Apport retrace service invalidates valid crasher bugs...
I reported a crash in Synaptic yesterday: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/synaptic/+bug/355415 Now, the Apport retrace service invalidated this bug because I don't have scrollkeeper installed. But scrollkeeper is deprecated and replaced by rarian-compat (which is a dependency of ubuntu-desktop). Also, Synaptic installs works just fine *without* scrollkeeper. Seems like something is wrong with the retrace service, and I wonder how many legitimate crasher bugs have been invalidated because of this? I really hope not too many other packages are impacted, and I think it might be useful to have a look at the invalidated bugs reported against those packages... PS: I'd be happy to file a bug about this, but I'm not sure where to file it (launchpad, apport-retrace, somewhere else?). -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apport retrace service invalidates valid crasher bugs...
On Sunday 05 April 2009 08:21:53 Jan Claeys wrote: I reported a crash in Synaptic yesterday: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/synaptic/+bug/355415 Now, the Apport retrace service invalidated this bug because I don't have scrollkeeper installed. But scrollkeeper is deprecated and replaced by rarian-compat (which is a dependency of ubuntu-desktop). Also, Synaptic installs works just fine *without* scrollkeeper. This sounds very similar to the this bug I reported recently: https://launchpad.net/bugs/341358 Seems like something is wrong with the retrace service, and I wonder how many legitimate crasher bugs have been invalidated because of this? I really hope not too many other packages are impacted, and I think it might be useful to have a look at the invalidated bugs reported against those packages... Apport consistently rejected at least crasher bugs in kdebluetooth4, which was crashing on suspend/resume. As you can see from IRC log, it seems that retracing service does not select | dependancies correctly (expects the first one to be installed). Regards, Luka -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Matt Wheeler m...@funkyhat.org wrote: 2009/4/4 Nils Kassube kass...@gmx.net: If you don't trust update-manager you would have to check everything after an update. I don't think anybody will do that even after providing the password. Most users don't even know what to look for to check the system. That's not the point I'm trying to make. Maybe it's not as big an issue as I think, but I meant if update-manager had any possibility of crashing then perhaps a malicious user/program could use it to escalate privilieges (I've personally found 1 or 2 root escalation bugs in GDM for example, how would we guarantee not to have the same problems here)? Adding something like %sudo ALL=NOPASSWD: aptitude update to the sudoers gives almost the right rights. If there is no user input into aptitude, then this does not add any new such security holes. However, Update-manager allows the user to unselect updates. So to allow non-root users to do a selective upgrade, we'd have to pass in the packages to update, running a risk that these package names are malicious and cause Update-manager to do something bad. I imagine this risk could be made quite small Still, an overnight auto-update seems like a sensible default for novice users who don't need or want to know what an update is. This is what I set my computer too when I am overseas and leave my computer on for family to use. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking for a List of log messages that Linux sends
raahi 108 wrote: I am doing some syslog analysis from various devices. For Linux, i was trying to find if there is a document listing formats for ALL logs that linux sends out... -e.g. --- 92pure-ftpd: (?...@theman) [WARNING] Authentication failed for user [root] 38sshd(pam_unix)[22547]: session closed for user root 86sshd[22547]: Received disconnect from 171.69.43.3: 11: Connection discarded by broker How could there be? I can run the command logger test and get this in my syslog: Apr 5 09:08:19 morgen logger: test Any application can send _anything_ to syslog. Some applications allow you to route their entire standard output to syslog. -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apport retrace service invalidates valid crasher bugs...
Op zondag 05-04-2009 om 09:40 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Luka Renko: On Sunday 05 April 2009 08:21:53 Jan Claeys wrote: I reported a crash in Synaptic yesterday: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/synaptic/+bug/355415 Now, the Apport retrace service invalidated this bug because I don't have scrollkeeper installed. But scrollkeeper is deprecated and replaced by rarian-compat (which is a dependency of ubuntu-desktop). Also, Synaptic installs works just fine *without* scrollkeeper. This sounds very similar to the this bug I reported recently: https://launchpad.net/bugs/341358 I had already filed a bug too: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apport/+bug/355481 (I've marked it as a duplicate of your report.) I see you were also concerned about other crasher bugs being hidden, but according to Martin those bug reports have useless stacktraces anyway. Maybe the stacktrace is useless, but the number of such crashes might be important too (Synaptic has been crashing like that for some time now), or maybe there is a reason why the stacktraces are like that? Seems like something is wrong with the retrace service, and I wonder how many legitimate crasher bugs have been invalidated because of this? I really hope not too many other packages are impacted, and I think it might be useful to have a look at the invalidated bugs reported against those packages... Apport consistently rejected at least crasher bugs in kdebluetooth4, which was crashing on suspend/resume. As you can see from IRC log, it seems that retracing service does not select | dependancies correctly (expects the first one to be installed). I was already suspecting something like that, but Synaptic doesn't use |. I think in this case the problem is that rarian-compat replaces, conflicts provides the scrollkeeper package, while synaptic has a dependency on scrollkeeper, and ubuntu-desktop has a dependency on rarian-compat. -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apport retrace service invalidates valid crasher bugs...
Luka Renko [2009-04-05 9:40 +0200]: This sounds very similar to the this bug I reported recently: https://launchpad.net/bugs/341358 Indeed it is the same reason. I'll work on this ASAP. At least the impact is not that big, since it only rejects those crashes if the retrace is really unusable (majority of functions unknown in Stacktrace). Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
RFC: tutorial on new design features
Hello, I've been following discussion on new design features and bugs, and just downloaded Jaunty beta to check things out. It's a great difference from Hardy, which is what I still use. I didn't see the face of Intrepid, so I don't know how much of the difference is actually from Jaunty, but maybe this suggestion would ease the impact for both users upgrading and new users: a small tutorial on the UI. It could be simple, and similar to the one in PalmOS devices, for those few of you who've seen or used it. I'm sure there is a video in youtube showing it, but I can't find it, so I'll try to describe it briefly. It has static clickable screens, with topics and graphics, like a presentation. Each page describes one feature with simple topic phrases, and illustrates with pictures with arrows and captions. In PalmOS it's obviously fullscreen, probably because of screen size. It doesn't have to be fancy, just informative. I think it could be done for Ubuntu as simple as HTML shown in yelp, or whatever format yelp likes better. If time and resources are available (hardly, I know), it could be done as a small OGG video, similar to the mockups in Mark Shuttleworth's blog. Maybe both. IMHO, as in PalmOS, it should be shown in highlights only in the first login, but still be available afterwards in an appropriate menu. I hope it's not too late in the cycle for that to go into Jaunty, as I think it will add a lot of value to the new features. The text could probably even be copied directly from the Release Notes, if it's ready yet, so as to minimize the work about it. Thinking about it, the tutorial could even *be* the Release Notes. Comments? regards FF -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
2009/4/5 John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.com: Adding something like %sudo ALL=NOPASSWD: aptitude update to the sudoers gives almost the right rights. If there is no user input into aptitude, then this does not add any new such security holes. /usr/bin/aptitude would be safer, but yes. However, Update-manager allows the user to unselect updates. So to allow non-root users to do a selective upgrade, we'd have to pass in the packages to update, running a risk that these package names are malicious and cause Update-manager to do something bad. I imagine this risk could be made quite small What I'm talking about is unknown security holes, which unfortunately lots of apps seem to have. Is the risk of any being present sufficiently small? Does using sudo rather than suid bit have any advantages security wise (apart from the obvious limits on which users can run the program)? Still, an overnight auto-update seems like a sensible default for novice users who don't need or want to know what an update is. This is what I set my computer too when I am overseas and leave my computer on for family to use. I agree, I think automatic updates are a good idea in general. Perhaps there are ways of getting around the issues people have mentioned with updates stopping current processes from working properly? I don't know but it seems like that would mean changes to the way dpkg works (or at least some clever scheduling by apt(itude). -- Matt Wheeler m...@funkyhat.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
On Sunday 05 April 2009 7:15:20 am John McCabe-Dansted wrote: Still, an overnight auto-update seems like a sensible default for novice users who don't need or want to know what an update is. This is what I set my computer too when I am overseas and leave my computer on for family to use. There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources to have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my mom's computer gets updates at all). -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote: There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources to have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my mom's computer gets updates at all). Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they would more likely just install all updates than select the updates they want. Hell, that's the way I work! How many people actually benefit from any interaction with the update manager? The way Microsoft does it, is that it asks (enabled by default) to install updates on shutdown. I don't know how that would be better than completely automatic updates. Remco -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
2009/4/5 Remco remc...@gmail.com On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote: There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources to have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my mom's computer gets updates at all). Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they would more likely just install all updates than select the updates they want. Hell, that's the way I work! How many people actually benefit from any interaction with the update manager? The way Microsoft does it, is that it asks (enabled by default) to install updates on shutdown. I don't know how that would be better than completely automatic updates. Remco I'm inclined to think automatic updates would be a more fitting default for Ubuntu as well. Evan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
2009/4/5 Remco remc...@gmail.com On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote: There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources to have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my mom's computer gets updates at all). Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they would more likely just install all updates than select the updates they want. Hell, that's the way I work! How many people actually benefit from any interaction with the update manager? The way Microsoft does it, is that it asks (enabled by default) to install updates on shutdown. I don't know how that would be better than completely automatic updates. Remco I'm inclined to think automatic updates would be a more fitting default for Ubuntu as well. Evan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
On Sunday 05 April 2009 4:45:38 pm Remco wrote: On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote: There's already an option in System - Administration - Software sources to have updates installed automatically. There's also cron (the reason my mom's computer gets updates at all). Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they would more likely just install all updates than select the updates they want. Hell, that's the way I work! How many people actually benefit from any interaction with the update manager? The only trouble is that some updates stop services. Hal may need to be restarted, and if Firefox isn't restarted after an update it breaks royally. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu-devel-discuss Digest, Vol 29, Issue 10
i want to see tooltips when hovering files with the mouse, in nautilus, pleasee!! -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu-devel-discuss Digest, Vol 29, Issue 10
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:52 PM, solaris manzur sl.sola...@gmail.com wrote: i want to see tooltips when hovering files with the mouse, in nautilus, pleasee!! This is known upstream. You can follow the progress here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147642 But please don't spam the upstream bug like you have done on the launchpad bug and now are doing on this mailing list. Comments like this are useless. If you feel the need to comment, provide constructive ideas and feedback, not one line demands. Those won't get you anywhere. Thanks, - Andrew -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
Op zondag 05-04-2009 om 17:10 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: The only trouble is that some updates stop services. Hal may need to be restarted, and if Firefox isn't restarted after an update it breaks royally. Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or at least it did?) if it's older than the on-disk version. I guess that's part of the ubufox extension? -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
Op zondag 05-04-2009 om 22:45 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Remco: Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? I'd suggest, if we implement this, that automatic (security) updates are *ALWAYS* delayed until something like 24h-36h after the release. That gives us the time to block updates that contain serious bugs (like breaking X or such). 24h after the release of a security patch in Ubuntu is on average still at least 14 days before the release of a similar patch in Windows... ;) -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any problems with enabling automatic updates by default? Most users don't care about updates to the point that they never install them. And even if they would open the update manager, they would more likely just install all updates than select the updates they want. Hell, that's the way I work! How many people actually benefit from any interaction with the update manager? We may not want to automatically install updates when on a mobile connection that charges just a few cents per kilobyte. The only trouble is that some updates stop services. Hal may need to be restarted, If we wait till the computer is idle, how likely is this to cause your average desktop user any problems? and if Firefox isn't restarted after an update it breaks royally. Perhaps this could be considered a bug? I can see a few ways of fixing this 1) leave the previous version of Firefox installed, or 2) improve Firefox session management so that we can safely restart it automatically (on idle). 3) change Firefox so it doesn't break so badly. (Another suggestion was to only install updates on restart. However this would slow down restart times, and wouldn't help users who do not restart their computers) -- John C. McCabe-Dansted PhD Student University of Western Australia -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote: Op zondag 05-04-2009 om 17:10 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: The only trouble is that some updates stop services. Hal may need to be restarted, and if Firefox isn't restarted after an update it breaks royally. Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or at least it did?) if it's older than the on-disk version. I guess that's part of the ubufox extension? Yes, it does, but um...that kinda sucks. I, the computer, demand that you, the user, stop what you are doing and restart your browser NOW, losing all your work in the process. This is not optional. I will barf if you try to continue with your work or save it in any way, such as submitting that blog post you just spent an hour writing. Riight...because that's *really* user-friendly. -- Mackenzie Morgan http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com apt-get moo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Looking at Package Management for Karmic or Karmic+1
Op maandag 06-04-2009 om 00:43 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Mackenzie Morgan: On Sunday 05 April 2009 11:55:10 pm Jan Claeys wrote: Actually, a running firefox shows you a warning and a restart button (or at least it did?) if it's older than the on-disk version. I guess that's part of the ubufox extension? Yes, it does, but um...that kinda sucks. I, the computer, demand that you, the user, stop what you are doing and restart your browser NOW, losing all your work in the process. This is not optional. I will barf if you try to continue with your work or save it in any way, such as submitting that blog post you just spent an hour writing. Doesn't restarting preserve the form contents? (I never really tried.) Anyway there might be some issues with it indeed. Maybe firefox updates should warn the users beforehand, somehow? I'm not sure how that would work though. Maybe delaying upgrades until shutdown *is* the right solution? -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
