On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:36:07PM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> We currently have 2012 packages with the tag "apport-package" in
> launchpad. Of these, 963 are open (not invalid, won't fix or fix
> released). I looked at the most recent bugs to get a idea what
> those are about and found:
Thanks f
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 03:19:28PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 03:05:11PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > == Automatic installation reports ==
> >
> > mvo asked how useful are the apt filed installation failed reports?
> >
> > Should we not file them against the f
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 09:10:27PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman [2008-08-14 15:19 +0100]:
> > What is the clutter?
>
> Two reasons for me, mainly: First, a lot of failures are
> unreproducible and probably due to some sort of local failure (third
> party packages installed, nvidia
Matt Zimmerman [2008-08-14 15:19 +0100]:
> What is the clutter?
Two reasons for me, mainly: First, a lot of failures are
unreproducible and probably due to some sort of local failure (third
party packages installed, nvidia upstream installer messing up the
system, full disk, automatix, etc.), an
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 03:05:11PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> == Automatic installation reports ==
>
> mvo asked how useful are the apt filed installation failed reports?
>
> Should we not file them against the failed package (e.g. gedit) but
> against a central virtual component (like i
For minutes of previous meetings, please see DesktopTeam/Meeting.
== Present ==
* Scott James Remnant (Keybuk) - chair
* Martin Pitt (pitti)
* Michael Vogt (mvo)
* Mirco Müller (MacSlow)
* Sebastien Bacher (seb128)
* Ted Gould (tedg)
* Pedro Villavicencio Garrido (pedro_)
== Apologies ==
