[01:36] <kermiac> vish: you around? bug 538742 appears to be a dupe of bug 532844. This seems to be your area of expertise, should I dupe 538742 & *possibly* add an ubuntu-mono task to 532844?
[01:36] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538742 in ubuntu-mono (Ubuntu) "[LoginIcons] White icons on light background makes them invisible (affects: 2)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538742
[01:36] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 532844 in light-themes (Ubuntu Lucid) (and 3 other projects) "Lucid: White symbols on light panel and Ubuntu Logo are difficult to see (affects: 11) (dups: 2)" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/532844
[01:44] <wolfger_> Hello, channel. Would you say that Bug #538589 should be marked as "confirmed"? "Fix comitted"? Seems that this has been addressed upstream some time ago.
[01:44] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538589 in ezstream (Ubuntu) "ezstream man page in incomplete and incorrect. (affects: 1)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538589
[01:47] <yofel> wolfger_: as long as it isn't fixed in ubuntu don't use fix committed/released (in general at least)
[01:47] <yofel> wolfger_: as I don't know the package good enough I would set it confirmed for now
[01:48] <yofel> ah wait
[01:48] <yofel> you reported it
[01:49]  * yofel tests in lucid
[01:50] <nigelb> wolfger_: did you try man ezstream?
[01:51] <nigelb> there might be an upstream manpage with more details
[01:51] <wolfger_> nigelb: "man ezstream" is near-useless in Karmic
[01:52] <wolfger_> haven't gotten around to trying Lucid yet
[01:52] <yofel> yep, manpage is wrong in lucid
[01:52] <wolfger_> thanks, yofel
[01:52] <yofel> this should be  fixed in debian IMO
[01:52] <yofel> as we just sync the package
[01:52] <nigelb> wolfger_: open a debian bug, its easier that way :)
[01:53] <nigelb> yofel: oh no, you're too fast ;)
[01:53] <wolfger_> LOL
[01:53]  * yofel looks if there's a debian bug
[01:53] <yofel> nigelb: :P
[01:54] <yofel> nope, no bug
[01:55] <yofel> wolfger_: do you know how to file a bug on bugs.debian.org?
[01:55] <wolfger_> yofel: I think I may have done it once, a year or so ago. Not intimately familiar with it, no.
[01:56] <wolfger_> Would be nice if Launchpad had a "forward bug to Debian" button... :-)
[01:56] <yofel> wolfger_: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/Bugs
[01:56] <yofel> usually using reportbug is the easiest way
[02:02] <wolfger_> Thanks. will do this when I get the chance. Night all.
[02:03] <yofel> wolfger_: then I'll do it now as I've got time now
[03:59] <hernejj> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/538853  Should be ready for Triage. Importance=Low would be my best guess on this one.
[03:59] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538853 in light-themes (Ubuntu) "panel transparency broken with light theme (affects: 2) (dups: 1)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[04:14] <ddecator> micahg, if you get a sec, i'm trying to decide if bug 534606 should be linked to mozilla 171237 (closest i found) since they kind of want the same thing, but for different reasons
[04:14] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 534606 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Find positions match off-screen (affects: 1)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/534606
[04:14] <ubot4> Mozilla bug 171237 in Find In Page "Scroll view a few lines beyond occurrence of found search term with type ahead find to show more context instead of bottom of page" [Enhancement,New] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171237
[04:16] <micahg> ddecator: sounds good, but I'm wondering if we already have a bug
[04:16] <micahg> ddecator: wait
[04:17] <micahg> ddecator: that bug is targetted at seamonkey
[04:17] <ddecator> micahg, didn't even notice that...i filtered for firefox only
[04:18] <micahg> ddecator: hold on let me check
[04:21] <ddecator> micahg, i just double checked and don't see anything on lp that matches it
[04:28] <micahg> ddecator: still working it out with the mozilla devs
[04:29] <ddecator> micahg, sure thing. thanks
[04:39] <micahg> ddecator: use mozilla 440198
[04:39] <ubot4> Mozilla bug 440198 in Find Toolbar "If Firefox must scroll the page to display a search result, centre them vertically to the page" [Enhancement,Reopened] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=440198
[04:40] <ddecator> micahg: sure thing. thanks
[04:40] <micahg> ddecator: and I already linked the LP bug upstream
[04:40] <ddecator> micahg: perfect, thanks =)
[04:41] <ddecator> micahg: just one quick question. since it's "enhancement" upstream, should it be "wishlist" downstream?
[04:42] <micahg> ddecator: well, technically, it's the fault of that banner that actually makes it "off-screen", but I'd mark it Low
[04:42] <ddecator> micahg: alright, fair enough
[04:42] <micahg> ddecator: Importance is relative to the project
[04:48] <micahg> ddecator: are you setting the importance on the bug?
[04:48] <ddecator> micahg: yup, just cleaned the description first
[04:48] <micahg> ddecator: k
[04:53] <vish> kermiac_: it could either be dealt with in the theme or in the icons , you can dup them and add botht the tasks
[06:22] <kermiac> thanks vish :)
[09:02] <^arky^> hi
[09:03] <^arky^> apport giving me this check your network problems ?
[09:49] <kermiac> ^arky^: known issue - bug 538097
[09:49] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538097 in apport (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "Apport cannot connect to crash database (affects: 84) (dups: 6)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538097
[09:49] <kermiac> and maybe bug 538944
[09:49] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538944 in apport (Ubuntu Lucid) (and 1 other project) "apport-collect -p does not work any more (affects: 1)" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538944
[09:54] <pecisk> Hi people, I have question specific about reporting about Launchpads - do I also have to use ubuntu-bug, if I report bug I have collected info from other machine? It feels for me that it could be misleading for Ubuntu devs.
[10:49] <duanedesign> if the package says Fix  Released for a package but one build (i386) failed - should I file a  new bug report or reply to existing one?
[11:18] <persia> duanedesign: Neither.  Build failures are tracked in a separate automated system.
[11:18] <persia> The uploader has already been notified, as well.
[11:20] <rye> persia, thanks (that was me who asked duanedesign about the build failures :) )
[11:21] <persia> rye: Glad I could help.
[11:50] <BUGabundo_remote> yofel: around ?
[11:50] <yofel> BUGabundo_remote: yes
[11:51] <BUGabundo_remote> seems we have new _kids_ in +1
[11:51] <BUGabundo_remote> :p
[11:52] <Damascene> is there any known bug about empathy not connecting when started in Lucid?
[11:52] <Damascene> hello first
[11:52] <BUGabundo_remote> how long will he last ehe
[11:54] <yofel> heh
[12:01] <rye> Damascene, but it working when you connect manually?
[12:02] <Damascene> no
[12:02] <Damascene> needs restarting many times
[12:07] <arand> New (3.1.4-dfsg-2ubuntu1 (well, old relatively speaking but...)) version of virtualbox-ose in Lucid... Anyone care to confirm/defirm if Bug #510571 is fixed with this version?
[12:07] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 510571 in virtualbox-ose (Ubuntu) (and 3 other projects) "Lucid guest won't boot with acpi in virtualbox (affects: 31) (dups: 2)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/510571
[12:15] <Damascene> I want to report a bug that if empathy crashes or something wrong happened the bug tool says it can't connect to crash database
[12:16] <yofel> Damascene: known bug 538097
[12:16] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538097 in apport (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "Apport cannot connect to crash database (affects: 88) (dups: 6)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538097
[12:16] <Damascene> is that because "Chat app, and Telepathy user interface does not use Launchpad for bug tracking."
[12:23] <Damascene> bug 538097
[12:23] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538097 in apport (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "+storeblob fails with "500 Internal server error" on production (works on edge) (affects: 88) (dups: 6)" [High,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538097
[12:24] <Damascene> I wonder who came up with this complected title? I think if some one searched for "Apport cannot connect to crash database" wouldn't be easy to get to write crash report
[12:25] <Damascene> *right
[12:25] <Pici> It was, but then it got duped to the LP bug with that title.
[12:25] <Damascene> I think titles are made to suit the developer more than the testers
[12:28] <Damascene> any one using the mainline kernel?
[13:02] <hernejj> I believe https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/light-themes/+bug/538853 to be ready for Triage.
[13:02] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538853 in light-themes (Ubuntu) "panel transparency broken with light theme (affects: 2) (dups: 1)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[13:17] <vish> hernejj: importance?
[13:27] <hernejj> vish: Low I think.
[13:28] <vish> hernejj: actually it is a wishlist , since the panel was designed to use a background image
[13:29] <hernejj> vish: Ok, sounds good to me :)
[13:31] <hernejj> vish: Isn't it easy enough to modify Gtk code (or panel code?) to only apply the BG image if the user's Papel properties settings are not set to use transparency?
[13:32] <vish> hernejj: That would again be a wishlist in gnome-panel.. but worth a shot ;)  the above bug would probably end up being a "wont fix" in the theme :)
[13:34] <hernejj> vish: Makes perfect sense.  Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'll try to remember to open this for the panel later. I'm off to work. ttyl.
[13:35] <Damascene> if some font's doesn't look probably. what should I do?
[13:35] <Damascene> *fonts
[13:36] <hggdh> Damascene: you mean what to do with fonts that don't look *good*?
[13:36] <Damascene> yes
[13:37] <hggdh> open a bug on them: ubuntu-bug <font package name>
[13:37] <hggdh> extra points for chasing it upstream and reporting there also
[13:37] <Damascene> every font has package name?
[13:37] <hggdh> not really, but generically, yes
[13:38] <hggdh> you can search for the package a file belongs to by running 'dlocate <file>'
[13:38] <Damascene> well the font is freeserif in openoffice and serif in firefox
[13:38] <Damascene> I don't know what the package name
[13:38] <Damascene> ok
[13:40] <Damascene> I guess it's fontconfig                               - generic font configuration library - support binar
[13:40] <Damascene> I did dpkg -S serif
[13:41] <Damascene> sansserif no freeserif or serif
[13:42] <hggdh> Damascene: the problem here is that 'serif' and 'sansserif' are also designations for types of fonts
[13:42] <hggdh> serif means the font has the horizontal lines limiting hieght
[13:43] <hggdh> sansserif --- sans serif, without serif -- does not
[13:43] <hggdh> so it is difficult to know *which* serif-ed (or sans) font is in use when you say 'serif'
[13:44] <Damascene> how to be sure?
[13:44] <hggdh> ffox will use serif and sansserif fonts. Drill down, and find which are in use
[13:45] <Damascene> it's serif
[13:46] <hggdh> ok. then you must have an installed forn called serif
[13:46] <hggdh> (for me, I use on FFox Bistream Vera Serif)
[13:47] <hggdh> which is to say, the serif version of Bitsream Vera
[13:48] <Damascene> I see. I installed dlocate. the same result from dpkg -S serif, there is only this too:
[13:48] <Damascene> *two
[13:48] <Damascene> fontconfig-config: /etc/fonts/conf.avail/49-sansserif.conf
[13:48] <Damascene> fontconfig-config: /etc/fonts/conf.d/49-sansserif.conf
[14:42] <Damascene> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/539103
[14:42] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 539103 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Default Arabic font in Firefox is ugly (affects: 1)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[14:42] <Damascene> may I ask some one to look in this
[15:09] <scar> how can I debug xorg/xserver?
[15:09] <scar> it's not line one can run ubuntu-bug startx?
[15:11] <greg-g> ubuntu-bug xorg will work, no?
[15:11] <greg-g> scar: ^
[15:12] <scar> the thing is after gdm loads pc locks up, can't even ssh in
[15:12] <scar> I've looked at /var/log/Xorg.0.log
[15:13] <nigelb> if its lucid, it might be the plymouth bug
[15:13] <scar> karmic and lucid both same problem
[15:14] <scar> I've made a forum post http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=8969966 but I don't want to submit a bug before I've got more solid info
[15:16] <scar> I don't really know what to do next :-/
[15:19] <scar> I want to get amd64 8.04 to see if that could work
[15:24] <nigelb> scar: submit a bug against linux package describing the problem clearly and mention that its the same with karmic and lucid
[15:26] <scar> ok I will do that now
[15:38] <Damascene> there is a problem with lshw in lucid. the bug need someone with mainline kernel installed
[15:41] <nigelb> bdmurray: does the script for the reviewers team subscribe reviewers if the sponsors are subscribed?
[15:42] <bdmurray> nigelb: no it does not
[15:42] <nigelb> bdmurray: aha, that explains why some of my work was undone :)
[15:43] <nigelb> probably something that could added some time :)
[15:43] <bdmurray> nigelb: why should both teams be subscribed?
[15:44] <nigelb> bdmurray: oh wait, it does not?
[15:44] <nigelb> okay, then there is some trouble.  I need to look again
[15:44] <bdmurray> right it does not subscribe the reviewers team if a -sponsors team is already subscribed to the bug report
[15:45] <nigelb> is it possible to do it only once?
[15:45] <nigelb> i.e., if someone actually removes the patch tag for genuine reasons, not add the tag again
[15:46] <bdmurray> why would the patch tag be removed and not a different patch- tag be added or the attachment flag unset?
[15:47] <nigelb> I was guiding the patch towards sponsorship, so I removed the patch tag
[15:47] <nigelb> it was a debdiff ready for uploard
[15:48] <bdmurray> a debdiff is still a patch though - I think the tag should stay
[15:49] <nigelb> In the use case that the debdiff works fine and can be sponsored, the patch tag should still stay?
[15:50] <bdmurray> nigelb: yes
[15:51] <nigelb> bdmurray: my issue with that process is that, once the sponsorship process is started, the patch does not need review, and only needs upload
[15:51] <bdmurray> nigelb: that's why the ubuntu-reviewers won't be subscribed to the bug report anymore
[15:52] <nigelb> bdmurray: ah, so ideally while reviewing we should be reviewing bugs which have reviewers subscribed?
[15:52] <persia> bdmurray: I think I like that model : rather than reviewing based on the patch tag, we review based on reviewers subscription.
[15:52] <nigelb> (I've been reviewing the ones with patch tag
[15:53] <nigelb> again, the problem with that is not all patch reviewers have membership in ubuntu-reviewers
[15:53] <bdmurray> yes I'd be looking at https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-reviewers/+subscribedbugs
[15:53] <bdmurray> nigelb: right let me check on that now
[15:55] <vish> bdmurray: Bug #531533 , has been committed upstream , the review team can be unsubscribed i guess :)
[15:55] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 531533 in tomboy (Ubuntu) (and 2 other projects) "Tomboy needs a monochrome Humanity Icon (affects: 6) (dups: 3)" [Wishlist,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/531533
[15:57] <shrini> team: need help on 525308
[15:57] <shrini> i just set the package
[15:57] <shrini> but the user needs more info
[15:57] <vish> bug #525308
[15:57] <nigelb> bug 525308
[15:57] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 525308 in libusb (Ubuntu) "Does not read a USB that was read yesterday. The USB is read by other computer. (affects: 1)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/525308
[15:58] <shrini> wow. this is great.
[15:58] <shrini> I am very new to this channel and bugs
[15:59] <shrini> help me to response to the user
[16:05] <vish> shrini: thanks for helping out with the bugs , i'm not sure where this problem is though  , someone will read the above and respond soon ;)
[16:05]  * nigelb is not sure either
[16:08] <vish> shrini: have a look at > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingRemovableDevices , https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures#Storage%20devices
[16:08] <nigelb> shrini: Please ask reporter to run 'ubuntu-bug' in terminal and select storage device option.
[16:09] <nigelb> that should help collect proper information
[16:26] <tibbar> ive tried everyone combination of kernal with nvidia driver, on 64bit ubuntu. From 9.04 - 10.4 X server crashes my system so the logs never saves. Also read about everyone solution online spent about 30hours straight
[16:26] <tibbar> still nothing, getting realllly desperate
[16:27] <tibbar> only thing ive figured out is "unable to load nvidia kernal" is a problem
[16:28] <tibbar> i have 8600, tried about every driver from 173-195. also got some logs
[16:28] <tibbar> how do i report the bug correctly really want my system to run in 10.4, the lts
[16:31] <rye> tibbar, hi
[16:31] <rye> tibbar, are you running with /usr partition separate from / ?
[16:32] <rye> tibbar, re: nvidia problem
[16:44] <shrini> vish: nigelb: thanks
[16:44] <shrini> update the bug
[16:44] <nigelb> welcome
[16:45] <shrini> wishes for your ubuntu membersips
[19:17] <charlie-tca> bdmurray: I will test that screensaver bug again when I get a good lucid install this week
[19:25] <jjardon> Hello, Is the crash database down?
[19:25] <jjardon> I can't file a but with ubuntu-bug command
[19:28] <yofel> jjardon: known, https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-foundations/+bug/538097
[19:28] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538097 in apport (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "+storeblob fails with "500 Internal server error" on production (works on edge) (affects: 95) (dups: 6)" [High,Invalid]
[19:28] <jjardon> yofel, thank you
[20:04] <cjohnston_> Can someone look at Bug 535674 and tell me if they agree that it isnt a bug, just more crying and whining?
[20:04] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 535674 in light-themes (Ubuntu) "dust sand is one thousand times better than these new themes called Radiance - Ambiance (affects: 1)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/535674
[20:05] <charlie-tca> Looks like an opinion. Belongs on a mailing list or in forums, maybe?
[20:06] <cjohnston_> thanks charlie-tca.. im going to close and offer those suggestions.
[20:06] <charlie-tca> That works. There really is nothing in that to fix.
[20:07] <cjohnston_> thanks charlie-tca
[20:08] <charlie-tca> You are welcome
[20:09] <bdmurray> thekorn: your merge proposal in bug 539211 has the wrong reviewer set
[20:09] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 539211 in update-manager (Ubuntu Lucid) (and 1 other project) "Lucid's update-manager does not show a warning when running on battery anymore (affects: 1)" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/539211
[20:10] <thekorn> bdmurray, what is the correct one?
[20:10] <thekorn> bdmurray, I just took the pre-selected one
[20:11] <thekorn> bdmurray, mvo?
[20:11] <bdmurray> ubuntu-core-dev
[20:11] <bdmurray> or ubuntu-dev
[20:11] <bdmurray> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Branches
[20:13] <thekorn> bdmurray, great, thanks alot for the hint
[20:13] <bdmurray> thekorn: no problem
[21:17] <ddecator> micahg: are firefox crashes that failed retrace get treated differently from most crashes that fail retrace? i'm not sure what info the mozillateam needs in order to work on a crash
[21:17] <micahg> ddecator: usually
[21:20] <ddecator> micahg: so i'm looking at bug 521919, retrace failed, not much in the stacktrace (not sure if it's enough at least). in that case, do we remove the coredump and mark invalid?
[21:20] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 521919 in firefox (Ubuntu) "firefox-bin crashed with SIGSEGV (affects: 1)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/521919
[21:20] <micahg> ddecator: shouldn't be public with a coredump...
[21:21] <ddecator> micahg: the reporter changed it
[21:21] <ddecator> micahg: was going to mark private, but then i saw retrace failed
[21:23] <micahg> ddecator: remove the coredump and check for private info in the stacktraces...usually we mark invalid with a message, but this one has more info than njormal
[21:25] <ddecator> micahg: sure thing. thanks