[00:02] <maco> bdmurray: my comment on andres would be "huh? you mean he's not already in bug control?"
[00:02]  * charlie-tca thought he was too
[00:04] <bcurtiswx> mine was too, but i emailed bug control list :P
[00:22] <mrooney> are canonical.com bugs still against ubuntu-website? such as bug 338986
[01:02] <Rocket2DMn> Hey guys, https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RootSudo?action=diff&rev1=114&rev2=115
[01:03] <Rocket2DMn> Do we want to allow explanations of how to enable the root account, root is disabled by default as part of Ubuntu's security model
[01:04] <Rocket2DMn> I am against having that info there.  On the forums we don't support enabling the root account for login
[01:06] <Rocket2DMn> oops wrong channel!sorry!
[01:19] <kees> Rocket2DMn: (what channel was that meant for?)  I think it's useful information.  having a root password is useful in certain styles of server administration.
[01:19] <Rocket2DMn> kees, ubuntu-doc
[01:20] <Rocket2DMn> kees, anybody that REALLY needs root likely already knows how to get it
[01:21] <kees> Rocket2DMn: that is probably true.  :)
[01:21] <Rocket2DMn> I had a short discussion in the doc channel (a team of which i am a part), and will email the doc team mailing list
[01:22]  * kees nods
[01:22] <kees> I don't feel strongly one way or the other.  saying that root "isn't support" is probably wrong though.  it's a valid way to admin a server, it's just not Ubuntu's default.
[01:23] <Rocket2DMn> Yes, we should be supporting the Ubuntu way
[01:23] <kees> well, I mean, it's a bug if people can't set a root password.  :)
[01:23] <Rocket2DMn> On the forums we believe that people should be able to do whatever they want with their system, but we don't have to provide them the info on how to circumvent the security model
[01:24] <kees> heh
[01:30] <hggdh> security by obscurity?
[01:32] <Rocket2DMn> nah sudo is configurable, too
[01:32] <Rocket2DMn> so you can grant permissions only where needed
[02:38] <d-b> hi i'm just looking around at packages.ubuntu.com ... on packages.debian.org there is a "debian patching track" thing ... does such a thing exist in ubuntu ?
[02:48] <d-b> nm found it
[02:48] <d-b> sort of.
[10:42] <ziroday> Hi I'm looking at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/277946
[10:42] <ziroday> and wondering what more information is needed
[11:27] <elmargol> Ich hab hier probleme mit meinem display und nvidia... Irgendwie stimmen die dpi nicht. in FF und konqueror sind die schriften viel zu groß
[11:28] <elmargol> das ist ein 17" display mit 1920x1200 pixel und 131x132 werden angezeigt (xdpyinfo)
[11:29] <Hobbsee> !de
[11:30] <elmargol> Hobbsee: oh sorry wrong channel :)
[11:31] <Hobbsee> elmargol: I *thought* so.  I thought you knew this was an english speaking one ;)
[11:31] <elmargol> Hobbsee: do you know if there is still this firefox bug where you have to manually set dpi to 96 in order to render correctly?
[11:31] <Hobbsee> i've no idea, sorry
[11:32] <elmargol> can't be that I'm the only one who hast this bug :)
[11:33] <Hobbsee> i didn't know firefox even let you set a dpi
[16:09] <emma> n/query xee
[16:09] <xee> I think a bug is invalid(bug 280414) is it ok to make it so or is there something that I should do first?
[17:15] <qense> BUGabundo: Do you think bug 308328 on Launchpad has to do with the crashes you reported 'on request of the pidgin devs' at Pidgin's Trac instance?
[17:42] <Trijntje> Firefox just crashed and apport generated an error report. Now launchepad is asking if the bug is one of those listed. I don't have a clue
[17:45] <BUGabundo1> Trijntje: 3.1?
[17:45] <BUGabundo1> if yes, known bug
[17:46] <greg-g> Trijntje: if you are not sure, go ahead and open a new one (last option at the bottom of the page) and someone else can help decide
[17:46] <greg-g> BUGabundo1: not every crash of Fx 3.1 is a known bug.
[17:46] <Trijntje> greg-g: ok, ill do that than, thnx
[17:47] <greg-g> Trijntje: no problem, thanks for helping!
[17:49] <BUGabundo1> greg-g: well the common one is it fireing apport after clicking on an external link
[17:49] <greg-g> BUGabundo1: common, not all.
[17:49] <BUGabundo1> no? I get a bunc of them ALL day, every day
[17:49] <greg-g> no.
[17:49] <BUGabundo1> asac as even commented on it
[17:50] <greg-g> that all Fx crashes should not be reported?
[17:51] <BUGabundo1> not when it's a known dupe
[17:51] <greg-g> BUGabundo1: of course not, and not all crashes are known dupes.
[17:51] <BUGabundo1> this one seem to be
[17:51] <BUGabundo1> *this* one of course
[17:51] <BUGabundo1> the one from opening external links
[17:52]  * andresmujica running to ubuntu-bugs-announce :P
[17:52] <BUGabundo1> got a new today (and some other ppl on #ubuntu +1 too)
[17:52] <BUGabundo1> didn't report it!
[17:52] <Trijntje> I only said 'firefox crashed', thats very little information to determine wether it is a duplicate or not ;)
[17:52] <BUGabundo1> if it is serious it will happen again
[17:52] <BUGabundo1> and my machine was with HUGE IO disk so itthe cause!
[17:53] <BUGabundo1> stuff fails to flsuhs to disk and crash
[17:53] <BUGabundo1> I DIDN'T say it was that dupe
[17:53] <BUGabundo1> I just asked for more information
[17:53] <BUGabundo1> if it was 3.1 and you used an external link
[17:54] <greg-g> BUGabundo1: you didn't ask if they clicked an external link, just if it was 3.1
[17:54] <BUGabundo1> maybe it missed the IRC
[17:54] <BUGabundo1> LOLOL
[17:54] <Trijntje> it 3.0.7, and it happend on switching from metacity to compiz
[17:55] <BUGabundo1> stuff is slowwwwwwwwwwwwww here! damn multiGiB copy
[17:55] <andresmujica> aha
[17:55] <BUGabundo1> Trijntje: 1st time I hear about that!
[17:55] <BUGabundo1> but then again I don't use 3.0
[17:55] <BUGabundo1> its to slow compared to 3.1
[17:55] <BUGabundo1> I can't go back
[17:56] <Trijntje> BUGabundo1: Maybe it was a 'lucky shot', I can imagen that not many people switch compiz and metacity a lot
[17:57] <BUGabundo1> I used to.... when it worked
[17:59] <Trijntje> how do you mean?
[17:59] <BUGabundo1> for some reason compiz --replace is not working
[17:59] <BUGabundo1> mvo asked me to report it, but I hadhave the time yet
[18:00] <hggdh> it works for me (every login I have to do it)
[18:01] <BUGabundo1> hggdh:  jaunty? (e vens ao jantar tb?)
[18:01] <Trijntje> I just switch because its hard to game when you keep switching to another desktop ;)
[18:01] <hggdh> yes, Jaunty (provavelmente não, já que estou a morar em Texas ;-)
[18:02] <BUGabundo1> hggdh: ok didn't now! you have to visit us dude!
[18:03] <hggdh> BUGabundo1, believe me, getting to Portugal (and Europe, in general) is continuously in my mind... even more with a son living in Belgium
[18:04] <BUGabundo1> I bet!
[20:31] <linuxwarrior> hey
[20:31] <linuxwarrior> I just upgraded my system to intrepid :D
[20:31] <linuxwarrior> and ran into a lot of trouble
[20:32] <linuxwarrior> I installed it from a live cd set on one of the disk partition
[20:32] <linuxwarrior> when gettin to install it
[20:33] <linuxwarrior> the prepared disk page was blank
[20:33] <linuxwarrior> that one was resolved somehow on launchpad
[20:34] <linuxwarrior> then after that grub doesnt update its menu.lst
[20:34] <linuxwarrior> and vmlinuz in /boot is missing
[20:35] <linuxwarrior> thus i had to reinstall the linux headers and image ... :S
[20:38] <linuxwarrior> it seems like a quite of undecided/new  bugs on launchpad  regarding intrepid upgrade or install are related to Ubiquity, grub and parted
[20:39] <linuxwarrior> just wanted to share cheers
[21:50] <bcurtiswx> bug #335239, since there isnt much info in triaging synaptic on wiki pages, what else can i have the user include before i send this upstream?
[22:55] <hggdh> bcurtiswx, I have seen this before...
[22:57] <hggdh> bcurtiswx, try the following: (1) do a search (not a quick search) on -- say -- "kde"; (2) now do a quick search for -- say -- "audacious". Nothing found, I venture
[22:58] <hggdh> bcurtiswx, in summary: a quick search uses the output of a previous full search
[23:05] <xee> it's the first time for me modifying a bug so I'm a little hesitated, I think that a certain bug is invalid, should I mark it as invalid right away?
[23:11] <Vantrax> sure, but put the reasoning
[23:12] <xee> ok, thanks :)
[23:22] <hggdh> xee, what is the bug #?
[23:26] <xee> it's bug 280414
[23:28] <hggdh> xee, good catch. You might consider inproving it by changing the description to include the cause and workaround
[23:30] <xee> ok, I'll