/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/09/12/#ubuntu-bugs.txt

NoskcajCan someone help me with bug 1224292 ? It needs to affect all the packages listed at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fonts-liberation/+bug/1214777/comments/3 , then get fixed06:28
ubot2`Launchpad bug 1214777 in fonts-liberation (Ubuntu) "Sync fonts-liberation 1.07.2-7 (main) from Debian unstable (main)" [Undecided,Fix committed]06:28
ubot2`Launchpad bug 1224292 in xbmc (Ubuntu) "Complete transition from ttf-liberation" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/122429206:28
mariannehi, I'm currently on 12.04 but was thinking of going to 12.10. Is there a list of known issues for 12.10 out there somewhere?10:20
drussellmarianne: entirely up to you, but I'd suggest migrating at this point might not be the best time... once you leave 12.04, you'll need to be ideally chasing each minor release between now and 14.04...11:00
drussellmarianne: or you could stay on 12.04 until the release of 14.04 and just migrate straight to that11:01
tiborkeep 12.04 updated until next long term support is out11:01
drusselltibor: :o)11:01
tiborunless you really need some new features which arent available11:01
tiborfor servers you should stick for sure with long term support.. on desktop it depends how often  you like to reinstall the PC11:01
tiborin the office we use short term versions for development machines, but all servers are long term support11:02
mariannedrussell: thats what I was thinking, I'm a LTS person, but just wanted to confirm that I'm not missing something... just did a completely new install on new hardware and everything is working fine. I can totally wait till next year when the next LTS comes out.11:02
tiborfor our customers we isntall 12.04 long term support as office computers11:02
drussellmarianne: I'd say if you're generally happy with the way it's working, stick to 12.04 :o)11:03
mariannetibor: I wold love it if my company went with Ubuntu... but they are a MS shop and sometimes the issues I deal with in integration make me want to vomit11:03
mariannedrussell: I'll probably wait till 14.04 has been out a while before I upgrade. not a bleeding edge type of person for my personal machine11:05
drussellmarianne: makes perfect sense11:06
marianneThanks for the confirmation, guys, I appreciate it11:09
SavageWolfI take it I should report bugs where a program is trying to import foo.so rather than foo.so.1 or so?12:08
rbasakSavageWolf: sounds reasonable, though I have a suspicion that there's some edge case where that might be acceptable, but I can't put my finger on it. Depends on the details I guess?12:15
SavageWolfIt's due to the virtualGL thing that Bumblebee uses trying to import libturbojpeg.so rather than libturbojpeg.so.1. Though virtualGL is apparently from a PPA, so...12:18
yofelSavageWolf: import at build-time or run-time? At build time a symlink from libturbojpeg.so.1 to libturbojpeg.so should exist12:24
SavageWolfRun time.12:25
SavageWolf"error while loading shared libraries: libturbojpeg.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory"12:25
SavageWolfThey have a github thing for their build scripts/PPA, I guess I should report it there.12:26
yofelah, the ubuntu libjpegturbo package has 'libturbojpeg.so' while the debian libjpegturbo1 package has 'libjpegturbo.so.1' as they patchted the package to have versioned SO12:26
yofelsomeone probably mixed that12:27
yofelif libturbojpeg.so is missing then it's at least not an official ubuntu issue12:27
SavageWolfIn Raring, they changed to the Debian one.12:28
SavageWolf(Unneeded comma there)12:29
yofelah hm, not quite, but the saucy package ships /usr/lib/*/libturbojpeg.so.012:31
yofelnot sure what's done in raring as the package name doesn't follow the convention12:32
SavageWolfAnyway, I think I should report it here? https://github.com/Bumblebee-Project/bumblebee-ppa/12:32
yofelprobably, if they linked against the wrong lib it's their issue12:33
yofel(a rebuild will most likely fix that)12:33
SavageWolfOkay then, thanks for the help.12:33
SavageWolfIt's loaded at runtime.12:34
nickguletskiihi, I am not sure if this is the right place to ask, but what should I do if a bug is falsely marked as "fix released"?14:36
SavageWolfWhat do I file bugs against if they are due to system settings (on gconf or dconf or whatever it's called now) not working as they should?14:53
mitya57SavageWolf: usually depends on what setting it is, but gnome-control-center should be a good start14:55
SavageWolfIn my case, the "Modifier only" switch keyboard layout thing doesn't work correctly; it sets the actual value for org.gnome.desktop.input-sources current, and all the UI updates and stuff, but it changes the layout to UK English. Unless it should set it to UK English, in which case it sets it to US English.14:56
mitya57SavageWolf: I think it will only be fixed in GNOME 3.10, but there is some chance it is already fixed in 3.8 (Saucy), did you test that version?14:59
mitya57See i.e. gnome #64311114:59
ubot2`Gnome bug 643111 in general "allow using volume hardware keys / shortcuts to take screenshots in the overview" [Normal,Resolved: fixed] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64311115:00
SavageWolfI'm running Saucy now.15:00
mitya57Please file bug against gnome-control-center in any case, these bugs are usually quickly looked at.15:01
SavageWolfOr they'll go "Oh no, we didn't mean to leave that feature in, why do you think you should be allowed to change these settings! They are confusing!", as they seem to be doing nowadays.15:02
SavageWolfOkay, I'll file a bug there then.15:02
mitya57I meant against Ubuntu package, not against upstream.15:03
mitya57As I already said, it probably is fixed in current upstream trunk.15:04
SavageWolfAh, seems like the version of Gnome-control-centre I am using is the 3.8 one, since I have the "staging" PPA enabled.15:04
mitya57it's either #643111 or gnome #697008, probably the latter15:04
ubot2`Gnome bug 697008 in general "status/keyboard: Switch input source on special modifiers accelerator" [Normal,Resolved: fixed] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69700815:04
SavageWolfSo it's fixed upstream then?15:09
nickguletskiiI am not sure if this is the right place to ask, but what should I do if a bug is falsely marked as "fix released"?15:09
mitya57SavageWolf: I believe yes, If we are speaking about the same issue15:10
mitya57nickguletskii: what bug?15:10
hggdhnickguletskii: there are some options. One of them is to tell us about it -- and give the bug #15:10
nickguletskiihttps://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icu/+bug/99243915:10
ubot2`Launchpad bug 992439 in icu (Ubuntu) "libicu48 is not multiarch enabled" [Undecided,Fix released]15:10
nickguletskiiit's fixed in Quantal, but not in Precise15:10
jtaylorfix released means its fixed in the latest development version15:11
nickguletskiihmm15:11
jtayloryou can nominate it for earlier releases but I'm not sure multiarch changes are SRU material15:12
hggdhI just did15:12
hggdhI am not sure if multiarch is portable, but a better reasoning should be provided, apart from xnox stating is is fixed on quantal15:13
nickguletskiiwell, large libraries depend on it15:13
nickguletskiiit's not exactly a rarely used package15:14
hggdh(so it may be that the precise task will be closed WONTFIX)15:14
nickguletskiiokay, thank you15:14
nickguletskiithank you very much, bye :)15:14
hggdhnickguletskii: I am not discussing your need. But if the fix to this package would require work on hundreds of other packages, it may not be feasible15:15
hggdhheh. Sometimes I wonder why I bother to explain.15:15
SavageWolfMitya57, I'm not sure if it is the bug I am describing or not... I suck at reading. >_<15:17
SavageWolfI think that bug is only about keyboard shortcuts in general on things like the overview, while mine is about the "modifier only" setting, rather than the "normal keyboard shortcut" setting...15:21
SavageWolfAnyway, I need to go now.15:25
SavageWolf_I am back.15:49
SavageWolf_And have grown an underscore for some reason.15:49
SavageWolf_Anyway, may as well report this bug on Launchpad, maybe.15:51
SavageWolf_Uh, I'm using the gnome3-staging PPA, should I report a bug on that, or go upstream somewhere?15:52
mitya57SavageWolf_: you can't report bugs against PPAs, so please just file it against Ubuntu package16:00
SavageWolf_What do you mean?16:01
mitya57https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+filebug16:02
SavageWolf_But that version is an older version, and the bug probably won't be in it.16:03
SavageWolf_In fact I'm pretty sure the bug isn't in it because I only updated recently.16:03
mitya57SavageWolf_: if the bug is not present in normal ubuntu packages, please ask in #ubuntu-gnome then16:05
=== SavageWolf_ is now known as SavageWolf
SavageWolfOkay, thanks.16:07

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!