[00:18] <ppp> hggdn Ive make a mistake. The last install.tar I had was when I had two disks and it worked, I accidently attached it to the bug
[00:19] <ppp> I no longer have the install logs for my old four hdd system
[00:23] <ppp> Ive added a comment to the bug explaining. Hopefully someone who does have the hardware to test this will be able to produce logs. Another user commented to being effected by it as well, it certaintly does occur
[00:31] <ppp> hggdh - Im going to appeal for testing assistance on the Intrepid section of the Ubuntu forums
[00:41] <hggdh> ppp, OK
[01:05] <kgoetz> can pbuilder be used to build source packages (as though i ran 'debuild -S'). I just managed to get pbuilder installed and running, and i'd rather not create a hardy chroot now as well
[01:06] <greg-g> kgoetz: I haven't messed with pbuilder much, but the people in #ubuntu-motu probably have :)
[01:09] <kgoetz> greg-g: i'll go and ask them my question there, thanks :)
[01:12] <greg-g> kgoetz: good luck!
[01:13] <kgoetz> greg-g: hehe. thanks
[01:26] <hggdh> kgoetz, you use pbuilder to verify your package
[01:26] <hggdh> you would use debuild to create the source package
[01:26] <hggdh> and pbuilder will create a special chroot
[01:28] <kgoetz> hggdh: guess i'll havve to build a hardy chroot then. cheers.
[01:29] <kgoetz> hm. pdebuild. *investigates*
[01:33] <hggdh> well, I guess you could also use a ppa to test the package
[01:44] <charlie-tca> Could I have someone set the status of Bug #212028 to wishlist please?
[01:59] <hggdh> charlie-tca, I wonder if the NTFS drivers are packaged in the livecd
[02:01] <hggdh> I dimly remember something about them not being provided on standard installs (and perhaps on the livecd as well?), but this was some releases ago...
[02:02] <hggdh> I would like to hold on setting as wishlist until we can find about that, if you do not mind
[02:02] <Hobbsee> it has from hardy onwards
[02:02] <Hobbsee> actually, ntfs has been mounted, read only, for ages.
[02:02] <Hobbsee> since, breezy or something
[02:02] <hggdh> hey cheers Hobbsee long time
[02:02] <Hobbsee> heya :)
[02:03] <hggdh> Hobbsee, what do you think -- if the bug above a wish or a real one then?
[02:04] <hggdh> s/if/is/
[02:04] <Hobbsee> kgoetz: you can build the source package on any release, more or less.  it's where you build the binaries that's the big difference
[02:04]  * Hobbsee looks
[02:05] <Hobbsee> whoever wrote that last comment is wrong - it's a bug.
[02:05] <Hobbsee> at least, i'm fairly sure it is.
[02:06] <Hobbsee> mounting partitions should be desktop-agnostic, although what it does with them aftewards might not be.
[02:06] <Hobbsee> hggdh: probably try asking in #xubuntu about if, if other people have it.
[02:07] <Hobbsee> maybe ask for the output of 'mount' to see if they've been mounted somewhere, and the user just hasn't found them / has been looking in the wrong place / etc
[02:07] <Hobbsee> although, come to think of it...
[02:07] <Hobbsee> is that ntfs, or vista-filesystem partitions?
[02:08] <Hobbsee> i thought they had new filesystem types for vista, and 7.10 would be too old to support them
[02:10] <hggdh> hum, might be... I forgot about vista
[02:10] <hggdh> charlie-tca, ping?
[02:11] <charlie-tca> hggdh: I'm here
[02:11] <hggdh> see above, for Hobbsee's input
[02:12] <Hobbsee> and i'd highly doubt it's something that would need a spec.
[02:12] <Hobbsee> particularly when it got later advertised in the ubuntu release notes, and many of the reviews.
[02:12] <charlie-tca> since the bug was against Xubuntu, and in Ubuntu the drives are auto mounted, it seems like a wish list item
[02:12] <charlie-tca> for Xubuntu.
[02:14] <charlie-tca> I thought the bug was against all drives, regardless of filesystem
[02:15] <Hobbsee> depends - it's likely intentional that it gets mounted everywhere
[02:15] <Hobbsee> rather than the feature not being implemented in xubuntu
[02:16] <charlie-tca> I can check in #xubuntu and the Xubuntu mailing list, if need be. Thanks for the advice.
[02:22] <charlie-tca> Hobbsee, the answer I got in #xubuntu is that they won't automount using Xubuntu Live CD, nor should they
[02:23] <Hobbsee> was teh answer from a reputable source?
[02:24] <charlie-tca> I think so, let me check for sure, though
[02:25] <Hew> Hey guys, haven't got a reply from #ubuntu-devel so I'll ask here. Is there a page somewhere that defines the usage of depends/recommends/suggests for a package? I have an idea of what they are for, but figured there should be a guideline/policy for it somewhere to define the grey areas.
[02:26] <pwnguin> heh
[02:26] <pwnguin> there is a small one
[02:26] <pwnguin> lemme find the link
[02:26] <pwnguin> apt-get install debian-policy
[02:26] <Hobbsee> Hew: yes, it's in debian policy
[02:28] <Hew> wow, there's actually a package for this stuff. Thanks, I'll take a look.
[02:29] <charlie-tca> Hobbsee: I'm going to put this through the mailing-list, then I can decide.
[02:29] <charlie-tca> Thanks for helping
[02:29] <Hobbsee> y/w
[02:31] <pwnguin> Hew: yea, debian takes that stuff srsly
[02:33] <Hew> pwnguin: yea, it's good to have it written down somewhere. Trying to work out depends/recommends atm in bug #231811
[02:34] <hggdh> sorry, had my son on the phone (just moved to Belgium, first night there, and he is WIDE awake...)
[02:36] <pwnguin> Hew: i think there's some discussion about pulling recommends by default
[02:37] <Hew> pwnguin: yes, recommends gets pulled by default in synaptic / apt-get / others afaik
[02:46] <kgoetz> Hobbsee: it does require i install the build-deps for the package for teh debuild to succeed though (i thought)
[02:52] <Hobbsee> kgoetz: indeed.
[03:38] <WilDec> Hi. New to Ubuntu.  Trying to install 8.04.1 on RAID partitions.  Failing. due to mangled superblocks.  Found two directly-relevant bugs (https://bugs.launchpad.net/~justin-traer).
[03:38] <WilDec> They're long-lived (~3 years), still present in Hardy, and not-resolved (one's 'Triaged').   I'm completely unfamiliar with Bug Process 'here' ...
[03:38] <WilDec> What's the right next step for getting them looked at?
[11:28] <qense> hello
[11:29] <thekorn> hello qense!
[11:58] <aleboco> hi guys, some time ago i reported this bug #237815... i turned to be completely wrong! how can i adjust it or close it?
[12:07] <bdmurray> aleboco: you can set the status to Invalid yourself
[12:09] <aleboco> bdmurray,ah, i didn't know
[12:09] <aleboco> bdmurray, but can i actually modify it so that it is right? or is it better to open another one?
[12:10] <aleboco> bdmurray, it is because i think i now know what it was about
[12:14] <askand> bug  128585 can be closed
[13:41] <kleop2> hi
[13:41] <kleop2> I installed ubunu 7.10
[13:42] <kleop2> and it fails to detect the modes allowed by my LCD
[13:42] <kleop2> defult info in xorg.conf is wrong
[13:47] <charlie-tca> kleop2: This is actually the area where we work to triage and correct bug-reports. For support you might try #ubuntu
[13:47] <kleop2> well this is the bug, I would expect it to just work
[13:50] <Fallen[oqp]> here is a bug sorting channel, for support go to #ubuntu
[13:50] <Fallen[oqp]> or submit a bug report if your bug isn't a duplicate
[13:53] <takdir> kleop2: report bug at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
[13:54] <kleop2> ok
[14:38] <bahadunn> hi
[14:39] <bahadunn> there is a bug for kqemu-source
[14:39] <bahadunn> Bug 249493
[14:39] <bahadunn> if installed with aptitude libc6-dev is installed so there is no problem
[14:39] <bahadunn> but with apt-get libc6-dev is not installed so the module cannot build
[14:40] <bahadunn> I have tested this on i386 and amd64 so I was wondering if it is okay to assign the status of this bug as confirmed
[14:40] <bahadunn> I also made a patch for the package with build depends for libc6-dev
[14:41] <bahadunn> I want to make sure I am following correct procedure is why I am asking
[14:50] <norsetto> bahadunn: libc6-dev is a recommended package, it won't be installed by default in hardy
[15:01] <bahadunn> norsetto: right but if one apt-get install kqemu-source libc6-dev which is required to build kqemu would not be installed
[15:01] <bahadunn> norsetto: shouldn't kqemu-source depend on libc6-dev instead of recommending it?
[15:02] <norsetto> bahadunn: its ok in intrepid and its not worth fixing in hardy, just confirm the bug so that people are aware they have to install it manually
[15:02] <bahadunn> okay
[15:03] <bahadunn> so I can comment that this issue is fixed in intrepid?
[15:03] <norsetto> bahadunn: yes, by default we install recommends
[15:04] <bahadunn> okay
[15:21] <thekorn> bdmurray, hi, when you have some time, it would be nice if you could review and test lp:~thekorn/python-launchpad-bugs/new.httpconnection
[15:22] <thekorn> it fixes the one-shot session bug, and merges the config files
[15:22] <thekorn> (the one for the testcases and the username file for the http-header)
[15:22] <bdmurray> thekorn: I'm still in London so it probably won't be until early next week
[15:23] <thekorn> there are also some improvements to the testsuite
[15:23] <thekorn> bdmurray, no problem, take your time, it's not urgent
[15:23] <bdmurray> thekorn: actually, it might be a great thing to test now as I could get someone to check the logs easily
[20:25] <mouz> hi. i linked a bug with a fixed debian bug. it is the first time i linked a bug. as it is fixed i'd like to set the status to 'fixed released', but i'm not allow to do so. also i wonder what should be done with the status of the ubuntu task. can someone help me with these? thanks :) it is bug 249076
[20:29] <charlie-tca> mouz, I think you have to change the status of the line you added, right? I can't even figure out how to do that link yet.
[20:34] <joumetal> mouz: I think it will update status automatically if you wait for while.
[20:35] <hggdh> mouz, launchpad will update the linked upstream bugs by itself
[20:35] <mouz> hggdh: thanks. should i leave the ubuntu task to status 'confirmed'?
[20:37] <hggdh> now varies...
[20:37] <hggdh> let me look atthe bug
[20:39] <hggdh> I do not think so. It can be set to triaged, but -- until the new version is packaged, it should not go to fix commited/fix released.
[20:39] <mouz> hggdh: ok so i should file a merge request?
[20:40] <mouz> (i checked that it must not be a sync)
[20:41] <hggdh> usually the maintainers are pretty up to speed; if the fix is a critical one (which seems not to be the case), then a merge would be warranted
[20:41] <hggdh> so we leave it as it is until a mantainer gets to it.
[20:41] <hggdh> (I updated to triaged)
[20:41] <mouz> ok thanks a lot for your help :)
[20:42] <hggdh> you are welcome. Thank YOU for helping ;-)
[20:53] <Fallenou> hi , can someone tell me what's incomplete in this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/136836 ?
[20:53] <Fallenou> maybe i can add some details
[20:55] <charlie-tca> Needs a dmesg log for the non-working case, any other reports/logs with information about it.
[20:55] <charlie-tca> Just add them as attachments when you make comment
[20:55] <Fallenou> ok
[21:29] <stpere> somebody found what was wrong with my update notifier? :)
[21:30] <hggdh> stpere, what bug?
[21:30] <stpere> it's not filled actually
[21:30] <stpere> I think I should fill it tho
[21:30] <hggdh> well, then it gets much more difficult to deal with it ;-)
[21:30] <stpere> well, my update notifier tray icon in hardy tells me I have 1 update ready
[21:30] <hggdh> yes, please fill it
[21:30] <stpere> ok
[21:31] <stpere> but I don't know how to duplicate it
[21:31] <stpere> is that really important?
[21:31] <hggdh> is it still going on?
[21:31] <stpere> err.. well, it happens 100% of the time now here :)
[21:31] <stpere> so, I guess I "duplicate it"
[21:32] <hggdh> it is an issue you are having
[21:32] <hggdh> so it warrants a bug
[21:32] <hggdh> and I *think* I remember something about it some days (?) ago, from the log -- your u-n says you have 1 update, bu there are many
[21:33] <stpere> yes, exactly
[21:34] <stpere> I'm filling it now
[21:34] <hggdh> OK, thanks
[21:37] <thekorn> stpere, when I remember correctly mvo asked you to run some testscripts, right?
[21:38] <thekorn> if you still have them somewhere, or a link to them, it would be nice to add this scripts to your bugreport
[21:38] <thekorn> and of course the results
[21:38] <stpere> yes
[21:44] <thekorn> super, thanks
[21:58] <stpere> here it is : bug 249957
[21:58] <stpere> thx ubottu.. good bot :)
[21:59] <Awsoonn> I am wanting to clean up the wiki a bit; https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay
[21:59] <Awsoonn> are the MOTU tasts really needed here?
[22:00] <Awsoonn> they don't have anything to do with a HugDay from my perspective, and should be put anywhere else
[22:03] <Awsoonn> such as here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/GettingStarted
[22:03] <Awsoonn> what say you?
[22:09] <thekorn> Awsoonn, I don't have a strict opinion on this, I think this MOTU related bits are there traditionally,
[22:10] <thekorn> IMHO, removing them or moving them to another place should be done after talking to leading members of the MOTU and Bug teams,
[22:10] <bdmurray> those are wiki includes that dholbach asked for please don't remove them
[22:11] <Awsoonn> that's just what I needed to know, thanks!
[22:12] <bdmurray> he is on vacation at the moment but we can check with him when he gets back
[22:12] <Awsoonn> I'll write him a note about it, see what he thinks
[22:30] <nickellery> what are people's thoughts on a Ubiquity bug day?
[22:38] <mrooney> nickellery: that could be good, though I seem to remember one in the past already
[22:44] <nickellery> mrooney, Ah, I see there was one last December
[22:50] <mrooney> nickellery: though that was over a release ago so, it may not be overkill?
[22:51] <joumetal> nickellery: please don't confirm needs packaging bugs for things already packaged.
[22:51] <nickellery> joumetal, apologies if this was done
[22:53] <joumetal> like bug 249664. reporter has made about 40 needs packaging bugs in last days.
[22:54] <nickellery> mrooney, do you think it would be a good idea to have one now, then?
[22:54] <nickellery> or would it be too much
[22:54] <joumetal> some of them are already packaged.
[22:57] <mrooney> nickellery: I don't know, I haven't really looked at how many open/important bugs there are in it
[23:22] <calc> is mail broken for anyone else?
[23:22] <calc> er wrt lp bugs?
[23:29] <mrooney> calc: it seems like it might be
[23:29] <mrooney> I didn't receive email for some bug changes in one of my projects
[23:39] <nickellery> mrooney, calc, I can confirm that as well