[06:26] <dnivra> hello. I think I might have found a bug in ubuntu but not sure which package it is. http://paste.ubuntu.com/856200/ says it all. installing openjdk-6-jdk solves the issue.
[07:41] <andol> dnivra: Not sure I see where the bug is? You try to run a program (jdb) which you currently don't have installed, and Ubuntu suggests which packages you can install to provide that program? Am I missing something? How should Ubuntu have behaved otherwise?
[07:41] <dnivra> andol: it gives a wrong suggestion-the second one was already installed.
[07:42] <andol> dnivra: Ahh, now I see it, thanks.
[07:43] <dnivra> np. glad I could help out.
[07:43] <dnivra> which package is it a bug in? just in case i find similar bugs.
[07:45] <dnivra> andol: ^^
[08:16] <roignac> dnivra: this should be 'command-not-found' package
[08:16] <andol> dnivra: Well, the suggestion comes from the package command-not-found, but part of me wonders if there might be something more complicated going on due to separate java environments related to if other openjdk6 or openjdk7 packages are installed, or something in that direction, or it is really a trivial bug, I don't know.
[08:41] <dnivra> andol: well I did it again-just to be sure. i removed all installed jdk's and other java compilers/interpreters and JDK/JRE installed. i installed openjdk-7-jdk and the issue is no longer existent. it works fine :|
[08:42] <dnivra> i am ablet to run jdb and this is the output of 'jdb -version' is 'This is jdb version 1.6 (Java SE version 1.7.0_147-icedtea)'
[08:42] <dnivra> weird :|
[08:47] <dnivra> i just noticed something else: why does openjdk6 get installed when I install openjdk7? isn't openjdk7 sufficient to compile and run java programs? http://paste.ubuntu.com/856286/ for more.
[09:01] <dnivra> I don't mind using up a few more MB for jdk6 but someone might. there's another issue though! installing jdk7 creates incompatible defaults: http://paste.ubuntu.com/856299/. This issue is because the compiler is from JDK7 but interpreter is from JDK6!
[16:04] <hggdh> dnivra_: 'update-alternatives' sets which installed Java is to be used by default. If you do not override by giving out an absolute path to java, the right thing will always be done
[16:05] <hggdh> actually, 'update-alternatives' is used for a lot of things
[16:51] <hggdh> dnivra_: additionally: Oracle Java is no longer distributed with Ubuntu, Oracle cancelled/did not renew the distribution licence
[17:01] <hjd> In the case of bugs triggering seg faults, is there a way to send a crashlog to an existing bug? Since a crashreport contains more information of the crash I want to add that, but the best idea I've come up with so far is to file a new bug with the crash log, then mark the old one as a duplicate.
[17:24] <penguin42> hjd: apport-collect bugnumber
[17:25] <penguin42> hjd: That'll add all the logs it thinks are appropriate for that log; if you have a separate backtrace or log you think is appropriate just add it as an attachment to the bug
[17:36] <hjd> penguin42: Thank you. :) But it didn't seem to add my crashlog? Bug 929210.
[17:36] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 929210 in jbofihe "jvocuhadju segfaults" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/929210
[17:37] <penguin42> sorry, I just rat-holed on wth is Lojban
[17:38] <hjd> I have to admit I know very little of it beyond the package description, but the segfault is reproducible at least :p
[17:40] <penguin42> hjd: Hmm do you have a crash file in /var/crash file for it?
[17:46] <hjd> I have a _usr_bin_jvocuhadju.1000.crash
[17:48] <penguin42> I wonder if apport-cli --update-bug=929210 that.crashfile
[17:48] <penguin42> will do it?
[17:54] <hjd> penguin42: still didn't seem to add anything useful.
[17:55] <hjd> I wonder if the best might be to simply file a new bug report and copy over the description from this one.
[17:55] <penguin42> yeh probably best - have you installed the debug package?
[17:57] <hjd> penguin42:  jbofihe doesn't seem to have a debug package, so I am not sure what you mean? :)
[17:59] <penguin42> hjd: There is a ddebs repository with packages debug symbols in, I've got that and I can install a jbofihe-dbgsym package
[18:00] <penguin42> hmm although confusingly it doesn't seem to have helped gdb
[18:01]  * penguin42 gently wonders howmany other commands have 2 j's in
[18:02] <hjd> I wasn't aware of that. Is this an offical repository?
[18:02] <hjd> official, even
[18:02] <penguin42> Yeh, see: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProgramCrash
[18:10] <hjd> penguin42: ok, so install the debug package, run the command and file a bug as normal?
[18:12] <penguin42> hjd: So you should find a jbofihe-dbgsym package you can install if you've set up the ddebs
[18:14] <hjd> penguin42: yes, I've installed it.
[18:15] <penguin42> right, so now when it tries to do a backtrace it should get a little more info
[18:16] <hjd> ok, so just file the automatic report when apport detects the crash?
[18:17] <penguin42> yeh that should append the backtrace from the crash file (or at least I thought it should)
[18:20] <hjd> penguin42: bug 941041
[18:20] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 941041 in jbofihe "jvocuhadju crashed with SIGSEGV in __libc_start_main()" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/941041
[18:22] <penguin42> the backtrace is unfortunately pretty useless - hmm
[18:24] <Ampelbein> penguin42: It's not retraced yet.
[18:24] <hjd> I'm marking the older bug as a duplicate of this now, unless someone has a better idea.
[18:29] <penguin42> Ampelbein: I can't get a useful backtrace from it even with gdb locally - very easy to reproduce though
[18:39] <Ampelbein> oh, yeah. upstream strips the binaries in their Makefile.
[18:39] <penguin42> it's a bit surreal - the comments are in english but with random Lujvo words thrown in
[18:39] <penguin42> Ampelbein: I've just added a backtrace
[18:40]  * penguin42 thinks it might just be a case of not coping with no input
[18:42] <penguin42> It looks like there is a 3 dimentional 'r' array where the 1st element is indexed by an element out of the c array, and the c array looks like it's initialised for nt elements, where nt is something like the number of words passed in, but it still uses c[0] if nothing is passed in and it's got junk in
[18:44] <penguin42> probably best left to someone who understands Lujvo
[18:46] <penguin42> I'll send a mail to the author, although 2 of the 3 pages referenced in the manual page are dead
[18:48] <hjd> For the future, should I simply file a new bug if the original one doesn't contain backtrace/etc from apport? Since it seemed rather hard to add it afterwards.
[18:49] <Ampelbein> hjd: New bug, let apport retrace then (if retrace is good) dupe the old one to your new one with a comment.
[18:50] <Ampelbein> penguin42: http://paste.ubuntu.com/856859/ looks like it could need a simple check that len(argv)>1 and error out if not.
[18:50] <hjd> ok, thanks for your help.
[18:52] <penguin42> Ampelbein: Yeh, or if words == wp just before the call to makelujvo to take account if an option is passed but no words
[18:54] <Ampelbein> Yes, but I agree on your comment tha the project looks pretty dead.
[18:55] <hjd> Something completely different: bug 931517 is clearly caused by bug 919671, but I am not sure whether it would be right to mark it as a duplicate.
[18:55] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 931517 in condor "condor can not be installed on ubuntu 12.04 precise (unmet dependency)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/931517
[18:55] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 919671 in condor "Please remove condor from ubuntu precise" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/919671
[18:56] <penguin42> Ampelbein: I mean huh, a parser for lojban words but they've not even translated libreoffice into Lojban yet :-)
[18:57] <penguin42> hjd: Generally leave 'special' bugs like ones to remove things alone - although perhaps add a comment to point it at the other one
[19:04]  * hjd added a comment to bug  931517
[19:04] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 931517 in condor "condor can not be installed on ubuntu 12.04 precise (unmet dependency)" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/931517
[19:14] <Yosique> \o/
[19:16] <Yosique> Somebody got the same problem/bug when minimized a terminal or other app it just running background and disappeard out off Gnome? \o/
[19:18] <Yosique> Oh, @ Ubuntu 12.04
[19:18] <dlentz> Yosique, you mean gnome-shell?
[19:18] <Yosique> The GUI Terminal.
[19:18] <Yosique> \o/
[19:18] <Yosique> Bash.
[19:19] <dlentz> you said "disappeared off gnome"..
[19:19] <Yosique> Ye its running in the background but im not able to recover the window
[19:19] <Yosique> After minimized
[19:20] <dlentz> have you reported as a bug?
[19:20] <Yosique> I got the same problem with Chrome browser.
[19:20] <Yosique> o/
[19:20] <Yosique> Nope.
[19:20] <Yosique> Lets do that.
[19:20] <Yosique> But maybe someone already reported the bug
[19:20] <Yosique> \o/
[19:20] <Yosique> So thats why i came to ask.
[19:24] <dlentz> i don't see any recent gnome-shell reports that report anything like that
[19:57] <penguin42> it's amazing how many really scary glib/gtk/gdk warnings pretty much every gtk app spews out