[00:00] <ojwb> "report bug" led me to a pile of wiki pages telling me stuff about reporting bugs which I didn't really want to be told
[00:01] <lifeless> ah yes
[00:01] <lifeless> this is our 'only folk with the magic key can report bugs' feature.
[00:01] <ajmitch> yeah, the suggested way is to use ubuntu-bug
[00:01] <lifeless> </me waxes lyrical>
[00:01] <lifeless> [its not a feature]
[00:02] <ojwb> ftr, passing -oAPT::Immediate-Configure=off  to apt-get seemed to make it work
[00:02] <ajmitch> oh, one of those nasty bugs
[00:03] <ojwb> i poked it for a bit and then it moaned about python2.7-minimal and pointed me to that section of man 5 apt.conf
[00:03] <ajmitch> something like https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-defaults/+bug/990740 ?
[00:03] <ojwb> lifeless: I can see that it's good to make sure people are clued up a bit before filing a bug
[00:04] <lifeless> ojwb: nah, thats the story.
[00:04] <lifeless> ojwb: the reality is that we should be pointing folk at a forums/stackexchange /style/ site.
[00:04] <ojwb> don't point me there!
[00:04] <lifeless> ojwb: and have folk who have demonstrated cred there have a push-button converter to escalate a thread/post into a defect report.
[00:04] <lifeless> seamlessly.
[00:04] <ajmitch> apport does point people to askubuntu.com, askubuntu people point bug reports back to LP
[00:05] <ajmitch> noone really wants to handle those reports that just don't have enough info
[00:05] <lifeless> That would let J Random file a 'bug', have it get peer-nondev support and peer-dev support, and become a bug in the developers workflow, without the current piss-off-hurdles.
[00:05] <lifeless> ajmitch: the problem is that apport only gathers useful data in a small % of cases anyhow.
[00:05] <ojwb> ajmitch: yes, that looks like it
[00:06] <ojwb> I ended up upgrading with dist-upgrade, but only because do-release-upgrade gave up...
[00:07] <ojwb> btw, is there a way to make do-release-upgrade less needy for user input
[00:07] <ojwb> ?
[00:07] <ajmitch> debconf questions, or conffile prompts?
[00:08] <ojwb> kind of annoying that I have to use it and can't make it just get on with it, which I could if I could use dist-upgrade
[00:08] <ojwb> stuff like "I'm going to remove these packages"
[00:08] <ojwb> and "I've disabled your unofficial repos"
[00:08] <lifeless> do-release-upgrade -y ?
[00:08] <lifeless> (I'm guessing, it may not exist)
[00:09] <ajmitch> it only has -q, no -y in --help
[00:09] <ojwb> indeed
[00:09] <ojwb> -q doesn't do much at all
[00:10] <ojwb> and is only listed in --help, not the man page
[00:10] <ojwb> and --help doesn't say what it does
[00:10] <ojwb> though --quiet is a strong hint
[00:10] <ojwb> do-release-upgrade: error: no such option: -y
[00:11] <ojwb> i set the debconf priority to critical, so it isn't that
[00:11] <ojwb> a few of the questions are about conf files, so those are fair enough
[00:11] <ojwb> though I should find a way to make it pick the right answer automatically really
[00:11] <ojwb> but those certainly aren't do-release-upgrade's fault
[00:11]  * ajmitch needs to grab lunch, pity it requires going outside into the cold
[00:12] <mwhudson> ahh, i haven't had to deal with debconf lately
[00:12] <mwhudson> just another reason to be happy
[00:24] <ojwb> it does at least allow you to address these issues
[00:25]  * ojwb adds a comment to the existing bug about the level of interactivity during upgrades
[00:26] <mwhudson> i was thinking more from the packager side
[00:30] <ojwb> dunno, seems better than having to write the code to ask such questions yourself
[01:04] <chilts> so in theory, we should be able to directly upgrade LTS to LTS (once 12.04.1 comes along)?
[01:04] <chilts> I never knew that, always thought you had to upgrade each to the next
[01:06] <ajmitch> chilts: yes, it's always been that way with LTS releases (in theory)
[01:09] <chilts> righto, cool ... in which case, I may just upgrade this machine instead of re-installing (which is what I usually do)
[01:10]  * ajmitch tends to never reinstall
[01:11] <mwhudson> i managed to reinstall 32 bit rather than 64 bit last time :)
[01:11] <mwhudson> well, the time before last
[01:12] <mwhudson> the message you get when you run a amd64 binary on a 32 bit install is pretty odd
[01:13] <ajmitch> not entirely obvious?
[19:06] <ibeardslee> morning
[19:13] <ajmitch> morning
[19:16] <ibeardslee> how is that zatab going?
[19:44] <ajmitch> still using android on it, feels a little slow at times
[19:50] <ibeardslee> only a singe core isn't it?
[20:00] <chilts> morning
[20:10] <thomi> Morning all
[20:24] <ajmitch> ibeardslee: yeah, and you notice it at times :)
[20:33] <ibeardslee> I wonder with the number of cheap tablets about they are being shortsighted doing a single core
[20:36] <mwhudson> morning
[21:10] <thumper> morning
[21:10] <ojwb> morning
[21:17] <snail> people may (or may not) be interested in this role at the national library http://www.bfound.net/detail.aspx?jobId=106832&CoId=164&rq=2
[21:59] <kcj> Morning.
[22:05] <hads> morning