[20:59] <Jimojim> bitlbee package in trusty has a major bug that the devs fixed 10 months ago but the ubuntu package is still behind
[21:00] <Jimojim> is there a way to have the ubuntu package updated to 3.2.2?
[21:02] <jtaylor> if someone does the work, yes
[21:02] <jtaylor> see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[21:03] <jtaylor> if 3.2.2 only contains really safe bugfixes a full release update is possible, otherwise a backport of the fix is needed
[21:05] <Jimojim> one of the devs says he submitted the required bug report but it's been ignored for months
[21:07] <jtaylor> yes thats normal, unfortunately someone has to do the actual work
[21:07] <Jimojim> :\
[21:07] <jtaylor> ubuntu universe is very very short on maintainers
[21:08] <jtaylor> unless you are lucky a bug report on a universe package is often a waste of time, better are patches and subscribing ubuntu-sponsors to the bug
[21:08] <jtaylor> + lots of patience
[21:14] <Jimojim> if you happen to see one, please let him know bitlbee is broken and needs updating
[21:38] <brainwash> please re-open bug 1177116
[21:38] <brainwash> I've added a comment (#21)
[21:40] <teward> brainwash: we don't typically 'reopen' 'fix released' bugs - the general procedure is to provide additional details in where you see it (including software package version) and report what version ou see that on
[21:41] <brainwash> teward: I guess that makes sense
[21:41] <brainwash> ok, thank you :)
[21:43] <teward> brainwash: if it is indeed not fixed in a specific release, or rather, this 'released' fix doesn't solve the issue, a separate bug referring back to the other bug is likely necessary - reporting that the fix didn't work, or similar.  However you need to make sure you're on a version of the software which has the fix... it looks to me like Trusty has the fix in it, but if that isn't the case you need to start checking to make sure you have
[21:43] <teward> that version or newer.
[21:45] <brainwash> yeah, I've provided the patch for the bug and it works mostly, but there seems to be some cases which are not covered yet
[21:46] <teward> brainwash: then those need to be referenced and detailed, and test cases provided to make sure others can confirm that those cases aren't fixed
[21:47] <brainwash> right
[21:48] <teward> assuming of course that the bug fixes most of the cases, but not all of them, then you should open a separate bug probably detailing the individual cases in which it does not work
[21:48] <teward> so that can be upstreamed and then fixed
[21:48] <teward> however if Trusty is affected, you need to test Vivid first
[21:48] <teward> to make sure Vivid is or isn't affected first
[21:48] <teward> (if Vivid is not impacted, then you're good, however if it is impacted, it needs fixed there AND in trusty (via SRU for Trusty))
[21:49] <brainwash> it's just a minor issue, really no need to mention SRU :P
[21:50] <brainwash> I just thought that re-opening the bug report should be fine, because no one expect me cares about this issue anyway
[21:51] <brainwash> this way I would have all the info in one place
[21:53] <teward> brainwash: well, 'Fix Released' is issued when the fix lands in a release, and the changelog is attached (autoclose)
[21:53] <teward> we usually don't reopen a 'fix released' bug, rather post another bug (I believe) saying the issue ISN'T fixed, but your comment should be sufficient to spark checks...
[21:53] <teward> ... assuming you provide test cases for those cases where it's not fixed
[21:53] <teward> there may be a message saying to make another bug at some point though
[21:54] <brainwash> I will do that, thanks for the detailed answers :)