[09:51] Who do I contact in order to get bug fixes for init scripts pulled into the repos? [09:51] The maintainer of the package in question is an upstream Debian developer, and the bug was fixed a couple of years ago in Debian. [09:52] Bug link: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postgrey/+bug/981789 [09:52] Launchpad bug 981789 in postgrey (Ubuntu) "Postgrey does not stop after 'sudo service postgrey stop'" [Undecided,Confirmed] === hikiko is now known as hikiko|bbi === hikiko|bbi is now known as hikiko|bbl === hikiko|bbl is now known as hikiko [17:10] this bug was marked a duplicate: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/1510339 [17:10] Launchpad bug 1585863 in network-manager (Ubuntu) "duplicate for #1510339 WiFi malfunction after suspend & resume stress" [High,Confirmed] [17:10] cprofitt: okay? [17:11] not sure that this is a duplicate -- but if it is shouldn't the duplicate be reversed and the later bug be marked the duplicate [17:16] your 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 LTS [17:20] cprofitt: the question is not what the bug was filed under. the question is if the bug still exists in a supported release. [17:20] if 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 valid [17:20] that said i'm not qualified to touch on a network-manager bug [17:20] i avoid those like the plague :) [17:21] (same for kernel bugs, unless they directly torpedo something I work on) [17:21] I could reverse the duplicate status... [17:21] i'd honestly wait for more opinions [17:21] i'm least qualified to comment in this case (network-manager bugs are weird...) [17:23] teward: thanks I will try to ask Martin -- he is the one who marked the duplicate... [17:23] thanks for the advice [17:24] cprofitt: it may be the case they're the same underlying problem though [17:25] that 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 sense [17:25] that's my opinion [17:27] teward: why would the dups not be reversed -- I was always taught newer bugs were makred as duplicates of older bugs... has that changed? [17:28] I 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. [17:29] i'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] the original report is the one yours is marked as a dupe of by date alone [17:29] oop i misread the years [17:29] yep [17:29] cprofitt: the second consideration is which one has more 'useful data' [17:30] i'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 same [17:30] there'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 examples [17:30] bleh i can't type [17:30] cprofitt: Personally, if they're the same issue, I suggest leaving it alone, I see more debug data on the newer one than the older [17:30] * cprofitt nods I can agree with that [17:30] assuming they're the same issue (checking with Martin wouldn't hurt) [17:31] the only reason *I* would change it is if I knew they weren't the same issue. [17:31] the newer one has more activity... though not the same file uploads... [17:32] I 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] in the end -- getting the bug fixed is important. [17:33] actually 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 signature [17:33] and that's now in apport dupe detection [17:34] and I put all the old bugs as dupes of the new one :P [17:34] not 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 it [17:34] * teward shrugs [17:34] cool... 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] the process 'varies' [17:35] cprofitt: 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 place [17:35] or take it to the mailing list [17:35] * teward goes back to poking two servers to try and get them to talk to each other [17:36] teward: poking rarely works ;) [17:36] for servers. [17:36] (read as: "Threaten the servers with digital violence should the networking not come up") [17:36] nah, it's probably me fubaring the firewall ACLs :P [17:36] oh... that works at times. [17:37] firewalls are fun :) [17:37] really ;)