[03:02] <alexrudd> Is this the right place to ask about bugs in hardy-proposed?
[03:03] <RAOF> alexrudd: The best place to mention bugs in hardy-proposed would be on the launchpad bug regarding the proposed package.
[03:05] <alexrudd> ROAF: I'm a little confused by the reorganization of linux/linux-image/linux-image-xxx (meta)packages right now.
[03:06] <alexrudd> ROAF: update-initramfs is failing for "boot/initrd.img-2.6-rc7-custom", because there are no modules for it.  That sounds like a packaging bug, so where do I file it?
[03:06] <RAOF> There is no 2.6-rc7-custom package in hardy-proposed :)
[03:08] <alexrudd> RAOF: I just upgraded today, and it killed all apt-based apps because it wants me to run dpkg --configure -a
[03:08] <RAOF> So, there may well be some bug somewhere, but by building and using a custom kernel we assume you can handle the fallout.
[03:09] <alexrudd> RAOF: And upon doing so, update-initramfs tries to generate something for 2.6.25-rc7-custom
[03:09] <alexrudd> RAOF: Err, the thing is I *didn't* build a custom kernel
[03:09] <RAOF> That's somewhat odd, then :)
[03:10] <alexrudd> Is that a file I can just ignore and delete?
[03:11] <alexrudd> *there
[03:11] <alexrudd> *delete and ignore
[03:11] <RAOF> Probably; but I don't know where that comes from.
[03:12] <RAOF> I don't suppose you've got that kernel in your grub menu.lst?
[03:12] <alexrudd> nope, checked that
[03:16] <RAOF> You could try 'sudo update-initramfs -d -k 2.6.25-rc7-custom'
[03:16] <alexrudd> doesn't exist
[03:17] <RAOF> That's the kernel dpkg --configure -a is dying on?
[03:18] <alexrudd> yep
[03:18]  * RAOF has seen someone else with this, too.  I suspect someone's uploaded something with a fragment of their own config.
[03:19] <RAOF> What package is it that is failing to configure?  You could check the preinst script to see what's happening.
[03:19] <alexrudd> err, I'm not sure any more.  It's a deferred trigger or something
[03:19] <alexrudd> guess there are logs somewhere?  not sure where
[03:19] <RAOF>  /var/log/dpkg.log, most likely.
[03:21] <alexrudd> looks like initramfs-tools itself?
[03:22] <alexrudd> hmm, no that must be when I ran dpkg
[03:23] <alexrudd> any idea on how to find what set the trigger?  "trigproc" appears to be when it's processed
[03:24] <RAOF> I believe it says "$SOMETHING deferred"
[03:25] <alexrudd> nothing found :(
[03:27] <alexrudd> hmm, right after "status installed ntfs3g" it says "status triggers-pending initramfs-tools"
[03:29] <RAOF> That's going to be too late.
[03:30] <alexrudd> Aha.  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+bug/152756
[03:30] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 152756 in initramfs-tools "stale files in /var/lib/initramfs-tools after removing kernel" [Undecided,New]
[03:32] <alexrudd> Removing the file made my dpkg happy again.  Anything I should do for the bug report?
[03:33] <RAOF> You've never ever installed a 2.6.25-rc7-custom kernel?
[03:34] <alexrudd> Err, not successfully.  I may have tried a long time ago, and I've upgraded kernels several times since then
[03:35] <RAOF> And it's only now come up?  Odd.
[03:36] <alexrudd> Uh, huh
[03:36] <alexrudd> Anyway, I guess I'll just mark it off as the dangers of trying to roll your own
[03:37] <alexrudd> confirm the bug report I guess
[03:37] <alexrudd> Thanks for all you help.
[03:37] <alexrudd> *your
[03:38] <jonpackard> Could anyone with an NVidia card please help me confirm this bug? It affects Alpha1 and Alpha2 using the nv driver. Bug 245383.
[03:38] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 245383 in xserver-xorg-video-nv "Screen flickers when loading applications" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/245383
[03:40] <RAOF> I can anti-confirm your bug on nouveau and nv4x :)
[03:41] <jonpackard> RAOF: what's nv4x?
[03:42] <Awsoonn> oh powerful irc, will someone set 'triaged' to Bug 238263
[03:42] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 238263 in xorg "screen size wrong while using kvm switch" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/238263
[03:43] <jonpackard> RAOF: You helped me install nouveau a while back.. it didn't seem to fix the issue. Could be user error on my part on that one though. =)
[03:44] <RAOF> Maybe.
[03:44] <jonpackard> RAOF: heh just remembered.. nv4x is a nvidia chipset
[03:44] <RAOF> Right.  Geforce 7.
[03:45] <jonpackard> RAOF: thought it was a new version of nv driver for a sec there =X
[03:45] <RAOF> It's possible that it's nv5x specific.
[03:45] <jonpackard> btw I was able to install nvidia driver in alpha2 and it works just dandy.. all the drivers work fine in hardy
[03:46] <jonpackard> can't wait till nouveau rocks my 8600GT.. gotta have my 3D desktop =p
[03:47] <RAOF> Awsoonn: I'm not sure that's quite ready yet?  Could you _attach_ an xorg.conf, Xorg.0.log, and the various other outputs requested?
[03:48] <Awsoonn> I can attach them for him, sure
[03:50] <RAOF> jonpackard: It'll take some time before you'll get a 3D desktop with nouveau!
[03:53] <jonpackard> RAOF: i know.. perhaps I should try to get involved with the project =)
[03:54] <RAOF> If you've got some spare time, gallium is an excellent timesync :)
[03:54] <RAOF> Also, you should now have the very barest of bare-minimum 3d support on your 8600 with nouveau gallium.
[03:57] <jonpackard> RAOF: cool.. sounds awesome! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_3D
[04:29] <jonpackard> Bug 245383 updated. Thanks for the help. =)
[04:29] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 245383 in xserver-xorg-video-nv "Screen flickers when loading applications" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/245383
[04:36] <kgoetz> hi bugs people. (I'm here with my gNewSense-upstream relations hat on). Does ubuntu want bug reports on potential non-free files in the kernel/packages in the {main,universe}archive? if yes, how would you like them filed - one bug per problematic file, or one bug per package?
[04:46] <LaserJock> kgoetz: it might depend on what kind of non-free it is
[04:48] <LaserJock> but I'd think if there were files inconsistent with the component policies then we'd definately want to know about it
[04:48] <LaserJock> and probably one bug/package
[04:49] <kgoetz> LaserJock: in the case of ubuntu-linux-modules (a special case, i know) its mainly firmware related. in the case of a random package, it would probably be licence
[04:51] <LaserJock> kgoetz: those may be better discussed on ubuntu-devel/ubuntu-devel-discuss
[04:51] <kgoetz> the real bug with l-u-m of course is that its in main not restricted, but i suspect thats a discussion for another time.
[04:51] <kgoetz> LaserJock: hm
[04:51] <LaserJock> since free vs non-free is quite difficult to define, it's not a clear-cut bug often times
[04:52] <LaserJock> since our packages come mostly from Main we generally rely on Debian to filter first
[04:52] <kgoetz> sure. and by which definition of free ;)
[04:52] <LaserJock> and they usually do a pretty good job
[04:53] <LaserJock> but packages we've done ourselves there could be some error
[04:53] <LaserJock> though the archive admins usually do a very thorough job of checking freeness
[04:53] <LaserJock> copyright/freeness are the #1 reason packages are rejected
[04:54] <kgoetz> another question (which will probably be a 'ask on the list' answer) - if i/we disagree with a bugs closure (or why it was closed), where do we take that up?
[04:54] <LaserJock> I would first take it up in the bug report itself
[04:55] <LaserJock> if there's no resolution I'd ask ubuntu-devel/-discuss
[04:55] <LaserJock> or perhaps ubuntu-bugsquad if it's a triaging or general bug handling type question
[04:55] <LaserJock> sometimes people just make mistakes or fully don't understand the bug
[04:56] <kgoetz> its a disagreement over whether gpl firmware without source is free enough to be free (a nice hot topic ...)
[04:56] <LaserJock> ooff
[04:56] <LaserJock> kgoetz: bug # ?
[04:57] <kgoetz> LaserJock: er, give me a few min.
[04:58] <LaserJock> kgoetz: I think it's important to remember that when it comes to freeness/component issues the Archive Admins are authoritative
[04:59] <kgoetz> much the same as debians ftpmasters.
[05:00] <LaserJock> and in fact at one point they were basically the same thing ;-)
[05:00] <LaserJock> for a long time elmo was both Debian ftpmaster and Ubuntu archive admin
[05:01] <kgoetz> would have made it easy ;) "do i trust myself? why not"
[05:02] <kgoetz> LaserJock: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/201680
[05:02] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 201680 in linux "2.6.24 contains non-free fore200e files" [High,Invalid]
[05:10] <LaserJock> kgoetz: I'd say if you want to pursue it to email ubuntu-devel or at least ubuntu-archive
[05:11] <LaserJock> I don't know if it'll change anything, but a kernel dev is not authoritative when it comes to package freeness
[05:13] <pwnguin> I've got a question about https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ttf-ubuntu-title/+bug/247016
[05:13] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 247016 in ttf-ubuntu-title "g kinda sucks" [Undecided,Invalid]
[05:15] <pwnguin> If a package is maintained in a team, is it really a good idea to mark a bug invalid?
[05:15] <kgoetz> LaserJock: is ubuntu-archive a list?
[05:15] <LaserJock> kgoetz: yes
[05:15] <LaserJock> pwnguin: I think really the point is that it's not a packging issue, but should be rather discussed with the authors of ubuntu-title
[05:15] <LaserJock> pwnguin: though it's sort of odd triaging ;-)
[05:16] <pwnguin> we are the authors
[05:16] <kgoetz> LaserJock: thanks. i might send them an email later on (i'm at work atm... strictly speaking). (afk a while, thanks for your help)
[05:16] <pwnguin> the ubuntu-title project on LP has no bug thingy
[05:16] <LaserJock> pwnguin: who is "we"?
[05:16] <pwnguin> Ubuntu?
[05:17] <LaserJock> pwnguin: umm, *I* didn't create it I know that ;-)
[05:18] <pwnguin> the ubuntu title font is maintained by the font team, a subteam of the art team
[05:18] <LaserJock> ok, then they need to know about it
[05:18] <pwnguin> it seems like subscribing them would be the better course of action, generally
[05:20] <pwnguin> i guess i was wrong about the tracker
[05:22] <pwnguin> but I do get a nice message saying that i should file the against the package
[05:22] <pwnguin> ubuntutitle does not use Launchpad as its bug tracker.
[05:22] <pwnguin> Are you sure this bug is in upstream ubuntutitle?
[05:22] <pwnguin>     * If you are using a package installed by your Linux distribution, the bug should be reported in that distribution, instead. Launchpad knows that ubuntutitle is present in the following distribution packages:
[05:22] <pwnguin>           o Ubuntu ttf-ubuntu-title
[05:22] <pwnguin>       You can report bugs by visiting the package's page.
[05:25] <pwnguin> so yea. there is no bug tracker, and LP tells me to use the packaging bug page
[05:26] <pwnguin> im writing a mail to ubunu-art right now about it, but I must say it amazes me how many reasons triagers find to mark a bug invalid
[05:32] <kgoetz> pwnguin: its easier then marking it confirmed ;)
[05:33] <pwnguin> is it
[05:33] <pwnguin> ?
[05:34] <kgoetz> i'd say so (but it could just be me...)
[05:34] <pwnguin> well, im glad the common answer to a hard problem is more laziness ;)
[05:34] <kgoetz> hehehe
[05:44] <LaserJock> pwnguin: well, of course people want to lower the bug count :-)
[05:45] <LaserJock> pwnguin: I think that stock response is for feature requests
[05:46] <LaserJock> and I'd say that bug is sort of borderline, and unless the art team is subscribed to that package, the right people aren't going to get it
[05:52] <pwnguin> indeed
[05:53] <pwnguin> ive been reading the art team mailing list archives and its not encouraging
[05:58] <Awsoonn> hey guys, what do you think about a hug day for bugs set for experation?
[05:58] <Awsoonn> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+expirable-bugs
[06:03] <LaserJock> Awsoonn: seems like a good idea
[06:07]  * Awsoonn nods and makes it so.
=== Awsoonn is now known as dereck
=== dereck is now known as awsoonn_
=== awsoonn_ is now known as awsoonn
=== awsoonn is now known as dereck
=== dereck is now known as Dereck
[08:09] <Hobbsee> emma: i'd guess that's a kernel-type thing, and you may find asking in #ubuntu-kernel helpful.
=== wgrant_ is now known as wgrant
=== calc__ is now known as calc
[10:03] <bdmurray> pedro_: http://people.ubuntu.com/~brian/reports/database/unlinked-bugwatch.html
[10:03] <pedro_> looking
[10:03] <bdmurray> that's the report I was talking about regarding the "unlinked" bug watches
=== thekorn_ is now known as thekorn
[12:11] <thekorn> hello bugsquad!
[12:17] <bdmurray> thekorn: hi!
[12:28] <thekorn> bdmurray: hi, you are around early today!
[12:28] <bdmurray> thekorn: I'm in London so it isn't that early. ;)
[12:29] <thekorn> bdmurray: aha, okay, enjoy london and good old europe
=== emgent_ is now known as emgent
=== thekorn_ is now known as thekorn
=== jjesse_ is now known as jjesse
[15:01] <savvas> haha "Don't subscribe me again to any bug or I'll have your head cut off by a bunch of crazy colombian guerrilleros."
[15:01] <savvas> the best answer I got for a wrong action :)
[15:03] <savvas> note to self - don't touch the motu :p
[15:03] <pedro_> ahahaha
[15:07] <bddebian> Boo
=== chuck_ is now known as zul
[16:10] <CarlFK> scrollkeeper_extended_cl.xml:1: parser error : Document is empty   http://dpaste.com/64773/
[16:10] <CarlFK> is that something I should post to lp?
[16:37] <Hew> bug #209084 - someone has attached a debdiff that should fix the bug. As a triager, what should I do? Subscribe ubuntu-universe-sponsors?
[16:38] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 209084 in wireshark "debian/control must Recommends menu to run with elevated privileges in hardy" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/209084
[16:39] <afflux> Hew: I think that's correect
[16:40] <Hew> afflux: thanks for your help
=== lakin_ is now known as lakin
[17:52] <Evergete> ciao a tutti da qualche giorno ho il seguente problema: avviando skype, la mia connessione wireless smette di funzionare, ovvero dice di essere sempre collegata all'access point, ma non passa più traffico. richiudendo skype tutto torna a funzionare regolarmente. utilizzo skype 2.0.0.72 dai repo medibuntu
[17:54] <Evergete> qua sembra che altri abbiano un problema simile; http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=130951 a qualcuno è già capitato?
[17:54] <pedro_> Evergete: maybe try asking in #ubuntu-it
[17:55] <Evergete> ops, sorry pedro_ worte on wrong channel
[17:55] <pedro_> is ok
[18:10] <CarlFK> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ntp/+bug/157536  bug I reported, never triaged but is now fixed.  should I change the status to 'fix released' ?
[18:10] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 157536 in ntp "empty ntp.conf when ntp not instaleld. " [Low,Incomplete]
[18:10] <Rocket2DMn> seb128, RE: bug #248163 - keep on wishlist?
[18:10] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 248163 in gnome-system-tools "Network menu item missing in Intrepid Alpha 2" [Wishlist,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/248163
[18:11] <Awsoonn> CarlFK if it is fixed, then yes :)
[18:11] <seb128> Rocket2DMn: yes, until network manager 0.7 is available, we might want to install network-admin meanwhile or something
[18:12] <Rocket2DMn> ok thanks seb128 , Tim was right when he said the package was gnome-network-admin, tho you just run network-admin from terminal to manually launch
[18:12] <Rocket2DMn> thanks
[18:14] <CarlFK> Awsoonn: thanks.
=== asac_ is now known as asac
[22:25] <chrisccoulson> could anyone tell me what we do with upgrade bugs from hardy -> intrepid?
[22:25] <chrisccoulson> tkae this one for example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/248497
[22:25] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 248497 in ubuntu "Distribution Upgrade 8.04 - 8.10 Fails" [Undecided,New]
[22:45] <tat_> i try to report a bug for flock on ubuntu, but on "https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/+filebug" i get the error 'There is no package name 'flock' published in Ubuntu', but i`M sure that there is a package called flock, any suggestions ?
[22:49] <greg-g> tat_: http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=default&section=all&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=flock
[22:49] <greg-g> tat_: I'm assuming that isn't the package you are looking for
[22:50] <greg-g> tat_: what package did you install and was it from the official ubuntu repositories or a 3rd party
[22:50] <tat_> it is the flock browser :
[22:50] <tat_> how can i find out what repository i got it from ?
[22:51] <greg-g> apt-cache policy <packagename>
[22:52] <greg-g> replace <packagename> what what pacakge you are looking for
[22:53] <tat_> flock:
[22:53] <tat_>   Installiert:1.1-1~getdeb1
[22:53] <tat_>   Mögliche Pakete:1.1-1~getdeb1
[22:53] <tat_>   Versions-Tabelle:
[22:53] <tat_>  *** 1.1-1~getdeb1 0
[22:53] <tat_>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
[22:53] <greg-g> and to find which package flock came from, you can:
[22:53] <tat_> that is all i get, just the version string
[22:53] <greg-g> that is a getdeb.com package, in otherwords, not supported by Ubuntu as it is a 3rd party
[22:53] <greg-g> you probably installed it by downloading a .deb
[22:53] <greg-g> so, find out where you downloaded it from, and file a bug there
[22:53] <tat_> no i used apt
[22:54] <greg-g> use paste.ubuntu.com and show me your /etc/apt/sources.list file
[22:56] <tat_> there is just mediabuntu and canonical in there the rest is all ubuntu repositories
[23:00] <tat_> http://paste.ubuntu.com/27358/
[23:01] <LaserJock> tat_: is there anything in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ ?
[23:03] <LaserJock> tat_: you've apparently installed flock from getdeb.net
[23:07] <tat_> LA
[23:08] <tat_> LaserJock : i think so too, but i cant remember having downloaded it, it is also in my synaptic
[23:09] <LaserJock> tat_: it will show up in synaptic because it was installed as a .deb
[23:10] <tat_> LaserJock : the weared thing is also that the newest versuion on getdeb.net is 1.2.2 but in my synaptic it is 1.1.1 also after updating package information
[23:10] <tat_> LaserJock : ahh , ok
[23:11] <LaserJock> tat_: well, that's because you don't actually have getdeb repos in sources.list
[23:11] <tat_> LaserJock , so i post the bugreport to getdeb.net ?
[23:11] <LaserJock> tat_: you probably just clicked on a link on getdeb.net and it installed it
[23:11] <LaserJock> tat_: yeah, there's not really anything we can do about it because Ubuntu proper doesn't have flock
[23:14] <tat_> i ges i write the bugreport to  Joao Pinto, the package maintainer, since the bug is realy just related to the way he packaed flock it is nothing flock people would have to deal with .
[23:15] <LaserJock> tat_: yeah, that makes sense