=== idafyaid is now known as peskypokemon [01:59] tedg: lxcguest is a remnant from maverick timeframe. please open a bug showing how you tried to create that container, the templtae must be completely out of date [02:08] hallyn_, I don't think you meant me? [10:56] tedg: d'oh, youre right, that was dobey [10:56] dobey: lxcguest is a remnant from maverick timeframe. please open a bug showing how you tried to create that container, the templtae must be completely out of date [10:57] tedg: sorry :) === Elimin8r is now known as Elimin8er [13:31] Not 100% sure whether this is meant for the channel, but I noticed trusty's munin smart plugin is on the old 2.1 version, this would normally not be a problemen, except that it is missing the key feature to ignore non-problematic status codes introduced in version 2.2 of the code (which is a very minor patch, not even 20 lines of code), I was wondering whether I could get that into trusty and if so how? [13:38] prepare a patch for trusty, put in tthe bugtracker, and follow the stablereleaseupdate process on the wiki [13:39] lifeless: so I just create the patch file and file a bugreport, then follow the wiki procedure? [13:41] Bert_2: the wiki page of StableReleaseUpdate details the procedures for an SRU. Create a patch file, file a bug, attach the patch to the bug, and wait for the process to work out. [13:42] Bert_2: in short, yes. [13:42] that's the short summary of the process anyways [13:43] teward lifeless: ok, thx, I'm reading through it as we speak and afterwards I'll file the bug ;) [13:44] Bert_2: my only thought on this is that you introduce a new feature, so you'd have to do really thorough tests and have a thorough test case to test the functionality [13:44] if not multiple test cases [13:45] To quote you: "...it is missing the key feature to ignore non-problematic status codes introduced in version 2.2 of the code (which is a very minor patch, not even 20 lines of code)" [13:45] and SRUs typically don't 'add' features, but that's also not my call, just an observation of the most literal interpretation of SRU stuff :) [13:46] teward: yeah, that's why I came to ask, whether there was any chance I could [13:46] Bert_2: the worst that can happen is they say "no" in which case the SRU goes away [13:46] the thing is, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only sysadmin getting swamped with warning about disks that had an error in the past but are actually fine [13:46] teward: true ;) [13:47] Bert_2: one observation suggestion though: [13:47] check currently existing bugs against hte package in that release [13:47] and make sure a bug for this doesn't already exist [13:47] (dupe bugs are dupes and having five bugs for the same thing is... ehh) [13:47] teward: I already checked, there are no bugs for munin on launchpad that mention SMART [13:50] then you're good, just create the bug :) [13:50] :D [13:52] but again the worst case is that they say "We can't add this functionality" or such [13:53] teward: the hard part seems to be explaining a test case, cause you sorta need the right kind of SMART-erroring drive, which I think you can't emulate easily [13:54] * teward shrugs, and returns to poking the nginx init scripts [13:54] teward: enjoy ;) [13:54] blah === ValicekB_ is now known as ValicekB [20:46] has anyone ran bug-closing scripts to close Lucid targeted bugs? [20:48] and if not should we === JanC_ is now known as JanC