[Bug 1050165] Re: xpdf.real crashed with SIGSEGV in CMapCache::getCMap()
Possible upstream site http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/home.html indicates no recent development : From the home page: Current version: 3.03 (2011-aug-15) Xpdf 3.03 supports PDF 1.7. Is this a bug in xpdf or in libpoppler (as the version of xpdf that is used by ubuntu links against libpoppler): tim@zaphod:~$ ldd /usr/bin/xpdf.real | grep poppler libpoppler.so.28 = /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpoppler.so.28 (0x7f05fe3ec000) tim@zaphod:~$ apt-cache policy xpdf libpoppler28 xpdf: Installed: 3.03-10ubuntu1 Candidate: 3.03-10ubuntu1 Version table: *** 3.03-10ubuntu1 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ raring/universe amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status libpoppler28: Installed: 0.20.5-1ubuntu3 Candidate: 0.20.5-1ubuntu3 Version table: *** 0.20.5-1ubuntu3 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ raring/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status See also http://dilfridge.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/what-about-my-precious- xpdf.html (gentoo discussion, but may be relevant given the libpoppler usage) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1050165 Title: xpdf.real crashed with SIGSEGV in CMapCache::getCMap() To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xpdf/+bug/1050165/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1050165] Re: xpdf.real crashed with SIGSEGV in CMapCache::getCMap()
Still an issue. Running 12.10 64-bit, the attached file causes xpdf to crash, but acroread 9 is happy tim@zaphod:~$ apt-cache policy xpdf xpdf: Installed: 3.03-9ubuntu5 Candidate: 3.03-9ubuntu5 Version table: *** 3.03-9ubuntu5 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ quantal/universe amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status tim@zaphod:~$ lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description:Ubuntu 12.10 Release:12.10 Codename: quantal tim@zaphod:~$ ** Attachment added: c Karnival White Poster Final 2013.pdf https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xpdf/+bug/1050165/+attachment/3512928/+files/c%20Karnival%20White%20Poster%20Final%202013.pdf -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1050165 Title: xpdf.real crashed with SIGSEGV in CMapCache::getCMap() To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/xpdf-intl/+bug/1050165/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1050165] Re: xpdf.real crashed with SIGSEGV in CMapCache::getCMap()
Crash file for latest attempt to openm PDF that causes crash ** Attachment added: _usr_bin_xpdf.real.1000.crash https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xpdf/+bug/1050165/+attachment/3512929/+files/_usr_bin_xpdf.real.1000.crash -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1050165 Title: xpdf.real crashed with SIGSEGV in CMapCache::getCMap() To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/xpdf-intl/+bug/1050165/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 946758] Re: Format string overflow in Monitor.c:check_array
80 bytes may not be enough on a server running in 64-bit mode with a large disk/array, given that the format string is 41 bytes lonmg - including 2 '%d' variables . How many digits could there be in the longest possible number of mis-matches on a system that has a raid partition of maximum supported size? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/946758 Title: Format string overflow in Monitor.c:check_array To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mdadm/+bug/946758/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 960867] [NEW] package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
Public bug reported: $ lsb_release -rd Description:Ubuntu precise (development branch) Release:12.04 Extract from output of 'sudo apt-get dist-upgrade': Preparing to replace python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 (using .../python-uno_1%3a3.5.1-1ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... ERROR: unopkg cannot be started. The lock file indicates it as already running. If this does not apply, delete the lock file at: /var/lib/libreoffice/share/prereg/.lock dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/python-uno_1%3a3.5.1-1ubuntu1_amd64.deb (--unpack): subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 Processing triggers for fontconfig ... Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/python-uno_1%3a3.5.1-1ubuntu1_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) tim@zaphod:~$ The lock file /var/lib/libreoffice/share/prereg/.lock had survived multiple reboots: $ ls -l /var/lib/libreoffice/share/prereg/.lock -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 126 Mar 8 20:55 /var/lib/libreoffice/share/prereg/.lock ~$ last reboot reboot system boot 3.2.0-19-generic Tue Mar 20 19:47 - 18:13 (22:25) reboot system boot 3.2.0-19-generic Mon Mar 19 18:26 - 19:45 (1+01:19) Removing the lock file then running sudo apt-get -f install successfuly competed the installation: $ sudo apt-get -f install Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies... Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: libcogl5 gnome-js-common linux-headers-3.2.0-18 seed dkms libseed-gtk3-0 Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them. The following extra packages will be installed: python-uno The following packages will be upgraded: python-uno 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 71 not upgraded. 52 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/156 kB of archives. After this operation, 219 kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? (Reading database ... 238205 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 (using .../python-uno_1%3a3.5.1-1ubuntu1_amd64.deb) ... Synchronizing repository for bundled extensions Disabling: script-provider-for-python Disabling: pythonscript.py unopkg done. Unpacking replacement python-uno ... ProblemType: Package DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04 Package: python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-19.30-generic 3.2.11 Uname: Linux 3.2.0-19-generic x86_64 ApportVersion: 1.94.1-0ubuntu2 Architecture: amd64 Date: Wed Mar 21 18:03:48 2012 ErrorMessage: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot - Beta amd64 (20110920.5) SourcePackage: libreoffice Title: package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to precise on 2012-03-14 (7 days ago) ** Affects: libreoffice (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: amd64 apport-package precise -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/960867 Title: package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/960867/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 960867] Re: package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation 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/960867 Title: package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/960867/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 960867] Re: package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
I ran apt-get dist-upgrade in a terminal, because update manager warned
that a partial upgrade needed to be run.
After running apt-get -f install, update-manager popped up again, with
71 packages to upgrade. No archives were fetched ('Need to get 0 B/40.8
MB of archives.') which indicates that those packages were blocked by
the error.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/960867
Title:
package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade:
subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/960867/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 960867] Re: package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
** Attachment added: Terminal session log for upgrade https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/960867/+attachment/2907845/+files/bug-960897-upgrade.log -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/960867 Title: package python-uno 1:3.5.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/+bug/960867/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 950791] Re: type 'exceptions.AttributeError': 'Transaction' object has no attribute 'pktrans'
I applied updates as detected this morning NZ time using update-manager, then refreshed the lists and applied a second set of updates. aptdaemon crashed during post-processing after instalation of the second set of updates. /var/cache/apt/archives has two sets of files for aptdaemon: tim@zaphod:~$ ls -l /var/cache/apt/archives/aptdaemon* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15146 Mar 9 22:03 /var/cache/apt/archives/aptdaemon_0.43+bzr778-0ubuntu1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15130 Mar 15 02:04 /var/cache/apt/archives/aptdaemon_0.43+bzr784-0ubuntu1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 162996 Mar 9 22:03 /var/cache/apt/archives/aptdaemon-data_0.43+bzr778-0ubuntu1_all.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 163060 Mar 15 02:04 /var/cache/apt/archives/aptdaemon-data_0.43+bzr784-0ubuntu1_all.deb tim@zaphod:~$ Note that timestamps are NZDT, 13 hours ahead of UTC. After applying the second set of updates, update manager reported that a restart was required, and the restart icon has apeared in the gnome panel. aptdaemon crashed at about the time when update-manager was generating the reboot alert at the end of installation of the second set of updates, but no crash occurred when I needed to reboot last (at least 2 days ago). This suggests that the bug was introduced between bzr778 and bzr784 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/950791 Title: type 'exceptions.AttributeError': 'Transaction' object has no attribute 'pktrans' To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aptdaemon/+bug/950791/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 953740] Re: gnome-panel crashed with SIGSEGV in g_signal_emit_valist()
** Visibility changed to: Public -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/953740 Title: gnome-panel crashed with SIGSEGV in g_signal_emit_valist() To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-panel/+bug/953740/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd (I/O error while reading CD)
Agreed. It *should* be fixed, but it only affects users if: 1: they are upgrading using a CD/DVD AND 2: the media is bad (and they have used that media without verifying that the file checksums are good) Unfortunately, this will be hard to test, as it depends on having media (such as a CD-RW disk) that is bad, that you can write the iso image to. Given the nature of the failure, I suspect that an install from bad media would also fail with similar symptoms, because the error is being detected by /usr/lib/apt/methods/cdrom (or the installer equivalent) when scanning the package files -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd (I/O error while reading CD) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
Unfortunately, I have already removed references to the CD, so there are no files matching /var/lib/apt/lists/*Ubuntu* at all . -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
Doing the natty-oneiric upgrade in a 32-bit VM offers a clue: the ISO is mounted as '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 i386', rather than as /media/cdrom or /media/cdrom0. main.log shows: 2011-09-24 20:19:34,554 DEBUG AptCdrom.add() called with '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 i386' 2011-09-24 20:19:34,645 INFO ignoring missing '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 i386/dists/oneiric/restricted/debian-installer/binary-i386/Packages' 2011-09-24 20:19:34,658 INFO ignoring missing '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 i386/dists/oneiric/restricted/binary-i386/Packages' 2011-09-24 20:19:34,660 INFO ignoring missing '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 i386/dists/oneiric/main/debian-installer/binary-i386/Packages' 2011-09-24 20:19:34,695 INFO ignoring missing '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 i386/dists/oneiric/main/binary-i386/Packages' 2011-09-24 20:19:34,783 DEBUG AptCdrom.add() returned: True Also, the upgrade is invoked by /usr/bin/python /tmp/distupgrade.IR40Fz/oneiric --cdrom '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 i386' These all use the name assigned when the ISO was created On the physical PC, I see differences: 1: The CD is mounted at /media/cdrom0 rather than at '/media/Ubuntu 11.10 amd64' 2: AptCdrom.add is called with /media/cdrom0 3: The errors reference the disk ID from .disk/info, which is different from the disk name. 4: the upgrade is invoked as /usr/bin/python /tmp/tmp.SKbxzxdtVR/oneiric --cdrom /media/cdrom0 After burning the 64-bit beta2 to a new CDRW disk, I now appear to be succeeding with the upgrade. This suggests that there was an error with the media, and that the upgrade wasn't handling that error gracefully. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
This time, the upgrade succeeded. Looking at main.log, I note that this time I also said 'NO' to the question about use of the network to fetch the latest updates. I note that AptCdrom.add() was called successfully during both attempts. Running 'md5sum -c md5sum.txt | grep -v OK' on the bad disk gets lots of read errors for packages, so I assume that the error was generated by the process that checks packages on the CD. This bug can be closed as 'invalid' For the record, I have attached a tar archive of /var/log/dist-upgrade after the successful upgrade. It includes the subdirectories with logs of the 3 previous failed attempts. ** Attachment added: successful-upgrade.tar https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+attachment/2455198/+files/successful-upgrade.tar -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
I am now confused: - my 64-bit server upgraded from a CD burnt from the 20110915 daily 64-bit server ISO, with no problems - upgrade of a 64-bit VM which has no additional software succeeds using the 64-bit alternate ISO 20110920.5 - attempts to upgrade my main PC, running 64-bit natty, fail with the same error, during step 2 (setting new channels), using a CDRW created from any of: * 20110915 64-bit alternate ISO * 20110915 64-bit server ISO 20110920.5 64-bit alternate ISO In addition, do-release-upgrade can't find a development release, so I can't even use that to upgrade: tim@zaphod:~$ sudo do-release-upgrade -d [sudo] password for tim: Checking for a new ubuntu release No new release found tim@zaphod:~$ The attempts to upgrade my main system DID fetch packages files from an acceptable repository even if I chose NO at the Fetch latest updates from the network question. It appears that the question only affects packages that are available from the CD - the packages fetched were from universe or multiverse or from the partner repository http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu. If that is the case, then the message is misleading. There is a (or at least a potential) secondary bug, because the upgrade process didn't recognise ucmirror.canterbury.ac.nz as a valid mirror, although natty synaptic offers that as a choice. I suspect that the upgrader doesn't recognise anything other than *.archive.ubuntu.com as a valid mirror. I discovered this when I switched mirror after discovering that the Citylink mirror that is considered official (nz.archive.ubuntu.com = ubuntu.citylink.co.nz) was not up-to-date, and tried to do the release update after selecting ucmirror.canterbury.ac.nz. With ucmirror.canterbury.ac.nz, I got 'no valid mirrors found' -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
Further testing and research: I used the server CD that successfully upgraded my server from natty to oneiric, and it failed at the same stage. On the server, main.log showed repositories being disabled, then 'running doUpdate() (showErrors=True)' On the workstation, at the same stage in the process, it logged AptCdrom.add() called with '/media/cdrom0', this time with: 2011-09-24 11:19:27,896 ERROR IOError/SystemError in cache.update(): 'W:Failed to fetch cdrom://Ubuntu-Server 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Beta amd64 (20110901)/dists/oneiric/main/binary-i386/Packages Please use apt-cdrom to make this CD-ROM recognized by APT. apt-get update cannot be used to add new CD-ROMs (The server ISO from 1 Sept daily build was used to create the CD). The call to doUpdate() (showErrors=True) was logged immediately after 'AptCdrom.add() returned: True' -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
This now appears to be caused by a failed upgrade leaving a reference to the CD in /etc/apt/sources.list. My preferred mirror appears to be missing some packages that the upgrade was trying to fetch. This caused a failed upgrade last night. I then switched mirrors and updated/upgraded natty, using update-manager, without looking at /etc/apt/sources.list. When I re-tried the upgrade after that from the same CD, it aborted. I note that after a successful upgrade in a VM,. using the image from daily-20110920.5, term.log starts with warnings about duplicate sources.list entries and after the upgrade, the cdrom entry does indeed have 'main' and 'restricted' duplicated: # added by the release upgrader # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Beta amd64 (20110920.5)]/ oneiric main main restricted restricted -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
Using the daily build ISO http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily/20110915 /oneiric-alternate-amd64.iso appeared to work in a 64-bit virtual machine. With internet access available, it also downloaded packages files for the 32-bit architecture. However, the actual upgrade aborted part-way through. The contents of /var/lib/apt/lists are all files for oneiric (68 files, see attachment). Most of the installed packages are reported by 'apt-get dist-upgrade' as still to be upgraded. ** Attachment added: Contents of /var/lib/apt/lists after release upgrade attempt using 2011-09-15 daily build https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+attachment/2410878/+files/test-vm-lists-contents -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
** Attachment added: tar archive of /var/log/dist-upgrade after attempt using daily build from 2011-09-15 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+attachment/2410881/+files/dist-upgrade-2011-09-15-daily.tar -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] [NEW] Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
Public bug reported: System is running 64-bit natty. When I insert a CD burnt from image ubuntu-11.10-beta1-alternate-amd64.iso, the upgrade process runs until it is attempting to process the i386 Packages files. At that step, the upgrade process stops with error 'W:Failed to fetch cdrom://Ubuntu 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Beta amd64 (20110901)/dists/oneiric/main/binary-i386/Packages Please use apt-cdrom to make this CD-ROM recognized by APT. apt-get update cannot be used to add new CD-ROMs' I note that the two i386 Packages.gz files are 20 bytes, corresponding to a zero-length uncompressed file. Contents of /var/log/dist-upgrade attached as a tar archive ** Affects: debian-installer (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/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 848659] Re: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd
** Attachment added: tar archive of contents of /var/log/dist-upgrade https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659/+attachment/2395627/+files/dist-upgrade-files.tar -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/848659 Title: Upgrade from natty fails with 64-bit oneiric beta cd To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/848659/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 769866] Re: tab completion no longer escapes filenames
Tab completion for directory name completion (appending a trailing '/'), and of handling embedded spaces in a file/directory name (by escaping the space as '\ ') appears to be fixed, (at least for the 'gedit', 'ls', 'cd' and 'mv' commands), with tim@zaphod:~/Documents$ apt-cache policy bash bash-completion bash: Installed: 4.2-0ubuntu3 Candidate: 4.2-0ubuntu3 Version table: *** 4.2-0ubuntu3 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status bash-completion: Installed: 1:1.3-1ubuntu3 Candidate: 1:1.3-1ubuntu3 Version table: *** 1:1.3-1ubuntu3 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status tim@zaphod:~/Documents$ -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769866 Title: tab completion no longer escapes filenames -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 742041] Re: bash doesn't provide auto-completion more
In natty, if the type characters match a singe directory entry, pressing the TAB key results in the matching entry, with: 1: A space following 2: No escaping of embedded spaces or special characters This is NOT related to unity - it appears for the classic desktop as well In previous releases, bash would do the following: 1: For embedded spaces, they would be escaped with a single backslash (\) 2: If the match was a directory, the displayed match would terminate with /' (eg Desktop/) and NO trailing space 3: A trailing space would be appended ONLY in the case where there was a single file name that matched when the TAB was pressed bash version: tim@zaphod:~$ bash --version GNU bash, version 4.2.8(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. tim@zaphod:~$ lsb_release -a LSB Version: core-2.0-amd64:core-2.0-noarch:core-3.0-amd64:core-3.0-noarch:core-3.1-amd64:core-3.1-noarch:core-3.2-amd64:core-3.2-noarch:core-4.0-amd64:core-4.0-noarch Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description:Ubuntu Natty (development branch) Release:11.04 Codename: natty tim@zaphod:~$ -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/742041 Title: bash doesn't provide auto-completion more -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 570084] Re: dist-upgrade LVM on RAID: boot failure
Is this actually a duplicate of #561390? -- dist-upgrade LVM on RAID: boot failure https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/570084 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 409456] Re: upstream compiled binaries built without stack flags
nvidia-173 fails with DKMS errors on 64-bit: Setting up nvidia-173-kernel-source (173.14.16-0ubuntu2~kees2) ... Removing all DKMS Modules Done. Adding Module to DKMS build system driver version= 173.14.16 Doing initial module build Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 2.6.31-8-generic (x86_64) Consult the make.log in the build directory /var/lib/dkms/nvidia/173.14.16/build/ for more information. Installing initial module Error! Could not locate nvidia.ko for module nvidia in the DKMS tree. You must run a dkms build for kernel 2.6.31-8-generic (x86_64) first. Done. ** Attachment added: Referenced log file: /var/lib/dkms/nvidia/173.14.16/build/make.log http://launchpadlibrarian.net/31041659/make.log.dkms.log -- upstream compiled binaries built without stack flags https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/409456 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 413885] Re: apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security
** Attachment removed: Patch for karmic. http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30349430/apt-check-dup-vers.diff-0.87 -- apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/413885 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 413885] Re: apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security
I removed my original patch, as I realised that one of the changes between versions 0.76.8 and 0.87 of update-notifier is that this bug has been fixed in 0.87 (if the candidate version of the current package is itself a security update,it does a 'continue', to process the next package, and doesn't even enter the loop to find security updates). That continue could be added between lines 103 and 104 of the version of apt_check.py in update-notifier version 0.76.8. -- apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/413885 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 413885] [NEW] apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: update-notifier Discussion on ubuntu-users from post https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives /ubuntu-users/2009-August/193694.html shows a situation where a set of security patches were released and available in both jaunty-security and jaunty-updates. After the packages appeared in BOTH archives, and before they were installed, reports such as the message-of-the-day would report 6 packages can be updated. 12 updates are security updates. It appears that the code to check for the presence of masked security updates is not catering for this case. Possible fix attached. The patch is against karmic, but the same code appears in the jaunty version, at about line 107, rather than 140. Because of changes to the enclosing loop, the indentation is wrong for application of this patch to the 0.76.2 code used in jaunty. ** Affects: update-notifier (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/413885 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 413885] Re: apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security
** Attachment added: Patch for karmic. http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30349430/apt-check-dup-vers.diff-0.87 -- apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/413885 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 413885] Re: apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security
I just reviewed the patch. It cpompares the versions using '=', but should probably be an explicit '==' as the critical condition is where the same version appears in both places -- apt-check.py counts security updates twice if pkg in -updates and -security https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/413885 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 344705] Re: IcedTea Plugin Doesnt Work
I can confirm that after the update to 6b14-1.4.1-0ubuntu6, and purging sun-java6-plugin, my test cases work: * http://java.com/en/download/help/testvm.xml * http://java.sun.com/applets/other/Bubbles/index.html works * http://www.jigzone.com/puzzles/daily-jigsaw works If I then install sun-java6-plugin, BOTH plugins are loaded, indicating that: - firefox 3 is seeing the two plugins via different paths - the sun plugin is providing alternatives that the icedtea plugin doesn't The sun plugin was first when I restarted firefox immediately after installing sun-java6-plugin. When I then reset the alternatives for the openk, the icedtea plugin appeared first. At that stage, I checked /etc/alternatives/*javaplugin*, and get the following list of alternatives, only one of which points to the icedtea plugin. t...@zaphod:~$ ls -l /etc/alternatives/*javaplugin* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 2009-04-13 11:21 /etc/alternatives/firefox-javaplugin.so - /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 2009-04-13 11:21 /etc/alternatives/iceape-javaplugin.so - /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 2009-04-13 11:21 /etc/alternatives/iceweasel-javaplugin.so - /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 2009-04-13 11:21 /etc/alternatives/midbrowser-javaplugin.so - /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 2009-04-13 11:21 /etc/alternatives/mozilla-javaplugin.so - /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 58 2009-04-13 11:21 /etc/alternatives/xulrunner-1.9-javaplugin.so - /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk/jre/lib/amd64/IcedTeaPlugin.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 2009-04-13 11:21 /etc/alternatives/xulrunner-javaplugin.so - /usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so Checking firefox/xulrunner java plugin references gives: t...@zaphod:~$ ls -l /usr/lib/xulrunner*/plugins/*java* /usr/lib/firefox*/plugins/*java* lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 2009-03-19 07:15 /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.0.8/plugins/libjavaplugin.so - /etc/alternatives/xulrunner-1.9-javaplugin.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 2009-03-19 07:15 /usr/lib/xulrunner-addons/plugins/libjavaplugin.so - /etc/alternatives/xulrunner-1.9-javaplugin.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 41 2009-04-13 11:17 /usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins/libjavaplugin.so - /etc/alternatives/xulrunner-javaplugin.so lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 2009-04-13 11:17 /usr/lib/firefox/plugins/libjavaplugin.so - /etc/alternatives/firefox-javaplugin.so t...@zaphod:~$ So xulrunner code appears to be searching for plugins in at least two places (and finds different end targets). This is a separate bug (may actually be two bugs: openjdk/icedtea plugin failing to provide the full set of alternatives xulrunner searching multiple places for its plugins -- IcedTea Plugin Doesnt Work https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/344705 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 354567] Re: tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke()
Apport has just reported an occurrence of this crash on my system. Jaunty/AMD64. I note a duplicate entry in my full stack trace: g-closure_invoke is on stack at # 1 and #5, both at the same address. I am uploading the apport report, and will link to this bug when it completes -- tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke() https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/354567 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 354567] Re: tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke()
Just before tracker crashed on my sytem, I had a file system hit 99% used, as I was copying files to it from a USB stick: t...@zaphod:~$ df -h /vol/archives/ FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/mapper/VG0-vg0--archives 99G 93G 1.4G 99% /vol/archives I don't know if tracker is indexing that filesystem, as I haven't tuned its settings. -- tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke() https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/354567 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 354567] Re: tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke()
New bug # 356097 created by apport, which has attacghed its files to that bug. I have explicitly marked that as a duplicate of this bug. -- tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke() https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/354567 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 356097] Re: tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke()
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 354567 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/354567 ** Attachment added: CoreDump.gz http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855582/CoreDump.gz ** Attachment added: Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855584/Dependencies.txt ** Attachment added: Disassembly.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855595/Disassembly.txt ** Attachment added: ProcMaps.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855599/ProcMaps.txt ** Attachment added: ProcStatus.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855600/ProcStatus.txt ** Attachment added: Registers.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855601/Registers.txt ** Attachment added: Stacktrace.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855602/Stacktrace.txt ** Attachment added: ThreadStacktrace.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24855603/ThreadStacktrace.txt ** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 354567 tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke() ** Visibility changed to: Public -- tracker-indexer crashed with SIGSEGV in g_closure_invoke() https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/356097 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 344705] Re: IcedTea Plugin Doesnt Work
A possibly aggravating factor is that with both the Sun and IcedTea plugins installed, BOTH plugins are loaded. This appears to be because xulrunner is loading plugins from two locations: * /usr/lib/xulrunner-addons/plugins (or /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.0.7/plugins, which is a symlink) * AND /usr/lib/xulrunner/plugins but is only installing ONE alternative entry for the plugin, while the Sun plugin installs seven. This appears to be because openjdk/debian/rules is overriding browser_plugin_dirs to just be xulrunner-addons. See attached patch. I suspect that this bug and bug #344669 may be duplicates. This is because applets that worked under IcedTea *before* installing the sun plugin (as I reported in bug #344669) ceased to work after the following sequence of events: 1: the sun plugin was installed 2: update-java-alternatives --set java-6-sun 3: update-java-alternatives --plugin --set java-6-openjdk My uncertainty is because I am running Jaunty 64-bit, while this bug does not state which architecture is involved. ** Attachment added: Patch to fix openjdk/IcedTea plugin alternatives list http://launchpadlibrarian.net/24241548/openjdk-plugin-dirs.patch -- IcedTea Plugin Doesnt Work https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/344705 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 344669] Re: 64-bit icedtea plugin doesn't handle applets that sun6 plugin handles
Reproducible after upgrade to jaunty alpha 6 t...@zaphod:~$ apt-cache policy icedtea6-plugin icedtea6-plugin: Installed: 6b14-1.4.1-0ubuntu4 Candidate: 6b14-1.4.1-0ubuntu4 Version table: *** 6b14-1.4.1-0ubuntu4 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 6b14-1.4.1-0ubuntu3 0 500 cdrom://Ubuntu 9.04 _Jaunty Jackalope_ - Alpha amd64 (20090312) jaunty/main Packages t...@zaphod:~$ -- 64-bit icedtea plugin doesn't handle applets that sun6 plugin handles https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/344669 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 344669] Re: 64-bit icedtea plugin doesn't handle applets that sun6 plugin handles
Yes it does. I have installed the Sun java6 software (bin, jre, jdk and plugin version 6-12-0ubuntu1) , and run sudo update-java-alternatives --set java-6-sun When I then started firefox, I confirmed that the sun plugin was being used, then that the jigzone applet worked correctly. -- 64-bit icedtea plugin doesn't handle applets that sun6 plugin handles https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/344669 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 344669] [NEW] 64-bit icedtea plugin doesn't handle applets that sun6 plugin handles
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: icedtea6-plugin http://www.jigzone.com/puzzles/daily-jigsaw applet frame loads, with controls at left (including a small version of the image that represents the current/selected puzzle), and message The puzzle is loading at the right. After a period of time, the message Oops,the puzzle has failed to start in a reasonable time. This could happen if your are no longer connected to the internet or your computer has problems displaying Java applets. Investigate the problem appears in the right panel of the applet frame. Testing the Sun bubbles applet works. A 32-bit environment using sun java6 works (i.e. the puzzle loads, broken into pieces to be assembled). t...@zaphod:~$ apt-cache policy icedtea6-plugin icedtea6-plugin: Installed: 6b12-0ubuntu6.1 Candidate: 6b12-0ubuntu6.1 Version table: *** 6b12-0ubuntu6.1 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com intrepid-updates/main Packages 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com intrepid-security/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 6b12-0ubuntu6 0 500 http://nz.archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main Packages ** Affects: openjdk-6 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- 64-bit icedtea plugin doesn't handle applets that sun6 plugin handles https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/344669 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 8980] Re: hostname -f does not return a proper FQDN
I just did test installs of 8.04.2 and 9.04 alpha 3, using the i386 alternate ISO in each case. I answered the question about the hostname by supplying the FQDN in each case. Immediately on completion of each install, I checked the various files. For the jaunty alpha, the domain was correctly split, the unqualified hostname was placed in /etc/hostname, and the entry for 127.0.1.1 in /etc/hosts had the FQDN then the unqualified host name. However, there is no domain entry in /etc/resolv.conf For the 8.04.2 install, the FQDN went into /etc/hostname, and /etc/hosts had 127.0.0.1 localhost 127.0.1.1 host.dom.ain.dom.ain host.dom.ain - ie the domain was duplicated. I then checked the General tab of network-admin on the newly-installed 8.04.2, and found the FQDN in the host field, while the domain field was blank. An attempt to change the details using network-admin updated /etc/hostname and /etc/resolv.conf, but did not update /etc/hosts (although the timestamp for all 3 files was updated). The update to /etc/resolv.conf was to append a domain line. (The domain line will disappear next time Network Manager over-writes /etc/resolv.conf with DNS server details learnt from DHCP, but that is a separate bug.) Because there is no line in /etc/hosts with an entry matching the value in /etc/hostname, hostname succeeds, but 'hostname -f' fails with 'hostname: Unknown host'. -- hostname -f does not return a proper FQDN https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/8980 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 85488] Re: some usb_devices fault if usb_suspend enabled
Attributing the problem to sane, rather than the kernel USB drivers, does *NOT* explain the fault that I have with VMware under feisty - i.e. that a Windows XP VM running under edgy as host OS found my scanner, and successfully scanned images, but that it failed when running with feisty as the host OS. -- some usb_devices fault if usb_suspend enabled https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/85488 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 108153] Re: Scanning with Canon Lide 25 doesn't work
I have a LiDE 25 scanner that works fine in edgy with xsane. I run Windows XP in a VMware virtual machine on the Ubuntu host. Software running on the windows VM is also able to access the scanner. When I upgraded to feisty, the scanner failed for both xsane and the windows VM. lsusb reports the scanner correctly. This suggests a possible regression in the kernel USB driver for feisty. In edgy, which I have reverted to, lsusb reports Bus 002 Device 002: ID 04a9:2220 Canon, Inc. -- Scanning with Canon Lide 25 doesn't work https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/108153 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 21582] Re: evolution randomly crashes
I am on edgy, with evolution 2.8.1-0ubuntu4. I encounter crashes occassionally. These crashes mostly seem to occur just as it is opening a new window to display a message (usually the first message in a new folder that I have just switched to). The crashes started happening recently, possibly after an upgrade ** Attachment added: crash log http://librarian.launchpad.net/6712688/_usr_bin_evolution.timfrost.crash -- evolution randomly crashes https://launchpad.net/bugs/21582 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 8980] Re: hostname -f does not return a proper FQDN
I have a system that started as breezy, and has been updated to dapper then edgy. My hostname is 'marvin'. By default, the first entry in /etc/hosts read 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost marvin A later entry reads 192.168.13.2 marvin.chile.gen.nz marvin If I move the localhost entry to the end of the file, hostname -f returns 'marvin.chile.gen.nz' rather than 'localhost.localdomain'. This suggests that the order of entries in /etc/hosts is critical. -- hostname -f does not return a proper FQDN https://launchpad.net/bugs/8980 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
