[03:47] <bucket529> bug 146265 is a packaing request. The same version is now in both Debian Unstable and Jaunty. Can I close the bug? Or leave it alone?
[03:50] <ScottK> bucket529: Mark it fix released then.
[03:51] <bucket529> ScottK: I don't have permission to change Importance.
[03:52] <ScottK> Don't worry about that.  Just status.
[03:52] <bucket529> Aha!
[03:52] <bucket529> Thanks
[04:41] <binarymutant> how do I request a needs-packaging bug? or ITP? Also, how can I search these bug reports?
[04:42] <ScottK> They are tagged 'needs-packaging' so search for that under advanced search for tags.
[04:43] <binarymutant> sweets thanks again ScottK
[06:00] <sparr> how can i change the dependencies of gcc-avr so that i can apt-get build-dep it?
[06:29] <sparr> where was chrisccoulson seeing that gcc-avr depends on binutils-avr >= 2.18-4?  i see dependencies on 2.16.1-1 on packages.ubuntu.com and in apt-cache show
[06:39] <dholbach> good morning
[10:42] <wolfger> good morning, buggers :-)
[10:44] <wolfger> Back in August there was an announcement of kernel bug migration (from "linux-source-2.6.xx" to "linux"), which was supposed to be largely automated, but I'm coming across some old bugs that weren't migrated, or weren't fully migrated
[10:44] <wolfger> is there a procedure to follow for this?
[10:50] <wolfger> nevermind, I found it :-)
[13:45] <hggdh> Bug #222569
[13:56] <savvas> who do I have to notify for packages: dict, dictd, dictfmt, dictzip
[13:56] <savvas> I found typos in the debian/control
[13:57] <savvas> Repositories: jaunty-main-i386, jaunty-main-amd64 - Packages: dict, dictd, dictfmt, dictzip - Typo: "Original-Maintaine:" instead of "Original-Maintainers:"
[14:39] <hggdh> savvas, you can open a bug on this; you can also contact the packager
[14:42] <savvas> hggdh: debdiffs are welcome for such minor typos?
[15:01] <hggdh> yes, but I do not think you need to go that far
[15:04] <savvas> ok, I'll report them :)
[15:05] <hggdh> savvas, thank you for helping out
[15:06] <savvas> oh no problem, I'm using it with a handy sqlite tool I've created :)
[15:07] <thekorn> bdmurray: hi, this "bug converted to questions and still with incomplete status" mentioned on the ML looks like a bug in launchpad to me,
[15:07] <thekorn> I was able to reproduce it here: https://bugs.staging.launchpad.net/buglog-data/+bug/137550
[15:10] <bdmurray> thekorn: I think it is a timing issue where someone had an unrefreshed version of the bug.  How did you recreate it?
[15:13] <thekorn> bdmurray: exactly, I converted the bug into a question, and while the page was loading after clicking on "convert this bug into a question" I changed the status of the bug
[15:13] <ScottK> bdmurray: Got a moment to chat?
[15:15] <bdmurray> thekorn: I wonder if the status of bug converted to a question could be changed with the api or py-lp-b too.  I agree its a bug in Launchpad.
[15:16] <thekorn> bdmurray: py-l-b yes, because it does the same as the web ui, no for api, because the API has a lock for such things, as far as I know
[15:17] <thekorn> Oh, but both should not be able to change the status back now
[15:17] <bdmurray> thekorn: what I think is happening is that the status and importance and just locked in the web ui
[15:18] <thekorn> yes, sorry I missunderstood you,
[15:18] <thekorn> there is now way to change the status/importance etc. back on the useres side right now
[15:26] <bdmurray> thekorn: have you submitted a bug about this?  if not I will
[15:27] <thekorn> bdmurray: no, please do
[15:27] <thekorn> thanks
[17:54] <tcole> hello, dumb question
[17:55] <tcole> is there a mechanism to take an LP bug and forward it over to Gnome bugzilla, linking the LP bug with the bugzilla one?
[17:55] <tcole> or is that done manually?
[17:56] <pedro_> tcole: you need to forward it manually and then add the bug watch in lp
[17:56] <tcole> ok, thanks
[17:57] <pedro_> you're welcome
[17:58] <tcole> another dumb question: how do I add a bug watch?
[18:02] <pedro_> tcole: click on "also affects project" on the bug page
[18:02] <pedro_> tcole: after that, put the url of the upstream bug on the "I have the URL for the upstream bug:" field
[18:03] <pedro_> there's a neat documentation on how to add bug watches here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Watches
[18:03] <tcole> okay, cool, thanks
[18:03] <pedro_> np :-)
[18:06] <greg-g> bdmurray: is the "corect" way of attaching branches to bugs to create a new branch with only the changes that fix that bug? makes sense, but that might mean I would have lp:me/gwibber/bug12355 and /bug3532 and /bug3588 and.. and...  whats the correct workflow for this?
[18:09] <greg-g> pedro_: do you attach many personal bzr branches to bug reports?
[18:10] <thekorn> greg-g: the best thing about this: you get ALOT of karma ;)
[18:10] <greg-g> thekorn: yeah :)
[18:10] <pedro_> greg-g: no why?
[18:10] <greg-g> pedro_: I was wondering about best practices/workflow, oh yeah, you missed my question
[18:10] <greg-g> "is the "corect" way of attaching branches to bugs to create a new branch with only the changes that fix that bug? makes sense, but that might mean I would have lp:me/gwibber/bug12355 and /bug3532 and /bug3588 and.. and...  whats the correct workflow for this?"
[18:11] <bdmurray> greg-g: In the past I've used one branch with separate commits per bug.
[18:12] <bdmurray> It depends on how related the changes are though.  What are you looking at?
[18:12] <greg-g> bug 297228
[18:12] <thekorn> imho it is the best and most sensible workflow, this way it is easy to use all the reviewing functionality of launchpad
[18:12] <greg-g> bug 296871
[18:14] <greg-g> that makes logical sense, I was just worried I might end up having a ton of separate branches, no big deal I guess.
[18:14] <bdmurray> thekorn: it which?
[18:16] <greg-g> bdmurray: my changes tend to be one-liners, so probably one branch with separate commits per bug.  I thought the separate branches didn't make sense since you can't link to a specific commit/revision with LP's "link a branch"
[18:18] <greg-g> correction: ....I thought they DID make sense since you can't...
[18:18] <bdmurray> thanks, still parsing it
[18:20] <bdmurray> james_w: Do you have an opinion?
[18:21] <greg-g> so, I link to a branch, and it just goes to the whole branch, in which I might have made more than one bug fix commit.  I have to say "this bug is fixed by rev 121 in this branch"
[18:21] <thekorn> my problem is: what if I would like to wodo further work in a branch, fixing another bug, launchpad does not allow me to say "this bug is fixed in rev of this branch"
[18:21] <thekorn> (so what greg-g says)
[18:21] <greg-g> right
[18:22] <thekorn> and the review process only alows to review the whole branch and not one revision
[18:22] <tcole> part of that is a workflow issue
[18:22] <tcole> the ideal is a branch per feature/bugfix
[18:22] <greg-g> which is where I got the idea of separate branchs for each bug.  branch from trunk, fix bug, push to lp:~me/project/bug12345.  then to work on another bug branch from trunk again, push to lp:~me/project/8575
[18:22] <thekorn> and as having many branches does not hurt, I tend to use one branch per bug
[18:24] <greg-g> and you can delete branches from the LP code interface
[18:24] <bdmurray> I think one branch per bug is the better general rule but it does really depend on the situation
[18:25] <thekorn> one good feature of bzr is:   bzr commit --fixes lp:12345
[18:25] <greg-g> right, there are always corner cases.  Sorry to diverge the topic :)
[18:25] <greg-g> thekorn: oh!
[18:25] <bdmurray> greg-g: hmm? fixing bugs is on topic!
[18:26] <greg-g> then I take that back :)
[20:35] <sparr> where was chrisccoulson seeing that gcc-avr depends on binutils-avr >= 2.18-4?  i see dependencies on 2.16.1-1 on packages.ubuntu.com and in apt-cache show
[20:39] <ScottK> That's because the one he was looking at never got built.
[20:40] <sparr> where?
[20:40] <sparr> id like to report the bug, and/or get it fixed on my end so i can install the build deps
[20:41] <ScottK> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid/+source/gcc-avr/1:4.3.0-4
[20:46] <chrisccoulson> james_w - have you spoken any more with seb128 regarding the system-tools-backend bug? just wondering if any decision had been made on how to progress it? i can prepare a debdiff for jaunty with the init script disabled if you think thats the correct way forward
[20:47] <sparr> thanks ScottK
[21:28] <angusthefuzz> I just verified bug #296484 it has the potential for user data loss and therefore I think it should be marked high, can someone verify that this is the correct importance
[21:29] <azimout> bug 296484
[21:29] <angusthefuzz> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/296484
[21:29] <azimout> hey, what happened to ubottu today?
[21:32] <azimout> angus, yes, i think its importance should be high
[21:32] <azimout> check for duplicate reports, and report upstream
[21:32] <angusthefuzz> azimout: do you mind setting it, I dont have my bug-control badge yet :-)
[21:32] <azimout> a google search might also help you find similar reports in other distros
[21:33] <angusthefuzz> thanks azimout will do, might be hard to find, its a pretty unique circumstance i think
[21:33] <azimout> angus: did the importance assignment for you
[21:34] <angusthefuzz> azimout: thanks, i will take care of pushing it upstream
[21:35] <azimout> angus: feel free to ask if you need more help
[21:35] <azimout> btw, you should apply for bugcontrol
[21:36] <angusthefuzz> azimout: thanks, I definitely will
[21:51] <james_w> chrisccoulson: I haven't, but it sounded like it is the correct thing to do, so I believe seb would be happy to sponsor a debdiff for it
[21:52] <chrisccoulson1> no probs. i'll sort that out later one
[21:52] <chrisccoulson1> later on**
[21:57] <james_w> thanks Chris
[21:59] <xteejx> Evening guys. I'm working on bug 296095 and the developer has written a debdiff for a fix, what do I as a triager do with the status? Fix Committed? This isn't written anywhere.
[21:59] <xteejx> hggdh: Thanks for the reply email earlier on by the way.
[22:00] <james_w> xteejx: is a sponsor team subscribed?
[22:01] <xteejx> james_w: I don't think so, I wasn't sure on the procedure for this so I wanted to check here first.
[22:02] <azimout> no, no team subscribed, not assigned to anyone
[22:03] <xteejx> No I haven't done anything with it, wasn't sure what to do to be honest :) Don't wanna go and mess it up lol
[22:03] <james_w> xteejx: when there is a debdiff you should make sure the appropriate sponsor team is subscribed, and if not then subscribe them and state that that is what should be done
[22:03] <xteejx> The dev just toook it and defdiff'd it
[22:03] <xteejx> james_w: How do I know who to subscribe?
[22:04] <azimout> this "gilir" guy just popped up, posted 2 debdiffs, changed from confirmed to in progress and back, and left
[22:04] <james_w> xteejx: for packages in universe use 'ubuntu-universe-sponsors', and similar for packages in main
[22:04] <james_w> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
[22:05] <xteejx> james_w: Oh right ok, so maybe a stupid question, but who reviews it, do the sponsors teams do that, I mean how does anyone know this random guy posting defdiffs can be trusted?
[22:06] <james_w> well, gilir can
[22:06] <james_w> but yes, the sponsor team reviews
[22:06] <xteejx> james_w: Oh right kool, thanks james :)
[22:08] <xteejx> james_w: Status to be left as Confirmed on these then?
[22:09] <hggdh> xteejx, welcome
[22:09] <xteejx> hggdh: Hi :)
[22:12] <hggdh> cheers, xteejx
[22:12] <xteejx> np
[22:13] <xteejx> How do we kill user accounts on Launchpad with IMMEDIATE effect : I suggest someone kills off EnvyAA28 ASAP ref: bug 297388
[22:14] <james_w> xteejx: the status should reflect the status of the bug. The bug is probably confirmed if there is a patch for the bug
[22:14] <xteejx> james_w: I confirmed it :)
[22:14] <hggdh> so it did work for you, right?
[22:15] <angusthefuzz> haha
[22:15] <xteejx> I sent a nice message lol
[22:15] <hggdh> xteejx, one option is to go to #launchpad, and talk to them mthere
[22:15] <xteejx> Will do
[22:20] <xteejx> Done
[22:20] <xteejx> What an idiot, as if he thinks it will stay there lol
[22:23] <xteejx> I'm tempted to spam him myself, got his email addy lol
[22:28] <xteejx> hggdh: Yes it did work for me, I'm now a millionair and bought Canonical :)