[Bug 1529418] [NEW] package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Public bug reported: Trying to get python 3.4 set up. Despite posts saying python and pip are part of Ubuntu 14.04, python is 2.7 and pip is absent I tried oio, and was told by apt-get as to what to enter to install it. I entered it, and immediately my install of 14.04 began crashing, keeping me in chrome browser with two tabs opened: The first, to fill out this bug report. The second, the one constantly refreshing every 10 seconds, to report a bug that package python-distlib 0.1.8-1ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1. I will get this off, then try a restart and see if 14.04 can recover. Since the package did not install, I don't have the option of removing or purging it. If necessary, I will try autoremove. Otherwise, I may be forced to replace my install of 14.04. Not good choices, and does not say much for the LTS assurance that 14.04 is suppose to have. ProblemType: Package DistroRelease: Ubuntu 14.04 Package: python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.16.0-57.77~14.04.1-generic 3.16.7-ckt20 Uname: Linux 3.16.0-57-generic x86_64 ApportVersion: 2.14.1-0ubuntu3.19 Architecture: amd64 Date: Sat Dec 26 17:10:26 2015 Dependencies: python-six 1.5.2-1ubuntu1 DuplicateSignature: package:python-html5lib:0.999-3~ubuntu1:subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 InstallationDate: Installed on 2015-10-31 (56 days ago) InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS "Trusty Tahr" - Release amd64 (20150218.1) PackageArchitecture: all RelatedPackageVersions: dpkg 1.17.5ubuntu5.5 apt 1.0.1ubuntu2.10 SourcePackage: html5lib Title: package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install) ** Affects: html5lib (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: amd64 apport-package need-duplicate-check trusty -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to html5lib in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1529418 Title: package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/html5lib/+bug/1529418/+subscriptions -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 1529418] [NEW] package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Public bug reported: Trying to get python 3.4 set up. Despite posts saying python and pip are part of Ubuntu 14.04, python is 2.7 and pip is absent I tried oio, and was told by apt-get as to what to enter to install it. I entered it, and immediately my install of 14.04 began crashing, keeping me in chrome browser with two tabs opened: The first, to fill out this bug report. The second, the one constantly refreshing every 10 seconds, to report a bug that package python-distlib 0.1.8-1ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1. I will get this off, then try a restart and see if 14.04 can recover. Since the package did not install, I don't have the option of removing or purging it. If necessary, I will try autoremove. Otherwise, I may be forced to replace my install of 14.04. Not good choices, and does not say much for the LTS assurance that 14.04 is suppose to have. ProblemType: Package DistroRelease: Ubuntu 14.04 Package: python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.16.0-57.77~14.04.1-generic 3.16.7-ckt20 Uname: Linux 3.16.0-57-generic x86_64 ApportVersion: 2.14.1-0ubuntu3.19 Architecture: amd64 Date: Sat Dec 26 17:10:26 2015 Dependencies: python-six 1.5.2-1ubuntu1 DuplicateSignature: package:python-html5lib:0.999-3~ubuntu1:subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 InstallationDate: Installed on 2015-10-31 (56 days ago) InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS "Trusty Tahr" - Release amd64 (20150218.1) PackageArchitecture: all RelatedPackageVersions: dpkg 1.17.5ubuntu5.5 apt 1.0.1ubuntu2.10 SourcePackage: html5lib Title: package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install) ** Affects: html5lib (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: amd64 apport-package need-duplicate-check trusty -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1529418 Title: package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/html5lib/+bug/1529418/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1529418] Re: package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
U decided to try sudo apt-get autoremove first. It went crazy, spilling out several pages of problems encountered. I tried adding >& error.txt, then I tried using | tee 0 as part of the command, but nothing worked to capture the bult of the screen responses to a file. This is all that shows up in the file: Reading package lists... Building dependency tree... Reading state information... 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. 6 not fully installed or removed. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Setting up python-colorama (0.2.5-0.1ubuntu2) ... Setting up python-distlib (0.1.8-1ubuntu1) ... Setting up python-html5lib (0.999-3~ubuntu1) ... Setting up python-setuptools (3.3-1ubuntu2) ... Setting up python-wheel (0.24.0-1~ubuntu1) ... Now nothing is getting removed, because this came command get the same results on every retry. Having to do a copy of the screen to a file. I maximized the screen and was able to get this much of what was written there. Whoever is weiting your apt-get process is not using stderr to report problems as it goes to the screen regardless of what I try to do to devert it to a file. I've complained of this is an earlier bug report, only to have someone comment that this was in no ways possible, that everything has to wirk with stdin, stdout, and stderr because it depends on a tty device. Bull on that. This should at least make the point otherwise. ImportError: No module named 'ConfigParser' dpkg: error processing package python-distlib (--configure): subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Setting up python-html5lib (0.999-3~ubuntu1) ... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/pycompile", line 35, in from debpython.version import SUPPORTED, debsorted, vrepr, \ File "/usr/share/python/debpython/version.py", line 24, in from ConfigParser import SafeConfigParser ImportError: No module named 'ConfigParser' dpkg: error processing package python-html5lib (--configure): subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Setting up python-setuptools (3.3-1ubuntu2) ... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/pycompile", line 35, in from debpython.version import SUPPORTED, debsorted, vrepr, \ File "/usr/share/python/debpython/version.py", line 24, in from ConfigParser import SafeConfigParser ImportError: No module named 'ConfigParser' No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already dpkg: error processing package python-setuptools (--configure): subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of python-pip: python-pip depends on python-colorama; however: Package python-colorama is not configured yet. python-pip depends on python-distlib; however: Package python-distlib is not configured yet. python-pip depends on python-html5lib; however: Package python-html5lib is not configured yet. python-pip depends on python-setuptools (>= 0.6c1); however: Package python-setuptools is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing package python-pip (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Setting up python-wheel (0.24.0-1~ubuntu1) ... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/pycompile", line 35, in from debpython.version import SUPPORTED, debsorted, vrepr, \ File "/usr/share/python/debpython/version.py", line 24, in from ConfigParser import SafeConfigParser ImportError: No module named 'ConfigParser' No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already dpkg: error processing package python-wheel (--configure): subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1529418 Title: package python-html5lib 0.999-3~ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/html5lib/+bug/1529418/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 289592] Re: Unknown media types in /usr/share/mime/packages/kde.xml
This bug just surfaced in Ubuntu 14.04 after doing an update a few days ago. I did a locate kde.xml, as ir was mentioned in another comment, and found it here: /usr/share/mime/packages/kde.xml I guess some program had it down as a dependency, so now I have it under gnome. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/289592 Title: Unknown media types in /usr/share/mime/packages/kde.xml To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/shared-mime-info/+bug/289592/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1501944] [NEW] Ubuntu 14.04 Classic Gnome has no unmount USB Drive
Public bug reported: I find that the Classic Gnome feature provides no means for unmounting a USB drive from the desktop. You can mount it, you can bring up a File Manager's view of it, but these is no left- right- button or displayed key combo for unmounting it You can shut the system down, or go into a terminal and do a sudo umount command with either -a or the specific device to be unmounted, but this is a glaring error. ** Affects: compiz (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/1501944 Title: Ubuntu 14.04 Classic Gnome has no unmount USB Drive To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/1501944/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1493550] [NEW] Ubuntu 14.10(?) Install Just Crashed
Public bug reported:
I downloaded the iso and put it on CVC awhile back. I was running 14.04
just fine, but did an update today, and saw messages in the terminal
window that Gtk2 was not installed. I could not find a way to install
Gtk2 or Gtk3 separately.
So I decide to just delete the system files using a LiveCD by going into
Try, mounting the target partition, using "sudo -1", and "rm -r
/media/ubuntu/sda2/[!h]* "to wipe everything other than /home and my
user account.
Then when I chose to install Ubuntu, I chose "Something Else", targeted
sda2 for root (but no format)/ While it was installing, I brought up
Firefox and was looking at an article on doing an install from an iso
image on the hard drive. Reason? Because I had lable the DVD "Ubuntu
15.10", but the installer told me I was actually installing 14.10/ I'd
get this install done, I was going to move up, but I had no more DVDs on
hand to burn to.
And the install crashed. So that's it.
I was going to have to clean the drive first, because in a previous
effort, the LiveCD installer tried to restore packages that had been
added after the install. Problem was, the previous version was 32-bit,
and the new install was 64-bit, so the install got messed up, and I had
to do it all over. That's when I came up with using "rm -r .../[!h]*"
as a ways around that. The alternative is to use "cp -rfp ... /home
[target drive]", tnen copy it all back later.
LiveCD should include a choice of uprgrading {(or replacing} an existing
install, and make the appropriate choices, like:
(1) Choice of partition to install to
(2) Whether to keep existing accounts or not
(3) What packegest need to be added to bring it back to where the old install
had been, and do these as well
(4) The option to simply upgrade the existing install, or start fresh, but use
the same partitions, but only reformat the one(s) that were part of the earlier
install configuration.
(5) Or the choice to add this install to existing installs by first
subdividing the hard drive, which can have manual resizing elections.
I mean, after all, we are in the age of terabyte drives, and a whole
terabyte for a single install is overkill. You could support 3, 4, even
five installs in that much space, and have plenty of drive room left
over.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 15.04
Package: ubiquity 2.21.1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.16.0-25.33-generic 3.16.7
Uname: Linux 3.16.0-25-generic i686
ApportVersion: 2.14.7-0ubuntu10
Architecture: i386
CasperVersion: 1.346
Date: Tue Sep 8 14:32:02 2015
InstallCmdLine: file=/cdrom/preseed/ubuntu.seed boot=casper
initrd=/casper/initrd.lz quiet splash -- maybe-ubiquity
LiveMediaBuild: Ubuntu 15.04 "Vivid Vervet" - Alpha i386 (20141213)
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: ubiquity
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
** Affects: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Tags: apport-bug i386 third-party-packages ubiquity-2.21.1 ubuntu vivid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1493550
Title:
Ubuntu 14.10(?) Install Just Crashed
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/1493550/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1404733] [NEW] Problems with installing Ubuntu 14.04 on multiple partitions
Public bug reported: I had older versions of Ubuntu on 3 partitions on my 1Tbyle hard drive. These are no longer supported, so I downloaded Ubuntu 14.04.1 and used Brasero to burn it to a DVD. I began by installing this to each partition in turn. . Trouble is, Grub2 just booted to the one on sda1. It geve me no choices and no delay. I tried updating Grub2, Grub Optimizer, and boot-repair, and I did manade to get a partial menu come up, but still only the install on sda1 was listed. The installs on partitions sda5 and sda6 are missing. I've run out of ideas. Can anyone help?, This is a wierd problem and every effort to circumvent it via grub and boot tools as requested by others were of no help. But in following all the textics requested online, I began to ess some commonalities which pointed out where I eventually got around this problem. It involved the use of Fdisk (to delete a locked on sda1), GParted (to recreate all the partitions on the 1Tbyte hard drive and formattion them as Ext4, Then designating Something Else under the installer and picking a partition for the root, then deleting it and recreating it via the installer (to stablize the boundaries) and checking Format (again as Ext4) and proceeding with the install. My boot is /dev/sda , not /dev/sda1. One od the factors I missed initially with GParted was not setting the partitions on cylinder boundaries and making sure /dev/sd1 begins at 1, meaninf one megabyte of /dev/sda is left for the install of a boot process by grub. Some of the other indications that were boted were: Grub menus were not updated as the initial partition were not aligned properly, so grub could not identify OSes. Trying to revert back to 12.04, I got install errors which were not reportrf by the 14.04 installer.. You have to do the installs in reverse order of the sequence order that you want them to appear in the grub menu. I believe many of the bug reports about not being able to install Ubuntu 14.04 in a dual OS setup with Windows can be traced to the combined prartition and formatting oriblems described here. ** Affects: 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/1404733 Title: Problems with installing Ubuntu 14.04 on multiple partitions To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1404733/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 376765] Re: Partition Problems with Install Process with 9.04
I use multiple drives in a couple of desktops, and still have 9.04 on them. I also use VirtualBox and have Windows 2000 Pro installed. And by some coincidence, I divide each into three Ubuntu Partitions and have three swap partitions, one for each Ubuntu partition. Maybe I am doing things differently. First, I also use manual mode, and partition the whole drive during the first install. That means I set up all the partitions on the first go around, then I install Ubuntu on the third and leave the other two unused. I have only the third swap designated as swap. That over, I go back around and do the second partition and the second swap. Then on the third go around I do the first partition and the first swap. I recall that I could see multiple drives when I did this, but I figured three Ubuntu Partitions were enough for my purpose, The second hard drive was just divided up into two Windows 2000 Pro partitions. I always ran into issues when I did this, mostly because the drives were not pristine. Because one partition or another might fail at some point, I spent a lot of time in recovery efforts to get my data back. I ended up sharing the drives as Shared Folders under VirtualBox, and moved data about, mostly making multiple copies of my VDI files on each drive. I learned to use a gparted.iso image I found online to manage my drives when I had trouble booting up. It helped a lot. But I am not informed enough to use the recovery mode to get back a failed installation if you try to boot Ubuntu anyway. You get to a certain point in the process, you have to tell it what to do next or take over manually. Should be a book written on the subject of what to do then. I am now using 10.04 LTS on my laptop, which I upgraded to a 1TB drive. They are more plentiful now and the prices have gone down to $100 or less. I got two for a total price of under $176. That gives me a spare. I had also bought a 1TB My Passport for under $100 that is also 2.5 in size. That is small enough to sit under my laptop on a lap board that has a mount built up of three layers of paint sticks that I got for free from a hardware store. Had to pay for the white glue to bond them together of course. I did not buy the drives all at once, just as I felt I could afford them. I interlace the paint sticks to ensure there is good air flow between them. Don't want the laptop to get too hot. Anyway I now have a 17 laptop with a 1TB internal and 1TB external drive connected. The external drive is formatted NTFS still and I just copy files to it. The internal 1TB is divided into 3 Ubuntu partitions and now I only use one swap partition, not three. That's a total of four partitions for the internal drive. I know you can get away with more than four partitions on a hard drive, but I decided to try just four, and it works fine. I had thought the matter through again, and while in theory you can have more than one Windows 2000 Pro up and running at once, you are limited by the devices such as the DVD/CD drive and external drive as to what can be shared. Besides if you want access to the files on a different client, just mount that client as an alternative under Storage in your settings. That way you only have to deal with one instance of Windows 2000 Pro at a time. I've also used the NTFS drive and other two partitions under Ubuntu to house my /home folders and files, in preparation for totally reformatting one of the Ubuntu partitions if I suspect partition problems. Otherwise, I might just reinstall over the existing version with the same or later version and elect not to reformat that partition as part of the install. The only folders and files replaces have to do with the system, and the others are fine as they are. Of course reinstalling Ubuntu means also having to reinstall VirtualBox and other added packages, but you get the knack of it after awhile. I'm just passing on my experiences. What I can tell you is super important if you don't want to keep wasting your time repeating yourself is to work with the best drives you can get or afford. I even wrote a comment under suggestions with Oracle is that they ought to make using VirtualBox redundant so that it one VDI file fails for any reason, you have a clone there to keep working with, and it goes further by producing a new clone of itself so that the redundancy keeps moving forward. You don't have that as a feature, so you have to take some time to keep the cloning process going on your own. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/376765 Title: Partition Problems with Install Process with 9.04 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/376765/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 742945] [NEW] Wierd Impact on FireFox 3.5 after Ubuntu 9.10 Updates
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: firefox-3.5 Did an automatic update of Ubuntu 9.10 in Satellite notebook, which went fine. But now FireFox 3.5 gets stuck on loading home page and times out. Alternate sites time out as well. Tried pinging addresses, and some IP addresses respond but URL addresses also fail to load. Have Ubuntu 10.04 on a different partition and rebooted to it, and FireFox works fine there. Tried 9.10 again, same problem, but decided to try reporting a problem. Funny thing is, FireFox able to reach LaunchPad and email server no problem. Don't know any convenient was to backtrack over updates, there were only 5 or 7 files downloaded, not sure which. May see if I can maintain connectivity long enough to download alternate browser and see how it fares. ProblemType: Bug Architecture: i386 CheckboxSubmission: 2f1fce4744fd108efcb3e5e1eb287103 CheckboxSystem: c541d13ea4f205f2fd751f76ed21105b Date: Fri Mar 25 23:49:12 2011 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10 Package: firefox 3.6.16+build1+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.9.10.1 ProcEnviron: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-22.73-generic SourcePackage: firefox-3.5 Uname: Linux 2.6.31-22-generic i686 XsessionErrors: (gnome-settings-daemon:1716): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_propagate_error: assertion `src != NULL' failed (nautilus:1809): Eel-CRITICAL **: eel_preferences_get_boolean: assertion `preferences_is_initialized ()' failed (polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1:1826): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_once_init_leave: assertion `initialization_value != 0' failed (firefox-bin:2337): GLib-WARNING **: g_set_prgname() called multiple times ** Affects: firefox-3.5 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-bug i386 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/742945 Title: Wierd Impact on FireFox 3.5 after Ubuntu 9.10 Updates -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 742945] Re: Wierd Impact on FireFox 3.5 after Ubuntu 9.10 Updates
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/742945 Title: Wierd Impact on FireFox 3.5 after Ubuntu 9.10 Updates -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 713586] Re: package openoffice.org-report-builder 1:1.1.0 OOo3.1.1-5ubuntu1.2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/713586 Title: package openoffice.org-report-builder 1:1.1.0 OOo3.1.1-5ubuntu1.2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 713586] [NEW] package openoffice.org-report-builder 1:1.1.0 OOo3.1.1-5ubuntu1.2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: openoffice.org I was enabling Update Manager to install some security updates. It balked because it claimed that OpenOffice was running and needed to be stopped first. It also said QuickStarter was running. Neither was true to my knowledge. Synaptic Package Manager reported one package broken, and said to use Broken filter to find it. What is that filter tied to? I tried using that package manager and apt-get to deal with the problem, but apt-get -f install just got the same error again. I rebooted and tried the recovery process, and it got the same error but reported I had 15 broken packages, all related to OpenOffice. I feel I have run out of options for getting around this as nothing installs or gets removed as a consequence. Why doesn't any of these processes clear the OpenOffice and QuickStarter flagged states or intermediate files? ProblemType: Package Architecture: i386 Date: Sat Feb 5 02:17:05 2011 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10 ErrorMessage: subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1 InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala - Release i386 (20091028.5) Package: openoffice.org-report-builder 1:1.1.0+OOo3.1.1-5ubuntu1.2 PackageArchitecture: all ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-22.71-generic SourcePackage: openoffice.org Title: package openoffice.org-report-builder 1:1.1.0+OOo3.1.1-5ubuntu1.2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1 Uname: Linux 2.6.31-22-generic i686 ** Affects: openoffice.org (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-package i386 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/713586 Title: package openoffice.org-report-builder 1:1.1.0 OOo3.1.1-5ubuntu1.2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 524659] Re: Two Separate 9.10 Installs Clobber UserID or Password
Sorry, but it is hard to evaluate something that I've simply had to work past. I found later that if a partition has a /home on it, later installs want to use it as well, so there are a lot of trampled on areas between them. Now I do a mount of each partition by hand and a mkdir /media/[part]/rhome, then a mv /media/[part]/home /media/[part]/rhome, and that tucks my /home up under /rhome. Later, when the other installs are done, I go back through the partitions and do either a mv back, or I use a cp -R to copy each /home back and yet keep a copy under /rhome. The snag for most people will be something like .gvfs, which won't respond to most commands, or VirtualBox, which might need an extra tweak or two with the .VDIs. .gvfs is actually rather easy, as you just use umount -fl ~/,gvfs, then follow that with a rm -R ~/.gvfs. The stuff I am doing is rather bruthish forcing a change in procedures. I get into really doing some scripting, I should be able to automate some of this. Not happy about the UUID for partition identification, but I am working on reworking the /etc/fstab entries to go by partition reference. Grub2 is going to be a challenge as well. Anyway, there is lots to be done still. I want to see if TWAIN is supported enough to let me work with my scanner. We may just see something here. That jump from Grub to Grub2 is rather nasty, meaning old stuff on first, then add new which forces the conversion. -- Two Separate 9.10 Installs Clobber UserID or Password https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/524659 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 377382] Re: ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem
That would probably suffice as a description of the problem, except that it was continuous, page after page, and no way to change it. As I indicated, this was the one version where this problem occurred, and it happened continuously. It was not full zoom either, because the height of the shown area of the hard disk did not increase that much. The width went way out. Full screen height as well, because nothing shown above or below. No slide bars to adjust position of display either. My reaction was that the code was set to run on a really large monitor, and everything positioned to look good in relation to everything else at that scale. it was locked at this size, and on a smaller monitor, less shown as a result. Suggestions about doing this or trying that do not appeal to me. This goes back too far, and I have my hands full will other projects, most of which won't get enough time from me anyway. -- ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/377382 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 377382] Re: ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem
Oh yeah! That could be it! It's only a Acer 22 widescreen with 1680 by something resolution. It's got to be smaller than many out there, right? David, I would like to be more helpful, it is getting hard to do. My vision isn't that good, and even with the larger monitor, I often try to work at 1024x768 setting. The wide screen just gives me more horizontal space to spread text or whatever over, but I don't have resolution control when running the installer. In fact, with some PC video circuits, the install process scrambles the image, and I have to try again and request the less demanding VGA mode. I mean I have great success with Ubuntu and LiveCD, but when something doesn't go as expected, I try to get word back, with some details. It seems a shame that the whole process takes so long, because with nothing back from that side for ages, I can't just jump back into a situation that I got pass somehow, when it was the focus of my attention. But lots of things like that come along, and I can't recall every bit of each one. So if you want, just let it go and don't worry about it. I seem to be the only one that ever had a problem with it anyway. Of course a lot of people just would not bother to start with, but I tried -- ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/377382 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 377382] Re: ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem
Hey, I just reported a bug. Happens that the LiveCD installer has other limitations related to the Partitioner, which I mentioned, but all that took place months ago. So not really my problem any more. Lot of people comment they cannot follow what I write. Others say the look for my posts because of my attack on things. You seem to be a member of the first group, which is the larger of the two. See, here is the thing: I do something, there has to be a reason for it. If it doesn't go well, I try to state something related and decide what to do next. I am describing a process I went through, but you just want the steps themselves. Alright, try this: (1) Boot the 9.04 LiveCD. Pick Install (2) Answer the leading questions about language and all. Screen is like zoomed in. buttons on bottom out of sight.Used Ctrl+F to advance page (3) Wait for Partitioner to come up. Looks strange, like being zoomed in on choices. Cannot see extent of colored lines either left or right. See no legend to indicate which hard drive, which partition, or if looking at same drive twice or seeing two drives. (4) All page advances until last require Ctrl+F, as buttons are below bottom of screen. This did not work for last page. Tried other combinations with Ctrl, no help. Later guess was that Ctrl+I might have worked, because last button labeled Install rather than Forward. (5) As included in bug, would have been more useful if I knew exactly what choices (1) and (2) would do on a multi-OS or multi-disk system. Or have other choices if such complexity were to present itself. Another problem not included is that you cannot always conclude that /dev/sda is going to be the boot drive or that it involve the 1st partition. Advanced gives you option to change, but it is not able to solve this on its own. I think that will have to suffice. -- ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/377382 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 377382] Re: ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem
Naw, I think I will decline that particular request. I explain in detail, you want specific steps. If I try to do it by the numbers, how can I be sure you won't feel that there are a few steps missing, or maybe I had too many steps? If you know all the ways to install Ubuntu, you have 90 percent of the steps already. If you use what you know with what I described, you either find concurrence or some reason not to agree with me. Seems like a wasted effort on my part. I have a similar dispute going with someone else. He wants me to do this and do that, and give him the results. It involves a program that is available to anyone, so I said get it yourself and see what happens. He did. Now he knows. And better than if I just kept trying to tell him or show him. Saves me from having to revisit the same issue as well. -- ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/377382 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 377382] Re: ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem
Strikes me I am being asked to provide a comic book version of this event, as the textbook history book version requires too much reading. First, the partitioner in 9.10 and 10.04, as well as earlier versions of Ubuntu, behave somewhat better, so this is almost ancient history. I still use 9.04 myself, because it works better for me, but then I've dealt with partitioner many times, so it is sort of old hat at this point. Second, the order and sequence of partitions created is not significant, nor their size. The problem is how the partitioner tries to give you choice as to what method to follow when installing the OS. I've always just gone to the manual method with the partitioner, because as I said, there is no real distinction of what is going to happen, or what happens if you already have more than one OS on the hard drive. Now for anyone that has the same problems, you can do two things: (1) get gparted.iso and download and burn it to CD. Boot up with it, and set up your hard drive the way you want. (2) boot the LiveCD, get to where the partitoner comes up, and always pick the third choice, which is manual mode. From there, if you understand what partitioning is all about sufficiently, you can get it done the way you planned. And if you cannot follow this, then I guess you might be better off with one of the other two choices presented. So what else is there to say? -- ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/377382 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 502666] Re: [gm45] Reboots Sometimes Lose Present and All Higher Resolutions
Sorry, my hands are tied for the time being. Lucid in Alpha is just a tad too much, as I have my HD space in use, unless it can also effect the LiveCD, which was not observed with the original problem -- [gm45] Reboots Sometimes Lose Present and All Higher Resolutions https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502666 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 524659] [NEW] Two Separate 9.10 Installs Clobber UserID or Password
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: yelp I am setting up a new PC, and so far only have 9.10 installed on /dev/sda3 and /dev/sda6. After installing, I adjust screen resolution to 1024x768 under each after that install. I then run Update Manager to fetch and install all updates. the next step varies, sometimes I repeat these steps with the other install, first, sometimes I reboot then download Sun Virtual box for that install before repeating all steps on the other side. Other times I complete the 9.10 install and updates before turning to installing Sun Virtualbox. After switching to VirtualBox, I set up a Windows 2000 Pro client, and install Windows from an ISO stored on the hard drive in a different partition. Now al lthis should work together, having done it many times over the last fre months. But on this machine, which is an HP Pavilion P6112P, something strange happens along the way. I can be working fine on one install, but when I reboot to go to the other, either my userid or password appears to have been altered, because I cannot log in on the other install. Or if I can log in, at some point when I try to switch to the Terminal mode and enter sudo -s, the password is reported as being incorrect. I cannot make any sense of this. I am assuming for the moment that ther ie some interplay between the two separate installs. It could be related to the fact that part of what I do is open up all ext3, vfat, and ntfs-3g partitions using defaults,rw,exec,user for access. I am moving data around you see, and overcoming the limitations of Windows to copy files back and forth between its partitions when one of those partitions is the system volume. What I am doing for the moment is switching to 9.10 - /dev/sda3 and 9.04 - /dev/sda6. If this is somehow related to the two installs being the same, then maybe using a different version for one will prevent this from happening. I likely will also add a second user account as an alternative boot or login option it it repeats. You know, I was just about happy or at least satisfied with 9.10, but 9.04 is good enough for my alternative OS if this problem goes away. If I can't log in, then my whole install is shot, and that is hours of effort down the drain. ProblemType: Bug Architecture: i386 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.04 ExecutablePath: /usr/bin/yelp Package: yelp 2.25.1-0ubuntu5 ProcEnviron: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash SourcePackage: yelp Uname: Linux 2.6.28-11-generic i686 ** Affects: yelp (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-bug i386 -- Two Separate 9.10 Installs Clobber UserID or Password https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/524659 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 524659] Re: Two Separate 9.10 Installs Clobber UserID or Password
** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/39429379/Dependencies.txt ** Attachment added: ProcMaps.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/39429380/ProcMaps.txt ** Attachment added: ProcStatus.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/39429381/ProcStatus.txt -- Two Separate 9.10 Installs Clobber UserID or Password https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/524659 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 379789] Re: Ubuntu 9.04, live-install rescue/enable=true Fails
I've much more experience now, and can see a simpler and more effective way to repair or recover from a system failure. Here is the principle. Identify which partition was root, or all partitions in a given install that were used and not /home. Ignore /home for the following. Determine if a recovery is being requested (just system files and folders) or a full restore (include all configuration files). If a recovery, use a normal install with the same designated partitions and same file system, and follow normal install process as though following the manual partitioning route. For a full restore, do this before following the normal install process as above: mount the non-/home partitions as /mnt/mp, or the / partition as the same, but avoid /home for the following: use rm -R /mnt/mp/folder repeatedly for all folders in / for the mounted partition except /home. That will delete all configuration files as well, except any placed under /home in the user accounts. you should also use rm /mnt/mp/file if any files are here as well. Note. Depending on how the LiveCD actually works, you may want to exclude /cdrom and others as well. I think the most critical one to remove is /etc, which holds many of the configuration files. That's it. You can now repair (back to the install point, but with configurations settings retained), or replace (back to the install point, getting rid of configurations settings as well) your system while keeping the user accounts intact. I've done this a number of times, it works well, and I don't see why it has to be made harder. -- Ubuntu 9.04, live-install rescue/enable=true Fails https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/379789 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 502666] [NEW] Reboots Sometimes Lose Present and All Higher Resolutions
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: xorg I see several reports submitted with similar and overlapping symptoms, but none says quite what I have observed after many repeats. It seems to come down to this: My notebook's 17 monitor goes to resolutions of 1440x900. So far with Ubuntu 9.10, no problem, but when I select a lower resolution, the displayed images squashes in so that everything in the image stays at the same pixel count. I cannot up a small, like 800x600 or 1024x768 image, to fill the whole larger screen. This is true of all recent versions of Ubuntu. May be something specific to the video card employed. With Ubuntu 9.04, this PC loses higher resolutions on some power ups or reboots. It might only show a resolution as high as 1024x768, or 800x600, and one time of 640x480. There is nothing displayed as a higher resolution choice. One exception was when it did display a choice of 1360x768 above 1024x768, and it would set at that size, jut it just suddenly showed up on its own. When it makes up its mine that there are no higher resolutions, you are stuck at not being able to tell it otherwise. Also saw on one reinstall that it kept telling me it had to revert to low graphics resolutions because of a parsing error in the config file, and when I tried to edit the file (an option at that point), it turned out to be /etc/X11/xorg.conf. The line reported to be in error was in the screen section, and efforts to change, even delete the line, kept bringing back the same error loop. My notebook has no problem displaying stable higher resolution images, so maybe there is a lack of adequate time involved when checking the video card for whether it supports a given resolution or not. Can't really tell. Might be a file read error involved at some point. ProblemType: Bug Architecture: i386 Date: Sun Jan 3 11:58:02 2010 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10 MachineType: TOSHIBA Satellite L355 Package: xorg 1:7.4+3ubuntu10 ProcCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.31-16-generic root=UUID=8329ff28-b2be-4d4b-b744-8ba38572b673 ro quiet splash ProcEnviron: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-16.53-generic RelatedPackageVersions: xserver-xorg 1:7.4+3ubuntu10 libgl1-mesa-glx 7.6.0-1ubuntu4 libdrm2 2.4.14-1ubuntu1 xserver-xorg-video-intel 2:2.9.0-1ubuntu2 xserver-xorg-video-ati 1:6.12.99+git20090929.7968e1fb-0ubuntu1 SourcePackage: xorg Uname: Linux 2.6.31-16-generic i686 XorgConf: Error: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/etc/X11/xorg.conf' XsessionErrors: (gnome-settings-daemon:2498): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_propagate_error: assertion `src != NULL' failed (gnome-settings-daemon:2498): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_propagate_error: assertion `src != NULL' failed (nautilus:2602): Eel-CRITICAL **: eel_preferences_get_boolean: assertion `preferences_is_initialized ()' failed (polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1:2620): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_once_init_leave: assertion `initialization_value != 0' failed (firefox:2739): GLib-WARNING **: g_set_prgname() called multiple times dmi.bios.date: 06/04/2009 dmi.bios.vendor: INSYDE dmi.bios.version: 1.90 dmi.board.asset.tag: Base Board Asset Tag dmi.board.name: Portable PC dmi.board.vendor: TOSHIBA dmi.board.version: Base Board Version dmi.chassis.asset.tag: No Asset Tag dmi.chassis.type: 10 dmi.chassis.vendor: Chassis Manufacturer dmi.chassis.version: Chassis Version dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnINSYDE:bvr1.90:bd06/04/2009:svnTOSHIBA:pnSatelliteL355:pvrPSLD8U-0U9033B:rvnTOSHIBA:rnPortablePC:rvrBaseBoardVersion:cvnChassisManufacturer:ct10:cvrChassisVersion: dmi.product.name: Satellite L355 dmi.product.version: PSLD8U-0U9033B dmi.sys.vendor: TOSHIBA fglrx: Not loaded system: distro: Ubuntu architecture: i686kernel: 2.6.31-16-generic ** Affects: xorg (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-bug i386 -- Reboots Sometimes Lose Present and All Higher Resolutions https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502666 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 502666] Re: Reboots Sometimes Lose Present and All Higher Resolutions
** Attachment added: BootDmesg.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386492/BootDmesg.txt ** Attachment added: CurrentDmesg.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386493/CurrentDmesg.txt ** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386494/Dependencies.txt ** Attachment added: Lspci.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386495/Lspci.txt ** Attachment added: Lsusb.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386497/Lsusb.txt ** Attachment added: PciDisplay.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386498/PciDisplay.txt ** Attachment added: ProcCpuinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386499/ProcCpuinfo.txt ** Attachment added: ProcInterrupts.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386500/ProcInterrupts.txt ** Attachment added: ProcModules.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386501/ProcModules.txt ** Attachment added: UdevDb.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386502/UdevDb.txt ** Attachment added: UdevLog.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386503/UdevLog.txt ** Attachment added: XorgLog.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386504/XorgLog.txt ** Attachment added: XorgLogOld.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386505/XorgLogOld.txt ** Attachment added: Xrandr.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386506/Xrandr.txt ** Attachment added: glxinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386507/glxinfo.txt ** Attachment added: setxkbmap.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386508/setxkbmap.txt ** Attachment added: xdpyinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386509/xdpyinfo.txt ** Attachment added: xkbcomp.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37386510/xkbcomp.txt -- Reboots Sometimes Lose Present and All Higher Resolutions https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502666 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 502676] [NEW] Mouse Size Set At Screen Resolution Size
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: xorg It's not a bug in the sense of something present not working, it is that something that should be there just isn't. There is no way to control the cursor's size or shape. Because of another problem in resolutions, where all resolutions up to 1440x900 have the same pixel size on my notebook, so just picking a lower resolution only means a smaller area of the screen is employed, going up to 1440x900 just means a very small mouse pointer is displayed, and under mouse settings, there is no way to adjust this. There are only adjustments for touchpad sensitivity and speed, and whether pauses over the touchpad count as mouse clicks or not. To me, it seems rather obvious that the apparent mouse size should be nearly the same at any screen resolution. Maybe they thought that all monitors automatically readjust their images to cover the whole screen surface, but this Toshiba notebook seems to go by a different set of rules, and the pixel element factor seems to be central to the way it adjust resolutions. Low resolutions is shown smaller, and high resolutions are shown bigger. And if my notebook is effected, many others should be as well, since this is a Toshiba Satellite model. I think the ideal solution is to be able to either hold to a constant pixel size and change the apparent size of the image within (sort of a zoom in/zoom out approach), so that I can go to 1440x900 to cover the whole screen but then view just what I should see in a 800x600 view it that were my choice, or to stick with the other method, of setting new pixel sizes by instructions to the video card, on the basies that it will then adjust voltages and timing accordlingly. I mean the old method was great for analog monitors, but the digital approach is more to the zooming method using software. Being able to use either mode would likely suit most people. ProblemType: Bug Architecture: i386 Date: Sun Jan 3 12:39:08 2010 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10 MachineType: TOSHIBA Satellite L355 Package: xorg 1:7.4+3ubuntu10 ProcCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.31-16-generic root=UUID=8329ff28-b2be-4d4b-b744-8ba38572b673 ro quiet splash ProcEnviron: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-16.53-generic RelatedPackageVersions: xserver-xorg 1:7.4+3ubuntu10 libgl1-mesa-glx 7.6.0-1ubuntu4 libdrm2 2.4.14-1ubuntu1 xserver-xorg-video-intel 2:2.9.0-1ubuntu2 xserver-xorg-video-ati 1:6.12.99+git20090929.7968e1fb-0ubuntu1 SourcePackage: xorg Uname: Linux 2.6.31-16-generic i686 XorgConf: Error: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/etc/X11/xorg.conf' dmi.bios.date: 06/04/2009 dmi.bios.vendor: INSYDE dmi.bios.version: 1.90 dmi.board.asset.tag: Base Board Asset Tag dmi.board.name: Portable PC dmi.board.vendor: TOSHIBA dmi.board.version: Base Board Version dmi.chassis.asset.tag: No Asset Tag dmi.chassis.type: 10 dmi.chassis.vendor: Chassis Manufacturer dmi.chassis.version: Chassis Version dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnINSYDE:bvr1.90:bd06/04/2009:svnTOSHIBA:pnSatelliteL355:pvrPSLD8U-0U9033B:rvnTOSHIBA:rnPortablePC:rvrBaseBoardVersion:cvnChassisManufacturer:ct10:cvrChassisVersion: dmi.product.name: Satellite L355 dmi.product.version: PSLD8U-0U9033B dmi.sys.vendor: TOSHIBA fglrx: Not loaded system: distro: Ubuntu architecture: i686kernel: 2.6.31-16-generic ** Affects: xorg (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-bug i386 -- Mouse Size Set At Screen Resolution Size https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502676 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 502676] Re: Mouse Size Set At Screen Resolution Size
** Attachment added: BootDmesg.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387514/BootDmesg.txt ** Attachment added: CurrentDmesg.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387515/CurrentDmesg.txt ** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387516/Dependencies.txt ** Attachment added: Lspci.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387517/Lspci.txt ** Attachment added: Lsusb.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387518/Lsusb.txt ** Attachment added: PciDisplay.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387519/PciDisplay.txt ** Attachment added: ProcCpuinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387521/ProcCpuinfo.txt ** Attachment added: ProcInterrupts.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387522/ProcInterrupts.txt ** Attachment added: ProcModules.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387523/ProcModules.txt ** Attachment added: UdevDb.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387524/UdevDb.txt ** Attachment added: UdevLog.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387525/UdevLog.txt ** Attachment added: XorgLog.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387526/XorgLog.txt ** Attachment added: XorgLogOld.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387527/XorgLogOld.txt ** Attachment added: Xrandr.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387528/Xrandr.txt ** Attachment added: XsessionErrors.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387529/XsessionErrors.txt ** Attachment added: glxinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387530/glxinfo.txt ** Attachment added: setxkbmap.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387531/setxkbmap.txt ** Attachment added: xdpyinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387532/xdpyinfo.txt ** Attachment added: xkbcomp.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37387533/xkbcomp.txt -- Mouse Size Set At Screen Resolution Size https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502676 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 502700] [NEW] Where Are Contrast And Brightness Adjustments?
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: xorg First of all, the only Brightness adjustment I could find was under Power Management. That certainly does have a bearing on the amount of power consumed by the PC, but this is a visual adjustment and I think more appropriate under the Display settings. Second, Brightness as a factor in Power Management is probably more an issue when dealing with laptops and notebooks, not so much with desktop PCs. Desktop PCs also have separate monitors with their own settings, but that is not true of portables. And Contrast? Never found it, only found where others could not find it either. Many web pages have light colored text rather than black lettering, and trying to make that out against a light background is really hard. If there were an incorporated Contrast setting, I could deal with that. And it is certainly needed in portables that do not provide separate external controls for adjustments. ProblemType: Bug Architecture: i386 Date: Sun Jan 3 13:48:08 2010 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10 MachineType: TOSHIBA Satellite L355 Package: xorg 1:7.4+3ubuntu10 ProcCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.31-16-generic root=UUID=8329ff28-b2be-4d4b-b744-8ba38572b673 ro quiet splash ProcEnviron: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SHELL=/bin/bash ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-16.53-generic RelatedPackageVersions: xserver-xorg 1:7.4+3ubuntu10 libgl1-mesa-glx 7.6.0-1ubuntu4 libdrm2 2.4.14-1ubuntu1 xserver-xorg-video-intel 2:2.9.0-1ubuntu2 xserver-xorg-video-ati 1:6.12.99+git20090929.7968e1fb-0ubuntu1 SourcePackage: xorg Uname: Linux 2.6.31-16-generic i686 XorgConf: Error: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/etc/X11/xorg.conf' dmi.bios.date: 06/04/2009 dmi.bios.vendor: INSYDE dmi.bios.version: 1.90 dmi.board.asset.tag: Base Board Asset Tag dmi.board.name: Portable PC dmi.board.vendor: TOSHIBA dmi.board.version: Base Board Version dmi.chassis.asset.tag: No Asset Tag dmi.chassis.type: 10 dmi.chassis.vendor: Chassis Manufacturer dmi.chassis.version: Chassis Version dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnINSYDE:bvr1.90:bd06/04/2009:svnTOSHIBA:pnSatelliteL355:pvrPSLD8U-0U9033B:rvnTOSHIBA:rnPortablePC:rvrBaseBoardVersion:cvnChassisManufacturer:ct10:cvrChassisVersion: dmi.product.name: Satellite L355 dmi.product.version: PSLD8U-0U9033B dmi.sys.vendor: TOSHIBA fglrx: Not loaded system: distro: Ubuntu architecture: i686kernel: 2.6.31-16-generic ** Affects: xorg (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-bug i386 -- Where Are Contrast And Brightness Adjustments? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502700 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 502700] Re: Where Are Contrast And Brightness Adjustments?
** Attachment added: BootDmesg.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388520/BootDmesg.txt ** Attachment added: CurrentDmesg.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388521/CurrentDmesg.txt ** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388522/Dependencies.txt ** Attachment added: Lspci.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388523/Lspci.txt ** Attachment added: Lsusb.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388524/Lsusb.txt ** Attachment added: PciDisplay.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388526/PciDisplay.txt ** Attachment added: ProcCpuinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388527/ProcCpuinfo.txt ** Attachment added: ProcInterrupts.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388528/ProcInterrupts.txt ** Attachment added: ProcModules.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388529/ProcModules.txt ** Attachment added: UdevDb.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388530/UdevDb.txt ** Attachment added: UdevLog.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388531/UdevLog.txt ** Attachment added: XorgLog.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388532/XorgLog.txt ** Attachment added: XorgLogOld.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388533/XorgLogOld.txt ** Attachment added: Xrandr.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388534/Xrandr.txt ** Attachment added: XsessionErrors.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388535/XsessionErrors.txt ** Attachment added: glxinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388536/glxinfo.txt ** Attachment added: setxkbmap.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388537/setxkbmap.txt ** Attachment added: xdpyinfo.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388538/xdpyinfo.txt ** Attachment added: xkbcomp.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/37388539/xkbcomp.txt -- Where Are Contrast And Brightness Adjustments? https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502700 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 379789] [NEW] Ubuntu 9.04, live-install rescue/enable=true Fails
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: live-installer Got a display issue with Nvidia driver, and in trying to follow instructions, the system suddenly reverted to low resolution mode on bootup, and nothing works to fix it. Not that I really know what to do, which is why it is such a problem. Not even sure how to mount another partition with a working install so that I can compare details. Anyway, there is very little said about how to rescue a broken installation, except that it should be possible. I refer to https://help.ubuntu.com/9.04/installation-guide/i386/rescue.html in this regard. AS far as I can tell at this point, there are only two options for booting from a live CD with Ubuntu 9.04 on it. First you have to get to a text-base mode, and the method for doing that is not obvious. I found it as toggling down to Install Ubuntu as my choice option from the start-up screen, then hitting the Esc key, which offered me a chance to exit the GUI mode and go to text mode instead. So i did that. next, I had a black screen with this showing: Boot: Boot what? No choices offered. I tried several names that I could think of, but the only response was that it could not find an image with that name. I did not know what to do to get a list of available images. Finally, in desperation, I typed help, and that worked. I suddenly had a help screen, similar to but not the same as the one in the GUI. I tried F1 for more help, and got a differentl list of possible options. There was one for dealing with a broken system, but you pick that, you only got told that it was do-able, but not how. However, I had the info from the link above (only obtained with the help of another PC with online access), so I decided to try both the boot and the rescue/enable=true options mentioned. Boot was not valid. No image by that name. Rescue/enable=true not valid either, as no image callded rescue was found either. Somehow I stumbled on the fact that there were just three images identified, one called live, the second called live-install, and the other something else, but it only tested the PC memory. I've been through so much lately that some details escape me. Anyway I decided to give live-install rescue/enable=true a chance, and it seemed to work. Up to the point of where the partitioner got called in. Instead of seeing a different drive view where my choices were which partition to rescue, and no notice of the fact that this was just a rescue effort and my data would remain intact (as promised in the link above), I only had the choices of which method to do a fresh install again. Now I know that if you pick the manual mode, then hand select the partition to be used as root (/) but not to format it (leave that box unchecked), then you will we warned (advised maybe?) that only the system files will be replaced. Well, that could work, but I've already found (and reported in another bug report) that the partitioner screens are so stretched left and right, that the key box of Forward goes clear off screen. So you can still use Alt+F to go up to the point of actually performing the install, but no further. I guess I will go back and try with the boot option of live rescue/enable=true and see if it flies, but my expectations are not that great, in fact lowered simply because the live approch already assures someone that no changes will take place with the hard drive contents. Sure looks like the ability to Rescue a Broken System is nothing but a myth at this point. You have no plan in place to do so, none that any novice or semi-competent person can fathom or make use of. I would certainly call that a bug worth reporting. And it also points up the severity of the previously reported bug as well, because now it hinders efforts to restore a damaged system. ** Affects: live-installer (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Ubuntu 9.04, live-install rescue/enable=true Fails https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/379789 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 377382] [NEW] ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: ubiquity I filed a bug report on this a few days ago, but apparently it is not in the system yet. Or maybe it has been turned down altogether. I need to report additional details related to it. I tried to work around the original problem, but my method failed at the final step. So unable to install Ubuntu. In summary, here is what was reported. First install of Ubuntu was uneventful. Used new 320 GB hard drive with small NTFS partition, elected to manually partiton the rest, split it into three large partitions as Ext3 and three small partitions as Swap. That's seven partitions in all. Set up then went about as well as could be expected. Attempt at second install on next partition bombed. Now displayed drive length is so long that the Forward box is off the screen to the right. Can't get to it. No scroll bar for whole screen, and mouse pointer just goes to the very edge of the right side. Finally tried Alt+F today, and got pass this point. Was able to use Alt+F on following screens to keep going, until it reached the Ready to Install screen. Then nothing worked to make it keep going. Could not get pass this point. Tried backing up and coming up again, but always the same problem. Used every Alt+letter key combination except Alt+Q (Quit) and Alt+B (Back). Also included different combinations of Alt and Ctrl, even Shift, but it all failed. The other related problem reported was that partitioner only showed one drive, displayed twice, when I actually had two hard drives installed. I disconnected one drive temporarily today, and the partitioner is still showing the one drive, twice. Now what if I put in a second drive just for Ubuntu, and it keeps hitting on my first drive? This is not a good thing. Or if I attached an external drive and expected to install Ubuntu on it. What would happen then? Also had reported the fact that for either of the automatic partitioning choices, you can choose to have two systems installed side by side, or opt to use the whole disk for Ubuntu. With four large partitons (1 NTFS, 1 Ext3 in previous install, 2 Ext3 waiting to be installed into, one assigned swap partition, and 2 yet to be assigned), what was side by side going to translate into in my case? I could not risk finding out, not with all the work done thus far. Second choice, of just wiping off the whole disk and using it from scratch was not acceptable eiher. What I really wanted was the option to designate the 3rd Partition (2nd Ext3 partition) to be the target of my second install, and the 2nd Swap partition to be paired with it. This was not offered as a choice. I could do it manually, but that is where this bug prevented me from getting pass the Ready to Install screen. And if others don't see a Forward button, just a Quit and Back button, are they going to be able to figure out that it is a problem with the software, and that you can use Alt+F to get pass that point (until you get to a point where that does not work either). Maybe this is not a big bug if you are starting from scratch and have little on your hard drive to preserve, but it gets to be a big problem real fast if you want to do much more than that. I'm ready to move to Ubuntu as my primary OS, but am now prevented from doing so. I don't know if I can find a workaround for this bug or not. ** Affects: ubiquity (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- ubuntu 9.04 Installer Partitioning Problem https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/377382 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 376765] [NEW] Partition Problems with Install Process with 9.04
Public bug reported: I want two 320 GB hard drives to have three Ubuntu partitions each, with VirtualBox installed and Windows 2000 Pro or other OS set up on each as a guest. The idea is to make each it so that each VDI includes a lot of disk space. First install for Ubuntu went well enough. Only one drive showed up though, but there were two images of it on the partitioning choice screen. I selected Manual, then used that to divide the disk into three large partitions for Ubuntu, and had three more for swaps. Each partition install would get its own swap as a resulot. So six partitions in all for that drive. So far so good. But the installer lost it on the second install, because the drive was now divided into six partitions, and the display was too long. There were two horizontal scroll bars for each drive, but again only one drive was displayed in the two locations. But now the Forward button was too far to the right to appear on the screen. I could not find a way around this. Going back instead, I found each of the proceeding screens had now widen so much that the Forward button on each was now off screen as well. So you can go back, or quit, but you cannot go forward. So, two problems: Two hard drives, but only one displayed, and shows up twice. And when enough disk space is involved, the buttrons on the bottom of the screen can get pushed so far to the right that they go off screen. Why not put the Back/Quit/Forward buttons at about the center of the screen and independent of the right border? I also noted that there are some options missing with regards to the partitioner. These include: No way to designate an existing partition as the target for an Ubuntu install. The choices are limited to reusing the whole drive, dividing up the free disk space equally, or opt to go manual. Manual is too advanced for most users to attempt. A few more choices might be better, such as (R) Replace existing install of Windows or other OS on an identified partition, (I) Install Ubuntu on some portion of remaining free space, or (S) Set up Ubuntu as an application as part of the existing OS (the last choice might be a bit tricky to implement, but if you can do it, that might be welcomed). Oh yes, if any one of the installer's screens wants to go off the deep end in this manner, why not provide a driver disk so that some effort to upgrade the screen resolution beyond 800x600 is possible? If there is enough RAM involved, the changes could be temporary, or the drivers could be also added during the final stages of the install as the default settings for video. It bugs me that the installer just assumed that only one hard drive was involved. At least it appears that is what it did, or it simply failed to present the second drive properly, just showing the data for the first (or second) one over again. Even the drive designations for each partition was exactly the same between the top and bottom showings. Incidently, I did report this on the forums yesterday, but on reconsideration, felt it was worth the added effort to work out how to submit a bug report. It took me a long tme to find where i could actually write up and submit this report, though many references were turned up in my Google search. ** Affects: partitioner (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Partition Problems with Install Process with 9.04 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/376765 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
Re: [Bug 260192] Re: Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility
I make no claim as to my qualifications, but I downloaded the 8.04.1 version of Ubuntu, then used a report elsewhere as to how to enable USB support in it by removing some comments in one of the script files. That enabled USB support, but with some noted issues. I didn't have to report it I guess, but it seemed appropriate in case others encountered the same problems of the supporters needed to know the effects involved. The thing abut 8,04,1 is that you may gain something, but it looks like you give up something as well. So I am sticking with 8.04 for the present. ---Original Message--- From: Xavier Poinsard Date: 12/17/2008 08:43:00 AM To: oldef...@cox.net Subject: [Bug 260192] Re: Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility Since you mention USB, I assume you are using the closed source version of virtualbox, isnt'it ? If Yes, you bug is incorrectly filed against the ubuntu package (which is based on open source version and without USB support). -- Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260192 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1851 - Release Date: 12/16/2008 8:53 AM ** Attachment added: unnamed http://launchpadlibrarian.net/20509327/unnamed ** Attachment added: unnamed http://launchpadlibrarian.net/20509328/unnamed ** Attachment added: unnamed http://launchpadlibrarian.net/20509329/unnamed -- Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260192 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 260192] Re: Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility
I managed to resolve this problem. Doing online research, I first added the entry specified for OpenSuse not supporting USB that is mentioned in the VirtualBox FAQ. This entry goes in /etc/fstab, and is for device none usb. This caused my external usb hard drive to mount on startup automatically. I also added subfolders to /media for each drive that was not being mounted at startup. After I had reverting to the prefinal setup method, and did all updates, the ntfs partitions mounted on startup, but the ext3 partitions did not. I added entries to /etc/fstab for each unmounted drive, and changed the properties for the ext3 partitions from defaults to defaults,auto in the same table. That still did not mount them. So I edited /etc/init.d/mountall.sh and added ,ext3 to each of the two mount commands located there, and this finally worked after perfroming /etc/init.d/mountall.sh start (or following a reboot).. . I still had a problem with accessing the external usb hard drive in the guest OS, but finally realized that I had enabled support through /etc/fstab, but still had a USB filter in place for it in VirtualBox. So I removed the USB filter, and set the external drive up via shared folders. This worked. I had to change the properties on the none usb entry in /etc/fstab from =0664 to -0666 to enable write access to this drive. And that is it. It even works better than my original efforts, since if the external hard drive is added or removed at any time, I get no errors from either the host or guest OS. I also found that if I wanted, I could add the subfolders to /mnt instead of to /media, in which case you can still access the drives, but they will not automatically appear as icons on the desktop. You just have to show the designated mountpoint as the second field in each entry in /etc/fstab. I also noted that /etc/mtab shows the drives that will be normally mounted if these changes are not made, but that this table apparently cannot be directly edited, as the system will crash if you try. It apparently will only accept a reboot command if that happens. And you can use the blkid command to see all the known partitions on your system. However, this does not show the block size used, and this may be a required entry at some point, so you can use the dumpfs [driveid] command for that information, but redirect it () to a text file so that you can see the pertinent information near the top of the list, as it is a verbose report and you will see it scroll off the top of the screen if you use the dumpfs [driveid] command by itself. I hope that is enough information to help someone else overcome the same problems. -- Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260192 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 260192] Re: Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility
** Description changed: Moving to fuse has caused severe compatibility problems with VirtualBox. Even going through and mounting all Windows drives beforehand, and trying to access them as shared folders in VirtualBox does not work. The drives appear to show up, but are void. Cannot access external USB drive via VirtualBox either, does not show up at all. Attempting to add drives to fstab manually as done in 8.04 appears to corrupt the mount process so that the drive cannot be mounted at all. Putting the fstab back as it was did not fix this problem - had to restore image from backup. Fuse mounts the drives with generic names if no label was assigned. Unable to change names through Properties. Was able to rename from terminal after installing ntfsprogs and using ntsflabel for ntfs volumes and e2label for ext3 volumes. No option to set name during install of Ubuntu. Instructions should indicate the use of double quotes around new name as means of setting case and adding special characters like (). Should be option to keep matters as they were under 8.04. The use of uuid in fstab is counter-productive. If you install a second or third instance of Linux, the drive's uuids will change, and grub will be unable to boot to all instances if the uuid does not match up with that found in the host boot process (/boot/grub/menu.lst). You should permit generic boot order using /dev entries.. + + UPDATE: Reinstalled Ubuntu 8.04 using prefinal image (before install + process finalized), which had drives on desktop (before fuse), Then I + used update process to bring that installl up to current levels. Sun + VirtualBox was able to set these up as shared folders for guest OS + Windows XP Pro, which could not access them previously as per above + report. However, something has changed because Windows 2000 Pro will + not install as a guest now, keeps recycling when trying to set up + Network.. And as reported above, even though USB Host Proxy has been + enabled, and users enabled in groups vboxusers and vboxdrv, unable to + access external hard drive although USB and USB 2.0 support enabled in + VirtualBox and a mass storage device, external hard drive, and USB + connected printer are passed through. Of these, only the printer can be + accessed within the guest OS. + + Before changes to version 8.04, culminating in 8.04.1, the combination + of Ubuntu and VirtualBox was almost flowless. Now something is + seriously broken, and I am just trying to hekp point out where the + change occurred. -- Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260192 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 260192] [NEW] Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility
Public bug reported: Moving to fuse has caused severe compatibility problems with VirtualBox. Even going through and mounting all Windows drives beforehand, and trying to access them as shared folders in VirtualBox does not work. The drives appear to show up, but are void. Cannot access external USB drive via VirtualBox either, does not show up at all. Attempting to add drives to fstab manually as done in 8.04 appears to corrupt the mount process so that the drive cannot be mounted at all. Putting the fstab back as it was did not fix this problem - had to restore image from backup. Fuse mounts the drives with generic names if no label was assigned. Unable to change names through Properties. Was able to rename from terminal after installing ntfsprogs and using ntsflabel for ntfs volumes and e2label for ext3 volumes. No option to set name during install of Ubuntu. Instructions should indicate the use of double quotes around new name as means of setting case and adding special characters like (). Should be option to keep matters as they were under 8.04. The use of uuid in fstab is counter-productive. If you install a second or third instance of Linux, the drive's uuids will change, and grub will be unable to boot to all instances if the uuid does not match up with that found in the host boot process (/boot/grub/menu.lst). You should permit generic boot order using /dev entries.. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Ubuntu 8.04.1 Sun VirtualBox Incompatibility https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260192 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 234852] [NEW] Ubuntu + VirtualBox = Runaway Message Queue
Public bug reported: Ubuntu 8.04 with VirtualBox commercial version installed. Win98 and Win2K installed in virtual environments. Problem: In virtual mode, keyboard and mouse entries appear to generate a HUGE number of event message if activated too long. If the system falls behind, these events can cause an apparent lockup while events are slowly acted out. No other keyboard or mouse activity is acknowledged during this time. The only thing that works is to momentarily press the power button, which brings up Ubuntu's exit dialog. However. other than shutting down, there is limited choice here. Suggested solution: Add a capability to purge the event message queue of all pending keyboard and mouse events as an added choice in the exit dialog. If this is performed, it would appear to instantaneously restore keyboard and mouse input capability. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Ubuntu + VirtualBox = Runaway Message Queue https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/234852 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 233902] [NEW] Open App Moves Up And Down
Public bug reported: Ubuntu 8.04 with current updates. Installed kbasic 1.69 Trial and VirtualBox, commercial version This problem only occurs rarely, but has impacted both applications above. If an app is displayed full screen, covering all the desktop except the top and bottom toolbars, I have found on some occasions that the app becomes unstable. If I try to click on the display controls or close the app by clicking on the icons in the upper right corner, the app will abruptly move up, with the top portion slipping behind the top toolbar. Use the left mouse button to click again, and it jumps back down to where the app border is again displayed below the top toolbar. The click of the left mouse button acts as a toggle to make the app window move up and down repeatedly with each click. This happened with kbasic and display settings of 1024x768. It happened with Win98 running on VirtualBox with the display settings at 960x600. I could only close each app using the button on the lower toolbar, as the upper left controls were apparently only detectable when up and behind the upper toolbar. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Open App Moves Up And Down https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/233902 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 232023] [NEW] KBasic IDE Display Unstable at 1024x768
Public bug reported: I only observed this in Ubuntu 8.04 after installing kbasic 1.69 and running kbide at 1024x768. What happens is that the IDE shows properly on the desktop between the top and bottom toolbars, but if I place the mouse anywhere in the IDE and click with the left mouse button, the image of the IDE jumps up with the topmost portion going behind the top toolbar. If I click again, it jumps back to its normal place. So repeated clickings causes the display of the IDE to jump up and down on the screen. The reaction area for the IDE icons seems to always be at the utmost position, so you have to click on the spot where you think they are when up to activate them. I also found it impossible to close the IDE using the large X, so I had to use the Quit under File. There does not seem to be a problem at other resolutions, although I have not tried anything higher. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- KBasic IDE Display Unstable at 1024x768 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/232023 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 222891] [NEW] Cannot reference Ext3 drives under 8.04
Public bug reported: Have three Ext3 partitions. Had 7.10 on each, used two different update methods on two partitions to 8.04 (one from CD, other via Internet), and fresh install of 8.04 on third. Found that drives do not show up on dexktop on new install, but still show up where updated fro 7.10. Had to locate missing drive under Places/Removable Media, as they did not show up under /media either. After mounting them from under Places.Removable Media, they show up under /media. but the Ext3 drives only report size of folders as the name. Cannot find way to set name under Ubuntu, because when I tried under Properties, I got an error. IDE drives still being reported as SCSI, and handled as removable, but under properties they are marked as non-removable. Drives do not show up under /dev at all, and have to use properties or Go and history to determine which Ext3 partition is which, as all are sized the same (and therefore have same label). Finally set labels under Windows so that I can tell one from another. I am confused by the change from having the drives on the desktop, to having to mount each in turn in order to access them. The 7.10 updates allow the drives to remain on the desktop if I reboot, but the new install of 8.04 does not seem to retain the drives on the desktop when rebooting. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Cannot reference Ext3 drives under 8.04 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/222891 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 222896] [NEW] Firefox mplayer lack codecs for Video
Public bug reported: Updated to 8.04 from 7.10. Had Firefox 2 working with mplayer and codecs to view video news clips. After update, which included Firefox 3 Beta 5, the mplayer would only play the sound. Checked the add-ons, and finally disabled all related to video. Tried playing video again, and was asked whether to use mplayer as default. Responded yes, at which point I was told that the correct codec was missing. Allowed Update Manager to get missing codecs, and mplayer was able to play video with no problem. Seems there is a problem if the plug-in comes preinstalled and the codecs are not available. No error is given, and no solution proposed. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Firefox mplayer lack codecs for Video https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/222896 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 185283] No USB Support in Virtualbox.ose 1.5.4
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: virtualbox-ose Using Ubuntu 7.10 for host I've installed Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP as guests I find absolutely no support of USB in Virtualbox.ose, and no option to set USB options under Settings. Plug and Play in guest OS also unable to detect any USB connected devices. This problem was reported by someone else, but someone then flagged it as invalid. I don't know why it was flagged that way, because I am still experiencing this problem. \I am adding this bug report because I think the invalid flag was inappropriate. It needs another look, or a fix, not a dismissal. ** Affects: virtualbox-ose (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- No USB Support in Virtualbox.ose 1.5.4 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/185283 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
Re: [Bug 184729] Re: VM Guest OS Still Seen as Host Externally
David Tomaschik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where were you performing the download? From a browser in the guest OS? -- VM Guest OS Still Seen as Host Externally https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/184729 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. I tried it three ways. The first was using IE in the Windows VM (guest system). The second was using FireFox in Ubuntu (hist system). Both times I ended up getting the RPM package from the Adobe web site. The third time I used Opera in Ubuntu, and got the correct install package for Windows (manual request was for the Windows 2000 SP4 download). I suspect that the Adobe web site has a bug in the manual designation process, and that its automatic recognition of the target machine is causing problems by overriding the manual selection process. Probably they do this for IE and FireFox, but do not really interface the same with Opera, which is not near as popular. But it creates an interesting test environment for whether the VM or Host OS is detected externally. This failure could be a problem when trying to download and install plug-ins automatically if the detection process is incorrect. -- VM Guest OS Still Seen as Host Externally https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/184729 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 185261] Guest XP Unable to Access Shared Folders
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: virtualbox-ose
Using Ubuntu 7.10 for host
Using Windows XP Pro as Guest (two installs of Windows 2000 Pro already done)
As reported before, no USB support evident.
Did XP Install and all updates, no problem.
Added two shared folders, but nothing shows up under My Network Place.
Searched web for any posts, found one suggesting using NET at command prompt to
force a link, another suggested adding simba or other server, a third to add
virtual network adapter with host interface. Nothing worked. After adding
network adapter, XP would no longer start, giving this error:
Failed to Start Virtual Machine
Unknown error creating VM (VERR_HOSTIF_INIT_FAILED).
VBox status code: -3100 (VERR_HOSTIF_INIT_FAILED).
Result Code:
0x80004005
Component:
Console
Interface:
IConsole {1dea5c4b-0753-4193-b909-22330f64ec45}
Tried changing everything back, but problem persists.
Exactly how do you get access to shared folders in XP? I had absolutely
no problems with this with Windows 2000 Pro.
** Affects: virtualbox-ose (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
Guest XP Unable to Access Shared Folders
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/185261
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 184729] VM Guest OS Still Seen as Host Externally
Public bug reported: Installed Virtualbox 1.5.4 on Ubuntu 7.10 (finally, after numerous attempts). Installed Windows 2000 Pro as guest OS (no USB support apparent) Installed from .ISO file (the CDROM passthru did not work with DVD Drive) Updated Windows 2000 Pro to SP4 (no problems) set up shared folders to /media/sdaX partitions (no problems) set up shared folders in VM Windows 2000 under My Network Places (worked) set up shared folders in VM Windows 2000 using Map Network Drives (worked) Trieed to download and install Adobe Reader for Windows 2000 + SP4, but Adobe website kept switching download to RPM package because host OS was Ubuntu. Additional note: It would be nice to have choice of default hard drive letter when installing Windows as guest OS - this would support allowing shared folders for drive C: to be mapped as network drive C: and avoid unnecessary path changes. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- VM Guest OS Still Seen as Host Externally https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/184729 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 183355] Grub does not prompt correctly for install
Public bug reported: Installed Ubuntu on 2nd hard drive, first partition. Had to use Manual configuration as hard drive is already partitioned, Had to use Advanced button to designate where to install grub help files. Suggested location is (hd0), which works, but not where I wanted it. Tried (hd1) which failed to set up boot process, then tried (sdb) and (sdb1), but these were deemed invalid. Finally tried (hd1,0), and this worked. Should have either given list of acceptable drives/partitions,.immediately rejected invalid choice, or accepted alternate drive designations. ** Affects: ubuntu Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Grub does not prompt correctly for install https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/183355 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 76194] Re: Booting problem: kernel recognizes SCSI instead of IDE
Same bug in GG and HH. My IDE drives show up as SCSI and removable. I'm not experiencing any real problems as a result, but it is incorrect, annoying, and causes inconsistency with how the drives are identified in other distributions. -- Booting problem: kernel recognizes SCSI instead of IDE https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/76194 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 183059] Update Manager in Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Crashed after partial update
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: f-spot Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Update Manager complained that it could only perform a partial update, failed on three app updates, then was unable to determine size of next update effort and was unable to continue. ProblemType: Package Architecture: i386 Date: Mon Jan 14 21:54:05 2008 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 8.04 ErrorMessage: ErrorMessage: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Package: f-spot 0.4.1-1 PackageArchitecture: i386 SourcePackage: f-spot Title: package f-spot 0.4.1-1 failed to install/upgrade: Uname: Linux oldefoxx-desktop 2.6.24-3-generic #1 SMP Thu Jan 3 23:30:29 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux ** Affects: f-spot (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-package -- Update Manager in Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Crashed after partial update https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/183059 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 183059] Re: Update Manager in Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Crashed after partial update
** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/11345359/Dependencies.txt -- Update Manager in Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron) Crashed after partial update https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/183059 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
