[06:28] <Noskcaj> Can 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 fixed
[06:28] <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/1224292
[10:20] <marianne> hi, 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?
[11:00] <drussell> marianne: 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...
[11:01] <drussell> marianne: or you could stay on 12.04 until the release of 14.04 and just migrate straight to that
[11:01] <tibor> keep 12.04 updated until next long term support is out
[11:01] <drussell> tibor: :o)
[11:01] <tibor> unless you really need some new features which arent available
[11:01] <tibor> for servers you should stick for sure with long term support.. on desktop it depends how often  you like to reinstall the PC
[11:02] <tibor> in the office we use short term versions for development machines, but all servers are long term support
[11:02] <marianne> drussell: 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] <tibor> for our customers we isntall 12.04 long term support as office computers
[11:03] <drussell> marianne: I'd say if you're generally happy with the way it's working, stick to 12.04 :o)
[11:03] <marianne> tibor: 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 vomit
[11:05] <marianne> drussell: 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 machine
[11:06] <drussell> marianne: makes perfect sense
[11:09] <marianne> Thanks for the confirmation, guys, I appreciate it
[12:08] <SavageWolf> I take it I should report bugs where a program is trying to import foo.so rather than foo.so.1 or so?
[12:15] <rbasak> SavageWolf: 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?
[12:18] <SavageWolf> It'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...
[12:24] <yofel> SavageWolf: import at build-time or run-time? At build time a symlink from libturbojpeg.so.1 to libturbojpeg.so should exist
[12:25] <SavageWolf> Run time.
[12:25] <SavageWolf> "error while loading shared libraries: libturbojpeg.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory"
[12:26] <SavageWolf> They have a github thing for their build scripts/PPA, I guess I should report it there.
[12:26] <yofel> ah, the ubuntu libjpegturbo package has 'libturbojpeg.so' while the debian libjpegturbo1 package has 'libjpegturbo.so.1' as they patchted the package to have versioned SO
[12:27] <yofel> someone probably mixed that
[12:27] <yofel> if libturbojpeg.so is missing then it's at least not an official ubuntu issue
[12:28] <SavageWolf> In Raring, they changed to the Debian one.
[12:29] <SavageWolf> (Unneeded comma there)
[12:31] <yofel> ah hm, not quite, but the saucy package ships /usr/lib/*/libturbojpeg.so.0
[12:32] <yofel> not sure what's done in raring as the package name doesn't follow the convention
[12:32] <SavageWolf> Anyway, I think I should report it here? https://github.com/Bumblebee-Project/bumblebee-ppa/
[12:33] <yofel> probably, if they linked against the wrong lib it's their issue
[12:33] <yofel> (a rebuild will most likely fix that)
[12:33] <SavageWolf> Okay then, thanks for the help.
[12:34] <SavageWolf> It's loaded at runtime.
[14:36] <nickguletskii> hi, 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"?
[14:53] <SavageWolf> What 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?
[14:55] <mitya57> SavageWolf: usually depends on what setting it is, but gnome-control-center should be a good start
[14:56] <SavageWolf> In 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.
[14:59] <mitya57> SavageWolf: 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] <mitya57> See i.e. gnome #643111
[15:00] <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=643111
[15:00] <SavageWolf> I'm running Saucy now.
[15:01] <mitya57> Please file bug against gnome-control-center in any case, these bugs are usually quickly looked at.
[15:02] <SavageWolf> Or 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] <SavageWolf> Okay, I'll file a bug there then.
[15:03] <mitya57> I meant against Ubuntu package, not against upstream.
[15:04] <mitya57> As I already said, it probably is fixed in current upstream trunk.
[15:04] <SavageWolf> Ah, 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] <mitya57> it's either #643111 or gnome #697008, probably the latter
[15:04] <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=697008
[15:09] <SavageWolf> So it's fixed upstream then?
[15:09] <nickguletskii> 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"?
[15:10] <mitya57> SavageWolf: I believe yes, If we are speaking about the same issue
[15:10] <mitya57> nickguletskii: what bug?
[15:10] <hggdh> nickguletskii: there are some options. One of them is to tell us about it -- and give the bug #
[15:10] <nickguletskii> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icu/+bug/992439
[15:10] <ubot2`> Launchpad bug 992439 in icu (Ubuntu) "libicu48 is not multiarch enabled" [Undecided,Fix released]
[15:10] <nickguletskii> it's fixed in Quantal, but not in Precise
[15:11] <jtaylor> fix released means its fixed in the latest development version
[15:11] <nickguletskii> hmm
[15:12] <jtaylor> you can nominate it for earlier releases but I'm not sure multiarch changes are SRU material
[15:12] <hggdh> I just did
[15:13] <hggdh> I am not sure if multiarch is portable, but a better reasoning should be provided, apart from xnox stating is is fixed on quantal
[15:13] <nickguletskii> well, large libraries depend on it
[15:14] <nickguletskii> it's not exactly a rarely used package
[15:14] <hggdh> (so it may be that the precise task will be closed WONTFIX)
[15:14] <nickguletskii> okay, thank you
[15:14] <nickguletskii> thank you very much, bye :)
[15:15] <hggdh> nickguletskii: 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 feasible
[15:15] <hggdh> heh. Sometimes I wonder why I bother to explain.
[15:17] <SavageWolf> Mitya57, I'm not sure if it is the bug I am describing or not... I suck at reading. >_<
[15:21] <SavageWolf> I 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...
[15:25] <SavageWolf> Anyway, I need to go now.
[15:49] <SavageWolf_> I am back.
[15:49] <SavageWolf_> And have grown an underscore for some reason.
[15:51] <SavageWolf_> Anyway, may as well report this bug on Launchpad, maybe.
[15:52] <SavageWolf_> Uh, I'm using the gnome3-staging PPA, should I report a bug on that, or go upstream somewhere?
[16:00] <mitya57> SavageWolf_: you can't report bugs against PPAs, so please just file it against Ubuntu package
[16:01] <SavageWolf_> What do you mean?
[16:02] <mitya57> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+filebug
[16:03] <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.
[16:05] <mitya57> SavageWolf_: if the bug is not present in normal ubuntu packages, please ask in #ubuntu-gnome then
[16:07] <SavageWolf> Okay, thanks.