| === bdefreese2 is now known as bddebian | ||
| da0487 | Hello. I am just learning how to triage. Is this where I report bugs that are actually feature requests? | 04:32 |
|---|---|---|
| greg-g | da0487: you should report them as bug, and they will be marked as "Wishlist" | 04:33 |
| greg-g | and, if it is about a specific application, the best place for those requests to go is on the bug tracker for that application (so, for instance, for banshee, you would use bugzilla.gnome.org) | 04:33 |
| da0487 | I mean I found a bug on launchpad which is actually a feature request. I belive the wiki says to put the bug number here | 04:36 |
| da0487 | https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/339772 | 04:37 |
| ubottu | Ubuntu bug 339772 in firefox-3.0 "Firefox download manager doesn't handle torrents" [Undecided,New] | 04:37 |
| greg-g | da0487: ah, yes, I can mark it as wishlist for you | 04:38 |
| greg-g | thanks! | 04:38 |
| da0487 | yay! a successful triage | 04:38 |
| greg-g | da0487: if you really want to be a hero, forwarding this bug upstream to the firefox bugzilla would be _ideal_ | 04:39 |
| ripps | Does anybody here know how to run autogen.sh within debian/rules? I tried asking #ubuntu-motu, but there not really talkative today. | 04:40 |
| patanachai | bug #338818 > wishlsit | 05:22 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 338818 in ubuntu "Eliminate needless init scripts" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/338818 | 05:22 |
| patanachai | wishlist, sorry | 05:22 |
| crimsun | patanachai: err, i'm not sure i would actually set that one; scott has a pretty good handle on what Importance that bug would be | 05:26 |
| patanachai | crimsun: oh, thanks for let me know. | 05:27 |
| === asac_ is now known as asac | ||
| dholbach | good morning | 06:05 |
| mrooney | dholbach: morning! | 06:07 |
| mrooney | hm it is actually about bed time for me | 06:08 |
| dholbach | hiya mrooney | 06:08 |
| mrooney | IntuitiveNipple: canonical employees are above man-pages, obviously! | 07:00 |
| IntuitiveNipple | huh? | 07:00 |
| mrooney | your notify-osd bug | 07:01 |
| dholbach | mrooney: ??? | 07:01 |
| mrooney | bug 339796 | 07:01 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 339796 in notify-osd "No man-page" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/339796 | 07:01 |
| mrooney | I was mostly jesting but also remarking on how the universe packages seem to be put to stricter standards then main packages by canonicalers | 07:03 |
| Hobbsee | mrooney: why does it need one? it's not callable, as it were | 07:03 |
| mrooney | Hobbsee: I didn't file the bug :) | 07:03 |
| Hobbsee | also, feature freeze and such would have been a concern, i expect | 07:04 |
| Hobbsee | true | 07:04 |
| mrooney | I just think the man page reqs are odd | 07:04 |
| Hobbsee | i don't think various canonical packages actually go through motu review, anyway | 07:05 |
| Hobbsee | so there could be anything in them ;) | 07:05 |
| mrooney | haha | 07:05 |
| Hobbsee | well, except for any packages that the archive admins deemed unsuitable, and threw out | 07:05 |
| mrooney | the fact that firefox doesn't have a manpage astounds me | 07:05 |
| dholbach | manpages are very nice to have when they make sense - for things living in usr/lib that are not really callable (like panel applets) they don't really make sense though | 07:06 |
| IntuitiveNipple | For something that is so visible, it would make sense to have a man-page. First place I look when trying to figure something out is a man-page. | 07:06 |
| mrooney | not that firefox originates from firefox | 07:06 |
| mrooney | err | 07:06 |
| mrooney | from canonical | 07:06 |
| mrooney | but I have to google how to use profiles every time | 07:06 |
| dholbach | I'm sure that patches are welcome | 07:06 |
| mrooney | I am not sure Mozilla would feel that way, but you never know, I guess! | 07:07 |
| Hobbsee | dholbach: i'm not sure that's the issue - i suspect mrooney's more is "why do the canonical people get special treatment? And should they?" | 07:07 |
| Hobbsee | (unless you're referring to firefox there, and not the dx stuff) | 07:07 |
| mrooney | yeah I was actually referring to firefox itself | 07:07 |
| mrooney | as a side comment on a really glaring missing manpage | 07:08 |
| dholbach | I'm not sure a manpage for notify-osd makes a lot of sense, but I'm sure that if somebody writes one, it'll be included | 07:08 |
| dholbach | if you want to tell Canonical employee <X>, <Y> and <Z> that they are doing a crap job, do it | 07:08 |
| IntuitiveNipple | I always read debian policy (12.1) to mean that it is a bug not to have a man-page: "Each program, utility, and function should have an associated manual page included in the same package" | 07:09 |
| dholbach | specific complaints are much more helpful than "no canonical people care about manpages" | 07:09 |
| mrooney | dholbach: I was really just making a sarcastic joke about a bug report that was filed :) | 07:11 |
| dholbach | and I was really just saying "tell people if you think they do a bad job and if you have an idea how they can improve, tell them as well" :) | 07:12 |
| mrooney | dholbach: but my specific comment would be "why are community universe packages held to such strict standards by MOTU when main doesn't follow the same standards" | 07:12 |
| mrooney | I guess it seems sometimes like main has less strict standards, which seems out of place | 07:12 |
| Hobbsee | "make canonical people follow the freezes, and the QA standards, like everyone else is asked to" | 07:12 |
| Hobbsee | does that work? | 07:12 |
| dholbach | Hobbsee: it still is unspecific | 07:13 |
| Hobbsee | how so? | 07:13 |
| dholbach | I personally think that telling person X that case Y could have been handled better if Z was done (specific) is much more helpful than "(all / some) canonical people don't do Z" (unspecific) | 07:15 |
| dholbach | and I don't think it's fair to the people who do Z | 07:16 |
| dholbach | anyway... I should be taking the dog for walk | 07:16 |
| mrooney | dholbach: I wasn | 07:16 |
| mrooney | errr | 07:16 |
| mrooney | I wasn't saying X person does Y | 07:16 |
| mrooney | I was saying X people aren't held to Y standards | 07:16 |
| dholbach | X was fairly unspecific :) | 07:16 |
| mrooney | dholbach: I think what I was trying to point out was "main rules aren't a superset of universe rules", although I got the impression they were supposed to be | 07:18 |
| mrooney | oh well have fun with the dog, I hope it isn't too cold | 07:18 |
| dholbach | 3°C, but the sun is shining, so all's good | 07:18 |
| mrooney | ah yes also if the wind is still the temperature is often irrelevant | 07:19 |
| dholbach | mrooney: I agree though, that the archive admins who review the package in the last instance have different priorities than the MOTU team who review the package on REVU | 07:23 |
| mrooney | dholbach: yeah, that is part of it really, they are different teams so I guess they can't be expected to value the same things and such | 07:24 |
| * Hobbsee wonders why the canonical stuff doesn't go through REVU | 07:24 | |
| dholbach | Hobbsee: even MOTUs don't have to go through MOTU | 07:24 |
| dholbach | errr | 07:24 |
| dholbach | through REVU | 07:24 |
| dholbach | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages | 07:24 |
| dholbach | MOTUs can upload new packages directly to the archive. However they are greatly encouraged to have a new package reviewed prior to uploading. (cf. MOTU/Council/Meetings/2007-02-23) | 07:24 |
| dholbach | if we want a strict policy, we should try to find one that works for everybody and talk to the TB about it | 07:25 |
| Hobbsee | hrm. So then it's just a difference between those who have upload rights, and those who don't. And those who can take someone else's package, and upload it directly. | 07:25 |
| dholbach | I've been an advocate of bringing the NewPackages process in line with the regular sponsoring process, but wasn't successful with that | 07:26 |
| Hobbsee | hmmm | 07:27 |
| Hobbsee | (why weren't you successful?) | 07:27 |
| dholbach | concerns about quality of the packages and the general feeling that four eyes are better than two | 07:28 |
| dholbach | the reality is though that we have a huge backlog in REVU and that everybody is free to ask somebody else if they're unsure about their own verdict | 07:28 |
| dholbach | I'd much prefer if (like with any other upload) the sponsor would take responsibility for their judgement | 07:29 |
| Hobbsee | hmmm | 07:29 |
| Hobbsee | REVU uploads are a fair amount larger, and can contain a lot more bugs, though | 07:29 |
| dholbach | same goes for new upstream versions or big packaging changes :) | 07:30 |
| Hobbsee | upstream has usually tested those | 07:30 |
| Hobbsee | and/or has a bugtracker. | 07:30 |
| Hobbsee | but you'll probably find that's also why people aren't fans of sponsoring huge packaging changes, if they don't know a lot about it | 07:30 |
| dholbach | I think that people who say "this looks good to me" should be able to upload those | 07:30 |
| dholbach | anyway... I'll go out now - see you later :) | 07:31 |
| === persia_ is now known as persia | ||
| === harrisony is now known as hsny | ||
| === hsny is now known as harrisony | ||
| bddebian | Boo | 14:06 |
| === thunderstruck is now known as gnomefreak | ||
| === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach | ||
| === charlie-tca is now known as charlie-tca_ | ||
| === charlie-tca_ is now known as charlie-tca2 | ||
| === charlie-tca2 is now known as charlie-tca | ||
| === GrueMaster1 is now known as GrueMaster | ||
| === bdrung_ is now known as bdrung | ||
| === x-spec-t is now known as Spec | ||
| === goodkarm- is now known as goodkarma | ||
| === Mez_ is now known as Mez | ||
| === erhesrhsrtb54vyh is now known as Elbrus | ||
| YoBoY | hi | 19:48 |
| mathiaz | hi - is there a canned response to ask someone to open a new bug? | 19:49 |
| mathiaz | ex: bug 225919: the last comment is a different bug - is there a generic response to ask the commenter to open a new bug? | 19:51 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 225919 in openldap "package update-manager 1:0.87.24 failed to install/upgrade: ErrorMessage: SystemError in cache.commit(): E:Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1), E:Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/225919 | 19:51 |
| charlie-tca | I don't believe there is. Usually a "thanks for your report, but it is a different issue. Would you please open a new bug report for it?" | 19:53 |
| YoBoY | if you can reproduce the bug mathiaz you can open the second bug yourself | 19:54 |
| MightyTweek | mathiaz: There are some canned responses on the wiki. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses | 19:55 |
| mathiaz | MightyTweek: I don't see any in the wiki page. | 19:56 |
| MightyTweek | mathiaz: Yes, you're right. If you come up with one you might consider adding it to the list. | 20:01 |
| === fader_ is now known as fader | ||
| andol | blueyed: Do you mind if I ask you a queston regarding bug #270468 and its reporting to Debian? | 20:58 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 270468 in phpldapadmin "please check memory_limit at install time" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/270468 | 20:58 |
| andol | blueyed: Well, never mind that first bug mentioned. I was actually thinking about bug #315136. | 21:00 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 315136 in phpldapadmin "config.php symlink not removed on purge" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/315136 | 21:00 |
| blueyed | andol: sure. | 21:07 |
| blueyed | andol: in the best case you still have the directory with debian's .dsc/package and your changed one.. then from the extracted package directory, just run "submittodebian". if reportbug is configured ok, this will give you the diff between ubuntu/debian and allow you to send it to debian. | 21:08 |
| blueyed | andol: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/Bugs#Using%20submittodebian%20to%20forward%20patches%20to%20Debian | 21:10 |
| blueyed | andol: I'll have to go now.. please just drop me an email and I can help you out tomorrow.. (or ask here or in #ubuntu-motu). Thanks and cu. | 21:12 |
| andol | Anyone else: Follow-up on the question to (and answer from) blueyed. Before the bug/patch is submited to Debian, should it actually be tested against a Debian unstable, or is it enough to make an educated guess whatever the bug applies there too? | 21:23 |
| danage | when's pidgin 2.5.5. coming through the repos? icq is b0rked in 2.5.2 but you probably all know that | 21:36 |
| bcurtiswx | danage you can get it through getdeb.net if your anxious | 21:41 |
| andol | Ok, I'll try #ubuntu-motu instead | 21:53 |
| Ampelbein | Hrm... my FFe-request bug #340151 has been marked duplicate to another report which I do not think is correct. Opinions on that? | 22:09 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 340151 in pidgin "[Freeze exception] Update to Version 2.5.5 to enable ICQ again" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/340151 | 22:09 |
| bdmurray | Ampelbein: it seems fixed already | 22:10 |
| Ampelbein | Oh. I did not want to undupe the report before asking here. | 22:11 |
| danage | bdmurray: do you think there will be a freeze exception for jaunty? | 22:11 |
| bdmurray | Ampelbein: the activity log doesn't attribute the action to you | 22:12 |
| bdmurray | danage: I've no idea | 22:12 |
| danage | Ampelbein: #340151 is a dupe of #340075 | 22:13 |
| Ampelbein | danage: why? one is a freeze-exception-request, the other a bug report. in my opinion there should not be a mix-up. | 22:15 |
| danage | it's an identical issue | 22:15 |
| danage | you could convert freeze exception request to feature request | 22:15 |
| danage | but it relates to a bug, so think they should be duped | 22:16 |
| danage | oh you filed it | 22:17 |
| === xxx__ is now known as _iron | ||
| Ampelbein | yeah. because i did not want to mix the bug report with the FFe | 22:18 |
| danage | perhaps just see what happens :) | 22:19 |
| Ampelbein | will do that. The report WAS marked a dupe so i wondered, what would be the correct way to go on. | 22:21 |
| danage | let's hope it makes its way into jaunty | 22:21 |
| mathiaz | bdmurray: is there a way (tag?) to track bugs that are related to LTS -> LTS upgrades? | 23:53 |
| mathiaz | bdmurray: bug 239704 | 23:53 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 239704 in openldap "slapd fails to upgrade if included schema files are no longer available - evolution.schema not available anymore" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/239704 | 23:53 |
| mathiaz | bdmurray: ^^ affects upgrade from hardy to intrepid *and* hardy to next LTS | 23:54 |
| mathiaz | bdmurray: but doesn't apply to intrepid+ | 23:54 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!