[16:38] <penguin42> is it safe to make bug 901675 public?  The logs look pretty harmless - they have auth= variables that point to the filename containing the auth, but I can't see the actual auth data anywhere
[16:38] <ubot4> penguin42: Error: Bug #901675 not found.
[16:38] <penguin42> bad bot!
[16:40] <Ampelbein> penguin42: Agree, looks safe.
[16:41] <penguin42> Thanks
[16:41] <penguin42> seems to be a common one
[16:42] <penguin42> It could be a python or xcb issue - but don't know enough about either to call it
[17:25] <yofel> penguin42: not bad bot, on private bugs he gets a 404, so "not found" is the only thing he can say
[17:26] <penguin42> yofel: I thought he used to say 'private' ?
[17:26] <yofel> yes, but LP was changed to return 404 instead of 403 at some point, not sure what the reason was
[17:27] <penguin42> ah
[17:27] <Ampelbein> IIRC it was a matter of non-disclosing the existence of a bug in a project
[17:33]  * penguin42 giggles at bug 907690 - a DoS in squid on Gopher servers - would the last user of a gopher server please stand up?
[17:33] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 907690 in squid3 (Ubuntu) "CVE-2011-3205: DoS (memory corruption and daemon restart) or remote Gopher servers. (affects: 1) (heat: 260)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/907690
[22:49] <bregma> I was going through the RFP list and found some bugs that request packaging for packages already in Ubuntu... what's the proper way to handle such bugs?
[22:52] <jtaylor> I'd say close them and maybe direct to backports if they want it in older distributions
[22:55] <micahg> yep, Fix Released, plus a note about backport
[22:57] <micahg> bregma: wait, RFP in Debian or needs-packaging in Ubuntu?
[22:59] <bregma> needs-packaging in Ubuntu
[22:59] <micahg> ah, ok, yea
[23:25] <bregma> does "close" mean mark as "invalid" or as "fixed released"?
[23:25] <micahg> bregma: fix released since it's actually in the archive and the task is known completed
[23:33] <bregma> thanks