[00:01] <secretlondon> gnome
[00:01] <stephantom> that's odd, yeah
[00:03] <james_w> so I think it fails when trying to add CAP_NET_ADMIN, CAP_NET_RAW to it's capabilities.
[00:05] <james_w> that only happens if it was run set-uid or set-gid
[00:05] <james_w> apparently
[00:06] <james_w> stephantom: is kdesu a suid program?
[00:07] <stephantom> james_w, sorry, I don't know. can I check that somehow?
[00:08] <james_w> stephantom: ls -l /usr/bin/kdesu
[00:08] <james_w> if it is -rwsr-xr-x then it is
[00:08] <james_w> i.e. it is s in the fourth place, not x
[00:09] <stephantom> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 2008-04-05 00:08 /usr/bin/kdesu -> kdesudo
[00:09] <stephantom> gksu: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 23016 2007-12-05 19:41 /usr/bin/gksu
[00:10] <james_w> what's kdesudo?
[00:10] <james_w> I mean what's the permissions on it?
[00:10] <james_w> also "lsmod | grep capa" please.
[00:11] <stephantom> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 68736 2008-03-28 15:43 /usr/bin/kdesudo
[00:11] <stephantom> lsmod | grep capa returns nothing
[00:12] <james_w> ok, "sudo modprobe capability" please
[00:12] <james_w> and try again
[00:13] <stephantom> FATAL: Module capability not found.
[00:13] <james_w> ah, ok
[00:14] <james_w> I was reading http://fixunix.com/mandriva/323379-wireshark-2008-0-a.html
[00:16] <james_w> stephantom: what's your kernel version?
[00:16] <stephantom> 2.6.24-14-generic
[00:16] <james_w> secretlondon: can I ask what your kernel version is as well please?
[00:16] <secretlondon> sure
[00:16] <james_w> ok, what is your kernel version? :-)
[00:17] <secretlondon> i've forgotten the command for that
[00:17] <secretlondon> arrgh
[00:17] <stephantom> uname -a
[00:17] <secretlondon> ta
[00:17] <secretlondon> Linux celery 2.6.24-14-generic #1 SMP
[00:17] <secretlondon> I can re check on my machine
[00:18] <james_w> you are using the (as root) option from the menu?
[00:18] <secretlondon> yes
[00:18] <secretlondon> you can't capture otherwise
[00:19] <secretlondon> i'm using ppp though
[00:19] <secretlondon> as it's a usb hsdpa modem
[00:21] <secretlondon> ah but currently I don't have any interfaces available in the program..
[00:21] <secretlondon> it worked a couple of weeks ago
[00:22] <james_w> I wonder if it's the .24 kernel?
[00:22] <secretlondon> I wonder if it network manager
[00:22] <stephantom> I'm not using network manager
[00:22] <secretlondon> as I've had loads of problems with things thinking I am offline, and now nm thinks I am online permanentky
[00:24] <Nafallo> will they release a new NM soon?
[00:24] <james_w> http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2288 is kind of the bug.
[00:24] <ubotu> bugs.wireshark.org bug 2288 in Wireshark "Selecting multiple files with any options creates an error <Child capture process exited: exit status 2>" [Major,Resolved: fixed]
[00:24] <Nafallo> like... 7 :-)
[00:25] <james_w> it fixes the hanging problem, and the capset problem is described, but not dealt with apparently.
[00:26] <stephantom> james_w, shouldn't that fix already be in the 1.0.0 release?
[00:27] <secretlondon> my capture interfaces is blank for some reason
[00:28] <secretlondon> I clearly have ppp0
[00:28]  * secretlondon sighs
[00:28] <stephantom> secretlondon, that happens to me if I run wireshark as standard user
[00:29] <secretlondon> you are right,  I seem to have lost my run as root menu entry
[00:29]  * secretlondon realises they are not being very helpful
[00:30] <stephantom> join the club in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/wireshark/+bug/209084 :D
[00:30] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 209084 in wireshark "no run as root in menu in hardy" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[00:31] <james_w> stephantom: I don't know.
[00:31] <james_w> hmm, I've got one
[00:31] <stephantom> me too
[00:31] <secretlondon> I got a window popping up warning me about running stuff as root, which i needed to close to use the app
[00:31] <secretlondon> but I'm currently capturing packets on ppp0 and started wireshark using gksudo from the cli
[00:33] <james_w> weird. Thanks secretlondon
[00:33] <james_w> I've got to sleep though. Night all.
[00:33] <stephantom> the capabilities module was merged into the kernel in .24, right?
[00:33] <secretlondon> I think some of the 'freezing' may be people not closing the window, as you get the busy cursor and no response nuntil you do
[00:34] <secretlondon> night james_w
[00:34] <stephantom> all right, night. thanks james_w
[00:35] <stephantom> I'll update the bug report in launchpad with our findings
[00:46] <sdh> yay bugs
[00:47] <secretlondon> oh yes!
[00:51] <secretlondon> ah wireshark has now frozen when  I tried to capture using any
[00:51]  * secretlondon scratches head
[00:52] <stephantom> yay, finally, now you see how we felt for the last 2-3 hours
[00:52] <stephantom> sdh, bugs? only 41415 open ones to pick from...
[00:52] <sdh> stephantom: i meant the hug day email :>
[00:52] <secretlondon> capture on eth0 hasn't frozen, but I admit I don't actually have a cable in
[00:53] <stephantom> yay hug day
[00:53] <secretlondon> capturing on lo fine too
[00:54] <secretlondon> and any without the promiscuous mode flag set
[00:55] <secretlondon> but I reset the flag and it's fine
[00:55] <secretlondon> arrgh for random bugs
[00:55] <stephantom> secretlondon, try opening the 'Interfaces' window
[00:56] <stephantom> and start a capture from there
[00:56] <secretlondon> okay
[00:56] <secretlondon> closing the interfaces window has caused it to freeze, during the capture that was ok
[00:57] <stephantom> now that's what we were talking about
[00:57] <stephantom> and I bet that after killing wireshark you'll still have a dumpcap process lurking around
[00:58] <secretlondon> okay, restarting and using interfaces it froze again
[00:58] <Plantain> Hey, I've got no sound on Hardy with an Intel chipset. I've searched the lauchpad and found many seemingly loosely related bugs, but I'm not sure if I should file my own or just add to someone elses?
[00:58] <stephantom> alternatively, you can kill the dumpcap process. then the capture will work.
[00:58] <secretlondon> when I closed all the windows it didn't give me back the cli, needed to ctrl-c
[01:01] <secretlondon> I have multiple wireshark and dumpcap processes
[01:07] <stephantom> I'm going to bed now, suggest you kill all your leftofter wireshark/dumpcap processes ;-) happy hunting!
[01:08] <stephantom> that should be "leftover"
[01:08] <stephantom> I'm getting tried
[01:08] <stephantom> bye
[01:10] <greg-g> is it tomorrow somewhere in the world?
[01:10] <greg-g> oh wait, the hug day isn't until tuesday of course
[01:11] <greg-g> nevermind
[01:12] <secretlondon> yeah it's saturday here
[01:13] <greg-g> I accidently started on some of the bugs on the hugday list :)
[01:13] <greg-g> I just saw wiki page of bugs and thought "oooo! time to start triaging!"
[01:14] <LaserJock> tsk tsk
[01:14] <LaserJock> we can't just have people fixing bug willy nilly
[01:17] <secretlondon> we could fix them all before the hug day
[01:17] <secretlondon> as there is no way there is only 100 bugs without packages ;)
[01:17] <LaserJock> that would be hilarious
[01:17] <LaserJock> "so ... uh ... whada we do now?"
[01:18]  * secretlondon points at launchpad
[01:18] <greg-g> :)
[01:18]  * greg-g is off, take care
[01:19] <secretlondon> bye greg-g
[01:19] <greg-g> tah tah secretlondon
[04:47] <graphx> Hello all
[04:48] <graphx> I have a question.  Anyone have experience with pulseaudio?
[04:49] <graphx> Reason I as is I want to make sure what I am running in to is not a bug...
[07:21] <Iulian> G'morning
[08:11] <Joe520> hi all
[08:12] <Joe520> i found a bug in ubuntu 7.10
[08:12] <Joe520> with SMC 54mbps wireless card...
[08:12] <Joe520> i cannot boot from live cd when smc is connected to the PCI bus... the boot will be frozen....
[08:13] <Joe520> is it fixed in hardy?
[08:31] <qense> hello
[11:12] <Joe520> hi
[11:12] <Joe520> anybody here?
[11:14] <jeromeg> yes
[11:14] <persia> Joe520: Lots of people.  What's up?
[11:18] <Joe520> i had a bug i 710
[11:18] <Joe520> 7.10
[11:18] <Joe520> with SMC wireless pci card
[11:18] <Joe520> i cannot boot from live cd
[11:19] <Joe520> cos of the freeze
[11:19] <jeromeg> Joe520: you should report a bug on Launchpad
[11:19] <Joe520> not here?
[11:20] <jeromeg> Joe520: here it will get lost
[11:20] <Joe520> :S
[11:20] <Joe520> ok where is the launchpad?
[11:20] <jeromeg> on Launchpad, a trace will be kept, and devs will be able to work on it
[11:21] <jeromeg> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu
[11:21] <Joe520> :S
[11:21] <Joe520> ok
[11:22] <jeromeg> please have a look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures to provide all the needed information
[11:22] <Joe520> ok
[11:22] <Joe520> thx
[11:30] <Joe520> bye-bye
[11:40] <afflux> morning
[11:44] <kblin> hi folks
[11:49] <kblin> I'm currently trying to figure out bug #198871
[11:49] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 198871 in ubuntu "Jmicron AHCI controller probs..." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/198871
[11:49] <kblin> I'm pretty sure it's actually a kernel bug with the jmicron driver
[11:49] <kblin> it's not filed correctly, though
[11:54] <afflux> bug 101845 is about gnome-mount trying to access a mountpoint which was not removed on reboot, so it appends an underscore each time. Any ideas on which package is affected?
[11:54] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 101845 in ubuntu "Automounted Volumes mount points change" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/101845
[12:59] <bicyclist> afflux: So now my presumed bug is confirmed ;) Wondered recently why areca backup didn't run til i found the _ after the drive.
[13:09] <afflux> bicyclist: right, I have seen the same thing long ago but thought it was fixed since it somehow disappeared
[13:10] <bicyclist> Long ago meaning in a previous release or earlier in the hardy development ?
[13:10] <afflux> in edgy even
[13:11] <bicyclist> Ok, now THAT is long ago ;) !
[13:11] <afflux> when I was a simple user ;)
[13:11] <bicyclist> Grin, yeah, same with me around that time ;)
[13:12] <afflux> I think I even fixed that issue with a workaround, but I can't remember what it was
[13:13] <bicyclist> Hmm, maybe something in the mtab ?
[13:13] <bicyclist> I think i remember some issues way back then ;)
[13:14] <afflux> hm
[13:17] <bicyclist> Look what i found: There are two lines regarding usb
[13:17] <bicyclist> procbususb /proc/bus/usb usbfs rw 0 0
[13:18] <bicyclist> AND
[13:18] <bicyclist> none /proc/bus/usb usbfs rw,devmode=0666 0 0
[13:19] <bicyclist> Which one is the correct one ? i remember having removed none /proc.... but now it is there again !
[15:43] <zasf> #ubuntu-it
[15:43] <qense> ?
[15:44] <zasf> sorry, I didn't type '/j'
[15:44] <qense> :)
[16:38] <qense> does anyone knows if bug 212271 is complete? I've triaged it, but I can't find the cause in the log files
[16:38] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 212271 in linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24 "2.6.24-15-generic: saa7134-alsa makes HAL to fail" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/212271
[16:58] <exxonn> hi
[16:58] <qense> hello
[16:58] <exxonn> i have a question ...im new to ubuntu ..
[16:58] <qense> ok
[16:58] <qense> this channel is for bugs :)
[16:58] <qense> for support you can try #ubuntu or #ubuntu-{language-code}
[16:59] <exxonn> how do i install azureus ? (a bittorrent client) ? already downloaded it but have no clue how to install it and now i cant even find it
[16:59] <qense> exonn: please ask in #ubuntu
[16:59] <exxonn> oh ok .. sorry
[16:59] <qense> :)
[16:59] <qense> never mind
[16:59] <qense> does anyone knows if bug 212271 is complete? I've triaged it, but I can't find the cause in the log files
[16:59] <exxonn> join #ubuntu
[16:59] <qense> Launchpad bug 212271 in linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24 "2.6.24-15-generic: saa7134-alsa makes HAL to fail" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/212271
[17:40] <mrooney> exxonn: that bug looks related to something I just saw...
[17:42] <qense> exxonn is already gone :)
[17:44] <mrooney> oh, indeed!
[18:05] <qense> does syslog contain the same information as kern.log?
[18:20] <bdmurray> james_w: you might be interested in bug 210622
[18:20] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 210622 in bzrtools "package bzrtools 1.2.0-1ubuntu3 failed to install/upgrade: " [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/210622
[18:35] <jarlath> I'm just looking through bugs in launchpad.net. Are bugs filed independently of the ubuntu release version? It seems that there are bugs filed for Feisty and Hardy.
[18:38] <LaserJock> yep
[18:38] <LaserJock> there's bugs for every release
[18:38] <jarlath> So if I just want to triage Hardy ones, is that possible?
[18:39] <LaserJock> hmm, that can be slightly problematic
[18:39] <LaserJock> you can look at bugs specifically targeted at hardy
[18:39] <jarlath> Okay, so the idea is that all releases are treated equally?
[18:40] <LaserJock> the idea is that we don't know what release a bug applies to
[18:40] <jarlath> Okay. By searching for Hardy ?
[18:41] <jarlath> Is that not inefficient?
[18:41] <jarlath> I'm not knocking the system - I'm just trying to understand so I can contribute.
[18:41] <LaserJock> well, people just file bugs
[18:42] <LaserJock> we don't know before hand what release the bug is in
[18:42] <jarlath> Oh yes.
[18:42] <jarlath> that makes sense. That's where triaging comes in?
[18:42] <LaserJock> exactly
[18:43] <jarlath> (lightbulb!)
[18:43] <jarlath> Thank you.
[18:43] <Nafallo> bugs can only be in more releases then one, mind you.
[18:43] <LaserJock> yep
[18:43] <LaserJock> so the first step is to verify that it is a bug
[18:43] <LaserJock> then you figure out what releases have the bug
[18:43] <jarlath> If the same package version is used in more than one release you mean? I don't fully understand you Nafallo.
[18:44] <LaserJock> bugs can be carried from release to release as well
[18:44] <jarlath> Ah yes.
[18:44] <Nafallo> jarlath: what says it has to be only one version of a program having the same bug?
[18:44] <jarlath> Nafallo: I understand now. Thanks.
[18:46] <Nafallo> np
[18:47] <snap-l> I'm not sure what t do with bug #46994
[18:47] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 46994 in setserial "Setserial's autosave doesn't work" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/46994
[18:47] <snap-l> Seems upstream isn't responding
[18:47] <snap-l> Should I mark the bug as invalid?
[18:48] <qense> you could send an email to de upstream maintainer to ask for more information about the progress
[18:48] <Nafallo> snap-l: is it a reproducibla, actual bug?
[18:48] <snap-l> I've reproduced it myself
[18:48] <Nafallo> somewhere my mind took a turn and inserted random characters :-P
[18:48] <snap-l> However, I'm not even sure this is the right way to set serial ports
[18:49] <Nafallo> snap-l: then it is in fact a bug... why would you mark it as not being one?
[18:49] <snap-l> I did, and received no response.
[18:49] <snap-l> My thought is there's another way to set the serial ports rather than setserial
[18:49] <Nafallo> if it is a bug. it is a bug...
[18:49] <snap-l> although I'm not aware of what that is, since I'm not using serial ports much anymore.
[18:50] <snap-l> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=314219 <- This is the note I sent to them.
[18:50] <ubotu> Debian bug 314219 in setserial "setserial: package configure goes wrong" [Important,Open]
[18:53] <qense> I've been triaging bug 212271 but I can't find a line in the error logs that indicates what's going wrong. What files should I ask for?
[18:53] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 212271 in linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24 "2.6.24-15-generic: saa7134-alsa makes HAL to fail" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/212271
[18:55] <snap-l> qense: Is there anything in /var/log/messages?
[18:55] <qense> I don't know :)
[18:59] <qense> I'll ask for it
[19:10] <qense> how do you mark bugs for expiration?
[19:11] <LaserJock> qense: they expire when they are set to Incomplete for 60 days without any further response
[19:11] <qense> when does the warning appear above the title?
[19:12] <LaserJock> when you set it to Incomplete
[19:13] <qense> I've set a lot of bug reports to incomplete but they never got a expiration warning above their name
[19:13] <Iulian> If you assign the bugs to you it won't expire.
[19:14] <qense> ok
[19:15] <qense> so you shouldn't assign bugs to yourself when you're triaging them?
[19:15] <LaserJock> well, assigning means your doing something about the bug
[19:15] <qense> what's actually the policy withing bugcontrol about assigning yourself to bugs
[19:15] <LaserJock> like working on it
[19:16] <LaserJock> I'm thinking for most triage you're not going to want to assign yourself
[19:16] <qense> the triage guide tells you to assign yourself to a bug report you're triaging until it's confirmed
[19:16] <LaserJock> huh, interesting
[19:17] <LaserJock> I guess that would be so that you don't lose track of what you're doing and you stick to a bug until it's resolved
[19:17] <qense> it's indeed quite useful
[19:17] <qense> but I think we should  make a policy for this, a clear set of rules to let bug expire but also be able to keep easily track of them
[19:17] <qense> ping bdmurray
[19:18] <Iulian> I'm not sure if this is very important when you triage a bug. If you assign it to yourself it means that you are keeping an eye to the bug to be completed and ready for a developer to start working on it.
[19:22] <Iulian> After that (means that the bug is ready and has all the information needed for a dev to look at it) you should unassign from it and change its status to Confirmed/Triaged.
[19:23] <qense> but if a bug isn't confirmed nor contains enough information...
[19:24] <Iulian> You should ask here in the channel and someone will try to help you to triage it, of course if (s)he knows.
[19:24] <qense> what if the reported doesn't respond
[19:25]  * Gnine thanks all folks who make ubuntu possible
[19:25]  * Gnine also hugglez ubotu
[19:26] <Iulian> After four weeks, its status should be changed to Invalid with the right comment from /Bugs/Responses
[19:26] <qense> the expiration functionality does that automatically
[19:27] <Iulian> No, it does not, AFAIK.
[19:27] <qense> it should
[19:27] <qense> so if we get a better way of assigning people to bugs we can use it
[19:27] <LaserJock> Iulian: why 4 weeks when it would normaly expire in 8?
[19:28] <Iulian> LaserJock: Don't know, ask bdmurray. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status
[19:30] <LaserJock> I'm not terribly fond of these "cookie cutter" pages
[19:32] <LaserJock> some bugs will be open for a long time
[19:32] <LaserJock> years perhaps
[19:32] <LaserJock> I'm not fond of just ignoring things after 30 days
[19:34] <qense> but if no one replies, what should you do?
[19:35] <Iulian> LaserJock: But not in the Incomplete status and without any responses from the reporter.
[19:35] <Iulian> LaserJock: Oh yea, it depends.
[19:36] <LaserJock> Iulian: sure it can
[19:36] <syke_> qense: hi :)
[19:36] <LaserJock> look at Debian
[19:36] <qense> hello
[19:36] <LaserJock> I say about 20 bugs today that have been opened for > 2 years without a response
[19:36] <LaserJock> *saw
[19:36] <LaserJock> it doesn't mean they aren't bugs
[19:37] <syke_> this bug gets inquiries a few times a day, for months now: http://people.ubuntu.com/~ogasawara/hardy-buglist.html
[19:37] <syke_> er
[19:37] <syke_> this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/197558
[19:37] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 197558 in linux "ssb module breaks BCM4328 with ndiswrapper (regression from 2.6.24-10)" [Medium,Triaged]
[19:38] <qense> well, it's confirmed and assigned, there isn't much we can do on that for now
[19:38] <syke_> working with my canonical support rep, I finally got my wireless working decently in feisty/gutsy, but now it's broken again. i even bought a new laptop to try and help the situation :(
[19:38] <Iulian> LaserJock: Yes, but that's why we can change its status to NEW again if someone knows something about that bug.
[19:38] <qense> maybe it shoudl be reported upstream
[19:38] <LaserJock> Iulian: but it looks like people are just closing bugs as fast as they can ;-)
[19:39] <Iulian> LaserJock: Unfortunately I noticed that too.
[19:39] <qense> but bugs like bug 182410 aren't things that need to stay open in my eyes
[19:39] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 182410 in hal "ATI DRIVER CORUPTED" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/182410
[19:40] <LaserJock> qense: but people need to know the difference
[19:40] <qense> true
[19:41] <syke_> qense: can I ask my support rep to do something to help?
[19:41] <qense> support rep?
[19:41] <qense> what does it support?
[19:41] <syke_> my canonical support rep, that is :)
[19:41] <qense> ah, the partner
[19:41] <secretlondon> syke_ no idea
[19:42] <syke_> I try to work in the community for alpha/beta to clear up issues before release, and then with Canonical post-release
[19:42] <syke_> but maybe poking at some french-canadians before release might help get this ndiswrapper issue fixed?
[19:42] <LaserJock> syke_: it's got a Medium importance and is assigned to the Kernel team
[19:42] <syke_> ok
[19:43] <LaserJock> I'm not sure how much more can be done other than telling your support rep you want it fixed ;-)
[19:43] <syke_> I would be concerned since several people ask in the channel per day, for months now, that they are getting a bad impression of hardy. Hopefully it gets fixed for beta 2
[19:43] <qense> can it be forwared upstream?
[19:43] <LaserJock> upstrem to where?
[19:44] <qense> kernel.org?
[19:44] <qense> or is it an ubuntu module?
[19:45] <LaserJock> I wouldn't think sending it upstream would do much, and I would let the Kernel Team figure that out
[19:47] <syke_> just so they know it's a widespread problem that has potential PR impact ;)
[19:48] <syke> qense: thanks for your help and candor :)
[20:37] <DOOM_NX> hello! :)
[20:38] <jarlath> Hi DOOM_NX
[20:38] <jarlath> Are the logs of this channel available online?
[20:38] <pochu> !logs
[20:38] <ubotu> Channel logs can be found at http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ - Logs for LoCo channels are at http://logs.ubuntu-eu.org/freenode/
[20:38] <jarlath> It would be a good way to learn.
[20:39] <jarlath> :) Thx
[21:15] <james_w> bdmurray: yeah, it's on my radar, thanks.
[21:29] <greg-g> wow, I'll need to make a journal entry about this.  First time I saw a bug with [Intrepid] in the subject.  bug 212478
[21:29] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 212478 in xulrunner-1.9 "[Intrepid] Use the system sqlite instead of the in-source one" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/212478
[21:29] <secretlondon> wow
[21:30] <greg-g> yeah, it is a special day
[21:34] <Raseel> Hi, I'm trying yo get involved with Ubuntu Bug packaging with the MOTU team. I need help with the following things :
[21:35] <afflux> (what is bug packaging?)
[21:35] <Raseel> @afflux Uhh... Creating Ubuntu packages for new packages requests.
[21:36] <afflux> righ
[21:36] <afflux> then you'll better ask at #ubuntu-motu
[21:36] <greg-g> so, just packaging in general then yes?  or patches to fix specific bugs?
[21:36] <Raseel> oh ok... sorry.....
[21:36] <Raseel> My bad.
[21:36] <greg-g> no worries
[21:37] <Raseel> @greg-g : This would be a good place to ask about Bug Triaging then ?
[21:38] <greg-g> Raseel: yes
[21:39] <Raseel> Good, I'll be back here soon then :-)
[21:39] <greg-g> Raseel: sounds good :)
[21:48] <crimsun> people are jumping the gun a bit with those xulrunner-1.9/ff-3.0 bug reports
[21:48] <LaserJock> bit interesting
[21:48] <crimsun> if they had waited until b5 was available to update, they wouldn't have been bitten
[21:54] <LaserJock> but who wants to wait for the latest crack? :-)
[21:55] <jjesse> ji like crack
[21:55] <jjesse> :)
[22:13] <afflux> argh
[22:13] <afflux> nice upstream people closing their bug with "this was fixed in <some-version>", but no indication on what was the fix.
[22:14] <secretlondon> argh
[22:15] <afflux> they don't run a changelog, they don't have dates in their release announcements, they even do their releases without indications in the VCS. I just don't know between which revisions i've to search.
[22:15] <LaserJock> that's kinda gross
[22:16] <afflux> on top of that, they're asking for getting their shiny new release to hardy, *today*, five days from finalfreeze
[22:16] <afflux> *mumbles*
[22:17] <LaserJock> what is the upstream?
[22:18] <afflux> It's the screenlets package, I'm not sure if it's a single person or what.
[22:31] <LaserJock> jjesse: you're not in -doc?
[22:31] <afflux> hm, going to bed now. good night!
[23:57] <Gnine> bug 205654
[23:57] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 205654 in firefox-3.0 "firefox crashed with SIGSEGV in memcpy()" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/205654
[23:57] <Gnine> shame .. thats what i just got
[23:58] <crimsun> with 3.0b5?
[23:58] <Gnine> 4
[23:59] <Gnine> i see..
[23:59] <secretlondon> b5 is the new one
[23:59] <Gnine> just that update-manager nor apt has cue me for upgrade yet