Gutsy's HAL is "broken".
I *can't* be the only one with this problem. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hal/+bug/147963 -- Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com ©2007 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wites Wesewved -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing - and current approach does not work very well in detecting defects!
Op dinsdag 02-10-2007 om 13:56 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip Susi: > Jan Claeys wrote: > > I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but if 'badblocks' looks for hardware > > defects, it's mostly useless on most hard disks in use these days. The > > HDD firmware does internal bad block detection & replacement (using > > spare blocks on the disk reserved for that purpose). So if you can > > detect any bad blocks using a software check, it means that your hard > > disk is almost dead and should be replace ASAP (like, rather today than > > tomorrow). > > It can only remap the block on a write, not a read, Which means it might be useful as an emergency solution while you're waiting for the new disks to arrive. > but yea, smartmontools is a better method to monitor for defects. Indeed, 'smartmontools' for hardware-defects, "fsck" for filesystem-defects. About doing "live" fsck & defrag on a rw filesystem, IIRC Windows NT has a system API for doing e.g. atomic "swap 2 sectors" operations; does 'linux', or any of the filesystem drivers for it, support something like that? -- Jan Claeys -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Launchpad bug statuses
Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday 02 October 2007 17:32, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > >>> - Fourth, would it help is Launchpad made it really easy for you to >>> post the bug to SourceForge, perhaps opening the bug-filing page >>> with all your details filled in and just waiting for you to >>> submit? >> I think so. That would be really useful, since that would save a lot of >> time (not that reporting a bug takes one hour, but when you report a >> lot, then there's a big difference). This would have a big risk, though, >> which is that there could be 'spam' in upstream's bug trackers, but this >> could be avoided by only letting people in the Distribution Bug Contact >> team to report bugs upstream using that method. >> >> Also, I'm sure Sebastien will thank you if you implement this to forward >> bugs to bugzilla.gnome.org ;) >> > This all presumes that the reporter knows enough to: > > 1. Not kick Ubuntu specific package bugs upstream or to Debian. > > 2. Direct Debian packaging bugs to Debian. > > 3. And as a result only report real upstream bugs to the upstream. > > I agree that if this feature is to be offered, it ought to have some kind of > restriction on it. Since anyone can sign up to be a bug contact for a > package, I'm not sure that's the right thing to key on though. I was referring to the Distribution Bug Contact, not to a specific package Bug Contact. The former for Ubuntu is ubuntu-bugs, which leads to ubuntu-qa. The Distribution Bug Contact can only be set up by the Project Drivers, or the Project Registrar. But maybe it would need even more restriction, as ubuntu-dev (although that would put me out heh). Not sure about it. > > Scott K > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Launchpad bug statuses
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 17:32, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > > - Fourth, would it help is Launchpad made it really easy for you to > > post the bug to SourceForge, perhaps opening the bug-filing page > > with all your details filled in and just waiting for you to > > submit? > > I think so. That would be really useful, since that would save a lot of > time (not that reporting a bug takes one hour, but when you report a > lot, then there's a big difference). This would have a big risk, though, > which is that there could be 'spam' in upstream's bug trackers, but this > could be avoided by only letting people in the Distribution Bug Contact > team to report bugs upstream using that method. > > Also, I'm sure Sebastien will thank you if you implement this to forward > bugs to bugzilla.gnome.org ;) > This all presumes that the reporter knows enough to: 1. Not kick Ubuntu specific package bugs upstream or to Debian. 2. Direct Debian packaging bugs to Debian. 3. And as a result only report real upstream bugs to the upstream. I agree that if this feature is to be offered, it ought to have some kind of restriction on it. Since anyone can sign up to be a bug contact for a package, I'm not sure that's the right thing to key on though. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Launchpad bug statuses
Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:00:49PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> For example, I usually forward Liferea bugs upstream on IRC, and the >> upstream developer directly fixes it in SVN. What I do then is mark the >> Ubuntu bug as Fix Committed, with the intention to close it with the >> next bug-fix release. > > So this is interesting, because ideally you want some record that the > bug has been forwarded and fixed upstream. What I want is the bug to be fixed ;) I don't care that much whether there's a record or not (it may be good to have it, but won't hurt if it isn't there). > - First, liferea is registered at https://edge.launchpad.net/liferea > and indicates using SourceForge to track its bugs. Is that > correct? Yes it is. > - Second, is part of the problem that it's a lot of work to report > the bug in SourceForge, and easier to just ping the person on IRC? Well, it will take some time to me to report it to SF, whereas pinging on irc is much faster. If I can avoid it, I do it (sometimes I can't, though). > - Third, a question: why don't you report the bug upstream anyway, > and update its status manually? Too much work? This looks like the second question, but yes, why should I report it in SF if I ping the upstream author, he takes a look at the code, and fixes the issue? It looks useless to me. However, other times, the bug isn't that easy to fix, or the author has other things more important to work on, and can't do it in that moment. In those cases, I report the bug in the SF bug tracker, and I create a task in the LP bug report. But as I said, if this can be avoided because the fix is fixed as soon as I report it on IRC, then I prefer to waste my time on triaging another bug, or doing something more useful than report a bug just to close it. > - Fourth, would it help is Launchpad made it really easy for you to > post the bug to SourceForge, perhaps opening the bug-filing page > with all your details filled in and just waiting for you to > submit? I think so. That would be really useful, since that would save a lot of time (not that reporting a bug takes one hour, but when you report a lot, then there's a big difference). This would have a big risk, though, which is that there could be 'spam' in upstream's bug trackers, but this could be avoided by only letting people in the Distribution Bug Contact team to report bugs upstream using that method. Also, I'm sure Sebastien will thank you if you implement this to forward bugs to bugzilla.gnome.org ;) > > Thanks for bringing this use case up. Hope this is useful for you to improve the workflow. Best, Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing - and current approach does not work very well in detecting defects!
Jan Claeys wrote: > I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but if 'badblocks' looks for hardware > defects, it's mostly useless on most hard disks in use these days. The > HDD firmware does internal bad block detection & replacement (using > spare blocks on the disk reserved for that purpose). So if you can > detect any bad blocks using a software check, it means that your hard > disk is almost dead and should be replace ASAP (like, rather today than > tomorrow). It can only remap the block on a write, not a read, but yea, smartmontools is a better method to monitor for defects. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
release link broken
the link for gutsy still links for feisty http://releases.ubuntu.com/ https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148119 -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) Linux user #443786 http://BUGabundo.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
release link broken
the link for gutsy still links for feisty http://releases.ubuntu.com/ -- BUGabundo :o) (``-_-´´) Linux user #443786 http://BUGabundo.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Untrusted software and security click-through warnings
I taught we were talking about users which are expected to understand what is a software repository or what is a software install package, the security improvement would be for those users, to make sure they would understand the risks of using such resources. In my opinion for users which do have the trivial understanding of software installation on the system, the only safe approach is to not grant them admin privileges at all. I guess the goal is not to discourage users from downloading software of the Web in general, the goal is to drive the users to install software from trusted sources. Both repositories and web sites can be trusted or untrusted sources. The option of providing an installer dialog to present the users to the basic rules of security when dealing with system software installation was oriented for those which (I hope) are the minority of users which still do not understand the risks of installing software from random sources, probably it is not a feature that would make a difference for most users. The major source of spyware/virus/trojans has been: 1 - exploits which allow the unattended installation of software 2 - fake software, or "companion" software Case 1 can only be addressed by providing security fixes in time in case such exploits are discovered Case 2 can only be addressed by educating people on how to use the internet on a safely manner, again, typing random commands from an untrusted web site is a major security risk for any OS, and it is a very common practice for Linux users in particular Best regards, 2007/10/2, Matthew Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Oct 2, 2007, at 11:51 AM, João Pinto wrote: > > ... > > If PPAs availability increases there will be nasty people providing > > nasty packages, if you are concerned about naive users, then my first > > suggestion is to present an initial screen during Ubuntu install with: > > "If you add extra repositories or install .debs from the web, please > > make sure you are using a trusted source, otherwise you may get > > malicious software", if it is important enough, let's make it hard to > > accept, it is a simple text o read (1 line), there is no excuse for > > "next -> next". > > ... > > Regardless of whether you think there is any "excuse" for "next -> > next", most people would still do it, and wouldn't read the message. > > Even if they did read the message, most wouldn't have a clue what you > meant by "repositories", ".debs", or "trusted source". > > And even if they did understand the message, it could be weeks, months, > or years later that they first had the opportunity to download software > from the Web. Quite long enough to forget that they shouldn't be doing > it. > > If you want to discourage people from downloading software off the Web, > an operating system installer is hardly the place to do it. > > Cheers > -- > Matthew Paul Thomas > http://mpt.net.nz/ > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > -- João Pinto GetDeb Package Builder http://www.getdeb.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
