[06:32] good morning === micahg1 is now known as micahg === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach === asac_ is now known as asac [09:59] Morning folks. [10:00] hey matti [10:00] :) === plars_ is now known as plars [15:06] Boo === porthose_ is now known as porthose [16:32] bdmurray: what's the policy with setting upstream links for pacakges in ubuntu? [16:33] on the package overview page [16:33] micahg: ask jcastro to do it [16:34] I can't do it? [16:34] I was just wondering if it breaks anything or it just helps for people clicking the upstream bug link [16:35] if I can't do it, I should file an LP bug since it offers me the option :) [16:36] You can do it its just a lengthy process that jcastro is most familiar with. [16:36] I was looking at this page: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+source/firefox-3.5/+edit-packaging [16:37] what bug number were you to get to that url? [16:37] I wouldn't have expected the karmic bit in the url [16:37] no bug number [16:38] I went to https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu//+source/firefox-3.5 [16:38] micahg: I think anyone can set it [16:38] and clicked set upstream link [16:38] jcastro: could it break anything [16:38] or it just shows a default project for upstreaming? [16:39] it just shows the default project [16:39] micahg: though I check with the team first [16:39] ok [16:39] I'll talk to asac [16:39] thanks [16:39] micahg: probably run it past asac/fta or someone from mozillateam [16:39] ok [16:41] this is actually a good question -- I found, some days ago, an upstream for a package (sigh don't remember which anymore), but setting the upstream link got me confused, and I decided *not* do to it [16:43] it's indeed a bit confusing [16:44] I always end up at a page that seems to be about adding the link to the branch of the active release series. [16:47] indeed. and there I stopped :-( jcastro, what should be done? [16:48] hggdh: I don't know, it's dumb, it asks you for series and all this stupid crap [16:48] hggdh: the major projects have it set so unless I need to I don't mess with it [16:49] so we leave it as is (no upstream)? [16:50] well, then you can't have a bug watch which isn't good [16:50] can't you choose a project when adding an upstream task to a bug in a package that hasn't got a default upstream bug tracker set? [16:54] bdmurray: yes, this is my point: we will not know who to contact (except for packages imported from Debian, I guess) [16:55] well, debian is different since you are choosing also affects distribution [16:56] So I think documenting the process for setting up the upstream link would be good [16:57] +1. I have, immediately, LIBPST -- we went out of Debian (no support for Outlook 2003+) into a different fork, and I cannot see how to set it [16:58] not counting all the others that have bugs opened, but no real upstream. Granted, a lot go via Debian, but a lot also have had no action in a while. [17:04] hggdh: see https://staging.launchpad.net/libpst and https://staging.launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+source/libpst [17:05] hggdh: and https://bugs.staging.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libpst/+bug/429118 and choose also affects project on that [17:05] Launchpad bug 429118 in hplip "no scanner detected" [Undecided,New] [17:07] looking [17:13] bdmurray: now how do we add in the upstream link -- the real location of the source, and maintainers? [17:14] hggdh: I think you edit the libpst project with that information [17:15] bdmurray: I cannot see where... I am expecting a place where I can add a link (like www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst) [17:16] hggdh: can you see https://staging.launchpad.net/libpst/+edit? [17:16] not allowed here... [17:16] ah, so it is probably because I created the project [17:17] so this also may be a reason why we cannot find where to add this data [17:18] try again I made you the maintainer [17:18] k [17:18] anyway the way the process works is create project, link to upstream project [17:18] k [17:18] ok [17:18] link using the form micahg showed earlier [17:18] and maybe make bugcontrol the maintainer(?) [17:19] I think this may be a good idea; either just bug-control, or ubuntu members (depends on how critical this data is considered) [17:20] I'd say bug control with a plan of changing it to bugsquad after making that a restricted team [17:20] or a special group created for this type of work? [17:20] Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to document the process [17:21] well, we cannot document until we know who will have access to it ;-) [17:22] bdmurray: were you thinking of something like "setting up and updating upstream links"? [17:26] hggdh: Yes, that sounds good. [17:26] jcastro: Are you usually the 'maintainer' of the upstream project? [17:27] no [17:27] who do you make that then? [17:34] :) === micahg1 is now known as micahg [18:58] lp doesn't recognize http://bugs.gentoo.org/... as a Gentoo Linux bug tracker url :( [19:00] ah http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id= works [19:00] still, both urls should work [19:05] debfx: why should bugs.gentoo.org work? It is not a bug link, it is the home page. [19:06] hggdh: for example http://bugs.gentoo.org/270372 [19:07] oh [19:07] heh [19:07] then yes, indeed. Can you please search for an open bug on launchpad itself on that, and open one if you do not find a match? [19:19] bdmurray: sorry I was off doing something else [19:19] bdmurray: which specific field? [19:20] hggdh: yeah I found an open bug [19:20] jcastro: the maintainer for an upstream project [19:21] debfx: may I suggest you add a comment about when it is going to be fixed? ;-) [19:22] bdmurray: you mean when trying to link to an upstream bug and lp doesn't know what to do and you have to fill out a series and all that? [19:23] the maintainer of a newly created project that's used for linking to a bug tracker upstream, iirc [19:25] bdmurray: do you have a "packages without apport hooks" report anywhere? [19:25] jcastro: yes, you create the upstream project and by default you become the maintainer for that project. Do you change that? [19:25] oh I see what you mean [19:25] no, though perhaps I should make it owned by Registry by default [19:26] I haven't had to create a new one in a long time [19:26] and the last few times it was because an existing project split and we needed it to be a project in order to link bugs [19:26] jcastro: I was thinking ubuntu-bug control might be good [19:26] ok [19:26] as I see them I'll move em over [19:27] bdmurray: for bonus points, I filed a bug about making it so you can link bugs without having to care about wether the project or not exists in lp [19:27] which I think would be much easier [19:29] (meanwhile... I added the libpst project with upstream contact, and set the owner to bug-control) [20:00] bdmurray: can project admins have +filebug?no-redirect by default? [20:00] or rather can -control members have it? [20:01] micahg: why shouldn't we too use ubuntu-bug? [20:02] is the change already on edge? [20:02] No, likely tomorrow [20:02] bdmurray: for the times when it's unnecessary [20:03] otherwise, we would use it [20:03] micahg: well, a hand crafted url can be used for those times. I think they are the exception. [20:05] kees: the shorter report would be packages with apport hooks [20:06] bdmurray: how do people submit needs-packaging requests? [20:06] with ?no-redirect but please don't link to that directly [20:07] bdmurray: ok, how do normal users submit needs-packaging requests? [20:08] they'll need to use +file-bug?no-redirect [20:08] right, so is that explained on the reporting bugs page? [20:08] why not write an apport hook for that? Prefilled forms would make the life of the MOTUs a lot easier. [20:09] qense: prefill with what? [20:09] micahg: no, needs-packaging bug reports are a small percentage of the bug reports we receive [20:10] additionally, the vast majority of them are still open [20:10] you could present the user with a form asking all information required for all need packaging, FreezeException, SRUs, etc bugs [20:10] if you don't provide all information they won't be submitted [20:11] ok, so when a user comes in here and asks how to request a new package, what do I say? [20:11] do I give them the URL hack? [20:12] yes [20:12] isn't there a wiki page explaining the procedure? [20:12] yes, it lists the info needed in the bug [20:12] Tell them we aren't adding any new pacakges. ;-) [20:14] Anyway, those users will most likely be on production not staging so it won't matter at the moment. [20:15] bdmurray: true, that could work too. I just wanted to compare it against https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/+packagebugs [20:17] kees: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Apport/PackageHooks [20:18] kees: compare it for? [20:22] bdmurray: just to see what the security team is watching for bugs, and which packages don't yet have apport hooks [20:23] micahg: we could update the wiki page at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages [20:27] micahg: okay, I did that [20:29] bdmurray: is there a way of letting the ui in an apport hook notice the reported: e.g. ask to connect the device before continuing by clicking on OK? [20:31] qense: I'm not certain I'd look at the storage symptom though - just briefly looking at it it seems that it uses a sleep statement. [20:32] thanks for the tip. I'm now reading the code for that function in /usr/share/pyshared/apport/ui.py [20:44] thanks bdmurray, I bookmarked for reference === jjesse__ is now known as jjesse [21:59] please take a look to bug #430272 [21:59] Launchpad bug 430272 in ubuntu "karmic boot hung after /scripts/init-bottom" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/430272 [22:01] hjmf: as I understand it that is being actively worked on [22:05] bdmurray: k [23:28] Is there a fix posted somewhere for the Karmic GDM freeze? Using Sep 15 build btw. [23:50] hi [23:51] i have a pb with Nautilus.... [23:51] "Could not display "computer:" [23:51] Nautilus cannot handle "computer" locations. [23:51] help plz:)