[Bug 1547870] Re: libsane-dev lacks sanei.h header required by some scanner drivers
Please note that all `sanei*` files are for internal use by the sane- backends package only. These files are *not* intended to be shared in any way outside of the scope of sane-backends. If third party backends want to reuse some of these files that is their decision and that's fine buty they should include (and maintain) their own copies. The SANE project does not and will not guarantee any kind of API/ABI compatibility for what's in the `sanei*` files. None of the `sanei*.h` header files belong in a `libsane-dev` package and I suggest to close this bug report as a "Won't fix". -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1547870 Title: libsane-dev lacks sanei.h header required by some scanner drivers To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sane-backends/+bug/1547870/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1532484] Re: Don't warn about unsigned extension installed via Debian packages
This bug potentially makes about a dozen extensions packaged for Xenial completely useless. Of the four I have installed, only the ubufox one is enabled. The other three are disabled without any means of enabling them (system-wide). If this isn't going to be fixed in Ubuntu, I think at least the maintainers of these, now utterly useless, packages deserve an explanation. For the record, I installed ublock-origin, y-u-no-validate and https- finder to make our browsing a more pleasant and safer activity. So far, no such luck. And without so much as a warning. :-( -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1532484 Title: Don't warn about unsigned extension installed via Debian packages To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/1532484/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1052360] Re: unattended-upgrade crashed with SystemError: E:Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (2) for an unknown reason
Just happened to me on trusty, installed yesterday. Looking at my unattended-upgrades-dpkg log, it was immediately clear that in my case it had nothing to do with unattended-upgrades itself. There was a minor problem with the configuration options of one of the programs that got invoked through the scriptlets in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/. This caused that program (git, if you have to know) to exit with an error. The error travelled up the call chain, finally arriving at unattended-upgrades which gets the blame. I guess that most of the people commenting here are experiencing something similar: unattended-upgrades getting blamed for an error condition that happens somewhere completely else. Please look at the unattended-upgrades-dpkg log before blaming unattended-upgrades. Re #14, looks like some other process grabbed the lock sometime before unattended-upgrades got to call dpkg (via apt?). It could perhaps be somewhat cleverer about that but if dpkg cannot do its work, there's not much unattended-upgrades can do about that than complain and exit with an error status. In case of a lock, it could reschedule itself or wait until the lock becomes available. Re #11, could be a botched PATH when run from cron. Writing this up, I get the impression that apport is being (ab?)used to report cron jobs that exited unsuccessfully. In the not-so-old days, I would have expected something like this in the mail. Not a popup inviting me to send a crash report. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1052360 Title: unattended-upgrade crashed with SystemError: E:Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (2) for an unknown reason To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1052360/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 712377] Re: Opening a known good *.deb with software centre, fails to install as lintian errors cannot be overidden
Re #52, we've also checked a few affected LSB compliant distribution independent printer driver packages and they are no longer labelled "bad quality". Thanks! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/712377 Title: Opening a known good *.deb with software centre, fails to install as lintian errors cannot be overidden -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 712377] Re: Opening a known good *.deb with software centre, fails to install as lintian errors cannot be overidden
Following up from #41. Sorry but the changes to software-center don't cut it for the distribution independent LSB compliant printer driver packages. The real problem is not just that you can't force installation of the package, it is also the fact that these printer drivers are labelled "bad quality" on insufficient grounds. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for applying quality checks on third party packages before installation. It's a Good Thing. The problem that we have here is that the implementation is questionable. The quality checks that are applied here, a subset of those provided by lintian, check for Debian Policy compliance and a few questionable packaging practices. Debian Policy is distribution specific, for the Debian distribution to be precise, and concerns itself with packages meant for that distribution. It makes little to no provisions for the LSB. Now aptdaemon goes ahead and tries to impose these distribution specific compliance tests on a package that is a) not part of Debian, b) meant to be distribution independent and c) LSB compliant. Failing any of the Debian specific compliance checks does not warrant a "bad quality" label. Feel free to pull the distribution independent LSB compliant printer driver packages through LSB compliance tests and label them "bad quality" when any of those fail, but please don't do so for failing a Debian distribution compliance test. That said, please remove "missing-dependency-on-libc" from data/lintian- checks. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/712377 Title: Opening a known good *.deb with software centre, fails to install as lintian errors cannot be overidden -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 712377] Re: Opening a known good *.deb with software centre, fails to install as lintian errors cannot be overidden
LSB compliant printer drivers with a libc dependency as distributed via the Linux Foundation's OpenPrinting Database still fail to install. These packages do not specify an explicit dependency on libc but rely on the distribution's lsb package to do so. The LSB is clear about what API of libc has to be present. Compliant drivers only use what is in specified in the LSB. Please remove "missing-dependency-on-libc" from data/lintian-checks. It is already listed in a non fatal section, so please don't bomb on this. FYI, the drivers distributed via the OpenPrinting Database are normally installed automatically when people connect their printer. This is a new feature in Natty and works fine. However, manually downloading that same driver and double clicking it bombs. It really shouldn't, at least not because of an indirect libc dependency via the lsb package. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/712377 Title: Opening a known good *.deb with software centre, fails to install as lintian errors cannot be overidden -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733023] Re: GPG keyserver access does not work behind a proxy
We've tested with the above version. Works like a charm. Thanks. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733023 Title: GPG keyserver access does not work behind a proxy -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733029] Re: GPG keyserver default port blocked by proxy
We've tested this too and it works like a charm as well. Thanks again. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733029 Title: GPG keyserver default port blocked by proxy -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733029] [NEW] GPG keyserver default port blocked by proxy
Public bug reported: More automatic printer driver download feedback. This follows up from #733023. Note that this is concerned with downloaded drivers from third party repositories using their own GPG keys. Once GPG has been made proxy aware, there is still the problem that many proxy configurations only let traffic through for ports 80 (HTTP) and 443 (HTTPS). GPG HTTP keyservers by default listen on 11371 (HKP). During our tests we had our IT department punch a temporary hole for that port for us but that isn't a viable solution. In the jockey sources, the default is set to keyserver.ubuntu.com which operates on the default HKP port. I don't know if it's possible to override this in a configuration file somewhere but I think pointing the default keyserver to one that operates on port 80 (or 443) will prevent a lot of frustration. We, for one, had quite a bit of trouble just getting those temporary holes punched for testing purposes :-| ** Affects: jockey (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Description changed: More automatic printer driver download feedback. This follows up from #733023. Note that this is concerned with downloaded drivers from third party repositories using their own GPG keys. Once GPG has been made proxy aware, there is still the problem that many proxy configurations only let traffic through for ports 80 (HTTP) and 443 (HTTPS). GPG HTTP keyservers by default listen on 11371 (HKP). During our tests we had our IT department punch a temporary hole for that port for us but that isn't a viable solution. - In the jockey sources, the default is set to keyserver.ubuntu.com which operates on the default HKP port. I don't know if it's possible to override this is a configuration file somewhere but I think pointing the default keyserver to one that operates on port 80 (or 443) will prevent a lot of frustration. + In the jockey sources, the default is set to keyserver.ubuntu.com which operates on the default HKP port. I don't know if it's possible to override this in a configuration file somewhere but I think pointing the default keyserver to one that operates on port 80 (or 443) will prevent a lot of frustration. We, for one, had quite a bit of trouble just getting those temporary holes punched for testing purposes :-| -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733029 Title: GPG keyserver default port blocked by proxy -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 729185] Re: fingerprint SSL check does not work behind a proxy
Re #5, we've tested with the fixed code and getting the GPG fingerprint worked fine for us. Not familiar with the python-pycurl code, I've one little question. The verified_https.py code seemed aimed at adding hostname validation, something HTTPSConnection didn't do. Assuming that was done on purpose, I guess the replacement code should do the same. Does pycurl do the validation? If yes, then I think the fix is OK. If no, then it might need a bit more work. Now that getting the GPG fingerprint works it time to make GPG proxy aware, see #733023 ;-) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/729185 Title: fingerprint SSL check does not work behind a proxy -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733023] Re: GPG keyserver access does not work behind a proxy
** Patch added: "Make GPG aware of the environment's proxy settings" https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733023/+attachment/1900140/+files/oslib.py.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733023 Title: GPG keyserver access does not work behind a proxy -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 733023] [NEW] GPG keyserver access does not work behind a proxy
Public bug reported: This is related to the automatic printer driver download functionality (see also #729185). After getting the GPG fingerprint successfully, jockey may need to contact a GPG keyserver to fetch the corresponding key. During our testing we have noticed that jockey's GPG support does not take the environment's http_proxy setting into account. This setting (as well as https_proxy) is taken into account in the other jockey components so we expected it to be used in this step as well. Hope this can be fixed. We have a simple patch (attached) but haven't tested some corner cases yet (variable not set, variable empty). ** Affects: jockey (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/733023 Title: GPG keyserver access does not work behind a proxy -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 727696] [NEW] selected SCSI devices not recognized as scanner
Public bug reported: As reported on the SANE mailing list[1], the ubuntu_udev_noperm.patch yanks support for too many SCSI based scanning devices claiming that 70-acl.rules handles that. Problem is that a number of those devices are *not* SCSI SCANNERs according to their SCSI credentials. The SANE *.desc files have support for these devices through a :scsi keyword and each of these devices needs a separate udev rule. The sane-desc utility handles this but the patch rips out all SCSI support. Feel free to rip out the SCSI SCANNER devices from libsane.rules but please leave in the SCSI based scanning devices that think they are something else. There were a number of bug reports (listed in [1]) that seem related but I did not find any (obvious) sane-backends bugs related to this issue. The bug is present in at least the 1.0.21 and 1.0.22 versions of the sane-backends packages. [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane- devel/2011-March/028327.html ** Affects: sane-backends (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/727696 Title: selected SCSI devices not recognized as scanner -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 301050] Re: package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 272961 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272961 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 272961 package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in package iscan -- package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in package iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/301050 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 335758] Re: scanner en Epson Stylus DX9400F
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 272961 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272961 ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 272961 package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in package iscan -- scanner en Epson Stylus DX9400F https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/335758 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 343630] Re: trying to re-install libsane extras and I crashed
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 272961 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272961 ** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 335758 scanner en Epson Stylus DX9400F ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 272961 package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in package iscan -- trying to re-install libsane extras and I crashed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/343630 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 343630] Re: trying to re-install libsane extras and I crashed
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 272961 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272961 This has been fixed in iscan version 2.20.0 available from http://www.avasys.jp/lx-bin2/linux_e/scan/DL1.do. ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 335758 scanner en Epson Stylus DX9400F -- trying to re-install libsane extras and I crashed https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/343630 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 206040] Re: libsane-extras epkowa driver must be compiled for 32bit
There are i386 and amd64 Debian packages available from http://www.avasys.jp/lx-bin2/linux_e/scan/DL1.do that fix these issues. The non-free libesmod library is only needed by the iscan frontend. The epkowa driver does not use it. -- libsane-extras epkowa driver must be compiled for 32bit https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/206040 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 335758] Re: scanner en Epson Stylus DX9400F
This should have been fixed by iscan 2.20.0, available from http://www.avasys.jp/lx-bin2/linux_e/spc/DL1.do. -- scanner en Epson Stylus DX9400F https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/335758 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 112065] Re: Can't install Epson Perfection V350 scanner
There are now i386 and amd64 Debian packages for the Perfection V350. This obviates the need for alien and they lift the 2400dpi limitation. -- Can't install Epson Perfection V350 scanner https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/112065 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 301050] Re: package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in
This problem has been addressed in iscan version 2.20.0. -- package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in package iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/301050 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 272961] Re: package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in
This should have been fixed in the latest iscan packages, version 2.20.0 or later. -- package libsane-extras None [modified: /var/lib/dpkg/info/libsane-extras.list] failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man5/sane-epkowa.5.gz', which is also in package iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/272961 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 208405] Re: [needs-packaging] iscan
Have you considered reading the KNOWN-PROBLEMS file in /usr/share/doc/iscan? In particular the section on: The device is recognised as a scanner but I can't scan. If memory serves me, Ubuntu uses the same setup as Debian, so you need to be a member of the scanner group. You can check the groups you belong to with the `groups` command. FTR, the iscan package's postinst (%post for RPMs) works damn hard to get stuff working out-of-the-box according to your distribution's policy. The binary packages, both RPM and .deb, that are released via the AVASYS website are tested on Ubuntu and there is no known problem with scanning as a normal user. -- [needs-packaging] iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/208405 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 208405] Re: [needs-packaging] iscan
Have you considered reading the KNOWN-PROBLEMS file in /usr/share/doc/iscan? Grab the source tarball and build your own .deb. Instructions are in the README. FWIW, I said the same thing here[1]. Seeing that Fedora 11 has also dropped libltld3 completely, I'd expect packages built against libltdl7 with one of the upcoming releases. WRT to the need for running the udev fixing script, this[2] already said that Ubuntu 8.10 and later were not affected. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/208405/comments/14 [2] http://avasys.jp/hp/page01300/hpg01294.htm -- [needs-packaging] iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/208405 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 208405] Re: [needs-packaging] iscan
> there is a (broken) debian folder to build a deb in the source code download from the japanese epson site. If there is a problem with the included debian folder, report a bug[1], preferably with a clean patch. That Ubuntu's build farm does not know anything about an 'unstable' distribution is Ubuntu's problem as far as I'm concerned. [1] https://www.avasys.jp/secure/english/linux_e/support_form.html > all I want is the scanner support, so I can use flegita or xsane. is this now GPL? I don't know about flegita or xsane, but iscan is not GPL. As a whole, iscan is GPL with exceptions and includes (and depends on) a decidedly non-free library. The 'epkowa' backend does not depend on any non-free components but it does include run-time support for their use. -- [needs-packaging] iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/208405 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 208405] Re: [needs-packaging] iscan
> Hi all, any updates for a debian/ubuntu package regarding iscan? I've posted a release announcement[1] to the sane-devel mailing list but the archiving tool seems to have eaten the content :-( Fortunately, there is a follow-up[2] that includes the whole announcement. [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/2009-March/024207.html [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/2009-March/024231.html The site mentioned in the announcement provides packages in .deb format but these will not install cleanly on Ubuntu 8.10 for reasons detailed earlier[3]. [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/208405/comments/14 -- [needs-packaging] iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/208405 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 208405] Re: [needs-packaging] iscan
Abel contacted me at work and I promised follow up here on iscan's apparent versioning "mess". I'm doing this from home, in my own time and without my iscan lead developer hat on. In principle, one should be using the latest version of iscan, irrespective of whatever Epson scanner/all-in-one device one wants to use. According to an announcement[1] on the sane-devel mailing list, that would be iscan-2.16.1 as of writing. Unfortunately, a number of interpreter plugin requiring devices still do not work with iscan versions 2.11.0 and up but these should all run fine with iscan version 2.10.0. As per same announcement[1], work is underway to fix that for a pile of interpreter plugin requiring devices. Once released, these packages will work with iscan 2.16.1 or later. That same work will also add 64-bit packages and Debian packages for these devices. However, a number of interpreter plugin requiring devices will remain that will only work with iscan 2.10.0. These devices are fairly dated, so there may be very little incentive to update these to work with the latest iscan version, provide 64-bit support and/or Debian packages. People with such devices can (and should?) act to try to increase whatever little incentive there might be. FWIW, the 32-bit interpreter plugin RPMs are easily converted to Debian packages with `alien --scripts` but will still not work with iscan version 2.11.0 or later. WRT Ubuntu packages, the iscan Debian packages that my employer provides try hard to be distribution independent. Recent developments on the USB scanner configuration front have been a bit of a problem but, IIRC, Ubuntu 7.04, 7.10 and 8.04 should be fine. That means, you should be able to just download the package from the Avasys site and install without any trouble. Just double clicking the icon for the downloaded file is supposed to do the right thing and work. Ubuntu 8.10 (and by extension Jaunty) were thoughtful enough to provide NO transition window whatsoever :-( for the libltld3 to libltdl7 transition for third party packages, so attempts to install Avasys' binaries will complain about that. You can rebuild your own packages from the source tarball without any changes (unless you want to upload to a PPA, in which case you only have to fiddle with the debian/changelog because Ubuntu doesn't know any 'unstable'). Alternatively, ignoring the libltdl3 dependency (and only that dependency!) when installing and creating a symbolic link is supposed to work as well. See the KNOWN-PROBLEMS file. So the upshot of all this really is that Ubuntu should only ever provide the latest iscan version. If there are people with devices that are only supported by an older versions or only on i386, bang on Avasys' door. They may not be able to help (whether rightaway or at all) but if you don't even make yourselves heard, how are they supposed to find out? # Eh, scraping the bug trackers of 15+ distributions is not really an option ;-) [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane- devel/2009-February/023957.html -- [needs-packaging] iscan https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/208405 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 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 6378] Re: spamassassin-rules-ja contains bad spam rule
FTR, just ran into this on Feisty. Escaping the @ in [EMAIL PROTECTED] so you get [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes the problem go away. WRT to Taku Yasui already having this fixed, it seems that fix is already two years old ... I'd say it's time for a fixed package. -- spamassassin-rules-ja contains bad spam rule https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/6378 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 86685] Re: neo_cgi.so: undefined symbol: Py_InitModule4
Oops! I guess I should have put both files in a tarball. Oh well, here is the .dsc file. ** Attachment added: "Debian description file" http://librarian.launchpad.net/7892689/clearsilver_0.10.4-0.dsc -- neo_cgi.so: undefined symbol: Py_InitModule4 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/86685 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 86685] Re: neo_cgi.so: undefined symbol: Py_InitModule4
Please find a diff.gz and .dsc for clearsilver-0.10.4 attached. I've used these with sbuild in a feisty chroot to build amd64 debs and verified that this fixes the problem (at least when running with tracd). Assuming you have the various Build-Depends installed you can of course also use dpkg-buildpackage. Hope this helps, ** Attachment added: "Debianisation diff" http://librarian.launchpad.net/7892684/clearsilver_0.10.4-0.diff.gz -- neo_cgi.so: undefined symbol: Py_InitModule4 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/86685 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
