[03:37] <RedSingularity> Anyone have info on a memory leak with gnome-power-manager in 10.04?  I would like to fix it even if its just a patch. bug 569273 to be specific.
[03:37] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 569273 in indicator-application (Ubuntu Maverick) (and 7 other projects) "memory leak in gnome-power-manager (affects: 119) (dups: 4) (heat: 549)" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/569273
[04:08] <Abhijit> hi
[04:09] <Abhijit> i am using xsane. and each time i scan a page i need to manually again and again select the directory to save the file. why cant xsane remember my choice? should i file a bug? or there is wordaround?
[04:09] <Abhijit> i mean its xsane bug or nautilus? where to submit bug?
[04:10] <Abhijit> nautilus or gnome becuae i am using lucid
[04:16] <Abhijit> m submitting against xsane.
[04:16] <micahg> Abhijit: you might want to check and see if it's fixed in oneiric
[04:17] <Abhijit> micahg, how to check that? i dont have oneiric
[04:17] <micahg> Abhijit: testdrive?
[04:17] <Abhijit> micahg, okies.
[15:28] <bdmurray> pedro_: Hey I'm working on a new function for my bug bot that will likely affect you a bit.  I'll be moving apport-bug reports from no package to the SourcePackage in the description if they haven't been moved to new package.  I'm going to blacklist some packages like yelp, nautilus, evince, and gnome-terminal though.
[15:29] <bdmurray> er haven't been moved to *no* package
[15:30] <pedro_> bdmurray, hello!, so if I've moved a yelp bug to 'Ubuntu' its going to be moved back to yelp?
[15:31] <bdmurray> pedro_: no here's the code relevant to that
[15:31] <bdmurray>         target_set = [a.newvalue for a in task.bug.activity if a.whatchanged == 'affects']
[15:31] <bdmurray>         if 'ubuntu' in target_set:
[15:31] <bdmurray>             continue
[15:31] <bdmurray> so the activity log is checked to see if the affects has been set to 'ubuntu' by someone
[15:32] <pedro_> Ok it sounds fine then, i was worried about that part
[15:33] <bdmurray> pedro_: and if there is some package that gets lots of generic bug reports let me know and I'll add it to the blacklist
[15:34] <pedro_> ok will do it
[16:12] <RedSingularity> lifeless: I have gotten an error message in launchpad for a while with this particular report.  Have a look:  bug 626798
[16:12] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 626798 in update-manager (Ubuntu Natty) (and 5 other projects) "update-manager crashed with DBusException in _run() (affects: 420) (dups: 540) (heat: 3370)" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/626798
[16:14] <roadmr> RedSingularity: tried the text version? https://launchpad.net/bugs/626798/+text
[16:14] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 626798 in update-manager (Ubuntu Natty) (and 5 other projects) "update-manager crashed with DBusException in _run() (affects: 420) (dups: 540) (heat: 3370)" [Medium,Fix released]
[16:14] <roadmr> RedSingularity: I agree the problem with launchpad should be fixed but at least that way you can look at the report
[16:15] <RedSingularity> roadmr: Well I am trying to link a duplicate.  So its a known problem then?
[16:15] <RedSingularity> roadmr: what is the problem anyway?  Seems like most reports work fine.....
[16:16] <roadmr> RedSingularity: I've seen it before, that's why I know the +text trick, but it's only on some reports, not sure what causes it
[16:17] <RedSingularity> roadmr: has the launchpad team been notified?
[16:17] <roadmr> RedSingularity: not sure, maybe we could look in launchpad (itself) bug reports
[16:17] <roadmr> RedSingularity: I've seen it in bug reports with like a zillion comments and/or huge attachments, but this one seems rather normal
[16:18] <RedSingularity> roadmr: I will shoot a comment into #launchpad
[17:12] <bdmurray> pedro_: perhaps bug 509651 is fixed?
[17:12] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 509651 in policykit-1 (Ubuntu Lucid) (and 2 other projects) "polkitd crashed with SIGSEGV in dbus_message_iter_append_basic() (affects: 105) (dups: 33) (heat: 464)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/509651
[17:17] <pedro_> bdmurray, should be on 11.04 / 11.10 , i'll comment on it
[17:17] <pedro_> thanks for raising it ;-)
[17:22] <bdmurray> pedro_: I've cleared all the backlog of no package apport-bugs now and will run it regularly
[17:34] <ikt> people reporting google chrome bugs, basically just set to invalid and direct to the google chrome bug reporting page yes?
[17:35] <ikt> or just file against chromium-browser?
[17:38] <bdmurray> jsalisbury: I just moved a few no package bug reports, that were reported via apport,  to linux.
[17:39] <jsalisbury> bdmurray, ok.  They were reported with apport, but a package name wasn't supplied?
[17:40] <ikt> which bug report?
[17:40] <bdmurray> jsalisbury: well a package name appears in the description but the reporter removed the package name when at the Launchpad bug filing web page (at least thats my hypothesis)
[17:41] <ikt> it's a theory not a hypothesis
[17:41] <jsalisbury> bdmurray, ah, ok.  Can you provide the bug number, so I cna see if it shows up in the reports?
[17:41] <bdmurray> bug 723378 is one example
[17:41] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 723378 in linux (Ubuntu) "labtops shut down by the decoupling of fixed power supply (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/723378
[17:42] <jsalisbury> bdmurray, thanks
[17:43] <ikt> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/855265
[17:43] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 855265 in ubuntu "sys (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New]
[17:43] <ikt> good bug report
[17:48] <bdmurray> pedro_: I only did new bug reports but will also hit confirmed (I reviewed them and it looked good)
[17:49] <jsalisbury> bdmurray, just curious who you found them.  Did you run a script that searches the bug description for "Package: linux-image"?
[17:49] <bdmurray> jsalisbury: well as script that searched for all the New bugs without a package tagged apport-bug and then checking the description line by line for sourcepackage
[17:50] <jsalisbury> bdmurray, cool, thanks
[17:50] <pedro_> bdmurray, Its going to be interesting for the ones in Confirmed, cause in 'theory' if it was confirmed to be a bug it should have been assigned to a proper package before setting that status
[17:51] <bdmurray> pedro_: it was people confirming their own or the janitor in one case
[17:51] <pedro_> woo for people confirming their own reports
[17:51] <pedro_> :-)
[18:28] <bdmurray> Good news is there are no Triaged ones!
[18:31] <kees> "Good news everybody!"
[18:35] <hjd> I wonder about bug 509101. The latest comment mentions it is fixed in a new version, and the changelog indicates this as well (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/supertux/0.3.3-2). Would it be ok to mark this fix released and leave a comment with a link to the changelog?
[18:35] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 509101 in supertux (Ubuntu) "SuperTux add-ons are disabled (affects: 1)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/509101
[18:41] <seb128> bdmurray, pedro_: hey, do you know how we get bugs reported against "ubuntu" when the report has a "package:" line?
[18:41] <seb128> i.e how come those don't land on the said package?
[18:42] <bdmurray> seb128: my guess is people remove it at +filebug page
[18:43] <seb128> bdmurray, hum, ok, do we have a lot of those?
[18:44] <bdmurray> seb128: there were about 100 old New ones like that which I just moved to the package
[18:44] <bdmurray> seb128: and going forward by bugbot will do this regularly
[18:44] <seb128> ok, that's not too much
[18:44] <seb128> I was wondering if the launchpad ui is really confusing for users and worth a bug report
[18:44] <seb128> but that's an ok number
[18:44] <seb128> bdmurray, thanks ;-)