[00:00] <bdmurray> That's my hope. ;)
[00:04] <owh> Hmm, 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] <owh> I'm not sure it's appropriate to add 10 bug reports.
[00:05] <secretlondon> it is, they'd like the patches I'm sure
[00:06] <secretlondon> and they'll go to ten different maintainers
[00:06] <owh> Especially 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] <secretlondon> I would rather have the patches, and let me make that decision
[00:07] <secretlondon> with my upstream hat on, we tend to be a bit tardy about giving up patches
[00:09] <owh> I 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.
[00:10] <owh> How with the maintainer for apache for example deal with the patch I supply if the lsb patch hasn't been applied?
[00:10] <secretlondon> you tell them this in the bug report
[00:11] <owh> Are you saying that the best way is to lodge the lsb bug and refer to it in 9 other bugs?
[00:11] <kirkland> owh: i'd definitely like to see the lsb function patch applied first
[00:11] <kirkland> owh: perhaps we should gate on that....
[00:11] <owh> kirkland: I agree, and for the rest here, kirkland and I are working together on this bug.
[00:12] <secretlondon> ok
[00:12] <owh> kirkland: So, log the lsb bug + patch, wait until it's accepted, then submit the rest?
[00:12] <secretlondon> you could ask debian, all the DDs I know are idle currently
[00:12] <owh> secretlondon: In #debian, or somewhere else where there is less chatter?
[00:13]  * owh recalls that #debian moved to different irc servers also.
[00:13] <secretlondon> owh I don't know, I've always asked contacts
[00:13] <owh> secretlondon: I don't know what you mean.
[00:14] <secretlondon> owh as in found out who is responsible and then contacted them directly
[00:14] <owh> So, locate the maintainer for lsb-base, talk to them first?
[00:14] <secretlondon> in the same way that asking in #ubuntu would probably be less useful
[00:14] <secretlondon> owh yes, and you can find that out via packages.debian.org
[00:14]  * owh is already looking.
[00:15] <owh> Looks like chris lawrence.
[00:34] <greg-g> secretlondon: ready for some dupes concerning the new restricted modules package? bug 211066  :)
[00:34] <ubotu> Launchpad 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/211066
[00:34] <secretlondon> eek
[00:34]  * secretlondon finishes submitting a bug (elsewhere)
[00:35] <LaserJock> secretlondon: hi
[00:35] <LaserJock> secretlondon: thanks for working on the tuxpaint bugs :-)
[00:35] <secretlondon> hi LaserJock
[00:35] <secretlondon> LaserJock, no problem :
[00:35] <secretlondon> :)
[00:36] <secretlondon> I remade the debdiffs, after working out what they should be with the tuxpaint DD
[00:36] <LaserJock> and I saw ogra uploaded them today
[00:36] <secretlondon> oh cool :D
[00:37]  * secretlondon thinks that's her first patch in main :)
[00:40] <LaserJock> well keep 'em comin'
[00:41] <secretlondon> :)
[00:41] <LaserJock> if you need an upload of edu stuff feel free to ping me
[00:41] <LaserJock> I totally overlooked the first debdiff you did
[00:42] <LaserJock> then I was going back through my bugmail and noticed you were politely waiting
[00:42] <secretlondon> LaserJock: thanks, I will do
[01:12] <greg-g> hmm, it isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be (the dupe level of the restricted modules package)
[01:13] <greg-g> oh well, better to be safe than sorry
[01:13] <secretlondon> it is 1 am in the uk, 2am in europe
[01:13] <JohnPhys> any idea when that package will be uploaded/fixed?
[01:13] <greg-g> good point :)
[01:13] <secretlondon> I'd expect a flood of them 9am ish
[01:13] <greg-g> JohnPhys: soon: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/hardy-changes/2008-April/010318.html
[01:14] <secretlondon> although I'm guessing they may present as X hardware doesn't work
[01:14] <greg-g> right
[01:15] <secretlondon> or even a package manager error (?0
[01:15] <greg-g> yeah, I think I have one like that, I am just waiting for confirmation from the reporter
[01:16] <JohnPhys> greg-g:  thanks!
[01:22] <greg-g> JohnPhys: np
[05:07] <greg-g> does anyone know if the "why is my home directory accessible by other users?" issue has a "master" bug?
[05:12] <bdmurray> greg-g: keescook would know but I'm guessing there isn't a bug report that is open for that
[05:13] <greg-g> bdmurray: yeah, I figured
[05:13] <greg-g> I have a temporary wishlisted bug which I have 2 others pointing to
[05:14] <greg-g> bdmurray: just fyi, in case you are wondering, it is bug 204577
[05:14] <ubotu> Launchpad 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/204577
[06:56] <mib_d2yw3jo6> hola
[06:56] <mib_d2yw3jo6> alguna persona
[06:56] <mib_d2yw3jo6> qie me pueda ayudar
[06:56] <mib_d2yw3jo6> a instalar
[06:56] <mib_d2yw3jo6> el ubuntu a mi maquina
[06:56] <mib_d2yw3jo6> spps
[08:02] <Arby> mvo: just the person. What's the proper response to bugs like bug 196261
[08:02] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 196261 in update-manager "Could not calculate the upgrade" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/196261
[08:02] <Arby> it looks like broken dependancies which says packaging issue to me
[08:03] <Arby> probably because hardy is a moving target
[08:03] <Arby> is that correct?
[08:03] <mvo> hey Arby!
[08:03] <mvo> Arby: let me have a look
[08:05] <mvo> Arby: 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 transitional
[08:05] <Arby> mvo: ok, I'll leave a comment to that effect
[08:10] <mvo> thanks a lot Arby!
[08:10] <Arby> no problem
[08:10] <Arby> I had intennded to do more recently but my primary machie is busted :(
[08:11] <mvo> oh, sorry to hear that, a hardware problem?
[08:14] <Arby> broken screen
[08:14] <Arby> on my laptop which is my main machine
[08:14] <Arby> still runs just can't see anything
[12:16] <Lhademmor> Hi, 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...
[12:17] <Lhademmor> But hey, I've made my first contribution to a bug day by marking bug 195319 invalid :D
[12:17] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 195319 in firefox-3.0 "firefox-3.0 crashes on icanhascheezburger.com" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/195319
[12:19] <Lhademmor> btw rpedro_, I only received your announcement about the April 1st Bug Day (through ubuntu-devel-announce) yesterday - when it was all over :(
[12:20] <pochu> Lhademmor: you should subscribe to ubuntu-bugsquad then :)
[12:21] <Lhademmor> pochu, 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] <Lhademmor> :O
[12:23] <pochu> Lhademmor: 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] <pochu> according to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/
[12:25] <Lhademmor> pochu, ok then I'm on it :)
[12:31] <Lhademmor> hmm... I'm running Fx 3.0b4 - anyone running that who can see the band photo on http://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=97 ?
[12:35] <Lhademmor> Is it bug day today?
[12:35] <james_w> yep
[12:36] <Lhademmor> Okay then - not many people active here?
[12:36] <james_w> it will start picking up soon probably
[12:37] <james_w> a lot of people don't discuss the bugs on the channel though
[12:37] <Lhademmor> Damn - probably around the time I have to head home..
[12:37] <Lhademmor> Where do they discuss them then?
[12:38] <Lhademmor> Well... then I can have all the support for myself :P
[12:39] <Lhademmor> Have I handled the bug 196432 correct?
[12:39] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 196432 in firefox-3.0 "firfox elements in igoogle banner" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/196432
[12:40] <james_w> Lhademmor: 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?
[12:41] <Lhademmor> james_w: I'm sorry, I don't understand... what question?
[12:41] <Lhademmor> Ah, now I found it
[12:41] <james_w> wow, that's a strange screenshot in the second one.
[12:41] <Lhademmor> james_w, the one with a bunch of old men with sunglasses
[12:42] <james_w> It think asking for a reconfirmation with the latest version is ok there.
[12:42] <james_w> yep, they're pretty old
[12:42] <Lhademmor> james_w, okay. Damn, then it must be a problem on my side....
[12:43] <Lhademmor> I cannot see the image (or any other band images from that site) on firefox - only when using other computers)
[12:45] <james_w> Lhademmor: you haven't blocked images from the site or anything?
[12:45] <james_w> does it still happen with a new profile>
[12:45] <asac> hi!
[12:46] <Iulian> Hey
[12:46] <Lhademmor> I dont think so, no
[12:46] <Lhademmor> (to the first question)
[12:46] <james_w> hi asac, just the man we need
[12:46] <asac> ;)
[12:46] <james_w> hi Iulian
[12:46] <Lhademmor> james_w, how do I change profiles?
[12:46] <Iulian> Hello james_w, asac
[12:47] <james_w> Lhademmor: I don't know, we should have the information on the debugging page
[12:47] <james_w> Lhademmor: check Edit->Preferences, Content tab, second "Exceptions" button, the one for "Load images automatically"
[12:47] <james_w> check there is nothing in there.
[12:48] <james_w> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs?action=show&redirect=DebuggingFirefox
[12:48] <Lhademmor> james_w: nope, nothing there
[12:48] <james_w> Lhademmor: ok, worth a try
[12:48] <james_w> that link explains how to set up a new profile
[12:49] <Lhademmor> ok, thanks
[12:49] <Lhademmor> And otherwise I'll just wait for it to come out of beta :)
[12:50] <asac> Lhademmor: whats this about? black images?
[12:50] <Lhademmor> asac, yep
[12:50] <asac> which site?
[12:50] <Lhademmor> and half-opened, jumbled ones
[12:50] <asac> yeah
[12:51] <Lhademmor> http://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=97 f.ex
[12:51] <Lhademmor> there's a big black hole on the right side of the page
[12:51] <asac> zooming changes it?
[12:52] <asac> for me zooming in makes the image on the right appear
[12:52] <Lhademmor> asac, same thing here
[12:54] <asac> i guess there should be lots of dupes for that bug
[12:54] <asac> its bug 182038
[12:54] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 182038 in xorg-server "Black rectangle instead of image in FF3 [Hardy]" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/182038
[12:54] <asac> please merge bugs into that
[12:55] <asac> (which is a xulrunner bug after all)
[12:55] <asac> merge == mark as duplicate
[12:56] <asac> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/?field.searchtext=black&orderby=-importance&search=Search&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.status%3Alist=INPROGRESS&field.status%3Alist=FIXCOMMITTED&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.has_patch=&field.has_no_package=
[12:56] <asac> those are likely NEW dupes
[12:57] <asac> so if you have reports about broken images on websites, please add xulrunner-1.9 as target and mark as duplicate of bug 182038
[12:57] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 182038 in xorg-server "Black rectangle instead of image in FF3 [Hardy]" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/182038
[12:57] <Lhademmor> ok then!
[13:00] <Lhademmor> that's one dupemarked :)
[13:09] <asac> i think we cannot do much about crashes except asking them to test with a fresh profile and then for a test-case to reproduce
[13:10] <asac> if there is no test-case and the stacktrace doesn't have any symbols we can just set it to invalid
[13:11] <Lhademmor> damn, I'm off... May return later - depending on whether there're riots in the street or not..
[13:11] <asac> riots=
[13:11] <asac> where are you bsed?
[13:11] <asac> based
[13:11] <Lhademmor> Denmark :P
[13:11] <Lhademmor> So no, not riots THAT serious
[13:12] <asac> hehe
[13:12] <asac> hope so :)
[13:12] <asac> i am in hamburg and wouldn't like the riots to come down here
[13:12] <asac> :-P
[13:22] <pedro_> hello people !
[13:23] <pedro_> today is firefox hug day https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20080403 feel free to grab any of the list
[13:23] <asac> hi pedro_ i dropped some basic instructinos about New processing in the hug page
[13:23] <asac> i think there are more cases ... but just to get started
[13:23] <pedro_> asac: ok cool
[13:23] <asac> if you don't want that content in there let me know ... we can find a different place
[13:24] <pedro_> asac: is this possible to do ? bug 195109
[13:24] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 195109 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox is not compatible with GNOME session manager" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/195109
[13:24] <pedro_> asac: that's ok thanks you ;-)
[13:24] <asac> pedro_: i think upstream knows about this, but its unclear what is needed for that
[13:28] <asac> pedro_: actually i am not sure if it really doesn't work. can you confirm that?
[13:29] <pedro_> asac: let me check, give me a min
[13:29] <asac> pedro_: i said it above as well ... everything that claims that images are rendered wrong is dupe of bug 182038
[13:29] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 182038 in xorg-server "Black rectangle instead of image in FF3 [Hardy]" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/182038
[13:29] <asac> maybe we should add those "master bugs" to the page as well?
[13:32] <pedro_> yeah, let me add it
[13:32] <asac> pedro_: e.g. bug 209953  is dupe of 182038
[13:32] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 209953 in firefox-3.0 "Large image is corrupted when zoomed out (dup-of: 207597)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/209953
[13:32] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 207597 in firefox-3.0 "picture scales not propperly to fit screen" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/207597
[13:33] <pedro_> bug 195109 works fine for me, just tested it
[13:33] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 195109 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox is not compatible with GNOME session manager" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/195109
[13:33] <asac> pedro_: good. i think you can invalidate it
[13:33] <asac> might have been an intermediate problem
[13:33] <pedro_> yeah i'm doing it now
[13:33] <asac> as its old
[13:34] <asac> anyone having a non-querty keyboard can check if bug 193877  is still present?
[13:34] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 193877 in firefox-3.0 "C-z undo keyboard binding doesn't respect non-qwerty layout" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/193877
[13:35] <asac> pedro_: 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 dupes
[13:36] <asac> for example bug 196933 is dupe of bug 185622 (which is a blocker)
[13:36] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 196933 in firefox-3.0 "firefox keeps asking to be default browser when it should not" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/196933
[13:36] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 185622 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox 3 doesn't act as the default browser" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/185622
[13:37] <asac> i think the list of blockers and maybe adding the triaged + in progress and fix committed ones to a short list would be good
[13:37] <asac> should be still short enough to easily check if a bug is a dupe of any of those developer-confirmed bugs
[13:38] <asac> (those are suggestions for future package-hug-days ... not today)
[13:38] <pedro_> yep totally
[13:52] <asac> see what ends up in firefox :  bug 185622
[13:52] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 185622 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox 3 doesn't act as the default browser" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/185622
[13:52] <asac> pedro_: can you reassign that?
[13:52] <asac> (no idea where to)
[13:55] <pedro_> asac: ok, let me look at it
[13:58] <asac> pedro_: its on the wiki page (in case you want to claim it)
[14:01] <asac> pedro_: you triaged, but didn't claim bug 209981  :)
[14:01] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 209981 in firefox-3.0 "firefox crashed with SIGSEGV in __kernel_vsyscall()" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/209981
[14:03] <pedro_> claimed now :-)
[14:04] <caberg> Anyone some control the alsa-defaultsettings? please fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/126150
[14:04] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 126150 in ubuntu "Headphone Jack Sense not enabled " [Undecided,New]
[14:08] <asac> james_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] <asac> james_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?
[14:11] <james_w> 2. I thought it did
[14:12] <james_w> dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -rfakeroot
[14:13] <asac> maybe ... 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 packages
[14:13] <asac> yeah
[14:13] <asac> so it doesn't sign :(
[14:13] <james_w> ah, perhaps I should just make it debuild or something
[14:13] <asac> james_w: please use dpkg-buildpackage because it injects CFLAGS that are not in debuild
[14:13] <james_w> ah, I thought that debuild was just a wrapper around -buildpackage
[14:14] <asac> james_w: i found that recently when i still typed --builder='debuild -b' and didn't see a crash that happened with dpkg-buildpacakge
[14:14] <asac> james_w: yeah ... but either it excludes the default FLAGS or it doesn't use it at all
[14:14] <james_w> I might add --builder-opts so you can just do --builder-opts "-b" or "-sa" or similar
[14:14] <asac> james_w: i think its valid to maybe not sign a package by default
[14:15] <james_w> though a --binary may also be useful
[14:15] <asac> but we should add a --sign flag then that i can use bazaar.config
[14:15] <asac> (i always wanna sign ... i use gpg-agent so i don't need to type the passphrase frequently)
[14:15] <james_w> I want to avoid duplicating every dpkg-buildpackage option, but I realise there are common things that should be covered.
[14:16] <asac> builder-opts sounds good
[14:16] <asac> i could also use -kasac@debian.org ... so i will always sponsor
[14:17] <asac> james_w: ok so maybe --builder-opts would be good ... and maybe a --builder-base="dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot | debuild"
[14:17] <james_w> yeah, 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] <asac> or maybe a --lintian option
[14:17] <asac> because i think debuild just does run that
[14:18] <asac> james_w: yes. -sa vs. -si (default) would be great
[14:18] <asac> together with --binarly
[14:18] <asac> ;)
[14:18] <asac> -b
[14:19] <james_w> this 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 you
[14:20] <asac> james_w: i prefer clean flags, but also convenience switches ... like passing -sa -si -b directly (without typing --builder-opts=...)
[14:20] <asac> james_w: but lets defer that until UDS
[14:21] <james_w> sure
[14:21] <asac> its just that everytime i type that i wonder why i actually have to do that ;)
[14:21] <asac> wihtout setting up helper scripts/aliases
[15:33] <qense> happy bug day everyone!
[15:34] <pedro_> hey qense, to you too :-)
[17:50] <saivann> Hi 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] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 199215 in gnome-mount "[hardy] SD card does not mount Dell Inspiron 9300" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/199215
[17:53] <james_w> saivann: there is a package named gvfs, is that what you mean?
[17:54] <saivann> james_w : I'm asking myself if bug 199215 is a gvfs bug or a gnome-mount bug
[17:54] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 199215 in gnome-mount "[hardy] SD card does not mount Dell Inspiron 9300" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/199215
[17:55] <saivann> james_w : gvfs is a package, yes
[17:55] <james_w> saivann: 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] <bddebian> Boo
[17:56] <saivann> james_w : Thanks, I will open the bug in gvfs too
[17:57] <james_w> hi bddebian
[17:57] <james_w> saivann: I would just re-assign it I think
[17:57] <saivann> james_w : You're right, that's what I did
[17:57] <james_w> great
[17:57] <bddebian> Hello james_w
[17:57] <bdmurray> saivann: Did you see the update to the DebuggingUsplash page?
[17:58] <saivann> bdmurray : No, I tought that I was subscribed to this page, but apparently not
[17:58] <saivann> bdmurray : Reading it..
[18:00] <saivann> bdmurray : 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"
[18:01] <saivann> bdmurray : Since usplash use x86emu and has more chances to get into problems, but I might be wrong
[18:01] <bdmurray> saivann: Yes, that sounds correct.  I think "x86_64" would be the most correct though.
[18:02] <bdmurray> keescook would know best though
[18:02] <saivann> bdmurray : Also we should not ask for lspci -nnvv, but sudo lspci -nnvv, like described in the kernel debug wiki page
[18:02] <bdmurray> keescook: is that what you intended?
[18:03] <bdmurray> saivann: true, could you make those changes?
[18:03] <saivann> bdmurray : I do it right now, thanks for your advice
[18:03] <keescook> bdmurray: yeah, that's clearer.  I'd try to avoid "x86_64" since that's more technical.
[18:03] <keescook> "On 64bit x86 hardware ..." ?
[18:04] <bdmurray> That sounds good to me
[18:04] <bdmurray> saivann: If you have any other questions about usplash keescook is the person to ask - I think. ;)
[18:04] <saivann> bdmurray : Oh thanks :)
[18:04]  * keescook cries a little
[18:05] <keescook> yeah, 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] <saivann> keescook : 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] <saivann> keescook : :P
[18:06] <keescook> saivann: okay, cool.
[18:06] <bdmurray> saivann: Do you want to be added to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/Contacts for usplash?
[18:06] <afflux> hi
[18:06] <bdmurray> afflux: hello!
[18:06] <afflux> hi bdmurray!
[18:07] <saivann> bdmurray : Please, yes
[18:07] <saivann> bdmurray : That would be great
[18:09] <bdmurray> saivann: I've added you thanks!
[18:09] <saivann> bdmurray : That's great
[20:08] <LaserJock> bdmurray: quick question. What permissions does ~ubuntu-bugcontrol have?
[20:09] <bdmurray> LaserJock: Importance and Won't Fix
[20:10] <LaserJock> I seem to remember there being a ubuntu-qa team. is that gone?
[20:11] <jjesse> i think it was renamed?
[20:11] <LaserJock> to?
[20:11] <jjesse> don't rmemember but if you were a member of it you still should be
[20:12] <LaserJock> bugsquad maybe?
[20:12] <jjesse> sounds right
[20:12] <LaserJock> I've got memberships in at least 7 different bug-related teams
[20:12] <LaserJock> it's hard to keep them all straight ;-)
[20:13] <LaserJock> oh wait
[20:13] <secretlondon> i think qa became bugcontrol
[20:13] <bdmurray> LaserJock: ubuntu-qa became bugcontrol
[20:13] <LaserJock> yeah, that's what I was just gonna say
[20:14] <LaserJock> because ~bugsquad was the lower team
[20:14] <LaserJock> so does ~bugsquad have any permissions?
[20:14] <bdmurray> I wouldn't say "lower"
[20:14] <bdmurray> No, bugsquad doesn't.
[20:15] <LaserJock> in a LP hierarchy it's lower
[20:15] <LaserJock> but yeah, poor choice of words
[20:16] <LaserJock> now what team does release nomination approval?
[20:18] <bdmurray> LaserJock: I'm double checking
[20:18] <LaserJock> my guess is ~ubuntu-dev
[20:19] <bdmurray> I think it is ubuntu-drivers actually
[20:20] <LaserJock> I dont' think so
[20:20] <LaserJock> cause that would mean I couldn't do it
[20:21] <bdmurray> Hmm, then the launchpad help about is misleading or the permissions are wrong
[20:21] <LaserJock> and core-dev is a former member
[20:21] <bdmurray> If you look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/209088/+nominate you'll see what I am talking about
[20:21] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 209088 in ubuntu "shuttle st20g5 not bootable in ubuntu 8.04 (not even console)" [Undecided,New]
[20:24] <LaserJock> yeah, I think it's wrong
[20:25] <LaserJock> I also checked on a Universe package just to see if it was component-specific
[20:25] <LaserJock> at UDS-Sevilla we talked about having ~ubuntu-dev do it
[20:35] <LaserJock> bdmurray: looks to be ~ubuntu-dev that has permissions on that
[20:35] <afflux> does /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/state necessarily have a "present rate:" line?
[22:36] <sbarjola> hi, I'm trying a backtrace for firefox-3 but gdb not found debug symbols
[22:36] <sbarjola> I've installed the dbgsym packages
[22:38] <sbarjola> need to config somothing else?
[23:08] <sbarjola> when I install firefox-3.0-dbgsym I found a binary in /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/firefox-3.0b4/
[23:09] <sbarjola> should run this with gdb for debug symbols ?, because bash cannot execute it
[23:12] <crimsun> sbarjola: which -dbg packages?  [The info at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs may be outdated, but it provides the gist.]
[23:14] <bdmurray> crimsun: did you see someone else had bug 208920?
[23:14] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 208920 in ubuntu "PCM volume too high after upgrade to Hardy" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/208920
[23:14] <sbarjola> firefox-3.0-dbgsym and firefox-3.0-gnome-support-dbgsym
[23:16] <crimsun> bdmurray: no, but thanks for pointing it out.  My e-mail time is extremely rationed these days.
[23:16] <crimsun> sbarjola: you need quite a few additional -dbg packages.
[23:16] <bdmurray> crimsun: I *think* it happened to me too.
[23:19] <sbarjola> how can I know what additional packages need?
[23:19] <crimsun> bdmurray: 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 paplay
[23:20] <crimsun> sbarjola: please see the web page I referenced above.  Try a cli-only web browser as necessary.
[23:21] <sbarjola> thanks
[23:21] <bdmurray> crimsun: Is there anything I can do to help?
[23:21] <crimsun> bdmurray: http://wiki.steenbe.nl/extra/alsachk  (by osteenbergen); I don't know if that URL remains valid
[23:21] <crimsun> bdmurray: post-first-boot asound.state for both kernels would be immensely helpful
[23:22] <bdmurray> crimsun: A virtual machine would be fine correct?
[23:23] <crimsun> bdmurray: as long as the audio card matches the host's, yes.
[23:50] <mrooney> would 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 it
[23:50] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 211550 in clive "[NEEDS-UPGRADING] Clive 0.4.3 to (currently) 0.4.8" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/211550
[23:52] <bdmurray> mrooney: I'm looking
[23:53] <secretlondon> they haven't said which bugs it fixes, i think your response is fine
[23:54] <bdmurray> mrooney: The status could be updated as we know it is true.
[23:56] <secretlondon> that later version is in sid btw, just checked