=== plars-afk is now known as plars
=== ryanakca is now known as Guest66690
[03:17] <ikt> hello?
[03:19] <hggdh> hello, good evening
[03:20] <hggdh> :-)
[04:17] <ikt> hggdh: whatcha up to?
[04:17] <ikt> wtb irssi notifications
=== cipher is now known as Guest84660
[12:08] <flexxxv> hey, could some Member of UbuntuBugControl help me to set importance level on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/810093 ? I think it should be at least MEDIUM, becuase it cause impacts accessibility of a non-core application. Maybee HIGH is better, because background lightning of a laptop ist pretty much essential.
[12:08] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 810093 in linux (Ubuntu) "The new (2.6.39+) samsung_laptop kernel module causes serious backlight flickering - makes the desktop unusable (affects: 8) (heat: 40)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[12:41] <brendand> flexxxv - which samsung is it? i have an N310 (does have that problem) and an NC10 (doesn't)
[12:41] <flexxxv> n220
[12:42] <brendand> flexxxv - are you testing 11.10?
[12:42] <flexxxv> brendand: if you are affected please try the patch. yes I'm testing 11.10
[12:42] <flexxxv> there is also a binary for fast testing
[12:43] <flexxxv> (I compiled the patch against 3.0.0-12-generic)
[12:43] <brendand> flexxxv - have you noticed the touchpad is sometimes dropping? (different issue)
[12:43] <flexxxv> brendand: No I have no touchpad issue
[12:45] <flexxxv> just the the backlight problem. It would be great if you could test the patch.
[12:46] <brendand> flexxxv - i'm going to just now
[12:47] <flexxxv> great :D
[12:48] <brendand> flexxxv - my issue may be slightly different actually. but i'll still try
=== zz_bigbash is now known as bigbash
[12:58] <brendand> flexxxv - assuming installing samsung-backlight from voria's ppa was what i needed to do, it works wonderfully
[13:00] <flexxxv> brendand: this works. but it is only a workaround. the module from voria is just skipping the bios level and does it on pci base level, which is in general a bad idea. but yeah it works. I also did this, until it patched samsung-laptop
[13:00] <flexxxv> and I think it is better to have the problem fixed in kernel instead of installing other stuff
[13:01] <brendand> flexxxv - ah. you said you had a binary? (i don't really have the time to rebuild anything)
[13:02] <flexxxv> yeah I have. it is here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/810093/comments/14
[13:02] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 810093 in linux (Ubuntu) "The new (2.6.39+) samsung_laptop kernel module causes serious backlight flickering - makes the desktop unusable (affects: 8) (heat: 40)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[13:02] <flexxxv> it is build against 3.0.0-12-generic
[13:03] <flexxxv> you know how to use?
[13:05] <brendand> insmod?
[13:08] <flexxxv> should also work. isn't modprobe easier? resolves dependencies, if any)
[13:08] <flexxxv> anyway sounds like you know what you are doing
[13:12] <brendand> do i? :)
[13:13] <brendand> Error inserting: no such device?
[13:16] <flexxxv> hmm. not good. you first unloaded the module?
[13:16] <flexxxv> nc310 is really using this module?
[13:18] <brendand> flexxxv - well that would be a start. i guess i couldn't have the same issue then
[13:19] <flexxxv> if you just boot your laptop. is samsung-laptop normally loaded?
[13:19] <flexxxv> btw. is voria's stuff still on the laptop?
[13:20] <brendand> i thought i removed it, but apparently it wasn't
[13:21] <brendand> rmmod samsung_laptop is giving Module does not exist in /proc/modules
[13:21] <flexxxv> do a lsmod|grep samsung
[13:22] <brendand> i had done, it was showing just samsung_backlight after i installed that. before that (and after i rmmod'ed samsung_backlight), nothing
[13:23] <flexxxv> ok
[13:23] <brendand> what's the bottom line then? the samsung_laptop module does nothing for me?
[13:23] <flexxxv> how exactly did you tried to load samsung-laptop?
[13:25] <brendand> modprobe samsung_laptop
[13:25] <flexxxv> if you have uninstalled vorias stuff and don't use my patched module and on after reboot there is no samsung-laptop loaded then the module is not for you :P
[13:25] <brendand> flexxxv - ok, so maybe i should reboot first
[13:26] <flexxxv> maybee
[13:27] <flexxxv> I just looked at samsung-laptop.c and there is some code with NF310
[13:29] <flexxxv> do you know for sure if you had a samsung-laptop module loaded before starting to experiment? if not my patched module will not be able to help at all
[13:29] <brendand> i don't
[13:30] <brendand> this is the N310 - no guarantee the NF310 is anything similar : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-10-1-inch-Netbook-Intel-Black/dp/B0026B8VQ6
[13:31] <brendand> well, at least after reboot now there is nothing samsung related showing in lsmod (and my backlight is broken again :P)
[13:31] <sagaci> i have just filed a generic bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/872839, am I somehow able to retarget it to precise or at least oneiric?
[13:31] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 872839 in ubuntu "no localised Australian CD ISO (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[13:32] <flexxxv> brendand: ok ther is nothing about a n310. sry. I thought you would know that samsung-laptop is making trouble for you.
[13:32] <flexxxv> remove my patch and be happy with voria's ppa. I think this is the best Idea for you
[13:33] <brendand> flexxxv - ok, thanks for your help anyway
[13:34] <flexxxv> brendand: no problem. I just didn't know that you were just guessing. of cause this patch can only help if this module is making trouble
[13:35] <flexxxv> anyway I'm still looking for a Member of UbuntuBugControl to help me to set importance level on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/810093 ? I think it should be at least MEDIUM, becuase it cause impacts accessibility of a non-core application. Maybee HIGH is better, because background light of a laptop ist pretty much essential.
[13:35] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 810093 in linux (Ubuntu) "The new (2.6.39+) samsung_laptop kernel module causes serious backlight flickering - makes the desktop unusable (affects: 8) (heat: 40)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[13:36] <brendand> flexxxv - i'll do you a favour - i'm bug-contro and i agree about the importance being high (it's not really correct to say the application being affected is non-core)
[13:37] <brendand> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/810093
[13:37] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 810093 in linux (Ubuntu) "The new (2.6.39+) samsung_laptop kernel module causes serious backlight flickering - makes the desktop unusable (affects: 8) (heat: 40)" [High,Confirmed]
[13:38] <flexxxv> brendand: I think the Desktop enviroment is non-core isn't it? and the desktop is affected (brightnes is changing is just crazy without this patch)
[13:39] <brendand> !Importance
[13:39] <ubot4> You can learn about setting bug importance at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance
[13:39] <flexxxv> Please explain, if I see this wrong. I'm not a native speaker
[13:39] <flexxxv> I read this before posting here
[13:39] <brendand> High - A problem with an essential hardware component (disk controller, laptop built-in wireless, video card, keyboard, mouse)
[13:42] <flexxxv> yeah I see why it can be High, I just was unsure about if backlight is essential. Just theretical: if backlight wouldn't be essential. would this bugh be medium?
[13:43] <brendand> flexxx - yes. i see it as a problem with a hw component, not an application
[13:43] <flexxxv> ok thx. I never had to think about level of importance
[13:44] <brendand> flexxxv - i'm taking your word for it that it makes it near impossible to use the screen
[13:44] <brendand> flexxxv - for my own issue i'd go with medium
[13:47] <flexxxv> brendand: I tell you what happens without patch: only 2 extreme brightnes settings (very very low or very very heigh). before some gnome patch it was much more serious, because the desktop just wouldn'T stop to switch between two brightnes levels)
[13:47] <flexxxv> under 11.04 I have this very annoying fast brightnes switching problem, which is really annoying
[13:50] <flexxxv> if you think this doesn't validates Heigh just change it. I just want to have the bug pirority to be changed from undecided and took a look at the ubuntu recommandations for importance.
[13:55] <brendand> flexxxv - unless someone objects greatly it will stay at high. already 8 affected users so i don't think anyone will argue
[13:56] <flexxxv> brendand: we'll see ;) thx for help.
=== zyga is now known as zyga-afk
[15:26] <ikt> how do you check for a duplicate when there's 591 bugs against the package?
[15:27] <ikt> and you're looking for a very specific situation
[15:28] <charlie-tca> I do it by looking at each bug that might be likely, also advanced search, which allows you to search for specific words
[15:30] <charlie-tca> ikt: click the advanced search, you can search on the specifics of the report
[16:12] <ikt> ty charlie-tca
[16:12] <charlie-tca> yw
=== zyga-afk is now known as zyga
[16:57] <pedro_> QA Meeting in ~3 mins at #ubuntu-meeting
[17:56] <ashams> anybody knows how to file kernel bugs these days, as the bugzilla.kernel.org seems to be still down! email interface works?
[17:59] <pedro_> jsalisbury, ^ ?
[18:00] <jsalisbury> ashams, thats a good question.  I haven't been able to file upstream bugs as well.
[18:00] <jsalisbury> ashams, I'll check LKML for an update
[18:02] <ashams> jsalisbury: thank you, we're stacking a lot of reports from a long time, I think this will affect how well ocelot will do.
[18:02] <jsalisbury> ashams, yes I agree.
[18:14] <jsalisbury> ashams, I got the following response on LKML:
[18:14] <jsalisbury> Just send an e-mail to appropriate mailinglist and CC
[18:14] <jsalisbury> responsible maintainer(s).
[18:14] <jsalisbury> That's what many people prefer to bugzilla anyway.
[18:15] <ashams> so should I send that msg to ask when it will be back or to report?
[18:15] <ashams> ah, to report
[18:16] <ashams> got it :)
[18:16] <jsalisbury> ashams, I didn't receive a response when it will be back.  But someone else may reply soon.
[18:16] <ashams> I hope so
[18:16] <ashams> jsalisbury: Thank you
[18:16] <ashams> :D
[18:17] <jsalisbury> ashams, np
=== zyga is now known as zyga-brb
=== chrisccoulson_ is now known as chrisccoulson
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
=== bulldog98_ is now known as bulldog98
[22:08] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: what display manager does xubuntu use?
[22:09] <charlie-tca> lightdm for Oneiric, gdm before that
[22:09] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: hunh can you recreate bug 861388?
[22:09] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 861388 in coreutils (Ubuntu) "/usr/bin/who returns no user... (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/861388
[22:11] <charlie-tca> I can try.
[22:14] <charlie-tca> bdmurray: fails on installed system, works on live session
[22:15] <charlie-tca> works in tty on installed system
[22:16] <charlie-tca> You want me to comment it?
[22:16] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: that's be great
[22:22] <charlie-tca> bdmurray: not sure why that would work in Unity but fail in gnome-shell, though
[22:29] <hggdh> charlie-tca, bdmurray: I am confused -- why is it a coreutils bug?
[22:29] <hggdh> I thought my comment cleared it up, it seems I failed
[22:31] <bdmurray> hggdh: well you left the task open
[22:32] <bdmurray> but yes I agree it should be the display manager or desktop environment
[22:32] <charlie-tca> I don't know. I just left the package alone
[22:32] <hggdh> I left it open waiting on the OP to state if this was enough or not...
[22:32] <charlie-tca> why would it be display manager, you can't run that command from there
[22:32] <hggdh> the whole thing is the application -- lightdm, gdm, kdm, whatever -- must use utmp to signal an user logged in
[22:32] <charlie-tca> oh, smack me in the head hard, I guess
[22:32] <bdmurray> Isn't the session manager determinable without the OPs help?
[22:33] <hggdh> yes, it is. What is not determinable is if the OP wanted to keep on
[22:33] <charlie-tca> The reporter says it works for him in Unity, but fails in gnome-shell and Xubuntu. What is the common app ?
[22:34] <bdmurray> hggdh: why does that matter? its not a support case
[22:34] <hggdh> I do not see it "working" under unity
[22:35] <hggdh> it will probably work on most terminal programs, and on those you can set to login; most X applications do not set it
[22:36] <charlie-tca> Then is it really valid?
[22:38] <hggdh> the thing is it depends on the programs to use and follow the protocol for utmp
[22:38] <hggdh> of old, all -- or most -- did. Nowadays it is not that common
[22:38] <hggdh> another question is *which* applications should have it?
[22:39] <hggdh> firefox? evolution/thunderbird/kmail/claws? OO.O?
[22:39] <hggdh> er, LO.O
[22:45] <bdmurray> hggdh: so it depends on the terminal I use too?
[22:46] <hggdh> bdmurray: it might. On roxterm, on the config, you have an option to "update login records" <- utmp
[22:46] <hggdh> on gnome-term I think you have a login shell, or something like that
[22:47] <bdmurray> and I don't think terminator sets it
[22:47] <raldi> Step 2 under "Procedure" on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates says, "Use Nominate for series to mark the bug as an SRU candidate" ... is that information still accurate?
[22:47] <hggdh> possible. The issue here is one of (in)consistency
[22:48] <bdmurray> yes, however nominations are limited to certain people
[22:48] <raldi> So if I have a backport that I'd like to nominate, what should I do?
[22:48] <bdmurray> backports are different than nominations
[22:48] <bdmurray> what bug are you looking at?
[22:49] <hggdh> BRB, have to walk the dogs
[22:49] <bdmurray> backports would be like whole new versions of sftware
[22:49] <raldi> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/207065
[22:49] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 207065 in compiz (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "Bad Compiz Bindings Bug (affects: 22) (dups: 2) (heat: 15)" [Low,Fix released]
[22:49] <bdmurray> while a bug fix would be a stable release update
[22:49] <raldi> 0.8.4-1ubuntu1 has the bug, and the next subminor version, 0.8.4-1ubuntu2, fixes it
[22:50] <raldi> 10.04 uses the former, and i'd like to nominate that it backport the -ubuntu2 version
[22:50] <bdmurray>     compiz | 1:0.8.4-0ubuntu15 |         lucid | source, all
[22:50] <bdmurray>     compiz | 1:0.8.4-0ubuntu15.3 | lucid-updates | source, all
[22:51] <bdmurray> I don't see the version you are talking about for lucid
[22:52] <bdmurray> ah
[22:52] <bdmurray> the bug should really be about compizconfig-backend-gconf?
[22:52] <raldi> indeed, see comment #32
[22:54] <bdmurray> Okay, I've added a release task for Lucid
[22:54] <raldi> awesome!
[22:54] <raldi> What's a release task? :)
[22:54] <bdmurray> well if you look at the bug you'll see one
[22:54] <bdmurray> its an approved nomination
[22:55] <raldi> Thanks so much -- so I just subscribe to the bug and all the progress will be visible there?
[22:55] <bdmurray> well yes or your could participate in the fixing process
[22:56] <raldi> Sure, I'm a programmer. How can I help?
[22:57] <bdmurray> hmm all that's needed is the patch in that bug?
[22:58] <raldi> Yeah, it worked on my home workstation and the comments after #32 seem to confirm that too
[22:58] <raldi> But I need it to be officially backported to be able to use it at work
[22:58] <bdmurray> right so we just need an updated version of the package built with that patch
[22:59] <raldi> My expertise in this realm probably pales to yours, but yes, that's the situation as i understand it
[23:00] <bdmurray> So I could build an updated package.  Could you add a test case to the bug description though?
[23:00] <bdmurray> thats in the procedure part of the wiki page you pointed to
[23:00] <raldi> as in, "Steps to reproduce: ... Expected results: ... Actual results: ..." ?
[23:01] <bdmurray> right
[23:01] <raldi> one more documentation nitpick: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates points to two bugs that are supposed to be model examples of what to do, but neither of them seem to have [Impact] [Development Fix] etc sections
[23:02] <bdmurray> heh
[23:02] <raldi> is it okay if i'm slightly loose with my format?
[23:02] <bdmurray> probably the procedure changed after the examples were given
[23:02] <bdmurray> yes of course
[23:03] <raldi> it's hard to tell the "nice" open-source projects from the "mean" ones; glad to see this appears to be the former
[23:19] <hggdh> bdmurray: I am not sure the login records should be kept in utmp, probably something Newer and Better is warranted (if at all)
[23:22] <raldi> okay, i've added the test case
[23:22] <raldi> how's it look?
[23:26] <bdmurray> looks pretty godo thanks
[23:26] <bdmurray> good even
[23:31] <bdmurray> raldi: thanks for doing that I added a debdiff to the bug which just needs to be sponsored to -proposed for Lucid
[23:31] <raldi> cool, who do i send the bribe to?
[23:32] <bdmurray> we are bit busy with oneiric coming out but it should be uploaded soon
[23:33] <raldi> okay, well i guess i'll sit tight and watch the bug
[23:33] <raldi> btw, are you a redditor by any chance?