Could a project maintainer or bug supervisor please change the MinGW
bug status from In Progress to Fix Released or authorize me to do
so?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303
Title:
Could a project maintainer or bug supervisor please change the Fedora
bug status from In Progress to Fix Released or authorize me to do
so?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303
Title:
Thank you very much for the testing, Alfonso.
By the way, I noticed that this wiki page -- https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac
/tahoe-lafs/wiki/OSPackages -- hasn't been updated to show the existence
of Oneiric.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
add new patch from debian to not ship extraversion.h
Is there a URL for this patch from debian? I would like to see what this
change is. Thank you!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
That's a good point, Julian. I think it is important to let people know
that they *have* been vulnerable to something, in case they need to take
the opportunity to double-check whether they *were* actually exploited,
or in case it lets them know that they need to upgrade or take defensive
action
Thank you very much for your work on this, Julian Taylor, Bert Agaz,
Marc Deslauriers, and Micah Anderson!
If someone wants to update this wiki page to link to the current version
of Tahoe-LAFS in Ubuntu, that would be good:
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/OSPackages
Also to add or
Here is the announcement: http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-
dev/2011-September/006675.html
** Visibility changed to: Public
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848476
Title:
** Also affects: tahoe-lafs (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/811721
Title:
update pycryptopp to version 0.5.29-1 in natty
To
Public bug reported:
This is a long-standing issue in setuptools, which was copied into
distribute when distribute forked. There exist patches the attempt to
fix the issue offered against both setuptools and distribute. There are
tickets in the setuptools issue tracker, distribute issue tracker,
** Description changed:
This is a long-standing issue in setuptools, which was copied into
distribute when distribute forked. There exist patches the attempt to
fix the issue offered against both setuptools and distribute. There are
tickets in the setuptools issue tracker, distribute
This would probably be a good policy for Python packages in general.
That's a really good idea.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/811721
Title:
update pycryptopp to version 0.5.29-1
I installed python-foolscap_0.6.1-1ubuntu0.1_all.deb from natty-
proposed. It installed cleanly and Tahoe-LAFS passes its unit tests
using this version of foolscap.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I'm the primary maintainer of pycryptopp and a primary maintainer of
tahoe-lafs, and I would be happy with upgrading pycryptopp in Ubuntu and
less happy with patching tahoe-lafs's declarations of its dependencies.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: splix
Dear Ubuntu folks:
Thank you for packaging all this good software for Ubuntu!
My Samsung ML-1740 isn't working very well with my new Natty computer.
Inspecting the configuration, I see that it is using the GDI driver
which is reputed to be
When I go through this process I do *not* see the splix driver in the
system-config-printer GUI tool.
1. sudo apt-get install splix
2. zompu:~$ lpinfo -m | grep 1740
foomatic-db-compressed-ppds:0/Samsung-ML-1740-gdi.ppd Samsung ML-1740
Foomatic/gdi
splix:0/samsung/ml1740.ppd Samsung ML-1740,
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 769935 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769935
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 769935
missing python-mock dep?
* You can subscribe to bug 769935 by following this link:
This one seems easy to fix. Anything I can do to help?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769935
Title:
missing python-mock dep?
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 769936 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769936
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 769936
[natty] foolscap 0.6.1 has no such extra feature 'secure_connections'
* You can subscribe to bug 769936 by following this link:
Agreed, since Ubuntu's distribution of pycryptopp uses the system
(Ubuntu distribution of) Crypto++ then it is not vulnerable to that
issue.
Now we either have to patch Tahoe-LAFS so that its
src/allmydata/_auto_deps.py file does not require such a new pycryptopp
or upgrade pycryptopp. I will
Here's where the upstream Tahoe-LAFS specifies what version of
pycryptopp it needs:
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-
lafs/browser/trunk/src/allmydata/_auto_deps.py?annotate=blamerev=4976#L64
It says:
64 if platform.machine().lower() in ['i386', 'x86_64',
'amd64', 'x86', '']:
** Also affects: pycryptopp (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/782461
Title:
too high version dependency on pycryptopp
--
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: tahoe-lafs
$ tahoe --version
Traceback (most recent call last):
File /usr/bin/tahoe, line 6, in module
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
File /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/pkg_resources.py, line 2671, in
module
** Bug watch added: Tahoe-LAFS Trac #1296
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1296
** Also affects: tahoe-lafs via
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1296
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Public bug reported:
The foolscap setup.py file
(http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/browser/setup.py?annotate=blamerev=7c7b1185b68076cc6176ea41b5fc677445e1e45b#L75
) says that if a package that requires foolscap requires an extra
feature named secure_connections then foolscap requires pyOpenSSL.
** Bug watch added: Tahoe-LAFS Trac #1383
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1383
** Also affects: foolscap via
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1383
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
In this comment I suggest an alternate fix.
In my opinion this is a flaw in the packaging of foolscap for Ubuntu,
and will cause this trouble for any code which tries to use foolscap and
to specify that it requires foolscap's secure_connections feature. In
my opinion the easiest way to fix this
This is a regression from Maverick to Natty. Below is a transcript of
the equivalent process on Maverick, including tahoe-lafs working on
Maverick. So you could look at the difference in the procedure for
building foolscap on Maverick vs. building foolscap on Natty. I assume
that the salient
Maybe this patch will help.
** Branch linked: lp:~zooko/divmod.org/742941-point-metadata-to-
launchpad
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/742941
Title:
epsilon appears to be homeless
Public bug reported:
Epsilon used to live at http://divmod.org/trac/wiki/EpsilonProject but
that site is gone. I guess the project should be officially deprecated
by its maintainers so that we all know to migrate away from using it, or
else someone should set up a new revision control repository,
Haha! After I opened this ticket I found out that Epsilon is on
launchpad!
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~divmod-
dev/divmod.org/trunk/files/head:/Epsilon/
So I'm changing this ticket to be about the fact that the new home of
Epsilon is not referenced from locations such as the PyPI record.
**
rockstar: did you make progress on this last night? Anything I can do to
help?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/719092
Title:
please upgrade to Tahoe-LAFS v1.8.2
--
ubuntu-bugs
See also old bug #616204 -- please upgrade to Tahoe-LAFS v1.8.0
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/719092
Title:
please upgrade to Tahoe-LAFS v1.8.2
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
See also new bug #616204 -- please upgrade to Tahoe-LAFS v1.8.2
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/616204
Title:
please upgrade Tahoe-LAFS to v1.8.0
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Oops, I mean: see also new bug #719092 -- please upgrade to Tahoe-LAFS
v1.8.2
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/616204
Title:
please upgrade Tahoe-LAFS to v1.8.0
--
ubuntu-bugs
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: tahoe-lafs
Since v1.7.1 (which is the latest version in Ubuntu), there have been
the following releases:
v1.8.0 September 24, 2010 performance and fault-tolerance of
downloads, internationalization on Windows, logging, packaging
v1.8.1 November
** Changed in: gobject-introspection (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/341168
Title:
please be compatible with python 2.5
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing
Scott: do you remember what the fix was that went into nevow 0.10.0-1?
I'm working with a user who has a similar problem -- they have the
python-twisted-web package installed in Lucid, but import twisted.web
gets an import error after getting twisted from /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-
binutils 2.20.1, released 2010-03-03, does *not* have the ChangeLog
entry from http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10856#c5 but
*does* have the patch to expr.c. Weird. But I guess it is fixed in
binutils 2.20.1.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
I don't think that I have a lucid system on which to test. Please note
that the bug is 100% reproducible using the audio file that I attached
to the ticket, so someone who does have a Lucid system should be able to
test it.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
twisted/runner/portmap.c:10:20: error: Python.h: No such file or
directory
This means it is trying to compile Twisted. It should probably be using
a .deb of Twisted instead, right? Does this mean that the metadata which
is supposed to tell debuild what packages are needed by Tahoe-LAFS is
failing
http://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/issue/142/easy_install-will-
install-a-package-that-is-already
** Also affects: distribute
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
easy_install will install a package that is already there
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/254035
You received this bug
Okay, if we're not going to backport a fix for this into Hardy, then
let's close this ticket so everyone knows that we're not going to, and
so there are fewer open tickets. I just attempted to set the status of
this bug in hardy to wontfix, but apparently I lack the privilege of
setting it to that
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: tahoe-lafs
Tahoe-LAFS v1.8.0 is due to be released on approximately August 15 (see
the release announcement of the second release candidate: http://tahoe-
lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-August/004950.html ). The current
release of Tahoe-LAFS is a
Elliot Murphy looked at it and was deterred by the presence of several
bundled libs inside the Tahoe-LAFS source tarball:
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/?rev=4580
(darcsver-1.5.1.egg, setuptools-0.6c15dev.egg,
setuptools_trial-0.5.9.egg)
These are build-time dependencies.
Fixed in MingW's upgrade to binutils 2.20.51.20100613
** Changed in: mingw
Importance: Unknown = Undecided
** Changed in: mingw
Status: Unknown = New
** Changed in: mingw
Remote watch: SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876 = None
** Changed in: mingw
Status: New = Fix Released
**
So let's summarize what we know of this issue. It occurs with all
packages that are installed by python-support, right? And the underlying
cause is that python-support is installing the package's .egg-info into
a directory which may or may not be on the sys.path but which is not a
site-dir.
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: tahoe-lafs
There is a new version of Tahoe-LAFS available, v1.7.1:
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/Doc#TheParadeofReleaseNotes
Upgrading to 1.7.1 from the 1.6.1 that is currently in Ubuntu would
provide significant new features and a few
One of the new features in v1.7.1 is init scripts which are intended to
be useful for Debian and Ubuntu:
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/961
--
please upgrade to tahoe-lafs v1.7.1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/609755
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 254035 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/254035
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 254035
easy_install will install a package that is already there
--
regression: distribute will attempt to install a package when it shouldn't,
causing
This issue is currently causing headaches for my co-workers at
http://simplegeo.com . At this point I'm hoping that they'll just revert
to Karmic. Karmic is fine. We don't need Lucid at this point.
--
regression: distribute will attempt to install a package when it shouldn't,
causing failure to
I wonder if this is related to
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/543617 . Note that
the 2x slowdown for dpkg mentioned in
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/1004#Performance%20regressions%20with%20ext4%20under%20certain%20workloads
is a far cry from the 25x (!!!)
I wonder if this was the cause of the 25x slowdown of apache as reported
by Phoronix: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/567302
--
Unmount of an fs with dirty cache buffers causes pathological slowdown
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/543617
You received this bug notification
Public bug reported:
Folks:
The python-setuptools package in Ubuntu Karmic works for my use case
but the python-setuptools package in Ubuntu Lucid fails due to a bug
that was fixed in the upstream setuptools project but either was not
fixed or has subsequently regressed in the upstream
** Bug watch added: setuptools Roundup #17
http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue17
** Also affects: setuptools via
http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue17
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
regression: distribute will attempt to install a package when it shouldn't,
** Also affects: python-setuptools (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
regression: distribute will attempt to install a package when it shouldn't,
causing failure to install
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/571435
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Interestingly the new packaging of python-setuptools in Ubuntu Lucid
adds a .egg-info for Distribute with a working version number but leaves
the .egg-info for setuptools with no version number:
$ dpkg --listfiles python-setuptools | grep egg-info$
** Bug watch added: tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ #657
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/657
** Also affects: tahoe-lafs via
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/657
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
regression: distribute will attempt to install a
** Changed in: foolscap (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Invalid
--
package python-foolscap 0.3.2.dfsg-2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess
post-installation script returned error exit status 1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/388855
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
This appears to be a bug in python-central not in foolscap, because the
tail of flyapen's DpkgTerminalLog.gz is this:
Selecting previously deselected package python-pexpect.
Unpacking python-pexpect (from .../python-pexpect_2.3-1_all.deb) ...
Selecting previously deselected package ipython.
Public bug reported:
Folks:
Foolscap v0.5.1 was just released. It includes an important performance bugfix,
reducing the CPU time for large data transfers from O(N^2) to O(N). Here is the
front page with a link to the v0.5.1 release:
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/wiki
Here is the NEWS file:
** Bug watch added: Foolscap Trac #149
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/ticket/149
** Also affects: foolscap via
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/ticket/149
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
please upgrade foolscap in Ubuntu Lucid to v0.5.1
** Bug watch added: tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ #983
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/983
** Also affects: tahoe-lafs via
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/983
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
please upgrade foolscap in Ubuntu Lucid to v0.5.1
Jeremy Visser's package is available from this PPA apt repository:
https://launchpad.net/~jeremy-visser/+archive/ppa
--
please upgrade Tahoe-LAFS in Lucid to v1.6.1 of Tahoe-LAFS
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/529350
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Whoo! I successfully assigned this ticket to Paul Hummer! Will you do
it, Paul?
** Changed in: tahoe-lafs (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) = Paul Hummer (rockstar)
--
please upgrade Tahoe-LAFS in Lucid to v1.6.1 of Tahoe-LAFS
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/529350
You received this bug
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: tahoe-lafs
Folks:
We (the Tahoe-LAFS team) just released v1.6.1 of Tahoe-LAFS. This is a
bug-fix release which changes nothing except for fixing a few small
regressions or bugs in v1.6.0. Please upgrade the version of Tahoe-LAFS
which is included in
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: subunit
I'm configuring Hudson to produce pretty explorable unit test results.
Installing subunit is one step in doing that. Once I've installed
subunit, if I invoke subunit2junitxml then I get an ImportError:
** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/39547043/Dependencies.txt
--
should depend-on or recommend python-junitxml
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/525886
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: tahoe-lafs
Tahoe-LAFS v1.6 is out: http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-
dev/2010-February/003759.html
It rocks! Also it is fully backwards-compatible at all levels (data
formats, wire protocols, API, configuration, packaging). As far as I can
remember
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: python-support
I'm not sure if this is a bug in python-support, but somehow on my Hardy
system there is a file named /var/lib/python-
support/python2.5/twisted/__init__.py which prevents twisted from being
importable. Using sudo to rm that file
** Bug watch added: Red Hat Bugzilla #544358
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544358
** Also affects: binutils (Fedora) via
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544358
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
generates-bad-code regression
** Bug watch added: SourceForge.net Tracker #2913876
http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=2913876
** Also affects: mingw via
http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=2913876
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
** Also affects: pycryptopp via
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 410098 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/410098
Why is this bug marked as a duplicate of #410098? It's not.
My mistake.
Zooko: Twisted's plugins directory is indeed a Python package. Why do
you say it isn't?
My other mistake. Sorry about that! Let
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 410098 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/410098
This seems to be related to #410098 -- twisted installs a directory
named plugins but it isn't a Python package, it is just a directory.
Some other tools seem to create an __init__.py file and put it into
** Changed in: python-setuptools (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Fix Committed
** Changed in: python-setuptools (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed = New
** Also affects: setuptools via
http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue4
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
setuptools
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 410098 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/410098
This seems to be related to #410098 -- twisted installs a directory
named plugins but it isn't a Python package, it is just a directory.
Some other tools seem to create an __init__.py file and put it into
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 410098 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/410098
This seems to be related to #410098 -- twisted installs a directory
named plugins but it isn't a Python package, it is just a directory.
Some other tools seem to create an __init__.py file and put it into
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 410098 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/410098
This seems to be related to #410098 -- twisted installs a directory
named plugins but it isn't a Python package, it is just a directory.
Some other tools seem to create an __init__.py file and put it into
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 410098 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/410098
This seems to be related to #410098 -- twisted installs a directory
named plugins but it isn't a Python package, it is just a directory.
Some other tools seem to create an __init__.py file and put it into
Confirmed on the pycryptopp buildbot: binutils 2.20-0ubuntu1:
http://allmydata.org/buildbot-pycryptopp/builders/linux-amd64-ubuntu-
karmic-yukyuk/builds/16 , 2.20-0ubuntu2: http://allmydata.org/buildbot-
pycryptopp/builders/linux-amd64-ubuntu-karmic-yukyuk/builds/17
--
generates-bad-code
Wei Dai, the author of Crypto++, has kindly volunteered to investigate:
http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users/msg/e49e6e8a0adf4630
He asks:
How can we find out who submitted the the binutil patch and contact him
or her?
--
generates-bad-code regression
Please also see my response where I say that I don't know where the
patches come from and where I speculate about blacklisting this
particular version of GNU assembler:
http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users/msg/fef83f2a64c797cc
--
generates-bad-code regression
Public bug reported:
g++-4.4 4.4.1-3ubuntu3 was used to build libcrypto++8. The current
g++-4.4 in Karmic is g++-4.4 4.4.1-4ubuntu8. When 4.4.1-4ubuntu8 is
used to build libcrypto++8 then the libcrypto++8 self-tests hang during
the SHA validation. It appears that there has been a regression
** Bug watch added: allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ #31
http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/31
** Also affects: tahoe-lafs via
http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/ticket/31
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
generates-bad-code regression
Hold on, the reason that I stated that g++ 4.4.1-3ubuntu3 built good
code is as follows:
1. The resulting libcrypto++8 is in Karmic, so it must have passed its
self-test which happens automatically when you build it, right?
2. If you link pycryptopp to the resulting libcrypto++8 which is in
Okay it looks like this is an issue in binutils, not in g++. As stated
in the previous comment I installed the version of g++-4.4 and all of
its many dependencies that had been used back in 2009-09-18 to build
libcrypto++8, and the build still fails. Then I changed binutils from
the current
Okay I just did this:
Preparing to replace binutils 2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1 (using
binutils_2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ...
And am now pbuilding again. Now we'll see if the regression happened
between 2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1 and 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 or
between
Okay, the result is that 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 also misbuilds
libcrypto++8.
Next I will try the point halfway between the last known good version
(2.19.91.20090910-0ubuntu1) and the earliest known bad version
(2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1). That would be... 2.19.91.20091003-0ubuntu1
. And
Oh by the way this is all on amd64.
--
generates-bad-code regression
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Okay, 2.19.91.20091003-0ubuntu1 passed. So the regression must be
between 2.19.91.20091003-0ubuntu1 and 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 . Next
I will try 2.19.91.20091005-0ubuntu2 .
--
generates-bad-code regression
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303
You received this bug notification because you
okay 2.19.91.20091005-0ubuntu2 built it correctly. We must be getting
close to the regressing version. Next I'll try
2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1 .
--
generates-bad-code regression
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Preparing to replace binutils 2.19.91.20091005-0ubuntu2 (using
binutils_2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ...
Okay it passed. This implies that the upgrade from
2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1 to 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 introduced this
regression. I'll just double-check that
Preparing to replace binutils 2.19.91.20091006-0ubuntu1 (using
binutils_2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ...
Yep. 2.19.91.20091014-0ubuntu1 builds a libcrypto++8 that hangs during
the SHA validation in its self-tests. What's the next step? How can we
get a diff from
note that libcrypto++ does include a fair bit of asm code for amd64.
--
generates-bad-code regression
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
okay, i'm not at all familiar with binutils, but just studying which
files were changed by this patch and excluding build, packaging,
translation, and non-amd64 arches, i am left with these three patches:
--- binutils-2.19.91.20091006/gas/read.c2009-09-15 13:27:21.0
+0100
+++
I posted to the Crypto++ mailing list asking for help and warning them not to
upgrade to Karmic:
http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users/browse_thread/thread/36ceee8e8f500fd3
--
generates-bad-code regression
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/461303
You received this bug notification
According to http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-
dev/2009-August/002551.html this situation with the bogus __init__.py
file doesn't cause a problem as long as the correct twisted directory
appears earlier on the PYTHONPATH.
My own personal experience with this bug required me to run sudo
I may have confused the issue originally reported by Shawn Willden with
this issue that I experience in Tahoe-LAFS:
http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/806 .
Shawn reported that he traced the problem to an empty __init__.py file
that is written into
** Bug watch added: Python Roundup #7183
http://bugs.python.org/issue7183
** Also affects: python via
http://bugs.python.org/issue7183
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
libboost-python1.38 issues with __doc__ property in Python = 2.6.3
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/457688
** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33785193/Dependencies.txt
--
I configure my shortcuts then they revert to standard when I switch to a tab
with a text-editor in it.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/453092
You received this bug notification because you are a
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: konqueror
I hit Ctrl-PgDown and a dialog box says that it is ambiguous and I
should configure shortcuts from the settings menu.
So I do, changing one of the two actions with Ctrl-PgDown -- the one
named Move To Bottom Of View -- to have no shortcut
1 - 100 of 271 matches
Mail list logo
