[05:30] <Hew> Bug 589198 I submitted 2 weeks ago is still waiting for a retrace. Does anyone know what's going on?
[05:30] <ubot2> Hew: Bug 589198 on http://launchpad.net/bugs/589198 is private
[06:11] <arcane> I created a crashreport from a Lucid Live USB, but I think that the bug may be a duplicate.
[06:11] <arcane> Should I mark it as duplicate?
[06:11] <arcane> It is currently a private bug report because of the coredump file.
[06:13] <arcane> My bug looks like #527951.  Mine is #596170
[06:15] <arcane> Also #551308 looks like mine
[07:07] <drew212> ddecator: for bug 571035 should i ask the OP for a new set of log files since he is using FF 3.6 and lucid?
[07:07] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 571035 in firefox-3.5 (Ubuntu) "No sound in Flash videos after hibernate (affects: 2) (heat: 14)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/571035
[07:08]  * ddecator looking
[07:09] <drew212> he kindof got offended that i closed his bug, i thought he said he wasn't experiecing the problem anymore =X
[07:09] <nigelb> bug 596170
[07:09] <ubot2> nigelb: Bug 596170 on http://launchpad.net/bugs/596170 is private
[07:11] <nigelb> oh, he quit.  sigh.
[07:13] <drew212> im also going to ask him to try this in konqueror to narrow it down to wether it's actually a FF problem, or if it could be a alsa, kernel, or flash problem =X
[07:13] <ddecator> drew212: it was a different user that said it, but it wasn't a bad call to close it since it seemed to be fixed. i'm trying to think of what the best thing would be to do for that report
[07:14] <drew212> check out comment #2
[07:14] <ddecator> oh, yah, that was just saying he didn't have time to test it, not that it was fixed (not really sure why he said that)
[07:14] <drew212> lol, i see that now =X
[07:15] <drew212> i'm going to apologize =X i feel like a jerk
[07:16] <drew212> ddecator: i think it would be best to get new logs, and have him test it in another browser
[07:16] <ddecator> haha, that's not too bad, i've had people act far worse before. could you potentially test it yourself with different browsers? i usually try to avoid asking users to install new software just to test a bug (such as extra browsers to test it) especially if we can test the issue ourselves
[07:17] <drew212> my hibernate destroys my system afaik =D
[07:17] <drew212> it wont wake up, so i have to kill it
[07:17] <ddecator> well that's not good o.o
[07:17] <drew212> lol, i know, i hate to report it and cause more bug reports, when i wouldn't know how to report it properly
[07:19] <drew212> ddecator: maybe i'm doing something wrong, how do you come out of hibernate? just move the mouse right?
[07:19] <ddecator> hm, well you can ask if he happens to have any other browsers installed that he can test the issue with in order to try and narrow down the issue. i haven't tried hibernate so i'm not sure if it works for me, but i can test in a little while after i've tried to fix FF 3.7 if you want since i can test with flash and html5 video/audio
[07:19] <ddecator> drew212: probably have to close the lid and open it again if you're using a laptop
[07:20] <drew212> desktop =D
[07:20] <ddecator> then i'm not sure, i've never used it :p
[07:20] <drew212> desktop FTW =)
[07:20] <drew212> i'll try, brb
[07:30] <drew212> ddecator: yeah, epic fail, and i had a boot fail, so i had to use my old 9.04 disk to get it to boot, once i used that i could boot from the hard disc =P
[07:32] <ddecator> drew212: whoops...sorry :p
[07:41] <drew212> ddecator: my computer has a bunch of issues, booting is not one of its favorite parts...
[07:41] <drew212> thats why my uptime is huge sometimes...
[07:42] <ddecator> drew212: haha, i just don't turn my comp off so it can fold
[07:46] <drew212> ddecator: yeah, i'm getting up there folding...
[07:46] <drew212> i haven't checked kakko in a while
[07:47] <ddecator> neither have i..
[07:47] <drew212> you're 197 o
[07:47] <drew212> i'm 161
[07:48] <drew212> how many cycles/sec can you run? and how many cores?
[07:49] <ddecator> hm, my PPD has gone down since i've had to do restarts and such with my comp..we can talk specifics in ##folding if you want :p
[10:22] <Kangarooo> im having this problem allways since first time tryd ubuntu but it actually a bug. i just 4 min ago closed tab with flash video and still sound is comming from that video.. to what to report this bug? to flash installer?
[11:11] <tsimpson> Kangarooo: we can't do anything about (adobe) flash bugs, you'll need to report that to adobe and hope they care
[11:14] <Kangarooo> ok tsimpson ill post to adobe page. but maybe its webkit related? couse maybe browser doesnt tell immidiatly that flash tab is closed?
[11:14] <tsimpson> it's possible, but I sometimes get that in FF too
[11:14] <tsimpson> it usually requires me to quite FF and start it again
[11:14] <tsimpson> -e
[11:16] <Kangarooo> FF is using webkit and chrome uses webkit so of course u get that in FF
[11:20] <tsimpson> Kangarooo: no, FF uses gecko
[11:22] <edakiri> Speaking of FF, I'm writing a bug on a SegFault with FF in combination with a java applet.  Can someone remind me what command(s) run the applet independently, without FF, so I can see whether that also crashes?
[11:23] <tsimpson> probably just "java -jar whatever_it_is.jar" (guess)
[11:24] <edakiri> tsimpson: I am thinking of somthing that you feed the html page address.
[11:24] <Kangarooo> tsimpson: oh ok. im getting this flash error i talked about in FF. and thought that ive read somewhere everybrowser uses webkit. ok dont know that. chechink now in chrome and also in chrome i get some delay of sound cutting of after removing flash tab but not so long as FF..
[11:25] <Kangarooo> yes to open jar file thats correct command
[11:25] <tsimpson> chrome is the worst for it, because it runs flash as a separate process
[11:26] <tsimpson> edakiri: javaws?
[11:26] <edakiri> tsimpson: I think not, but I will double check.  perhaps it has been absorbed into javaws
[11:27] <edakiri> What is the new URL for filing a bug with the web interface?
[11:27] <edakiri> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icedtea6-plugin/+filebug?no-redirect   Did not work.
[11:28] <tsimpson> edakiri: it's openjdk-6, not icedtea6-plugin (it goes by source package, hence the +source)
[11:29] <edakiri> tsimpson: Thanks.  How can I see what the corresponding source package is for a given package?
[11:29] <tsimpson> apt-cache showsrc <package>, look at the top line
[11:30] <tsimpson> or apt-cache showsrc <package> | head -1, if you're lazy
[11:30] <tsimpson> and if you have deb-src lines
[11:33] <tsimpson> there's always http://packages.ubuntu.com/ if all else fails
[11:52] <edakiri> the answer to previous Q: appletviewer
[12:18] <edakiri> what is the URL or link to report bugs about launchpad itself?
[12:22] <edakiri> aha.  https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+filebug
[15:44] <zus> hello all
[15:47] <bencrisford> zus: hello
[15:48] <zus> hi bencrisford  how are you today?
[15:48] <bencrisford> zus: not bad thanks :) but not sure this is the right channel for chit chat :P #ubuntu-offtopic ?
[15:49] <zus> i know. i was just saying hello being polite, not just loggin in
[15:52] <bencrisford> zus: ok awesome :) sorry if I seemed rude
[15:53] <zus> bencrisford,  you weren't and no worries...
[18:20] <DrKenobi> Hi! I think Bug #390372 status should be 'Won't Fix'.
[18:20] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 390372 in gnome-terminal (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "default terminal does not have an effect (affects: 1) (heat: 7)" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/390372
[18:22] <DrKenobi> I don't understand why they set the status to 'Confirmed'
[19:11] <dgtombs> can i get a Won't Fix for bug 363326? thanks
[19:11] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 363326 in linux (Ubuntu) (and 2 other projects) "Brightness control doesn't work on Amilo mini UI 3520 (affects: 5) (dups: 1) (heat: 40)" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/363326
[20:28] <yofel> DrKenobi: ping pedro when he get's back here, I don't quite understand him either, but maybe he meant that we could still do that ourselves without upstream.
[20:29] <DrKenobi> yofel: ok, i'll do it. thanks!
[22:58] <drew212> ddecator: are you around?
[23:02] <drew212> anyone around to help me debug a bit?
[23:31] <yofel> drew212: debug what?
[23:33] <drew212> in firefox, it shows that i'm running flash 10.0, but in synaptic, it shows im running 10.1
[23:34] <drew212> for bug 592658 i believe the user is experiencing the same problem(although it is unrelated to that specific bug report)
[23:34] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 592658 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Firefox crashed using java (I suppose...) (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/592658
[23:36] <yofel> hm, firefox shows flash as 10.1 here. (Using ffx 3.6.6~hg20100618r34325 from moz-daily-ppa and flash 10.1.53.64ubuntu1)
[23:36] <drew212> about:config shows differently for me =X
[23:36] <yofel> let me check, I looked in about:plugins
[23:37] <yofel> note: I'm running maverick currently
[23:37] <drew212> i'm running lucid =P
[23:37] <drew212> ill upload a screenshot, where is the easiest place to do that?
[23:37] <yofel> !paste
[23:37] <ubot2> For posting multi-line texts into the channel, please use http://paste.ubuntu.com | To post !screenshots use http://tinyurl.com/imagebin | !pastebinit to paste directly from command line | Make sure you give us the URL for your paste - see also the channel topic.
[23:39] <yofel> lucid does have flash 10.1.53.64ubuntu0.10.04.1 in lucid-updates, so it is there...
[23:40] <drew212> http://imagebin.org/101912
[23:41] <drew212> you can see on the right that my flash player is 10.1.53.64 in synaptic, but right under it, it shows shockwave flash 10.0 r22
[23:41] <yofel> stupid question, but did you check if restarting firefox does anything?
[23:41] <drew212> sec
[23:42] <drew212> nope does nothing
[23:44] <drew212> it's not that important, but it makes debugging an issue if FF says it isn't running the latest version and the user has the latest version installed you know?
[23:45] <penguin42> when you just checked did you make sure that it really exited firefox?
[23:45] <drew212> i did a sudo killall firefox-bin
[23:46] <drew212> would that be a full exit?
[23:46] <yofel> drew212: what does 'grep "10_1_53_64" /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so' give you?
[23:46] <drew212> matches
[23:46] <penguin42> what does locate libflashplayer.so say?
[23:46] <yofel> erm, ok, then you do have 10.1 installed
[23:47] <drew212> so i do have a problem? lol
[23:48] <yofel> do what penguin42 said
[23:48] <yofel> it should find 3 files
[23:48] <penguin42> It wouldn't entirely surprise me if the rxx notation is just a different numbering scheme that overlaps with the 10.x.x.x numbering
[23:49] <drew212> it has 4 files
[23:49] <yofel> drew212: do you have a plugin file in ~/.mozilla/plugins?
[23:49] <drew212> http://paste.ubuntu.com/452218/
[23:49] <yofel> flash shows as 10.1 r53 here
[23:50] <yofel> did you copy the file once?
[23:50] <yofel> you shouldn't have one in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
[23:50] <drew212> not to my knowledge
[23:51] <yofel> there should be a symlink called flashplugin-alternative.so instead
[23:51] <drew212> thats greek to me =P
[23:52] <yofel> good: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so, bad: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
[23:52] <drew212> so how do i fix it?
[23:53] <penguin42> just checking, are you 32 or 64 bit?
[23:53] <drew212> 64
[23:54] <yofel> drew212: first, what does 'locate flashplugin-alternative.so' give you?
[23:54] <penguin42> I seem to remember there is an   nspluginwrapper -l   or the like to list what it thought it's currently pointing to?  (After you did the locate yofel asked for)
[23:54] <yofel> just to make sure they didn't change the packaging between lucid and maverick
[23:55] <yofel> oh, nice one, didn't know that
[23:55] <yofel> nspluginwrapper -l says '  Original plugin: /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so' here
[23:55] <drew212> http://paste.ubuntu.com/452220/ that is what the nsplugin command yeilds
[23:57] <drew212> although, i dont really undestand what we're doing here =P
[23:57] <yofel> that looks right...
[23:57] <yofel> drew212: trying to find out why ffx shows the wrong plugin version?
[23:57] <penguin42> drew212: Did you have a /usr/lib/mozilla/libflashplayer.so ?
[23:57] <yofel> he did
[23:57] <drew212> yes
[23:58] <penguin42> if so then I think it's a question of whether it's using that one or the /usr/lib64/firefox/plugins/flashplugin-alternative.so
[23:58] <yofel> what does 'ls -l /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so' give?
[23:58] <drew212> yofel: i know what we're trying to do, but idk what we're doing with these bash commands =P
[23:58] <drew212> http://paste.ubuntu.com/452224/
[23:59] <drew212> yofel: i wish i knew what we were doing =P, i feel so incompetent.
[23:59] <yofel> 2009-02-02 is oviously the old plugin
[23:59] <yofel> well, ls -l gives you a long listing of a file, with permissions, dates etc. (see 'man ls')
[23:59] <drew212> yofel:  didnt you say i shouldnt have that file in mozilla/plugins/*?