[11:33] <fta> jdstrand, apparmor="DENIED" operation="open" parent=1 profile="/usr/sbin/clamd" name="/proc/29917/status" pid=29917 comm="clamd" requested_mask="r" denied_mask="r" fsuid=117 ouid=117
[11:51] <fta> jdstrand, (29917 is itself)
[12:58] <jdstrand> fta: can you file a bug with 'ubuntu-bug clamav-daemon' and give the above line?
[13:06] <fta> jdstrand, bug 645956
[13:06] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 645956 in clamav (Ubuntu) "appamor denying clamd access to its own process (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/645956
[13:07] <jdstrand> fta: thanks
[13:19] <fta> jdstrand, there's a new chromium update: 6.0.472.63 (but it's not referenced for linux yet, no idea why)
[13:20] <fta> jdstrand, micro release just to fix this: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=5483
[13:23] <jdstrand> fta: if it is bugfix only (and doesn't fix a major/reported regression in Ubuntu) we may be able to just wait until next time
[13:44] <fta> jdstrand, i wanted to take the opportunity of an upgrade to ship my new apport hooks in time for maverick :P
[13:45] <jdstrand> fta: ah, well, maverick sure, go for it. lucid, not unless required :)
[13:47] <fta> i keep an eye on http://omahaproxy.appspot.com/
[19:09] <lfaraone> I've been told I shouldn't use Firefox branding for my "web browser" launcher in Sugar. If so, do I have to conflict with "firefox-branding", or is it possible to use both and specify one at runtime?
[19:57] <BUGabundo> evening
[20:10] <fta> BUGabundo, hi
[20:10] <fta> jdstrand, hm, doesn't seem fixed: apparmor="DENIED" operation="open" parent=1 profile="/usr/sbin/clamd" name="/proc/30523/status" pid=30523 comm="clamd" requested_mask="r" denied_mask="r" fsuid=117 ouid=117
[20:32] <jdstrand> fta: can you paste /etc/apparmor.d/usr.sbin.clamd
[20:36] <fta> jdstrand, http://paste.ubuntu.com/499294/
[20:37] <jdstrand> fta: that doesn't have the changes in it
[20:37] <fta> i can see that.. checking
[20:38] <jdstrand> fta: it is in 0.96.3+dfsg-1ubuntu4 i386-- what version of clamav-daemon do you have?
[20:39] <fta> weird. i've upgraded that box 2h ago
[20:39] <fta>  clamav-daemon:amd64 (0.96.3+dfsg-1ubuntu2, 0.96.3+dfsg-1ubuntu3)
[20:39] <jdstrand> well, there you go :)
[20:40] <fta> saw an upgrade, thought it was yours, sorry
[20:40] <jdstrand> fta: maybe you snagged the _all files cause amd64 wasn't built? (guess)
[20:40] <jdstrand> fta: oh yeah, it could have been ubuntu3-- ScottK warned me he uploaded that
[20:40] <fta> no, got a bunch of clam* updates
[20:41] <fta> k
[21:22] <fta> chrisccoulson, what do you usually do with npviewer/flash crashes?
[21:22] <fta> bug 646117
[21:22] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 646117 in chromium-browser (Ubuntu) "npviewer.bin crashed with SIGSEGV (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/646117
[21:23] <fta> stack is unusable because of the ugly ia32-libs
[21:25] <chrisccoulson> fta - i generally don't watch those, as npviewer crashes in firefox get assigned directly to nspluginwrapper, which i don't watch
[21:25] <chrisccoulson> but we do get a lot of flash plugin crashes for users who don't use nspluginwrapper
[21:25] <chrisccoulson> but there's not really anything we can do with those either, as they always crash inside the flash player
[21:25] <chrisccoulson> so, i just tend to close them if i see them
[21:26] <chrisccoulson> tbh, i'm not sure what we can do really, and those reports aren't particularly useful
[21:28] <fta> isn't there a partner relationship between adobe and canonical?
[21:30] <chrisccoulson> fta - i think some people have contacts within adobe, which i've been trying to get the details of (so they can look at the flashplugin crashes)
[21:30] <chrisccoulson> but, i've had no joy so far
[21:31] <fta> well, no improvement compared to many years ago then
[21:32] <fta> i wonder why that particular bug was reported without my apport hooks kicking in
[22:14] <fta> chromium will soon be able to autostart with the desktop session
[22:15] <fta> and be able to provide desktop notifications