[04:01] <Rcart> Hello. I'd like to work in this bug #703106
[04:01] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 703106 in xdg-utils "xdg-update-menu overwrites the /usr/share/applications/defaults.list symlink with a file." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/703106
[04:02] <Rcart> But i don't know if the patch would be accepted
[09:17] <gtriderxc> hi
[09:17] <gtriderxc> I know it's not translators room
[09:17] <gtriderxc> but
[09:17] <gtriderxc> there is no1 there
[09:17] <gtriderxc> could anyone help me to transalate that string:
[09:18] <gtriderxc> The following packages have been kept back (%(count)s):
[09:18] <gtriderxc> how should I understand keeping back??
[09:31] <htorque> gtriderxc, AFAIK it means that there is an update for that package available, but it's not going to be installed because it would cause problems (due to unfulfilled dependencies)
[09:31] <htorque> gtriderxc, basically it's a safety measure
[09:32] <gtriderxc> so...
[09:33] <gtriderxc> it maens that the package has been kept back after updating??
[15:31] <hjd> Hi all!. Does someone know of a more specific package I should reassign bug 705123 to before confirming it?
[15:31] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 705123 in meta-gnome2 "Options tab missing from Startup Programs prefs dialog" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/705123
[15:33] <yofel> hjd: try to follow the applications instructions on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage
[15:39] <hjd> yofel: thanks. Found it via dpkg -S.
[15:47] <hjd> another question: wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Tags says 'regression-release' is used for stable releases, while wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/RegressionTracking says stable or dev. How do I know which is right?
[15:50] <yofel> hjd: first page needs to be updated, it *was* only used for stable releases, but since regression-potential is gone it's now used for either
[15:52] <yofel> I removed the 'stable' part
[15:52] <hggdh> feel free to update it as needed
[15:52] <hggdh> oops
[15:53] <hggdh> as usual, yofel is faster than I am ;-)
[15:53] <yofel> just there by chance :P
[15:54] <yofel> hggdh: actually, should I add something like "Should be used together with a tag for the release the regression is found in."
[15:54] <yofel> ?
[15:55] <hjd> yofel: ok, thanks. I'll tag the bug above with it then.
[15:56] <yofel> "was found in" rather
[16:00] <bullgard4> On my Maverick computer sometimes an error message appears saying I should direct to Bugzilla. Usually it asks me to install additional packages so that a more meaningful output will be produced. Why have the Ubuntu maintainers provided this mechanism in addition to the ubuntu-bug mechanism? Both mechanisms seem to cover almost the same task. What is the most important difference between the...
[16:00] <bullgard4> ...two mechanisms?
[16:01] <yofel> *which* application gives the messge?
[16:01] <yofel> KDE applications for example will request you to file bug in the KDE bugtracker, not in the ubuntu one since that's where the bugs should go anyway
[16:01] <yofel> *file the bug
[16:03] <yofel> also: apport is *disabled* for crash reporting in stable releases, so some applications will get their own crash handler triggered since apport doesn't handle the crash
[16:19] <Varc> Hello guys
[17:03] <bullgard4> yofel: I obtained an Bugzilla error message window several times. I do not remember well what application was running. I believe that it was Banshee. But my question is meant in general (that is, application independent).
[17:05] <yofel> well, apport crash reporting is only enabled by default in the end phase of the development release, in all other cases the crash is either ignored or left to the crash handler of that application
[17:05] <bullgard4> yofel: What do you mean by "[17:01]	<yofel>	*file the bug"?
[17:05] <yofel> and there are applications where apport is intentionally not used
[17:05] <yofel> that was a grammatical correction for my sentense before
[17:06] <yofel> *sentence :/
[17:06] <bullgard4> yofel: I ingtroduced my question with "On my Maverick". So it is plain what kind of release I was referring to.
[17:07] <yofel> yes and I just answered in a more generic way, specific: apport crash reporting is disabled on maverick
[17:07] <bullgard4> Ah!
[17:07] <yofel> so if an application has it's own crash handler you'll see that, if it doesn't, the crash is completely ignored
[17:08] <bullgard4> Thank you verx much for explaining.
[17:10] <yofel> the reason for that is simply that it can take quite a while for apport to gather information in the crash, taking system resources in the meanwhile and making you have to wait until it's finished to restart the application in some cases
[17:17] <bullgard4> I see.
[17:25] <Varc> Hello charlie-tca
[17:25] <charlie-tca> Hello, Varc
[17:26] <Varc> How are you?
[17:26] <charlie-tca> tired, today
[17:27] <Varc> Work?
[17:29] <charlie-tca> no, I am retired
[17:30] <penguin42> sounds like a good idea
[17:31] <Varc> I see, if i can ask, what was your work?
[17:33] <charlie-tca> Plumber
[17:33] <Varc> What is Plumper?
[17:35] <charlie-tca> plumber is the water pipe fixer
[17:35] <Varc> Ohhh, I see. Sound very interesant
[17:36] <charlie-tca> It can be very interesting, but it can be very dirty and hard to do
[17:37] <Varc> Well,  there is not perfect work
[18:01] <hggdh> yofel: (re you question @ 09:54): yes, should be used with a tag for the release it was found in
[18:02] <yofel> good :)
[18:02] <hggdh> and I had just answered (I guess it was bullgard4) a similar Q on the ubuntu-users list, but not in as much detail as you
[20:07] <njin> hello to all, please set this as wishlist for me, thanks. bug 696755
[20:07] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 696755 in update-manager "Update manager has to manage issues" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/696755
[21:00] <Varc> !es
[21:01] <ubot2> En la mayoría de canales de Ubuntu se habla sólo en inglés. Si busca ayuda en español o charlar entra en el canal #ubuntu-es. Escribe "/join #ubuntu-es" (sin comillas) y dale a enter.
[21:12] <wolfpack> Many people are facing problem with bcmwl in maverick .Ex: "https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bcmwl/+bug/571392". the fix have releaed for natty. It should be backported to maverick also
[21:12] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 571392 in bcmwl "package bcmwl-kernel-source 5.60.48.36 bdcom-0ubuntu3 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1" [High,Invalid]
[21:16] <charlie-tca> That bug was not fixed, it was marked as invalid. I am looking at the other bug referenced.
[21:18] <charlie-tca> wolfpack: bug 557023 is the real bug. They have it in -proposed awaiting someone to verify the fix
[21:18] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 557023 in casper "update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated) / cp: cannot stat `/vmlinuz': No such file or directory" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/557023
[21:19] <charlie-tca> It is targetted for maverick, lucid fix is awaiting verification.
[21:19] <charlie-tca> already fixed in natty
[21:21] <wolfpack> charlie-tca: bug 557023 was marked as fix releaed sometime back, and it is working fine with Maverick -->check this 703280
[21:21] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 557023 in casper "update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated) / cp: cannot stat `/vmlinuz': No such file or directory" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/557023
[21:21] <charlie-tca> It's only fixed for natty. Maverick and lucid are awaiting fixes
[21:22] <charlie-tca> The first bug you gave, 571392, was closed as invalid, and Alberto referred you to 557023
[21:24] <wolfpack> Should I have direcly marked it as duplicate of 557023 ?
[21:24] <charlie-tca> Are you alberto?
[21:25] <charlie-tca> then yes
[21:25] <wolfpack> no i am naveen
[21:27] <wolfpack> charlie-tca: ^
[21:27] <charlie-tca>  Then no, you should not. It is already closed.
[21:27] <charlie-tca> and most likely, the fix to bug 557023 will fix the issue
[21:27] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 557023 in casper "update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated) / cp: cannot stat `/vmlinuz': No such file or directory" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/557023
[21:30] <wolfpack> charlie-tca: Yes thats what i am saying....the 557023 is able to fix the maverick bug.....So what should I do when I get  bug like 703280 as many user are faing this problem??
[21:30] <charlie-tca> bug 703280
[21:30] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 703280 in bcmwl "package bcmwl-kernel-source 5.60.48.36 bdcom-0ubuntu5 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 (dup-of: 571392)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/703280
[21:30] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 571392 in bcmwl "package bcmwl-kernel-source 5.60.48.36 bdcom-0ubuntu3 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1" [High,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/571392
[21:33] <charlie-tca> dup them to the bug in work, bug 557023
[21:33] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 557023 in casper "update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated) / cp: cannot stat `/vmlinuz': No such file or directory" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/557023
[21:34] <charlie-tca> There's no point in making them a duplicate of a closed bug, if they are experiencing issues now
[21:34] <wolfpack> ok. and should I ask them to try the fix released for natty as was done in bug 703280?
[21:34] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 703280 in bcmwl "package bcmwl-kernel-source 5.60.48.36 bdcom-0ubuntu5 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 (dup-of: 571392)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/703280
[21:34] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 571392 in bcmwl "package bcmwl-kernel-source 5.60.48.36 bdcom-0ubuntu3 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1" [High,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/571392
[21:34] <charlie-tca> wolfpack: I suspect the reason that did not get marked a duplicate is because you will have to manually mark every dup in it to the master bug
[21:35] <wolfpack> ok
[21:35] <charlie-tca> that would be up to you. It is fine to ask, then close their bug.
[21:35] <wolfpack> but after marking dup ..I can't make it Invalid.
[21:36] <wolfpack> should I remove dup and then mark as Invalid ?
[21:39] <charlie-tca> after marking it a dup, you do not to mark it invalid.
[21:39] <wolfpack> ok
[21:40] <wolfpack> charlie-tca: thanks :)
[21:40] <charlie-tca> If the they fixed it, it is not necessary to mark it a dup, you can just mark it invalid with a comment it is fixed with an update
[21:40] <charlie-tca> If you mark it a dup, it is valid, so marking it takes care of it