[01:40] <Rocket2DMn> ogra, are you available?
[01:47] <Rocket2DMn> nvm ogra , sorry to bother
[05:37] <bliZZardz> w.r.t bug #228003 , openoffice.org-java-common is not part of the OO install. This does not look like a packaging bug but more of a an upstream one. Can someone give some ideas or correct me if i am wrong.
[10:07] <mcas> hi
[10:08] <bliZZardz> hello
[10:48] <kgoetz> sigh. trying to build 5-a-day on etch is a pita. all sorts of ubuntu-only packages i need to try and rebuild
[14:30] <hefe_bia> Hi! I have a short question: On bug 223280 somebody set it to Committed for the Ubuntu package while it is only fixed in upstream CVS. Should I set it back to confirmed?
[14:32] <techno_freak> hefe_bia, fix has been committed in the upstream source
[14:33] <techno_freak> hefe_bia, hence it is the right status
[14:35] <hefe_bia> Ok, thanks. I think https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status is a little misleading in this case.
[14:37] <hefe_bia> Maybe "For an Ubuntu package, the changes are pending and to be uploaded soon (it's what PENDINGUPLOAD was in Bugzilla)" should be amended with "or fixed upstream."
[14:39] <Hobbsee> techno_freak: or "fixed somewhere" ie "there is a fix"
[14:39] <Hobbsee> it doesn't necessarily have to be in the upstream source, afaik.
[14:39] <techno_freak> Hobbsee, ok :)
[14:40] <Hobbsee> oh, interesting, it's changed meanings slightly.
[14:41] <hefe_bia> So I guess anywhere where it will make it into the Ubuntu package someday?
[14:41] <techno_freak> hefe_bia, you can also comment it to the bug report
[14:43] <hefe_bia> techno_freak: It's already commented there.
[14:44] <hefe_bia> I was mislead by Bugs/Status - I thought "For an upstream project..." rule would only apply to the bug status regarding a "project", not the Ubuntu package.
[14:50] <Hobbsee> bug 150484
[16:20] <bliZZardz> w.r.t bug # 241018, there is no 'fix' as such.. what should the bug status be?
[16:28] <gnomefreak> bug 241018
[16:30] <bliZZardz> gnomefreak : (am tempted to ask this Q to u ) is GNOME's memory footprint larger than KDE?
[16:30] <gnomefreak> adding the upstream bug to the lp bug report is a good start so it can move to confirmed
[16:30] <gnomefreak> bliZZardz: offhand not sure
[16:30] <gnomefreak> but decide what upstream link you should use
[16:30] <gnomefreak> since they are different upstream bug numbers
[16:31] <bliZZardz> gnomefreak : even the upstream doesnt have a 'fix' - they just said the same
[16:31] <gnomefreak> bliZZardz: if they are still open it would suggest they are being worked on?
[16:32] <gnomefreak> theme integration is optional as i recall and if its needed to make it not crash there is a problem that needs to be fixed
[16:32] <bliZZardz> gnomefreak : they are CLOSED upstream. Am not sure what is the equivalent of 'CLOSED' in lp.
[16:32] <gnomefreak> bliZZardz: invalid
[16:33] <gnomefreak> fix released if ther eis a fix
[16:33] <gnomefreak> there isnt
[16:33] <bliZZardz> ok - then i will invalidate it
[16:34] <gnomefreak> i still think ther eis a bug there that needs to be looked at or others will crash it since theme integration isnt manditory but i dont do OO.o fixes
[16:34] <bliZZardz> and what to do if Windows bug is reported in LP :P ? (bug 240159)
[16:34] <bliZZardz> ok - i get your point. i shall mention the same in the comment.
[16:35] <bliZZardz> but that means that an equivalent bug in upstream also should be opened - isnt it?
[16:36] <gnomefreak> bliZZardz: i commented on it
[16:36] <gnomefreak> that bug needs an upstream bug attached if it happens on windows maybe its jus the locale being used
[16:37] <gnomefreak> bliZZardz: there maybe one already that they havent seen yet
[16:39] <bliZZardz> you mean an upstream bug which is already existing for the former bug?
[16:40] <gnomefreak> its very possible
[16:40] <gnomefreak> there should be upstream bugs on both bugs that i looked at
[16:40] <gnomefreak> but that is up to OO.o guys
[16:42] <bliZZardz> gnomefreak : but shouldnt WE link it to upstream
[16:47] <gnomefreak> bliZZardz: we should
[16:47] <gnomefreak> we do
[16:48] <gnomefreak> we sometimes file it upstream for the users atleast we as in mozilla-ubuntu devs do
[16:56] <macd> bug 222804 seems fairly important, and is indicated its fixed, however it is not
[17:16] <gnomefreak> it says confirmed from what i see
[17:18] <gnomefreak> it maybe fixed in intrepid just not hardy could be fora  few reasons
[17:18] <sectech> hello hello
[17:19] <gnomefreak> may not meet SRU and if so noone felt like filing a backport bug for it but make sure it doesnt meet SRU before filing backport bug
[17:19] <gnomefreak> hi sectech
[18:22] <macd> gnomefreak, yeah its fixed in intrepid, as sid has it already, just not in hardy, but it really seems like it should be a SRU for hardy
[18:24] <gnomefreak> than i would folloow the instructions on the wiki for SRU and get it done that way
[18:24]  * gnomefreak gone for the rest of today ive caught up on my work for this week
[18:25] <macd> gnomefreak, ty I was planning on that ;P
[18:49] <iustin> hi, anyone could help me with pointers on how to deal with a bug?
[18:51] <techno_freak> iustin, sure
[18:51] <iustin> thanks
[18:51] <techno_freak> iustin, never ask to ask, just ask your question :)
[18:52] <iustin> so I'm one of the Debian maintainers for the package ganeti, and in Ubuntu there's a (valid) bug (243828) about the version of the package in hardy
[18:52] <techno_freak> bug #243828
[18:53] <iustin> the version in debian is fixed for a while, but hardy has an old version without the fix
[18:53] <iustin> since I think hardy is released, can this be fixed in the hardy version? or is it too minor?
[18:53] <techno_freak> Iulian, if am not wrong, we can mark it as fix released. can you comment in that bug, as well confirm it?
[18:53] <techno_freak> err... iustin ^^
[18:54] <techno_freak> sorry Iulian
[18:54] <Iulian> No problem.
[18:55] <iustin> so, the bug editor allows me to choose either confirmed or fix released; should I do it in two steps? (first confirmed, and then fix released)
[18:55] <techno_freak> Iulian, on the above bug, do we mark it as sync request or something?
[18:55] <techno_freak> iustin, fix released and comment will do :)
[18:55] <iustin> ah, ok1
[18:55] <iustin> err, ok!
[18:56] <Iulian> I think the fix is in Intrepid, not in Hardy.
[18:56] <iustin> indeed
[18:56] <Iulian> iustin: Check the version from Intrepid.
[18:57] <iustin> the version in intrepid is fixed indeed
[18:57] <iustin> but the hardy one not
[18:57] <techno_freak> so it is fix released right?
[18:57] <Iulian> techno_freak: Yes
[18:57] <techno_freak> :)
[18:58] <iustin> ok, I marked it as such
[18:58] <iustin> thanks for the help!
[18:58] <techno_freak> welcome anytime :)
[19:10] <Rocket2DMn> OK, I need some help on this bug 245645 - should that be added to Wishlist rather than keeping it closed?
[19:43] <jonpackard> is there a better getting started guide than the HowToTriage page on the wiki?
[19:47] <Rocket2DMn> jonpackard, the guides are really spread out over a few pages
[19:48] <Rocket2DMn> there are separate pages for Status, Importance, Responses, and Assignment to name a few
[19:53] <jonpackard> thanks! I will keep looking around. I am looking for a good way to get involved.
[19:54] <Rocket2DMn> right on
[19:55] <jonpackard> I am testing Intrepid right now.. I seem to have my hands full reporting bugs =)
[19:57] <jonpackard> It has helped me to get my feet wet with bug reporting and I have seen some good responses to my bug reports. Launchpad is a very positive environment.
[20:00] <Rocket2DMn> well if you havent been to this page, its a good place to start - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam
[20:00] <Rocket2DMn> you would want to join DocuMENTORS
[20:00] <Rocket2DMn> wait wtf am i saing
[20:00] <Rocket2DMn> ignore that
[20:00] <Rocket2DMn> wrong channel, lol
[20:00] <Rocket2DMn> you want the Bugsquad team on LP
[20:02] <Rocket2DMn> jonpackard, once you get a little more experience handling bugs, you can apply for ubuntu-bugcontrol
[20:02] <Rocket2DMn> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol
[20:09] <savvas> I'm going to need some help on figuring out the culprits of debian control file fields
[20:09] <savvas> I made an sqlite database and imported all the ubuntu packages and ended with these fields:
[20:09] <savvas> http://www.pastebin.ca/raw/1063994
[20:10] <savvas> the x-original-maintainer
[20:10] <savvas> sorry, the x-original-maintainer should be xsbc-original-maintainer ?
[20:33] <jonpackard> ﻿Rocket2DMn: Thanks for the tips!