[03:28] <seyacat_> hi bugmen
[04:39] <marlow79> is this ubuntu bugs?
[05:09] <bcurtiswx> hey someone really did change the channel name........ oh.... darn
[08:21] <Toobaz1> Hello. Bug #130055 (possibly) was a wishlist, now it is certainly not, since it breaks apt-get. May I ask to change its "Importance" or do you (e.g. persia) suggest to open another?
[08:21] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 130055 in audio-convert "Nautilus audio convert script doesn't activate itself" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/130055
[12:28] <aboSamoor> I added the david suggested repo to get the modified nautilus, the installed nautilus is [1:2.27.4-0ubuntu3~oloc2] but there is no change ?!
[13:01] <gnomefreak> what is the apport-collect command to add apport info to a filed bug?
[13:02] <seb128> gnomefreak, try man apport-collect?
[13:02] <gnomefreak> seb128: thanks.
[13:03] <seb128> you're welcome
[13:06] <gnomefreak> seb128: not very helpful. it doesnt say anything on how to use it with bug format
[13:06] <seb128> gnomefreak, "apport-collect BUGNUMBER"
[13:06] <seb128> it's written in the synopsys...
[13:06] <gnomefreak> seb128: sorry missed that part when i scrolled up
[13:07] <seb128> it seems very obvious to me
[13:07] <seb128> what did you try?
[13:07] <seb128> $ apport-collect
[13:07] <seb128> Usage: apport-collect [options] <Launchpad bug number>
[13:07] <gnomefreak> seb128: i didnt but i wasnt sure if the word "bug" should be used
[13:07] <seb128> gnomefreak, you didn't really try hard did you?
[13:07] <gnomefreak> seb128: its not for me i replying to a bug
[13:07] <seb128> oh ok
[14:59] <bddebian> Boo
[16:55] <bdmurray> mvo: I noticed that /var/log/dist-upgrade/apt-term.log is continuing to be logged to after I completed my dist-upgrade.  Is that by design?
[17:00] <Kamusin> how can I watch normal report from one  that was marked as onehundrerpapercut idea
[17:01] <hggdh> Kamusin, you mean be alerted on updates to the bug?
[17:02] <Kamusin> I need see normal view report because was marked as onehundrerpapercut and don't have same options for example to submit upstream
[17:03] <bdmurray> Kamusin: what url are you at?
[17:04] <bdmurray> the url indicates the context you are viewing the bug report in
[17:04] <Kamusin> bdmurray, https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/389852
[17:04] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 389852 in nautilus "Choosing emblems in Nautilus is too complex" [Wishlist,New]
[17:04] <pedro_> Kamusin, put something like bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/number
[17:04] <bdmurray> right so you are viewing it in the hundredpapercuts context
[17:04] <bdmurray> and what pedro_ said will fix it for you
[17:05] <Kamusin> yep I known , thanks pedro_ , that was :)
[17:05] <pedro_> Kamusin, you're welcome
[17:05] <bdmurray> afaik there is no way to switch contexts other than mangling the url
[17:08] <Kamusin> I wish LP had some button or something more easy ( to remember thinks like that hehe)
[17:16] <mvo> bdmurray: no, what does the log contain?
[17:16] <mvo> bdmurray: /var/log/apt/term.log should be the one
[17:19] <bdmurray> mvo: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/236865/
[17:19] <mvo> bdmurray: was that from a partial upgrade maybe?
[17:19] <bdmurray> mvo: I believe the dist-upgrade was on the 15th and there is stuff later on the 22nd
[17:20] <bdmurray> mvo: possibly I have a partial upgrade available right now so could confirm
[17:42] <bdmurray> mvo: so that is supposed to happen for partial upgrades?
[17:45] <mvo> bdmurray: well, not really :) its more a side-effect, I will fix it to write to apt/term.log
[17:45] <bdmurray> mvo: cool, thanks!  shall I report a bug about it?
[17:46] <mvo> bdmurray: yeah, please target it for alpha-4 and assign me
[18:02] <kklimonda> charles_, ping, any idea how to proceed with bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/406486 ?
[18:02] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 406486 in transmission "transmission: too many open files" [Low,Incomplete]
[18:03]  * charles_ reads #406486
[18:09] <charles_> kklimonda: it doesn't look like there are that many open actual files
[18:09] <charles_> kklimonda: unless sockets are counted in the ulimit?
[18:10] <kklimonda> charles_, I think they may be but it's still only about ~200 files
[18:10] <charles_> kklimonda: even then, "wc lsof.transmission" is only 232 lines...
[18:10] <charles_> yeah
[18:22] <nhasian> did you guys leave any bugs for me to fix?
[18:27] <AaronT125> hello
[19:16] <sailingboarder> yo, i've got some free time, wouldn't mind helping out
[19:17] <sailingboarder> never done a hug day before, so i don't really know what i should do
[19:22] <charles_> kklimonda: I don't know what to thinka bout 406486
[19:24] <nhasian> charles_, the bug about transmission?
[19:24] <charles_> right, the "too many open files" ticket
[19:29] <chrisccoulson> bug 406486
[19:29] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 406486 in transmission "transmission: too many open files" [Low,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/406486
[20:07] <AaronT125> i'm new to the bugsquad, i'm having a hard time determining what to do with : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-settings-daemon/+bug/406979. Could someone please assist me
[20:07] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 406979 in gnome-settings-daemon "No desktop background" [Undecided,New]
[20:09] <hggdh> AaronT125, only thing that would help if to find out what version of Ubuntu, and of g-s-d
[20:10] <hggdh> s/only/one/  #sorry
[20:10] <AaronT125> hggdh: they are running ubuntu 9.10, i have tried to recreate the bug, with no luck.
[20:11] <hggdh> ok. The assertion failure is not necessarily important
[20:11] <AaronT125> ok
[20:12] <hggdh> and we still need to find the version of the g-s-d
[20:12] <AaronT125> could you give me an example, of the G-s-d
[20:13] <AaronT125> sorry, im very new to this
[20:15] <AaronT125> oh, gnome-settings-daemon, right gottcha
[20:15] <hggdh> you can run 'dpkg -l gnome-settings-daemon'
[20:15] <AaronT125> thanks
[20:16] <hggdh> hum. I just changed my background wallpaper here, adding two jpegs. One was added OK, the other no
[20:17] <AaronT125> if i can't recreate the problem or confirm it, should i close the bug, due to lack of information,
[20:18] <hggdh> AaronT125, *NO* the fact that you cannot reproduce does not mean the bug does not exist. Are you running Karmic?
[20:19] <AaronT125> i am running Karmic now in a virtual machine, i have tried many Gconf edits, to the gnome-settings-daemon , but cannot recreate
[20:20] <hggdh> add a comment you cannot reproduce. We may be missing some other setting
[20:21] <AaronT125> ok thank you
[20:21] <hggdh> (I am changing the background by going to System/Preferences/Appearance/Background)
[20:22] <AaronT125> should i put what i did in the comment
[20:23] <AaronT125> such as = I am changing the background by going to System/Preferences/Appearance/Background
[20:25] <AaronT125> ill put unconfirmed for now, and leave somebody else who can reproduce the problem to file the bug upstream
[20:29] <AaronT125> thanks for helping me
[20:31] <hggdh> AaronT125, you are welcome. Thank YOU for helping us
[20:31] <AaronT125> :)
[20:31] <yofel> hm, there's a gconf key named /desktop/gnome/background/draw_background maybe that got unset for him somehow?
[20:32] <AaronT125> yofel: I tried that on karmic, but was unable to get the same error
[20:35] <Kamusin> what happen with new reports that have been publish like ubuntu brainstorm ideas? there is some defined response to this ?
[20:36] <yofel> Kamusin: I think that should be handled with https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#An%20idea%20to%20improve%20Ubuntu Note the Note ;)
[20:38] <Kamusin> yofel, somebody has submited to bugzilla long time ago a report for this too and  problem is still present
[20:39] <yofel> Kamusin: bug number?
[20:40] <Kamusin> yofel, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/390713
[20:40] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 390713 in nautilus "nautilus change date while copy" [Low,Incomplete]
[20:41] <Kamusin> yofel, bugzilla #515777 and brainstorm #8993
[20:52] <yofel> Kamusin: can you add a bugwatch for the bugzilla bug to the lp bug? That should close it then.
[21:15] <mahfouz> didn't Kamusin say the problem is still present?
[21:16] <yofel> mahfouz: you're right, I'm reading throught the upstream bug right now, seems to be a quite complex issue
[21:20] <yofel> ok, the original issue was that in glib mtime wasn't preserved, that was fixed, but many gvfs backends (including sftp) don't support the fix. That was then discussed in another upstream bug that was forgotten it seems (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=527339)
[21:20] <ubot4> Gnome bug 527339 in general "gvfs should set file attributes properly" [Normal,Unconfirmed]
[21:23] <yofel> Kamusin: my final opinion: I would change the bug from nautilus to gvfs since the bug description says its a sftp issue and add a bug watch to the upstream gvfs bug
[21:30] <Kamusin> that sounds more logical :)
[21:44] <BUGabundo> hey . gonna get my self a Android G2 tonight!
[21:45] <kklimonda> why not G1?
[21:45] <BUGabundo> G2 is better, newer?
[21:45] <BUGabundo> and *available* here
[21:46] <kklimonda> it looks nicer but it has the same hardware that g1 afair
[21:46] <kklimonda> except lack of hardware keyboard
[21:53] <BUGabundo> im off.
[22:14] <shane__> can anyone help me get started with bugs
[22:16] <yofel> shane__: did you already read yourself through the knowledge base?
[22:19] <shane__> yes
[22:19] <shane__> I cant seem to figure out exactly what I have to do with the bugs
[22:19] <shane__> all the docs do is tell youw what needs to be done but not how to do it
[22:19] <shane__> so if i pick a bug from the new bugs list then what
[22:28] <shane__> isnt there a meeting tonight?
[22:30] <Adila01> What should I do for bugs that request an updated version of a program that have been assigned to any package?
[22:31] <Adila01> that have not been assigned*
[22:36] <bdmurray> Adila01: Do you have an example?
[22:36] <Adila01> Like this bug
[22:36] <bdmurray> shane__: If you have an example bug I'd be happy to go through it with you
[22:36] <Adila01> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/406602
[22:36] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 406602 in ubuntu "Please update VLC to version 1.0.1" [Undecided,New]
[22:37] <Adila01> It seem logical to assign it to VLC, but is that the correct way to go about assigning a package to this bug?
[22:37] <bdmurray> Adila01: yes it is
[22:37] <Adila01> Ok, thank you so much for your aid
[22:39] <bdmurray> It seems like there are 2 separate issues, the first is a request for an updated version of a package and the then these other people are commenting about some security vulnerability
[22:41] <Adila01> bdmurray: What should I do if there is a request for an undated version.
[22:41] <Adila01> bdmurray: Say this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/406628
[22:41] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 406628 in ubuntu "Upgrade automake to 1.11" [Undecided,New]
[22:41] <shane__> can anyone point me to the documenattion that will tell me exactly how to work with bug reports
[22:41] <Adila01> shane_: I believe this is the official site
[22:41] <Adila01> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/KnowledgeBase
[22:42] <bdmurray> Adila01: well, you can help out by moving that bug to the right package
[22:43] <bdmurray> Adila01: you can also check and see if it isn't already available
[22:43] <Adila01> bdmurray: I see
[22:47] <shane__> what determines whether or not a bug report is incomplete
[22:48] <bdmurray> shane__: the bug report itself combined with the package the bug is about.  Incomplete indicates there isn't enough information to begin working on the bug.
[23:13] <Adila01> bdmurray: I have a another question that I hope you may help me with. For this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/406628 , I am unable to assign the bug to the automake1.11 package because it hasn't been published in Ubuntu yet (automake 1.11 isn't in karmic thus a true bug). Should I assign this bug to the latest version of that program which has been already published in Ubuntu? Thanks for helping.
[23:13] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 406628 in ubuntu "Upgrade automake to 1.11" [Undecided,New]
[23:13] <bdmurray> Adila01: Isn't automake the package and 1.11 the version?
[23:14] <Adila01> bdmurray: Yes
[23:15] <bdmurray> so it should be assigned to the automake package then right?
[23:16] <Adila01> bdmurray: Ok, I understand, so I shouldn't apply this bug directly to that particular package version but to the overall package as a whole.
[23:17] <bdmurray> Adila01: right bugs have package tasks not package version tasks
[23:19] <Adila01> bdmurray: Ok, I understand now, just out of curiosity, when would it be necessary to assign a particular bug to a package version. Would it be for bugs that only affect a particular version say a bug in Virtualbox 2.0 but not Virtualbox 3.0?
[23:23] <bdmurray> Adila01: launchpad keeps track of package names so if for some reason the package name changed from virtualbox-2 to virtualbox-3 then you would otherwise you wouldn't.
[23:23] <bdmurray> Adila01: a good example of that is with firefox, we have firefox, firefox-3.0 and firefox-3.5
[23:24] <bdmurray> Adila01: generally though the version number is not included in the package name.  Does that help?
[23:29] <Adila01> bdmurray: I have reread your statements multiple times however I am still confused.
[23:32] <Adila01> bdmurray: I think I understand what you are proclaiming. You state that if there are multiple versions of firefox included in the repositories in which a bug only affects one of those packages then you would assign the bug to that particular package version.
[23:34] <bdmurray> Adila01: lets take your virtualbox example if you use the command 'rmadison virtualbox-ose' you'll see that we have multiple different version numbers for different releases.  However, all of these bugs are kept under the virtualbox-ose package
[23:37] <Adila01> bdmurray: So if all bugs are kept under virtualbox-ose, thus we would never have a need to apply a particular bug to a package version but just to the overall package. My apologies for having difficulty with this matter.
[23:38] <bdmurray> Adila01: right launchpad bugs doesn't keep track of package versions however they should show up in the bug's description
[23:41] <Adila01> bdmurray: I understand now, my mistake was that I assumed assigning bugs to a particular package version was a legitimate course of action due to it showing up in the Launchpad package search feature. Thank you for clearing up my errors.
[23:41] <bdmurray> Adila01: where did this show up?
[23:50] <Adila01> bdmurray: I am sorry for the delayed response, I am trying to find a good example. Give me one second.
[23:53] <bdmurray> No problem
[23:56] <Adila01> bdmurray: For example say if I was trying to choose a package to this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/406628 and I click on the down arrow under Mark as duplicate and then clicked on choose. You will see not only will there be automake but, also, automake1.10, automake1.11 and so on. Do you see?
[23:56] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 406628 in automake "Upgrade automake to 1.11" [Undecided,New]
[23:57] <Adila01> Do you see it*
[23:59] <Adila01> bdmurray: I often use that choose feature as a search engine for a package that I am trying to find. So far it has helped me quite a bit in finding the correct packages.