[00:06] <sectech> bug #230906, I don't know what package to assign it to... There is enough to confirm
[00:19] <dsas_> sectech: I think that bugs in discussion on ubuntu-devel-discuss at present. I seem to remember that it wasn't clear where the bug lay, possibly the filesystem level.
[00:20] <sectech> Okay I'll leave it be... I am just going through the incomplete bugs I was triaging...
[00:20] <sectech> house keeping (with what is possible)
[00:29] <sectech> If I request a backtrace for a bug and it returns with no symbols, and there isn't a -dbg for the application would an apport report be any more effective?
[00:38] <dsas_> sectech: Yes I believe so. It's then retraced with debug symbols in the datacentre
[00:39] <sectech> Okay, then I'll be asking for apport for a couple of mine
[06:39] <RyanPrior> How do I change the importance of a bug?
[06:44] <nickellery> RyanPrior, you have to be a member of the Ubuntu-Bugcontrol team
[06:53] <RyanPrior> nickellery: Who do I complain to if there's a bug that's clearly mis-marked in importance?
[06:54] <thekorn> what's the bugnumer and the importance in question?
[06:58] <RyanPrior> launchpad bug #183917 (marked low priority) is the most complained about bug in Hardy
[06:58] <RyanPrior> !botsnack
[07:05] <thekorn> RyanPrior, IMO there is no need to chenge the importance of this bug, this is surely in focus of the developers, changing the importance won't change anything
[07:07] <RyanPrior> thekorn: I think it hurts the credibility of the bug tracking system. Hundreds of people per day find that bug and see that it's already confirmed, and low priority.
[07:11] <thekorn> RyanPrior, based on the number of different comments and subscribers I'm not sure if there are really hundreds of people are intrested in this bug
[07:12] <thekorn> the importance was set by someone who really knows what to do,
[07:12] <thekorn> so the best would be to conntact him and talk to him directly about changing it
[07:12] <RyanPrior> thekorn: I'm not sure on the numbers. I sit in #ubuntu for a few hours a day though, and we get questions about that bug probably once every few minutes, so figuring in how many people search the bug tracker without asking in IRC, I figure it's a pretty big numberr.
[07:14] <RyanPrior> thekorn: the number of comments isn't a good indicator, because a bug tracker is not a popularity contest. Not everybody is going to chime in. If there's an Ubuntu Brainstorm entry for this bug, I bet it's got a thousand votes.
[07:19] <thekorn> RyanPrior, right, if you add a comment, saying you have seen many people affected by this bug, I will change the importance
[07:25] <RyanPrior> thekorn: Done.
[07:30] <thekorn> RyanPrior, my problem right now is: I 'm unable to reproduce it with an uptodate hardy
[07:30] <RyanPrior> thekorn: Are you using Adobe Flash?
[07:32] <RyanPrior> thekorn: I reproduce it daily using these steps: Open Rhythmbox, set music playing, browse to a YouTube video and play it, pause Rhythmbox to let the video play. Expected result: audio and video play. Actual result: only video plays.
[07:32] <thekorn> RyanPrior, I'm using flash-nonfree, so yes
[07:32] <RyanPrior> The workaround I use is closing Rhythmbox, closing Firefox, opening Firefox again, playing the flash video, and then opening Rhythmbox again.
[07:33] <RyanPrior> thekorn: Do you have libflashsupport installed?
[07:36] <thekorn> RyanPrior, Ohh, ok, I think I'm able to reproduce it this way,
[07:36] <thekorn> need to reboot, back in a few
[07:46] <thekorn> RyanPrior, I'm still not able to reproduce this particullar issue, maybe it is just luck ;)
[07:46] <RyanPrior> thekorn: If you have libflashsupport you won't be able to reproduce it - do you?
[07:48] <thekorn> but I'm going to change the importance based on your last comment
[07:49] <RyanPrior> Well, if you really can't reproduce the bug, we should figure out why that is and try to get to the bottom of this.
[07:49] <RyanPrior> I don't have time tonight, but maybe there's a clue in the discrepancy.
[07:49] <thekorn> RyanPrior, I have libflashsupport installed! why is there a libflashsupport task?
[07:50] <RyanPrior> thekorn: libflashsupport solves this bug but creates a worse one.
[07:50] <RyanPrior> thekorn: You won't be able to reproduce this bug as long as you have libflashsupport though.
[07:55] <thekorn> RyanPrior, ok, I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not sure what the best steps at this point are, maybe you should ask crimsun or members of mozilla-bugs about this. I will subscribe myself to this bug, and follow on this later today as I'm running out of time right now.
[07:55] <RyanPrior> thekorn: I'm going to bed myself. Thanks for the attention.
[07:56] <thekorn> RyanPrior, thank you for working on this
[07:56] <thekorn> RyanPrior, good night
[10:01] <isforinsects> Not entirely sure how to report this bug correctly, of if indeed it is a bug or something else.
[10:01] <isforinsects> I am trying to install the Hardy package 'imms' and it depends on 'xmms' which isn't available in 8.04 repos.
[10:03] <isforinsects> in fact quite a few packages require xmms: playground-plugin-xmms for instance
[10:04] <isforinsects> There are even gobs of xmms plugins in the repos, but no xmms
[10:05] <RAOF> isforinsects: That means we need to file a bunch of removal request bugs, basically.
[10:05] <RAOF> But they'll only be removed from Intrepid, not Hardy.
[10:05] <isforinsects> Can you point me to an example?  I'd be willing to do file them.
[10:06] <isforinsects> Oh yes, I suppose hardy repos are set now aren't they.
[10:15] <sectech> Why on earth.
[10:16] <RAOF> sectech: ?
[10:16] <isforinsects> sectech?>
[10:16] <sectech> I used xmms all the time,  wonder why they would remove the main package
[10:16] <sectech> odd...
[10:16] <isforinsects> Well it is obsoleted by xmms2
[10:16] <isforinsects> I think?
[10:16] <RAOF> Because it's ancient, not well maintained, and depends on gtk1.2.
[10:17] <RAOF> isforinsects: No, xmms2 is quite different.
[10:17] <RAOF> And gtk1.2 is going to disappear from the archives real-soon-now :)
[10:17] <sectech> a shame they didn't keep it up.... oh well...
[10:18] <sectech> It's been around for ages...
[10:18] <isforinsects> I like it myself.  I find more and more problems with heavy weight media players
[10:18] <pedro_> bug 190684
[10:18] <pedro_> clearly explain why it was removed
[10:19] <sectech> obsolete....
[10:19] <sectech> morning pedro_
[10:20] <sectech> anyway bbl, getting ready for work
[10:20] <pedro_> hello sectech
[10:33] <isforinsects> So do you have any pointers for filing the bug reports?
[10:33] <isforinsects> Or removal requests?
[10:34] <mgunes> isforinsects, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs
[11:50] <emgent> heya
[14:04] <Pierre> hi
[14:05] <Pierre> anyone notices huge slowdown in firefox3 in comparison with ff2? (on last ubuntu vs ubuntu-1)
[14:07] <Hobbsee> nope
[14:07]  * Hobbsee has had the opposite.
[14:08] <Pierre> Hobbsee: net acces is slow, autocomplete takes seconds to find smtg, etc. Reproducible on three boxes
[14:08] <Pierre> and JS is... gmail is now unusable :)
[15:54] <pedro_> is KelvinGardiner in the channel?
[20:06] <pochu> thekorn: you have mail :)
[20:14] <pck-chem> quick question for those csh-ers. I'm using a program that requires the use of the c shell and I need to edit my .cshrc file. Where is this file? and if I need to make it myself, where should I do that? thanks.
[20:23] <thekorn> pochu, do you mean the one from ~5hrs ago?
[20:24] <thekorn> I already replied to this one
[21:15] <pochu> thekorn: ah, right
[21:24] <penguin42> hi, a bug of mine #229067 has a connection to an external KDE bug, but it's been marked as invalid - I'm not 100% sure, but I think the reason is that the upstream bug has been marked as a dupe - does launchpad now need tying to that other bug?
[21:26] <pck-chem> It wouldn't hurt.
[21:26] <pck-chem> bug ﻿229067
[21:26] <pck-chem> bug #﻿229067
[21:27] <penguin42> It looks like they have a fix for it as well, so it would be a good thing to pick the fix up since it segs konq
[21:34] <penguin42> hohum, I've added a comment
[23:34] <sectech> I'm surprised a "[needs-packaging] Firefox 3-RC1" hasn't come across launchpad yet
[23:37] <gnomefreak> sectech: it has
[23:37] <gnomefreak> sectech: its being taken care of
[23:38] <gnomefreak> sectech: hard part is its UDS week this week but we have been testing it since b5 came out
[23:39] <sectech> Oh I stand corrected...
[23:39] <gnomefreak> since fta;s ppa is synced it will update and we will push final RC
[23:44] <sectech> I just saw a post of /. saying it was out....Guess I didn't see it go through launchpad...
[23:44] <sectech> then again I am running on 3 hours sleep so I am not seeing much of launchpad today
[23:47] <gnomefreak> sectech: i get emails from mozilla before and at time of release plus app-days the whole team does, so we know we test snapshots all through process, people have this issue where they have to have it the sec it comes out
[23:48] <sectech> lol true enough....
[23:52] <gnomefreak> ok ill be back, if you see a bug like that please close it and tell them we are working on it and send them to #ubuntu-mozillateam if they have more questions or they can ask on mailing list
[23:53] <gnomefreak> be back i have to reboot