[01:40] <hggdh> Tetsuo55: npviewer.bin is a special case. I am not sure there is anything we can do there, but I do not dwell in the mistic rooms of flash
[05:20] <penalvch> Regarding bug 202391 this should be marked wishlist as it is an enhancement request for AVM2 implementation in gnash.
[05:20] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 202391 in gnash (Ubuntu) "Cannot view AVM2 flash enabled pages (affects: 6) (dups: 4) (heat: 48)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/202391
[05:29] <micahg> penalvch: are yo9u sure the new bugs are duplicates of the older ones?  It seems that the original one (202391) was due to an old gnash version
[05:31] <penalvch> micahg: the cnn hyperlink is AVM2, hence the reason for the AVM2 dup'ing.
[05:32]  * micahg wonders if it was AVM2 3 yrs ago
[05:33] <penalvch> micahg: ah I see, little hijack'esk on my part but still holds true to the original bug title "Cannot view some flash enabled pages" :)
[05:34] <micahg> penalvch: that's the problem with hijacking :), but thank you for the due diligence
[05:44] <penalvch> micahg: I did a little research on when AVM2 came out, it did come out prior to 2008 so it's most likely that AVM2 was the bug driver.
[05:50] <micahg> penalvch: ok, thanks
[10:41] <acarpine> hi people
[10:41] <acarpine> I have a doubt
[10:41] <acarpine> Some day ago I reported this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/indicator-applet/+bug/721813
[10:41] <ubot4> acarpine: Error: Bug #721813 is private.
[10:42] <acarpine> ops is private...i'm gonna change the visibility properties...
[10:44] <acarpine> done
[10:46] <acarpine> the Apport retracing service mark my report as invalid saying "This
[10:46] <acarpine> might be caused by some outdated packages which were installed on your system at the time of the report:
[10:46] <acarpine> libgcc1: installed version 1:4.5.2-3ubuntu1, latest version: 1:4.5.2-3ubuntu2...." and so on
[10:46] <acarpine> but I update my system (natty release) every 2 days
[10:49] <persia> acarpine: The trick is that new packages are published every hour, and that the delay between filing the bug and the apport-retracer attempting the retrace may be sufficient that the packages you used are outdated by the time it runs.
[10:49] <acarpine> Is it possible that for correctly report a bug I have to update my system continuously?
[10:49] <persia> Just update again, and reproduce, and file a new bug if you can.
[10:50] <persia> You don't have to update it continuously, but if you have a reproducible bug, you'd do best to update and then reproduce, and then file, just to make sure you can still reproduce with the newest versions.
[10:50] <acarpine> ok tks a lot persia!
[10:51] <acarpine> I will follow your hint!
[10:51] <persia> Good luck.
[10:54] <gnomefreak> was the sounds disabled in terminel(irssi) on purpose?
[19:35] <joumetal> What is the difference of isc-dhclient and dhcpcd in natty?
[19:37] <joumetal> dhclient gives no connection and no errors
[19:39] <virtuald> isc dhclient is the reference client by the internet software consortium, dhcpcd is another implementation
[20:12] <toresbe> hey folks - TV out stopped working after upgrading to natty - TV is detected, but no output. Any suggestions on how I can narrow this down?
[20:17] <cybernet> toresbe: the better place to ask would be #ubuntu
[20:17] <cybernet> toresbe: have you tried there already
[20:18] <toresbe> Nope, am trying #ubuntu+1, though. Sorry if I went to the wrong place, I was just thinking that this was overwhelmingly likely to be a bug in ubuntu and so I came here :)
[20:18] <joumetal> You can try old kernel to see if it's problem in kernel.
[20:19] <joumetal> And your Xorg.0.log could have information too.
[20:20] <joumetal> Apport should attach that file when you submit a bug about your video driver.
[20:20] <chalcedony> is there a way to un-attach an attachment to a bug report?
[20:21] <toresbe> Upgrading removed my old kernel, and everything in xorg.0.log is hunky-dorey.
[20:22] <yofel> chalcedony: the attachments are listed on the right of the page, you can delete them from the edit dialog
[20:22] <chalcedony> yofel, thanks looking
[20:23] <chalcedony> yofel, as far as i can tell there is nothing on the right hand side of the page at all?
[20:23] <chalcedony> except log out
[20:25] <yofel> chalcedony: you should have something like this below the subscriber list http://yofel.dyndns.org/pics/ext/lp_att.png
[20:27] <chalcedony> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+filebug/ stuff
[20:27] <chalcedony> yofel, doesn't seem to have that
[20:28] <yofel> ah no, I don't think apport supports selecting what it should attach to the report yet
[20:28] <yofel> neither does the launchpad filebug dialog
[20:28] <yofel> you could file the bug as private, remove the attachment after filing the bug and then mark it public
[20:29] <chalcedony> the bug is that it won't attach the right file, and it attaches 'xchat.conf' more often than not.. and just did it when i tried to upload a screenshot
[20:29] <yofel> that should be the easiest way to keep an attachment from being visible
[20:29] <yofel> o.O?
[20:30] <yofel> the add attachment dialog on the filebug page?
[20:30] <chalcedony> yes
[20:30] <yofel> try a different browser maybe, I'm don't know what handles that
[20:30] <chalcedony> it happens with yahoo mail and anything else needing an attachment
[20:30] <chalcedony> both opera and firefox
[20:31] <chalcedony> and i think dcc from xchat
[20:32] <yofel> out of ideas then :S
[20:33] <chalcedony> heh
[20:33] <chalcedony> let me see if i can figure out how to do private
[20:33] <chalcedony> or maybe just cancel?
[20:34] <chalcedony> nothing to click for private
[20:35] <yofel> indeed o.O
[20:35] <yofel> if you have a gpg key you could also try to file a bug by e-mail https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/EmailInterface
[20:36] <chalcedony> can't i just redo it and not attach any file?
[20:36] <chalcedony> or is it already filed even if i don't click 'submit a bug report'?
[20:36] <yofel> no, you can cancel it
[20:39] <chalcedony> good
[20:42] <BUGabundo> evening