[01:50] <anakron> hi
[01:50] <anakron> i have one question
[01:50] <anakron> if a bug is related to a bad translated word into a po file, can i change that file and then make a patch for this program?
[01:54] <anakron> ¿?
[01:58] <PrivateVoid> hello
[01:58] <PrivateVoid> anakron, I think that is how it works... but I am far from an expert
[01:58] <theseinfeld> yes. did you submit the bug?
[01:58] <theseinfeld> if you did, you can add the patch there
[01:59] <theseinfeld> the maintainer should see it, push it upstream, etc...
[01:59] <anakron> i want to make a patch for it
[01:59] <anakron> i know how to
[01:59] <theseinfeld> do you want people to know about the patch?
[01:59] <theseinfeld> or you want to make it for yourself?
[01:59] <anakron> but i dont know if i can change that bad translation into the po file?
[02:00] <anakron> or it must be by a translation team
[02:00] <anakron> i think that i can
[02:03] <anakron> but i dont know if this must be done by me or Translation team member+
[02:26] <hggdh> anakron, you can change it, and propose it in  a patch
[02:27] <anakron> ok thanks a lot
[02:27] <anakron> mmm
[02:27] <anakron> but i have a question
[02:28] <anakron> someone know a right translation of "Cheese Webcam Booth" to german??
[07:56] <Taz> .
[08:00] <maco> well that was lengthy
[09:25] <ajmorris> hello all, i have a question with pbuilder...
[09:25] <ajmorris> when trying to run a pbuilder build, i get this error:
[09:25] <ajmorris> hostname: Host name lookup failure
[09:29] <ajmorris> i get that error if i run pbuilder from /var/cache/pbuilder if i run it from the directory where i want to build the package from, i get:
[09:29] <ajmorris> hostname: Unknown host
[09:29] <ajmorris> been trying to fix it, but been unsuccessfull, anyone here have any insight?
[09:36] <maco> ajmorris: er, don't you have a pbuilder script that you created when you set it up? i have a ~/pbuilder-hardy and i use "./pbuilder-hardy build src/blablah.dsc"
[17:08] <krychek> what can be done about these feisty/gaim crash reports: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gaim ?
[17:59] <mrooney> krychek: hmm yes that looks like a good area to clean up
[18:00] <krychek> mrooney: will you do it? :)
[18:00] <mrooney> haha I don't think I could handle that many bugs
[18:00] <krychek> what should be the standard reply here?
[18:01] <mrooney> basically for all the ones without recent activity, you would want to ask if they still experience it and if so can they try with the most recent pidgin (via backports or perhaps an intrepid livecd)
[18:01] <mrooney> and mark the status incomplete
[18:01] <krychek> Feisty/gaim are not supported anymore. Please reopen if this is still an issue with pidgin in a later version of Ubuntu. ?
[18:02] <krychek> why not directly to invalid?
[18:02] <mrooney> Oh yes I forgot Feisty isn't supported
[18:03] <mrooney> so if they are bugs from Feisty then sure that seem reasonable, though maybe a little friendlier :)
[18:03] <krychek> :)
[18:04] <krychek> could you check this: bug 20812
[18:04] <mrooney> I was going to say you could recommend enabling backports if they still want to use Feisty to get a newer version but, there doesn't appear to be one for Feisty?
[18:05] <krychek> i think this is the most least recently commented
[18:05] <mrooney> sure I can triage that one better
[18:05] <mrooney> but that isn't gaim, how did you find that one
[18:06] <krychek> that is the most "least recently changes" bug as i mentioned
[18:06] <krychek> changed
[18:07] <mrooney> Oh I see!
[18:08] <mrooney> Okay I just asked if it was still an issue and marked it as Incomplete
[18:09] <mrooney> that way it will automatically expire if no one cares about it
[18:09] <krychek> but that doesnt mean itll get set to invalid
[18:10] <krychek> i dont think that was an issue anyway..
[18:10] <krychek> it was rather a suggestion
[18:13] <mrooney> krychek: I thought that was exactly what happened, after the period of time they are Invalidated. Although because that synaptic bug has an assignee, it may not.
[18:14] <krychek> i dont think they will be invalid
[18:15] <krychek> itll just say "this bug has expired 241 days ago"
[18:18] <krychek> This bug report was marked for expiration 40 days ago.
[20:05] <jsmidt> How do I change the importance of a feature request to wishlist?  Launchpad seems to indicate I don't have permissions.  Is there something I need to do to get permissions?
[20:06] <jsmidt> I am trying to learn this 5 a day stuff out.
[20:07] <mrooney> jsmidt: BugControl has the permissions to do so, if you point it out I can do so
[20:07] <mrooney> jsmidt: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl
[20:08] <mrooney> You may also want to apply yourself if you have been doing bug stuff for a bit!
[20:11] <jsmidt> mrooney, this is the bug: 303757.  So, after spending some time doing 5 a day stuff I could join the team?
[20:11] <mrooney> jsmidt: yeah, are you in BugSquad now?
[20:11] <mrooney> bug 303757
[20:11] <jsmidt> Yes
[20:12] <jsmidt> But an just beginning to try the 5 a day thing.
[20:13] <mrooney> jsmidt: yes, that sounds good. Once you feel you have a good handle on triaging you can apply to BugControl and you can do a few more things like set importance and change status to triaged and wontfix
[20:13] <jsmidt> mrooney, okay, sounds great.
[20:14] <RAOF> jsmidt: You know what would be _really_ useful on that bug report?  Bouncing it upstream to the Gnome bugzilla.
[20:14] <mrooney> jsmidt: also you aren't supposed to confirm your own bug reports :)
[20:14] <mrooney> that doesn't really do anything
[20:14] <jsmidt> RAOF, good idea.
[20:15] <jsmidt> mrooney, yeah, makes since, I won't do that any more. :)
[20:15] <RAOF> Obviously, search for existing feature requests first.
[20:15] <mrooney> hm Launchpad is acting up a little, or something today
[20:31] <krychek> Sorry, there was a problem connecting to the Launchpad server.         :)
[20:31] <krychek> too many ppl triaging at the moment?
[20:32] <krychek> New (40%) wow :)
[20:40] <krychek> why do ppl set their own bugs to confirmed?
[20:41] <krychek> i dont think the confirmed status makes any sense anyway
[20:42] <krychek> if a bug has 5 duplicates that means its confirmed
[20:43] <RAOF> Not necessarily, but it's a data point.
[20:45] <krychek> do you think confirmed or new bugs get more attention?
[20:46] <raboof> i'd hope the former :)
[20:51] <krychek> im not sure about that.. since anyone can set it to confirmed
[20:52] <krychek> and triagers look at "new" bugs first, dont they?
[20:52] <jjesse> krychek: some bug triagers look at specific packages
[20:54] <krychek> ye, sure, but they dont care about if its new or confirmed.. ?
[20:55] <jjesse> krychek: it depends i think some maintain packages while others look at all bugs
[20:56] <raboof> if i was looking for something to fix i'd probably look at confirmed bugs first - assuming i'd be confident there are enough triagers around to look at and confirm/reject 'new' ones
[20:56] <krychek> nobody should be allowed to set their own bugs to confirmed anyway
[20:57] <jjesse> correct
[20:57] <raboof> agreed (unless it's someone intimite to the package)
[20:58] <krychek> maybe only priviliged users should be allowed to set them to confirmed?
[20:59] <raboof> do we have a concept of 'priviliged users'?
[20:59] <greg-g> yes
[20:59] <krychek> same ppl who can change the status
[20:59] <krychek> importance
[20:59] <krychek> i mean
[21:00] <krychek> same ppl who can change the importance.
[21:02] <raboof> perhaps this is kept open to make it as easy as possible for a new triager to get started?
[21:21] <hggdh> raboof, indeed. A beginner triager can do most
[21:22] <hggdh> krychek, anyone can set a bug confirmed. Only bug-control can set it traiged
[21:22] <hggdh> mrooney, I will not be able to be at UDS as I wanted -- I am stuck in Toronto for 4 weeks
[21:23] <mrooney> hggdh: oh how sad, alas!
[21:23] <mrooney> hggdh: doing anything fun in Toronto at least?
[21:24] <hggdh> yes, looking at sleet/snow/rain, all at the same time
[21:24] <hggdh> here just a normal contract -- being available for a potential crisis during the black friday sell period
[21:58] <xteejx> Hi guys
[21:59] <xteejx> The needs-packaging bug reports: Once they have been confirmed as not in ubuntu or debian, do we nominate them for release for jaunty?
[22:18] <xteejx> anyone?
[22:23] <xteejx> Also, everyone keep an eye on the amount of bugs, I'm clearing loads of old crap out that hasn't been touched since April - don't worry I'm going by the Procedures :) But these needs-packaging I'm checking them against Ubuntu and Debian package search and confirming them if they're not there per the guidelines, but do they need nominating for release or is that down to the reporter to do that, as
[22:23] <xteejx> I haven't seen anything on the Wiki about it.
[22:30] <krychek> xteejx: todays drop in the number of bugs wasnt only your work ;)
[22:32] <krychek> i dont touch needs-packaging bugs
[22:32] <krychek> i dont know if theyre official or just somebody wants to get his program packaged
[22:38] <nhandler> xteejx: You do not need to nominate them. They will get added to the repositories once someone chooses to package it and go through the REVU process
[22:40] <xteejx> nhandler: Ok one less thing to worry about. Thanks :)
[22:41] <xteejx> I don't normally touch needs-packaging either but I'm working on the New bugs in reverse order, as there's a hell of a lot of bugs over 6 months old
[22:41] <xteejx> Can't be good for the stats, and most are for older versions, yes I know they're still supported but a majority are kernel related
[22:41] <nhandler> You're welcome xteejx. One thing you can do (although it isn't a big deal) is check to see if the package has been uploaded to REVU or mentors.debian.net. If it has, you can add a link to the package on LP. But like I said, only do this if you really have nothing better to do with your time
[22:42] <xteejx> nhandler: I haven't lol
[22:42] <xteejx> :)
[22:42] <nhandler> :)
[22:42] <krychek> what do you with really old wishlist bugs?
[22:43] <xteejx> Can't work cuz of a disability so a lot of my time is bug hunting - usually crap on TV during the day anyway
[22:43] <nhandler> krychek: It depends on the bug
[22:43] <nhandler> krychek: Is the bug still valid?
[22:43] <krychek> im just asking generally.. since there are a lot of them
[22:44] <nhandler> krychek: If the bug is still valid, just leave it alone.
[22:44] <xteejx> old wishlist ones i check against ubuntu and debian package search facilites and see if any are already available, ie have been packaged since the original bug report. If so, invalidate them and explain why. if not, confirm them
[22:44] <nhandler> xteejx: I would mark them Fix Released, but it isn't a big deal
[22:45] <xteejx> i only found 1 anyway but i'll remember for the next one i come across :) didn't think about fix released to be honest
[22:45] <krychek> i wont care about them then..
[22:45] <xteejx> it's kool krychek i'm going through them all anyway, i'm setting that as my main task, clearing old crap out :)
[22:45] <krychek> what about old fix commited ones?
[22:46] <krychek> xteejx: im doing bugs in least recently changed order :)
[22:46] <xteejx> check with the package maintainer if these have been committed to PPA first see if they're activaly working on them
[22:46] <nhandler> krychek: Same as wishlist. If they have been released (in the repos), change them to Fix Released. Otherwise, if they are still just in VCS, leave them as Fix Committed
[22:46] <xteejx> krychek: lol probably see some disappear then
[22:47] <nhandler> xteejx: Fix Committed should be for a VCS, not really a PPA
[22:47] <xteejx> I see. So what about the ones that people have uploaded to their PPA, should we leave as Incomplete and link it?
[22:47] <nhandler> xteejx: Do you have an example of one?
[22:48] <nhandler> For most types of bugs, a PPA is really pointless
[22:48] <xteejx> Not off hand no I havent come across one yet
[22:48] <xteejx> Just hypothetically :)
[22:48] <nhandler> Usually, if they have it in a PPA, it is already Confirmed, so I would just leave it that way
[22:48] <xteejx> OK cool.
[22:49] <nhandler> If the bug hasn't been confirmed, they really shouldn't have bothered fixing it ;)
[22:49] <xteejx> True I suppose lol :)
[22:49] <xteejx> By the way I've got rid of about 100 or so in 3 hours - 100 less New status bugs :)
[22:50] <krychek> could you check on my own bug: i dont think pedro was fair: bug 294264        just check the screenshot
[22:50] <krychek> he wants exact steps
[22:50] <krychek> but the bug only occurs in every 10th or so bootups
[22:51] <xteejx> any chance of a dmesg log?
[22:51] <xteejx> forgot that
[22:51] <xteejx> *forget
[22:52] <krychek> there is a second screenshot with my other bug, but i didnt want to report it
[22:52] <nhandler> krychek: The bug is incomplete until someone else can confirm it on their machine.
[22:52] <xteejx> Has the user rebooted after this and it still appears? It could eb that workspace-switcher is not saving the setting until user logout
[22:52] <krychek> happens very rarely
[22:52] <xteejx> very strange bug
[22:53] <krychek> nhandler: the bug should be new until someone else confirms it :)
[22:53] <krychek> xteejx: im the user
[22:53] <xteejx> or incomplete if more info is needed
[22:53] <xteejx> ohhhhh right sorry krycheck didnt realise :)
[22:53] <xteejx> *krychek
[22:53] <nhandler> krychek: The bug does not have the appropriate information for someone to confirm it
[22:53] <krychek> you but i cant give exact steps..
[22:54] <nhandler> krychek: Which is why it is incomplete ;)
[22:54] <krychek> you=ye
[22:54] <xteejx> krychek: Are you able to grab a backtrace of some sort when it happens next time?
[22:54] <krychek> but how am i supposed to give exact steps? turn on the comp and sometimes its happening
[22:54] <nhandler> krychek: If there aren't exact steps, a developer will not be able to reproduce it. If they can't reproduce it, they won't fix it
[22:55] <krychek> i understand that..
[22:56] <xteejx> krycheck: Your best option is to try and somehow get a backtrace just after the problem occurs, if possible. This will definately help devs to sort it out. :)
[22:56] <krychek> how can i do it?
[22:56] <xteejx> 1 sec
[22:56] <xteejx> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures
[22:57] <krychek> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Backtrace ? ill read this tomorrow
[22:57] <xteejx> Pretty much everything you need to provide the required info will be on that wiki page. In your case try GNOME applets
[22:58] <krychek> ok thx
[22:58] <xteejx> no probs :)
[22:58] <krychek> could you check the second screenshot on the same bug?
[22:58] <krychek> i mean its another bug
[22:59] <krychek> have you seen it before?
[22:59] <krychek> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/19889385/systemmonitor.png
[23:00] <xteejx> I have seen it, the 4 thin lines where the workspaces should be....but I haven't come across it before no.
[23:00] <krychek> no, not the workspaces
[23:00] <krychek> the system monitor
[23:00] <krychek> check the first screenshot :)
[23:01] <krychek> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/19394998/workspacebug.png
[23:05] <krychek> ok im going to bed now
[23:05] <krychek> bye