[02:13] <mrooney> hm, after an update gnome widgets suddenly look terrible!
[02:13] <mrooney> that's neat.
[02:23] <nabcore> Any devs have any ideas on this one? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24/+bug/58384
[02:23] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 58384 in linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24 "Default firmware for acx11 is non-ideal" [High,Incomplete]
[02:55] <hrlr> anyone around who can confirm a bug for me?
[02:59] <Tuv0k> !ask
[02:59] <ubotu> Please don't ask to ask a question, ask the question (all on ONE line, so others can read and follow it easily). If anyone knows the answer they will most likely answer. :-)
[03:00] <hrlr> Oh great...  It's you again...  anyways...  Here's the bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/210095
[03:00] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210095 in network-manager "NM doesn't pass hostname to DHCP server" [Undecided,New]
[03:01] <mrooney> hrlr: I feel like I have seen this before...hmm
[03:02] <hrlr> The bug provides a lot more detail and an easy way to see the bug.
[03:03] <mrooney> oh it certainly may, but are you aware of another similar bug?
[03:03] <mrooney> I am not seeing anything immediately
[03:04] <hrlr> mrooney:  no I'm not aware of anything similar...  nothing that I've seen on the forums or on launchpad.
[03:10] <hrlr> mrooney:  I was on here the other day looking for help in getting this bug figured out and this is as far as I've gotten.  Better than before I suppose.
[03:13] <mrooney> hrlr: well, I will be happy to confirm it for you since you provided plenty of information and you seem to know what you are talking about
[03:13] <mrooney> however I am not a dev so, I can't do much more :]
[03:14] <mrooney> also it was my understanding you could confirm that yourself but perhaps I am wrong
[03:14] <mrooney> maybe you are just ethically opposed to confirming your own bugs
[03:16] <JohnPhys> mrooney:  I think people are supposed to refrain from confirming their own bugs
[03:16] <mrooney> JohnPhys: yeah, makes sense in most cases
[03:16] <JohnPhys> mrooney:  if nothing else, it makes sure it's not just an error in that person's setup.
[03:16] <hrlr> mrooney:  I don't think authors can confirm their own bugs..  I always seek other peoples help.  Maybe I'm wrong.
[03:17] <JohnPhys> there should be an #ubuntu-confirm, wehre people just wait to respond to requests to confirm bugs
[03:17] <hrlr> mrooney:  But I've tried it on a LiveCD...  alternate hardware...  nothing seems to be indicating setup problems.
[03:18] <mrooney> hrlr: so you are saying you confirmed this same issue on a different machine with a livecd? the hostname was note reported there also?
[03:18] <hrlr> mrooney:  correct.
[03:19] <hrlr> mrooney:  and also on the same machine that has an installed version.  Just to be of the safe side.
[03:19] <mrooney> hrlr: would you mind adding a short comment about that, I think it will be beneficial to know it isn't an isolated user or hardware issue
[03:20] <mrooney> unless it is the same hardware, in that case it would also be useful to note
[03:20] <mrooney> I wish I had another machine to test this myself
[03:21] <mrooney> I can try with a macbook here but I don't know the appropriate command
[03:21] <hrlr> mrooney:  Alright.  Comment added.
[03:22] <hrlr> are you wired?
[03:22] <mrooney> I could be, though I am not currently
[03:22] <mrooney> I am sitting a few feet from the router
[03:23] <hrlr> It would likely disconnect you.  But you could try it...  type: "sudo tcpdump" and then renew your connection with your router.
[03:23] <hrlr> Or just look through /var/log/daemon.lo
[03:24] <hrlr> *daemon.log
[03:24] <mrooney> hmm I don't appear to have that file
[03:24] <hrlr> hrmmmmm
[03:27] <hrlr> do you not have tcpdump or /var/log/daemon.log?
[03:27] <mrooney> the log, sorry
[03:27] <hrlr> You're using NM?
[03:27] <mrooney> does the tcpdump generate that?
[03:28] <mrooney> I believe so, unless I am confused
[03:28] <mrooney> aren't we just talking about the default network manager in Hardy/Gnome?
[03:29] <hrlr> No.  tcpdump provides an on-screen dump of network activity.  So when you renew your IP, related data will show up on screen.
[03:29] <hrlr> mrooney: yes.
[03:29] <hrlr> NM 0.6.6
[03:29] <hrlr> (although I wish it were 0.7)  :)
[03:37] <mrooney> hrlr: is that a joke or does a 0.7 actually exist experimentally?
[03:38] <hrlr> mrooney:  it has been around for a while but still in development.
[03:39] <JohnPhys> mrooney:  0.7 is the "development" branch of nwm, apparently there are severe stability issues, which is why we have 0.6.6, which incorporates some of the improvements/fixes.
[03:39] <mrooney> oh okay, I can't find any references to it really, even on the projects website
[03:42] <JohnPhys> hmm, me neither, but I know I saw it previously
[03:42] <hrlr> You'll mostly read about it in their mailing list.
[03:43] <hrlr> It's only available in SVN.  You won't even find 0.6.6 up there because the main guy who handles NM doesn't have access.
[03:46] <mrooney> hrlr: haha yeah I noticed that it said 0.6.5 was the latest
[03:48] <hrlr> mrooney:  It should be up on there soon.  But he does have the files hosted elsewhere.  Their main focus is on 0.7 now and it'll do everything but wash my dishes.
[03:51] <mrooney> hrlr: nice, do you have any links that explain new features? I always love to read about what is coming?
[03:51] <hrlr> http://blogs.gnome.org/dcbw/2007/10/15/networkmanager-07-is-the-new-chuck-norris/
[03:52] <hrlr> Have a good laugh  :)
[03:54] <hrlr> mrooney: 0.7.1 will feature a new applet though.  That'll be nice.
[03:58] <mrooney> thanks, I can't wait!
[03:58] <mrooney> Intrepid, maybe.
[04:13] <JohnPhys> anyone experiencing Bug #190848 in Hardy?
[04:13] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 190848 in gnome-terminal "font in terminal does not resemble font in preview" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/190848
[04:37] <askand> Doesn't bug 63352 deserve a higher priority? It is like Mads says in the report "a real showstopper for some of us"
[04:37] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 63352 in linux "Creative labs X-Fi sound card unsupported" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/63352
[04:41] <mrooney> askand: I agree, I can't adjust it but I can chime in at least
[04:41] <askand> mrooney: Glad to hear, let's hope someone else in here can change it :)
[04:45] <mrooney> okay I added a comment, also mentioning the Linux Driver Project, that could be useful if it is still active
[04:46] <RAOF> askand: Nope, that looks wishlist to me.
[04:47] <RAOF> "I wish this hardware that has never previously worked to work." :)
[04:48] <hrlr> RAOF:  What priority would you see this as?: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/210095
[04:48] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210095 in network-manager "NM doesn't pass hostname to DHCP server" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[04:48] <askand> RAOF: According to wiki "Ones that affect unusual configurations or uncommon hardware" should be marked as atleast low..
[04:49] <hrlr> RAOF: And who establishes priority?
[04:49] <askand> RAOF: Im not eve sure if it counts as uncommon hardware
[04:49] <askand> hrlr: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance
[04:49] <hrlr> askand: thanks man!
[04:49] <askand> your welcome :)
[04:50] <askand> RAOF:  I would almost say "Has a severe impact on a small portion of Ubuntu users"
[04:51] <hrlr> hrmm...  seems like my bug would fall under critical to me.
[04:51] <RAOF> hrlr: In what way?  Also, I contend that not everyone is affected by it (since I'm not :))
[04:52] <RAOF> askand: If it was a regression - ie: there had been sound support before, and now there isn't - then it would be probably be medium or higher.  But basically, that card has never worked.  So you get less sympathy for finding that it doesn't work in Ubuntu :/
[04:52] <askand> RAOF: I see :(
[04:53] <RAOF> hrlr: Your bug seems to be in the right place, and people who actually know what they're talking about will eventually manage to see it.
[04:54] <hrlr> RAOF:  How were you able to determine that you weren't affected by it?
[04:55] <RAOF> hrlr: By seeing my hostname in the router's routing logs.
[04:56] <hrlr> RAOF:  And you're using dynamic IP?
[04:56] <RAOF> DHCP, yup.
[04:57] <hrlr> RAOF:  Interesting.
[04:58]  * RAOF fails to see how it has a severe impact on... well, anyone really.
[05:00] <hrlr> So, high maybe?
[05:02] <RAOF> What _is_ the impact of that bug?
[05:02] <RAOF> I mean, to me it seems purely cosmetic.  What does it prevent you from doing?
[05:02] <hrlr> RAOF:  "Undecided"
[05:02] <askand> RAOF: Do you know if that soundproblem could have been fixed in another distro than ubuntu? Or is it a problem in the kernel itself (missing drivers) and therefore could not work anywhere?
[05:03] <RAOF> askand: There aren't any drivers written for your card at all*.  It's not going to work anywhere.
[05:04] <askand> RAOF: except for the oss-drivers that has an early beta..could this be inplemented in later ubuntureleases somehow?
[05:04] <RAOF> hrlr: Oh, I know what the current importance is set in Launchpad.  What I meant was "why is that bug a problem for you"?  Why should a developer care? (Note, it's entirely possible that there's a good reason for someone to care a lot.  I just can't see it)
[05:04] <RAOF> askand: It's tremendously unlikely that OSS will  appearing in the near
[05:05] <RAOF> askand: Will be *used* in the near future for Ubuntu.  It's possible someone will write an ALSA driver, though.
[05:05] <askand> RAOF: Why is that? Thanks for answering my questions btw :)
[05:07] <RAOF> askand: Because we've just spent the last couple of years purging the system of the awkward travesty that is OSS (< version 4, no idea of 4).
[05:07] <askand> RAOF: Ah I see, pulseaudio and all this :)
[05:07] <RAOF> askand: Or, rather: there's a perfectly good driver infrastructure available.  It's ALSA, and that's what everyone has been writing drivers for/applications against for a goodly number of years.
[05:09] <hrlr> RAOF:  Good question.  I'll try to establish a worst case scenario.
[05:15] <RAOF> It might also be interesting to know if it works correctly when you don't have duplicate hostnames, of course.
[05:16] <hrlr> RAOF:  I don't follow.
[05:17] <hrlr> RAOF:  These are just separate instances of Ubuntu on the same computer.  None of them exist at the same time.
[05:18] <RAOF> hrlr: Ah, right.  It looked from the bug report like you had two computers with the same 'ubuntu' hostname on your network.
[05:21] <hrlr> RAOF:  No.  Just one instance on the network at one time.  (reboot: try Gutsy/reboot: try Hardy/reboot: try Gutsy LiveCD/reboot: try hardy LiveCD)
[05:21] <RAOF> Ah, right.  It's possible that I'm just tired.
[05:22] <hrlr> RAOF:  Yeah, I'm getting there myself.
[05:23]  * RAOF suspects that it's not 3:20pm for hrlr.
[05:25] <hrlr> RAOF:  How's the weather tomorrow?  :)
[05:25] <hrlr> j/k  :)
[06:45] <mr-russ> Hi, when running a beta, like Hardy, how do I install all binaries with debug symbols so bug reports are more useful?
[06:47] <mr-russ> I know I can install individual dbgsym packages.  Is there a method to do an entire system with debug packages?
[06:48] <JohnPhys> mr-russ:  I don't know that you'd want to install *all* of them at the moment, I think that would take up quite a bit of disk space.
[06:49] <mr-russ> how big is a debug package vs stripped?
[06:50] <mr-russ> maybe at least stack frame pointers, so the bt at least has function names in it.  but maybe my debugging is rusty, been working on interpreted languages for too long.
[06:54] <mr-russ> okay, well pidgin debug is installed, lets see if it decides to crash again.
[06:55]  * mr-russ hates topic changes
[06:56] <mr-russ> I can never remember what the old topic was to know the difference.
[07:30] <gilligan_> hi
[07:31] <gilligan_> https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+question/14519 <-- does anyone know something about this bug ? it is marked as resolved yet this problem is exactly what I am running into now
[07:32] <gilligan_> eh, sorry
[07:32] <gilligan_> wrong link
[07:32] <gilligan_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/75527
[07:32] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 75527 in update-manager "dist upgrade on feisty tries to remove apt (dup-of: 75562)" [Undecided,New]
[07:32] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 75562 in gcc-4.1 "broken dependencies in feisty dist-upgrade." [Undecided,Fix released]
[07:33] <gilligan_> fix released.. well it doesn't seem fixed here
[07:33] <gilligan_> and i've made sure i've updated all feisty packages
[07:37] <gilligan_> it's supposed to be fixed with libstdc++6 4.1.1-21ubuntu2 yet I have 4.1.2-0ubuntu4 installed and the problem remains/or has been reintroduced?
[07:43] <gilligan_> hm.. i removed gcc and now it seems to be solved
[07:47] <james_w> gilligan_: it's probably worth filing a bug with all the output you can get
[07:47] <james_w> are you using the graphical updater?
[07:48] <gilligan_> no.. i initially just used apt-get
[07:48] <james_w> well if you include all of the terminal output from your apt-get session that should help
[07:48] <gilligan_> also tried the graphical upgrader to see if it would make any difference tho, which as I expected it didn't
[07:49] <james_w> you are just updating within feisty, or you are upgrading to gutsy?
[07:49] <gilligan_> upgrading to gutsy
[07:50] <james_w> do you have feisty-security and feisty-updates included in your sources?
[07:50] <gilligan_> yes
[07:50] <james_w> do you have feisty-backports?
[07:50] <gilligan_> i am pretty certain that gcc-4.1 was causing the problem
[07:50] <gilligan_> yes
[07:50] <james_w> it might be backports that are the problem then
[07:51] <james_w> I think you should file a bug and include all that information as well
[07:51] <gilligan_> oh.. or it might be libstdc++6-4.1-dev ..
[07:51] <gilligan_> james_w: will do.. have to wait like 1h for the upgrade to finish anyway...
[07:51] <james_w> the backports team may need to update some backports if that is indeed the case.
[07:51] <james_w> make sure you don't lose the top of the terminal output from your session
[07:55] <gilligan_> yeah i gathered some information.. not as complete as it could perhaps be i am afraid.. but I am at work and i need to get stuff done so I can't spend all that much time i'm afraid.. still i am certain i can provide information to be helpful
[07:55] <gilligan_> james_w: however, which bug report do you think I should reply to ?
[07:55] <gilligan_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/75527
[07:55] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 75527 in update-manager "dist upgrade on feisty tries to remove apt (dup-of: 75562)" [Undecided,New]
[07:55] <gilligan_> or
[07:55] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 75562 in gcc-4.1 "broken dependencies in feisty dist-upgrade." [Undecided,Fix released]
[07:55] <james_w> gilligan_: file a new one
[07:56] <james_w> that's supposed to be fixed and you are seeing the issue with different package versions
[07:56] <gilligan_> alright
[07:56] <james_w> you can mention the reports in your bug though
[07:57] <gilligan_> yep, will do
[07:57] <gilligan_> thanks for your assistance on this
[08:04] <gilligan_> james_w: hm.. what package should I specify for the bug report? i mean.. i'm not exactly sure which one really is causing the problem
[08:14] <gilligan_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-defaults/+bug/210688
[08:14] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210688 in gcc-defaults "upgrade from feisty to gutsy tries to remove apt" [Undecided,New]
[08:16] <gilligan_> hello seb
[08:16] <seb128> hey gilligan_
[08:20] <gilligan_> seb128: I remember you being a knowledgable person hehe.. would you mind having a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-defaults/+bug/210688 and add correct packages/project/whatever ? I have a feeling i didn't really specify that properly
[08:20] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210688 in gcc-defaults "upgrade from feisty to gutsy tries to remove apt" [Undecided,New]
[08:23] <seb128> gilligan_: that bug is of no use and doesn't seem to be a gcc-defaults one
[08:24] <seb128> gilligan_: as minimal information you should include the dist-upgrade summary
[08:24] <seb128> gilligan_: and the resolver debug log too
[08:25] <gilligan_> well sorry i am at work and am/was trying to get my work pc upgraded so i don't all that much time to gather information
[08:25] <gilligan_> the upgrade is still in process now
[08:25] <gilligan_> plus I didn't specify gcc-defaults .. not know any better I specified gcc but it got expanded to gcc-defaults
[08:25] <gilligan_> s/know/knowing
[08:27] <seb128> gilligan_: gcc is a compiler, it's not something using in upgrades
[08:27] <gilligan_> oh really? ... well i guessed that much.. still it seems like one of the gcc packages has broken dependencies
[08:28] <gilligan_> obviously I don't know for sure what exact package is causing the problem so I can't specify it
[08:29] <seb128> you should use update-manager to do updates if you don't know what you are doing
[08:29] <seb128> it seems not a bug
[08:29] <seb128> but rather than you don't understand how the packaging system is working
[08:30] <gilligan_> the update-manager really doesn't change anything about that at all
[08:30] <seb128> oh it does
[08:30] <seb128> it doesn't remove packages
[08:30] <gilligan_> well yes.. it instead just fails and stops completely
[08:30] <gilligan_> great
[08:31] <gilligan_> because it can't resolve the problem inflicted by the dependency problem which supposdely existed and supposdely was fixed before with a new libstdc++ release
[08:32] <seb128_> re
[08:32] <seb128_> gilligan_:
 oh it does
[08:32] <seb128_>  it doesn't remove packages
[08:32] <seb128_>  I'm closing the bug as a support request for now, it has no information of any use and doesn't seem to be a bug
[08:33] <gilligan_>  well yes.. it instead just fails and stops completely
[08:33] <gilligan_> great
[08:33] <gilligan_> because it can't resolve the problem inflicted by the dependency problem which supposdely existed and supposdely was fixed before with a new libstdc++ release
[08:33] <seb128_> nothing in your bug description mentions that
[08:34] <seb128_> you should really add an apt debug log using the conflict resolver to the bug
[08:36] <seb128_> gilligan_: note that feisty to gutsy upgrades issues are not a priority now since most people upgraded to gutsy any or will upgrade to hardy now
[08:36] <gilligan_> well as it happens i still had a feisty installation at work which i now wanted to upgrade
[08:38] <seb128_> gilligan_: well, try using aptitude for the upgrade it might be smarter
[08:38] <gilligan_> and i took the time to file a bug report..
[08:38] <gilligan_> oops
[08:39] <gilligan_> i'm almost certain that I tried that yesterday and it wasn't
[08:41] <gilligan_> it is my impression that the only way to upgrade to gutsy was to remove the gcc pakcages as mentioned in the report but do as you wish, i'd just appreciate it if you didn't treat me like an idiot ;)
[08:43] <elmargol> bug #210510
[08:43] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210510 in xine-lib "[Hardy Heron] Some formats including quicktime (.mov) and m4v stop playing with xine after upgrade" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/210510
[10:50] <afflux> morning
[10:51] <thekorn> morgen afflux
[10:51] <afflux> morgen thekorn ;)
[12:19] <Iulian> Hey
[12:22] <james_w> hi Igorot
[12:22] <james_w> and Iulian :-)
[12:24] <Iulian> Hello james
[12:52] <qense> hello
[13:00] <james_w> hi qense
[13:01] <pedro_> morning fellows!
[13:01] <james_w> hi pedro_
[13:01] <seb128_> hey hey pedro_
[13:01] <pedro_> hello james_w, seb128_ :-)
[13:02] <Iulian> Heya pedro!
[13:03] <pedro_> hi Iulian!
[13:04] <qense> hello
[13:48] <warrend> hello
[13:48] <warrend> can someone have a look : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdebi/+bug/209578
[13:48] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 209578 in gdebi "gdebi-kde crashes with an memory allocation error" [Undecided,New]
[16:06] <warrend> can someone have a look : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdebi/+bug/209578
[16:06] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 209578 in gdebi "gdebi-kde crashes with an memory allocation error" [Undecided,New]
[17:30] <yuriy> warrend: iirc Riddell and mhb already know about that bug and someone is working on it but hasn't figured it out yet
[17:31] <warrend> yuriy: ok, does they plan to resolve it quikly?
[17:31] <yuriy> however, it's not "any package", it's intermittent
[17:31] <warrend> what do you mean? (poor vocabulary ^^)
[17:31] <yuriy> warrend: as in it only happens with some packages, and only some of the time
[17:31] <warrend> yeah
[17:32] <warrend> but would like to know if they plan to release a package to test it out
[17:32] <warrend> because if it doesn't work for hardy, it will be a huge bug ;)
[17:32] <warrend> IMO
[17:32] <warrend> thanks for the response ;)
[17:32] <yuriy> warrend: somebody is working on it but hasn't figured out the problem yet. would certainly be good to fix it for hardy of course
[17:32] <warrend> +1 ;)
[17:33] <warrend> do you know the bug link where it's being discusses?
[17:33] <warrend> discussed? *
[17:34] <yuriy> warrend: i'm looking for it. i'm just going off of discussionon irc though
[17:43] <yuriy> warrend: i think it's bug 153943
[17:43] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 153943 in gdebi "Gdebi-kde uses massive amounts of memory!" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/153943
[17:44] <warrend> will be hard to fix if you see that it didn't change since 3 months
[17:53] <bdmurray> pedro_: Do the new package graphs look okay to you?
[17:55] <pedro_> bdmurray: for firefox and xul? yeah they look pretty good thanks
[17:56] <bdmurray> pedro_: Great, I just wanted to make sure.
[18:17] <bdmurray> greg-g: I've moved the "List of Triagers" stuff you did to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/Contacts
[18:19] <bdmurray> If you have an area of speciality or packages you feel adapt at triaging please add yourself to the list!
[18:40] <james_w> bdmurray: is it worth getting that message out wider than the bugsquad?
[18:42] <bdmurray> james_w: The triaging specialities one? Maybe, however there is some overlap with https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperResponsibilities.  My thought was the triaging people would be a first point of contact and then the developers - if that makes sense.
[18:42] <james_w> ah, ok.
[18:42] <james_w> that does make sense, I didn't know about the other page.
[18:43] <james_w> I see you specialise in everything :-)
[18:43] <bdmurray> Maybe nothing would be more better? ;)
[18:47] <greg-g> bdmurray: looks good
[18:48] <bdmurray> greg-g: thanks to you. :-)
[18:52] <greg-g> ahh, good, you have already sent out an email about it.
[19:02] <secretlondon> I've added myself, I'm a bit of a jack of all trades though
[19:07] <thekorn> bdmurray, hi, what do you think about a new upload of bughelper/py-lp-bugs?
[19:07] <bdmurray> thekorn: I'm in a meeting at the moment but think it would be a good idea.
[19:08] <bdmurray> It is on my list for this week.
[19:09] <thekorn> bdmurray, ok, I will walk through the buglist and check if there are some bugfixes uncommitted in a bit
[19:11] <bdmurray> thekorn: great, I want to get a new out because of the python warnings bit and the dontlist stuff.  Additionally, I'm concerned about the attachment parsing in the +text interface, but I do agree with your comment in bug 210576.
[19:11] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210576 in python-launchpad-bugs "failing to parse bug attachments in text mode" [Undecided,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/210576
[19:17] <thekorn> bdmurray, from py-lp-bugs' poit of view every solution to fix bug 210576 might cause instability: we can adjust the current parser, this will be a diff of about 50 lines of code, and I'm really unsure if this works at all
[19:18] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210576 in python-launchpad-bugs "failing to parse bug attachments in text mode" [Undecided,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/210576
[19:18] <thekorn> or we can use the completely new parser, which has a solution but is only tested for some 10 bugs
[19:20] <bdmurray> I'll see what I can do about getting the launchpad bug fixed as that would really be best.
[19:21] <thekorn> thanks
[19:29] <james_w> secretlondon: hi
[19:30] <james_w> secretlondon: are you a member of ubuntu-uk?
[19:30] <secretlondon> hi
[19:30] <secretlondon> no
[19:30] <james_w> ah, ok.
[19:30] <james_w> we're hoping to have a packaging/bug jam in a couple of months time, do you know what they are?
[19:30] <secretlondon> the history is on the mailing list if you really care
[19:31] <james_w> ah, sorry, I didn't realise there was history
[19:31] <secretlondon> they caused me to drop out of all Ubuntu for a long time
[19:31] <james_w> would that make you not want to be involved in anything associated with that group then?
[19:31] <secretlondon> so I don't want to add my 5 a day to their score etc ;)
[19:31] <james_w> that's fair enough.
[19:31] <secretlondon> I wouldn't feel comfortable tbh
[19:32] <james_w> that's a shame.
[19:32] <secretlondon> even if there are other women now
[19:32] <james_w> I was hoping you would come along and help teach about bug triaging, but I understand if you don't want to.
[19:33] <secretlondon> I'd really rather not deal with them
[19:33] <james_w> fair enough
[19:37] <bddebian> Boo
[19:38] <secretlondon> hi
[19:39] <james_w> hi bddebian
[19:39] <bddebian> Hello james_w
[20:05] <thekorn> heno, hi, can you please change the branch mentioned on https://code.edge.launchpad.net/bughelper/trunk/+source to ~bughelper-dev/bughelper/main
[20:05] <thekorn> it think only the Registrant can do this
[20:06] <heno> thekorn: looking
[20:07] <heno> thekorn: done, let me know if that's ok now
[20:07] <thekorn> heno, looks good, thanks
[20:08] <bdmurray> thekorn: I might also be able to do it.
[20:08] <bdmurray> For future reference
[20:10] <thekorn> bdmurray, oh, did not know, so it's the registrant and the driver (or an admin of the drivers team)?
[20:12] <bdmurray> thekorn: I'm not certain which team I'm in that would allow me to do it.  Have you tried changing it?
[20:14] <thekorn> bdmurray, yes I got an unfriendly "Not allowed here"-page, without further info, so I thought te best way is to ask the registrant changing it
[20:18] <bdmurray> heno: maybe the owner should be the bughelper-dev team and thekorn would be able to change it.  Do you mind if I change the owner?
[20:24] <bdmurray> How do you setup a 5-a-day team?
[20:25] <blueyed> bdmurray: AFAIK those are LoCo teams..
[20:25] <blueyed> You can just edit the .teams file in five-a-day-data.
[20:33] <bdmurray> blueyed: thanks!
[20:47] <thekorn> blueyed, hi, does the solution I proposed for bug 210406 makes sense for you?
[20:47] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210406 in bughelper "Allow easy generation of Launchpad cookie file" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/210406
[20:48] <blueyed> thekorn: well.. I really don't like passing password on the command line, and it shouldn't be encouraged! (visible in process list, shell history, ...)
[20:49] <blueyed> thekorn: I wasn't proposing to use curl (and depend on it), but only the method being used.. login to the +login page and get the cookie information.
[20:49] <blueyed> That should be possible quite easily, I believe.
[20:49] <thekorn> blueyed, I agree, that's why I did not add this options so far, but when you run curl you pass your password to the cmd-line
[20:50] <blueyed> yes! (and that's bad)
[20:51] <thekorn> blueyed, what about adding your curl ...-solution to the docs and just close this bug as won't fix
[20:52] <blueyed> thekorn: bad idea.. ;) please leave it open, so somebody can take it later, e.g. me :)
[20:57] <thekorn> blueyed, ok, but I think a '--gen-cookie' option does not fit into the bughelper tools at all, because it is not related to bugworking at all,
[20:58] <thekorn> but ok, I will leave it open, and add a comment, thanks
[21:25] <thekorn> bdmurray, I went through bughelper's/pylpbugs' buglists,
[21:25] <thekorn> all bugfixes are committed to the .main branches
[21:26] <thekorn> I created a new tag for both projects called 'fix-available'
[21:26] <thekorn> these bugs have a patch, but this are no bugfixes but are adding new features
[21:26] <thekorn> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/python-launchpad-bugs/+bugs?field.tag=fix-available
[21:26] <thekorn> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bughelper/+bugs?field.tag=fix-available
[21:28] <thekorn> bdmurray, so from my point of view the current state of the both .main brnaches is good to upload
[21:33] <bdmurray> thekorn: I've tested 203312 extensively but it should probably wait for Intrepid - that is what the tag is for right?
[21:35] <thekorn> bdmurray, yes
[22:57]  * DOOM_NX eipa feugw feugw feugw, 8a vrw allh gkomena, na mai egw kala mwro mou kai apo gunaikes NA!
[23:02] <blueyed> james_w: thanks for taking care of 201291.. I wonder now: shouldn't the mime types get added to application's mimetype fields in .desktop files, too?
[23:02] <james_w> blueyed: yes
[23:03] <blueyed> james_w: Is audio/annodex relevant for amarok/xine?
[23:03] <james_w> blueyed: however seb128 told me that mime-support isn't a very critical package here
[23:03] <james_w> it's shared-mime-info that provides the information to gnome.
[23:03] <james_w> I'm not even sure what that is, did I add it?
[23:05] <blueyed> james_w: from http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/MIME_Types_and_File_Extensions
[23:06] <james_w> ah, I didn't add the annodex ones.
[23:07] <james_w> I don't know if that was the right decision
[23:07] <james_w> after hardy I'm going to talk to the Debian maintainer and get everything up to date with that page
[23:07] <blueyed> james_w: dunno. I'll take everything starting with audio/* for amarok.
[23:07] <james_w> then we'll have a whole development cycle for applications to catch up
[23:08] <james_w> that doesn't stop you adding it now, but I'd work out if it's supported first.
[23:11] <blueyed> james_w: well, does not appear to be relevant really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annodex
[23:12] <blueyed> apachelogger_: have you worked on bug 191475?
[23:12] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 191475 in amarok "[hardy] media tab in file management preferences missing applications" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/191475
[23:12] <james_w> hmm, yeah
[23:13] <blueyed> seb128: is there a reference page/list, with the mimetypes needed for 191475?
[23:13] <seb128> bug #191475
[23:13] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 191475 in amarok "[hardy] media tab in file management preferences missing applications" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/191475
[23:13] <seb128> blueyed: no
[23:15] <blueyed> seb128: ok, will look at g-d-a-p's source
[23:15] <seb128> what is that?
[23:15] <blueyed> gnome-default-applications-properties
[23:15] <seb128> it doesn't use those
[23:16] <blueyed> well, that's the app in question?! (where e.g. amarok is missing)
[23:16] <seb128> no
[23:16] <seb128> nautilus
[23:16] <blueyed> so nautilus is integrated there?
[23:16] <seb128> ?
[23:17] <seb128> nautilus is what is doing the autorun thing
[23:17] <blueyed> oh.. I see.. two different things..
[23:17] <blueyed> I was looking for the preferred app tab.
[23:24]  * DOOM_NX akoma s'agapaw kai se fernw sto mualo, niw8w pws se filaw s'alla xeilh pou filw
[23:26] <JohnPhys> of course
[23:27] <greg-g> please update to
[23:28] <greg-g> ignore that
[23:33] <owh> I'm working on Bug #203169. How do I properly report an equivalent bug to Debian so they have the benefits of the patches that are attached? The bug as it stands has been discussed in ubuntu-server and we feel that while it won't make it to Hardy, and possibly will be supplanted by Upstart in Ibex, the work still needs to go to Debian.
[23:33] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 203169 in udev ""status" function for init scripts" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/203169
[23:36] <owh> Should I be asking this in #LP or #Debian?
[23:41] <greg-g> jcastro: ? ^^
[23:42] <greg-g> he _might_ know, but he is pretty busy
[23:42] <owh> greg-g: Tah, I'll leave this window open for a bit.
[23:47] <bdmurray> owh: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/ReportingToDebian might be of some assistance
[23:48] <owh> bdmurray: Tah
[23:57] <greg-g> ahh, yes, there usually is a wiki page about everything :)