[04:17] <stanley_robertso> hi all
[08:54] <edakiri> Is there a documentation page about taking screen shots for bug reports?  I'm using XFCE as desktop.
[09:00] <baptiste1m> if you have a print screen key on your keyboard you should be able to take screenshot
[09:04] <edakiri> baptiste1m: that alone does not work.
[09:05] <baptistemm> sorry I don't use XFCE, I just though it would work
[09:47] <stanley_robertso> hi all
[10:03] <shurathing> Hello, was sent here from ubuntu channel. Running 10.04 on HP Mini 110-3030 with Atheros AR9285 Wireless Adapter. Installed backports--lucid-generic. I can see networks, but can't connect. Here is the exit thing, someone said they see something crashing in the kernel... http://pastebin.com/uR6qzEX3
[14:20] <micahg> edakiri: there's xfce4-screenshooter
[14:20]  * edakiri looks
[14:29] <mr_pouit> and it's mapped to printscreen & alt+prinscreen in the default xubuntu config iirc
[14:29] <mr_pouit> *printscreen
[14:55] <edakiri> i did not do the default xubuntu install.  I installed a base system first, then xorg & xfce . PrintScreen is not mapped for me.  I'm looking in the docs for how, now.
[14:58] <mr_pouit> edakiri: settings manager > keyboard
[17:07] <Pici> vitims
[17:07] <Pici> oops
[18:09] <xelister> I dont want to complain, but how come scponly is broken as always for years
[18:09] <xelister> one would expect ubutu would be capable to work as reasonable secure sftp server
[18:09] <xelister> scponlyc is broken in many ways
[18:14] <charlie-tca> xelister: this channel is for triaging bugs, we don't fix them
[18:28] <charlie-tca> xelister: is there any information that can be added to the bugs to help the developers resolve the issues?
[18:36] <xelister> charlie-tca:   https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/scponly/+bug/611400
[18:36] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 611400 in scponly (Ubuntu) "scopnly - scponlyc fails to chroot and the make chroot script fails (affects: 1) (heat: 260)" [Undecided,New]
[18:37] <charlie-tca> That is a brand new bug. I don't think the developers even have had a chance to look at it yet
[18:38] <xelister> I suppose there is no way that I can help "to get it fixed" other then learning it all and then fixing it?
[18:40] <ZykoticK9> Question regarding reporting a new bug vs adding to an existing.  So duplicate bugs are preferred over trying to add to existing?  Just tried an apport-collect on a bug i don't own and am surprised by the message.
[18:40] <yofel> xelister: did you file the bug?
[18:40] <edakiri> xelister: if there exists an upstream package, add it upstream and link the Ubuntu bug to upstream.  If you are not already, subscribe to the bugs so that you can provide explanations and testing.
[18:41] <xelister> yofel: it is filled as above
[18:41] <yofel> that bug is missing the ubuntu release and the scopnly version
[18:42] <xelister> yofel: sorry, fixed
[20:57] <bdmurray> Did I see somebody talking about the greasemonkey scripts in chrome earlier?
[21:09] <hggdh> bdmurray: I think it was gnomefreak
[21:10] <hggdh> ZykoticK9: it depends on what bug you are experiencing