[00:05] <penguin42> how do we mark kernel bugs that trigger during installation so that the reporter doesn't get hastled to try latest mainline kernels etc?
[00:13] <Logan_> Can somebody change the status of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jockey/+bug/804662 to "Confirmed" (and remove the assigned person)?
[00:13] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 804662 in jockey "jockey-gtk crashed with TypeError in _execute_child(): execv() arg 2 must contain only strings" [Undecided,Fix released]
[00:13] <Logan_> It was incorrectly marked as Fix Released by a newbie, and someone assigned it to himself randomly, and I can't change the values back.
[00:14]  * penguin42 looks
[00:18] <penguin42> I can't figure out wth is going on with that bug - it seems like loads of people who are newish have changed the assignment on it or changed the state
[00:19] <Logan_> Yeah...
[00:20] <Logan_> It's really frustrating, as it's a major bug, and having it marked as Fix Released/Committed is essentially hiding it from the developers.
[00:20] <hggdh> some bugs get to be a strange attractor
[00:21]  * Logan_ just applied for the the BugSquad. :-P
[00:21] <penguin42> hggdh: I'm just wondering if it's some form of spam type thing - I can't see why there are so many changes of status, all from people who aren't members of any groups, and who have 0 karma and are recent joiners
[00:21] <Logan_> Probably a language/knowledge barrier on Launchpad.
[00:22] <Logan_> People get sent to the bug via apport, and then they assign it to themselves because they know no better. :-P
[00:22] <Logan_> (Can't figure out the status changes, though.)
[00:23] <hggdh> yeah
[00:23] <hggdh> penguin42: perhaps we should mark it triaged
[00:24] <penguin42> hggdh: Not sure - is it understood?
[00:24] <penguin42> hggdh: I'm going to flag it to the bug-control list
[00:24] <hggdh> I do not know, and I do not think so (TL;DR)
[00:25] <Logan_> Want me to explain the bug? :-P
[00:25] <hggdh> nah, let's keep it confirmed. I think the attractor is the video drive
[00:25] <hggdh> Logan_: no ;-) I do not deal with video in any form, colour, or type
[00:26] <Logan_> Okay.
[00:26] <Logan_> How long does it take to be accepted to the BugSquad?
[00:26] <Logan_> Just applied; I'd love to help out.
[00:27] <hggdh> Logan_: takes about 2 minutes ;-)
[00:27] <Logan_> Haha.
[00:28] <hggdh> Logan_: welcome to the BugSquad, and all that. Please do not hesitate in asking questions here, we strive to help
[00:28] <penguin42> welcome on board!
[00:28] <Logan_> Thanks!
[00:28]  * Logan_ adds this channel to his favorites.
[00:29]  * hggdh goes monitor the TV for the destruction around
[00:29] <hggdh> see you all tomorrow
[00:30] <penguin42> yeh, and it's 1:30am here - so bed time!
[00:30] <penguin42> I've flagged that bug to the bugcontrol list
[09:57] <jcdutton> Question: bug#973161     Does anyone know which package it should be against? It is a problem with the left hand icon bar when in auto hide mode
[10:17] <hjd> Would anyone mind if I reopen bug 973206? It consistently crash on Precise when you attempt to run it.
[10:17] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 973206 in gmorgan "gmorgan crashed with SIGSEGV in fclose()" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/973206
[10:19] <arand> Sounds reasonable, are you able to get the debug info with updated debug symols?
[10:28] <jcdutton> arand, surely to get that, you would need a non-stripped dbg version of gmorgan?
[10:29] <hjd> fwiw, I tried https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProgramCrash, but I didn't find a dbgsym package for gmorgan..
[10:30] <arand> Ah, indeed, it doesn't create one :(
[10:30] <arand> SO also report a bug on that ;)
[10:31] <arand> But anyhow, if it does crash reproducibly, I'd still say to re-open the bug report.
[10:31] <jcdutton> arand, I like that, report a bug because there is not enough information to fix another bug!
[10:32] <hjd> and where would I file that one? To gmorgan as well "Please provide a debug package"?
[10:32] <jcdutton> arand, I opened a similar bug report, but for 64bit
[10:32] <arand> hjd: Yeah.
[10:34] <jcdutton> Which package provides the icon bar on the left had side of unity?
[10:50] <hjd> arand: done. Reopened + filed bug 973282 about the debug package.
[10:50] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 973282 in gmorgan "Please provide a debug package for gmorgan" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/973282
[12:03] <erkan^> hello, is someone there?
[12:03] <erkan^> !971539
[12:03] <ubot2> Factoid '971539' not found
[12:03] <erkan^> huh?
[12:04] <erkan^> https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox-extensions/+bug/971539
[12:04] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 971539 in firefox-extensions "ProfileManager" [Undecided,New]
[13:15] <bcurtiswx> good morning
[16:47] <matthew-parlette> I'm looking at bug 972620. I know I recently saw the same error message come through in a bug but I can't seem to find it. Has anyone seen a bug like this?
[16:47] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 972620 in ubiquity "Vitual machine crashed while trying to install Ubuntu 11.10 32-bit on my Win 7 professional machine" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/972620
[16:47] <matthew-parlette> Specifically the OSError: [Errno 17]
[17:46] <penguin42> is there a bug tag for bugs that are trivially repeatable?
[17:48] <roadmr> penguin42: if it has a good set of steps to reproduce you can tag it "testcase" (I think)
[17:49] <roadmr> penguin42: no difference between trivial (1. launch program X, 2. watch it crash and burn) and more complicated sequences of steps, if this is what you mean
[17:49] <penguin42> ah testcase sounds good
[17:49] <roadmr> penguin42: yes, once you have steps to reproduce all bugs are potentially trivially repeatable :)
[17:50] <penguin42> roadmr: Well it's just some are very very simple and don't require any setup or anything like that, it's just 'run this command and it goes bang'
[17:50] <roadmr> penguin42: I see, I'd still just use testcase for them
[17:50] <penguin42> ko, thanks
[17:50] <penguin42> ok even
[17:53]  * roadmr gets knocked out by penguin42 X(
[17:53] <roadmr> heheh
[17:53] <penguin42> :-)
[18:05] <penguin42> bug 968753 is piling up a few dupes - can't remember seeing a crasher like that for ssh for a long time
[18:05] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 968753 in openssh "ssh crashed with SIGSEGV" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/968753
[18:14] <hjd> Hm, I wonder whether I should mark bug 926605 as a duplicate of bug 824708? They are triggered in completely different ways, but looks like they would have the same underlying cause.
[18:14] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 926605 in aptitude "aptitude: failed to download the changlog of apt: Download queue destroyed." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/926605
[18:14] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 824708 in aptitude "Changelog download failed: Download queue destroyed." [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/824708
[18:44] <hjd> Could someone please mark bug 688769 as Triaged/Low? Thanks.
[18:44] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 688769 in synaptic "Cannot select previous search terms from the dropdown to repeat a search" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/688769
[18:50] <s9iper1> hjd: s9iper1 looks
[18:52] <s9iper1> hjd: done
[19:01] <penguin42> anyone have a Debian sid system around to try something on?
[19:03] <greg-g> just a wheezy
[19:03] <penguin42> yeh I wanted to try it on altest to see if it suffers from the same as the ubuntu build
[19:19] <hjd> s9iper1: thank you.
[19:19] <s9iper1> hjd: yw
[19:41] <jtaylor> penguin42: which package?
[19:41] <penguin42> jtaylor: sipcalc - I've got to the bottom of the bug - see bug 973602
[19:41] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 973602 in sipcalc "sipcalc crashed with SIGABRT in __libc_message()" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/973602
[19:43] <jtaylor> sid works
[19:43] <penguin42> jtaylor: Thanks; I think it's probably only our builds with fortify that are failing
[19:44] <penguin42> jtaylor: What package version is in sid?
[19:44] <jtaylor> 1.1.4-2.1
[19:44] <jtaylor> though I only tried a chroot
[19:44] <jtaylor> not sure what that package does
[19:44] <penguin42> nod
[19:45] <penguin42> jtaylor: It does some ip address calculation by the looks of it, I'm sure I've heard of people using it
[19:45] <jtaylor> let me still check in a real sid
[19:45] <penguin42> jtaylor: It looks like an easy fix, but the original author released a new version about 3 years ago with it fixed, it seems that would be the right thing to use (1.1.5)
[19:45] <jtaylor> also fails in precise chroot so probably sid not affected
[19:46] <penguin42> jtaylor: Nod
[19:46] <penguin42> jtaylor: I was triaging it on Precise
[19:57] <penguin42> jtaylor: I'm not really sure what to do with that bug now, best thing is to say that it just needs the package updating
[20:15] <jtaylor> penguin42: given the small change I think its resonable to just update to the new upstream