc" and explaining what they do and why we add them
[23:17] <pochu> good night james_w
[23:17] <owh> At present here's what I have: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Howtos/Debdiff
[23:17] <james_w> pochu: I think that's a good idea. With the note saying "If you want to upload the source package created at that stage use debsign to sign it"
[23:18] <owh> The recipe doesn't create a package, it creates a debdiff.
[23:18] <james_w> owh: I think pochu's last suggestion is the best, would you like to do that?
[23:18] <james_w> owh: it creates a source package from which to make the debdiff, that's what that stage is doing.
[23:18] <owh> So, then the opening statement of the recipe is wrong.
[23:18] <owh> It says that you need a key.
[23:19] <owh> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Recipes/Debdiff
[23:19] <james_w> owh: I don't see that.
[23:19] <owh> The two URLs are different.
[23:20] <owh> The last URL includes the first URL.
[23:20] <james_w> ah, sorry
[23:20] <owh> That is, the recipe includes the howto.
[23:20] <james_w> owh: yeah, you should change that too.
[23:20] <james_w> I must go, sorry.
[23:20] <james_w> night all
[23:20] <owh> Cheers james_w and thanks.
[23:22] <owh> I'm not sure that it's good policy to change the tone and nature of a document just like that. I mean the original author must have had a reason to put the GPG key information into the page.
[23:23] <pochu> he could be wrong
[23:24] <owh> At present I've put in the smallest change I can think of:  or if you're creating an unsigned package:   debuild -S -us -uc
[23:24] <pochu> we can ask him tomorrow though, he's dholbach on irc
[23:24] <pochu> but I think changing it it's fine
[23:27] <owh> pochu: So, you're advocating changing two pages?
[23:34] <pochu> owh: yes
[23:35] <pochu> owh: why not? the change is correct, isn't it?
[23:35] <seb128> bdmurray: hi
[23:35] <bdmurray> seb128: hello
[23:35] <seb128> bdmurray: do you have documentation advising users to copy their lsb informations to new bugs? could you change that to tell them to just copy the distribution information?
[23:36] <bdmurray> seb128: where would you recommend them getting it from?
[23:36] <seb128> bdmurray: we get an increasing number of desktop bugs where people copy 6 lines at the start of every bug where we need 1 word
[23:37] <seb128> bdmurray: well, just change the information to tell them to copy the distribution name and not the whole thing?
[23:37] <owh> pochu: As I understand it yes, but that doesn't mean I'm correct.
[23:38] <bdmurray> seb128: if you go to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug-advanced you can see them below the description box
[23:38] <owh> pochu: I'd feel more comfortable discussing it with Daniel first.
[23:38] <seb128> bdmurray: right, they just run the command and copy the log to the bug
[23:39] <pochu> owh: as you want. he'll likely be around in ~7 or 8 hours
[23:39] <pochu> owh: it's a wiki anyway, so reverting a change is trivial ;)
[23:39] <seb128> bdmurray: that's a detail but it makes the bugs slightly harder to read
[23:39] <owh> pochu: I'll still be awake :)
[23:39] <owh> pochu: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should :)
[23:40] <pochu> seb128, bdmurray: perhaps the output of "lsb_release -rc" ?
[23:40] <bdmurray> seb128: I understand your point but adding in a head or a grep might make it more error prone
[23:40] <pochu> bdmurray: no need for that ^ :)
[23:40] <seb128> bdmurray: what pochu wrote
[23:41] <bdmurray> Do you know if that works in all the releases we support?
[23:41] <pochu> (there's more options, but I think those are the more sensible ones)
[23:41] <seb128> that should
[23:41] <seb128> might be worth asking on #ubuntu-devel to be sure though
[23:41] <bdmurray> I'll fire up a vm and check
[23:42] <bdmurray> That sounds like a great idea though, thanks!
[23:42] <owh> bdmurray: It works on 8.04 server and 7.10 workstation.
[23:43]  * owh just checked.