From jjesse at iserv.net Fri Nov 2 04:09:25 2007 From: jjesse at iserv.net (Jonathan Jesse) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 00:09:25 -0400 Subject: need some guidence on troubleshooting some bugs Message-ID: <200711020009.25810.jjesse@iserv.net> I was digging into bugs in KDEBSE today and noticed a lot of bugs from the same user so I spent about an hour triaging that users bugs. Anyways I noticed a lot of duplication and started the clean up in earnest. I noticed the user is gettign a lot of crashes or is posting crashes with no debugging symbols found, but they all reference: "Using host libthread_db library "/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libthread_db.so.1"." How would I go about tracking this down to see exactly what is causing the problem? I've already started the converstation with the end user in regards to whether or not the crashes are still happening, etc. But need to know how to takae the next step. An example of the bug would be https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/konversation/+bug/147838 Thanks for the guidence Jonathan From kirrus at kirrus.co.uk Fri Nov 9 10:10:38 2007 From: kirrus at kirrus.co.uk (Kirrus) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:10:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Need Guidance / Help putting through an SRU request Message-ID: <11799509.49001194603038533.JavaMail.root@scalix> Hi, We're at the stage where the bug #78017 (firehol) has an upstream (debian & package) fix. Also, apparently, hardy has the new package in. Reason that it needs an SRU, is because the bug causes the firewall to completely shut down all networking. I have asked for help here before, however, I didn't have time to chase it through. I have requested from my boss time to get this one dealt with, and he has agreed, so I have some paid-time available to work on this one. I don't know where to start to get a SRU through, and the wiki just confuses me further, as this is a Universe package. Can anyone help? Kind Regards, Johnathon -- Blog: kirrus.co.uk Work: encryptec.net RPGs: Captain Senaris Vlenn, CO, USS Sarek Lt Aieron Peters, XO DS5 ds5.brisub -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Nov 13 16:50:00 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:50:00 -0800 Subject: Mini Hug Day for update-manager on November 14th Message-ID: <20071113165000.GM8484@murraytwins.com> Tomorrow, November 14th, Pedro, Leann and I will be taking a look at bug reports regarding update-manager. update-manager is the package that provides the ability to upgrade from one Ubuntu release to another. We seem to have a fair number of bug reports about it and we though it could use some cleanup. I have recently written up some documentation[0], with Michael Vogt's help, regarding debugging update-manager. Additionally, I have created a list of bugs[1] that we can focus on. Feel free to join us in #ubuntu-bugs as we start triaging and cleaning up the update-manager bug reports. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingUpdateManager [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20071114 Thanks, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pochu at ubuntu.com Tue Nov 13 23:35:05 2007 From: pochu at ubuntu.com (Emilio Pozuelo Monfort) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:35:05 +0100 Subject: Reading stack traces from bug reports Message-ID: <473A34A9.2090105@ubuntu.com> Hello all! Emmet Hikory has volunteered for running a session about how to read stack traces (thanks Emmet!). (quoting from wikipedia): "A stack trace (also called stack backtrace or stack traceback) is a report of the active stack frames instantiated by the execution of a program. They are mostly used to aid debugging by showing where exactly an error occurs. The last few stack frames often indicate the origin of the bug." So knowing them well means you will be able to triage a lot of more bug reports, and possibly fixing them. Also, since these reports are usually crashes they are very important, so don't doubt this is an incredible opportunity for learning a very important stuff. It will be run this Saturday at 11:00 UTC on #ubuntu-classroom on Freenode. So if you are interested on it, just join us there! It will be a really interesting session and we will learn a very useful thing, with our master persia. So don't forget to come, and also let your friends know about this, so they can join too! See you there, Emilio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From henrik at ubuntu.com Wed Nov 14 11:45:25 2007 From: henrik at ubuntu.com (Henrik Nilsen Omma) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:45:25 +0000 Subject: Reading stack traces from bug reports In-Reply-To: <473A34A9.2090105@ubuntu.com> References: <473A34A9.2090105@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <473ADFD5.4040403@ubuntu.com> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hello all! > > Emmet Hikory has volunteered for running a session about how to read stack > traces (thanks Emmet!). Great! I need to learn this! Any suggested background reading before the class, beyond the short http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_trace ? Henrik From brian at ubuntu.com Thu Nov 15 17:36:29 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:36:29 -0800 Subject: update-manager Mini Hug Day follow up Message-ID: <20071115173629.GZ8484@murraytwins.com> The other day we had a mini Hug Day focussed on the package update-manager[1] and I just wanted to draw everyone's attention to the impact we had. If you look at the Status section of the wiki page you will see graphs from the end of the day showing the change in New, Incomplete and Invalid bug reports. I'd like to thank everyone who participated as the results were quite impressive! [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20071114 Thanks everyone! -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From seb128 at ubuntu.com Fri Nov 16 13:44:11 2007 From: seb128 at ubuntu.com (Sebastien Bacher) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:44:11 +0100 Subject: The wiki instruction about the lack of crash report need to be updated Message-ID: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> Hi, Dealing with crash files attached to bugs create a lot of extra work since those bug are not retraced automatically and not listed by the duplicator. The wiki responses pages has a stock reply asking to users to attach the crash from /var/crash to the bug report, that should be updated to ask them to double click on the crash in nautilus which will make apport to send the bug (somebody needs to verify if that works also with kubuntu and xubuntu) I'm copying the comment I just used on some desktop bugs there, maybe something similar could be added to the wiki standard replies? "Thank you for your bug. Dealing with crash files manually attached is a lot of extra work, could you use apport to send your bug? You just have to go to /var/crash using nautilus and double click on the crash for that. I'm closing this bug since apport will automatically open a new one which will get automatic debug retracing." Cheers, Sebastien Bacher From dufresnep at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 17:21:30 2007 From: dufresnep at gmail.com (Paul Dufresne) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:21:30 -0500 Subject: Bug status clarifications requested Message-ID: <10b8339f0711220921o33735757h3da20ebe111f2c1e@mail.gmail.com> Often while triaging bugs, I come on bugs that were reported on old versions, but seems to be fixed in current or development version. That said, most of the time I have no idea exactly when, or where it has been fixed. I use to mark them Invalid in this case, because I take that 'Fix release' should only be use by a developer to mark that his patch not only have been committed, but released. But then reading https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#head-246b9a0b2091d7aee70afd2b0579dbbc986eb51b I begin to seriously think I should mark them 'Fix released'. An other less common situation I wonder if I should use 'Fix released' or not is in: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/php5/+bug/21995 Here the bug have been fix in Debian, but the version in Hardy is not yet the same as the fix one in Debian. Last, I often confirm bugs that I am not sure it is a bug because I have not enough knowledge of the package, but I am pretty sure the package maintainer would have no problem with the information given up to now. I just hope it is right to do so. Also, I believe the package naming scheme is supposed to indicate if the package is specific to Ubuntu, taken from Debian, taken from an other project. But I don't easily find back where this is explained. Finally, I'd like to say that bug status is like documented in too many places: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/CommonTasks https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Lists/BugStatus (Rejected should become Invalid here) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Bugs From mathiaz at ubuntu.com Thu Nov 22 17:51:57 2007 From: mathiaz at ubuntu.com (Mathias Gug) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:51:57 -0500 Subject: Bug status clarifications requested In-Reply-To: <10b8339f0711220921o33735757h3da20ebe111f2c1e@mail.gmail.com> References: <10b8339f0711220921o33735757h3da20ebe111f2c1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20071122175157.GK6512@mathiaz.mathiaz.net> Hi Paul, On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:21:30PM -0500, Paul Dufresne wrote: > Often while triaging bugs, I come on bugs that were reported on old > versions, but seems to be fixed in current or development version. > That said, most of the time I have no idea exactly when, or where it > has been fixed. I use to mark them Invalid in this case, because I > take that 'Fix release' should only be use by a developer to mark that > his patch not only have been committed, but released. > > But then reading > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#head-246b9a0b2091d7aee70afd2b0579dbbc986eb51b > I begin to seriously think I should mark them 'Fix released'. > Yes. If the bug has been solved in the current development release, it should be marked as Fix Released. If the bug is serious enough to consider a Stable Release Update, it should be nominated for the corresponding release. > An other less common situation I wonder if I should use 'Fix released' > or not is in: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/php5/+bug/21995 > Here the bug have been fix in Debian, but the version in Hardy is not > yet the same as the fix one in Debian. > Confirmed is a good action. May be 'Fix Committed' could also be used ? > Last, I often confirm bugs that I am not sure it is a bug because I > have not enough knowledge of the package, but I am pretty sure the > package maintainer would have no problem with the information given up > to now. I just hope it is right to do so. > Yes. A Developer should set it back to Incomplete if it's not complete enough and Triager should keep working on the bug to get the relevant information. If the developer consider that the report is good enough, it should set the bug status to Triaged. > Also, I believe the package naming scheme is supposed to indicate if > the package is specific to Ubuntu, taken from Debian, taken from an > other project. But I don't easily find back where this is explained. > Right. You can find this information in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment#UbuntuPackages. It should probably be added to the Packaging Guide (which is the first place where I looked at). > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Lists/BugStatus (Rejected > should become Invalid here) If you come across errors, don't hesitate to correct them ! -- Mathias From dufresnep at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 23:23:38 2007 From: dufresnep at gmail.com (Paul Dufresne) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:23:38 -0500 Subject: Apport retracing service working? Message-ID: <10b8339f0711241523p31479952h47f3ef4a8790bc09@mail.gmail.com> How long does apport take to retrace a bug? I take as an example a bug I reported november 14, that is still waiting. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/blender/+bug/162740 From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Nov 27 05:34:18 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:34:18 -0800 Subject: Mini Hug Day for network-manager on November 28th Message-ID: <20071127053418.GL8484@murraytwins.com> On November 28th, Pedro, Leann and I will be taking a look at bug reports regarding network-manager. network-manager is the package that manages your wired and wireless network connections. We seem to have a fair number of bug reports about it and we thought it could use some cleanup. Alexander Sack has written some debugging documentation[0] about network-manager and gathering detailed information for those bugs. Additionally, I have created a list of bugs[1] that we can focus on. Feel free to join us in #ubuntu-bugs as we start triaging and cleaning up the network-manager bug reports. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingNetworkManager [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20071128 Thanks, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Nov 27 20:36:47 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:36:47 -0800 Subject: The wiki instruction about the lack of crash report need to be updated In-Reply-To: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> References: <1195220651.7728.14.camel@seb128-desktop> Message-ID: <20071127203647.GB3302@murraytwins.com> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:44:11PM +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Hi, > > Dealing with crash files attached to bugs create a lot of extra work > since those bug are not retraced automatically and not listed by the > duplicator. The wiki responses pages has a stock reply asking to users > to attach the crash from /var/crash to the bug report, that should be > updated to ask them to double click on the crash in nautilus which will > make apport to send the bug (somebody needs to verify if that works also > with kubuntu and xubuntu) I checked this with Kubuntu and discovered that Konqueror doesn't seem to have a file association for .crash files. However, I found that using '/usr/share/apport/apport-qt --crash-file=/var/crash/_my_crash_report.crash' will launch the crash reporting wizard. Perhaps a bug should be filed about Konqueror and this missing functionality. > I'm copying the comment I just used on some desktop bugs there, maybe > something similar could be added to the wiki standard replies? I have updated the Bug/Responses with something that tries to cover bugs missing crash reports and those with ".crash" file attachments. It also contains both ways to report the crash. Please let me know what you think and thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Tue Nov 27 21:06:59 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:06:59 -0800 Subject: Bug status clarifications requested In-Reply-To: <20071122175157.GK6512@mathiaz.mathiaz.net> References: <10b8339f0711220921o33735757h3da20ebe111f2c1e@mail.gmail.com> <20071122175157.GK6512@mathiaz.mathiaz.net> Message-ID: <20071127210659.GD3302@murraytwins.com> On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:51:57PM -0500, Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:21:30PM -0500, Paul Dufresne wrote: > > Often while triaging bugs, I come on bugs that were reported on old > > versions, but seems to be fixed in current or development version. > > That said, most of the time I have no idea exactly when, or where it > > has been fixed. I use to mark them Invalid in this case, because I > > take that 'Fix release' should only be use by a developer to mark that > > his patch not only have been committed, but released. > > > > But then reading > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#head-246b9a0b2091d7aee70afd2b0579dbbc986eb51b > > I begin to seriously think I should mark them 'Fix released'. > > > > Yes. If the bug has been solved in the current development release, it > should be marked as Fix Released. If the bug is serious enough to > consider a Stable Release Update, it should be nominated for the > corresponding release. I agree with Mathias here. Consider the case where an Ubuntu user is searching for a bug about a particular package and he finds a bug report that is Invalid but it is really fixed. This status does not accurately reflect the current status of the software package and that bug. That being said in the event there is not enough information to confirm that a bug really exists and it becomes magically fixed - those bug reports should be invalidated. > > An other less common situation I wonder if I should use 'Fix released' > > or not is in: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/php5/+bug/21995 > > Here the bug have been fix in Debian, but the version in Hardy is not > > yet the same as the fix one in Debian. > > > > Confirmed is a good action. May be 'Fix Committed' could also be used ? I think 'Fix Committed' is appropriate in this particular case. 'Fix Released' should not be used as the fix is not available to Ubuntu users and they reported the bug about the Ubuntu version of the package. > > Last, I often confirm bugs that I am not sure it is a bug because I > > have not enough knowledge of the package, but I am pretty sure the > > package maintainer would have no problem with the information given up > > to now. I just hope it is right to do so. > > > > Yes. A Developer should set it back to Incomplete if it's not complete > enough and Triager should keep working on the bug to get the relevant > information. If the developer consider that the report is good enough, > it should set the bug status to Triaged. With some bug reports you may not be able to reproduce the bug, but if all the debugging information[0] has been gathered for that package then the bug should be confirmed. > > Also, I believe the package naming scheme is supposed to indicate if > > the package is specific to Ubuntu, taken from Debian, taken from an > > other project. But I don't easily find back where this is explained. > > > > Right. You can find this information in > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment#UbuntuPackages. It should > probably be added to the Packaging Guide (which is the first place where > I looked at). > > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/Lists/BugStatus (Rejected > > should become Invalid here) There were actually a couple of old bug statuses here and I have updated that page. However, it should be deprecated in favor of the Bugs/Status page. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures Thanks for your thoughtful questions and feel free to ask any more you might have. Sincerely, -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Thu Nov 29 00:09:30 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:09:30 -0800 Subject: Bug Day Wiki Pages Message-ID: <20071129000930.GF978@murraytwins.com> I end up adding my name to the Bug Day wiki pages[0] a fair bit and wanted to share some tips on doing it more efficiently. The first thing I do is use editmoin[1] which is packaged in Ubuntu as of Gutsy. This allows you to edit the wiki page in your favorite editor rather than using a web browser. This made things fairly quick as I could search for the bug I had hugged and the replace ";" with "lightgreen;" and add my name to the end of the line. I got tired of doing that today though and wrote a vim (my favorite editor) command mapping to mostly automate this. It is: :command -nargs=1 Hugged ://s/\(.*\) ;\(.*\)\(||\)/\1 lightgreen;\2 BrianMurray ||/c After adding this to your ~/.vimrc file you can do the following: 1) editmoin https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20071128 2) type ':Hugged 12345' 3) confirm that's line you want to change 4) write the file I found it pretty useful today and hope you might also! [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20071128 [1] http://labix.org/editmoin -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Thu Nov 29 17:35:25 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:35:25 -0800 Subject: Debugging Procedures Message-ID: <20071129173525.GI978@murraytwins.com> I was do some wiki work today and noticed there were a fair number of debugging procedures not linked to from the central debugging page[0]. I've gone ahead and added links to the pages I could find and recommend that you check and see what "new" debugging documentation we have. The ones I specifically recall linking to are: Apache2, LVM, Udev, Evolution, IDEIssues, LTSP, MouseDetection and TouchpadDetection . Additionally, please let me know if there are any areas or packages that you feel we are missing documentation on and I'll see what I can do about writing them up or talking to the correct developer. [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures Thanks! -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mathiaz at ubuntu.com Thu Nov 29 18:56:28 2007 From: mathiaz at ubuntu.com (Mathias Gug) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:56:28 -0500 Subject: Debugging Procedures In-Reply-To: <20071129173525.GI978@murraytwins.com> References: <20071129173525.GI978@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: <20071129185628.GH6392@mathiaz.mathiaz.net> Hi Brian, On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:35:25AM -0800, Brian Murray wrote: > I was do some wiki work today and noticed there were a fair number of > debugging procedures not linked to from the central debugging page[0]. > I've gone ahead and added links to the pages I could find and recommend > that you check and see what "new" debugging documentation we have. The > ones I specifically recall linking to are: Apache2, LVM, Udev, > Evolution, IDEIssues, LTSP, MouseDetection and TouchpadDetection . > Is there a way to automatically populate the list of Debugging pages in the DebuggingProcedures wiki page ? So that whenever a new DebuggingPackage page is written DebuggingProcedures doesn't need to be edited (one less thing to do...). I think that tagging each debugging page with a category and using a wiki macro to generate the list of pages in DebuggingProcedures should be enough. -- Mathias -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From brian at ubuntu.com Fri Nov 30 21:17:48 2007 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:17:48 -0800 Subject: Hug Day - 5 December 2007 Message-ID: <20071130211748.GA20752@murraytwins.com> I'm happy to announce our next Hug Day on Wednesday, December 5th. We will be targeting bugs that do not have a package assigned to them. We can help easily help these bug reports through the triaging process by assigning to them a package. For help in determining what package to assign the bug to please take a look at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage Even better than just assigning a package would be gathering more information from the original reporter if it is necessary. A list of package and subsystem debugging procedures can be found at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures This event will be held in #ubuntu-bugs and the list of targeted bugs has been posted at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20071205 So feel free to get started early! Our goal is to deal with all of the bugs in that list. Additionally, we have added a graph to the bottom of the wiki page so we can track our progress. So on 5 December 2007, in all timezones, we'll be meeting in #ubuntu-bugs on irc.freenode.net for another Ubuntu Hug Day. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay While you are welcome to apply to join the Ubuntu Bug Control team anytime, Hug Day is a great day to join! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl If you're interested in helping, please stop by. And feel free to ask bdmurray, pedro, ogasawara, heno and the rest of the team for ways to help out. We hope to see you there and your name on the list of bug triagers! -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: