/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2008/07/24/#ubuntu-bugs.txt

sbeattiemodifying tags on a bug would be useful to have.00:02
bdmurrayokay, I'll through that one in real soon now00:03
sbeattiethanks!00:04
=== wolfger__ is now known as wolfger
bdmurraysbeattie: okay, its there00:34
sbeattiein ubuntu-qa-tools00:35
bdmurrayfwiw, which isn't much yet00:35
sbeattie?00:35
bdmurrayright00:35
sbeattiedanke00:35
baron1984Can anyone tell me what component to file a an ACPI suspend/resume bug under?01:56
baron1984would that be ACPI, linux-generic....?01:57
hggdhbaron1984, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingACPI. It should be filed against the linux source01:58
baron1984odd that it asks for kern.log.002:06
baron1984that's yesterday, and a different kernel02:06
baron1984should I attach kern.log instead?02:06
baron1984bug 25133802:17
ubottuLaunchpad bug 251338 in linux "Bad ACPI support on Foxconn G33M/G33M-S motherboards with AMI BIOS" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/25133802:17
baron1984:)02:17
mrooney:)02:18
baron1984can someone look that over?02:18
baron1984that report is still untouched in Red Hat's system02:18
baron1984:P02:18
baron1984apparently I really know how to pick hardware02:19
mrooneybaron1984: I just took a peek, it looks fine, but I don't know all that much about which logs and such are useful02:29
baron1984mrooney: I just put up what it asked for02:30
baron1984mrooney: I also linked it to Fedora's Bugzilla02:30
baron1984same problem in their kernel02:30
baron1984and I suspect any 2.6.24 or 2.6.25's02:30
baron1984I tried Fedora's 2.6.26 kernel based on -git9, it fixed most of my problems02:31
baron1984but broke so much other stuff, it's not funny02:31
baron1984same with Intrepid02:31
baron1984but 2.6.26 has an almost entirely new ACPI disassembler02:32
baron1984it tends to act much more like Windows02:32
baron1984forgiving of horribly broken BIOSes02:32
baron1984go figure02:32
=== baron1984 is now known as izanbardprince
=== tritium_ is now known as tritium
=== asac_ is now known as asac
mouzIs there any use in linking to an upstream bug when the ubuntu distribution task is already fix released? I did so for bug 202431, but I wonder why :) Thanks.08:35
ubottuLaunchpad bug 202431 in findutils "typo in man page of "find"" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/20243108:35
seb128mouz: doesn't bring a lot but doesn't hurt either08:41
mouzseb128: ok thanks09:08
perezaGood morning from Canada.12:10
james_whi pereza12:13
james_wyou know what day it is?12:14
* james_w hugs everybody12:14
perezais it today, the ubuntu buy day?12:14
perezahi james_w12:14
james_wIt's hug day for apt12:15
james_whttps://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/2008072412:16
perezaI thought it will be very busy today in this channel12:16
james_wsome bug days it is, some days people just get on with it quietly it seems.12:17
perezaI see12:18
Hobbsee\o/ mvo13:16
=== jjesse_ is now known as jjesse
james_wWhat does T mean in a directory listing?14:21
james_wdrwxrwx--T 2 bin  bin     1024 2007-06-21 15:10 atjobs14:21
persiajames_w: That's the sticky bit.14:25
persiaThere are 16 bits: 4 define the type of file, 9 define rwx for each of user, group, world.  One is suid (x->s in first group), One is sgid (x->s in second group), and the last is sticky (x-T in third group).14:27
james_wthanks14:27
james_wdamn hard to google for without knowing the name14:27
james_wit seems that that wouldn't cause "Cannot change to /var/spool/cron/atjobs: Permission denied"14:28
persiaIt shouldn't, no.14:28
HewI'm triaging bug #173816 atm. Anyone know the difference between compiz-bcop and compiz-fusion-bcop?14:28
ubottuLaunchpad bug 173816 in compiz-fusion-bcop "package compiz-fusion-bcop None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/compiz-fusion-bcop.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/bin/bcop', which is also in package compiz-bcop" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/17381614:28
james_whi Hew14:29
james_wone is probably a replacement for the other14:29
james_wit appears -bcop was Ubuntu local, and -fusion-bcop has come in from Debian14:30
Hewjames_w: yep. compiz-bcop (main) started with Gutsy though, and compiz-fusion-bcop (universe) with Hardy.14:31
james_wI guess that the old packages should be transitioned to the new package14:31
Hewwas wondering if it was best just to remove one of the packages?14:31
Hewyea14:31
james_wI'm not sure what the plan is, but it should end up with one being removed14:32
HewI reckon people are selecting all the compiz* packages, and getting this bug. I was going to change the dependencies, but thought it might be more appropriate to just remove one14:32
james_wyou could either talk to the maintainer, or just explain what's going on and mark the bug triaged14:32
Hewjames_w: Sure thing, I'll chase someone up. Thanks for your help.14:33
james_wah, it seems that atd drops privileges to "daemon", and then expects to be able to chdir to a bin/bin owned dir.14:36
james_wso, why does this work for anyone else?14:37
HewAre there any extra steps I should take if the solution for a bug is to remove a package from the Ubuntu repositories? Any team I should subscribe? bug #17381615:56
ubottuLaunchpad bug 173816 in compiz-fusion-bcop "compiz-bcop is the same as compiz-fusion-bcop" [High,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/17381615:56
HobbseeHew: ubuntu-universe-sponsors?15:57
HewHobbsee: Makes sense, I shall make it so. Thanks.15:57
* Hobbsee eyes it15:58
Hobbseebetter still, i'll ack it and pass it directly to -archive15:58
HewHobbsee: oh, it's in main btw15:59
Hewif that makes a difference15:59
Hobbseeoh, then it would be main sponsors.15:59
* Hobbsee is a core dev too.15:59
Hewexcellent :)16:00
Hobbseei'm an archive admin as well, but i don't have removal powers.16:00
Hewah ok16:00
Hobbseehmmm16:01
Hobbseemvo__: you around?16:01
seb128do we have some people still running hardy there?16:04
seb128there is quite some GNOME sru which need verifications ;-)16:04
persiaseb128: If you haven't already, you might also ask in #ubuntu-testing (as potential testers are found in both places)16:06
seb128persia: ok, I didn't, good to know16:07
seb128thanks16:07
=== mvo__ is now known as mvo
=== bdmurray changed the topic of #ubuntu-bugs to: Hug Day! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20080724 | Ubuntu BugSquad | http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad | Documentation: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/HelpingWithBugs | If you have been triaging bugs for a while, please apply to https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol/ | Want to report a bug? Read https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs | User support (not related to triage) is in #ubuntu
bddebianBoo16:46
bdmurraymvo: ping16:49
mvobdmurray: pong16:49
bdmurrayHi, I'm looking at bug 235129 and don't think it should really be about apt16:50
ubottuLaunchpad bug 235129 in apt "Installing/upgrading a kernel fails when /boot isn't mounted" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/23512916:50
bdmurrayIt seems to me the check would need to done in one of the kernel packages is that right?16:51
mvobdmurray: yes, that is right16:51
mvobdmurray: that would be too much policy inside apt itself16:51
bdmurrayWhich kernel package would that be?16:51
persiaNote that the recommended solution would break e.g. unionfs environments.16:51
mvolinux-source-2.6.26 I would say (but I'm not 100% postitive, the kernel packaging is something I'm not too familiar with)16:51
persiaWasn't the source package migrated to just "linux"?16:52
bdmurrayogasawara: ?16:52
bdmurraypersia: yes it was16:52
Hobbseepersia: yes16:52
persiaMind you, I've heard there may be architecture-specific kernels for intrepid, so I'm not sure that will remain, but it is probably the best package for hardy.16:52
bdmurraymvo: my laptop has "blown up" trying to upgrade to intrepid16:54
stperehi16:55
mvobdmurray: inside fontconfig-config?16:55
bdmurraymvo: yes, that sounds right16:56
ogasawaramvo: I'll move 235129 to the kernel16:56
bdmurrayogasawara: don't forget to mark it off the hug day list! ;-)16:56
ogasawaraheh16:56
mvobdmurray: ok, please run "sudo dpkg -i /var/cache/apt/archives/doc-base*0.8.16*.deb", then try "sudo apt-get install -f" again16:56
mvobdmurray: its most likely bug 24383016:57
ubottuLaunchpad bug 243830 in doc-base "base-passwd package failed to install during do-release-upgrade" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/24383016:57
mvobdmurray: I uploaded a perl that should have fixed it today, so if you could give me your upgrade logs, that would be most appreciated (I would like to check if you upgraded with the old perl or the new-hopefully-fixed perl)16:58
* mvo is also working on a package that allows sandbox upgrades in a VM before the real upgrade, hopefully that can be used to spot these kinds of issues early16:59
mvobdmurray: did installing doc-base help to fix the issue?17:03
yuriywow, I'm looking through the bug list and looks like these are mostly actually apt bus17:04
yuriy*bugs17:04
bdmurraymvo: it's progressing along17:04
bdmurraymvo: I had the old perl I'm sure as it got stuck yesterday or the day before17:05
mvoaha, ok17:05
bdmurraymvo: have you seen 240770?17:06
bdmurrayer bug 24077017:06
ubottuLaunchpad bug 240770 in apt "Multiple package managers hurting Linux adoption" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/24077017:06
mvobdmurray: no, I agree in principal, but reality is not there yet17:07
marnanelyou know there is no issue there17:09
marnanelLSB mandates that everything should be able to use RPM17:09
marnaneland everything *can*17:09
marnanelthere's alien.  problem solved. :)17:10
HewHey guys, I found an interesting page; Edgy release-critical bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/edgy/+bugs . Surely all these can just be marked invalid now?17:13
bdmurrayHew: do they occur in a newer release than Edgy?17:14
bdmurraymvo: is bug 234637 by design perhaps?17:15
ubottuLaunchpad bug 234637 in apt "apt-get ignores -y --force-yes -q -q" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/23463717:15
Hewbdmurray: some are outstanding only for Edgy, but others are still release-critical for other releases, while others haven't been fixed. I'm not talking about making the bug itself invalid, just the Edgy RC, since it's not supported.17:16
Hewthe vast majority seem to be Fix Released, and outstanding for Edgy only though17:17
bdmurrayHew: yes the Edgy task could become Won't Fix now.  It might be best if I or some of the release team did it though.17:19
Hewbdmurray: ok then17:20
bdmurrayHew: unless you really want to17:20
mvobdmurray: this one is about debconf vs. apt prompts, let me comment in the bug17:20
bdmurraymvo: ah, that makes sense17:21
Hewbdmurray: Yea, I'd like to give it a go :P. I understand any concern about mass-invalidating bugs. I can do a few and link them here if you want to make sure I'm doing it right.17:22
bdmurrayHew: I was more concerned about people possibly reacting negatively17:22
Hewbdmurray: Ah ok. They mostly seem to be abandoned bugs that are fixed in newer releases anyway. But of course, it's your call, I can find some other bugs to triage instead if you think that's best.17:24
bdmurrayHew: it's really up to you.  if there are any bugs that are still not fixed for the current release please let me know about those17:25
Hewbdmurray: ok, I'll start with ones that only have the Edgy task left then let you know :-)17:26
bdmurraymvo: Is there a bug regarding smb being an apt method?17:31
bdmurrayor not being rather ;)17:31
mvobdmurray: i guess not, what is the bugnumber?17:53
bdmurraybug 23180617:53
ubottuLaunchpad bug 231806 in apt "apt-get:  Add SMB to the valid Uri methods for software repositories" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/23180617:53
=== mcas_away is now known as mcas
mvobdmurray: looks to me like a wishlist item (with low priority)18:00
bdmurraymvo: right, I was wondering if there was an upstream bug about it at all18:00
calcbdmurray: what was the url to that prototype graph?18:02
calcoh i found it again :)18:02
bdmurraycalc: the graph is static at the moment too18:02
* calc likes that graph a lot better than the other individual ones :)18:09
calca time broken up version of that one would be wonderful :)18:09
calcit would probably be nice to be able to drill down to the individual graphs as well, but a overall picture is really nice :)18:12
calcyou can see how the package is doing in one glance18:12
thebishop!20249018:13
ubottuSorry, I don't know anything about 20249018:13
calcthebishop: bug 20249018:13
ubottuLaunchpad bug 202490 in ubuntu "Xd card reader not working" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/20249018:13
thebishopthanks, calc18:13
calcyipee 60.63% triaged OOo bugs :)18:16
calci broke through the 60% barrier today18:16
Hewbdmurray: done! 112 -> 12 remaining. The last ones still have an open status on the main task. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/edgy/+bugs . That was great fun, thanks for giving me the all clear on that :P. It's 3:30am here though, so I'd better head off.18:32
greg-gcalc: congrats! :)19:03
=== chuck_ is now known as zul
=== rockstar` is now known as rockstar
* calc wishes we could turn off bug reporting in the lp web interface21:08
calcor get that fabled firefox plugin ;-)21:09
* calc thinks the plugin is actually a better idea21:09
brian__hey all...  from reading this bug report https://bugs.launchpad.net/kdenetwork/+bug/52888 it appears that krfb wont work for anyone using *buntu and kde 3.5...  i find that hard to believe, but i dont see any other indication in that report21:17
ubottuLaunchpad bug 52888 in kdenetwork "krfb fails to work" [Medium,Fix released]21:17
brian__*unless they recompile kde21:17
yuriybrian__: iirc it works when viewing with krdc, no?21:20
brian__yuriy: no, im trying from another remote station using krdc and it actually crashes the vnc service21:20
yuriyhuh. maybe the fix in there got dropped at some point?21:22
yuriyregardless, give the kde4 version a try, it's much nicer21:22
yuriybut that is something to investigate21:22
yuriybut if it is crashing I think that may be a different bug from the one there21:22
brian__yuriy: so i just need the kde4 version of krfb, and it works with kde3.5?21:22
yuriywell I don't think the desktop matters. but try and see if the kde4 version of krfb+krdc will work21:23
brian__yuriy: ok, will.  thanks a bunch for the help21:23
* calc is considering setting up a quick close bug report for anyone not filing a bug via apport21:30
calcits really annoying to get bugs with no info not even ubuntu version21:31
dorinswhy is apport not enabled by default on hardy?21:48
dorinsbesides, I had to read the /etc/init.d/apport to figure out how to enable it21:49
greg-gdorins: just fyi, there are instructions here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed (under "Enable Apport")21:50
calcwell i mean the help->report a bug bit, not the apport crash stuff (though that is useful too)21:52
calca user should have no reason to file a bug without any useful info at all, unless the app is crashing, in which case the firefox plugin would be very helpful in that case even when apport crash reporting is disabled21:53
greg-grelated: there are responses on this brainstorm page about the reasons it is not enabled (not sure if dorins still wanted an answer or not): http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/9516/21:55
seb128dorins: because 85% of the crashes are already been reported and that would generate tons of duplicates for no real win21:56
dorinshmm, that makes sense, thanks21:59
calcwould be useful once a good duplicate finder was available (if even possible) ;-)22:00
calcbut yea its not that important22:00
dorinscalc: I don't know of an equivalent for help->report a bug on kde/kubuntu. Is there one?22:03
seb128dorins: calc is working on openoffice which has such items22:05
calcoh kde apps in kubuntu don't use launchpad-integration?22:06
seb128no idea22:06
jpdsSome of them have launchpad-integration.22:06
dorinsclicking help->report bug in konqueror takes me to bugs.kde.org22:07
* calc is down to 37 new bugs on OOo22:07
calcheh22:08
yuriydorins, calc, seb128: no kubuntu kde apps don't have any launchpad integration. help->report bug goes to bugs.kde.org since that's likely where the report should end up anyway22:18
chrisccoulsonJust having a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/24203322:57
ubottuLaunchpad bug 242033 in apt "Removing Sound Driver Should not Remove Entire Ubuntu Graphical User Interface (GNOME)" [Undecided,New]22:57
chrisccoulsonthis bug report is wrongly raised against apt. the reporter is saying that removing linux-sound-base removes gdm and ubuntu-desktop, which is expected22:58
stgraberubuntu-desktop depends for good reasons on linux-sound-base and I don't think it should recommend it instead so it's not really a bug22:59
stgraberthe reporter should blacklist alsa instead, sounds easier and won't break his system22:59
chrisccoulsonthat's what I thought, but I wanted to check first22:59
chrisccoulsoninvalid or won't fix? (i can do the former but not the latter)23:00
stgraberor just not put speakers on those computers :)23:00
chrisccoulsonlol23:00
stgraberWon't fix: "It may also be used for feature requests that the developers do not want to implement" sounds appropriate23:01
chrisccoulsonthanks. i'll add a comment now. could you set it to won't fix once i'm done please?23:03
stgrabersure23:03
chrisccoulsonstgraber - comment added now23:10
stgraberchrisccoulson: status changed23:13
chrisccoulsonthanks:)23:14
bdmurraynellery: I'm finding some incomplete bugs in the new table23:47
greg-gyay, closed a 5 digit bug23:50
bdmurraysweet23:50
greg-gyeah :)23:52
james_wbdmurray: could you renew my bugcontrol membership please? Apparently it's going to expire in a few days.23:57
bdmurraygreg-g: let me know when you are done23:58
greg-gwith the wiki? saving now.... done23:59
nellerybdmurray, which table is this?23:59

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!