[04:32] <da0487> Hello. I am just learning how to triage. Is this where I report bugs that are actually feature requests?
[04:33] <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)
[04:36] <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
[04:37] <da0487> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/339772
[04:38] <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
[04:39] <greg-g> da0487: if you really want to be a hero, forwarding this bug upstream to the firefox bugzilla would be _ideal_
[04:40] <ripps> Does anybody here know how to run autogen.sh within debian/rules? I tried asking #ubuntu-motu, but there not really talkative today.
[05:22] <patanachai> bug #338818 > wishlsit
[05:22] <patanachai> wishlist, sorry
[05:26] <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
[05:27] <patanachai> crimsun: oh, thanks for let me know.
[06:05] <dholbach> good morning
[06:07] <mrooney> dholbach: morning!
[06:08] <mrooney> hm it is actually about bed time for me
[06:08] <dholbach> hiya mrooney
[07:00] <mrooney> IntuitiveNipple: canonical employees are above man-pages, obviously!
[07:00] <IntuitiveNipple> huh?
[07:01] <mrooney> your notify-osd bug
[07:01] <dholbach> mrooney: ???
[07:01] <mrooney> bug 339796
[07:03] <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 :)
[07:04] <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
[07:05] <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
[07:06] <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
[07:07] <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
[07:08] <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
[07:09] <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"
[07:11] <mrooney> dholbach: I was really just making a sarcastic joke about a bug report that was filed :)
[07:12] <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?
[07:13] <dholbach> Hobbsee: it still is unspecific
[07:13] <Hobbsee> how so?
[07:15] <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)
[07:16] <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 :)
[07:18] <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
[07:19] <mrooney> ah yes also if the wind is still the temperature is often irrelevant
[07:23] <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
[07:24] <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)
[07:25] <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.
[07:26] <dholbach> I've been an advocate of bringing the NewPackages process in line with the regular sponsoring process, but wasn't successful with that
[07:27] <Hobbsee> hmmm
[07:27] <Hobbsee> (why weren't you successful?)
[07:28] <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
[07:29] <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
[07:30] <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
[07:31] <dholbach> anyway... I'll go out now - see you later :)
[14:06] <bddebian> Boo
[19:48] <YoBoY> hi
[19:49] <mathiaz> hi - is there a canned response to ask someone to open a new bug?
[19:51] <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?
[19:53] <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?"
[19:54] <YoBoY> if you can reproduce the bug mathiaz you can open the second bug yourself
[19:55] <MightyTweek> mathiaz: There are some canned responses on the wiki. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses
[19:56] <mathiaz> MightyTweek: I don't see any in the wiki page.
[20:01] <MightyTweek> mathiaz: Yes, you're right. If you come up with one you might consider adding it to the list.
[20:58] <andol> blueyed: Do you mind if I ask you a queston regarding bug #270468 and its reporting to Debian?
[21:00] <andol> blueyed: Well, never mind that first bug mentioned. I was actually thinking about bug #315136.
[21:07] <blueyed> andol: sure.
[21:08] <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.
[21:10] <blueyed> andol: see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/Bugs#Using%20submittodebian%20to%20forward%20patches%20to%20Debian
[21:12] <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.
[21:23] <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?
[21:36] <danage> when's pidgin 2.5.5. coming through the repos? icq is b0rked in 2.5.2 but you probably all know that
[21:41] <bcurtiswx> danage you can get it through getdeb.net if your anxious
[21:53] <andol> Ok, I'll try #ubuntu-motu instead
[22:09] <Ampelbein> Hrm... my FFe-request bug #340151 has been marked duplicate to another report which I do not think is correct. Opinions on that?
[22:10] <bdmurray> Ampelbein: it seems fixed already
[22:11] <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?
[22:12] <bdmurray> Ampelbein: the activity log doesn't attribute the action to you
[22:12] <bdmurray> danage: I've no idea
[22:13] <danage> Ampelbein: #340151 is a dupe of #340075
[22:15] <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
[22:16] <danage> but it relates to a bug, so think they should be duped
[22:17] <danage> oh you filed it
[22:18] <Ampelbein> yeah. because i did not want to mix the bug report with the FFe
[22:19] <danage> perhaps just see what happens :)
[22:21] <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
[23:53] <mathiaz> bdmurray: is there a way (tag?) to track bugs that are related to LTS -> LTS upgrades?
[23:53] <mathiaz> bdmurray: bug 239704
[23:54] <mathiaz> bdmurray: ^^ affects upgrade from hardy to intrepid *and* hardy to next LTS
[23:54] <mathiaz> bdmurray: but doesn't apply to intrepid+