[01:42] <cprofitt> bdmurray, if you are in... let me know
[01:50] <bdmurray> cprofitt: I am in
[01:51] <cprofitt> Hey bdmurray
[01:52] <cprofitt> I was told to contact you by nhandler and Rocket2DMn
[01:52] <cprofitt> I put in an app a while back... and then sent my examples to you per your request back on 1/31
[01:52] <cprofitt> and was hoping to get approved in time for the bug jam this Saturday
[01:52] <Rocket2DMn> the email just got forwarded to the list moments ago :)
[01:52] <cprofitt> I am running a live event
[01:53] <cprofitt> yes, I was asked to forward the 1/31 email I sent you to the list... so I did
[01:55] <bdmurray> I see it and I'll make a point of reviewing it tomorrow
[01:55] <cprofitt> thanks... all I can ask for...
[01:55] <cprofitt> I appreciate it
[01:55] <bdmurray> No problem, sorry for the delay
[01:55] <cprofitt> No worries... I understand busy
[01:56] <bdmurray> Yeah, I was at the sprint when you sent it
[01:56] <cprofitt> I am VP of the state LoCo, just took over a LUG in my city, starting to develop for the sugar folks, have three kids and a full time job
[01:56] <cprofitt> and work on the Beginners Team...
[01:57] <cprofitt> after giving up computer gaming I have almost gone full time Linux stuff to fill out my dance card
[01:57]  * cprofitt smiles
[06:08] <dholbach> good morning
[06:10] <maco> up earlier than usual?
[06:12] <dholbach> maco: no, not really :)
[06:12] <maco> i thought you usually showed up about an hour from now
[06:16] <dholbach> 7:16 now
[06:17] <maco> *shrug* i thought it was usually 2am here
[06:17] <maco> maybe that's thekorn
[09:54] <Hew> Is there any way to stop the retracer detecting duplicates and sticking them on bug 254671?
[09:55] <seb128> Hew: no
[09:55] <seb128> Hew: just reopen the bug if you really want
[09:55]  * Hew sighs
[09:55] <Hew> seb128: I don't really want, it's just another bug got put there. I can keep manually moving them.
[09:56] <seb128> what would be nice is to send that bug upstream so it get fixed or to reopen the upstream one
[09:56] <seb128> rather collecting duplicates on launchpad
[09:56] <Hew> true
[09:57] <seb128> do you have a bugzilla account?
[10:00] <Hew> seb128: Yes I do
[10:00] <seb128> so maybe you can reopen the bug there and add a comment? ;-)
[10:00] <seb128> thanks!
[10:01] <Hew> seb128: Yep, I'll do it in a sec :-)
[10:01] <seb128> cool
[10:52] <Hew> seb128: The attachments have been removed from all reports. I have managed to grab them from the most recent dupe, but the stacktrace isn't complete. Am I able to retrace with the CoreDump.gz?
[10:52] <Hew> typical, haha
[10:59] <Hew> anyone know how to retrace using a CoreDump.gz?
[11:00] <hggdh> ungzip it, then gdb --core=CoreDump
[11:00] <hggdh> probably will not work, though, unless you have the same package levels
[11:00] <hggdh> (meaning will not work producing good, kosher, bts)
[11:12] <Hew> hggdh: Thanks for the help, I'll give it a go :-)
[12:23] <Hew> seb128, pedro_: The retracer removes all attachments from reports of bug 321041. I have managed to grab them from the most recent dupe, but the stacktrace isn't complete. We can't report this upstream without more information, right?
[12:24] <seb128> Hew: if it cleans those that's because the stacktrace is identic to the one on the master bug
[12:27] <hggdh> Hew, did you succeed on running gdb on it? If so, run it again, and ask for 'thread apply all bt full'; then use the output for the upstream bug
[12:29] <Hew> hggdh: It found no debugging symbols (even once I installed the relevant -dbgsym). I assumed that's what you meant by "probably will not work".
[12:30] <hggdh> Hew, indeed. You probably have a different version of the packages
[12:31] <pedro_> Hew: would be also good to ask for a valgrind log with the XKL_DEBUG mode: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=537592#c8
[12:31] <seb128> the intrepid issue was not a libxklavier issue
[12:31] <seb128> the handler there was just catching the crash which was a xrandr one or something
[12:33] <Hew> seb128: So it's identical to the stacktrace of Intrepid bug 254671? Can I just send that stacktrace upstream? I'm not an expert on stacktraces.
[12:33] <seb128> Hew: yes
[12:33] <Hew> seb128: Excellent! I'll do that now :D
[12:33] <seb128> thanks
[12:35] <jgoguen> For all the bugs marked for expiry, if it's not something I can reproduce or find elsewhere then just close it with an explanation?
[12:39] <Hew> jgoguen: Ignore the expiry feature of Launchpad. Look for bugs marked incomplete that are requesting additional information. If the info isn't provided after a month, you can close it with the standard response from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses
[12:40] <jgoguen> Hew: ok, thanks
[12:41] <Hew> jgoguen: You're welcome, thanks for helping :-)
[12:51] <Hew> reported as gnome bug 572141
[13:26] <Hew> What package is this bug in? Maximised windows are 50% height every session, until screen resolution is changed. http://launchpadlibrarian.net/22721444/file_browser_after_boot.png bug 313630
[15:06] <bddebian> Boo
[15:09] <BUGabundo> foo fam fridge
[15:11] <bddebian> wow :)
[17:55] <thomasdelbeke> Hi people,
[17:55] <BUGabundo> hi
[17:55] <thomasdelbeke> I need to file a new bug
[18:06] <afflux> uhoh
[18:07] <maco> ?
[18:15] <afflux> macd: <thomasdelbeke> Hi people, <thomasdelbeke> I need to file a new bug
[18:15] <afflux> argh, maco ^
[18:16] <maco> afflux: ah. ok
[18:17] <BUGabundo> eeh
[18:17] <BUGabundo> and then he kicked out
[18:17] <afflux> nevermind
[18:17] <afflux> his bug reports usually look like this: bug 315462
[18:18] <BUGabundo> LOLOLOL
[18:18] <BUGabundo> well it would come in handy
[18:18] <BUGabundo> IF he added the bbdebs repo
[18:18] <afflux> BUGabundo: check the report, he's doing pretty nice stuff. Like "apt-get install dpkg".
[18:20] <afflux> he is around for half a year maybe, and (afaik) several people tried to contact him by mail to explain the world, universe and everything, but he seems quite resistant.
[18:21] <BUGabundo> ahh
[18:21]  * BUGabundo wonders if there should be a kick moron app
[18:22] <maco> O_o
[18:22] <afflux> he's adressing some "michael" in some comment. He seems to think anyone who ever commented on his bugs monitors all of his other bugs.
[18:23] <afflux> (he tried to talk to me that way earlier)
[18:23] <BUGabundo> ahh and he runs as ROOT... nice
[18:23] <afflux> ah, and my all time favourite is this one: bug 197581
[18:24] <BUGabundo> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/329254 I like this one of mine
[18:24] <BUGabundo> got me hibernate broken again
[18:24] <BUGabundo> maco: do you see this on your log?
[18:24] <maco> i wasnt online
[18:25] <BUGabundo> I'm not sure if it is our webcam driver doing it
[18:25] <BUGabundo> I'll have to disable it and try
[18:25]  * BUGabundo whines: suspend/hibernate/resume was working so nicely
[18:26] <BUGabundo> ogasawara: are you wake up, Leann?
[18:28] <BUGabundo> brb restart PA to watch the Simpsons new theme on youtube (why doesn't flash play without PA?)
[18:33] <maco> BUGabundo: oh! youre asking about webcam
[18:33] <maco> i thought you mean chatlog
[18:33] <BUGabundo> humm no
[18:33] <maco> i get "Tainted" on pm-suspend and iwconfig...thats it
[18:34] <BUGabundo> but does it hibernate/suspend?
[18:36] <ogasawara> BUGabundo: is there something you need?
[18:38] <BUGabundo> just that bug above
[18:38] <BUGabundo> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/329254 I like this one of mine
[18:44] <ogasawara> BUGabundo: other than the warning you see, do you successfully resume from suspend?
[18:45] <ogasawara> BUGabundo: you mention you think it's related to the webcam, have you tried with the driver unloaded?
[18:46] <BUGabundo> ogasawara: I never reach the suspend or hibernate
[18:46] <BUGabundo> since I got that
[18:46] <BUGabundo> since yesterday
[18:46] <BUGabundo> when I also instaled a new webcam driver
[18:47] <BUGabundo> the system starts to suspend and then wakes
[18:47] <BUGabundo> I'm going to try in a few minutes
[18:47] <BUGabundo> to unload it, and hibernate
[18:47] <BUGabundo> when I go home
[18:48] <ogasawara> BUGabundo: ok, post an update to the bug report
[18:49] <BUGabundo> ok
[20:21] <Laibsch> maxb: I just now have time to look more closely at your nice script
[20:22] <Laibsch> Where can I read more about the advanced functions you use?
[20:22] <Laibsch> What is a google keyword for them?
[20:46] <maxb> Laibsch: see the bash documentation
[20:47] <maxb> Section 3.5.3 Shell Parameter Expansion
[20:50] <Laibsch> thanks, looking at it
[21:14] <ymo> How long should it normally take for a  bug report to be triaged?
[21:18] <vocx> Why would nautilus take a looong time to show the files within a directory? Could this be a rendering problem?
[21:19] <vocx> I've been searching for bug reports, but they don't quite describe the behavior I see. My nautilus doesn't crash, it only hangs for a long time, using 100% CPU, but it eventually shows the files.
[21:21] <amja1> vocx: can you open a terminal and run top to see which process is  maxing out??
[21:21] <vocx> amja1, well, it's nautilus, naturally.
[21:23] <maco> vocx: are they remote or local files?
[21:23] <vocx> I've always thought that these problems relate in some way to the X driver, and the libpango library.
[21:24] <vocx> maco, I can reproduce this every time with local files, I created several folders with 100, 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 files and it takes a lot to display the latter
[21:31] <vocx> I'm under the impression that with my graphics card gnome apps are always slower to render than KDE apps. For instance there was a time gedit ran extremely slow so I tried to use kate instead, without issue. By the way I have VIA graphics card which uses the openchrome driver and previously it was the via driver.
[22:15] <vocx> Oh, another thing to note in my case. Once the 2000+ files are displayed, if I try to go up one level it takes again a lot of time to display the parent directory.
[22:31] <porthose> Im working on a package which has the name 0.1-1 for the patch I would name it 0.1-1ubuntu2?
[22:32] <jpds> porthose: 0.1-1ubuntu1.
[22:32] <porthose> jpds: thxs :)
[22:33] <sectech> hrmm... 64 bit version Alpha-4 seems a bit buggy at best...
[22:34] <sectech> Almost seems like the 32 bit version worked better
[22:34] <jgoguen> the only problem I've noticed with 64-bit alpha 4 is that after the most recent updates connecting to my WPA network is slow...but I've had other issues with it, I'm not convinced my issues aren't the network itself yet
[22:35] <vocx> mmm... 32 bit is always less buggy, that's not a big secret is it?
[22:36] <sectech> Other then the odd application crash (which is to be expected in an Alpha version) it seems not to be as smooth in terms of response and resources.
[22:36] <sectech> vocx, no I do expect the 32 bit version to be ....more widely tested.
[22:37] <sectech> I guess I am trying to put my finger on what feels odd about this release....
[22:37] <sectech> it's something...