bdmurrayThat's my hope. ;)00:00
owhHmm, that deals with a single bug for a single package, but the one I'm dealing with is a single bug that affects at present 10 packages with individual patches attached.00:04
owhI'm not sure it's appropriate to add 10 bug reports.00:04
secretlondonit is, they'd like the patches I'm sure00:05
secretlondonand they'll go to ten different maintainers00:06
owhEspecially since the patches depend on a single patch in lsb, that is, until lsb has been approved/applied, the rest won't work.00:06
secretlondonI would rather have the patches, and let me make that decision00:06
secretlondonwith my upstream hat on, we tend to be a bit tardy about giving up patches00:07
owhI understand, but the patch will make no sense if it isn't related if you know what I mean. That's why we reported it the way we have.00:09
owhHow with the maintainer for apache for example deal with the patch I supply if the lsb patch hasn't been applied?00:10
secretlondonyou tell them this in the bug report00:10
owhAre you saying that the best way is to lodge the lsb bug and refer to it in 9 other bugs?00:11
kirklandowh: i'd definitely like to see the lsb function patch applied first00:11
kirklandowh: perhaps we should gate on that....00:11
owhkirkland: I agree, and for the rest here, kirkland and I are working together on this bug.00:11
owhkirkland: So, log the lsb bug + patch, wait until it's accepted, then submit the rest?00:12
secretlondonyou could ask debian, all the DDs I know are idle currently00:12
owhsecretlondon: In #debian, or somewhere else where there is less chatter?00:12
* owh recalls that #debian moved to different irc servers also.00:13
secretlondonowh I don't know, I've always asked contacts00:13
owhsecretlondon: I don't know what you mean.00:13
secretlondonowh as in found out who is responsible and then contacted them directly00:14
owhSo, locate the maintainer for lsb-base, talk to them first?00:14
secretlondonin the same way that asking in #ubuntu would probably be less useful00:14
secretlondonowh yes, and you can find that out via packages.debian.org00:14
* owh is already looking.00:14
owhLooks like chris lawrence.00:15
=== iceman is now known as gluck
=== gluck is now known as Iceman
=== Iceman is now known as gluck
greg-gsecretlondon: ready for some dupes concerning the new restricted modules package? bug 211066  :)00:34
ubotuLaunchpad bug 211066 in linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24 "[2.6.24-14] Cannot upgrade linux-restricted-modules-generic" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/21106600:34
* secretlondon finishes submitting a bug (elsewhere)00:34
LaserJocksecretlondon: hi00:35
LaserJocksecretlondon: thanks for working on the tuxpaint bugs :-)00:35
secretlondonhi LaserJock00:35
secretlondonLaserJock, no problem :00:35
secretlondonI remade the debdiffs, after working out what they should be with the tuxpaint DD00:36
LaserJockand I saw ogra uploaded them today00:36
secretlondonoh cool :D00:36
* secretlondon thinks that's her first patch in main :)00:37
LaserJockwell keep 'em comin'00:40
LaserJockif you need an upload of edu stuff feel free to ping me00:41
LaserJockI totally overlooked the first debdiff you did00:41
LaserJockthen I was going back through my bugmail and noticed you were politely waiting00:42
secretlondonLaserJock: thanks, I will do00:42
greg-ghmm, it isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be (the dupe level of the restricted modules package)01:12
greg-goh well, better to be safe than sorry01:13
secretlondonit is 1 am in the uk, 2am in europe01:13
JohnPhysany idea when that package will be uploaded/fixed?01:13
greg-ggood point :)01:13
secretlondonI'd expect a flood of them 9am ish01:13
greg-gJohnPhys: soon: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/hardy-changes/2008-April/010318.html01:13
secretlondonalthough I'm guessing they may present as X hardware doesn't work01:14
secretlondonor even a package manager error (?001:15
greg-gyeah, I think I have one like that, I am just waiting for confirmation from the reporter01:15
JohnPhysgreg-g:  thanks!01:16
greg-gJohnPhys: np01:22
greg-gdoes anyone know if the "why is my home directory accessible by other users?" issue has a "master" bug?05:07
bdmurraygreg-g: keescook would know but I'm guessing there isn't a bug report that is open for that05:12
greg-gbdmurray: yeah, I figured05:13
greg-gI have a temporary wishlisted bug which I have 2 others pointing to05:13
greg-gbdmurray: just fyi, in case you are wondering, it is bug 20457705:14
ubotuLaunchpad bug 204577 in ubuntu "The default umask should be set to 077. XDG_PUBLICSHARE_DIR should have umask 022" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/20457705:14
=== bdmurray changed the topic of #ubuntu-bugs to: Hug Day! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20080403 | Ubuntu BugSquad | http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad | Documentation: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/HelpingWithBugs | If you have been triaging bugs for a while, please apply to https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol/ - http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad
=== asac_ is now known as asac
mib_d2yw3jo6alguna persona06:56
mib_d2yw3jo6qie me pueda ayudar06:56
mib_d2yw3jo6a instalar06:56
mib_d2yw3jo6el ubuntu a mi maquina06:56
Arbymvo: just the person. What's the proper response to bugs like bug 19626108:02
ubotuLaunchpad bug 196261 in update-manager "Could not calculate the upgrade" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19626108:02
Arbyit looks like broken dependancies which says packaging issue to me08:02
Arbyprobably because hardy is a moving target08:03
Arbyis that correct?08:03
mvohey Arby!08:03
mvoArby: let me have a look08:03
mvoArby: yeah, if the problem of duncan (or ccfl2ler) still persists after ~ day or two, then its something we should have a closer look, but its likely that its something transitional08:05
Arbymvo: ok, I'll leave a comment to that effect08:05
mvothanks a lot Arby!08:10
Arbyno problem08:10
ArbyI had intennded to do more recently but my primary machie is busted :(08:10
mvooh, sorry to hear that, a hardware problem?08:11
Arbybroken screen08:14
Arbyon my laptop which is my main machine08:14
Arbystill runs just can't see anything08:14
=== janet is now known as pschulz01
LhademmorHi, I've several times attempted to help out the BugSquad by triaging, but every time I've had to give up. Mostly because a) I have trouble understanding the posted error logs and b) I often don't know which packages/teams to assign...12:16
LhademmorBut hey, I've made my first contribution to a bug day by marking bug 195319 invalid :D12:17
ubotuLaunchpad bug 195319 in firefox-3.0 "firefox-3.0 crashes on icanhascheezburger.com" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19531912:17
Lhademmorbtw rpedro_, I only received your announcement about the April 1st Bug Day (through ubuntu-devel-announce) yesterday - when it was all over :(12:19
pochuLhademmor: you should subscribe to ubuntu-bugsquad then :)12:20
Lhademmorpochu, is it a high volume list? I don't want to get spammed like back when I subscribed to the official ubuntu support list...12:21
pochuLhademmor: 15 to 50 messages per month in the last 5 months... it depends if there's some topic to discuss, or just announcements :)12:23
pochuaccording to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/12:23
Lhademmorpochu, ok then I'm on it :)12:25
Lhademmorhmm... I'm running Fx 3.0b4 - anyone running that who can see the band photo on http://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=97 ?12:31
LhademmorIs it bug day today?12:35
LhademmorOkay then - not many people active here?12:36
james_wit will start picking up soon probably12:36
james_wa lot of people don't discuss the bugs on the channel though12:37
LhademmorDamn - probably around the time I have to head home..12:37
LhademmorWhere do they discuss them then?12:37
LhademmorWell... then I can have all the support for myself :P12:38
LhademmorHave I handled the bug 196432 correct?12:39
ubotuLaunchpad bug 196432 in firefox-3.0 "firfox elements in igoogle banner" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19643212:39
james_wLhademmor: for your first question I can see a picture on the right at the top of the page, is that the one that you refer to?12:40
Lhademmorjames_w: I'm sorry, I don't understand... what question?12:41
LhademmorAh, now I found it12:41
james_wwow, that's a strange screenshot in the second one.12:41
Lhademmorjames_w, the one with a bunch of old men with sunglasses12:41
james_wIt think asking for a reconfirmation with the latest version is ok there.12:42
james_wyep, they're pretty old12:42
Lhademmorjames_w, okay. Damn, then it must be a problem on my side....12:42
LhademmorI cannot see the image (or any other band images from that site) on firefox - only when using other computers)12:43
james_wLhademmor: you haven't blocked images from the site or anything?12:45
james_wdoes it still happen with a new profile>12:45
LhademmorI dont think so, no12:46
Lhademmor(to the first question)12:46
james_whi asac, just the man we need12:46
james_whi Iulian12:46
Lhademmorjames_w, how do I change profiles?12:46
IulianHello james_w, asac12:46
james_wLhademmor: I don't know, we should have the information on the debugging page12:47
james_wLhademmor: check Edit->Preferences, Content tab, second "Exceptions" button, the one for "Load images automatically"12:47
james_wcheck there is nothing in there.12:47
Lhademmorjames_w: nope, nothing there12:48
james_wLhademmor: ok, worth a try12:48
james_wthat link explains how to set up a new profile12:48
Lhademmorok, thanks12:49
LhademmorAnd otherwise I'll just wait for it to come out of beta :)12:49
asacLhademmor: whats this about? black images?12:50
Lhademmorasac, yep12:50
asacwhich site?12:50
Lhademmorand half-opened, jumbled ones12:50
Lhademmorhttp://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=97 f.ex12:51
Lhademmorthere's a big black hole on the right side of the page12:51
asaczooming changes it?12:51
asacfor me zooming in makes the image on the right appear12:52
Lhademmorasac, same thing here12:52
asaci guess there should be lots of dupes for that bug12:54
asacits bug 18203812:54
ubotuLaunchpad bug 182038 in xorg-server "Black rectangle instead of image in FF3 [Hardy]" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/18203812:54
asacplease merge bugs into that12:54
asac(which is a xulrunner bug after all)12:55
asacmerge == mark as duplicate12:55
asacthose are likely NEW dupes12:56
asacso if you have reports about broken images on websites, please add xulrunner-1.9 as target and mark as duplicate of bug 18203812:57
ubotuLaunchpad bug 182038 in xorg-server "Black rectangle instead of image in FF3 [Hardy]" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/18203812:57
Lhademmorok then!12:57
Lhademmorthat's one dupemarked :)13:00
asaci think we cannot do much about crashes except asking them to test with a fresh profile and then for a test-case to reproduce13:09
asacif there is no test-case and the stacktrace doesn't have any symbols we can just set it to invalid13:10
Lhademmordamn, I'm off... May return later - depending on whether there're riots in the street or not..13:11
asacwhere are you bsed?13:11
LhademmorDenmark :P13:11
LhademmorSo no, not riots THAT serious13:11
asachope so :)13:12
asaci am in hamburg and wouldn't like the riots to come down here13:12
pedro_hello people !13:22
pedro_today is firefox hug day https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20080403 feel free to grab any of the list13:23
asachi pedro_ i dropped some basic instructinos about New processing in the hug page13:23
asaci think there are more cases ... but just to get started13:23
pedro_asac: ok cool13:23
asacif you don't want that content in there let me know ... we can find a different place13:23
pedro_asac: is this possible to do ? bug 19510913:24
ubotuLaunchpad bug 195109 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox is not compatible with GNOME session manager" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19510913:24
pedro_asac: that's ok thanks you ;-)13:24
asacpedro_: i think upstream knows about this, but its unclear what is needed for that13:24
asacpedro_: actually i am not sure if it really doesn't work. can you confirm that?13:28
pedro_asac: let me check, give me a min13:29
asacpedro_: i said it above as well ... everything that claims that images are rendered wrong is dupe of bug 18203813:29
ubotuLaunchpad bug 182038 in xorg-server "Black rectangle instead of image in FF3 [Hardy]" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/18203813:29
asacmaybe we should add those "master bugs" to the page as well?13:29
pedro_yeah, let me add it13:32
asacpedro_: e.g. bug 209953  is dupe of 18203813:32
ubotuLaunchpad bug 209953 in firefox-3.0 "Large image is corrupted when zoomed out (dup-of: 207597)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/20995313:32
ubotuLaunchpad bug 207597 in firefox-3.0 "picture scales not propperly to fit screen" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/20759713:32
pedro_bug 195109 works fine for me, just tested it13:33
ubotuLaunchpad bug 195109 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox is not compatible with GNOME session manager" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19510913:33
asacpedro_: good. i think you can invalidate it13:33
asacmight have been an intermediate problem13:33
pedro_yeah i'm doing it now13:33
asacas its old13:33
asacanyone having a non-querty keyboard can check if bug 193877  is still present?13:34
ubotuLaunchpad bug 193877 in firefox-3.0 "C-z undo keyboard binding doesn't respect non-qwerty layout" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19387713:34
asacpedro_: i think a good thing would be to add a list of currently open blockers to that page ... those are good targets to merge in dupes13:35
asacfor example bug 196933 is dupe of bug 185622 (which is a blocker)13:36
ubotuLaunchpad bug 196933 in firefox-3.0 "firefox keeps asking to be default browser when it should not" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19693313:36
ubotuLaunchpad bug 185622 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox 3 doesn't act as the default browser" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/18562213:36
asaci think the list of blockers and maybe adding the triaged + in progress and fix committed ones to a short list would be good13:37
asacshould be still short enough to easily check if a bug is a dupe of any of those developer-confirmed bugs13:37
asac(those are suggestions for future package-hug-days ... not today)13:38
pedro_yep totally13:38
asacsee what ends up in firefox :  bug 18562213:52
ubotuLaunchpad bug 185622 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox 3 doesn't act as the default browser" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/18562213:52
asacpedro_: can you reassign that?13:52
asac(no idea where to)13:52
pedro_asac: ok, let me look at it13:55
asacpedro_: its on the wiki page (in case you want to claim it)13:58
asacpedro_: you triaged, but didn't claim bug 209981  :)14:01
ubotuLaunchpad bug 209981 in firefox-3.0 "firefox crashed with SIGSEGV in __kernel_vsyscall()" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/20998114:01
pedro_claimed now :-)14:03
cabergAnyone some control the alsa-defaultsettings? please fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/12615014:04
ubotuLaunchpad bug 126150 in ubuntu "Headphone Jack Sense not enabled " [Undecided,New]14:04
asacjames_w: i always find myself typgin --builder='dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -b' (or -S -sa/-si) in bzr builddeb ... why do I need to do that?14:08
asacjames_w: i think my question has two corners: 1. why is there no --binary (or better -b) ... 2. why isn't bzr bd using dpkg-buildpackage by default?14:08
james_w2. I thought it did14:11
james_wdpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -rfakeroot14:12
asacmaybe ... could be that i started with this habit because i had no way to build binaries only. i am not even sure that just bzr bd --merge will sign my packages14:13
asacso it doesn't sign :(14:13
james_wah, perhaps I should just make it debuild or something14:13
asacjames_w: please use dpkg-buildpackage because it injects CFLAGS that are not in debuild14:13
james_wah, I thought that debuild was just a wrapper around -buildpackage14:13
asacjames_w: i found that recently when i still typed --builder='debuild -b' and didn't see a crash that happened with dpkg-buildpacakge14:14
asacjames_w: yeah ... but either it excludes the default FLAGS or it doesn't use it at all14:14
james_wI might add --builder-opts so you can just do --builder-opts "-b" or "-sa" or similar14:14
asacjames_w: i think its valid to maybe not sign a package by default14:14
james_wthough a --binary may also be useful14:15
asacbut we should add a --sign flag then that i can use bazaar.config14:15
asac(i always wanna sign ... i use gpg-agent so i don't need to type the passphrase frequently)14:15
james_wI want to avoid duplicating every dpkg-buildpackage option, but I realise there are common things that should be covered.14:15
asacbuilder-opts sounds good14:16
asaci could also use -kasac@debian.org ... so i will always sponsor14:16
asacjames_w: ok so maybe --builder-opts would be good ... and maybe a --builder-base="dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot | debuild"14:17
james_wyeah, it should probably be additional somehow, so you can have that as default, and then you could add -sa on the command line.14:17
asacor maybe a --lintian option14:17
asacbecause i think debuild just does run that14:17
asacjames_w: yes. -sa vs. -si (default) would be great14:18
asactogether with --binarly14:18
james_wthis is something I want to talk to people about at UDS, to get an idea of what are the common operations people do, so I'll make sure to ask you14:19
asacjames_w: i prefer clean flags, but also convenience switches ... like passing -sa -si -b directly (without typing --builder-opts=...)14:20
asacjames_w: but lets defer that until UDS14:20
asacits just that everytime i type that i wonder why i actually have to do that ;)14:21
asacwihtout setting up helper scripts/aliases14:21
qensehappy bug day everyone!15:33
pedro_hey qense, to you too :-)15:34
=== x-spec-t is now known as Spec
saivannHi everyone, I'm currently looking at bug 199215 in gnome-mount and I suspect that the good package name should be gvfs, can someone help me finding the good package?17:50
ubotuLaunchpad bug 199215 in gnome-mount "[hardy] SD card does not mount Dell Inspiron 9300" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19921517:50
james_wsaivann: there is a package named gvfs, is that what you mean?17:53
saivannjames_w : I'm asking myself if bug 199215 is a gvfs bug or a gnome-mount bug17:54
ubotuLaunchpad bug 199215 in gnome-mount "[hardy] SD card does not mount Dell Inspiron 9300" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/19921517:54
saivannjames_w : gvfs is a package, yes17:55
james_wsaivann: ah, I don't know. The fact that you don't get a desktop icon suggest gvfs, as that is what would normally mount it.17:55
saivannjames_w : Thanks, I will open the bug in gvfs too17:56
james_whi bddebian17:57
james_wsaivann: I would just re-assign it I think17:57
saivannjames_w : You're right, that's what I did17:57
bddebianHello james_w17:57
bdmurraysaivann: Did you see the update to the DebuggingUsplash page?17:57
saivannbdmurray : No, I tought that I was subscribed to this page, but apparently not17:58
saivannbdmurray : Reading it..17:58
saivannbdmurray : If I understand this correctly, I would change "On x86 hardware, compare the behavior of usplash between a 32bit LiveCD and a 64bit LiveCD" to "On amd64 hardware, compare the behavior of usplash between a 32bit LiveCD and a 64bit LiveCD"18:00
saivannbdmurray : Since usplash use x86emu and has more chances to get into problems, but I might be wrong18:01
bdmurraysaivann: Yes, that sounds correct.  I think "x86_64" would be the most correct though.18:01
bdmurraykeescook would know best though18:02
saivannbdmurray : Also we should not ask for lspci -nnvv, but sudo lspci -nnvv, like described in the kernel debug wiki page18:02
bdmurraykeescook: is that what you intended?18:02
bdmurraysaivann: true, could you make those changes?18:03
saivannbdmurray : I do it right now, thanks for your advice18:03
keescookbdmurray: yeah, that's clearer.  I'd try to avoid "x86_64" since that's more technical.18:03
keescook"On 64bit x86 hardware ..." ?18:03
bdmurrayThat sounds good to me18:04
bdmurraysaivann: If you have any other questions about usplash keescook is the person to ask - I think. ;)18:04
saivannbdmurray : Oh thanks :)18:04
* keescook cries a little18:04
keescookyeah, ask me -- I might not know the answer, but I can use that opportunity to go pick someone else's brain and find it.  :)18:05
saivannkeescook : I triaged a lot of bugs in usplash, if you see that I could improve what I do in any ways, don't hesitate to tell me :)18:05
saivannkeescook : :P18:05
keescooksaivann: okay, cool.18:06
bdmurraysaivann: Do you want to be added to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/Contacts for usplash?18:06
bdmurrayafflux: hello!18:06
affluxhi bdmurray!18:06
saivannbdmurray : Please, yes18:07
saivannbdmurray : That would be great18:07
bdmurraysaivann: I've added you thanks!18:09
saivannbdmurray : That's great18:09
=== doko_ is now known as doko
LaserJockbdmurray: quick question. What permissions does ~ubuntu-bugcontrol have?20:08
bdmurrayLaserJock: Importance and Won't Fix20:09
LaserJockI seem to remember there being a ubuntu-qa team. is that gone?20:10
jjessei think it was renamed?20:11
jjessedon't rmemember but if you were a member of it you still should be20:11
LaserJockbugsquad maybe?20:12
jjessesounds right20:12
LaserJockI've got memberships in at least 7 different bug-related teams20:12
LaserJockit's hard to keep them all straight ;-)20:12
LaserJockoh wait20:13
secretlondoni think qa became bugcontrol20:13
bdmurrayLaserJock: ubuntu-qa became bugcontrol20:13
LaserJockyeah, that's what I was just gonna say20:13
LaserJockbecause ~bugsquad was the lower team20:14
LaserJockso does ~bugsquad have any permissions?20:14
bdmurrayI wouldn't say "lower"20:14
bdmurrayNo, bugsquad doesn't.20:14
LaserJockin a LP hierarchy it's lower20:15
LaserJockbut yeah, poor choice of words20:15
LaserJocknow what team does release nomination approval?20:16
bdmurrayLaserJock: I'm double checking20:18
LaserJockmy guess is ~ubuntu-dev20:18
bdmurrayI think it is ubuntu-drivers actually20:19
LaserJockI dont' think so20:20
LaserJockcause that would mean I couldn't do it20:20
bdmurrayHmm, then the launchpad help about is misleading or the permissions are wrong20:21
LaserJockand core-dev is a former member20:21
bdmurrayIf you look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/209088/+nominate you'll see what I am talking about20:21
ubotuLaunchpad bug 209088 in ubuntu "shuttle st20g5 not bootable in ubuntu 8.04 (not even console)" [Undecided,New]20:21
LaserJockyeah, I think it's wrong20:24
LaserJockI also checked on a Universe package just to see if it was component-specific20:25
LaserJockat UDS-Sevilla we talked about having ~ubuntu-dev do it20:25
LaserJockbdmurray: looks to be ~ubuntu-dev that has permissions on that20:35
affluxdoes /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/state necessarily have a "present rate:" line?20:35
=== tsmithe` is now known as tsmithe
=== Pierre_ is now known as Pierre
=== RAOF_ is now known as RAOF
sbarjolahi, I'm trying a backtrace for firefox-3 but gdb not found debug symbols22:36
sbarjolaI've installed the dbgsym packages22:36
sbarjolaneed to config somothing else?22:38
=== erich is now known as erichj
=== zirpu2 is now known as zirpu
sbarjolawhen I install firefox-3.0-dbgsym I found a binary in /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/firefox-3.0b4/23:08
sbarjolashould run this with gdb for debug symbols ?, because bash cannot execute it23:09
crimsunsbarjola: which -dbg packages?  [The info at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs may be outdated, but it provides the gist.]23:12
bdmurraycrimsun: did you see someone else had bug 208920?23:14
ubotuLaunchpad bug 208920 in ubuntu "PCM volume too high after upgrade to Hardy" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/20892023:14
sbarjolafirefox-3.0-dbgsym and firefox-3.0-gnome-support-dbgsym23:14
crimsunbdmurray: no, but thanks for pointing it out.  My e-mail time is extremely rationed these days.23:16
crimsunsbarjola: you need quite a few additional -dbg packages.23:16
bdmurraycrimsun: I *think* it happened to me too.23:16
sbarjolahow can I know what additional packages need?23:19
crimsunbdmurray: I briefly spoke with someone in +1 about writing a script to parse the state file (/var/lib/alsa/asound.state) parameters on dist-upgrade (well, really between different ALSA-driver versions).  This is likely the culprit you guys are seeing - particularly if it's reproducible simply on dist-upgrade (from foo to hardy) in the cli with aplay or paplay23:19
crimsunsbarjola: please see the web page I referenced above.  Try a cli-only web browser as necessary.23:20
bdmurraycrimsun: Is there anything I can do to help?23:21
crimsunbdmurray: http://wiki.steenbe.nl/extra/alsachk  (by osteenbergen); I don't know if that URL remains valid23:21
crimsunbdmurray: post-first-boot asound.state for both kernels would be immensely helpful23:21
bdmurraycrimsun: A virtual machine would be fine correct?23:22
crimsunbdmurray: as long as the audio card matches the host's, yes.23:23
mrooneywould someone mind looking at my response to bug 211550 and seeing if it is accurate and also letting me know if I should change the status on it23:50
ubotuLaunchpad bug 211550 in clive "[NEEDS-UPGRADING] Clive 0.4.3 to (currently) 0.4.8" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/21155023:50
bdmurraymrooney: I'm looking23:52
secretlondonthey haven't said which bugs it fixes, i think your response is fine23:53
bdmurraymrooney: The status could be updated as we know it is true.23:54
secretlondonthat later version is in sid btw, just checked23:56

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!