User1: modifying tags on a bug would be useful to have.
User2: okay, I'll through that one in real soon now
User1: thanks!
User2: User1 okay, its there
User1: in ubuntu-qa-tools
User2: fwiw, which isn't much yet
User1: ?
User2: right
User1: danke
User3: Can anyone tell me what component to file a an ACPI suspend/resume bug under?
User3: would that be ACPI, linux-generic....?
User4: baron1984, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingACPI. It should be filed against the linux source
User3: odd that it asks for kern.log.0
User3: that's yesterday, and a different kernel
User3: should I attach kern.log instead?
User3: bug 251338
User5: Launchpad bug 251338 in linux "Bad ACPI support on Foxconn G33M/G33M-S motherboards with AMI BIOS" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/251338
User3: :)
User6: :)
User3: can someone look that over?
User3: that report is still untouched in Red Hat's system
User3: :P
User3: apparently I really know how to pick hardware
User6: User3 I just took a peek, it looks fine, but I don't know all that much about which logs and such are useful
User3: User6 I just put up what it asked for
User3: User6 I also linked it to Fedora's Bugzilla
User3: same problem in their kernel
User3: and I suspect any 2.6.24 or 2.6.25's
User3: I tried Fedora's 2.6.26 kernel based on -git9, it fixed most of my problems
User3: but broke so much other stuff, it's not funny
User3: same with Intrepid
User3: but 2.6.26 has an almost entirely new ACPI disassembler
User3: it tends to act much more like Windows
User3: forgiving of horribly broken BIOSes
User3: go figure
User7: Is there any use in linking to an upstream bug when the ubuntu distribution task is already fix released? I did so for bug 202431, but I wonder why :) Thanks.
User5: Launchpad bug 202431 in findutils "typo in man page of "find"" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/202431
User8: User7 doesn't bring a lot but doesn't hurt either
User7: User8 ok thanks
User9: Good morning from Canada.
User10: hi pereza
User10: you know what day it is?
 * james_w hugs everybody
User9: is it today, the ubuntu buy day?
User9: hi james_w
User10: It's hug day for apt
User10: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20080724
User9: I thought it will be very busy today in this channel
User10: some bug days it is, some days people just get on with it quietly it seems.
User9: I see
User11: \o/ mvo
User10: What does T mean in a directory listing?
User10: drwxrwx--T 2 bin  bin     1024 2007-06-21 15:10 atjobs
User12: User10 That's the sticky bit.
User12: There are 16 bits: 4 define the type of file, 9 define rwx for each of user, group, world.  One is suid (x->s in first group), One is sgid (x->s in second group), and the last is sticky (x-T in third group).
User10: thanks
User10: damn hard to google for without knowing the name
User10: it seems that that wouldn't cause "Cannot change to /var/spool/cron/atjobs: Permission denied"
User12: It shouldn't, no.
User13: I'm triaging bug #173816 atm. Anyone know the difference between compiz-bcop and compiz-fusion-bcop?
User5: Launchpad bug 173816 in compiz-fusion-bcop "package compiz-fusion-bcop None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/compiz-fusion-bcop.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/bin/bcop', which is also in package compiz-bcop" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/173816
User10: hi Hew
User10: one is probably a replacement for the other
User10: it appears -bcop was Ubuntu local, and -fusion-bcop has come in from Debian
User13: User10 yep. compiz-bcop (main) started with Gutsy though, and compiz-fusion-bcop (universe) with Hardy.
User10: I guess that the old packages should be transitioned to the new package
User13: was wondering if it was best just to remove one of the packages?
User13: yea
User10: I'm not sure what the plan is, but it should end up with one being removed
User13: I reckon people are selecting all the compiz* packages, and getting this bug. I was going to change the dependencies, but thought it might be more appropriate to just remove one
User10: you could either talk to the maintainer, or just explain what's going on and mark the bug triaged
User13: User10 Sure thing, I'll chase someone up. Thanks for your help.
User10: ah, it seems that atd drops privileges to "daemon", and then expects to be able to chdir to a bin/bin owned dir.
User10: so, why does this work for anyone else?
User13: Are there any extra steps I should take if the solution for a bug is to remove a package from the Ubuntu repositories? Any team I should subscribe? bug #173816
User5: Launchpad bug 173816 in compiz-fusion-bcop "compiz-bcop is the same as compiz-fusion-bcop" [High,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/173816
User11: User13 ubuntu-universe-sponsors?
User13: User11 Makes sense, I shall make it so. Thanks.
 * Hobbsee eyes it
User11: better still, i'll ack it and pass it directly to -archive
User13: User11 oh, it's in main btw
User13: if that makes a difference
User11: oh, then it would be main sponsors.
 * Hobbsee is a core dev too.
User13: excellent :)
User11: i'm an archive admin as well, but i don't have removal powers.
User13: ah ok
User11: hmmm
User11: mvo__: you around?
User8: do we have some people still running hardy there?
User8: there is quite some GNOME sru which need verifications ;-)
User12: User8 If you haven't already, you might also ask in #ubuntu-testing (as potential testers are found in both places)
User8: User12 ok, I didn't, good to know
User8: thanks
* bdmurray changed the topic of #ubuntu-bugs to: Hug Day! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20080724 | Ubuntu BugSquad | http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad | Documentation: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/HelpingWithBugs | If you have been triaging bugs for a while, please apply to https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol/ | Want to report a bug? Read https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs | User support (not related to triage) is in #ubuntu
User14: Boo
User2: User15 ping
User15: User2 pong
User2: Hi, I'm looking at bug 235129 and don't think it should really be about apt
User5: Launchpad bug 235129 in apt "Installing/upgrading a kernel fails when /boot isn't mounted" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/235129
User2: It seems to me the check would need to done in one of the kernel packages is that right?
User15: User2 yes, that is right
User15: User2 that would be too much policy inside apt itself
User2: Which kernel package would that be?
User12: Note that the recommended solution would break e.g. unionfs environments.
User15: linux-source-2.6.26 I would say (but I'm not 100% postitive, the kernel packaging is something I'm not too familiar with)
User12: Wasn't the source package migrated to just "linux"?
User2: User17 ?
User2: User12 yes it was
User11: User12 yes
User12: Mind you, I've heard there may be architecture-specific kernels for intrepid, so I'm not sure that will remain, but it is probably the best package for hardy.
User2: User15 my laptop has "blown up" trying to upgrade to intrepid
User16: hi
User15: User2 inside fontconfig-config?
User2: User15 yes, that sounds right
User17: User15 I'll move 235129 to the kernel
User2: User17 don't forget to mark it off the hug day list! ;-)
User17: heh
User15: User2 ok, please run "sudo dpkg -i /var/cache/apt/archives/doc-base*0.8.16*.deb", then try "sudo apt-get install -f" again
User15: User2 its most likely bug 243830
User5: Launchpad bug 243830 in doc-base "base-passwd package failed to install during do-release-upgrade" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/243830
User15: User2 I uploaded a perl that should have fixed it today, so if you could give me your upgrade logs, that would be most appreciated (I would like to check if you upgraded with the old perl or the new-hopefully-fixed perl)
 * mvo is also working on a package that allows sandbox upgrades in a VM before the real upgrade, hopefully that can be used to spot these kinds of issues early
User15: User2 did installing doc-base help to fix the issue?
User18: wow, I'm looking through the bug list and looks like these are mostly actually apt bus
User18: *bugs
User2: User15 it's progressing along
User2: User15 I had the old perl I'm sure as it got stuck yesterday or the day before
User15: aha, ok
User2: User15 have you seen 240770?
User2: er bug 240770
User5: Launchpad bug 240770 in apt "Multiple package managers hurting Linux adoption" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/240770
User15: User2 no, I agree in principal, but reality is not there yet
User19: you know there is no issue there
User19: LSB mandates that everything should be able to use RPM
User19: and everything *can*
User19: there's alien.  problem solved. :)
User13: Hey guys, I found an interesting page; Edgy release-critical bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/edgy/+bugs . Surely all these can just be marked invalid now?
User2: User13 do they occur in a newer release than Edgy?
User2: User15 is bug 234637 by design perhaps?
User5: Launchpad bug 234637 in apt "apt-get ignores -y --force-yes -q -q" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/234637
User13: User2 some are outstanding only for Edgy, but others are still release-critical for other releases, while others haven't been fixed. I'm not talking about making the bug itself invalid, just the Edgy RC, since it's not supported.
User13: the vast majority seem to be Fix Released, and outstanding for Edgy only though
User2: User13 yes the Edgy task could become Won't Fix now.  It might be best if I or some of the release team did it though.
User13: User2 ok then
User2: User13 unless you really want to
User15: User2 this one is about debconf vs. apt prompts, let me comment in the bug
User2: User15 ah, that makes sense
User13: User2 Yea, I'd like to give it a go :P. I understand any concern about mass-invalidating bugs. I can do a few and link them here if you want to make sure I'm doing it right.
User2: User13 I was more concerned about people possibly reacting negatively
User13: User2 Ah ok. They mostly seem to be abandoned bugs that are fixed in newer releases anyway. But of course, it's your call, I can find some other bugs to triage instead if you think that's best.
User2: User13 it's really up to you.  if there are any bugs that are still not fixed for the current release please let me know about those
User13: User2 ok, I'll start with ones that only have the Edgy task left then let you know :-)
User2: User15 Is there a bug regarding smb being an apt method?
User2: or not being rather ;)
User15: User2 i guess not, what is the bugnumber?
User2: bug 231806
User5: Launchpad bug 231806 in apt "apt-get:  Add SMB to the valid Uri methods for software repositories" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/231806
User15: User2 looks to me like a wishlist item (with low priority)
User2: User15 right, I was wondering if there was an upstream bug about it at all
User20: User2 what was the url to that prototype graph?
User20: oh i found it again :)
User2: User20 the graph is static at the moment too
 * calc likes that graph a lot better than the other individual ones :)
User20: a time broken up version of that one would be wonderful :)
User20: it would probably be nice to be able to drill down to the individual graphs as well, but a overall picture is really nice :)
User20: you can see how the package is doing in one glance
User21: !202490
User5: Sorry, I don't know anything about 202490
User20: User21 bug 202490
User5: Launchpad bug 202490 in ubuntu "Xd card reader not working" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/202490
User21: thanks, calc
User20: yipee 60.63% triaged OOo bugs :)
User20: i broke through the 60% barrier today
User13: User2 done! 112 -> 12 remaining. The last ones still have an open status on the main task. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/edgy/+bugs . That was great fun, thanks for giving me the all clear on that :P. It's 3:30am here though, so I'd better head off.
User20: or get that fabled firefox plugin ;-)
 * calc thinks the plugin is actually a better idea
User22: hey all...  from reading this bug report https://bugs.launchpad.net/kdenetwork/+bug/52888 it appears that krfb wont work for anyone using *buntu and kde 3.5...  i find that hard to believe, but i dont see any other indication in that report
User5: Launchpad bug 52888 in kdenetwork "krfb fails to work" [Medium,Fix released]
User22: *unless they recompile kde
User18: User22 iirc it works when viewing with krdc, no?
User22: User18 no, im trying from another remote station using krdc and it actually crashes the vnc service
User18: huh. maybe the fix in there got dropped at some point?
User18: regardless, give the kde4 version a try, it's much nicer
User18: but that is something to investigate
User18: but if it is crashing I think that may be a different bug from the one there
User22: User18 so i just need the kde4 version of krfb, and it works with kde3.5?
User18: well I don't think the desktop matters. but try and see if the kde4 version of krfb+krdc will work
User22: User18 ok, will.  thanks a bunch for the help
 * calc is considering setting up a quick close bug report for anyone not filing a bug via apport
User20: its really annoying to get bugs with no info not even ubuntu version
User23: why is apport not enabled by default on hardy?
User23: besides, I had to read the /etc/init.d/apport to figure out how to enable it
User20: well i mean the help->report a bug bit, not the apport crash stuff (though that is useful too)
User20: a user should have no reason to file a bug without any useful info at all, unless the app is crashing, in which case the firefox plugin would be very helpful in that case even when apport crash reporting is disabled
User8: User23 because 85% of the crashes are already been reported and that would generate tons of duplicates for no real win
User23: hmm, that makes sense, thanks
User20: would be useful once a good duplicate finder was available (if even possible) ;-)
User20: but yea its not that important
User23: User20 I don't know of an equivalent for help->report a bug on kde/kubuntu. Is there one?
User8: User23 calc is working on openoffice which has such items
User20: oh kde apps in kubuntu don't use launchpad-integration?
User8: no idea
User24: Some of them have launchpad-integration.
User23: clicking help->report bug in konqueror takes me to bugs.kde.org
 * calc is down to 37 new bugs on OOo
User20: heh
User18: dorins, calc, User8 no kubuntu kde apps don't have any launchpad integration. help->report bug goes to bugs.kde.org since that's likely where the report should end up anyway
User25: Just having a look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/242033
User5: Launchpad bug 242033 in apt "Removing Sound Driver Should not Remove Entire Ubuntu Graphical User Interface (GNOME)" [Undecided,New]
User25: this bug report is wrongly raised against apt. the reporter is saying that removing linux-sound-base removes gdm and ubuntu-desktop, which is expected
User26: ubuntu-desktop depends for good reasons on linux-sound-base and I don't think it should recommend it instead so it's not really a bug
User26: the reporter should blacklist alsa instead, sounds easier and won't break his system
User25: that's what I thought, but I wanted to check first
User25: invalid or won't fix? (i can do the former but not the latter)
User26: or just not put speakers on those computers :)
User25: lol
User26: Won't fix: "It may also be used for feature requests that the developers do not want to implement" sounds appropriate
User25: thanks. i'll add a comment now. could you set it to won't fix once i'm done please?
User26: sure
User25: stgraber - comment added now
User26: User25 status changed
User25: thanks:)
User2: User27 I'm finding some incomplete bugs in the new table
User2: sweet
User10: User2 could you renew my bugcontrol membership please? Apparently it's going to expire in a few days.
User2: greg-g: let me know when you are done
User27: bdmurray, which table is this?
ubuntu-bugs
Ubuntu IRC