[13:07] <lhw> hey guys. i need somebody to nominate https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1023197 for 12.04. whom should i talk too about this? logan does not provide any contact information
[13:07] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 1023197 in s2tc "Sync s2tc 0~git20110809-3 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided,Fix released]
[13:07] <lhw> well he has a freenode nick in his profile but i havent caught him online yet. and whois doesnt show nay information
[14:07] <LoT> who here is actually alive and willing to test a bug for me
[14:15] <LoT> this bug was referenced on Ask Ubuntu, but I've confirmed "Not a Bug" in 12.04, as `/etc/rc.local` is run absolutely correctly in every instance (I have 60 different test rc.locals, so...)  micahg, how do you think this one should be handled (its marked as "Incomplete" now)?  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sysvinit/+bug/882254
[14:15] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 882254 in sysvinit "/etc/rc.local is not executed at startup " [Undecided,Incomplete]
[14:17] <micahg> LoT: just leave it as incomplete (confirming things work is great, that means we don't know of a bug, but doesn't mean one doesn't exist), it'll expire in due time if untouched
[14:18] <micahg> it seems like an edge case to begin with
[14:22] <LoT> micahg: i agree, shoudl I comment i've confirmed it works as expected in 60 different cases?
[14:22]  * LoT has WAY too much time on his hands to confirm/refute bugs today
[14:22] <LoT> (that will reset the expiry timer though)
[14:25] <micahg> hrm, last comment was about a month ago
[14:26] <LoT> micahg: indeed, this was *just referenced* in an Ask Ubuntu question about... oh...
[14:26] <LoT> 45 minutes ago
[14:26] <LoT> so...\
[14:27] <LoT> not sure whether I should reference this bug was dredged back up on Ask Ubuntu and I ran tests which showed that rc.local runs correctly.
[14:27] <micahg> LoT: I think that it's understood that it works for most people,, but some still have the issue, so more information from them would probably be helpful if it exists
[14:27] <LoT> (or rather as is expected for that file during bootup)
[14:27] <LoT> indeed, i'll leave it be
[14:27] <micahg> LoT: that was mentioned in comment 14 already
[14:27] <LoT> i'll comment on the question that dredged it up on Ask Ubuntu though
[14:27] <micahg> that makes senes
[14:27] <micahg> *sense
[14:33] <LoT> mhm.  you know, i should write an extended post there about 'How to determine whether a bug listed on launchpad is really is a bug?'
[14:33] <LoT> include that 'Bugs identified as "Incomplete" are not able to be confirmed or are missing information, or rather could be an edge-case instance of functionality not working"
[14:33] <LoT> or something.
[14:34] <LoT> micahg: i also think that bugsquad/bugcontrol representatives should host a classroom session about bugs, sort of like a "Bugs 101" day or something, where we go and help educate the community about bugs and answer general questions about how we work... but that's my opinion.  should i start a discussion on that on the bugsquad mailing list?
[14:35] <micahg> sure, would be a great Ubuntu User day session
[14:35] <LoT> coincidentially, pleia2 and i were discussing that during Ubuntu User Days xD
[14:36] <LoT> during the community roundtable xD
[14:36] <LoT> now where'd that draft go...
[14:36] <LoT> DAMN YOU GMAIL FOR BEING STUPID
[14:36] <LoT> apparently they dont save drafts data
[14:36] <LoT> they *used* to
[14:37]  * LoT wrote up a two page email about this yesterday before leaving work, and now gmail forgot about it
[14:41] <LoT> micahg: do bugcontrol people monitor the bugsquad mailing list as well as the bugcontrol mailing list?
[14:41] <LoT> or should I just add the bugcontrol list as a CC
[14:43] <micahg> well, some are subscribed to both, I don't have exact stats
[14:43] <LoT> might as well CC the bugcontrol mailing list while i'm at it, then.
[14:44] <LoT> i know i'm subscribed to both, but i'm subscribed to a lot of mailing lists :P
[14:45] <LoT> micahg: i've sent out the email, feel free to comment :)
[14:45] <LoT> eesh, PHP is memory-hungry... *walks off to address broken PHP*
[15:15] <lhw> so nobody here who can nominate a bug or knows whom to contact?
[15:16] <LoT> hm?
[15:16] <LoT> lhw: out of curiosity which bug?
[15:16] <lhw> i asked that a few hours back
[15:16] <LoT> lhw i wasnt here a few hours back
[15:16] <LoT> so therefore i have a right to ask
[15:16] <LoT> which bug :)
[15:16] <lhw> okay wait a moment
[15:16] <lhw> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1023197
[15:16] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 1023197 in s2tc "Sync s2tc 0~git20110809-3 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided,Fix released]
[15:16] <LoT> looks like this was done?
[15:16] <LoT> that only gets synced to Quantal
[15:16] <LoT> you'd have to backport or SRU to get into Precise or earlier
[15:17] <LoT> micahg could easily explain that process
[15:17] <lhw> thats what i mean
[15:17] <LoT> especially since micah's a MOTU
[15:17] <LoT> that's a separate procedure and bug thing though
[15:17] <LoT> lhw: where did you want that to end up in, Precise?
[15:17] <lhw> according to the wiki i need someone to nominate the bug then subscribe ubuntu-sru
[15:17] <lhw> yes
[15:17]  * LoT opens the source package
[15:18] <lhw> the current version in precise has a severe multiarch bug
[15:18] <LoT> im...
[15:18] <LoT> um...
[15:18] <LoT> the SRU team is already subscribed
[15:18] <lhw> yeah i did that earlier
[15:18] <LoT> *they* should be the ones to target the bug to Precise
[15:19] <LoT> at least IMO
[15:20] <lhw> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure step 3 says someone needs to nominate the bug
[15:21] <lhw> whom should i contact about this?
[15:21] <LoT> hang on a sec
[15:21] <LoT> lhw: ScottK is on the SRU team, should be able to help you
[15:21] <ScottK> What's the question?
[15:21] <LoT> ScottK: Context: LP Bug 1023197
[15:21] <lhw> the article about bug supervisors is not helpful btw
[15:21] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1023197 in s2tc "Sync s2tc 0~git20110809-3 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1023197
[15:21] <LoT> apparently this is now SRU'd?
[15:21] <ScottK> lhw: I just joined, so I've got no context.
[15:22] <LoT> ScottK: he wants the aforementioned bug to be targetted to Precise for SRU-ing
[15:22]  * ScottK looks.
[15:22] <LoT> i may be on bugcontrol, but the system won't let me target bugs to Precise or any other release
[15:23]  * LoT isnt sure why
[15:23] <ScottK> Seems like the one you want to target is Bug #1012266 .
[15:23] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1012266 in s2tc "amd64 and i386 version uses same /etc/alternative and conflicts" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1012266
[15:23] <ScottK> That's the actual problem.
[15:23] <LoT> lhw: ^
[15:24] <ScottK> I did that one.
[15:24] <ScottK> Someone will need to prepare an upload, get it sponsored, etc.
[15:24] <LoT> ScottK: sorry to pull you in from whatever you were doing, just wanted someone on SRU team to help out here :P
[15:24]  * LoT returns to silently sifting through bugs
[15:24] <LoT> W 3
[15:24] <LoT> UGH irssi
[15:25] <lhw> well i committed the fix to debian a while ago but bug reports kept popping up on launchpad. so i thought this probably should get fixed sometime
[15:26] <ScottK> The process is to make a debdiff targetting precise-proposed (I'd version it Sync s2tc 0~git20110809-2.1) and then subscribe ubuntu-sponsors to the bug.
[15:27] <ScottK> lhw: ^^^ will get it in the queue to get uploaded and fixed in precise.
[15:27]  * ScottK has to go.
[16:14] <lhw> okay i did that. lets see how it turns out
[21:54] <TheLordOfTime> where're crash reports sent to again?  I know they're bugcontrol restricted, but still
[21:55] <micahg> no where AFAIK, there's just a launchpad team subscribed
[21:58] <hggdh> micahg, TheLordOfTime: actually, https://errors.ubuntu.com
[21:58] <TheLordOfTime> yeah micahg misinterpreted what i said :P
[21:58] <TheLordOfTime> hggdh:  thanks
[21:58] <hggdh> yw
[21:58]  * TheLordOfTime knew it was $something.ubuntu.com, but forgot the something
[21:58] <hggdh> well, pretty much everything here is something.ubuntu.com...
[21:59] <TheLordOfTime> except LP bugs :P
[22:00] <TheLordOfTime> oh dear i found a bug in the sorting of the errors on errors.u.c
[22:00] <TheLordOfTime> and it relates to the >1000000 bugs we have
[22:01] <hggdh> heh
[22:01] <hggdh> open a bug on it :-)
[22:02] <TheLordOfTime> lol...
[22:02] <TheLordOfTime> its a bug i can work around, but still
[22:10] <TheLordOfTime> hggdh:  micahg:  how can you tell if a package is unmaintained?
[22:13] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: hrm?  Ubuntu doesn't have maintainers, most packages are maintained in Debian
[22:13] <TheLordOfTime> micahg:  that's what i meant by "unmaintained" whether here or there, how do you tell if a package is abandoned aka "unmaintained"
[22:14] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: well, if there are RC bugs open in Debian for more than a month, that's a pretty good sign, but that might also depend on the bug
[22:15] <hggdh> TheLordOfTime: this would apply mostly for Universe packages -- main packages always have a maintainer (in Debian)
[22:15] <hggdh> and UBuntu
[22:16] <hggdh> also a good indicator is http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/orphaned
[22:16] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: is there a specific package?
[22:16] <TheLordOfTime> micahg:  sort of, but apparently its an instance where i need to go yell at someone for using ancient hardy-era software :P
[22:17] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: I still have a hardy package on one of my machines since it was dropped from the archive
[22:17] <TheLordOfTime> micahg:  someone's using knetworkmanager which was dropped since hardy
[22:17] <TheLordOfTime> they're on precise
[22:17] <TheLordOfTime> no clue how its still existent
[22:18] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: why not?  packages aren't removed on upgrade unless there's a conflict of some sort
[22:19]  * TheLordOfTime shrugs
[22:19] <TheLordOfTime> just sayin
[22:20] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: that's just a transitional package for network-manager-kde
[22:21] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: what's the problem?
[22:21] <TheLordOfTime> micahg:  private issue, not one occurring on IRC
[22:21]  * TheLordOfTime didnt realize knetworkmanager was dropped after Hardy until he checked LP
[22:22] <micahg> TheLordOfTime: rmadison is a nice tool