[02:39] <gralco> bdmurray thanks for getting back on my application
[03:18] <vstromdek> Anyone having trouble with loosing wifi after rebooting?
[03:18] <vstromdek> Ubuntu 8.04, that is.
[03:54] <gralco> hey all
[05:20] <techno_freak> bug #236431 rather looks like a wish list
[05:20] <ubot3> Malone bug 236431 in firefox-3.0 "alt + drag to favicon" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/236431
[05:44] <Hobbsee> techno_freak: is it reported to the mozilla bugtracker?
[05:45] <Hobbsee> techno_freak: bah.  there's a better way for him to do that, too
[05:45]  * Hobbsee hits it with the wontfix stick
[05:46] <techno_freak> :)
[05:48] <Hobbsee> it always surprises me how many people don't know about drag-to-tab, either the extension for the older versions of firefox, or the built in dragging for newer versions of firefox.
[07:46] <Iulian> G'morning
[10:12] <kahrytan> Hello. Anyone awake/
[10:13] <Hobbsee> no
[10:15] <kahrytan> cuz i found new bug
[10:16] <kahrytan> "deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ hardy main universe multiverse restricted web" <---- bug
[10:16] <Hobbsee> already filed.
[10:17] <Hobbsee> did you find out what caused it?
[10:17] <kahrytan> Where is it filed?
[10:17] <Hobbsee> on launchpad somewhere.
[10:17]  * Hobbsee was looking at it for a while, months ago.
[10:18] <kahrytan> Yes, found it.
[10:18] <Hobbsee> #?
[10:18] <kahrytan> ubufox
[10:18] <kahrytan> It adds the web service
[10:19] <kahrytan> and breaks rest of apt applications from fetching updates
[10:19] <kahrytan> including hardy-security line
[10:20] <kahrytan> So, if you find bug, ill add the package
[10:23] <Hobbsee> when does it add the web service?  it's really not being triggered for many people.
[10:24] <Hobbsee> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/227191
[10:24] <ubot3> Malone bug 227191 in update-manager "Failed to fetch in Kubuntu" [Undecided,Invalid]
[10:24] <kahrytan>  it not triggered for vlc plugin
[10:25] <Hobbsee> Install a plugin with Firefox and he asks you something like « Do you want to enable the following component: 'web'? »
[10:25] <Hobbsee> wonder which one that might be...
[10:26] <kahrytan> lol
[10:26] <kahrytan> Totem is one
[10:26] <Hobbsee> yes, but i'll bet it's not giving that exact message.
[10:26] <Hobbsee> someone got a global source mirror around here, or something?
[10:27] <kahrytan> yup
[10:27] <Hobbsee> grep away, then.
[10:27] <kahrytan> It says do you want to add 'web' service
[10:28] <kahrytan> ohwait. it could be apturl?
[10:28] <Hobbsee> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-properties/+bug/210002
[10:28] <ubot3> Malone bug 210002 in software-properties "software-properties adds a non-existant 'web' to the list of repository components" [Undecided,New]
[10:28] <kahrytan> Window that popups up
[10:28] <Hobbsee> could well be
[10:28] <kahrytan> is apturl
[10:30] <kahrytan> Hobbsee, im proud of myself to solving it
[10:32] <kahrytan> Hobbsee,  Breaking source.list and adding 'web' keeps update-manager from getting updates, including security ones
[10:32] <Hobbsee> yes, i'm aware
[10:33] <kahrytan> should i file under ubufox?
[10:34] <Hobbsee> if you do, it'll get marked as a dupe of that software-properties one
[10:34] <Hobbsee> you should probably ask mvo about it, during european working hours.
[10:35] <kahrytan> Hobbsee,  Thats update-manager
[10:36] <kahrytan> It breaks anyone using it
[10:36] <kahrytan> anything*
[10:37] <Hobbsee> yes, it does.  how is that relevant?
[10:40] <Hobbsee> and it's not apturl.
[10:40] <Hobbsee> it can't be.
[10:40] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: do you have anything installed from the partner repository, btw?
[10:40] <kahrytan> dunno?
[10:41] <Hobbsee> do you have it enabled?
[10:42] <kahrytan> Hobbsee,  not sure before today
[10:42] <Hobbsee> and do you have any unofficial repositories?
[10:42] <kahrytan> Yeah. Medibuntu?
[10:42] <kahrytan> WineHQ
[10:43] <Hobbsee> mmm
[10:43] <kahrytan> and banshee+1 ppa
[10:44] <kahrytan> The new Banshee beta is cool
[10:44]  * Hobbsee goes off to ask searching questions of medibuntu
[10:51] <kahrytan> Hobbsee,  does kubuntu even use ubufox?
[10:52] <kahrytan> Hobbsee,  https://edge.launchpad.net/+search?field.text=%22malformed+Release+file%22+web&field.actions.search=Search
[10:52] <Hobbsee> not if you don't use firefox...
[10:53] <kahrytan> Hows that for search result
[10:54] <afflux> morning
[10:55] <kahrytan> bug #202170
[10:55] <ubot3> Malone bug 202170 in ubuntu "Unable to find expected entry  web/binary-i386/Packages in Meta-index file (malformed Release file?)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/202170
[10:55] <kahrytan> Pretty popular bug
[10:57] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: what does 'grep-dctrl -n -s Package -F Section -e '^web/' /var/lib/dpkg/status' output?
[10:58] <kahrytan> it doesnt have web anymore
[10:58] <Hobbsee> in your sources list, yes, i know.
[10:58] <Hobbsee> and?
[10:58] <kahrytan> but command not found
[10:59] <Hobbsee> oh, install grep-dctrl first then.
[10:59] <kahrytan> Zero
[10:59] <kahrytan> or 0. as in null as in. no result
[10:59] <Hobbsee> hmmm
[10:59] <Hobbsee> that's annoying.
[11:00] <kahrytan> does it need sudo?
[11:00] <wgrant> Oh, damn.
[11:00] <wgrant> The status file doesn't store the component.
[11:00] <wgrant> Only the section.
[11:00] <kahrytan> Close to half a dozen bugs related to this
[11:02] <kahrytan> Looks like they need to be linked
[11:03] <Hobbsee> those that are still open, yeah.
[11:03] <Hobbsee> it doesn't look like something official, though
[11:03] <kahrytan> They got solved but never fixed
[11:03] <Hobbsee> there just aren't enough bugs there, and enough people screaming.
[11:03] <kahrytan>  But it could be potential security issue
[11:04] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: yes, but if it's not our bug, and i don't think it is, then how do you propose we fix it?
[11:04] <kahrytan> Someone new could add have 'web' added and go on for weeks w/o any fixes any any other bugs. There could be someone out there w/o ssh fix.
[11:04] <Hobbsee> really, you'd have to go and scream blue murder at whoever wrote the broken package that modified your sources list.
[11:05] <persia> Well, apt could be more forgiving about errors, or at least apt-python, or even update-manager trap the errors cleanly.
[11:05] <kahrytan> ssk key fix
[11:05] <kahrytan> not bloody likely cuz it was so public announced but point is valid.
[11:05] <Hobbsee> persia: yeah, that might be nice.  OTOH, for standard 404's, you probably don't want to be able to ignore htem anyway.
[11:05] <afflux> does apt really break when one component is unavailable?
[11:06] <Hobbsee> afflux: it'll 404, and won't do the updates until all the repositories are OK again.
[11:06] <persia> Hobbsee: Depends.  aptitude works cleanly anyway, as it traps the error, presents a warning to the user, and updates the local cache.
[11:06] <wgrant> It makes sense for it to break if a *component* is unavailable, but not a suite.
[11:06] <Hobbsee> wgrant: suite?
[11:06] <wgrant> Distro series.
[11:06] <wgrant> Well, distro series pocket.
[11:07] <wgrant> Components should never go missing, so failing on them being missing is good.
[11:07] <persia> wgrant: Completely failing, or providing user feedback about possible issues?
[11:07] <kahrytan> Hobbsee,  so what do i do with it?
[11:07] <wgrant> kahrytan: You work out which dodgy package you installed, and scream at them. Then complain at mvo.
[11:08] <kahrytan> !info ubufox
[11:08] <ubot3> ubufox: Ubuntu Firefox specific configuration defaults and apt support. In component main, is optional. Version 0.5~beta1-0ubuntu1 (hardy), package size 60 kB, installed size 396 kB
[11:08] <wgrant> I doubt it.
[11:09] <kahrytan> thats the package the bug is related too
[11:09] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: no it's not, because the dodgy package is passing things to it.
[11:10] <Hobbsee> and apturl does as it's told.
[11:10] <kahrytan> then what
[11:10] <Hobbsee> [20:08] <wgrant> kahrytan: You work out which dodgy package you installed, and scream at them. Then complain at mvo.
[11:11] <kahrytan> Which package
[11:11] <persia> kahrytan: You might try "grep sources.list /var/lib/dpkg/info/*" to see if any of your maintainer scripts did something interesting.
[11:11] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: i'm not psychic.  something you installed, likely which was a firefox plugin of some kind.
[11:11] <kahrytan> It's one of the sources that come standard with ubuntu
[11:12] <Hobbsee> why do you say that?
[11:12] <kahrytan> Totem Mozilla plugin.
[11:12] <wgrant> I find it very, very unlikely.
[11:12] <kahrytan> It happened on a fresh install
[11:12] <wgrant> Particularly as it's installed by default.
[11:13] <kahrytan> Before medibuntu, winehq and banshee ppa were added.
[11:13] <ikonia> kahrytan: thats not true
[11:13] <kahrytan> yeah it is
[11:14] <persia> Umm..  There's lots of ways that things could happen.  It's not worth arguing about this point.
[11:14] <kahrytan> This is the second time it happened to me.  first time, i thought it was a fluke
[11:14] <persia> There is some package installed that caused an issue.  It would be interesting to determine which, in the hopes of solving it.
[11:15] <kahrytan> !pastebin
[11:15] <ubot3> pastebin is a service to post multiple-lined texts so you don't flood the channel. The Ubuntu pastebin is at http://paste.ubuntu.com (make sure you give us the URL for your paste - see also the channel topic)
[11:15] <afflux> bug 236482 is about several problems during upgades failing because of "read-only file system". any ideas on how this can happen?
[11:15] <ubot3> Malone bug 236482 in language-pack-gnome-de "package language-pack-gnome-de 1:8.04+20080415ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: Kann ?/usr/share/doc/language-pack-gnome-de/changelog.gz? nicht entfernen" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/236482
[11:16] <kahrytan> persia, here ya go http://paste.ubuntu.com/16162/
[11:16] <wgrant> afflux: Can't be our fault.
[11:16] <persia> kahrytan: Not a maintainer script then.  Must be something else somewhere.
[11:16] <wgrant> If they mount their /usr RO...
[11:16] <afflux> wgrant: thought so too. suggestions on how to close it? :)
[11:16] <ikonia> /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.preinst:    echo "please add etch sources to your /etc/apt/sources.list and run:"
[11:16] <ikonia> ?
[11:17] <wgrant> afflux: Invalid. PEBKAC.
[11:17] <kahrytan> persia, any ideas
[11:17] <afflux> wgrant: okay, thanks
[11:17] <persia> ikonia: For context, read the whole file.  It's likely a workaround for some Debian upgrade issue.
[11:17] <ikonia> just reading through it now
[11:17] <ikonia> it's not mentioned on my box though
[11:17] <ikonia> which seems odd as it's libc
[11:18] <afflux> and the reporter is violating the CoC...
[11:19] <kahrytan> persia,  so?
[11:20] <persia> kahrytan: Erm.  grep -ri sources.list /usr?  /home?  It's likely somewhere, unless someone went to some length to make it hard to find.
[11:20] <kahrytan> Why not just grep /
[11:21] <kahrytan> and look on the entire hdd
[11:28] <kahrytan> i doubt it's related to third party addon
[11:29] <wgrant> kahrytan: It's much, much more likely to be related to a third-party component that an Ubuntu one.
[11:29] <kahrytan> wgrant,  want to bet?
[11:29] <ikonia> if it was an ubuntu core packages the majority of users would be having this problem
[11:29] <wgrant> Not particularly.
[11:29] <ikonia> it would have failed test
[11:29] <wgrant> ikonia: Exactly.
[11:30] <ikonia> #ubuntu would be full of "I can't update"
[11:30] <ikonia> where as dodgy 3rd party light tested stuff.....hmmm
[11:31] <kahrytan> Is ubufox default installed?
[11:32] <ikonia> ok, I'll install it now
[11:32] <ikonia> lets test
[11:32] <ikonia> it's already on my system
[11:32] <ikonia> I don't have the problem
[11:32] <kahrytan> ubufox is?
[11:32] <ikonia> yes
[11:32] <ikonia> ubufox is already the newest version.
[11:33] <kahrytan> then install totem-mozilla through  the plugin service it uses.
[11:33] <ikonia> already installed
[11:33] <ikonia> totem-mozilla is already the newest version.
[11:33] <kahrytan> through ubufox?
[11:33] <ikonia> no, through synaptic
[11:34] <kahrytan> try through ubufox
[11:34] <wgrant> Um.
[11:35] <wgrant> totem-mozilla is in the ubuntu-desktop task.
[11:35] <ikonia> yup
[11:35] <wgrant> It should be installed by default.
[11:35] <ikonia> just walking through the dependencies
[11:36] <kahrytan> i wonder if i removed -desktop
[11:36] <ikonia> that wouldn't remove totem
[11:36] <kahrytan> true
[11:36] <kahrytan> I tend to scale down ubuntu installs ALLOT
[11:37] <kahrytan> Gnome-games .. gone. Openoffice... gone for most part
[11:37] <ikonia> wow - thats great
[11:37] <ikonia> did you get any complaints after I told you to make the file read only ?
[11:37] <kahrytan> Open Office is bloated and default games suck'
[11:37] <ikonia> did anything complain ?
[11:37] <ikonia> kahrytan: is this relevant ?
[11:37] <kahrytan> No. And I dont have to
[11:38] <ikonia> did you make it read only as I suggested ?
[11:38] <kahrytan> It's the install of Totem-Mozilla through Ubufox
[11:38] <ikonia> right, I'll do that now
[11:39] <ikonia> kahrytan: explain how you installed it exactly through ubufox and I'll do it now
[11:39] <ikonia> I've removed totem-mozilla
[11:39] <kahrytan> Goto a website that needs plugin to play a video, click on install plug, get plugin finder service, and choose totem-Mozilla from list
[11:40] <ikonia> can you suggest a url that would trigger it ?
[11:40] <ikonia> so it asks for the same things you got asked for
[11:41] <kahrytan> ooops
[11:41] <kahrytan> ikonia, http://www.honolulu.gov/multimed/waikiki.asp
[11:42] <ikonia> ah, it's trying to use mplayer on my machine
[11:42] <ikonia> one moment
[11:43] <kahrytan> i like vlc
[11:44] <ikonia> kahrytan: thats not a bug
[11:44] <ikonia> kahrytan: when you click totem it asks "do you wish to enable the following components "web"
[11:44] <kahrytan> So you did get it
[11:44] <ikonia> so by clicking "yes" your telling it to add web
[11:45] <ikonia> yes
[11:45] <kahrytan> And saying yes, breaks source.list
[11:45] <ikonia> yes
[11:45] <kahrytan> thus bug
[11:45] <ikonia> as it will add "yes"
[11:45] <kahrytan> or incompatible
[11:45] <ikonia> add "web"
[11:46] <ikonia> it's only on the totem download, xine, or mplayer doesn't ask for it
[11:46] <kahrytan> What would you call a feature that suppose to make things easier to install plugins but breaks apt and source.list?
[11:46] <kahrytan> ikonia,  I know it's just that plugin
[11:47] <wgrant> kahrytan: You really could have said this from the start.
[11:47] <wgrant> That the installation asked you.
[11:47] <wgrant> That would have made it much easier to track down.
[11:47] <kahrytan> wgrant,  Actually. I did
[11:47] <wgrant> I didn't see it.
[11:47]  * wgrant searches.
[11:47] <kahrytan> Discussing with hobbsee
[11:48] <wgrant> Ah, 1.5 hours ago, but using incorrect terminology and a lack of quotes.
[11:48] <kahrytan> lol
[11:48] <kahrytan> I still said it.
[11:48] <ikonia> its not the totem-mozilla plugin
[11:49] <wgrant> It's ubufox.
[11:49] <ikonia> totem-mozilla is not installed on my machine
[11:49] <ikonia> I phrased that badley
[11:49]  * wgrant apt-get sources.
[11:49] <ikonia> it's not the actual totem-mozilla install routine
[11:50] <kahrytan> i install totem-mozilla trough apt so I knows that the package
[11:50] <ikonia> ??
[11:50] <ikonia> you know the package ?
[11:50] <wgrant> The reason it doesn't happen with the others is that totem-mozilla is in main.
[11:50] <wgrant> And it's so rare because totem-mozilla is installed by default.
[11:50] <kahrytan> i meant that I install totem-mozilla manually
[11:50] <kahrytan> I removed that thing long time ago since it never worked for me
[11:51] <wgrant> And the problem is nppapt.py:77
[11:51] <ikonia> looking
[11:51] <kahrytan> wgrant,  you found code issue already?
[11:51] <wgrant> kahrytan: Of course. It took me about 10 seconds to find.
[11:51] <kahrytan> that was fast
[11:52] <wgrant> Basically, packages outside main have their component specified on the front.
[11:52] <wgrant> But main doesn't.
[11:52] <wgrant> So if totem-mozilla was in universe, the section would be universe/web.
[11:52] <kahrytan> So, easily patched then
[11:52] <wgrant> But it's ommitted if in main.
[11:53] <wgrant> The ubufox code doesn't take this into account, and it's quite understandable that this wasn't a tested codepath.
[11:53] <kahrytan> And thats python code too
[11:53] <ikonia> wgrant: ahhh so main is seen as root
[11:54] <ikonia> wgrant: so the entries.append is the issue
[11:54] <kahrytan> So, I found a actual bug ?
[11:54] <ikonia> it would appear that way
[11:54] <ikonia> although, its pretty clear in what it's doing
[11:54] <wgrant> ikonia: I'd add a conditional at line 78, checking for emptiness of tail.
[11:54] <ikonia> "hi - I'm going to put web in your source.list - do you want me to do this"
[11:54] <ikonia> your clicking "yes"
[11:54] <ikonia> what do you expect
[11:54] <wgrant> If tail is empty, set real_section to main.
[11:54] <kahrytan> It would seem codepath that didnt get tested because totem-mozilla is installed by default.
[11:55] <wgrant> It is a bug, and it will likely murder new users, right.
[11:55] <ikonia> kahrytan: are you just copying what wgrant said ?
[11:55] <wgrant> kahrytan: Correct. So the gigantic majority of people won't notice.
[11:55]  * kahrytan thinks to himself
[11:55] <wgrant> I'll test a patch now.
[11:56] <kahrytan> Another question is: which of these bugs (https://edge.launchpad.net/+search?field.text=%22malformed+Release+file%22+web&field.actions.search=Search) are related to it
[11:57] <wgrant> kahrytan: Fairly close to all.
[11:57] <kahrytan> about 5 is my guess
[11:57] <kahrytan> Most solved to 'web' removal
[11:58] <ikonia> well, that is the fix
[11:58] <wgrant> Bug #187994 would make resolution more obvious.
[11:58] <ubot3> Malone bug 187994 in apt "Misleading error message on incorrect component in sources.list (was: Failed to fetch http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/gutsy/Release Unable to find expected entry  commercial/binary-i386/Packages in Meta-index file (malformed Release file?))" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/187994
[11:59] <kahrytan> thats in gutdy
[11:59] <kahrytan> gutdy
[11:59] <kahrytan> darn it gutsy
[12:00] <kahrytan> Did mvo get it wrong?
[12:01] <mohbana> has anyone noticed recently that some images in firefox come out a bit blurry
[12:01] <Hobbsee> wgrant: if you want to make a patch that works, i can upload it
[12:01]  * Hobbsee goes back to dinner
[12:01] <wgrant> Hobbsee: We'd best wait for asac, as it's all in some strange bzr setup.
[12:02] <Hobbsee> wgrant: ubufox?
[12:02] <Hobbsee> that's core-dev-uploadable, iirc
[12:02] <wgrant> There's no Hardy branch set up yet, though, so it'd be best not to touch it.
[12:03] <wgrant> Shall I hijack #202170?
[12:03] <Hobbsee> go ahead
[12:04]  * wgrant checks if totem-mozilla was the only thing able to cause the issue.
[12:04] <Hobbsee> wgrant: presumably anything in main that is a codec which isn't installed by default - or that gets removed by uesrs, then tries to reinstall.
[12:05] <wgrant> No, it's the only one.
[12:05] <wgrant> There's nothing else that can do it.
[12:05] <kahrytan> as me and ikonia  established , wgrant
[12:06] <wgrant> kahrytan: Were you able to definitively determine that only installation of totem-mozilla through ubufox could possibly cause it?
[12:07] <kahrytan> I tried all plugin install in the list.. thats only one.
[12:07] <wgrant> kahrytan: OK, now to test my fix - do you have a URL of a page that triggers the plugin installation?
[12:07] <kahrytan> Whatcha mean
[12:08] <wgrant> I need a URL that results in a prompt for plugin installation.
[12:08] <wgrant> I can't think of any right now.
[12:08] <kahrytan> http://www.honolulu.gov/multimed/waikiki.asp
[12:08] <kahrytan> Web cam that faces statue in Waikiki :-P
[12:09] <wgrant> Hmm, no suitable plugins were found.
[12:09] <kahrytan> its wmv video
[12:10] <kahrytan> Would need the codec for it first?
[12:12] <kahrytan> I've got to do more bug hunting
[12:13] <wgrant> Aha, got it.
[12:16] <kahrytan> Aloha, ompaul
[12:16] <wgrant> And it doesn't even need an SRU to fix it.
[12:17] <wgrant> As it's all in asac's ~.
[12:17]  * kahrytan wont even pretend to understand that
[12:18] <kahrytan> How long does it take to fix, upload and cycle to through update manager?
[12:19] <wgrant> kahrytan: It doesn't actually need to.
[12:19] <wgrant> The code isn't installed on user systems.
[12:19] <wgrant> It's all on Canonical servers behind the plugin finder service.
[12:20] <persia> wgrant: Are you preventing the problem, or processing the exception for those who got hit?
[12:20] <wgrant> So adding two lines on one server will fix it.
[12:20] <wgrant> persia: The former.
[12:20] <wgrant> There's no way to fix the latter.
[12:20]  * persia looks at python-apt to see if there is any useful way to catch the error
[12:21] <kahrytan> I didnt know finder is based off the canonical server
[12:21] <wgrant> persia: We can't do anything, as users can't upgrade.
[12:22] <persia> wgrant: Ah.  Right.  The user will need to have fixed it before they can fix it.
[12:22] <kahrytan> Ironic
[12:23] <persia> wgrant: In that case, it needs a poke to mvo: there's a hook in the DistUpgrader that pulls an update when DistUpgrading, so while users can't update, we ought be able to allow upgrade to intrepid anyway.
[12:23] <persia> (but we can't trigger that hook until Intrepid is released...)
[12:24] <wgrant> persia: Good point.
[12:24] <wgrant> Very good point.
[12:25] <kahrytan> persia,  Mind explaining that in english for me?
[12:25] <persia> I wonder if we might be able to do something with 8.04.1.  I don't think that will generate an update signal, but I'm not sure.
[12:26] <persia> kahrytan: Yes, actually.  I only understand a very little bit (I've spent a total of about 70 hours in the update-manger code, so really am not that familiar).
[12:26] <wgrant> persia: It generates an upgrade signal from LTS only.
[12:26] <persia> wgrant: Is this bug new in hardy (LTS)?
[12:26] <wgrant> persia: Not sure about that.
[12:27] <kahrytan> How long has it been on the server
[12:27] <wgrant> But 8.04.1 should only generate an upgrade signal from 6.06.
[12:27] <wgrant> As it's not a new version number as such, it's just the point in time that meta-release-lts will be updated.
[12:27] <persia> wgrant: Ah.  I understand now.  So 8.04 users won't get the update signal.  I wonder if we can adjust that in the upgrade-signal-handler, just in case people were bitten.
[12:28] <persia> Right.  No.  It's meta-release vs. meta-release-lts.
[12:28] <wgrant> People should be able to fix it themselves if they've removed totem-mozilla, I guess.
[12:28] <wgrant> And those that can't will file questions.
[12:28]  * persia goes off to archive.ubuntu.com in hopes of understanding this in sufficient detail to discuss it
[12:29] <wgrant> Or bugs.
[12:29] <kahrytan> wgrant,  but removing it doesnt fix source.list
[12:29] <wgrant> kahrytan: I know, but they only get into that broken situation if they've removed totem-mozilla.
[12:29] <wgrant> Hmm, unless Xubuntu doesn't install it by default.
[12:30] <kahrytan> kubuntu?
[12:30] <wgrant> Gah, it doesn't.
[12:30] <wgrant> Does Kubuntu use ubufox?
[12:30] <wgrant> No, only Xubuntu has ubufox but not totem-mozilla.
[12:31] <kahrytan> How many people  who use kubuntu install firefox and ubufox for plugin help?
[12:31] <wgrant> Approximately none, I would posit.
[12:32] <kahrytan> Could always do sticky in forums
[12:33] <persia> kahrytan: While possibly useful, that hits only a subset of affected users.
[12:33] <kahrytan> large subset though
[12:34] <kahrytan> And it's google searchable.
[12:34] <persia> kahrytan: In terms of numbers, maybe.  In terms of percentages, it's hard to judge.  Google might help there, but it might not.
[12:35] <kahrytan> At least it wont make it to ibex
[12:35] <kahrytan> Will it be fixed with the .1 upgrade?
[12:36] <kahrytan> even if bitten
[12:36] <wgrant> kahrytan: Within a few minutes nobody will be hit by this - the database is now being regenerated.
[12:37] <kahrytan> I get that. and those who have?
[12:38] <wgrant> That's eomthing I haven't worked out. It's not easy to fix.
[12:38] <kahrytan> The million dollar question. How to fix machines that are not getting update lists?
[12:38] <wgrant> They should notice, and if they ask anywhere it should be pretty obvious for any support people how to fix it.
[12:40] <kahrytan> like forums and #ubuntu
[12:40] <wgrant> I'm afraid there's not much more we can do before people upgrade to Intrepid.
[12:40] <wgrant> Right.
[12:40] <wgrant> And Launchpad.
[12:41] <kahrytan> dont forget 202170
[12:41] <wgrant> And the multitude of others.
[12:41] <wgrant> I'll comment on it.
[12:41] <wgrant>  /them
[12:42] <kahrytan> yet another bug confirmed and fixed by William Grant.
[12:43] <persia> \o/
[12:45] <wgrant> kahrytan: Thanks for pushing this, and sorry for disagreeing with you earlier. It's such a corner case that it's not entirely surprising it wasn't caught.
[12:46] <kahrytan> wgrant, Sorry for not using correct terminology so you can catch it.
[12:47] <wgrant> If only Debian archives weren't such strange beasts :(
[12:47] <wgrant> I've run into the very same problem with some of my QA code.
[12:47] <wgrant> Except it didn't break user systems.
[12:47] <persia> I'm also suspicious of packages that pull from external sources to adjust configurations.  Very confusing.
[12:48] <wgrant> persia: Indeed.
[12:51] <kahrytan> So. Will 8.04.1 upgrade get a fix?
[12:53] <wgrant> kahrytan: It's probably not possible to fix existing broken Hardy systems.
[12:53] <kahrytan> That sucks
[12:54] <wgrant> It does.
[12:54] <kahrytan> Probably should pass the word around to people who help then
[12:54] <kahrytan> Apt could use safe guard against these kinds of bugs ?
[12:55] <kahrytan> Perhaps a source rebuild?
[12:55] <wgrant> asac says that Gutsy probably isn't affected, so it's not too bad.
[12:55] <wgrant> Source rebuild?
[12:56] <kahrytan> like a tool or command that can rebuild source.list
[12:56] <kahrytan> tool being software sources, notification in apt error.
[12:57] <kahrytan> So if source.list was to ever get malformed like this again, even new user can fix it.
[12:57] <wgrant> The problem here is that it in apt's eyes it's not an issue in sources.list.
[12:57] <wgrant> s/it //
[12:57] <ikonia> it only appears to be a small ammount of users
[12:58] <ikonia> harldy worth passing word around
[12:58] <ikonia> there is a solution in some of the bug reports to remove web repo's
[12:58] <kahrytan> and marked as solved :-P
[12:58] <wgrant> That's the only solution there is
[12:59] <ikonia> exactly, so fixing it in those bug reports will fix affected users, and your fix in the repo will stop it happening
[12:59] <wgrant> Yeah.
[12:59] <wgrant> Just have to hope that others will find the existing reports.
[12:59] <ikonia> it can't be many
[13:00] <ikonia> it's a pretty obscure case
[13:00] <kahrytan> wgrant,  Rebuilding Vanilla Source.list could be feature for Software Sources
[13:00] <ikonia> and it does say "hey, I'm adding web to you"
[13:00] <ikonia> kahrytan: why ?
[13:00] <ikonia> wgrant: it has to be an obscure user case who chose to ignore the dialog that tells it "I'm adding web" thats a pretty small user base
[13:00] <kahrytan> thinking ahead
[13:00] <ikonia> kahrytan: for what ?
[13:00] <kahrytan> for future problems that come out of malforms source.lists
[13:01] <ikonia> rebuilding it from vanilla could cause more problems
[13:01] <ikonia> there are few things that would touch sources.list
[13:01] <kahrytan> by vanilla, i mean orginal source.list from cd.
[13:01] <ikonia> kahrytan: yes, that can cause more issues
[13:01] <kahrytan> like?
[13:01] <ikonia> if you have pinned packages from different repos
[13:02] <ikonia> external packages getting dropped because the repo isn't there
[13:02] <ikonia> dependencies not being met
[13:02] <kahrytan> That's a hard issue to fix then
[13:02] <ikonia> there is nothing to fix
[13:03] <kahrytan> You're missing the point
[13:03] <ikonia> I'm not
[13:03] <ikonia> your flogging a dead horse
[13:03] <kahrytan> Ensuring that malformed source.list doesnt prevent updates.
[13:03] <ikonia> there shouldn't be malfordmed sources.list
[13:04] <ikonia> so few things touch it, it should be easier to maintain those
[13:04] <kahrytan> Whose to say something else doesnt touch it down the road.
[13:04] <ikonia> who's to say it will
[13:04] <kahrytan> Murphy
[13:04] <ikonia> thinking up uneeded solutions for maybe senarios isn't practicle
[13:04] <persia> Umm.  It's not worth arguing this.
[13:05] <ikonia> I just don't see this as a problem
[13:05] <ikonia> there was a bug with this package, confirmed and fix
[13:05] <kahrytan> Murphy's Law
[13:05] <persia> While there is possibly a wishlist bug for update-manager to be able to continue in the event of a malformed sources.list, it's only wishlist.
[13:05] <ikonia> however the package did say "I'm adding this to your repo"
[13:05] <ikonia> you chose to press
[13:05] <ikonia> "ok"
[13:05] <kahrytan> 'yes'
[13:05] <wgrant> Users can't be expected to notice that the message is bad, but it's not a case normal users should really get into.
[13:06] <ikonia> it isn't a bad message, but it does say what it's doing
[13:06] <ikonia> maybe at best there should be better wording on it
[13:06] <kahrytan> It shouldnt have asked and added it.
[13:06] <ikonia> hell, if it was that bad, push out a deb and use dpkg to install it and fix it
[13:06] <ikonia> kahrytan: of course it should
[13:06] <ikonia> kahrytan: the bug is with what it added, which has been fixed
[13:07] <kahrytan> Or added it wrong?
[13:07] <asac> fwiw, the real bug is not fixed. the finder database is fixed to not ship bad component names anymore. however, apturl needs to prevent adding non-existing things.
[13:07] <ikonia> kahrytan: it didn't add it wrong
[13:07] <kahrytan> Explain whats it doing then
[13:07] <ikonia> asac: yes, that would be a more reaslistic solution
[13:08] <ikonia> kahrytan: it added the wrong path due to a minor coding error that wgrant has fixed.
[13:08] <kahrytan> it did add it wrong then
[13:08] <ikonia> sheesh
[13:09] <persia> asac: Good point.  That's a better answer than accepting malformed sources.list.
[13:09] <ikonia> persia: concur
[13:10] <kahrytan> apturl uses source list?
[13:10] <asac> ok i reassigned bug 228264 to apturl
[13:10] <asac> to track this issue
[13:10] <ubot3> Malone bug 228264 in apturl "update dapper to hardy fails cos archives not found" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/228264
[13:11] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: is that supposed to be an intelligent question?
[13:11] <kahrytan> I don't know how apturl works
[13:11] <asac> kahrytan: if you run apturl apt:mypackage?section=bogus, it will add the bogus section to sources.list
[13:11] <Hobbsee> no, but figuring out what it does in general is probably a pretty good indication of which files it might touch.
[13:13] <kahrytan> section is like 'web'?
[13:13] <asac> kahrytan: read the bug i just retitled :) bug 228264
[13:13] <ubot3> Malone bug 228264 in apturl "[MASTER] non-existing section 'web' added to sources.list by apturl (update dapper to hardy fails cos archives not found)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/228264
[13:15] <kahrytan> So, some malware site could abuse apturl section ?
[13:16] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: that was discussed on ubuntu-devel-discuss for some months last year, yes.
[13:16] <kahrytan> Ouch
[13:16] <persia> kahrytan: Well, yes, but a malware site + apturl + insufficiently careful user is a recipe for much wider issues.
[13:16] <ikonia> thats the same in any os
[13:16] <kahrytan> Thats kinda serious
[13:16] <ikonia> "do you want to download this"
[13:16] <ikonia> kahrytan: not really
[13:16] <ikonia> you cannot account for any user overriding your warnings
[13:17] <ikonia> in any os
[13:17] <Hobbsee> kahrytan: so users shouldn't be able to add any repositories, at all, ever, becaus ethey might do something dumb.
[13:17] <persia> kahrytan: The alternative is a cryptographically safe OS, which is widely considered a bad idea because people want to be able to run their software of choice.
[13:19] <kahrytan> apturl could use trust sites list
[13:19] <ikonia> what if you don't want it to
[13:20] <ikonia> how do you get "trust"
[13:20] <ikonia> you can't override users saying "yes please"
[13:20] <asac> apturl doesnt allow sites to add new repositories ... just new sections in the ubuntu archive
[13:20] <asac> the ability to add new repositories was explicitly turned off
[13:22] <kahrytan> Wheres a manpage for apturl
[13:23] <asac> there is a spec in the wiki iirc
[13:24] <kahrytan> I got no idea what section is
[13:24] <asac> kahrytan: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AptFirefoxFileHandler
[13:24] <asac> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/apt-firefox-archive-handler
[13:26] <kahrytan> that says you can add repo
[13:26] <ikonia> he's just said it's disabled
[13:26] <asac> yes, but as i said thats disabled
[13:27] <kahrytan> point it out
[13:27] <ikonia> he just did
[13:27] <kahrytan> im pointing it out that wiki is old
[13:27] <wgrant> That wiki is a spec. It's meant to be.
[13:27] <ikonia> spec = specifiction
[13:27] <kahrytan> apturl is to darn new
[13:27] <asac> kahrytan: search mailing list archive to discuss the follow up discussions and the results from it
[13:27] <ikonia> ???
[13:27] <fedro_> hello to everybody. I have a very lame question: I've got a new notebook and there are a lot of things that don't work under ubuntu. So I think I sould use the launchapd to write a post. The question is: Should I open one post only, or une post for every bug I've found? thanks
[13:27] <asac> or believe me ;)
[13:29] <kahrytan> asac,  It would be fun to make a Software portal for Ubuntu that uses apturl and references software already found in default source list
[13:29] <ikonia> kahrytan: it does use sources.list
[13:30] <kahrytan> ikonia,  im aware.
[13:30] <ikonia> so whats teh difference between what you've just said and what it does ?
[13:30] <persia> fedro_: It's best to track each issue separately.  That said, you may find that a number of them have already been reported, in which case you may wish to subscribe to the existing bug, rather than opening a new one.
[13:30] <asac> kahrytan: thats the idea why it was added
[13:30] <kahrytan> asac,  and I couldnt understand how it works
[13:30] <asac> include apt urls ony our website and let apturl do the rest for you
[13:31] <kahrytan> like apt:totem-mozilla?
[13:31] <asac> right
[13:32] <kahrytan> There is one website that has potential to use it.
[13:32] <fedro_> ﻿persia: thanks!
[13:32] <kahrytan> getbdeb.net
[13:33] <persia> Is the extra 'b' a typo, or is that a new site?
[13:33] <kahrytan> oops
[13:33] <kahrytan> getdeb.net
[13:33] <kahrytan> I didnt see it
[13:33] <persia> Ah.  I thought there was something new :)
[13:33] <asac> read the mail archives. this all was discussed multiple times
[13:34]  * kahrytan gets the point and google's ubuntu mailing lists
[13:35] <kahrytan> Everyime a is bug is submitted, mailing list gets it?
[13:35] <kahrytan> time*
[13:36] <kahrytan> I will love Ibex
[13:37] <kahrytan> My tvtuner card's driver is getting merged into kernel
[13:39] <kahrytan> asac,  what list
[13:39] <asac> no idea ... -devel , devel-discuss most likely
[13:40] <Hobbsee> -d-d, iirc
[13:44] <kahrytan> How do i search?
[13:45] <Hobbsee> there are archives on lists.ubuntu.com
[13:46] <kahrytan> I was hoping there is easier way then month by month search using ff search
[13:46] <Hobbsee> there probably is.  gmame or so.  i've not used it.
[13:47]  * Hobbsee actually subscribes to it
[13:51] <kahrytan> New Bugs on launchpad goto bug mailing list?
[13:57] <kahrytan> Would it be possible for debs contain screenshots of software but not install it?
[13:57] <ikonia> why ?
[13:57] <ikonia> not all debs are applications
[13:57] <ikonia> eg; how would you screen shot glib
[13:58] <kahrytan> of the ones that are
[13:58] <ikonia> why ?
[13:58] <kahrytan> yes or no
[13:58] <ikonia> not as it stands
[13:58] <ikonia> seems like a pointless task
[13:58] <kahrytan> It could be cool if it did and have Add/Remove or Synaptic display it
[13:58] <ikonia> I don't see it as cool
[13:59] <Hobbsee> it would be possible, yes.
[13:59] <ikonia> I see it as a waste of bandwidth to download screen shots
[13:59] <kahrytan> It would give people an idea what the app is
[13:59] <Hobbsee> that doesn't say anything about whether it's feasible, or a good idea.
[14:00]  * persia points at goplay
[20:43] <mattik> Hello, is it normal, that I cannot use fast-switch-keys on my laptop as sound tweaking and so on
[20:45] <mattik> On kubuntu or ubuntu
[20:45] <mattik> hardy
[20:46] <snap-l> mattik: What laptop, and what do you mean by fast-switch-keys for sound tweaking?
[20:46] <snap-l> Also, this question is more appropriate in #ubuntu, but for now ask away.
[20:47] <mattik> I have Fn button. If I press this and some function button I can disable wireless and set sound or brightness
[20:47] <mattik> on xp
[20:47] <snap-l> What brand of laptop
[20:47] <mattik> Asus
[20:47] <mattik> wait a minute
[20:49] <mattik> Asustek M6VA
[20:49] <mattik> Finnish keyboard
[20:51] <mattik> I said it here because I think it may be bug, sorry if I was wrong
[20:55] <snap-l> That's quite alright
[20:57] <snap-l> mattik: Check the following
[20:57] <snap-l> type 'ls  /sys/devices/platform/asus_laptop/ls_switch' and let me know if it returns the same path
[20:58] <mattik> no such file or directory
[20:58] <snap-l> OK.
[20:59] <mattik> I'm using KDE4, but I tried this when I have Gnome installed
[20:59] <mattik> I tried these buttons
[20:59] <mattik> I can ensure
[21:00] <snap-l> Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is
[21:00] <mattik> I cannot hear sounds and I cannot set volume or screen
[21:00] <snap-l> You may want to check #ubuntu, but I think there's also a special laptop channel
[21:00] <snap-l> Let me check
[21:01] <snap-l> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/InternetRelayChat
[21:01] <snap-l> Try connecting to #ubuntu-laptop and asking in there
[21:01] <snap-l> Whoops, sorry
[21:01] <snap-l> Don't do that... :) It's a dev channel
[21:02] <snap-l> #ubuntu should be where you can get some support
[21:02] <snap-l> also #kubuntu
[21:02] <snap-l> Hope that helps
[21:02] <mattik> ok, thanks. This is not bug?
[21:02] <snap-l> I'm not sure if it is a bug or not
[21:02] <mattik> ok
[21:03] <snap-l> They will be able to help you make that determination
[21:03] <mattik> thanks
[21:03] <snap-l> Also, there's a special #bubuntu-kde4 channel
[21:03] <snap-l> kubuntu-kde4
[21:03] <snap-l> I mean
[21:03] <mattik> I try it, thank you :)
[21:03] <snap-l> NP