[00:05] <thinkndev> What does it mean when "Packaging Branch Status: OUT-OF-DATE" occurs when bzr-branching a project.
[15:25] <LoT> i think this page has some inconsistencies...
[15:25] <LoT> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses+
[15:25] <LoT> blejh
[15:25] <LoT> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses  <-- that
[15:25] <LoT> 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
[16:26] <bdmurray> LoT: fixing that wiki page thanks
[16:41] <hjd> 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] <hjd> 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] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 42775 in swscanner "swscanner tries to use kdesu, which is not installed" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/42775
[16:58] <hjd> 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] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 325263 in kq "KQ package very out of date." [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/325263
[17:18] <micahg> hjd: patches welcome
[17:18] <micahg> hjd: if the dev release is out of date, just tag upgrade-software-version, otherwise mark fix released and you can mention about backports if you like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] <hjd> 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] <hjd> s/was/could be/
[17:33] <micahg> 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] <hjd> ok, thanks.
[17:47] <hjd> 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] <ubot2> Debian bug 575739 in ftp.debian.org "RM: kq -- RoQA; contains undistributable content" [Normal,Open]
[17:50] <micahg> hjd: yeah, if someone cares about it, they should try to get it back into Debian with the licenses issues addressed
[17:54] <hjd> micahg: added a comment. Should I add "needs-packaging" tag as well?
[17:55] <micahg> hjd: sure, it could be converted to that
[17:59] <shakaran> what's the proper package for file a bug regarding to unity-newrelease-checker? unity?
[18:00] <micahg> which release is that?  that file doesn't seem to be in precise
[18:04] <shakaran> I don't where I get this. But apparently I have this on my laptop: http://pastebin.com/kUQawLye
[18:05] <shakaran> could be ubuntu-tweak or some app like that?
[18:05] <micahg> shakaran: dpkg -S /etc/xdg/autostart/unity-newrelease-checker.desktop
[18:05] <micahg> shakaran: ah, it says it's from the unity PPA, try #ubuntu-unity for help
[18:06] <shakaran> checkbox-unity: /etc/xdg/autostart/unity-newrelease-checker.deskto
[18:06] <shakaran> micahg: ok thanks, I will try there ;)
[18:06] <micahg> shakaran: maybe not
[18:07] <micahg> shakaran: apt-cache policy checkbox-unity will tell you where it comes from
[18:07] <shakaran> pretty weird http://pastebin.com/LJqMU8cY
[18:07] <micahg> awesome :)
[18:08] <shakaran> scary
[18:08] <micahg> anyways, someone in the other channel might know more
[18:09] <shakaran> ok, I will try there
[19:12] <shakaran> 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] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 626214 in apport "TypeError: add_info() takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given)" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[19:15] <shakaran> 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)
[20:17] <gareth_> 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] <gareth_> LP: #981062
[20:22] <micahg> 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] <gareth_> 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] <micahg> gareth_: yeah, that's what I mean
[20:25] <micahg> 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] <micahg> gareth_: you've done the hard part already :)
[20:29] <gareth_> 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] <micahg> gareth_: yeah, with a proper debdiff you can throw it in the sponsorship queue
[20:30] <gareth_> micahg: Thanks - I'll give that a go then.