[00:00] drew212: yes, and I don't have one, so I'm wondering how you got that file [00:00] can you move it somewhere else and see if it works then? [00:00] drew212: Did you try the 64bit beta flash plugin at one time? [00:00] say, February last year? [00:00] penguin42: yes! [00:00] penguin42: now that you say it i did, thats probably what FF is using =X [00:01] * penguin42 polishes his crystal ball [00:01] makes sense [00:01] penguin42: nice, let me move the file [00:01] I guess I'm going to have to go back to the 32bit version+nspluginwrapper now that Adobe have stopped the 64bit Beta [00:02] i have to move it using terminal? =X [00:02] I went back, works fine mostly except for the occasional npviewer.bin cpu hogging *sigh* [00:03] drew212: use 'sudo cp /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /tmp ' [00:03] anyone able to help me with the command to move it? [00:03] it'll need your PW [00:03] thanks! [00:04] should i restart FF now? [00:04] yes [00:05] its still showing 10.0 =X [00:05] ... [00:05] i dont think it moved the file [00:05] *headdesk* [00:05] sudo rm /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so [00:06] lol =D [00:06] I'm getting tired at 1am... [00:06] lol [00:06] I used copy in the first command instead of move... [00:06] let's now use remove [00:06] yep yep [00:07] now its showing 10.1 r53 =) [00:08] thanks a bunch yofel, i really need to learn bash commands =X [00:08] !cli [00:08] The linux terminal or command-line interface is very powerful. Open a terminal via Applications -> Accessories -> Terminal (Gnome) or K-menu -> System -> Konsole (KDE). Guide: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UsingTheTerminal or type in it: man intro [00:09] nice into [00:09] *intro [00:12] bah, now nothing in flash works buttonwise =X [00:12] ah, that problem - that's a long long standing bug [00:12] bug 410407 [00:12] didn't have it in 10.0 =P [00:13] ... [00:13] bot went on vacation? [00:13] yofel: you broke the bot =X [00:14] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/410407 [00:14] Launchpad bug 410407 in nspluginwrapper (Fedora) (and 11 other projects) "Clicking on items in Flash player does nothing [READ DESCRIPTION] (affects: 867) (dups: 51) (heat: 3724)" [Unknown,Unknown] [00:14] lol! [00:14] duh [00:15] is 3724 a record? [00:16] could be, the bug shows as 0 flames though... [00:17] yofel: at least the workaround works for me =) [00:18] it kept getting closed because it used to work for some people some of the time [00:19] yeah, I'm following it, I don't have it since quite a while anymore, could be because I'm using KDE or rather the mozilla-daily-ppa [00:19] mozilla daily ppa? [00:19] im not sure how ppa's work, but does that update your flash daily? [00:20] not flash, firefox [00:20] yeah, FF [00:20] those are daily development builds, unless you're fine with firefox suddenly refusing to work don't use it [00:21] lol [00:21] anyway, use with caution: https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa [00:21] i'll pass [00:22] this is my work/school computer [00:22] yeah [00:22] actually 3.6 works perfectly fine here, only 3.7 is a mess, but that's expected [00:23] yofel: i run my photography business from this computer using GIMP and FF for certain things, without them i would be crippled =P [00:24] not an option then ;) [00:24] nope =P [00:24] i need a separate workstation, but with school i simply cannot afford it [00:25] yofel: thanks for the help, i gotta run [00:25] you're welcome [00:31] FF 3.7 is generally stable, but it has a build failure at the moment (i plan to fix it with micah tonight) anyway, i have to move my server so i'll be off for a little bit, bbl === awalton is now known as awalton__ [04:06] hi [04:09] I've been waiting 2 weeks for a retrace on a new bug. Anyone know what's up? [04:10] Hew: it's probably broke [04:10] Hew: which bug? [04:11] private bug 589198 [04:11] Hew: Bug 589198 on http://launchpad.net/bugs/589198 is private [04:11] * micahg looks [04:11] I've seen others sitting there on the iso testing page, so I assumed the retracer is just slow/failed? [04:11] * micahg can't see it :-/ [04:12] I subscribed you micahg [04:12] Hew: k, I can bug pitti on Monday if you like [04:13] thanks micahg. it's just a general question, just need to make sure it hasn't failed on all bugs :) [04:14] Hew: idk, usually I can't see most of them [04:15] that's right, because they are private whenever there is a coredump. I've just noticed from the one I submitted 2 weeks ago, it still hasn't got the retrace. [04:15] bug 590383 is another linked to the iso testing page that appears to have been submitted on 6/6/10 [04:15] Hew: Bug 590383 on http://launchpad.net/bugs/590383 is private [04:16] Hew: private's not an issue for me (bugcontrol member), but retracer bugs are another category [04:17] yea same [04:34] ddecator: when exactly is there enough information for a developer to work on a bug and it to be concidered triaged? [04:34] drew212: depends on the package, but generally as long as there is enough info for the developers to have idea where the issue is occurring...i know that's really vague, haha [04:35] ddecator: so basically, the more i work with a particular package, the easier it will be for me to determine? [04:35] drew212: exactly [04:46] ddecator: how should we proceed with bug 596352? [04:46] Launchpad bug 596352 in firefox (Ubuntu) "automatic infinite refresh cycle (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/596352 [04:48] hmm.. [04:48] idk, i cant reproduce it... i have no problem with FB [04:49] yah, and it seems like we'd hear a lot about it. even though they don't have any extra extensions installed, i wonder if it's profile related. i'd have them test with a new profile to be safe [04:50] that would have been my first response, but they have no extensions =D [04:51] yah, usually it's not a bid deal when there are no extensions, but the fact that we haven't seen much of that (that i've heard of, i haven't looked at the bugs lately) makes it seem like an issue with their setup [04:51] s/bid/big [04:51] ddecator: alrite, im asking to try with a new profile... [04:51] so a new profile doesn't only change their extensions? [04:51] drew212: did micah or i give you that stock response? [04:52] i do have a stock response yeah... [04:52] i removed the disable extensions part tho =P, as it DNA [04:52] drew212: nope, completely clean profile. sometimes the issue is in the profile and not the extensions [04:52] right, that's what i do in these situations :) [05:28] ddecator: check out bug 592658, i think he manually installed a version of flash from adobe's websight [05:28] Launchpad bug 592658 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Firefox crashed using java (I suppose...) (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/592658 [05:29] i was going to use this as a response to check if he actually has proper flash installed: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/452312/ [05:30] drew212: where did you get that? [05:30] micahg: i made it up, thats why i was asking before i used it =P [05:31] thats how i knew i had the wrong flash running for firefox [05:31] drew212: so, it could be the user didn't restart Firefox after updating flash [05:31] this is true also [05:31] yah, the plugin file added by apport looks like it was flashplugin-nonfree [05:32] ddecator: ok, then how should i proceed? [05:32] ddecator: drew212: note, flashplugin-nonfree is a transitional package in Lucid, flashplugin-installer is the package that instal flash now [05:33] micahg: alrite, should i change my response to flashplugin-installer? [05:33] micahg: oh is it? haha, good to know, i thought that was still the right package to install.. [05:33] drew212: no, I have a better one [05:33] micahg: i figured =P [05:33] ddecator: well, it works for the moment, but probably will be dropped in Maverick [05:35] drew212: try this: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/452314/ [05:35] drew212: or just ask the user if Firefox was restarted after recent updates [05:35] micahg: i wish i knew how you came up with this stuff =P [05:36] drew212: I wrote it :) [05:36] drew212: that's why I need to update the Firefox bug triage wiki [05:36] i know... but i would never come up with that... i'm still very GUI oriented... [05:36] drew212: experience helps to know what's valuable, one learns over time [05:36] :'(i wouldn't even know how to come up with that [05:37] drew212: I also was using Ubuntu for over a year before I started doing triage and Linux for about 7, so I was used to the cli [05:38] yeah, this is my first year solid linux/ubuntu [05:38] sometimes im scared of CLI, it takes too long for me to look up commands to do stuff when i can use a GUI, if i had the commands memorized it would save tons of time though =X [05:39] you learn the commands in time as well :) [05:39] drew212: so, it takes time to learn, be patient [05:39] true [05:40] but you and ddecator know so much its daunting, but inspiring... [05:40] drew212: i still feel that way about micahg :p [05:41] * micahg feels that way about a lot of people :), but it takes time to learn these things [05:41] ddecator: yeah, but you're still part of bugcontrol and know a ton more than me... [05:42] drew212: all in time :) [05:42] true, true [05:42] drew212: i was just really starting to get involved in january [05:44] drew212: man pages are very useful and asking questions is invaluable [05:44] man pages? [05:45] drew212: on the command line, you can type man followed by a command to see documentation [05:51] ddecator: if someone disables an addon and that fixes the issue how do we proceed: see bug 587727 [05:51] Launchpad bug 587727 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Firefox crash in Thai session when login facebook (affects: 3) (heat: 219)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/587727 [05:54] i think that's a language pack [05:54] me too [05:55] i'm not really sure what the procedure is for issues with language packs. micahg? [05:55] ddecator: language packs should cause crashes... [05:55] s/should/shouldn't/ [05:55] micahg: doesn't seem like they should. generate a crash report? [05:56] ddecator: yep [05:56] drew212: do you have that response? [05:56] micahg: ddecator: i'm on it =) [05:56] yes, i've been hitting all the bugs that need crash reports that dont have them =) [05:56] ddecator: it could be a system component that's interacting pporly [05:57] drew212: sounds good :) [05:57] micahg: ah, that could be...hopefully the crash report will tell us :) [05:57] you should hit like 5-6 bugmail spams with the crash report needed stock response =P [05:57] ddecator: right [06:02] oops, i think i just asked for a crash report on a bug that has enough information... he included a GDB stack trace, but IDK exactly what that information is: bug 595941, should i not have asked for a crash report from apport? [06:02] Launchpad bug 595941 in firefox (Ubuntu) "Crashes when typing in the address bar (affects: 1) (heat: 8)" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/595941 [06:03] :P, i just noticed hes a dev too, now i feel like a fool, haha. [06:04] drew212: I'll reopen [06:05] alrite [06:07] these things happen, it's part of learning :) [06:07] thanks for fixing my skrew ups micahg :P [06:07] drew212: you caught it :) good job [06:08] i see the stack trace jargon and i skim/skip over it, i need to pay more attention [06:09] drew212: paying attention is a crucial skill for triage [06:10] true [06:11] drew212: BTW, man is short for manual [06:11] yea i figured that [06:15] ddecator: what do we need for bug 559562? I don't see a backtrace for the crash, but there is some technical jargon in dmesg.txt i dont understand. Should i ask for a crash report? [06:15] Launchpad bug 559562 in firefox (Ubuntu) "firefox doesn't function (affects: 1) (heat: 48)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/559562 [06:21] drew212: since it got assigned to firefox, it'd be helpful if they ran apport-collect so we could see what extensions they are using and make sure they are using a version we support :) [06:24] drew212: I'd use the old untouched bugs message on that oen [06:27] oh yah, it's from beta 2 :p (sorry, i shouldn't be trying to do 5 things at once) [06:28] (12:09:24 AM) micahg: drew212: paying attention is a crucial skill for triage <-- s/drew212/ddecator/ :) [06:28] micahg: yah, i know :p [06:28] micahg: i wouldn't have noticed it was from beta =P [06:29] did they change how karma works? it seems its going up slower than i remember it going... [06:30] drew212: more people, slower karma increases? [06:31] idk, when i triaged last year i remember my karama reaching 800 rather quickly, it seems its just going up slower now (i realize its not updated instantly) [06:32] or maybe i was imagining things [06:34] i've never really understood how karma is determined, i stopped watching mine haha [06:34] yeah, i just notice it from the grasemonkey thinger micahg showed me... [06:35] drew212: ddecator: https://help.launchpad.net/YourAccount/Karma [06:36] oh.. [07:02] drew212: BTW, no sound in flash on hibernate is an old bug [07:12] micahg: duplicate of? [07:12] drew212: I had this issue a couple years ago [07:12] maybe last year [07:13] * micahg searches through bugmail [07:13] bug 305396 [07:13] Launchpad bug 305396 in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu) "flash will not play properly in firefox 3.0 after waking up from suspend (dup-of: 312295)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/305396 [07:13] Launchpad bug 312295 in flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu) "flash will not play in firefox 3.0 after waking up from suspend (affects: 2) (dups: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/312295 [07:16] drew212: I don't remember what happened with teh bug [07:16] but he is still having this problem in lucid... is it a regression then? i notice you said it isn't an issue in jaunty [07:17] drew212: well, it's most likely hardware related so it might have never been fixed on that user [07:17] s hardware [07:17] * micahg still doesn't understand the sound stack [07:17] here's the deal on audio bugs: everyone gets their own bug, period [07:17] no duplicates on anything in kernel land, period [07:18] that bit about kernel land is orders from JFo, the kernel team's bug triager [07:18] so sound is a kernel issue? i'm lost [07:18] very very often, yes [07:19] even when it seems like pulse is at fault, its very often a kernel bug bubbling up the stack [07:19] drew212: so, I'd suggest using the sound debugging wiki page [07:20] and while many audio bugs *seem* the same (oh look, its quiet and they both have hda-spec chips) they almost always require separate patches to fix [07:20] so, unless the hardware is identical (and sometimes different hardware lies and even claims the same subsystem vendor and id, ex: macbooks), dont mark them as dup [07:21] should i mark this for the linux package and subscribe the ubuntu-audo team and let them handle it? [07:21] drew212: and if suspend is involved in causing issues, id be *darned* surprised if there wasnt a kernel component to that, by the way [07:21] never ever subscribe anyone other than yourself [07:21] errrr wrong sentence [07:21] i was thinking assign [07:22] 2am, dont mind me [07:22] i have 0 experience with kernel and sound issues [07:22] yes subscribe is fine [07:22] but dont assign [07:22] right-o [07:22] should i file it against the linux package? [07:23] its an already filed bug right? [07:23] yes [07:23] id just put a note saying it may be kernel related given the acpi stuff involved in suspend/resume [07:23] after subscribing audio team ;-) [07:24] that way they get that note in email and have a look-see [07:24] a note, you mean a comment? [07:24] yep [07:25] maco: thanks =) [07:25] maco: i just coppied and pasted your response because idk what acpi stuff is =P [07:26] its the power management magic pixie dust :) [07:26] also what makes a lot of hotkeys work [07:26] special stuff happens to the system to suspend, hibernate, and resume and sometimes that stuff gets wonky [07:27] yeah =X [07:28] well im off to bed, thanks again maco [07:28] good night [07:28] i should go too [10:25] Hey guys, how do I find what package provides a certain file? [10:27] dpkg-query -S /file [10:28] Ahha! Thanks :D === om26er_ is now known as om26er [14:13] good morning everyone [14:16] howdy [14:56] Hi all , wanna join your bug squad , what is the qualification set by you guys ? [15:01] shaw, these are the requirements https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad#Requirements [15:03] well [16:09] If someone asked, in a bug report, that a notification that a package has been successfully installed be added to software-center, should that be marked as wishlist or converted to a feature specification? I'm thinking wishlist, but since I'm new I wanted to run it by other people [16:39] Where should I file a live cd bug under? [16:40] where does it break? [16:41] When loading the system [16:41] what's the last thing you see on the screen? [16:43] oh no it doesn't crash, it just takes 10+ mins to load and continually shows: Buffer I/O error on device sr0, logical block 358116 [16:43] that's a bad burn of the disk or a bad cd drive [16:43] and no it's not a a bad cd [16:43] nope [16:44] popped it into another computer (much older) booted without error [16:44] doesn't matter, you can have CDs that are a bit marginal and will work on some drives, it could be the drive that is marginal not the cd [16:44] popped in an old ubuntu into the troublesome computer, also no error [16:44] burned another at lowest speed, same thing [16:44] md5 everything and it checks out [16:45] popped in a new Fedora 13, exact same issues, but anything older or from other distros works [16:46] i've been trying to figure out this mystery for a while now [16:46] Could someone mark bug #596559 as a wishlist bug? [16:46] Launchpad bug 596559 in gedit (Ubuntu) "Lost text file contents due to desktop bug - change autorecover defaults! (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/596559 [16:46] ok, is that the only error - or is there some detail around it? [16:47] here is kern.log (scroll towards the end): http://paste.ubuntu.com/449430/ [16:51] dekenx: OK, I'm not that great at reading some of the newer errors; but it starts with a 'Sense Key : Medium Error [current]' which does sound like a bad sector, but the interesting thing is it gets into the 'Hardware Error' and I don't know if that really is a bug somewhere [16:52] dekenx: So I still think you've got a bad disc/drive - but then whether there is a separate problem with recovery well I guess there could be [16:52] penguin42: yes I know, it's quite strange but older distros check out [16:53] penguin42: I have more than 20 live cd's all seem to work except Ubuntu 10.04 and the new Fedora 13 [16:53] penguin42: I also have dmseg.log if you want it [16:53] dekenx: What about an old live image burnt recently? ie is it the burner/batch of discs that's gone bad [16:54] penguin42: I burned 10.04 twice one on one computer and one type of disk then another computer and another cd brand [16:54] so I doubt it [16:55] penguin42: plus I burned the new Sabayon Linux recently, also works fine [16:55] dekenx: Have you tried swapping the drive out? [16:56] penguin42: well I guess I can try that, but then that still means there is incompatible with the current drive and lucid [16:57] and its not a bad drive/disk [16:57] dekenx: If you swapped the drive and it still happened then you could prove it wasn't a bad drive [16:58] penguin42: what if I swapped and it didn't happen? [16:59] dekenx: I'd still say it was more likely a bad drive, but you could show those errors to someone who really knew the sata error paths [16:59] penguin42: then how come all other releases/distros still work [17:01] dekenx: Maybe what they had on those sectors was less important, or maybe it is that for some reason error recovery is better === CarlFK1 is now known as CarlFK [17:02] penguin42: ok so regardless, first step is to try a new drive, i'll get on that then [17:22] penguin42: well I just reallized that computer has only SATA and it's the only SATA drive I have. [17:23] penguin42: maybe that's why i never had a problem with the others, the were all IDE [17:34] penguin42: maybe there's some boot opriotns I can try for SATA? it seems to always be the same sector [17:34] dekenx: I doubt it, I really think those are media failures, the recovery however I'm suspicious of [17:35] penguin42: you mean how it keeps going? [17:35] dekenx: I mean the 'hardware error' don't look right to me, the 'Media error' is the normal error for a bad disc or drive; but I'm not used to reading the SATA derived errors [17:38] dekenx: The other thing is that always being the same sectors is also the normal behaviour for a bad disc [17:51] penguin42: UPDATE look what i found, and would you look at that, same sector: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/572279/comments/6 [17:51] Launchpad bug 572279 in linux (Ubuntu) "getpwuid_r(): failed due to unknown user id (0) (dup-of: 532984)" [Undecided,Incomplete] [17:51] Launchpad bug 532984 in plymouth (Ubuntu) "Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 3 won't boot on HP Compaq Pentium 4; displays an irrelevant Glib warning on the console (affects: 102) (dups: 4) (heat: 268)" [Undecided,Invalid] [17:52] penguin42: The exact same sector is quite a coincidence don't you think? [17:53] dekenx: Now I'll grant you that is odd [17:54] penguin42: thanks, and i'm glad I found a similar case, problem is bug has no solution [17:56] dekenx: It's not obvious to me if the bug that is attached to is actually relevant to the problem [17:56] penguin42: at least to one comment it was, im going to go back and look if i get that getpwuid_r(): failed due to unknown user id (0) thing in boot.log [17:57] even if you do, it's not obvious if that's the same problem [17:58] penguin42: ok i got to leave for I while but I'll try to put lucid on a usb later and try that [20:29] hello. is it possible to make ubuntu-bug for nonexisting package? i just wrote ubuntu-bug remin (tab) and it helped writing to remind and there is such package but i dont have it installed. when i make command remind then i get info this package isnt installed [20:29] Hi, I'm having issues with a launchpad member repeatedly opening an invalid bug. Is it possible for an project manager or something to lock it closed? [20:30] Chauncellor: first contact need to be made if he is not making reason why he opened it. its allowed for everyone to open bug [20:30] Contact has been made. here is the report [20:30] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/596127 [20:30] Launchpad bug 596127 in ubuntu "Ubuntu bugs not fixed (affects: 1) (heat: 12)" [Undecided,New] [20:31] in contact mail to inform that without reason theres no need to open again it [20:31] Kangarooo: This bug report does not qualify [20:33] well thrue in that bug name there is. that like bug 1 [20:33] Launchpad bug 1 in tilix (and 18 other projects) "Microsoft has a majority market share (affects: 453) (heat: 2434)" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1 [20:34] Kangarooo: I'm replying [20:34] Kangarooo: Okay, I'll talk to someone more competent [20:35] wow what twas that all about? [20:36] jjesse: idk, but I just replied to the bug [20:37] was reading ths scroll seemed a bit crazy [20:37] Kangarooo: what do you mean by non existing? [20:39] Kangarooo: apport can file bugs about not-installed packages, or do you mean packages that aren't available? apport should say 'not a genuine ...' there === yofel_ is now known as yofel [20:41] well the package is not installed. i was tryng to understand why one plugin from gnome-do doest work. so i tryd to ubuntu-bug about exact plugin. sicne i couldnt get with ubuntu-bug gnome-do (tab) get something like gnome-do-badplugin but there wasnt such. so i tryd ubunt-bug badplu (tab) and there it was. but as im ussually looking what is beeing installed and couldnt remember badplugin package installed then i tryd badplugin in terminal but got its not [20:43] ok so theres some reason why its possible to ubuntu-bug see noninstalled packages ? and why even possible to report noninstalled packages? [20:43] you got cut off by the character limit 'terminal but got its not ...?' [20:44] then i tryd badplugin in terminal but got its not installed. so thats maybe need to be somhow marked witch is installed when in ubuntu-bug mode [20:44] Kangarooo: you can report a bug about a not installed package [20:44] Kangarooo: apport doesn't really care if a package is installed or not, what if the bug you want to file is about the package refusing to install? [20:51] ah ok micahg but thats strange things going to reproduce. user(for example me) cant even know is he reporting about installed package (in cases user doesnt know programm package name but knows ubuntu-bug will help with (tab)). [20:51] and also would that kind of bug report be usefull couse it shows noninstalled_packagename (not installed)? that can be seen when pressing [+] in ubuntu-bug gui but im never pressing it couse dont want to see info i dont understand jet and there is more then i understand jet. [20:52] Kangarooo: might be a feature request or a problem with installing [20:55] well, apport shouldn't refuse to file the bug, but a warning somewhere wouldn't hurt I guess [20:55] yes thats what ill be doing - now i just want more ppl to agree :) [20:56] yofel: I think it says it on the confirm to submit box [20:56] yofel: ok so if a bug report about noninstaled package is useless then this needs to be removed- thats its possible to ubuntu-bug to noninstalled [20:56] micahg: no it doesnt [20:57] Kangarooo: but reports about packages that aren't installed aren't necessarily useless [20:57] also this affects apport-cli and ubuntu-bug TTY mode [20:57] Kangarooo: under Package it shows the package and that it's not installed [20:57] micahg: yes, but do you look at that every time? (a ordinary user most probably doesn't) [20:58] yofel: yes :) [20:58] ddecator: ok then how bugreport about X can be usefull if report contains X not installed? [20:59] micahg: yes thats what i wrote. but also who looks there under [+]? [20:59] Kangarooo: as I said, how do you report a bug about a package not being installable due to a dependency conflict? (so that apt won't even try to install it) [21:00] ddecator: or micahg bug 596659 looks like a feature request, but it should be handled upstream, no? [21:00] Launchpad bug 596659 in firefox (Ubuntu) "No busy indicator in full screen (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/596659 [21:00] IMHO we're already restrictive enough when it comes to filing bugs, we don't need to make it even harder [21:01] yofel: one way is directly in LP. filling ubuntu-bug noninstalled package will give some more info about why package not installed? [21:02] well no, but I don't have to add apt-cache policy ... and don't have to go the annoying no-redirect path [21:03] drew212: yep [21:03] drew212: it's because they moved from the spinner as the cursor to the spinner in the tab, there's probably an upstream bug already for it [21:03] so how would i mark it if i were able to triage it? wishlist, and then forward upstream? [21:03] so it does add useful information, and apport adds the dependency list of a package always, which is actually useful in these cases [21:04] drew212: yes, but search upstream first [21:04] also if ubuntu-bug about noninstalled is some easyr way its not needed to remove ubuntu-bug to show noninstalled but it would be nice if at least only installed packages show in terminal with (*) or (+) :) [21:04] thats what im doing... but nothing is coming up at all =X [21:04] drew212: like micahg said. if you find it upstream, we can link it and mark it :) [21:05] drew212: firebot is sometimes the best way to find upstream bugs imo [21:05] (for mozilla) [21:05] yofel: arent dependecies included when reporting about installed package? [21:05] only? [21:05] er, let me check [21:06] firebot? [21:06] drew212: it's on the mozilla servers. you can message it and it will do bug searches. otherwise you can just use the bugzilla search and not limit it to firefox (since it might be in core or somewhere else) [21:07] Kangarooo: oh, can be [21:07] in witch package yofel ? [21:07] I mean, it seems it doesn't include them when the package isn't installed [21:08] couse maybe you actually have that package installed [21:08] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=482985 looks like a good one, comment 14 especially [21:08] drew212: mozilla 171350 [21:08] Mozilla bug 171350 in Toolbars "[cust] allow customization or better control of full screen toolbars" [Enhancement,New] http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171350 [21:08] Mozilla bug 482985 in General "Loading/busy/spinning mouse indicator/pointer/icon missing" [Normal,New] [21:09] about the terminal, adding +/* wouldn't work I think, maybe we could give apport another option for this case [21:09] like -n/--not-installed [21:09] and make it refuse by default [21:09] i still think mine is better, its newer and is more directly related... [21:10] Kangarooo: can you file a bug about apport in any case? I'm interested in what pitti thinks about this [21:11] drew212: that bug is more general, as is mine... [21:11] yeah... so which one do we use? [21:14] should i submit a new bug upstream? that seems best IMO [21:15] drew212: I think a new upstream bug depending on that bug sounds best [21:16] i'll provide links to the other two bugs as possible solutions [21:16] drew212: no [21:16] drew212: mark them both as depends on [21:16] ok [21:16] i've never reported upstream =X [21:17] drew212: just state why you're filing a separate bug so it's not marked as a dupe [21:17] i'm not a fan of the way bugzilla is setup, it's not as user-friendly as lp (then again i'm more familiar with lp so i'm biased..) [21:17] * micahg likes bugzilla :) [21:18] if i could use google to search bugzilla bugs, i'd probably like it more :p [21:18] ddecator: add the firefox plugin and learn how to use it :) [21:18] micahg: which one? [21:19] ddecator: for Mozilla's bugzilla [21:19] ddecator: it's actually a search engine [21:20] micahg: should i put all hardware platforms? [21:20] drew212: I think so [21:20] micahg: o.o i've never heard of that plugin [21:20] * ddecator goes to install it [21:20] and all OSes? [21:21] drew212: yes [21:21] micahg: how do i add the two bugs to the report? [21:23] oh i like this plugin.. [21:30] how do i link to the upstream bug, its not working =X [21:31] nevermind, i got it. [21:31] ddecator: what kind of response should i give now that i have linked upstream? [21:31] i dont have a stock response for bugs i've forwarded upstream [21:32] drew212: it should be in the greasemonkey extension [21:32] drew212: bug #? [21:32] bug 596659 [21:32]