[01:39] <Exilant> Hi, am I supposed to/allowed to file bugs against the version of kde 4.1 in the launchpad repositories, or not?
[01:53] <yuriy> Exilant: yes, please. preferably about the ones in Intrepid, but the hardy packages should be similar enough
[01:53] <Exilant> ok, will do, thank you
[01:53] <yuriy> Exilant: if hardy, do it against the -kde4 package (but it will likely need to be switched to the regular package if confirmed in intrepid)
[01:53] <yuriy> Exilant: i mean, the package ending in -kde4
[01:55] <Exilant> ok, will do
[01:57] <yuriy> Exilant: also please file at bugs.kde.org instead unless (or in addition) unless you think it's likely a bug introduced by kubuntu
[02:07] <persia> yuriy: Should KDE bugs really be filed in KDE *instead* rather than *also*?  I'd think that the bug link would be useful information, and having it already present in LP would reduce the effort of future triagers to track down the relevant upstream bug (plus it shows up in the list of duplicate candidates)
[02:11] <yuriy> persia: right, also with proper linkage is better
[02:11] <yuriy> and Exilant ^
[02:11] <Exilant> hm
[02:11] <Exilant> "kscreensaver-xsavers-extra-kde4" does not exist in Ubuntu. Please choose a different package. If you're unsure, please select "I don't know"
[02:12] <Exilant> i don't know, is that supposed to happen?
[02:13] <Exilant> maybe i'll leave out the kde4
[02:21] <Exilant> thanks for the help, and thanks for all that work in hunting and fixing bugs, have a good night
[02:34] <yuriy> damn, he left
[04:06] <mrooney> what is the proper way to handle a request for a backport?
[04:06] <mrooney> is there a guide for that?
[04:08] <persia> !backports
[05:10] <mrooney> persia: thanks :) I made it to that page before but for a different purpose and never noticed that section
[07:39] <mcas_away> good morning
[07:39] <mcas> i need help with bug 253279
[07:40] <mcas> it is an upstream problem and it is known there but must be fixed by nvidia
[07:40] <mcas> can someone tell me how to proceed?
[07:49] <RAOF> mcas: Is it an upstream _bug_?  If so, link to the upstream bug.
[07:51] <mcas> RAOF: i have to change the package to, because the nvidia driver are the probelm
[07:51] <mcas> s/probelm/problem
[07:51] <RAOF> mcas: If it's an nvidia bug, you can either mark it as Invalid, or if there's a really obvious bug (ie: not something like 'nvidia performs badly here', but doing x,y,z causes a catastrophy) then you want to move it to the nvidia source package.
[07:51] <RAOF> That's changed recently, I'm not sure what it is now.
[07:52] <mcas> RAOF: it's "only" about bad performance
[07:52] <RAOF> Then that's probably just invalid.
[07:53] <mcas> ok thank you
[07:53] <RAOF> Although 99% CPU utilisation is pretty bad :)
[07:53] <RAOF> It might be worth punting to the nvidia package, but it's likely to just sit there annoying people :(
[07:53] <mcas> yes but the hints from kde techbase did it for him
[07:54] <mcas> this problem is mentioned by the kde 4.1 release notes as known problem
[09:08]  * e-jat down down down 
[10:49] <james_w> mrooney: hi, http://people.ubuntu.com/~jamesw/mrooney.py
[13:23] <mrooney> james_w: thanks, I'll check it out!
[13:24] <james_w> mrooney: give us a shout if it doesn't work :-)
[13:24] <james_w> I didn't test it, but it's based on code I use
[14:34] <mouz> In bug 248788 the reporter has attached .crash files directly. He did so, because apport-gtk had crashed too. Apart from the fact the wrong files were attached: is a crash file in itself usable for triaging?
[14:46] <pedro_> mouz: if apport-gtk crashed you can tell the reporter to use apport-cli instead, attaching .crash files to the reports is a bad idea... apport should handle those
[14:47] <james_w> hey mouz
[14:47] <james_w> hey pedro_
[14:47] <pedro_> hey james_w
[14:47] <james_w> mouz: apport-cli -c /var/crash/whatever will submit an apport bug report correctly
[14:48] <james_w> you can get the stuff out of .crash files if they are attached, but it's more trouble than it's worth really
[14:48] <james_w> mouz: and you can close that bug, as the apport-cli thing will open a new one
[14:50] <mouz> ok thanks both
[15:36] <mcas> i need help with bug 236173
[15:36] <mcas> the package is now in the intrepid repos
[15:37] <mcas> can i change the status now to "Fixed released"?
[15:37] <yuriy> mcas: yes
[15:37] <mcas> thank you yuriy
[15:38] <yuriy> er sorry was thinking of something else. hope not to step on people's toes, but that should be right
[15:39] <yuriy> ping xand3r in #kubuntu-devel if you want to make sure he's done with it
[15:39] <mcas> yuriy: he gave me the information ;-)
[15:40] <mcas> he told me to close the bug
[15:40] <mcas> and i wasn't sure about the new status
[15:46] <mcas> sorry but its me again
[15:46] <mcas> bug 253617
[15:47] <mcas> i would change the status to confirmed because this would be a great feature
[15:47] <mcas> can someone please change the importance to Wishlist?
[15:51] <james_w> mcas: I'm on it, I think it's actually wishlist for firefox, packages can install apport hooks
[15:52] <mcas> ok do you change everything or should i?
[15:53] <mcas> i didn't know that applications can do that
[15:53] <james_w> I've done it I think
[15:53] <mcas> ok thanks
[16:53] <nhandler> If a person reports a bug on Launchpad, and then determines that it is not really a bug, but something they did wrong, what should the status be set to? Invalid?
[16:53] <bdmurray> nhandler: yes, that is correct
[16:54] <bdmurray> as we didn't make a change to some software to fix it
[16:54] <nhandler> Ok, that is what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks bdmurray
[16:58] <bddebian> Boo
[22:07] <mrooney> would anyone mind confirming bug 253400?
[22:08] <bdmurray> mrooney: confirmed
[22:09] <chrisccoulson> this is only with the original home page is it? i can't confirm it with a custom home page
[22:10] <mrooney> chrisccoulson: oh right, it would only be with a chrome: or another page which redirects
[22:12] <mrooney> generically it is just a bug that you can't easily go back after visiting a page which redirects
[22:13] <bdmurray> I'd never thought of fixing it, just always worked around it
[22:14] <mrooney> bdmurray: do you think it is worthy of fixing?
[22:14] <bdmurray> mrooney: that's up to upstream but it sure would be neat as it it'd save 2 clicks
[22:15] <mrooney> bdmurray: shall I attempt to forward it? and any ideas on importance in Ubuntu?
[22:16] <bdmurray> mrooney: low I'd say
[22:16] <chrisccoulson> i can confirm it as well actualy. just tried it with a fresh user
[22:18] <mrooney> chrisccoulson: thanks!
[22:19] <mrooney> now can I just do also affects /firefox (Mozilla Firefox) and that handles the upstream logic for me?
[22:20] <bdmurray> mrooney: you'd need to manually report it in the upstream bug tracking system
[22:21] <mrooney> bdmurray: oh, what happens if I say it also affects project firefox?
[22:22] <bdmurray> mrooney: not much without an upstream bug to link to, it just indicates that it needs forwarding
[22:23] <mrooney> bdmurray: oh okay, I wouldn't have been surprised if Launchpad forwarded it for me
[22:23] <mrooney> lately it has been getting more and more automagical
[22:25] <afflux> mrooney: while this could be helpful sometimes, it would probably lead to some duplicate bugs at the upstream bug tracker, because when forwarding manually, you usually check whether the bug already is known
[22:27] <mcas> can i ask a question to a hugday bug?
[22:27] <mcas> bug 160809
[22:27] <james_w> hey mcas, sure
[22:28] <mcas> i ask for more information should i mark it on the hugday wiki page?
[22:28] <mrooney> afflux: I guess I assumed whoever did it would have already checked that, now they just don't have to file it
[22:28] <mrooney> bdmurray: now, should I make the upstream bug about going back after redirects in general?
[22:28] <mrooney> I obviously can't make it about ubufox
[22:28] <afflux> ah right, that makes sense
[22:29] <bdmurray> mrooney: yes, that sounds ideal to me
[22:29] <mrooney> bdmurray: also sounds like it won't get fixed any time soon that way :)
[22:30] <mrooney> I think all browsers every have this issue
[22:30] <mrooney> though I could be wrong
[22:31] <james_w> mcas: yeah, if you've asked for more information and set it to incomplete, then put your name next to it on the wiki
[22:31] <mcas> ok this is my first hugday bug :-)
[22:31]  * james_w hugs mcas 
[22:31] <james_w> nice work! :-)
[22:32] <mcas> should i change to lightgreen?
[22:32] <james_w> yeah
[22:36] <mcas> done
[22:39] <mcas> thanks for your help james_w
[22:44] <greg-g> sorry, can't particpate today, but uh, should the topic be changed?
[22:44] <greg-g> bdmurray: ^
[22:46] <bdmurray> greg-g: oops, thanks!
[22:55] <mrooney> speaking of firefox, I guess bug 253641 needs to go upstream?
[22:58] <mrooney> man that was fun making the XML actually link to the XSL from launchpadlibrarian so you could just click it
[23:06] <afflux> note to myself: don't click on links in bugreports without reading what they are ("this link causes firefox to segfault *click*")
[23:06] <bdmurray> heh
[23:07] <bdmurray> So you can confirm it then? ;)
[23:07] <afflux> *confirmed*
[23:07] <afflux> yup :)