[01:35] <nano4ever> Can anyone look at a debdiff I made for the upgrade Bug #206862 ??
[01:35] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 206862 in xsensors "New upstream version (0.60) available" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/206862
[01:38] <hggdh> nano4ever: it is a patch, not a debdiff
[01:39] <dtchen> nano4ever: is there any other possible value for num?
[01:40] <dtchen> using a switch/case there seems odd if it can only be useful for 1
[01:40] <dtchen> and, it's missing all the Debian infrastructure
[01:40] <nano4ever> oh sorry i'll upload it now
[01:40] <dtchen> (as hggdh alluded to)
[01:42] <hggdh> yeah, an if would be enough. And I, particularly, don't like a return in the middle of a switch
[01:42] <nano4ever> hggdh: alright it's uploaded
[01:47] <hggdh> nano4ever: why are you patching the autoconf files?
[01:48] <hggdh> in other words, is 0.61 the new upstream release?
[01:51] <hggdh> ooooh, we are still at 0.50 in Lucid
[01:51] <nano4ever> well the patch is from here https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-September/004711.html
[01:51] <nano4ever> the author posted the patch but with no official change in version number
[01:52] <hggdh> thank you
[01:52] <nano4ever> I contacted him and he said that he would post some updates to xsensors but he hasn't done it yet...
[01:53] <hggdh> it would probably be a better idea to propose a new source upstream version, instead of patch 0.50 to 0.60 to 0.61
[01:53] <hggdh> the debdiff is rather big as a result
[01:53] <nano4ever> ah ok
[01:54] <nano4ever> so what's the process for making such a proposal?
[01:54] <hggdh> and -- usually -- running autoconf on package build is not viewed as a good option (I do not really know if it is run, or if the patches for the autoconf are just for completeness)
[01:55] <hggdh> nano4ever: you could download the new upstream and add your patches there
[01:55] <hggdh> this would make the debdiff much smaller, and there is no sense in carrying such a large patch if the new upstream code has it all there (except for your patch)
[01:56] <nano4ever> i just followed the directions here for the update .. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Complete#Updating an Ubuntu Package
[01:56] <nano4ever> so are you saying that I should make a new package from upstream, then apply the author's patch as an update?
[01:57] <hggdh> yes
[01:57] <hggdh> you would have to download the source from upstream (hopefully they have a distribution tarball)
[01:58] <hggdh> because this would make life much more simpler
[01:58] <hggdh> this is, in fact, what the instructions you pointed try to say
[01:58] <hggdh> "Get the new source. Usually you would look up where the old version was downloaded from (check debian/copyright) and use that source. But again, since this is a prepared example:
[01:59] <hggdh> so we would upgrade from version 0.50 to 0.6x (whatever it is), plus the additional patch(es)
[01:59] <hggdh> but the *base* version would be 0.6x
[02:00] <hggdh> nano4ever: BTW -- thank you for working on this. I understand you may be a bit frustrated now, though
[02:00] <hggdh> nano4ever: did I explain it OK?
[02:01] <nano4ever> i'm just a bit confused. I did start on the link i gave then I skipped to "Creating a debdiff"
[02:01] <nano4ever> I dled the the newsource
[02:02] <hggdh> you were on the right track, up to diff-ing from 0.50 to 0.60 to 0.61 to you patch
[02:02] <hggdh> this is where you took a, er, misguided turn
[02:03] <nano4ever> so if I just follow the "Updating an Ubuntu Package" section and upload the dsc file, that should be enough?
[02:03] <hggdh> basically, we are -- right now -- at 0.50 (perhaps plus some patches). The new upstream is at 0.6x. So -- we upgrade the *whole* package to 0.6x
[02:03] <hggdh> which is to say, we download 0.6x, and base a new package version on it
[02:04] <hggdh> you would need the dsc plus (most probably) a diff
[02:04] <hggdh> because you will (at least) have to update the ./debian/* files
[02:05] <nano4ever> would the diff be from 0.50 to 0.60?
[02:05] <hggdh> no. The diff would be from the *current* released upstream
[02:05] <hggdh> plustd whatever patches necessary
[02:05] <hggdh> 0.50 is dead
[02:06] <nano4ever> ok, so what I'm thinking is copy over the .50 debian directory to .60, update those files, then make a .dsc and diff from the new .60 and .60.orig , is that about right?
[02:07] <nano4ever> and then after .60 is approved, patch to 0.60-0ubuntu2 with the coretemp patch..
[02:07] <hggdh> in this case, it is pretty much a *new* version, so there is no debdiff -- you will be uploading a new .orig, plus the debian packaging pieces
[02:08] <nigel_nb> hggdh: I'm going to get that ppa wiki done today :)
[02:09] <hggdh> for the last question: this, I am not sure. I personally would try to put it all together in one go, but MOTU may want different
[02:10] <hggdh> nano4ever: also, the best channel for packaging Universe is the #ubuntu-motu one
[02:10] <hggdh> nigel_nb: cool, thanks
[02:11] <hggdh> nano4ever: also, please remember the package should be built for Lucid, not Karmic
[02:11] <nano4ever> hggdh: alright thanks for the tips! also, I tried #ubuntu-motu,but got no response..
[02:12] <hggdh> nano4ever: heh. Ask, and fill yourself of patience ;-)
[02:12] <hggdh> they may delay to answer, but usually they do. Also, this is Friday night/Saturday morning on most places
[02:13] <nano4ever> ah makes sense
[02:13] <hggdh> nano4ever: again, thank you for your work on this. We *do* appreciate
[02:15] <nano4ever> thanks for the thanks :P
[02:15] <nano4ever> just trying to give back
[02:15] <hggdh> nano4ever: just one more point: we usually try very hard to use the upstream distro tarball without changes *in* it, and addtional patches separate in ./debian/patches
[02:15] <hggdh> any patches we carry create a 'delta' from upstream (i.e., a local difference). We try to maintain this delta to a minimum
[02:16] <nano4ever> gotcha, i'll keep it that in mind
[02:16] <hggdh> nano4ever: this is how I started in Ubuntu ;-) giving back what I was taking
[02:21] <hggdh> dtchen: welcome back as an official developer :-)
[02:29] <nigel_nb> hggdh: how do I know if a bug is part of publically announced testing initiative of an ubuntu team?
[02:31] <hggdh> well, if it was publicly announced...
[02:31] <hggdh> bug #?
[02:35] <nigel_nb> hggdh: making the wiki edits
[02:35] <nigel_nb> or creation
[02:35] <hggdh> oh, OK
[02:37] <hggdh> then -- we (as triagers) would have to receive a notice. This is actually a good question... perhaps we need a common place for all officially endorsed test packages as noted in
[02:37] <nigel_nb> yea a wiki
[02:38] <nigel_nb> I can offer to main a static list, if I'm able to get the announcements
[02:41] <hggdh> this is something to be formalised, I agree
[02:42] <nigel_nb> part of the agenda for the next meeting then
[02:43] <hggdh> yes -- and it will have to be discussed with the other groups
[02:43] <hggdh> meanwhile, we might go on, and assume it will be there
[02:44] <nigel_nb> yep, including the devs and motu is my best guess
[02:45] <hggdh> yes
[02:45] <nigel_nb> are there any such programs now?
[02:45] <nigel_nb> that have called for testing?
[02:52] <nigel_nb> hggdh: wifi manager in gnome is which package? gnome-net-tools?
[02:53] <nigel_nb> gnome-nettools (spelled wrong earlier)
[02:55] <hggdh> I do not know (yet). What is the name of the file?
[02:55] <nigel_nb> file?
[02:56] <nigel_nb> the entire bug report consists of "The network manager is unable to connect to hidden wireless network."
[02:56] <nigel_nb> I need to change the package and ask for more info
[02:56] <hggdh> oh
[02:56] <hggdh> network-manager
[02:57] <hggdh> and network-manager-gnome
[02:58] <hggdh> but it is probably network-manager that cannot find the AP
[02:59] <nigel_nb> okay, thank you :)
[16:05] <nperry> !info pidgin
[16:05] <ubot4> nperry: pidgin (source: pidgin): graphical multi-protocol instant messaging client for X. In component main, is optional. Version 1:2.6.2-1ubuntu7 (karmic), package size 562 kB, installed size 1784 kB
[16:05] <nperry> packages.ubuntu.com is down hrrrm
[16:19] <hggdh> sometimes it happens. It is, IIRC, a volunteer service
[18:55] <Yos> I just started having this problem for the first time: My computer is booting up into low graphics mode and I cannot change visual effects to normal or extra
[18:55] <Yos> Is this a bug?  If so, how to report it properly
[18:57] <etali> Yos, this channel is for people who are triaging bugs, rather than for support.  You'd probably get a quicker response regarding solving your problem in the #ubuntu channel
[18:58] <etali> If you want to report it as a bug, you can find help at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs
[18:58] <Yos> Ok, thanks
[18:59] <etali> I hope you manage to get it sorted!
[19:53] <awardle> Can bugs in evolution be upstreamed?
[19:54] <nigel_nb> awardle: yes, it has to be upstreamed *if* it is upstream
[19:54] <awardle> where to
[19:54] <hggdh> and, for Evolution, they should
[19:54] <hggdh> http://bugzilla.gnome.org
[19:55] <nigel_nb> hggdh: upstream gnome down for you?
[19:55] <nigel_nb> I've been trying for some time
[19:55] <hggdh> will check
[19:55] <hggdh> hum
[19:55] <hggdh> not looking good
[19:56] <awardle> bugzilla.gnome.org seems to be down
[19:56] <nigel_nb> unfortunately, true :(
[19:57] <hggdh> yes. I just asked about it on their bug channel
[19:57] <hggdh> now we wait, Saturday and all of that
[19:57] <nigel_nb> yea, plus holiday season
[19:58] <awardle> Could someone set bug 495936 to low
[19:58] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 495936 in evolution "Feature request: better indication of signed and/or encrypted email" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/495936
[19:58] <nperry> Right my first request for this evening, time to eat my tea
[20:00] <hggdh> awardle: I actually marked it WishList. Thank you
[20:01] <hggdh> nperry: you *eat* tea?
[20:01] <nigel_nb> nperry: was about to ask, but hggdh already asked
[20:02] <hggdh> just curious. Different people, different mores, etc
[20:02] <nigel_nb> probably eating the tea cup too?
[20:04] <awardle> tea in England can also mean dinner
[20:04] <nigel_nb> awardle: dinner or supper?
[20:04] <hggdh> ah
[20:04] <nperry> hggdh: tea aka dinner
[20:05] <nigel_nb> early dinner then
[20:05] <nperry> its 8pm
[20:05] <hggdh> well, my grandmother-in-law used to ask us if we wanted a lemonade of coke, or orange, or whatever
[20:05] <nperry> so late really
[20:06] <hggdh> indeed. teatime is gone
[20:06] <hggdh> brb. Lunch time at my TZ.
[20:17] <nperry> Wow that was nice back to my learning to triage :)
[20:39] <hggdh> nperry: just ask on any doubt, and we will try to answer
[20:41] <hggdh> OK. bugzilla.gnome.org is down for the weekend (I *should* have read the annoucement...)
[20:46] <hggdh> for all, courtesy of the extremely nice bugmeister for gnme: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnome.devel.announce/67
[20:47] <nigel_nb> oh great, I was hoping to work on the git.gnome this weekend, so thats gone now
[20:47] <hggdh> :-)
[21:01] <nperry> hggdh: This evening theres alot of bugs from email, for packages syncs for example 495994 - the right people have been subscribed, do we need to confirm or marked as triaged?
[21:01] <nperry> bug 495994 **
[21:01] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 495994 in libhamcrest-java "Sync libhamcrest-java 1.1-4 (main) from Debian testing (main)" [Wishlist,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/495994
[21:02] <hggdh> looking. But usually, workflow request (sync/merge, and others) are outside triaging scope
[21:03] <hggdh> in this case, even more due to the OR -- he knows what has to be done
[21:03] <hggdh> so, no, do not touch them
[21:03] <nperry> Ok, just had to double check if New was the right status
[21:04] <nperry> Thanks :)
[21:04] <hggdh> welcome
[21:05] <nigel_nb> hggdh: frustrating to triage today with no upstream :(
[21:06] <hggdh> I know. But we can hope it will back earlier (this is their intention)
[21:08] <nigel_nb> yea
[21:09] <nigel_nb> I'm not triaging today, cant leave tasks undone, I'd rather skip 2 days and go all out from monday
[21:10] <nperry> Hummm debian bug tracker playing up
[21:11] <nperry> Ah working now :)
[21:18] <nperry> hggdh: fsys state-tarfile returned error exit 2 -- Could this be a bad download?
[21:18] <hggdh> nperry: could, but give me a pastebin
[21:19] <nperry> bug 495992
[21:19] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 495992 in kdebase-runtime "package kde-icons-oxygen 4:4.2.2-0ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess dpkg-deb - fsys state-tarfile returned error exit 2" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/495992
[21:19] <nperry> Terminallog - Never seen the error before, but just to be sure before i convert to question and solve issue
[21:21] <yofel> hm, what was 'broken pipe' again?
[21:21] <hggdh> nperry: does not sound like bad download
[21:22] <hggdh> yofel: a subprocess had a pipe to another subprocess, and this pipe vanished (one of the subp died, in this case)
[21:22] <yofel> hggdh: ah yes, thx
[21:26] <hggdh> nperry: you can check, nevertheless, by downloading the package to a temp dir, then manually running 'dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile|tar -tv'
[21:26] <hggdh> er
[21:26] <hggdh> dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile <package> | tar -tv
[21:27] <nperry> meh packages.ubuntu.com is down :/
[21:28] <hggdh> nperry: you can drill down to the specific package from here: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kdebase-runtime
[21:29] <hggdh> select the Overview link at the headers, and then go to the correct distro version
[21:30] <hggdh> for example, I ended up here: https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/+archive/ppa/+build/1388105
[21:31] <hggdh> oops. Wrong drill down, the OR package is at 0ubuntu1, the one I am showing is at 0ubuntu1-1
[21:33] <nperry> Thats odd, why isnt downloading OR 1-1
[21:35] <hggdh> no, it is, the bug title is wrong
[21:36] <hggdh> look at the description, and at the end of the log (I also based myself on the title)
[21:37] <hggdh> dpkg: erro processando /var/cache/apt/archives/kde-icons-oxygen_4%3a4.2.2-0ubuntu1.1_all.deb (--unpack):
[21:37] <hggdh> hum. pt_BR, BTW
[21:39] <nperry> Indeed updated that, else i'll forget :)
[21:40] <nperry> Right the .deb seems ok
[21:52] <Laibsch> Hi
[21:52] <Laibsch> How do I search for bugs that are marked as fixed in the current development release but nominated for hardy or karmic?
[21:53] <hggdh> Laibsch: good question, let me try to find out
[21:55] <Laibsch> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+nominations
[21:55] <hggdh> heh, there you go
[21:55] <Laibsch> completely non-obivous, but google helps
[21:56] <Laibsch> and unfortunately, that includes yet to be fixed bugs
[21:57] <nperry> hggdh: I believe bug 495724 is ready to be set as triaged with importance medium
[21:57] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 495724 in b43-fwcutter "Broadcom 4306( b43-fwcutter) Wireless can't connect to Access Points WEP/WPA/Unsecure." [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/495724
[21:57] <nperry> nm_setting_802_1x_get_pkcs11_engine_path: assertion `NM_IS_SETTING_802_1X (setting)' failed - handsake doesn't seem to be happening
[21:58] <nperry> So I think its a network card/driver related problem - as ndiswrapper driver fixes issue
[21:59] <hggdh> Laibsch: trying "advanced search" under +nominations should get there -- then select fix released/committed
[21:59] <Laibsch> Just did that
[21:59] <Laibsch> Got a timeout error a couple of times
[21:59] <Laibsch> but it seems to be working now

[21:59] <hggdh> ah, OK
[22:01] <Laibsch> who can change the status for nominations?
[22:02] <Laibsch> I think bug 129407 can be rejected as invalid for example
[22:02] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 129407 in linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22 "r818x.ko missing in linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22-8-generic" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/129407
[22:02] <hggdh> Laibsch: for nominations, only the maintainers can refuse it
[22:02] <Laibsch> I see
[22:03] <Laibsch> but wait
[22:03] <Laibsch> Ubuntu has no Maintainer per se
[22:03] <hggdh> nperry: it would be good to also have the dmesg, and a 'lspci' output
[22:03] <Laibsch> It's a team effort
[22:03] <hggdh> Laibsch: getting there
[22:04] <hggdh> linux *does* have maintainers
[22:04] <hggdh> (I mean the package)
[22:05] <hggdh> the kernel team, specifically
[22:06] <nperry> hggdh: Full dmesg?
[22:07] <hggdh> nperry: yes, better more than less data
[22:15] <Laibsch> who would be capable of closing the hardy task for bug 178289?
[22:15] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 178289 in ubuntu "Absolutely no keyboard input on fresh hardy alpha 2 installation." [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/178289
[22:15] <Laibsch> I'm a member of "Ubuntu bugs", yet I don't seem to have the power to do it
[22:18] <nigel_nb> Laibsch: I believe only Ubuntu Drivers can close that task
[22:18] <nperry> hggdh: Is there an upstream for b43-fwcutter
[22:18] <hggdh> Laibsch: first of all, most of the times we see a bug against Ubuntu, this is because the OR did not know which package to set it against
[22:19] <Laibsch> ?
[22:19] <Laibsch> hggdh: Were you really talking to me?
[22:19] <hggdh> also, bugsquad/bug-control does not have authority to close nominations
[22:19] <nigel_nb> hggdh: I think pedro someone from QA team can.....
[22:20] <nigel_nb> pedro, or someone else from the QA team
[22:20] <hggdh> Laibsch: yes -- that bug was set to Ubuntu because the OR did not know where to put it (neither do I, for taht matter)
[22:20] <hggdh> also, I reset it to INVALID, since there is no "fix" (apart from a probable bad hardware)
[22:21] <hggdh> nigel_nb: probably
[22:21] <nigel_nb> anyway, invalid is fine ;)
[22:21] <nperry> If it was just in livecd it would be in ubiquity but if it was there when booted it would be xorg - right?
[22:22] <hggdh> Laibsch: nevertheless, you are pointing to a nice issue -- the forgotten nominations. Something should, clearly, be done there
[22:22] <hggdh> nperry: it *might* be X, but the OR stated the keyboard was non-functional also during boot
[22:23] <hggdh> so this would -- being software -- be more related to the kernel
[22:23] <Laibsch> hggdh: I thought you were talking about a logical OR (such as the one used in google searches).  My abbreviation for your OR is OP. ;-)
[22:23]  * Laibsch has been using Usenet a lot at dial-up times
[22:24] <hggdh> Laibsch: sorry. To be clear -- OR == Original Reporter; for me, OP == Original Poster (which, perhaps wrongly, I tend to use only on mailists)
[22:24] <Laibsch> yeah, I understood that now
[22:25] <hggdh> Laibsch: my fault, nevertheless. I should have been less lazy
[22:25] <Laibsch> nah, don't worry
[22:26] <Laibsch> I guess it would make sense to have a "Hardy driver", "$release driver" for past releases
[22:26] <Laibsch> I'm interested in fixing problems in karmic and hardy
[22:26] <Laibsch> Where should I raise this suggestion?
[22:26] <hggdh> something like that, yes. I am going to raise this on next bugsquad/control meeting
[22:27] <hggdh> Laibsch: a good place would be the devel-discuss and bugcontrol mailing lists
[22:27] <dtchen> bdmurray: 464612 was a grub bug anyhow.
[22:27] <Laibsch> hggdh: I don't like to subscribe to yet another mailing list
[22:27] <hggdh> :-)
[22:27] <Laibsch> when is that meeting going to be held?
[22:27] <Laibsch> I suppose it's being done in IRC?
[22:27] <hggdh> first tuesday of every month, here
[22:28] <hggdh> time... I *think* it is 1600Z
[22:29] <hggdh> Laibsch: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/Meeting
[22:29] <hggdh> so, yes, 1600Z
[22:29] <hggdh> 16:00 UTC, actually
[22:29] <Laibsch> that's quite some time out
[22:30] <hggdh> yes, this is why I suggested the MLs
[22:30] <Laibsch> And I'll likely be without internet for the next one
[22:30] <Laibsch> 12th, not the 5th?
[22:30] <Laibsch> that's probably doable for me
[22:30] <hggdh> send it to the bugsquad ML (or bugcontrol, or devel-discuss)
[22:31] <hggdh> oh, I was wrong, it is the second Tuesday, not the first
[22:34] <Laibsch> please finishi editing that page ;-)
[22:34] <hggdh> anyway, I just added an additional topic for next meeting
[22:34] <hggdh> just did
[22:34] <hggdh> :-)
[22:35] <Laibsch> I would not call it pollution
[22:35] <Laibsch> the nominations are a great way to alert the right people that something needs fixing in an older release
[22:35] <Laibsch> ... if used properly
[22:35] <hggdh> I went for the kill, Laibsch. Nominations are good, but if they are not acted on, they just pollute
[22:36] <hggdh> I all in favour of them but -- like your bug example -- they must either be accepted or rejected
[22:38] <Laibsch> what's the alternative?
[22:38] <Laibsch> bugs are marked as fixed when the fix is in release+1
[22:38] <Laibsch> and I think that makes sense
[22:39] <Laibsch> As I said, I'd be willing to comb through bugs for hardy and karmic
[22:39] <Laibsch> and there aren't that many to be overwhelming
[22:41] <hggdh> for those fixed, yes
[22:53] <nperry>   hggdh Could i add to the agenda the ammount of Incomplete bugs which havent had a reply for a good couple of months/years - I know they don't count towards any stats but there is alot of them :)
[22:55] <yofel> nperry: this is a good start for a statistic: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+expirable-bugs
[22:58] <nperry> Is there a magical time for it to be set as invaild? Or has it got to be done manually?
[22:58] <hggdh> nperry: you can, but we already discussed it
[22:58] <hggdh> currently dropping for expiry has been disabled for Ubuntu bugs
[22:58] <hggdh> it would be -- by default -- 60 days
[22:59] <nperry> If its already been discussed I wont do :)
[22:59] <hggdh> genrically, anyone can add a topic for the meeting (but should also be present to explain)
[22:59] <yofel> nperry: the list I gave you are the bugs that would already be invalid if the feature was turned on
[23:00] <hggdh> it was discussed on UDS, IIRC
[23:01] <nperry> Is there any remote log of this?
[23:02] <hggdh> of waht was noted down, yes, the blueprints
[23:02] <hggdh> I do not remember if the session was videotaped, though
[23:03]  * nperry going to look in gobby :)
[23:07] <nperry> hggdh: bug 495724 files have now been attached by OR
[23:07] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 495724 in b43-fwcutter "Broadcom 4306( b43-fwcutter) Wireless can't connect to Access Points WEP/WPA/Unsecure." [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/495724
[23:10] <nperry> direct probes are failing.. now thats threw me
[23:11] <hggdh> I have been off the BCM world for a while, so I am not sure how things are not. I will mark it triaged
[23:15] <hggdh> done
[23:16] <nperry> Thankyou hggdh :)
[23:39] <Laibsch> hggdh: I just received a comment from Steve Langasek that indeed the feature is not used because signal-to-noise is too low.  To improve that I think that making nominations for a release possibly only after a ticket has been closed as fix released would be a good idea.
[23:39] <Laibsch> what do you think about this suggestion?
[23:40] <micahg> Laibsch: that's the only time it's possible for anything to be done about it anyways
[23:40] <Laibsch> exactly
[23:40] <Laibsch> and it would decrease the noise considerably, I think
[23:46] <micahg> bdmurray: can you bump the ff version in the                 firefox-lp-improvements package to 3.6.*?
[23:54] <hggdh> Laibsch: good idea, but willrequire lp changes
[23:55] <micahg> hggdh: you think it should be discussed at the meeting before filing a bug?
[23:55] <hggdh> I think it should be discussed by all, yes -- bug-control/squad and devel
[23:56] <hggdh> since I myself do not approve/reject, I am unsure of all possible impacts