[00:17] <dragon> Is this a bug in upstart? http://paste.ubuntu.com/408349/
[00:20] <micahg> dragon: is tehre an upstart job?
[00:20] <dragon> micahg: not sure. Where do I check?
[00:20] <micahg> idk
[00:21]  * micahg hasn't learned upstart yet :)
[00:21] <dragon> micahg: there should be an upstart service for this any way, since /etc/init.d way is deprecated.
[00:25] <crimsun> there is an upstart job for networking
[00:25] <crimsun> read /etc/init.d/networking :-)
[00:26] <crimsun> anyhow, no, it isn't an upstart bug but either in sysvinit or netbase
[00:42] <dragon> crimsun: from reading that script, I can tell that upstart isn't being used completely. In my understanding /etc/init.d is the way to go at this time.
[02:48] <arand> There's two users in #ubuntu+1 seing something like Bug #531027 and/or Bug #532984 And we could use a hand in trying to get hold of any relevant debugging information.
[02:48] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 531027 in ubuntu " GLIB WARNING ** GLib - getpwuid_r(): failed due to unknown user id (0) (affects: 23) (heat: 118)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/531027
[02:48] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 532984 in ubuntu "Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 3 won't boot, with (process 239): GLib-WARNING **: getpwid_r(): failed due to unknown user id (0), on HP Compaq Pentium 4 (affects: 5) (heat: 26)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/532984
[04:37] <Sioux-33>  hi i have problem with udev in lucid i want to downgrade it to if is possible  version 147 6.0 the same like in karmic cos just this udev version working propelly for me does anyone know how to downgrade udev in lucid?
[04:44] <Sioux-33> anyone here ?
[05:30] <alex_mayorga> hi I've just got 552654 here
[05:30] <alex_mayorga> anything worth submitting?
[05:30] <alex_mayorga> Bug #552654
[05:30] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 552654 in indicator-session (Ubuntu) "indicator-session-service crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke() (affects: 2) (heat: 16)" [Medium,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/552654
[05:33] <ddecator> what do you mean by "anything worth submitting" exactly?
[05:33] <alex_mayorga> ddecator: anything missing from the original bug report?
[05:35] <ddecator> alex_mayorga: not that i can think of off-hand. i saw you're subscribed, so you'll see if any info is requested
[05:36] <alex_mayorga> ddecator: alright thanks
[14:28] <smif1984> HI everybody
[14:38] <smif1984> Hi, i'm new to the team. I have a question about bug #538612. Latest lucid updates have fixed the behavior the user reported as buggy, so i marked the the bug as invalid and made a comment to explain. Can the bug be considered triaged?
[14:38] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538612 in gnome-terminal (Ubuntu) "cursor blinks even when terminal doesn't have focus (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538612
[14:43] <davide_> Hi, i'm new to the team. I have a question about bug #538612. Latest lucid updates have fixed the behavior the user reported as buggy, so i marked the the bug as invalid and made a comment to explain. Can the bug be considered triaged?
[14:43] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 538612 in gnome-terminal (Ubuntu) "cursor blinks even when terminal doesn't have focus (affects: 1)" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/538612
[14:48] <yofel> davide_: as Invalid means the bug is closed yes
[14:49] <davide_> Hi yofel, so what should i do now?
[14:51] <yofel> davide_: with that bug: nothing, it's done. Choose your next bug to work on
[14:51] <yofel> I can't reproduce that behaviour either btw.
[14:52] <davide_> ok.. but so basically the "final status" of a bug can be either triaged or invalid... Am i wrong?
[14:55] <joaopinto> triaged is not a final status
[14:55] <yofel> well, the final status of a bug is either Invalid, Fix Released or Won't Fix. The final BugSquad status is either Invalid or Triaged
[14:57] <charlie-tca> Actually, they can be fix-released if fixed in lucid but existing in another version
[14:57] <charlie-tca> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Fixed%20in%20Development%20release%20while%20still%20existing%20in%20a%20previous%20release
[14:58] <davide_> mmm ok.. very clean yofel.. btw where are you guys from?
[16:14] <xteejx> Good afternoon all!!
[16:15] <xteejx> Managed to get my broadband back after a couple of months away from triage, so sorry if anyone's been left picking up a few pieces, I didn't see it coming!
[16:15] <xteejx> Loving the new look lucid beta 1 though....ok off subject but hey, it's pretty lush! :)....anyone step in here and say hi lol
[16:18] <smif1984> Hi!
[16:18] <xteejx> Hi smif1984 :)
[16:18] <xteejx> Good year 1984, when I was born hehe ;)
[16:20] <xteejx> How are triaging things going at the moment? Am I still the only one that was sorting thru LP expired/Incomplete bug report or has anyone else picked that up, otherwise I'll just carry on with it.
[16:20] <xteejx> ?
[16:24] <xteejx> bug 508799, I have messaged MOTU channel about it, but not sure if they deal with adobe flash, any ideas?
[16:25] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 508799 in adobe-flashplugin (Ubuntu) "[lucid] flash version in older releases is older upstream version (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/508799
[16:25] <yofel> hey, wb xteejx
[16:26] <xteejx> Hey yofel, and thanks :)
[16:27] <yofel> xteejx: carry on, the incomplete bug count has only increased, I'm too busy with no-package bugs ATM (and trying to fix other peoples pcs in #ubuntu+1)
[16:27] <xteejx> yofel: lol no worries, just didn't want to step on toes
[16:30] <smif1984> is it possible to filter bugs of a package in lp depending on status? e.g. only show incomplete bugs?
[16:31] <xteejx> smif1984, of course
[16:31] <xteejx> Try advanced search
[16:32] <smif1984> .... sorry for the noise.. :(
[16:32] <charlie-tca> welcome back, xteejx
[16:32] <charlie-tca> smif1984: questions are not noise
[16:34] <xteejx> smif1984: Questions are there to be answered ask as many as you like we don't mind
[16:34] <xteejx> charlie-tca: Hey charlie, thanks :)
[16:34] <smif1984> cheers :)
[16:34] <xteejx> no worries
[16:37] <xteejx> anyway....bug 508813 has a potential even at this stage to be a bitch whilst upgrading to Lucid. I have contacted Brian Thomason who is a partner upload sponsor to see if/what needs to be done, but we only have 3 weeks.....
[16:37] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 508813 in bughelper (Ubuntu) "bughelper crashed with NoWorkingTree in find_format() (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/508813
[16:37] <xteejx> wrong one hang on
[16:37] <xteejx> bug 508799
[16:37] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 508799 in adobe-flashplugin (Ubuntu) "[lucid] flash version in older releases is older upstream version (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/508799
[16:38] <charlie-tca> I've been able to upgrade from karmic with no problem
[16:38] <xteejx> what about adobe flash?
[16:39] <charlie-tca> I didn't have a problem with it
[16:39] <xteejx> weird
[16:39] <charlie-tca> I don't think I understand that report.
[16:39] <xteejx> yeah i messed up the description
[16:39] <charlie-tca> If the flash is up to date, why will it be an old version?
[16:39] <xteejx> was tired, will change it
[16:40] <charlie-tca> It might even be fixed by now
[16:40] <xteejx> it's not
[16:41] <xteejx> Look at publishing history https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/adobe-flashplugin/+publishinghistory you'll see what I mean, H/I/J/Karmic were given the newer version, Lucid is still based on the old Karmic one from the sync
[16:43] <xteejx> !help
[16:43] <ubot4> Please don't ask to ask a question, simply ask the question (all on ONE line and in the channel, so that others can read and follow it easily). If anyone knows the answer they will most likely reply. :-)
[16:43] <xteejx> !info adobe-flashplugin lucid
[16:43] <ubot4> xteejx: Package adobe-flashplugin does not exist in lucid
[16:43] <charlie-tca> hmmm
[16:43] <charlie-tca> !flashplugin-installer
[16:43] <ubot4> charlie-tca: Error: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent :)
[16:44] <xteejx> !flash
[16:44] <ubot4> To install Flash see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/Flash - See also  !Restricted and !Gnash
[16:44] <xteejx> !info flashplugin lucid
[16:44] <ubot4> xteejx: Package flashplugin does not exist in lucid
[16:44] <yofel> here's what policy shows here for flashplugin-installer http://paste.ubuntu.com/408646/
[16:44] <yofel> how wouldn't that update?
[16:45] <xteejx> how come the publishing history is wrong or has the package changed?
[16:45] <charlie-tca> We have flashplugin-installer, but flashplugin-nonfree is a transitional package replaced by flashplugin-installer
[16:45] <charlie-tca> and the installer grabs it from adobe, I believe
[16:46] <charlie-tca> So you will get the most current version, now
[16:46] <xteejx> So adobe-flashplugin is deprecated?
[16:47] <charlie-tca> at least doesn't exist in a default install
[16:48] <xteejx> I'll close the report then since there's no problem other than the publishing history not showing lucid
[16:50]  * xteejx yawns
[16:50] <xteejx> Feels like a Sunday today...
[19:14] <BUGa_vacations> evening
[19:43] <bencrisford> BUGa_vacations: hi
[19:43] <BUGa_vacations> hey bencrisford
[19:44] <BUGa_vacations> really really tired today
[19:44] <BUGa_vacations> just got home
[19:44] <BUGa_vacations> 200KMs ride
[19:44] <bencrisford> BUGa_vacations: home from vacation?
[19:44] <BUGa_vacations> got to pad some horses
[19:44] <BUGa_vacations> http://p.bugabundo.net/tag/severdesousa
[19:44] <BUGa_vacations> and got driven in a moto quad too
[19:45] <bencrisford> cool :)
[19:50] <bencrisford> !info gtk+
[19:50] <Damascene> If I want a package to be installed as default for some language. that will help the user of that language like terminal supporting that language and a calender for it too. what is the best place to start this?
[19:50] <ubot4> bencrisford: Package gtk+ does not exist in karmic
[19:54] <vish> Damascene: by default in the desktop > desktop mailing list
[19:55] <vish> probably a bug in the language pack too , maybe , but i'm not sure of that :)
[19:56] <Damascene> vish, for example if I chose Arabic locale I get mtlerm as the default terminal. should I go to desktop mail list?
[19:56] <Damascene> it could be added as dependices
[19:58] <vish> Damascene: you can send a mail  , probably you'd get a better response , or also try #ubuntu-translations   for how to proceed
[19:58] <vish>  #ubuntu-translation
[19:59] <vish> hrm  wrong channel name :s , just a sec
[19:59] <vish> Damascene: ah ha > #ubuntu-translators
[20:03] <Damascene> vish, this https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop ?
[20:04] <vish> Damascene: yup , thats the one
[20:05] <Damascene> I think it may get 100 messaage a day :)
[20:06] <Damascene> "Receive digests?" means only one mail a day with summary?
[20:11] <vish> Damascene: desktop mailing list is low volume , you can have a look at the archives , for the mail volume
[20:29] <Joeseph64> How can I report a bug for metacity?  I tried on launchpad, but I did not see a place for it.  (Metacity is crashing often.)
[20:30] <mrand> Joeseph64: I'd hope you could do "ubuntu-bug metacity" at a command line prompt
[20:40] <Joeseph64> mrand: Thanks. Reporting it now.
[20:43] <Joeseph64> How can I get the error message that Metacity crashes with if it is not run in a terminal and apport does not pick it up?
[20:45] <yofel> if it segfaults it might print something in dmesg, apport should catch it though in this case
[20:45] <yofel> maybe look in ~/.xsession-errors
[20:47] <Joeseph64> yofel: Yeah.  Apport isn't catching it, and it never seems to happen when I run it from the terminal....  'dmesg | grep metacity' yields nothing; I'll check that place next.
[21:15] <Damascene> vish, SpamAssassin identified this message as possible spam (score 3.7) :(
[21:39] <LiveWireBT> hello
[21:40] <LiveWireBT> anyone out there?
[21:41] <jpds> Sure, what's up?
[21:42] <LiveWireBT> will firefox-branding be updated to the new branding?
[21:43] <LiveWireBT> there is the old ubuntu logo below the yahoo searchbar
[21:43] <jpds> Is there a bug report about that?
[21:44] <LiveWireBT> haven't found anything
[21:47] <LiveWireBT> should i file one?
[21:47] <jpds> Yes, sounds like a good idea.
[21:47] <LiveWireBT> ok
[22:04] <LiveWireBT> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/554819 should be sufficient, isn't it?
[22:04] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 554819 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Update firefox-branding to new Ubuntu Brand (affects: 1)" [Undecided,New]
[22:04] <LiveWireBT> hmmmm didn't know there's a bot for that
[22:08] <jpds> LiveWireBT: Ah, there already is a bug about that, marked yours as a dup.
[22:14] <LiveWireBT> okay lesson learned
[22:15] <yofel> bug 554819
[22:15] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 554819 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Update firefox-branding to new Ubuntu Brand (dup-of: 545600)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/554819
[22:15] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 545600 in ubuntu-start-page "old ubuntu logo in use at start.ubuntu.com (affects: 3) (dups: 1) (heat: 24)" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/545600
[22:19] <LiveWireBT> another one: in ubiquity, when i want to install the bootloader to another drive/partition, the selection from the dropdown menu is not updated, it has to be typed in manually
[22:55] <arand> LiveWireBT: Bug is known. let me see...
[22:57] <arand> LiveWireBT: and fixed it seems Bug #539204
[22:57] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 539204 in ubiquity (Ubuntu) "Keyboard input needed to change grub-install device w/Lucid Live install (affects: 13) (dups: 7)" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/539204
[22:58] <arand> LiveWireBT: Or has it cropped up again, in later-than-beta1 installer?
[23:54] <LiveWireBT> arand: thanks, havent tried anything newer than beta1 installer yet