[00:05] What does it mean when "Packaging Branch Status: OUT-OF-DATE" occurs when bzr-branching a project. === zyga is now known as zyga-afk === Jikan is now known as Jikai === Jikai is now known as Jikan === Jikan is now known as Jikai === zyga-afk is now known as zyga === Jikai is now known as Jikan === rsalveti` is now known as rsalveti === Ursinha` is now known as Ursinha === zyga is now known as zyga-food === zyga-food is now known as zyga [15:25] i think this page has some inconsistencies... [15:25] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses+ [15:25] blejh [15:25] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses <-- that [15:25] The file referred to for editing if these responses are edited on the wiki doesn't exist, so therefore not all responses can be edited or exist [15:26] * LoT plans to update the ubuntu-qa-tools branch later, when his linux system is back on a network connection === zyga_ is now known as zyga === zyga is now known as zyga-afk [16:26] LoT: fixing that wiki page thanks [16:41] Anything special one should do with bugs belonging to packages since removed from Ubuntu? (I'm marking two duplicates and wonder whether I should mention that the package is removed in newer releases or something.) [16:43] * Elbrus doesn't know for sure, but he would comment in the bug something mentioning the fact and would search for a status that would cause the bug to be archived if not worth a SRU [16:48] Bug 42775 fwiw. Based on one of the duplicates still present in lucid, so while I wouldn't bet on it, I suppose it might still get fixed... [16:48] Launchpad bug 42775 in swscanner "swscanner tries to use kdesu, which is not installed" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/42775 [16:58] What about bug reports requesting newer versions in packages which has been removed, like bug 325263? Should these simply be converted to needs-packaging bugs? [16:58] Launchpad bug 325263 in kq "KQ package very out of date." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/325263 [17:18] hjd: patches welcome [17:18] hjd: if the dev release is out of date, just tag upgrade-software-version, otherwise mark fix released and you can mention about backports if you like [17:31] micahg: Well, that's what I'd normally do, though in the cases I've found it seems like the package was removed from the repository before it was upgraded... [17:31] s/was/could be/ [17:33] hjd: ok, then if it makes sense, it can be converted to a needs-packaging bug (i.e. upstream still alive and making releases), otherwise, it's invalid or won't fix [17:38] ok, thanks. [17:47] Hm, it seems at least in KQ's case it was removed because it contained unlicensed content (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575739) I can leave a comment stating that, but I don't really know if I should touch the status. [17:47] Debian bug 575739 in ftp.debian.org "RM: kq -- RoQA; contains undistributable content" [Normal,Open] [17:50] hjd: yeah, if someone cares about it, they should try to get it back into Debian with the licenses issues addressed [17:54] micahg: added a comment. Should I add "needs-packaging" tag as well? [17:55] hjd: sure, it could be converted to that [17:59] what's the proper package for file a bug regarding to unity-newrelease-checker? unity? [18:00] which release is that? that file doesn't seem to be in precise [18:04] I don't where I get this. But apparently I have this on my laptop: http://pastebin.com/kUQawLye [18:05] could be ubuntu-tweak or some app like that? [18:05] shakaran: dpkg -S /etc/xdg/autostart/unity-newrelease-checker.desktop [18:05] shakaran: ah, it says it's from the unity PPA, try #ubuntu-unity for help [18:06] checkbox-unity: /etc/xdg/autostart/unity-newrelease-checker.deskto [18:06] micahg: ok thanks, I will try there ;) [18:06] shakaran: maybe not [18:07] shakaran: apt-cache policy checkbox-unity will tell you where it comes from [18:07] pretty weird http://pastebin.com/LJqMU8cY [18:07] awesome :) [18:08] scary [18:08] anyways, someone in the other channel might know more [18:09] ok, I will try there === zyga-afk is now known as zyga [19:12] I think that I get a exception inception error with apport just now with nautilus, could somebody check this? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/626214 [19:12] Ubuntu bug 626214 in apport "TypeError: add_info() takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given)" [Undecided,Confirmed] [19:15] micahg: I purge the checkbox-unity package and I seems solve the problem. The unity PPA is disabled, so I purge the PPA too (It seems that I add the PPA on lucid and it was disabled on 12.04, currently using now 12.10) === zyga is now known as zyga-afk [20:17] I'm attempting to get a patch into libgphoto2 on precise. I've attached a patch to the bug report and have also uploaded it to LP. What next? I'm a litte confused by all the various documentation! [20:18] LP: #981062 [20:22] gareth_: well, ideally, you'll want to test build to know if it fixes the issue, then create a debdiff with the patch included as a proper patch in debian/patches/ if appropriate, #ubuntu-desktop can help [20:23] micahg: I've built it on my machine and that has fixed the issue. Is that what you mean by 'test build' or is there more to it? [20:25] gareth_: yeah, that's what I mean [20:25] gareth_: so, if you ask in #ubuntu-desktop, maybe someone will just do the patch making for you or help you to create it [20:26] gareth_: you've done the hard part already :) [20:29] micahg: Good. So part one is done! I built it with pbuilder and installed the deb on my laptop and tested it. Can you confirm that I now need to build a debdiff and attach that to the bug? [20:30] gareth_: yeah, with a proper debdiff you can throw it in the sponsorship queue [20:30] micahg: Thanks - I'll give that a go then.