Re: Logon loop after upgrade
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 01:08:28PM +0100, Grizzlly wrote: Hi All Hi, My first post here, My last (from working state) upgrade of Unity Noble left me in a logon loop, at first I thought my password had been corrupted so I did the usual to recover with no change Then I opened a terminal (Ctrl+Alt+F3) where my password did work, I ran apt update --fix-missing apt -f full-upgrade Was this after https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2024-March/thread.html ? but still only get to the loop any other routes that "may" get me back to a GUI Grizz Do note that the noble archive is also going through a mass rebuild as described in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2024-April/001346.html -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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: mumble-server for Linux
On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 02:57:03PM +0800, 邮件 wrote: Hello, first of all thank you very much for the mumble-server package. Are there any plans to update mumble-server 1.3.4 to the latest version of mumble this year? Hi, For mantic, the package is currently in sync with debian. Hence, this is a question of whether debian plans to update it soon. There is an ongoing discussion at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017780 regarding OpenSSL 3 support and a call for help from the debian maintainer. -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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: Sqitch package to update
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:42:49AM +0300, Igor Kuzenkov wrote: Hello Ubuntu Team! Hi Igor, Just curious if you can update Sqitch package to the latest version *1.3.1*? Currently *1.2.1-1* is available to get and install. sqitch is in 1.3.1 in lunar (23.04) and in the current development release (mantic). https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sqitch In jammy, we ship version 1.2.1-1, as you reported. We usually refrain from providing new package versions in stable Ubuntu releases. You can find more about that in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates. However, if you are experiencing any issues with the package, please file a bug in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sqitch. The process described above is also how we usually provide bug fixes for issues in packages shipped in stable releases. In particular I am talking about Sqitch package I found in this archive - http://azure.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jammy/universe/binary-amd64/Packages.gz (search by 'sqitch', it's in line #1235797). Thank you! Regards Igor -- 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 -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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: Error when make w3m package
uts' /usr/bin/ld: terms.o: in function `refresh': /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:1641: undefined reference to `tgoto' /usr/bin/ld: terms.o: in function `writestr': /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: terms.o:/home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: more undefined references to `tputs' follow /usr/bin/ld: terms.o: in function `refresh': /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:1717: undefined reference to `tgoto' /usr/bin/ld: terms.o: in function `writestr': /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: terms.o: in function `refresh': /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:1591: undefined reference to `tgoto' /usr/bin/ld: terms.o: in function `writestr': /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: /home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: undefined reference to `tputs' /usr/bin/ld: terms.o:/home/user/src/w3m/w3m-0.5.3+git20210102/terms.c:465: more undefined references to `tputs' follow collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [Makefile:131: w3m] Error 1 Thanks a log river -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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: Fwd: [Ubuntu Community Hub] Who is responsible for updating the Ubuntu .deb packages like Pinta?
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 01:45:53AM +0530, Saptarshi Roy wrote: Dear Teams Hi, The Pinta .deb package in Ubuntu Software is on version 1.6 which was released on Mar 2, 2015. The current version 2.0.2 was released earlier this year on Jan 14. I wish to use an updated .deb version of Pinta, and I'm writing to understand what kind of contributions do you need from the community to achieve this end goal. I'm ready and willing to contribute if my skills match with that of your requirements. Most of the information needed is available in the forwarded message below. By checking the bugs in the Debian package, I came across https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=877106. The Upstream maintainer mentions that the package now uses dotnet-runtime-6.0, which is not available in Debian. I am not aware of the current state of dotnet packaging in Debian nor if there is any efforts going on in that sense (maybe someone will hop in the thread to enlight us on that matter). To update the package in Debian (which would eventually get it to land in Ubuntu), you'd need to understand the current state of (or efforts to introduce) dotnet in and help them introducing the package there. Then you would be able to update pinta to version 2. Also, note that the dotnet package has recently been added to Ubuntu. The dotnet-runtime-6.0 is available. First you would need to check if all the other dependencies are available as well. In case they are, you could propose a patch (could be a debdiff in a new bug in launchpad against the pinta package) or as a git ubuntu MP for that same package. Thank you. -- Forwarded message - From: Ian Weisser via Ubuntu Community Hub Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 02:21 Subject: [Ubuntu Community Hub] Who is responsible for updating the Ubuntu .deb packages like Pinta? To: ian-weisser November 8 How to determine: 1. Let’s look at the output of plain old apt show pinta: Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers Original-Maintainer: Debian CLI Applications Team This tells us that the package gets merged from Debian. Most packages are, but it’s good to confirm that. 2. Let’s take a look at the Debian Package Tracker for Pinta: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pinta Lots of great information there! Debian is using the same version. No new version is in the pipeline, and here’s why: [image: image] 3. A Pinta snap is available with a much newer version, but I’m going to ignore it because you specified the deb package. The takeaway here is that it’s not an Ubuntu failure of *responsibility*. It’s a lack of Debian volunteers. A lot of volunteer help is needed at Debian to fix the blockers and the bugs and thence to get an upgrade into the pipeline. My advice to everybody led here by a search engine: Pitch in! Contact that Debian maintainer team (Debian CLI Applications Team) and see where your skills can best help. Commit a few evenings to learning how to fix one of the problems. Just a couple hands can get the pipe unclogged and running clear. -- Visit Topic to respond. To unsubscribe from these emails, click here. -- Kind regards, Saptarshi Roy -- 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 -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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: sbcl ppc64le bootstrap
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 04:48:11PM -0300, Athos Ribeiro wrote: Hello, We (sergiodj and I) will bootstrap the sbcl lisp compiler for ppc64le for kinetic. This message is intended to be a heads-up for any interested party and a reference for the archive admins for whenever we need new binaries accepted as a consequence of this bootstrapping process. Below we provide more context for the matter and describe how the bootstrap process will be performed. While working on pgloader, we realized that the package does not build for ppc64le. Further investigation showed that there are no sbcl binaries for some architectures, such as s390x and ppc64le. Since sbcl build depends on itself, bootstrapping is needed to make those binaries available. While there is evidence of recent work on the s390x bootstrapping in Debian (please refer to the package changelog), the ppc64le package has been available in Debian for a while now, but was never bootstrapped in Ubuntu. We will now bootstrap sbcl for ppc64le by performing a first sbcl build with clisp. Once it is accepted in the archive, we will revert the ppc64le-with-clisp changes and rebuild sbcl using the clisp-built version of sbcl. After the bootstrapping process is completed, there should be no delta left in the sbcl package and the next Debian upload should be a potential sync. With that in mind, we will use the approach proposed back in May [1] and set the version string with a "maysyncX" suffix. Hence, we will - Change the source package to build with clisp for ppc64le and upload sbcl "2:2.2.3-2maysync1"; and - once the new ppc64le binary is accepted, revert the previous change and upload sbcl "2:2.2.3-2maysync2" Then, the next Debian upload will be a sync. If a Debian upload happens in between "2:2.2.3-2maysync1" and "2:2.2.3-2maysync2", it will just mean "2:2.2.3-2maysync2" is no longer necessary. As a matter of fact, we will only upload a "2:2.2.3-2maysync2" version to ensure the new ppc64le binary is also built using sbcl, as the already available binaries for the other platforms. Once "2:2.2.3-2maysync2" is available, we will proceed to perform no-chage-rebuilds for the platform dependent sbcl reverse build dependencies. These are, in a first level: buildapp cafeobj And in a second level (both depend on buildapp): pgloader pgcharts (multiverse) The bootstrap process will be tracked in LP: #1968579. The current change proposal for the bootstrapping process is available at https://salsa.debian.org/athos/sbcl/-/commits/ubuntu-bootstrap [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com/msg10417.html -- Athos Ribeiro This bootstrap process is now complete. -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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
Third party patch licensing
Hi, I am facing a licensing issue with a patch to fix a (possible? [1]) CVE in the rainloop package. A security issue has been reported upstream [2], but there were no replies from the upstream project yet. The reporter followed up by describing the security issue in a blog post [3], which also contains a patch to fix the issue. I contacted the patch author to wonder how we could re-distribute the patch (see the discussion in [2]). They agreed to license it with the upstream project's license (AGPLv3), and I suggested the approach described in [4]. Since IANAL, I decided to ask devel-discuss if there's a better approach for licensing this patch or if this should be enough to include it as a delta. Note that this was submitted to Debian in [5], where I did raise this same concern. [1] CVE-2022-29360 has not been published in MITRE's DB nor in cve.org yet. [2] https://github.com/RainLoop/rainloop-webmail/issues/2142 [3] https://blog.sonarsource.com/rainloop-emails-at-risk-due-to-code-flaw/ [4] https://github.com/RainLoop/rainloop-webmail/issues/2142#issuecomment-1137592507 [5] https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/rainloop/-/merge_requests/4 -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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: warzone2100 version [was: Dear Sir/s: Warzone2100 is quite outdated...]
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 08:07:15PM +, Zechariah E wrote: Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows Hi Zechariah, I am quoting the Subject of your message here to make it easier for others to read/reply to this thread. Dear Sir/s: Warzone2100 is quite outdated on the Jetson Nano 2GB/ L4T / Ubuntu 18.04 Arm64. Could you please release a new version of it? Any updates will be greatly appreciated. The latest upstream version of warzone2100 is 4.2.3. This is the version that will be shipped in the next Ubuntu release (22.04) unless there is a new warzone2100 upstream release that gets packaged in Debian before our next feature freeze. Note that "once an Ubuntu release has been completed and published, updates for it are only released under certain circumstances, and must follow a special procedure called a "stable release update" or SRU". You can read more about this process at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates While it seems unlikely that a new version of warzone2100 will be released to Ubuntu 18.04, the upstream project maintains a snap for the game at https://snapcraft.io/warzone2100, which is currently up-to-date with their latest releases. Although I did not try it, they do ship the snap for arm64 as well. Sincerely, yahrememb...@outlook.com -- Athos Ribeiro -- 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
