[00:02] <sbeattie> modifying tags on a bug would be useful to have.
[00:03] <bdmurray> okay, I'll through that one in real soon now
[00:04] <sbeattie> thanks!
=== wolfger__ is now known as wolfger
[00:34] <bdmurray> sbeattie: okay, its there
[00:35] <sbeattie> in ubuntu-qa-tools
[00:35] <bdmurray> fwiw, which isn't much yet
[00:35] <sbeattie> ?
[00:35] <bdmurray> right
[00:35] <sbeattie> danke
[01:56] <baron1984> Can anyone tell me what component to file a an ACPI suspend/resume bug under?
[01:57] <baron1984> would that be ACPI, linux-generic....?
[01:58] <hggdh> baron1984, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingACPI. It should be filed against the linux source
[02:06] <baron1984> odd that it asks for kern.log.0
[02:06] <baron1984> that's yesterday, and a different kernel
[02:06] <baron1984> should I attach kern.log instead?
[02:17] <baron1984> bug 251338
[02:17] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 251338 in linux "Bad ACPI support on Foxconn G33M/G33M-S motherboards with AMI BIOS" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/251338
[02:17] <baron1984> :)
[02:18] <mrooney> :)
[02:18] <baron1984> can someone look that over?
[02:18] <baron1984> that report is still untouched in Red Hat's system
[02:18] <baron1984> :P
[02:19] <baron1984> apparently I really know how to pick hardware
[02:29] <mrooney> baron1984: I just took a peek, it looks fine, but I don't know all that much about which logs and such are useful
[02:30] <baron1984> mrooney: I just put up what it asked for
[02:30] <baron1984> mrooney: I also linked it to Fedora's Bugzilla
[02:30] <baron1984> same problem in their kernel
[02:30] <baron1984> and I suspect any 2.6.24 or 2.6.25's
[02:31] <baron1984> I tried Fedora's 2.6.26 kernel based on -git9, it fixed most of my problems
[02:31] <baron1984> but broke so much other stuff, it's not funny
[02:31] <baron1984> same with Intrepid
[02:32] <baron1984> but 2.6.26 has an almost entirely new ACPI disassembler
[02:32] <baron1984> it tends to act much more like Windows
[02:32] <baron1984> forgiving of horribly broken BIOSes
[02:32] <baron1984> go figure
=== baron1984 is now known as izanbardprince
=== tritium_ is now known as tritium
=== asac_ is now known as asac
[08:35] <mouz> Is 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] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 202431 in findutils "typo in man page of "find"" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/202431
[08:41] <seb128> mouz: doesn't bring a lot but doesn't hurt either
[09:08] <mouz> seb128: ok thanks
[12:10] <pereza> Good morning from Canada.
[12:13] <james_w> hi pereza
[12:14] <james_w> you know what day it is?
[12:14]  * james_w hugs everybody
[12:14] <pereza> is it today, the ubuntu buy day?
[12:14] <pereza> hi james_w
[12:15] <james_w> It's hug day for apt
[12:16] <james_w> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20080724
[12:16] <pereza> I thought it will be very busy today in this channel
[12:17] <james_w> some bug days it is, some days people just get on with it quietly it seems.
[12:18] <pereza> I see
[13:16] <Hobbsee> \o/ mvo
=== jjesse_ is now known as jjesse
[14:21] <james_w> What does T mean in a directory listing?
[14:21] <james_w> drwxrwx--T 2 bin  bin     1024 2007-06-21 15:10 atjobs
[14:25] <persia> james_w: That's the sticky bit.
[14:27] <persia> There 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_w> thanks
[14:27] <james_w> damn hard to google for without knowing the name
[14:28] <james_w> it seems that that wouldn't cause "Cannot change to /var/spool/cron/atjobs: Permission denied"
[14:28] <persia> It shouldn't, no.
[14:28] <Hew> I'm triaging bug #173816 atm. Anyone know the difference between compiz-bcop and compiz-fusion-bcop?
[14:28] <ubottu> Launchpad 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/173816
[14:29] <james_w> hi Hew
[14:29] <james_w> one is probably a replacement for the other
[14:30] <james_w> it appears -bcop was Ubuntu local, and -fusion-bcop has come in from Debian
[14:31] <Hew> james_w: yep. compiz-bcop (main) started with Gutsy though, and compiz-fusion-bcop (universe) with Hardy.
[14:31] <james_w> I guess that the old packages should be transitioned to the new package
[14:31] <Hew> was wondering if it was best just to remove one of the packages?
[14:31] <Hew> yea
[14:32] <james_w> I'm not sure what the plan is, but it should end up with one being removed
[14:32] <Hew> I 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 one
[14:32] <james_w> you could either talk to the maintainer, or just explain what's going on and mark the bug triaged
[14:33] <Hew> james_w: Sure thing, I'll chase someone up. Thanks for your help.
[14:36] <james_w> ah, it seems that atd drops privileges to "daemon", and then expects to be able to chdir to a bin/bin owned dir.
[14:37] <james_w> so, why does this work for anyone else?
[15:56] <Hew> Are 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 #173816
[15:56] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 173816 in compiz-fusion-bcop "compiz-bcop is the same as compiz-fusion-bcop" [High,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/173816
[15:57] <Hobbsee> Hew: ubuntu-universe-sponsors?
[15:57] <Hew> Hobbsee: Makes sense, I shall make it so. Thanks.
[15:58]  * Hobbsee eyes it
[15:58] <Hobbsee> better still, i'll ack it and pass it directly to -archive
[15:59] <Hew> Hobbsee: oh, it's in main btw
[15:59] <Hew> if that makes a difference
[15:59] <Hobbsee> oh, then it would be main sponsors.
[15:59]  * Hobbsee is a core dev too.
[16:00] <Hew> excellent :)
[16:00] <Hobbsee> i'm an archive admin as well, but i don't have removal powers.
[16:00] <Hew> ah ok
[16:01] <Hobbsee> hmmm
[16:01] <Hobbsee> mvo__: you around?
[16:04] <seb128> do we have some people still running hardy there?
[16:04] <seb128> there is quite some GNOME sru which need verifications ;-)
[16:06] <persia> seb128: If you haven't already, you might also ask in #ubuntu-testing (as potential testers are found in both places)
[16:07] <seb128> persia: ok, I didn't, good to know
[16:07] <seb128> thanks
=== 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
[16:46] <bddebian> Boo
[16:49] <bdmurray> mvo: ping
[16:49] <mvo> bdmurray: pong
[16:50] <bdmurray> Hi, I'm looking at bug 235129 and don't think it should really be about apt
[16:50] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 235129 in apt "Installing/upgrading a kernel fails when /boot isn't mounted" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/235129
[16:51] <bdmurray> It seems to me the check would need to done in one of the kernel packages is that right?
[16:51] <mvo> bdmurray: yes, that is right
[16:51] <mvo> bdmurray: that would be too much policy inside apt itself
[16:51] <bdmurray> Which kernel package would that be?
[16:51] <persia> Note that the recommended solution would break e.g. unionfs environments.
[16:51] <mvo> linux-source-2.6.26 I would say (but I'm not 100% postitive, the kernel packaging is something I'm not too familiar with)
[16:52] <persia> Wasn't the source package migrated to just "linux"?
[16:52] <bdmurray> ogasawara: ?
[16:52] <bdmurray> persia: yes it was
[16:52] <Hobbsee> persia: yes
[16:52] <persia> Mind 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.
[16:54] <bdmurray> mvo: my laptop has "blown up" trying to upgrade to intrepid
[16:55] <stpere> hi
[16:55] <mvo> bdmurray: inside fontconfig-config?
[16:56] <bdmurray> mvo: yes, that sounds right
[16:56] <ogasawara> mvo: I'll move 235129 to the kernel
[16:56] <bdmurray> ogasawara: don't forget to mark it off the hug day list! ;-)
[16:56] <ogasawara> heh
[16:56] <mvo> bdmurray: ok, please run "sudo dpkg -i /var/cache/apt/archives/doc-base*0.8.16*.deb", then try "sudo apt-get install -f" again
[16:57] <mvo> bdmurray: its most likely bug 243830
[16:57] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 243830 in doc-base "base-passwd package failed to install during do-release-upgrade" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/243830
[16:58] <mvo> bdmurray: 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)
[16:59]  * 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 early
[17:03] <mvo> bdmurray: did installing doc-base help to fix the issue?
[17:04] <yuriy> wow, I'm looking through the bug list and looks like these are mostly actually apt bus
[17:04] <yuriy> *bugs
[17:04] <bdmurray> mvo: it's progressing along
[17:05] <bdmurray> mvo: I had the old perl I'm sure as it got stuck yesterday or the day before
[17:05] <mvo> aha, ok
[17:06] <bdmurray> mvo: have you seen 240770?
[17:06] <bdmurray> er bug 240770
[17:06] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 240770 in apt "Multiple package managers hurting Linux adoption" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/240770
[17:07] <mvo> bdmurray: no, I agree in principal, but reality is not there yet
[17:09] <marnanel> you know there is no issue there
[17:09] <marnanel> LSB mandates that everything should be able to use RPM
[17:09] <marnanel> and everything *can*
[17:10] <marnanel> there's alien.  problem solved. :)
[17:13] <Hew> Hey 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?
[17:14] <bdmurray> Hew: do they occur in a newer release than Edgy?
[17:15] <bdmurray> mvo: is bug 234637 by design perhaps?
[17:15] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 234637 in apt "apt-get ignores -y --force-yes -q -q" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/234637
[17:16] <Hew> bdmurray: 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.
[17:17] <Hew> the vast majority seem to be Fix Released, and outstanding for Edgy only though
[17:19] <bdmurray> Hew: 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.
[17:20] <Hew> bdmurray: ok then
[17:20] <bdmurray> Hew: unless you really want to
[17:20] <mvo> bdmurray: this one is about debconf vs. apt prompts, let me comment in the bug
[17:21] <bdmurray> mvo: ah, that makes sense
[17:22] <Hew> bdmurray: 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] <bdmurray> Hew: I was more concerned about people possibly reacting negatively
[17:24] <Hew> bdmurray: 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.
[17:25] <bdmurray> Hew: 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 those
[17:26] <Hew> bdmurray: ok, I'll start with ones that only have the Edgy task left then let you know :-)
[17:31] <bdmurray> mvo: Is there a bug regarding smb being an apt method?
[17:31] <bdmurray> or not being rather ;)
[17:53] <mvo> bdmurray: i guess not, what is the bugnumber?
[17:53] <bdmurray> bug 231806
[17:53] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 231806 in apt "apt-get:  Add SMB to the valid Uri methods for software repositories" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/231806
=== mcas_away is now known as mcas
[18:00] <mvo> bdmurray: looks to me like a wishlist item (with low priority)
[18:00] <bdmurray> mvo: right, I was wondering if there was an upstream bug about it at all
[18:02] <calc> bdmurray: what was the url to that prototype graph?
[18:02] <calc> oh i found it again :)
[18:02] <bdmurray> calc: the graph is static at the moment too
[18:09]  * calc likes that graph a lot better than the other individual ones :)
[18:09] <calc> a time broken up version of that one would be wonderful :)
[18:12] <calc> it 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] <calc> you can see how the package is doing in one glance
[18:13] <thebishop> !202490
[18:13] <ubottu> Sorry, I don't know anything about 202490
[18:13] <calc> thebishop: bug 202490
[18:13] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 202490 in ubuntu "Xd card reader not working" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/202490
[18:13] <thebishop> thanks, calc
[18:16] <calc> yipee 60.63% triaged OOo bugs :)
[18:16] <calc> i broke through the 60% barrier today
[18:32] <Hew> bdmurray: 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.
[19:03] <greg-g> calc: congrats! :)
=== chuck_ is now known as zul
=== rockstar` is now known as rockstar
[21:08]  * calc wishes we could turn off bug reporting in the lp web interface
[21:09] <calc> or get that fabled firefox plugin ;-)
[21:09]  * calc thinks the plugin is actually a better idea
[21:17] <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 report
[21:17] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 52888 in kdenetwork "krfb fails to work" [Medium,Fix released]
[21:17] <brian__> *unless they recompile kde
[21:20] <yuriy> brian__: 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 service
[21:22] <yuriy> huh. maybe the fix in there got dropped at some point?
[21:22] <yuriy> regardless, give the kde4 version a try, it's much nicer
[21:22] <yuriy> but that is something to investigate
[21:22] <yuriy> but if it is crashing I think that may be a different bug from the one there
[21:22] <brian__> yuriy: so i just need the kde4 version of krfb, and it works with kde3.5?
[21:23] <yuriy> well I don't think the desktop matters. but try and see if the kde4 version of krfb+krdc will work
[21:23] <brian__> yuriy: ok, will.  thanks a bunch for the help
[21:30]  * calc is considering setting up a quick close bug report for anyone not filing a bug via apport
[21:31] <calc> its really annoying to get bugs with no info not even ubuntu version
[21:48] <dorins> why is apport not enabled by default on hardy?
[21:49] <dorins> besides, I had to read the /etc/init.d/apport to figure out how to enable it
[21:50] <greg-g> dorins: just fyi, there are instructions here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed (under "Enable Apport")
[21:52] <calc> well i mean the help->report a bug bit, not the apport crash stuff (though that is useful too)
[21:53] <calc> a 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 disabled
[21:55] <greg-g> related: 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/
[21:56] <seb128> dorins: because 85% of the crashes are already been reported and that would generate tons of duplicates for no real win
[21:59] <dorins> hmm, that makes sense, thanks
[22:00] <calc> would be useful once a good duplicate finder was available (if even possible) ;-)
[22:00] <calc> but yea its not that important
[22:03] <dorins> calc: I don't know of an equivalent for help->report a bug on kde/kubuntu. Is there one?
[22:05] <seb128> dorins: calc is working on openoffice which has such items
[22:06] <calc> oh kde apps in kubuntu don't use launchpad-integration?
[22:06] <seb128> no idea
[22:06] <jpds> Some of them have launchpad-integration.
[22:07] <dorins> clicking help->report bug in konqueror takes me to bugs.kde.org
[22:07]  * calc is down to 37 new bugs on OOo
[22:08] <calc> heh
[22:18] <yuriy> dorins, 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 anyway
[22:57] <chrisccoulson> Just having a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/242033
[22:57] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 242033 in apt "Removing Sound Driver Should not Remove Entire Ubuntu Graphical User Interface (GNOME)" [Undecided,New]
[22:58] <chrisccoulson> this bug report is wrongly raised against apt. the reporter is saying that removing linux-sound-base removes gdm and ubuntu-desktop, which is expected
[22:59] <stgraber> ubuntu-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 bug
[22:59] <stgraber> the reporter should blacklist alsa instead, sounds easier and won't break his system
[22:59] <chrisccoulson> that's what I thought, but I wanted to check first
[23:00] <chrisccoulson> invalid or won't fix? (i can do the former but not the latter)
[23:00] <stgraber> or just not put speakers on those computers :)
[23:00] <chrisccoulson> lol
[23:01] <stgraber> Won't fix: "It may also be used for feature requests that the developers do not want to implement" sounds appropriate
[23:03] <chrisccoulson> thanks. i'll add a comment now. could you set it to won't fix once i'm done please?
[23:03] <stgraber> sure
[23:10] <chrisccoulson> stgraber - comment added now
[23:13] <stgraber> chrisccoulson: status changed
[23:14] <chrisccoulson> thanks:)
[23:47] <bdmurray> nellery: I'm finding some incomplete bugs in the new table
[23:50] <greg-g> yay, closed a 5 digit bug
[23:50] <bdmurray> sweet
[23:52] <greg-g> yeah :)
[23:57] <james_w> bdmurray: could you renew my bugcontrol membership please? Apparently it's going to expire in a few days.
[23:58] <bdmurray> greg-g: let me know when you are done
[23:59] <greg-g> with the wiki? saving now.... done
[23:59] <nellery> bdmurray, which table is this?