[00:12] <mdlueck> I logged it under grub2 for now. fin
[00:13] <mdlueck> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/874698
[00:13] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 874698 in grub2 (Ubuntu) "Ubuntu Lucid prevents system POST once installed (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New]
[01:46] <MoLE_> sorry to repeat myself, but is there any bug squad member available to look at triaging bug 715438?
[01:46] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 715438 in linux (Ubuntu) "hermes-I wireless interface will not associate with open access point (affects: 26) (dups: 2) (heat: 84)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/715438
[01:54] <MoLE_> Ok looks like I'll need to try again later.
[02:07] <cprofitt> anyone know what package Ubuntu Software Center is?
[02:13] <hggdh> cprofitt: software-center
[02:14] <cprofitt> I was missing the -
[02:14] <cprofitt> thanks
[02:15] <cprofitt> hggdh: It appears that software center is installing the 32bit version of Adobe Flash and reporting that it is version 10
[02:16] <cprofitt> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/873773
[02:16] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 873773 in ubuntu "Adobe flash provided by canonical partner repositories is not 64 bit in the Software centre (affects: 2) (heat: 10)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[02:16] <hggdh> cprofitt: well, software-center would propose what it sees in the archivesm is it not?
[02:18] <cprofitt> It is reporting that it is version 10. 64 bit version is supposed to be in the repos, but does not appear to be
[02:19] <hggdh> I myself do not know, I have not followed it closely. I dimly remember a chat on that this week, and something about 64-bits not being in still
[02:19] <hggdh> but... I am not sure, sorry. So the bug is good
[02:20] <cprofitt> thanks
[02:21] <cprofitt> you going to be at UDS hggdh ?
[02:21] <hggdh> cprofitt: yes :-)
[02:21] <hggdh> you?
[02:22] <cprofitt> yes. I will be there. We will have to grab a dinner together this time
[02:22] <hggdh> yeah, and I think charlie will also be there
[02:23] <cprofitt> yes, he said he was going
[02:23] <cprofitt> We will likely be roommates again
[02:24] <cprofitt> synaptic has the correct 64 bit package, but software center does not.
[02:24] <hggdh> cool. I do not know, yet, who will suffer me and my snoring
[02:24] <cprofitt> I snore badly too
[02:24] <cprofitt> lol
[02:45] <cprofitt> hey jono
[02:46] <jono> hey cprofitt
[06:24]  * bkerensa goes to look for new bugs
[06:35] <bil21al> hggdh can u help me ?
[06:36] <bil21al> see this bug comment number 7  i dont understand what info he want to ask can u tell me how can i get that info which he described in that comment number 7   or anybody else tel me???  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/banshee/+bug/873787
[06:36] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 873787 in banshee (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "Banshee does not start (affects: 3) (dups: 1) (heat: 20)" [Undecided,Incomplete]
[06:39] <bil21al> any body tell me what he want in the 7th comment i cant get him??
[08:58] <iceroot> are there any rules when i have to append a patch and when a debdiff to a bug? or is debdiff always the best way?
[08:59] <gema_> bil21al: run gconf on a console and you'll find the apps path
[09:00] <gema_> bil21al: gconf-editor
[11:38] <bil21al> helo   have a look on it
[11:38] <bil21al> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/874348
[11:38] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 874348 in unity (Ubuntu) "when we change the theme some icons from the launcher vanished (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New]
[13:33] <penguin42> ah lots of nice fresh crunchy bugs
[14:26] <iceroot> are there any rules when i have to append a patch and when a debdiff to a bug? or is debdiff always the best way?
[15:11] <jtaylor> depends on the maintainer and the issue
[15:11] <jtaylor> for universe probably debdiff as those usually have no dedicated maintainers in ubuntu
[15:12] <jtaylor> sponsors will prefer to not have to write changelogs for issues they have n o clue about
[15:13] <jtaylor> iceroot: ^
[16:26] <piratonym> Could someone please review bug #873666 and set its importance?
[16:26] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 873666 in nautilus (Ubuntu) "Nautilus crashes very often (affects: 3) (heat: 14)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/873666
[16:29]  * penguin42 wonders why the bot set it to confirmed because of multiple users - I don't see any other users mentioning it
[16:29] <penguin42> piratonym: Given it's so repeatable you might try getting a more detailed bug report
[16:30] <piratonym> penguin42: how can i do this?
[16:31] <penguin42> piratonym: You could install the debug packages for nautilus, and then you could start apports crash reporter with    sudo service apport start force_start=1
[16:31] <yofel> penguin42: the affects count is > 1
[16:31] <penguin42> piratonym: Then it should capture a backtrace that would have more detail that might be able to find exactly where it crashes
[16:32] <penguin42> yofel: I tend to forget about that when they aren't subscribed!
[16:33] <yofel> but if nautilus is really that easy to crash, someone that gets the crash should enable apport and use it to file a proper crash bug
[16:33] <piratonym> penguin42: I installed nautilus-dbg and ran the command, then started nautilus and it crashed. What should I do now?
[16:34] <penguin42> piratonym: OK, do you now have a file in /var/crash for it?
[16:35] <piratonym> penguin42: Yes, there is a file called _usr_bin_nautilus.1000.crash
[16:36] <penguin42> piratonym: OK, now do apport-bug _usr_bin_nautilus.1000.crash     I think
[16:38] <penguin42> thing is it doesn't fail for me, otherwise I'd take gdb to it
[16:38] <piratonym> penguin42: It says file or directory not found
[16:38] <penguin42> ok do apport-bug /var/crash/_usr_bin_nautilus.1000.crash
[16:38] <piratonym> penguin42: Now it works, had to use full path
[16:39] <penguin42> nod
[16:42] <piratonym> Is there a way to add this information to the existing bug? Launchpad asks me to create a new bug.
[16:44] <yofel> nope
[16:45] <piratonym> OK
[16:47] <penguin42> we've already got 850k another one won't do any harm
[16:49] <yofel> make that 95k open ones, not all 850k are for us
[16:50] <penguin42> true
[16:50] <piratonym> Launchpad shows bug #865115, this looks exactly like the problem I have. I'll check if this is the same bug. Thank you for helping.
[16:50] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 865115 in ubuntuone-client-gnome (Ubuntu Oneiric) (and 7 other projects) "nautilus crashed with SIGSEGV in gconf_client_get(), if both nautilus-open-terminal and ubuntuone-client-gnome are installed (affects: 335) (dups: 53) (heat: 1670)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/865115
[16:51] <penguin42> piratonym: Are your folders sync'd with Ubuntu one ?
[16:52] <piratonym> penguin42: I do not use Ubuntu One, but ubuntuone-client-gnome is installed
[16:52] <penguin42> piratonym: And if you uninstall nautilus-open-terminal does it stop failing?
[16:54] <piratonym> penguin42: Yes, it doesn't crash anymore.
[16:54] <penguin42> piratonym: OK, probably the same one - you could also install the package from -proposed
[16:55] <piratonym> penguin42: I'll try that, thank you
[17:41] <dlbike76> Hi,  I ran into a problem while upgrading to 11.10.  The desktop basically stopped responding to events.  What package would the problem have been in?  Compiz?
[17:42] <dlbike76> I was able to finish the upgrade by switching to a virtual terminal, so I don't think there are any relevant log files in var/log/dist-upgrade.
[18:44] <penguin42> anyone got any idea whatelse to ask for bug 874622 - it's not really got much to go on
[18:44] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 874622 in linux (Ubuntu) "login stalls at check for battery status (affects: 2) (heat: 12)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/874622
[22:49] <penguin42> is there a particular bug to group the ubuntu-minimal errors to?
[22:59] <hggdh> penguin42: server?
[23:00] <penguin42> hggdh: Not sure, there are a bunch of bugs all complaining that during install/upgrade there were problems finding ubuntu-minimal - e.g. 873589 and 873576
[23:00] <penguin42> bugs 873589 and 873576
[23:00] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 873589 in update-manager (Ubuntu) "Upgrade to 11.10 failed (affects: 1) (heat: 8)" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/873589
[23:00] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 873576 in update-manager (Ubuntu) "Attempt to upgrade from 11.04 and got message 'ubuntu-minimal' not found (affects: 2) (heat: 12)" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/873576
[23:05] <hggdh> penguin42: no, looks like desktop. Interesting. I wonder if this was reported on the ISO testing
[23:06] <hggdh> ubuntu-minimal *is* in main, so...