live cd bug or missing feature
Hello, While working on a custom livecd (based on Kubuntu 9.10 LiveCd) I stumbled upon a 100% reproducible bug (or better missing feature to go to a wishlist): - boot from the livecd - create a new user with admin rights and encrypted home - logout ubuntu - login with new user - copy a binary (e.g. my_binary) into the home folder of the new user - run it. Fails with: my_binary: Function not implemented (and $? reports error code 126). Bug still holds when using a casper-rw partition for persistence and storing there the profile of the new user between reboots. A somewhat related issue concerns executing "ls -l" within the encrypted home: same response for each file/folder but prints results fine and returns no error code ($? is 0). I changed also the kernel and remastered the cd but with same results. (2.6.31-14 was the original kernel and 2.6.31-20 the new one). Thanks guys and hoping to here from you soon, Linus _ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5-- 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: > I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the > default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be > satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid reason to continue not having an hourly update option. Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking for updates only once per day is insufficient. Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the setting from its default of "daily." >>> AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up >>> it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. >> >>Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the >>'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? >> > No idea. > > The current way it works was a deliberate design decision during Jaunty > development. Personally I think hiding available updates was a poor design > choice, but that's the decision that was made. Well, I can certainly understand the desire to make it easy for the majority of users, who don't want to be bothered too often. However, I strongly feel that there should be options available for those of us who wish to keep our systems as up to date as possible, particularly in the area of security updates. -- 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
"Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >> >> "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >> >>>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >>> >>>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >>>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >>>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >>>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >>> >>>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >>>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >>>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >>>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >>>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >>>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >>> >>>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >>>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >>>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >>>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >>>setting from its default of "daily." >>> >> AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up >> it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. > >Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the >'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? > No idea. The current way it works was a deliberate design decision during Jaunty development. Personally I think hiding available updates was a poor design choice, but that's the decision that was made. 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
Uhmmm I don't like that option very much, because imagine that the security updates are being installed and I'm in a hurry and I need to shutdown the machine, I assume that It'll will bother you if Ubuntu tells you that you cannot shutdown the PC. Or there's a black out, something that is very common on Lat America, wouldn't it mess up the OS if the installation is stopped in the middle of the process???...I think that just adding the option and make it a non default choice will be enough. Or is there a way to optimize the process of updating???... Atte. Jonas. Enviado desde mi dispositivo movil BlackBerry® de Digitel. -Original Message- From: Nathan Dorfman Sender: ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:32:34 To: Scott Kitterman Cc: Subject: Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option? On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >>> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >>> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >>> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >> >>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >> >>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >> >>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >>setting from its default of "daily." >> > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the 'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? > 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 -- 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > "Nathan Dorfman" wrote: > >>On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >>> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >>> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >>> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. >> >>I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >>raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >>an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >>reason to continue not having an hourly update option. >> >>Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >>enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >>harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >>if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >>without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >>for updates only once per day is insufficient. >> >>Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >>distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >>without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >>guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >>setting from its default of "daily." >> > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up > it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. Wow. Honestly, I wasn't even aware of this. However, what if the 'install security updates without confirmation' option is enabled? > 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
"Nathan Dorfman" wrote: >On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: >> I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the >> default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be >> satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. > >I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been >raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's >an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid >reason to continue not having an hourly update option. > >Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to >enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be >harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, >if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates >without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking >for updates only once per day is insufficient. > >Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile >distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) >without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to >guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the >setting from its default of "daily." > AIUI, it wouldn't help much on Ubuntu since by default u-m doesn't pop up it's window for security updates if it's been opened in the last two days. 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:46 AM, wrote: > I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the default > choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be satisfied. We are > just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. I agree. This is exactly what I'm proposing. A valid point has been raised about increased load on the update servers, but I think that's an issue that will have to be addressed if needed, rather than a valid reason to continue not having an hourly update option. Moreover, how many people would even see the option or bother to enable it? I would guess that most people probably don't want to be harassed by update-manager more than once per day. On the other hand, if you're in the subset of users who have "Install security updates without confirmation" enabled, you might probably find that checking for updates only once per day is insufficient. Lastly, it is worth noting that Fedora is also a pretty high-profile distribution, and they're able to provide this option (presumably) without their servers grinding to a halt. Again, I would venture to guess that only a small fraction of their users actually change the setting from its default of "daily." -- 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
firefox 3.6.4 upgrade
I have some questions/concerns about the impending Firefox 3.6.4 upgrade for all current versions of Ubuntu. When firefox is run for the first time after this upgrade a window pops up saying: "15 new add-ons have been installed" For the average home user, that is probably not a big deal, although they might be suspicious and think their machine is compromised. (End users only expect security updates, not major version and functionality changes, so I would hope end users will be notified of this major policy change somehow.) But in a large fully automated deployment (like a public library/call center, etc.) this is going to be a major problem unless the upgrade can be fully automated and transparent to the end user. I couldn't find anyway in Firefox to disable that "new add-ons" window. I'm sure I can figure out a way to script changes to ~/.mozilla/firefox files to recognize the new versions so the window doesn't pop up, but I will need to know exactly when this update is released to make sure the changes go in at the same time as the new firefox version. You could switch over to using the PPA version ahead of time and make the ~/.mozilla/firefox file changes at the same time, but will there be changes between the current PPA and the final release that will re-trigger the "new add-ons" window? Will there be a schedule published at least a few days in advance, telling us exactly when the packages will be released to the main archives? Thanks, Michael Pardee Open Sense Solutions LLC http://open-sense.com 888-323-1742 On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Ara Pulido wrote: > We need Karmic users to test our latest Firefox Upgrade! > > *Background* > As I wrote in a previous email[1], Firefox 3.0 and xulrunner 1.9 are now > unsupported by Mozilla. We are going to release Firefox 3.6.4 as a minor > update to the 3.6 series in Lucid. This will also be rolled out to > Hardy, Jaunty and Karmic (along with xulrunner 1.9.2.4). The update for > Lucid is quite trivial, but the update in Hardy, Jaunty and Karmic is > not quite as simple. As part of the upgrade, we are also releasing a set > of langpacks. > > Before releasing these updates to the public, we need testing in > Firefox, the extensions in the archive and distributions upgrades after > those updates. We have published all these packages in a PPA [2] and we > will track test results before moving anything to the archive. If you > are using Firefox localised in your local language, please, make sure > that the langpacks didn't break Firefox and that the translations are OK. > > We now need people running *Karmic* (Jaunty will see a similar call for > testing in the following days) in bare metal or a virtual machine. If > you are willing to help, you can follow the instructions below: > > 1. Add the Mozilla Security PPA to your software sources > > You need to manually edit your /etc/apt/sources.list and add the > following lines: > > deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-security/ppa/ubuntu karmic > main > deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-security/ppa/ubuntu > karmic main > > After saving the file, you have to run: > > sudo apt-key adv --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 7EBC211F > sudo apt-get update > sudo apt-get dist-upgrade > > 2. You have to have an account in our tracking system. Go to > http://mozilla.qa.ubuntu.com and click on "Log In" and "Create New Account" > > 3. To know what to test and how to report back, please, read our > instructions in our testing wiki: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/Firefox3.6.4Upgrade > > Also, we have added a new testcase "XulRunner Applications" aiming to > test that the applications using xulrunner keep working correctly after > the update. These applications need to be tested both in Hardy and > Karmic. A list of these applications can be found in the wiki: > > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel/xulrunner-list > > Thanks! > Ara. > > > [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-June/030811.html > [2] https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-security/+archive/ppa > > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel > -- 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
Mentioning Papercuts in the !development page
Hi, While going through the Ubuntu Development wiki [1] , I noticed a few things that struck me as out of place, the mention of bugsquad and the communication subsections. However, I was enlightened to the usefulness of those subsections being present there. Which made me wonder if we can have a subsection linking to the Papercuts project and wiki[2]. Before making changes to the wiki , I was asked to bring it up in the list. A few reasons why mentioning papercuts would fit in the page: - The page link is often quoted to members asking how they can get involved in Ubuntu development. The papercuts bugs are minor bugs and the fixes are often trivial/small enough for a new member to feel comfortable with taking ownership and fixing. - Such bugs are more likely to be fixed by a part-time contributor, as the bugs are small and less time-consuming, than bigger crashers/release critical bugs. - These small bugs will make it easy for them to get more familiar with Ubuntu development processes and to get them ready for larger bugs.[Over the year there have been members who have started working on papercut bugs and are now comfortable working directly with upstream ] What do others think about this? Can we mention the papercuts project in the wiki? [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PaperCut -- Cheers, Vish -- 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
I think is very simple...that option can be added but not make it the default choice, so anyone that can and want to activate it will be satisfied. We are just making Ubuntu richer in users' options. Atte. Jonas. Enviado desde mi dispositivo movil BlackBerry® de Digitel. -Original Message- From: Nathan Dorfman Sender: ubuntu-devel-discuss-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:38:35 To: Shane Fagan Cc: Subject: Re: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option? On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Shane Fagan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 22:49 -0400, Nathan Dorfman wrote: >> Personally, I would prefer it, and I think it's quite reasonable. Thoughts? >> > > You have to remember that not everyone has broadband and not everyone > can download/upload that much. Checking hourly does add up to a lot of > network activity and if you are in a third world country you wouldnt > like it. > > Daily is fine we dont get that many updates to justify anything else. [Sorry, forgot to Cc the list the first time around.] So? I am suggesting that a new option be added, not that the default be changed. For those of us not in third world countries, I don't think it is at all reasonable to wait up to 24 hours to be notified of a critical security update. > --fagan > > -- 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 -- 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Shane Fagan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 22:49 -0400, Nathan Dorfman wrote: >> Personally, I would prefer it, and I think it's quite reasonable. Thoughts? >> > > You have to remember that not everyone has broadband and not everyone > can download/upload that much. Checking hourly does add up to a lot of > network activity and if you are in a third world country you wouldnt > like it. > > Daily is fine we dont get that many updates to justify anything else. [Sorry, forgot to Cc the list the first time around.] So? I am suggesting that a new option be added, not that the default be changed. For those of us not in third world countries, I don't think it is at all reasonable to wait up to 24 hours to be notified of a critical security update. > --fagan > > -- 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 08:07 +0100, Joao Pinto wrote: > Keep in mind that checking for updates involves a non-trivial > download > of package lists from all repositories the user is subscribed > to. > Unfortunately, it is a much more intense operation than it > appears. > > > > AFAIK the download is only performed if the packages list was changed, > if the local file timestamp matches the server file the cache will be > kept intact. This would only have a significant impact for a very > volatile archive. > > It still has to ping and check which does take some upload and download. --fagan -- 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: Shouldn't update-manager's "check for updates" setting have an "hourly" option?
> > Keep in mind that checking for updates involves a non-trivial download > of package lists from all repositories the user is subscribed to. > Unfortunately, it is a much more intense operation than it appears. > > AFAIK the download is only performed if the packages list was changed, if the local file timestamp matches the server file the cache will be kept intact. This would only have a significant impact for a very volatile archive. -- João Luís Marques Pinto GetDeb Team Leader http://www.getdeb.net http://blog.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
