[02:02] <lotuspsychje> good morning
[06:57] <luna_> good morning
=== enigma is now known as enigma9o7
=== A_Dragon is now known as A_Dragon`
=== A_Dragon` is now known as A_Dragon
[20:34] <ice9> if there is a crash or a bug in one of the software like nouveau, i915 or gnome-shell, etc. Why should we file a bug on the Launchpad? why not directly on the bug track of that software?
[20:35] <ravage> you can do that
[20:36] <ravage> upstream will eventually arrive on an Ubuntu release
[20:36] <ravage> can take a few years if you are on a LTS release
[20:38] <ravage> it may even be a good idea to get it fixed in upstream first if the bug still exists there
[20:38] <ravage> makes backporting the fix easier usually
[20:53] <arraybolt3> ice9: A lot of times Ubuntu ships older versions of software that upstream doesn't support (or at least doesn't support our patched version of it).
[20:54] <arraybolt3> So you can run into some frustrated developers if you try to report things upstream.
[20:54] <arraybolt3> Whereas reporting things on Launchpad lets us take care of it, and we can test to see if a bug exists in the latest version of something and then forward the bug upstream *if* it's necessary.
[20:54] <arraybolt3> That way you don't have to face an army of disgruntled programmers :D
[21:03] <Eickmeyer> !latest
[21:03] <ubottu> Packages in Ubuntu may not be the latest. Ubuntu aims for stability, so "latest" may not be a good idea. Post-release updates are only considered if they are fixes for security vulnerabilities, high impact bug fixes, or unintrusive bug fixes with substantial benefit. See also !backports, !sru, and !ppa.
[21:16] <ravage> someone asked about an alternative to the Ubuntu Podcast here recently. I found https://linuxmatters.sh/ is the clostest you will ever get to a continuation :)
=== B1773rm4n0 is now known as B1773rm4n