[14:09] <larsduesing> I DO hate to tell people to wait for a fix in official ubuntu-sources..
[14:10] <penguin42> cook a ppa?
[14:10] <larsduesing> Sure...
[14:10] <larsduesing> Look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ecryptfs/+bug/1243636
[14:10] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1243636 in linux (Ubuntu) "ecryptfs corrupts files over 4GB size on i686" [Critical,Fix committed]
[14:11] <larsduesing> Filesystem corruption...
[14:11] <larsduesing> Bug filed 2013/10/23
[14:11] <larsduesing> Patch filed 2013/10/24
[14:11] <larsduesing> Patch got in linus-kernel 2013/11/09
[14:12] <larsduesing> Patch in saucy-proposed 2013/11/18
[14:12] <larsduesing> WTF?
[14:12] <larsduesing> Thats a real critical bug.
[14:14] <larsduesing> And people keep mailing me (as a bug-reporter!) asking when patch is available in saucy.
[14:14] <penguin42> larsduesing: OK so it's in proposed so it should land in main soon; you don't want to go pushing changes to the kernel in a filesystem quickly because it might make it even worse
[14:14] <larsduesing> penguin42: sure...
[14:15] <larsduesing> But patch is in mainline 3.12 for almost 2 weeks now. :)
[14:15] <larsduesing> wait. 3 Weeks
[14:16] <penguin42> larsduesing: Right but it ended up in -proposed after about a week, that's not too bad as things go
[14:16] <larsduesing> 3.12 was 2013.11.03
[14:16] <penguin42> larsduesing: They've got to be careful - after all this only corrupts files bigger than 4GB - you wouldn't want to make it worse and screw something more random up
[14:16] <larsduesing> Sorry. I'm a little bit overreacting...
[14:17] <larsduesing> I don't want to insult anybody.
[14:17] <larsduesing> But all I am able to do is to reply "Please wait, cannot tell anything, because I don't know, when it comes."
[14:18] <larsduesing> (I answered to the 28th person about that a few minutes ago...)
[14:20] <larsduesing> and getting answers like "come on, its patched in vanilla 3.12 kernel 2 weeks ago..." is hard to reply
[15:44] <penguin42> larsduesing: Well the answer is they can pick it up from saucy-proposed
[15:47] <penguin42> larsduesing: But the fact you've marked it as verification-done suggests it should bubble into the release - perhaps jsalisbury  would know?
[16:04] <jsalisbury> penguin42, correct.  if a bug is marked as verification-done, the fix for that bug will be accpted into the official release.
[16:05] <penguin42> jsalisbury: I guess larsduesing has a point that it's been sitting at verification-done for a few days now - is anything holding it up?
[16:06] <jsalisbury> penguin42, Not sure.  Can you post the bug id?
[16:07] <jsalisbury> penguin42, if its for a stable release, it can take up to 3 weeks depending on where we are in the cycle
[16:07] <penguin42> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ecryptfs/+bug/1243636
[16:07] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1243636 in linux (Ubuntu) "ecryptfs corrupts files over 4GB size on i686" [Critical,Fix committed]
[16:11] <jsalisbury> penguin42, since the fix is in proposed, it will get released in saucy updates, then the bug will be marked as fix released. You can find some dates on this mailing list: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-sru-announce
[16:12] <jsalisbury> penguin42, theres also some detailed info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/kernel-sru-workflow
[16:12] <penguin42> ah ok, I hadn't realised the kernel-sru's were scheduled
[17:18] <NikTh> Hello, I want to know how you find the correct BUGNUMBER  , when apport informations are missing from a bug report. Thanks.
[17:26] <NikTh> haha.. WoW, the bugnumber is obviously the number of the bug in browser's address bar.. :-o
[17:35] <penguin42> nod, nice and easy!
[22:05] <NikTh> Is this a good action , or I had to convert it to a question at once ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1254160
[22:05] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1254160 in update-manager (Ubuntu) "w3af" [Undecided,Incomplete]
[22:06] <penguin42> NikTh: Yeh I think that's the right action
[22:06] <penguin42> NikTh: You can't even tell whether it's a question
[22:06] <NikTh> penguin42: hah, yes. That's correct.
[22:07] <NikTh> Also I marked this as duplicate https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1254159
[22:07] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1254160 in update-manager (Ubuntu) "duplicate for #1254159 w3af" [Undecided,Incomplete]
[22:07] <NikTh> same person, same report.. :-o
[22:10] <NikTh> New bugsquad member here and I will need some help in order to eliminate my possible mistakes :-) . Thanks.
[22:26] <hggdh> NikTh: we are here to help :-) and thank YOU for helping.
[22:44] <NikTh> Will apport-collect help in such bug reports (missing dependencies/broken packages..etc) ? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/perl/+bug/1254180
[22:44] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1254180 in perl (Ubuntu) "Numerous dependencies broken due to Perl packaging update on Nov 2." [Undecided,New]
[22:48] <penguin42> NikTh: Don't think so
[22:49] <penguin42> NikTh: It would have been nice of the reporter to include versions that he was reporting against; this to me looks like he's moaning about trusty's perl which is 5.18.1-4build1
[22:54] <NikTh> penguin42: And what would be the appropriate reaction in such reports  ? I cannot understand if this is a bug or something else.
[22:57] <penguin42> NikTh: Well you don't have to triage every bug, but if you've got a trusty box I'd try and see if you can confirm it, either way I'd ask him to state in the report the version numbers of the affected packages, and I'd also ask him to add a comment stating the other bug numbers he reported as part of it
[23:02] <NikTh> penguin42: I know. I'm in the learning route right now. :-)
[23:03] <NikTh> penguin42: The other packages/bugs are listed under the duplicates area. That's ok.
[23:06] <penguin42> NikTh: let me just ask a couple on that one
[23:16] <NikTh> penguin42: Thanks. I will track the developments now.
[23:29] <penguin42> no problem - thanks for looking