[06:11] <blkperl> so it appears the nvidia kernel module no longer works (fully updated alpha 2)
[08:24] <evfool> ping brendand
[08:30] <brendand> pong evfool
[08:32] <evfool> about bug 329441 ... I just have found that there is  a context menu with check/uncheck all in update-manager, maybe the bug should be updated to be about the discoverability of these?
[08:32] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 329441 in update-manager (Ubuntu) "Need to have select all and unselect all option when asking for installing updates (heat: 4)" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/329441
[08:32] <evfool> brendand^
[08:37] <mvo> evfool: yeah, that makes sense
[08:41] <evfool> mvo: also, the Check all/Uncheck all maybe should be updated to select/unselect all, as there is a Check button
[08:41] <evfool> mvo: and Check all and Check are not related at all... one checks for updates, the other selects all
[08:42] <evfool> although it's hard to find a place to expose select/unselect all without cluttering the UI
[08:50] <mvo> evfool: hm, interessting point. I guess select make indeed more sense than check
[08:51] <evfool> mvo: anyway I guess it should be updated before translations freeze, even if the discoverability is not changed at all
[08:51] <mvo> agreed
[08:51] <evfool> mvo: I'll do it this week, along with some other string changes and bugfixes
[08:53] <mvo> great, thanks. I will merge it right away
[08:59] <brendand> evfool - on my system it says 'Tick All' and 'Untick All'. Are you guys translating from German?
[09:00] <brendand> or maybe using US English?
[09:00] <evfool> brendand: US English
[09:00] <brendand> huh, interesting
[09:01] <brendand> select is probably more widely translatable
[10:44] <brendand> jibel - i need your help with a lightdm bug
[10:44] <brendand> jibel - there are so many reports it's getting lost amongst them all
[10:45] <jibel> brendand, how can I help ?
[10:45] <brendand> you need to assign the bug to a team
[10:45] <brendand> (i'm not sure can i do that)
[10:46] <brendand> it's a tiny bit ridiculous that the only confirmed, non-dupe of this bug is Importance - Medium and not assigned
[10:47] <brendand> i had set it to critical but somehow that one got marked as a duplicate and the 'master' bug is not even confirmed
[10:47] <brendand> no idea how that happened
[10:47] <brendand> i think maybe the retracer did it
[10:48] <brendand> this is the master bug at the moment: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lightdm/+bug/811222
[10:48] <ubot4> brendand: Error: Bug #811222 is private.
[10:48] <brendand> oh, it needs to be unprivated
[10:49] <brendand> let me check the Core Dump
[10:49] <jibel> it already known and the master is critical IIRC
[10:49] <jibel> it/it is
[10:50] <brendand> where is it?
[10:51] <brendand> there was this one: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lightdm/+bug/809890
[10:51] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 809890 in lightdm (Ubuntu) "lightdm-example-gtk-greeter crashed with SIGSEGV in __strcmp_ssse3() (dup-of: 811222)" [Critical,Confirmed]
[10:51] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 811222 in lightdm (Ubuntu) "lightdm-example-gtk-greeter crashed with SIGSEGV in _start() (affects: 14) (dups: 8) (heat: 168)" [Medium,New]
[10:54] <brendand> jibel - if there is a proper bug for this issue can you let me know which one it is?
[10:55] <jibel> urgh, the apport-duplicate finder hit again. Let me fix this
[10:55] <jibel> the original issue was 809890
[10:59] <jibel> brendand, I changed the order. Master is now 809890, there is a proposition of patch in it
[10:59] <jibel> and targeted to oneiric so it won't fall off radar
[11:00] <brendand> jibel - cool. hopefully one of the lightdm maintainers will look at it soon
[11:01] <brendand> jibel - not too sure the patch is correct, might fix the immediate problem but sounds like it could break other stuff.
[11:02] <brendand> now, i have a couple of pretty serious bugs i need to file myself...
[11:02] <brendand> thanks jibel
[12:44] <brendand> anyone else having problems with suspend all of a sudden in Oneiric?
[12:44] <brendand> i would have assumed hardware specific kernel regression but using 3.0.4 for example doesn't help
[12:44] <brendand> basically my system just won't suspend
[12:44] <yofel> I do, as in bug 809729
[12:44] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 809729 in linux (Ubuntu) "[oneiric] kernel 3.0.0-4 fails to suspend on a eeePC 1000H (affects: 1) (heat: 655)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/809729
[12:45] <brendand> yofel - strange, i only got it yesterday and i'm sure i was on 3.0.4 for a while (3.0.5 even)
[12:45] <brendand> maybe i didn't suspend my system after updating to 3.0.4???
[12:46] <brendand> i guess only i can answer that, but it seems unlikely
[12:46] <yofel> haven't tried -5 yet actually, I'll do that later
[12:46] <yofel> anything in dmesg?
[12:46] <brendand> i can't switch vt's either
[12:56] <brendand> yofel - i also lose my network after suspending :( ...
[12:57] <yofel> that I can't confirm, in my case the system simply stuck for ~20s and came up again since it couldn't suspend
[12:57] <yofel> the kernel or syslog should have some information about the network
[13:09] <brendand> yofel - are you able to shutdown cleanly after failure to suspend?
[13:09] <yofel> yes
[13:10] <brendand> sounds a bit different from what i have
[13:10] <brendand> i'm running 3.0.3 now, going to try it and see what happens
[13:20] <brendand> pedro_ - any bug day this week?
[13:22] <pedro_> brendand, yes, just created the page, banshee is the target
[13:22] <pedro_> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20110721
[13:23] <pedro_> kamusin is going to send the announcement shortly
[13:39] <kamusin> announcement sent pedro_
[13:40] <pedro_> kamusin, awesome, thanks!
[16:03] <bdmurray> micahg: my math was bad its about 5% of bugs
[16:08] <micahg> bdmurray: ok, BTW, we're down to ~92k from ~97k, so you're doing some good work, but as was discussed on -devel the other night, open bugs aren't the issue as much as weeding out non-bugs
[16:10] <bdmurray> micahg: right I'm cleaning up lots of apport-package duplicates / invalid bugs and stopping them from coming in
[16:10]  * micahg hugs bdmurray 
[16:12]  * bdmurray presents http://status.qa.ubuntu.com/qapkgstatus/dpkg as an example
[16:45] <kamusin> something is happening with lightdm in the latest Oneiric daily image right? it doesn't ask for the password
[16:46] <jibel> kamusin, you mean you have only the background when you select a user ?
[16:47] <kamusin> I was able to select my username and after click on it seems like he wants to start the session immediately  without ask for the password
[16:48] <charlie-tca> It starts your session?
[16:48] <jibel> kamusin, but does the session start or nothing happens ?
[16:48] <charlie-tca> mine give a blank wallpaper
[16:48] <kamusin> nope, nothing happens
[16:48] <jibel> kamusin, bug 809890
[16:48] <charlie-tca> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/811909
[16:48] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 809890 in lightdm (Ubuntu Oneiric) (and 1 other project) "lightdm-example-gtk-greeter crashed with SIGSEGV in __strcmp_ssse3() (affects: 15) (dups: 9) (heat: 198)" [Critical,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/809890
[16:48] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 811909 in lightdm (Ubuntu) "lightdm-example-gtk-greeter crashed with SIGSEGV in _start() (affects: 9) (dups: 5) (heat: 72)" [Medium,Confirmed]
[16:49] <charlie-tca> hm, maybe mine should be critical too?
[16:49] <kamusin> excelent, thank you guys
[16:54] <kamusin> I wish they could fix this issue soon and even better before the bugday begins heh
[16:58] <pedro_> QA Meeting at #ubuntu-meeting in ~2 mins!
[18:27] <psusi> bug reports against PPAs are not accepted as a rule, right?  I don't see a standard response for that.
[18:29] <charlie-tca> I believe it stems from the fact that bug reports are only accepted against current packages in repositories, and if the package is in a PPA, it is not currently in the repository
[18:29] <psusi> hrm... might need to add a standard response for this...
[18:30] <charlie-tca> We don't accept them against source forge or any other thing outside the repositories, either
[18:31] <charlie-tca> We already have a standard response - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Packages_not_provided_by_Ubuntu
[18:31] <psusi> ahh, I was searching for PPA and coming up empty handed
[19:57] <jibel> RedSingularity, about bug 797673, you were right with libdrm-nouveau. There is a dependency tree that makes the upgrader remove upstart, which hopefully it refuses.
[19:57] <jibel> My opinion is to move it to answers.lp.net
[19:57] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 797673 in update-manager (Ubuntu) "upgrade from Ubuntu 10.10 to 11.0.4 64bit is halted (affects: 1) (heat: 8)" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/797673
[20:37] <brendand> nagging question - is it the duty or the right of bug-control to assign bugs to teams?
[20:38] <greg-g> brendand: that depends on the team and their policies
[20:39] <greg-g> in general, it isn't a good idea to assign people work without asking
[20:40] <brendand> well, of course not to individuals ;)
[20:42] <yofel> well, usually you assign bugs to the person that's working on it (which is usually done by him/herself)
[20:42] <charlie-tca> brendand: as a general ru8le, bug-control does not assign bugs to teams or people
[20:42] <yofel> if a team has a policy that bugs should get assigned to them then you do so
[20:42] <yofel> but I don't know of one currently now that the desktop team doesn't do that anymore
[20:43] <bdmurray> brendand: is there a specific bug you are concerned about?
[20:43] <brendand> bdmurray - no, it's a general question.
[20:43] <bdmurray> then no ;-)
[20:43] <bdmurray> why would you want to assign it to a team?
[20:44] <yofel> correction: bugs are only assigned to people that are working on _fixing_ them, not working on them in general
[20:47] <brendand> it's a very usual part of the bug management process to assign bugs to either a team or a individual within the team whose job it is to manage them on behalf of the team
[20:51] <brendand> i'm only asking if this is a role of ubuntu-bug-control
[20:53] <yofel> we currently don't do that so: No. But if you wanted to do that you would need bug control permissions.
[20:57] <brendand> so we *can* but shouldn't