[03:05] <Baron1984> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5194590#post5194590
[06:05] <mjbrooks> Can someone point me to directions on how to install the Intrepid Kernel in Hardy? I have two systems that are experiencing random freezes and it was reported that the Intrepid kernel solves the issue, but the instructions provided  don't work
[06:12] <Rocket2DMn> mjbrooks, you can get support in #ubuntu or on ubuntuforums.org, this is not a help channel
[06:12] <Rocket2DMn> good luck
[06:13] <mjbrooks> I figured since it was a widely reported bug someone here might have a link on hand... but thanks just the same
[06:23] <greg-g> mjbrooks: don't know the bug, the instructions you read didn't mention it? figured they would
[06:25] <mjbrooks> greg-g, it's a weird one, with no specific hardware pattern that anyone has found yet, but the Intrepid install instructions are in this comment https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/204996/comments/192
[06:26] <mjbrooks> many people report it with NVIDIA, but my friend has an ATI and another friend has SiS integrated
[06:27] <mjbrooks> the NVIDIA runs compiz, the SiS does not, the NVIDIA is running kubuntu, the SiS ubuntu
[06:29] <mjbrooks> Thankfully my laptop is unaffected ;)
[08:11] <ruiboon> hi. i was wondering for casese like bug 234282 where the problem has been solved with a newer version, should the status be fix-released or invalid?
[08:12] <persia> ruiboon: Generally Fix Released.
[08:13] <ruiboon> persia: noted. then when does it get invalid? as some cases may involve some config issues which has been reverted with a new version
[08:16] <persia> ruiboon: Bugs are invalid when It's not a bug in the package (or any other package).  If filed a bug on epiphany because it didn't connect to https://fleaseatingbeesonknees.jgj:8588/, that would be an invalid bug.  See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status for more.
[08:17] <ruiboon> persia: i see. Thanks
[08:35] <Rocket2DMn> mjbrooks, if youre still around, SiS does not support Compiz at all
[08:36] <Rocket2DMn> mjbrooks, ATI restricted fglrx drivers support Compiz, but the open source "ati" drivers do not.  If your friend is using those open source drivers he can have a look here - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=764633
[10:19] <askand> Hi, Who makes the decision on what is included in ubuntu-restricted-extras?
[10:19] <askand> Asking because of bug 219684
[10:20] <james_w> Maintainer: Michael Vogt <michael.vogt@ubuntu.com>
[10:20] <Hobbsee> er, me and mvo, unless someone else does it.
[10:21] <askand> I see, thanks :) How do you do with bugs like that? Bugs that arent really a bug but a disagreement of what should be included
[10:26]  * persia thinks that looking towards newer versions and less restricted is preferred
[10:26] <Hobbsee> askand: now that's a good question.  i tend to do a straw poll, and go with the results of that.
[10:26] <Hobbsee> askand: no matter whcih options you use, you'll always get it wrong, in people's opinions.
[10:27] <askand> ﻿Hobbsee: Yes, that cant be easy indeed :)
[10:33] <askand> ﻿Hobbsee: Well, atleast I wish to see the bug resolved. (Here is a thread about it at the forums: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=829303 )  Among other things, openjdk makes it inpossible to legitimatize swedish people visiting the Swedish Tax Agency, https://www1.skatteverket.se/es/eskd/login.do?method=cbt
[10:34] <Hobbsee> askand: oh, classy.
[10:34] <Hobbsee> askand: i can only fix it for intrepid (and feel free to submit a patch)
[10:35] <askand> Intrepid is certainly good enough :)
[10:38] <askand> ﻿Hobbsee: I will try o make a patch
[11:21] <askand> How should I mark a bug that I have attached a debdiff to?
[11:21] <askand> in progress?
[11:23] <techno_freak> confirmed?
[11:24] <james_w> askand: you should subscribe the sponsors team
[11:24] <coNP[uni]> askand: which bug?
[11:24] <askand> 219684
[11:24] <askand> bug 219684
[11:27] <coNP[uni]> I guess first it should be decided if this patch is really wanted
[11:27] <askand> ﻿coNP[uni]: yes I think so to
[11:27] <coNP[uni]> I would recommend some sort of discussion here
[11:28] <coNP[uni]> OTOH as james_w already wrote, you should subscribe the proper sponsor team in case of a valid bug with an attached debdiff
[11:28] <coNP[uni]> but this does not seem to be the case now
[11:28] <Hobbsee> coNP[uni]: it got discussed before
[11:29] <askand> ﻿coNP[uni]: ﻿http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=829303  you can check here for a bit of discussion
[11:29] <coNP[uni]> Hobbsee: sorry, I was not aware of that, a pointer might be a good thing to add as a comment to the bug report
[11:30] <askand> ﻿coNP[uni]: a link to the discussion thread?
[11:30] <persia> askand: I'd just attach the debdiff with a pointer to the report about the swedish tax authority.
[11:31] <askand> ﻿persia: yes that might be good too
[11:31] <persia> Then subscribe the sponsors: your sponsor will decide if more discussion is warranted (and I suspect she'll just upload it)
[11:33] <askand> ﻿persia: hmm, who is the sponsor?
[11:34] <persia> askand: Whoever picks up the bug from the sponsor queue.  No specific individual.
[11:34] <askand> ubuntu-main-sponsors ?
[11:35] <persia> ubuntu-universe-sponsors (`rmadison ubuntu-restricted-extras` shows it to be in multiverse for intrepid)
[11:36] <askand> done, thanks for all your help :)
[15:26] <qense> hello
[15:44] <bddebian> Boo
[18:12] <joumetal> bug 148435 seems to be same as bug 209464. Which one is duplicate?
[18:16] <bdmurray> I think bug 209464 has slightly more information than the other one
[18:16] <bdmurray> so 148435 could be made a duplicate of it
[18:17] <joumetal> ok it's marked.
[18:47] <SynthroidMan> http://synthroid.co.uk/
[18:48] <greg-g> yay, spammer
[18:48] <techno_freak> heh
[20:19] <sectech> Okay I have something here that I would like an opinion on... A bug report about APIC errors on hardware... well the bug was just invalided upstream as a bios problem fixed the original reporters problem... It turns out along the way (this is not my triage) other reporters were confirming that they were having the exact same issue... They have different hardware though and now are a little annoyed that the solution doesn't work for them
[20:20] <sectech> I am about to (very politely) advise them that next time when reporting hardware issues it's best to submit there own report even if it appears that they are having the same problem, and we will figure out what is a duplicate and what isn't
[20:20] <sectech> does that sound right?
[20:20] <bdmurray> sectech: yes, I have an example response for that if you give me a minute
[20:21] <sectech> bdmurray,  okay great
[20:22] <sectech> I guess I get a crash course on debugging kernels because they will assume I will be triaging each of there issues since I am responding...
[20:22] <sectech> Oh well, good experience I guess
[20:24] <bdmurray> Hrm, I swore I saved that.
[20:24] <sectech> It's okay... I'll make up something.
[20:25] <bdmurray> Well something along the lines of 'while many of you are experiencing the same symptom this bug is in fact hardware specific... please indicate your hardware in the new bug report that you file'
[20:25] <sectech> ok
[20:32] <sectech> Ok I need help sorting out the status on this issue... It's bug #66900.  It looks like we have at least 2 different hardware types with the same bug...  I want to invalidate the 2.6.22 assignment and wait until the original reporter replies to my message asking if it's solved for him,  does that sound right?
[20:33] <sectech> AFAIK The original reporter was only running 2.6.19
[20:33] <sectech> The other assignments were from others
[20:38] <bdmurray> sectech: looking now
[20:40] <bdmurray> sectech: I'd "Won't Fix" the 2.6.22 task
[20:40] <sectech> Okay
[20:41] <sectech> Should I wait until the original reporter replies to my question before invalidating the bug?
[20:42] <bdmurray> For the 2.6.22 task or the whole bug?
[20:43] <sectech> The whole bug (it was dealt with upstream)
[20:43] <sectech> It's just "linux (Ubuntu)" that has a triaged status beside it
[20:43] <bdmurray> I'd wait until you hear back from the reporter
[20:43] <sectech> everything else has been invalidated o
[20:43] <sectech> okay
[23:56] <LimCore> how to post two attachemnts at once in bug comment
[23:58] <hggdh> good question. I do not think it is possible...
[23:58] <bdmurray> It'll need to be separate comments or the attachments zipped
[23:59] <LimCore> bdmurray: I'm reopening: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openoffice.org/+bug/179230   whihch you commented
[23:59] <LimCore> it turns out this bug IS valid
[23:59] <LimCore> would be nice to fix it and re-inform upstream