eyfourWho do I contact in order to get bug fixes for init scripts pulled into the repos?09:51
eyfourThe maintainer of the package in question is an upstream Debian developer, and the bug was fixed a couple of years ago in Debian.09:51
eyfourBug link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postgrey/+bug/98178909:52
ubot5Launchpad bug 981789 in postgrey (Ubuntu) "Postgrey does not stop after 'sudo service postgrey stop'" [Undecided,Confirmed]09:52
=== hikiko is now known as hikiko|bbi
=== hikiko|bbi is now known as hikiko|bbl
=== hikiko|bbl is now known as hikiko
cprofittthis bug was marked a duplicate: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/151033917:10
ubot5Launchpad bug 1585863 in network-manager (Ubuntu) "duplicate for #1510339 WiFi malfunction after suspend & resume stress" [High,Confirmed]17:10
tewardcprofitt: okay?17:10
cprofittnot sure that this is a duplicate -- but if it is shouldn't the duplicate be reversed and the later bug be marked the duplicate17:11
cprofittyour thoughts teward -- I was thinking of chaning the duplicate status... the original bug likely should have be marked will not fix -- since 15.04 is not an LTS17:16
tewardcprofitt: the question is not what the bug was filed under.  the question is if the bug still exists in a supported release.17:20
tewardif I filed a bug under 9.04, but nothing's moved to fix it and it continues to exist in 16.04 and 16.10 then the bug is still valid17:20
tewardthat said i'm not qualified to touch on a network-manager bug17:20
tewardi avoid those like the plague :)17:20
teward(same for kernel bugs, unless they directly torpedo something I work on)17:21
cprofittI could reverse the duplicate status...17:21
tewardi'd honestly wait for more opinions17:21
tewardi'm least qualified to comment in this case (network-manager bugs are weird...)17:21
cprofittteward: thanks I will try to ask Martin -- he is the one who marked the duplicate...17:23
cprofittthanks for the advice17:23
tewardcprofitt: it may be the case they're the same underlying problem though17:24
tewardthat said, I will say 100% that you should *not* reverse the dupes, if they're not the same then that's one thing, but switching which is a dupe of which makes no sense17:25
tewardthat's my opinion17:25
cprofittteward: why would the dups not be reversed -- I was always taught newer bugs were makred as duplicates of older bugs... has that changed?17:27
cprofittI was taught that when devs are looking at fixing bugs having the original report was important due to that establishing the original date of the issue.17:28
tewardi'm not sure who taught you that, but consider I have a handful of bugs that are 'recent' but have an 'old' bug they're marked to.17:29
tewardthe original report is the one yours is marked as a dupe of by date alone17:29
tewardoop i misread the years17:29
tewardcprofitt: the second consideration is which one has more 'useful data'17:29
tewardi've actually switched dupe status from an older to a newer when the older had zero debug data but the newer had a lot more, and the core issue was the same17:30
tewardthere's a few cases of that on the nginx bugs, though i have handled so many you'd have to dig to find the xpecific examples17:30
tewardbleh i can't type17:30
tewardcprofitt: Personally, if they're the same issue, I suggest leaving it alone, I see more debug data on the newer one than the older17:30
* cprofitt nods I can agree with that17:30
tewardassuming they're the same issue (checking with Martin wouldn't hurt)17:30
tewardthe only reason *I* would change it is if I knew they weren't the same issue.17:31
cprofittthe newer one has more activity... though not the same file uploads...17:31
cprofittI never change my own bugs status -- makes it look petty, but wanted to understand what happened here since it ran counter to what I had been taught.17:32
cprofittin the end -- getting the bug fixed is important.17:32
tewardactually i just thought of an example of the issue - there's older bugs closed as Invalid for "Address already in use" for nginx.  Ther'es now a 'master' bug that was created detailing the signature17:33
tewardand that's now in apport dupe detection17:33
tewardand I put all the old bugs as dupes of the new one :P17:34
tewardnot because it's an 'issue that still exists' but because the master is the new 'master' for those types of issues.  A little irregular, but it slices down the annoyingness of all the invalid bugs, and points to detailed reasoning for the problem and how to fix it17:34
* teward shrugs17:34
cprofittcool... it has been a while since I have done bug reports... so if that is the new process that is cool. Want to make sure I do not cause issues for not being up to speed.17:34
tewardthe process 'varies'17:34
tewardcprofitt: if it were anything under my direct radar, though, yours would have been closed as a dupe of the newer one which has more info, but that's just me.  Feel free to poke Martin though since they closed it in the first place17:35
tewardor take it to the mailing list17:35
* teward goes back to poking two servers to try and get them to talk to each other17:35
cprofittteward: poking rarely works ;)17:36
cprofittfor servers.17:36
teward(read as: "Threaten the servers with digital violence should the networking not come up")17:36
tewardnah, it's probably me fubaring the firewall ACLs :P17:36
cprofittoh... that works at times.17:36
cprofittfirewalls are fun :)17:37
cprofittreally ;)17:37

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