You are indeed right. Python libraries are not multilib, and should live
in /usr/lib/python3/site-packages. Will fix, but the process starts at
the Debian side.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
The core issue here is the dependency in vdr. There is a ticket [1]
about this.
Otherwise, the simple work-around is uninstall the lirc package.
This is an old bug. I see no new reports or comments lately, which seems
to indicate that it is fixed in current release.
[1]
Filed vdr issue: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012274
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #1012274
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012274
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Sorry for late reply.
The python module contains binary. architecture-dependent code and can
for that reason not be installed in /usr/lib/python3/ due to overall
multi-arch requirements.
That said, the official Debian documents I find are not explicit on how
to install these kind of modules.
lirc does not spam the log if correctly configured. The repeated
messages is a actually a feature since it's an easy way to detect status
when configuring and hot-plugging a device.
The basic issue here is if lirc is pulled in as a dependency. It should
not, it's designed to be used by users
Late comment: vlc does not depend on lirc any more, so this should not
happen to new installations.
Work around for existing installations is to either remove the lirc
package or simply disable lircd.socket, lircd.service and lircd-uinput
using systemctl.
--
You received this bug notification
[sorry for late walking through bugs]
Have you tried the installation instructions as described in the
upstream docs[1] ?
[1] https://www.lirc.org/html/configuration-guide.html
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
@gunnarhj: Not least, thanks also to you. Sorry for oversight.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1974167
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Focal
To manage
@ddstreet: Thanks!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1974167
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Focal
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The Kinetic 5.6.2 is the latest upstream release available. In order to
keep the official packaging relevant this needs to be backported since
users otherwise are relegated the upstream PPA where the packaging is
not optimal (no source package, no
** Patch added: "Debdiff against kinetic"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencpn/+bug/1974167/+attachment/5591260/+files/kinetic.debdiff
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I need a sponsor...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1974167
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Focal
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Public bug reported:
[Impact]
The Kinetic 5.6.2 is the latest upstream release available. In order to
keep the official packaging relevant this needs to be backported since
users otherwise are relegated the upstream PPA where the packaging is
not optimal (no source package, no review, etc).
@ddstreet: Thanks for review and uploading!
Will try to remember. Next opportunity is backporting 5.6.2 to focal.,..
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport
As for 1): My initial description could and should have been better. I'm
actually not aware of bugs that can and should be fixed by point
patches. That is, the description is wrong.
The core problem the backport tries to address is that OpenCPN users
(thousands, for sure) are accustomed to using
To start with 2): Application downloads plugins from external sources.
There are not that many plugins available for jammy yet, and the Focal
plugins are actually compatible so the patch makes these plugins
available also for Jammy.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member
Ah, right.
And yes, we want that patch.
Sorry for the mess. Need to improve...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Jammy
To
My bad, sorry, still learning. It is not until now I understand the role
of the debdiff, that this is what you as sponsor upload.
These two debdiffs are basically the same thing compared to different
baselines. However, "my" diff is probably far easier to review being
much smaller. If this is
Hm... are you confused by the fact that the diff in the upload queue is
against 5.6.0+dfsg1-1 (huge!) whereas the debdiff here is against
kinetic i. e., 5.6.2+dfsg-1?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Hej Gunnar,
On 07/05/2022 15:28, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Hey, Alec, that debdiff you added differs from what I uploaded. What
> now? Should I use the debdiff in a new upload?
>
Administrativa problem Hur ser din debdiff ut?
--alec
PS: När skall jag lära mig att bifoga den till ärendet
** Attachment added: "Debdiff against kinetic"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencpn/+bug/1971109/+attachment/5587227/+files/debdiff.txt
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Jammy
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
** Summary changed:
- [BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
+ [BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Jammy
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The current release misses several important bugfixes available in the
Kinetic 5.6.2 package. Thus it forces users to the PPA at
https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn. While more
recent, this not properly packaged and reviewed,
I need a sponsor...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Not a WIP any more as far as I know.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Package update and looks good. Not
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
This is still a WIP.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Public bug reported:
[Impact]
The current release misses several important bugfixes available in the
Kinetic 5.6.2 package. Thus it forces users to the PPA at
https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn. While more
recent, this not properly packaged and reviewed, lacking a source
@Mattia:
Thanks for review and uploading.
I guess the review boils down to that while the delta against Jammy is
reasonable small it could and should have been smaller. I can nothing
but agree. Of course, there are some explanations. Doubt they are
interesting, though.
If I get this right this
@teward, @gunnarhj: Ah, right, this is similar to the Debian process.
Looking at that queue is somewhat scary, I see an entry from 2021-10-28.
Can just hope this goes faster.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
@gunnarhj:
Now, it was some days since you sponsored me, thanks for that. However,
I still don't see it in focal-backports, at least not when browsing. Is
this normal i. e., how long am I supposed to wait before package
becomes visible?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
@Mattia: OK, will do. Still learning.
Seems that having a discussion on ubuntu-devel is fruitful in many ways,
though ;)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport
Deleted: Swedish talk
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
@gunnar: I found the bogus debian/ files. It's in the upstream sources,
used for PPA builds. The strange thing is that "gbp buildpackage" works
without problems which has made the package sail through all Debian
checks.
Anyway, the package is repackaged, so it's just to add debian to the
@Gunnar: Man tackar (a. k. a. thanks for sponsoring)!
> Please unsubscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors from this bug.
Done
> One oddity is that the orig.tar.xz file includes a debian/ folder
WTF?! Something is rotten in pristine-tar, will check again. Thanks for
notifying.
--
You received this bug
@dan: I can understand if this thing take too much time for you. I'm
just a newbie which runs into obstacles others doesn't know about --
that's what newbies do.
Also, this discussion does not really belong to the issue. Should we
start a thread on ubuntu-devel instead, to get more eyes on it?
Turns out that this application process is a interesting chicken and egg
problem ;)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage
Havn't tried that one, doing it now... result: "You are not allowed to
edit this page."
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To
> Since you have a LP account, I'm pretty sure you should be able to
create a wiki page for yourself.
Nope.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn
I guessed something like that. However, to be able to do it I need to be
member of the Ubuntu Wiki Editors Team. My application for that is
pending: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wiki-editors.
I have so far tried to learn the virtue of patience in the Debian
community. I have my background in
I'll try to make an application. F
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
...irst step is to become member of the wiki group. Waiting for that,,,
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage notifications
Sllly me read on the wrong place. Sigh. And thanks.
But the devil is in the details. That paragraph links to the process
described in
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess. But
there is no description for this case. Any idea how this application
should be done?
--
hm... when I read
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess, the
"Debian Developers applying for Per-Package upload rights" paragraph,
the first sentence is
"The DMB has establised a procedure for interested Debian Developers to
gain upload rights to their packages"
As
@Dan: thanks for input, just what I needed.
PPU rights... I first need to become a DD. I have so far said no to
this, but is about to reconsider.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
@Dan: Thanks for review!
> While Debian uses 'Closes:', Ubuntu uses 'LP:', so this should be
Done
> technically, debhelper 13 is in focal-backports (and even bionic-
backports), but if you don't actually need level 13 it's fine to reduce
it in the backport.
Actually, it turns out the I did
FWIW, the corresponding Debian backport to bullseye-backports is
accepted.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage
Adding the Debian backport checklist
- Current version is two versions behind. As a result, upstream directs all
users to the PPA, a packaging which does not meet basic standards. Ergo:
backporting is meaningful.
- The package has a substantial user base although this for now means the PPA
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The current release is so old that it is unusable. Thus it forces users
to the PPA at https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn.
While more recent, this not properly packaged and reviewed, lacking a
source package etc.
[Scope]
** Patch added: "Debdiff against jammy"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencpn/+bug/1956004/+attachment/5550319/+files/opencpn.debdiff
** Description changed:
[Impact]
- The current release is so old that it is unusable. Thus it forces users to
the
- PPA at
Public bug reported:
[Impact]
The current release is so old that it is unusable. Thus it forces users to the
PPA at https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn. While more
recent,
this not properly packaged and reviewed, lacking a source package etc.
[Scope]
This is about
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lirc/+bug/1788235/comments/16
is a beginning...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1788235
Title:
lirc broken on 18.04
To manage notifications
Basically, it isn't buggy but requires manual intervention when
updating.
A script called lirc-setup is however broken. It's primary use-case is
fresh installs rather than updates which have no need for it. A
workaround to make it wotk could be found in comment #2.
Some users have had problems
> I suppose it is a bug, as lirc should work after upgrade without
manual reconfiguration.
No it should not, as apparent if you read the comkplete discussion in
this bug or, more on the spot, bug #1788235.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
That said, if someone filed a bug against lirc because lirc-setup is
broken, that bug is certainly valid. But IMHO, that's a very different
story. And since there is a usable work-around it would probably just be
closed as fixed upstream.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
The main issue described in this bug is bogus, as apparent from bug
#1788235
However, the configuration script lirc-setup *is* indeed broken . This
is fixed in Debian upstream from 0.10.1, but hasn't trickled down. That
said, users will still need to read README.Debian, and the process to
> Kodi definitely works with the latest versions of Lirc and the problem i
> is very easy to fix so stop downgrading your systems to an older version of
> Lirc
Right.
> The problem is Kodi defaults to looking for a Lirc socket at /dev/lircd which
> doesn’t exist anymore.
Has anyone cared
To further investigate this issues, a question is if the main lirc
package is installed. If so, the lircd.socket, lircd.service and lircd-
uinput.services should be disabled and stopped. If problem persists,
with or without liblircclient installed, this should be re-assigned to
the kernel
--
You
This is fixed in debian upstream. Until this trickles down, the walk-
around is something like
# libdir=/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/python3.6/site-packages
# cp /usr/share/lirc/python-pkg/config.py $libdir/lirc
# ln -s $libdir/lirc /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/
# ln -s
So, changing status.
@xekon: dpkg-reconfigure doesn't do anything at all...
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1788235
> @»ekon, @Alec, thanks for your comments, reading those it looks like
you are stating that there is no real bug, just that the changes in the
software and its configuration files confused users that were used to
the old way? E.g nothing that needs to be resolved?
Right, from my point of view
@seb128: The missing UI refers to the reconfiguration UI which was part
of lirc up to 0.9.0. This reflected even older code containing kernel
modules where lirc was rebuilt from source depending on configuration.
Nowadays lirc is a just a server with configuration files and there is
no need to
Seems that we agree that the idea that lirc as of 18.04 is "broken" is
plain wrong.
The problem is about making a correct upgrade which involves manual
steps as described in README.Debian (with a notification in the upgrade
message).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
> Is there more documentation at a website that I could read to learn
more?
The official site is http://lirc.org. Among other things, here is an
updated Configuration Guide.
> I am particularly interested in the info about the raw events from the
socket.
At the same site there is info on the
> While I am sure LIRC has a lot of uses. I would wager 90% of its users
are using kodi.
This might be the truth as seen from the kodi community. However, from
an upstream lirc point of view I cannot really see that the number of
kodi users are dominating in any way.
> forgot a couple steps,
Now, considering these reports one cannot IMHO really say that lirc is
'broken'. What could be said is that the upgrade to the new version
requires manual steps, none of which mentioned in this report.
The manual steps are documented in the file
/usr/share/doc/lirc/README.Debian.gz -- this is
Oops... seems that the default lircd.conf only requires .conf suffix,
not lircd.conf. All solved, my bad.
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Glad that it works for you. The question is just how...
As noted in the README, from 0.9.4 all lircd.conf files needs names like
mce.lircd.conf i. e., with a lircd.conf suffix. The default lircd.conf
files only includes files with this suffix. That said, a custom
lircd.conf could of course
The package contains a README.Debian.gz file which explains the changes
done. A reference to this file was displayed when you upgraded lirc, but
perhaps you missed it (such things happens, for sure).
The update 0.9.0 -> 0.9.4 is a breaking update requiriung manual
intervention as described in
At a closer look, the configuration seems messy. E. g.,
/etc/lirc/lirc.conf includes a file from /usr/share/lirc/configs, a
directory not present in 0.9.4.
Have you worked through the necessary manual upgrade steps as described
in /usr/share/doc/lirc/README.Debian.gz?
Note that the missing
Previous versions needed some configuration to basically make a
conditional compilation. Possibly, submitter expects the configuration
menu as of 0.9.0. However, there is no such menu in 0.9.4 - all
configuration is done after installation using regular configuration
files
Given this, my
For the sake of order, this bug should be re-assigned to the kernel
package instead of the user-space lirc package.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1681838
Title:
IR pilot is not
This bug is 8 years old, The primary culprits hald and hardware.conf are
gone and this bugf shouldI MHO be closed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/206495
Title:
hvr-1100 is not
So,I'm not allowed set it to wontfix. Setting Incomplete, please change
you don't want this bug to be closed.
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Setting Incomplete to let bug expire. Please change if you don't wan
bug to expire-
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/934023
After a second thought I think this is wontfix. Setting up lirc is a
complex task, and enabling a service in the standard session GUI tools
is a small problem compared to other. Also, the 'parse .lircrc'approach
just don't work since applications can store them anywhere. And does so.
--
You
Re-assigning to kernel - this is teh way to clarify whether it's a bug
or just documented behaviour.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/359356
Title:
USB device attached to different
Closing as fixed, since release 0.9.4c does not use sysV scripts or
hardware.conf.
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Now, suspend-resume is about the kernel, the extra modules secion. But
which iof them? Just don't know.
** Package changed: lirc (Ubuntu) => linux-lts-xenial (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
As for the lirc part, the last 0.9.4 release solves this since the lircd
output socket is created at an very early point in the boot sequence.
lircd is started using socket activation when irexec or some otther
client connects to the socket. So, no race is possible.
IMHO, mysql should do the
This do belong to mythbuntu since it's about the automatic generation
of config files. Still unsure which of the mythbuntu packages, sorry.
** Package changed: lirc (Ubuntu) => mythbuntu-common (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
At second thogt this is a mythbuntu issue, re-assigning.
Please note that that from 0.9.4 lirc no longer supports hardware.conf.
In short, each lircd instance is configured as a systemd service. There
is also a ren lirc_options.conf file which defines default values for
command line options. See
The last release 0.9.4c dos not support hardware.conf anymore, so this
is bug is obsoleted. Closing as "FixReleased", short of better options.
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
ed.
* Changing Vcs-* headers to point to upstream packaging branch.
* Fixes existing large number of upgrade bugs.
* Enhance hardening flags.
* Add a lintian pbuilder test, this requires --hookdir and B92-test-pkg
therein.
* Tested (build-wise) on stretch and sid.
-- Alec Leamas
* Last parts of libirman dependencies removed.
* Changing Vcs-* headers to point to upstream packaging branch.
* Fixes existing large number of upgrade bugs.
* Enhance hardening flags.
* Add a lintian pbuilder test, this requires --hookdir and B92-test-pkg
therein.
* Tested (build-w
At a second thought; Since it's now supported, let's close bug
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Fix Committed
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
expiring manually
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/238032
Title:
lircd doesn't find dvico usb IR remote device
Expiring
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/663651
Title:
Streamzap remote control not operating correctly
To manage
mber of upgrade bugs.
* Enhance hardening flags.
* Add a lintian pbuilder test, this requires --hookdir and B92-test-pkg
therein.
* Tested (build-wise) on stretch and sid.
-- Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 11:14:25
+0100
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu
The patch is for kernel code, reassigning.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/626633
Title:
Missing MCE remote from default config file
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Any news on this? Otherwise, without further input, I suggest this is
closed.
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/597955
Possibly , wrog version
** Package changed: lirc (Ubuntu) => linux-lts-utopic (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/626633
Title:
Missing MCE remote from default config file
eaders to point to upstream packaging branch.
* Fixes existing large number of upgrade bugs.
* Enhance hardening flags.
* Add a lintian pbuilder test, this requires --hookdir and B92-test-pkg
therein.
* Tested (build-wise) on stretch and sid.
-- Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com&g
+ explicit link
to walk around #801719 (dh_python3 shortcomings).
* Last parts of libirman dependencies removed.
* Changing Vcs-* headers to point to upstream packaging branch.
* Fixes existing large number of upgrade bugs.
* Enhance hardening flags.
* Add a lintian pbuilder test, th
indeed the kernel,media subsystem,possibly wrong version
** Package changed: lirc (Ubuntu) => linux-lts-utopic (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/663497
Title:
Transmitter
Perhaps wrong kernel version, duuno. But it's the kernel, media
susbsystem.
** Package changed: lirc (Ubuntu) => linux-lts-utopic (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/454371
Title:
..unless there is more input
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/238032
Title:
lircd doesn't find dvico usb IR remote device correctly (expects
/dev/lirc)
To manage notifications about
Same expired goes for lirc...
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/238032
Title:
lircd doesn't find dvico usb IR remote
Does this mean that the bug is gone after updating hardware.conf?
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/991116
Title:
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
