[14:26] <pa> hi
[14:26] <lotuspsychje> welcome pa
[14:26] <pa> thanks!
[14:26] <lotuspsychje> wich fix are you talking about?
[14:26] <pa> lotuspsychje: this one:
[14:27] <pa> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Lenovo_ThinkPad_X1_Carbon_(Gen_7)#Microphone
[14:28] <lotuspsychje> pa: the current kernel on 20.04 is 5.4.0-12-generic
[14:28] <pa> 19.10 has 5.3.0 too
[14:28] <lotuspsychje> pa: in this stage alot of things are still under development, you could test a daily for your issue perhaps?
[14:28] <pa> but apparently it's not sufficient to have this working
[14:29] <pa> lotuspsychje: the question is if those extra files are included
[14:29] <pa> SOF firmware
[14:29] <pa> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=249900
[14:30] <lotuspsychje> pa: try a daily, see if it works or not
[14:30] <pa> ok will try on a pendrive :)
[14:30] <lotuspsychje> pa: did you file a bug for your issue on ubuntu?
[14:31] <pa> nope
[14:31] <lotuspsychje> pa: ok, try the current daily 5.4 kernel first, if you can reproduce, come back and we can debug more
[14:32] <lotuspsychje> pa: another option is play with the !mainline kernels on your current ubuntu version
[14:35] <pa> thanks
[14:37] <lotuspsychje> pa: the ubuntu-kernel guys might also know wich commits are included, in wich kernel, but thats handy when you have an existing ubuntu bug about it
[17:34] <tartley> Hi folks. I'm looking for advice on whether (and where) to file bug for things that don't work for me since I upgraded 19.10 -> focal (dev)
[17:34] <lotuspsychje> tartley: 20.04 is currently still in development
[17:35] <tartley> I realize that. Are you saying I should not file any bugs with problems I fiond?
[17:35] <lotuspsychje> tartley: we strongly advice to help test bugs with the daily iso instead of upgrades in this stage
[17:35] <lotuspsychje> tartley: this will avoid making extra work for the developers, finding the original bug
[17:36] <tartley> Ah. I see.  Thanks for spelling it out.  I upgraded on what I heard as the instruction to canonical employees from mr shuttleworth. Maybe I misunderstood what was expected.
[17:37] <lotuspsychje> tartley: the instruction?
[17:37] <tartley> my manager said that at the recent cape town sprint, mark decided that canonical folks (or some subset) should install focal for their daily use, to help with testing.
[17:38] <tartley> So my team is migrating our dev laptops to focal. I'm the only one hit any problems, so far.
[17:38] <lotuspsychje> daily use to find bug, from installing the daily is indeed what we aim
[17:38] <tartley> Do you think I should tell me team not to do that?
[17:39] <tartley> Right, I don't *think* any of us knew that, but maybe that is just me, I am new.
[17:39] <lotuspsychje> yes we need all the help bug out
[17:39] <tartley> ok, I'll go confer with team. Thanks for getting me yup to speed.
[17:39] <lotuspsychje> tartley: testing the upgrade path is usefull too, sure, but at one point someone will ask anyway: can you reproduce this on a daily
[17:42] <diddledan> speaking of bugs. with the changes in LP 1776447 I'm hitting a new one in libgl1-mesa-dri when using IGLX (Indirect GLX) with a specific demo application. I just mentioned this in #ubuntu-desktop, but I can restate here 'cos I'm running focal with my new build of Xorg based on the debdiffs in that bug - I don't think this is a regression from those
[17:42] <diddledan> changes because it is in a separate library (mesa) and only occurs with the specific application - other apps (glxgears and supertuxkart) work enough that the xorg doesn't quit while the app in question kills xorg via segv in mesa
[17:43] <diddledan> backtrace: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/cqrqq4FZWD/
[17:44] <lotuspsychje> diddledan: at this point, im facing alot of xorg bugs too, and i havent found yet the exact relation of it
[17:44] <diddledan> the person who wrote the library and the demo app that uses it (igl) says they're currently using it without issue on Xenial - IGLX was broken after Xenial until my fixes in that issue
[17:44] <tomreyn> tartley: which role do you work in roughly, software development, system administration, or something else?
[17:44] <tartley> Software dev, snap store team.
[17:45] <diddledan> the annoying thing is without my fixes in the LP issue I can't verify if the mesa bug is still present because IGLX is broken in Xorg without those fixes and so I can't reach this new crash without them
[17:45] <tomreyn> tartley: oh, but you're working for a 3rd party, not Canonical itself, right?
[17:45] <tartley> no, for canonical
[17:46] <tomreyn> tartley: oh, ok. then us volunteers here can probably not recommend something.
[17:46] <tomreyn> tartley: there's amn internal IRC for Cannoical employees you should probably bring this to
[17:46] <tartley> I'll look for channels there. thanks.
[17:47] <diddledan> that obviously means I cannot rule out my Xorg changes having a regression
[17:56] <lotuspsychje> diddledan: this what happens at my side: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/+bug/1853266
[17:57] <diddledan> oh golly, GL_OUT_OF_MEMORY sounds nasty
[18:04] <diddledan> and you gotta love having a fun lockfile! :-p
[18:07] <lotuspsychje> sounds different then your bug diddledan 
[18:09] <diddledan> yeah, quite different by the looks
[18:26] <lotuspsychje> diddledan: i also have a dock ontop bug and an iwlwifi kernel oops bug :p
[18:27] <diddledan> oh wow, you've had it bad!
[18:27] <lotuspsychje> the dock bug is confirmed, more users got it
[18:27] <lotuspsychje> the kernel oops, also not sorted yet
[18:29] <lotuspsychje> bug #854146
[18:29] <lotuspsychje> oh wrong
[18:29] <lotuspsychje> bug #1854146
[18:30] <lotuspsychje> and bug #1849787
[18:49] <tomreyn> tartley: what i should have said / meant to say: us volunteers are not who should suggest how to interpret company policy, but i'm sure that if Mark suggested parts of the company should test focal early "eat your own dogfood" style then it's probably also to ensure bugs are filed (and maybe not just on fresh daily builds). generally, i'm sure good bug reports are appreciated (and if you have questions before filing any here's a good place).
[19:08] <tartley> tomreyn, that makes sense to me.
[19:08] <tartley> I did file one, "all bitmap fonts no longer visible" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1861340
[19:09] <tartley> and a bot suggested I need to pick a package to associate. I don't know how to figure that out.
[19:11] <lotuspsychje> tartley: normally we try to use ubuntu-bug packagename from terminal to file bugs
[19:11] <tartley> lotuspsychje, thanks. I might do that, and delete this one. It auto-gathers relevant info, I take it?
[19:12] <tomreyn> yes, it does collect logs and some info. but you don't need to delete this report, you can just add this info later.
[19:12] <lotuspsychje> tartley: dont need to delete it, you can still add a package in your current bug, and yes ubuntu-bug collects
[19:12] <tomreyn> but first let's find a suitable package to reassign to
[19:13] <tartley> Thanks for any ideas. I appreciate the help, obvs.
[19:13] <tomreyn> you mention some commands and envronmental information (desktop environment) which could help identify a package to file this against
[19:14] <tomreyn> dpkg -S /path/to/somefile    helps you idfentify the package a given file or command belongs to.
[19:15] <tomreyn> so if you can name a command or file which is closely related to what does not work as expected, this can hint on the package to file against
[19:16] <tartley> Sure, I'm aware of that. But I don't think this is a problem with the font (many fonts from third part sources fail in the same way). I'm not installing a package, I'm copying font files and re-running "fc-cache" or "dpkg-reconfigure fontconfig".
[19:16] <tartley> They seem to run ok (fc-list shows the fonts) but the fonts don't display on screen, nor appear in gui font selectors.
[19:17] <tomreyn> tartley: so maybe it has to do with fontconfig, or with gnome-shell, mutter, or similar?
[19:18] <tartley> All sound like good guesses. I'm not sure how to track it down though.
[19:18] <tomreyn> maybe if you have another graphical desktop installed you could check whether ti also happens there
[19:18] <tartley> that's a good idea. I don't but could do...
[19:19] <tomreyn> or if you know how to do this in a different X-ish way without having to install a full desktop that would probably work, too
[19:19] <tomreyn> i wouldn't know myself, i'm afraid
[19:19] <tartley> sure, I can figure that out. OK, thanks for the thoughts.
[19:21] <tomreyn> cool once you came up with a good package and have reassigned it as discussed in comment 1 of your bug report, be sure to add log files using: apport-collect 1861340
[19:23] <tomreyn> i just searched the web for "gnome-shell bitmap fonts" and ran into this: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/pango/issues/386
[19:25] <tartley> cool, good find. Thank you!
[19:25] <tomreyn> a gnome project bug report about the pango software and its (claimed?) lack of support for 'old-style' BDF bitmap fonts. i have not read the full bug report, and it's closed (upstream), too, but this may suggest what you're seeing can be related to the "pango" software
[19:32] <tartley> Yes. I'm reading through the thread and links now.
[20:00] <diddledan> so, I can trigger this bug in mesa-dri at will.. how do I get the specific piece of code that is triggering the crash with gdb? I can attach the gdb fine and get the backtrace, I just don't know the command to get the line of code that is failing within gdb
[20:30] <tomreyn> diddledan: do you have ddebs installed?
[20:30] <diddledan> yup
[20:31] <diddledan> valgrind thinks I'm hitting stack overflow, so it might not be much help
[20:31] <tomreyn> hmm bt or bt full should return it then, i guess. but i'm not really into programming
[20:33] <tomreyn> maybe try #ubuntu-devel or some C channel