In the case of an SRU using some kind of exception to bump to a newer
upstream version (whether that's a microrelease, a feature changing
major release or a backport of something) we can end up with:
1. Some kind of tracking bug that explains the exception, for which the
SRU team agrees a QA
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 12:24:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I bristle at this being called an "expert" workflow, because it includes
> steps that I expect every Ubuntu dev to do before uploading to the archive
> :) That implies additional checkpoints beyond what you've outlined.
>
> I
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 09:00:09AM +0200, Didier Roche wrote:
> >>In other cases where such upstream automatic testing is not
> >>available, exceptions must still be approved by at least one member of
> >>the Ubuntu Technical Board.
> >If the TB is being that specific about *micro*-releases, then
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 07:41:13AM -0600, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> So how does a guy who's forgotten most of what he ever learned about
> launchpad, bzr and Ubuntu source management catch up?
Sorry. The problems you faced are valid. But git-ubuntu is so wide in
scope, I've been focused on getting
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:35:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 09:37:56PM +0200, Adrien Nader wrote:
> I feel this aligns with Bryce's comments about this being more of a
> 'submission' workflow. It is an important distinction that none of the
> other 'build' tools I
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 09:31:42AM +0200, Didier Roche wrote:
> Unfortunately, like many projects, there is a constant tension between the
> request for new features backport (adsys, as being an enterprise product,
> only really makes sense in a LTS context) and bug fixes. Most of the new
>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 02:27:12PM -0300, Mauricio Oliveira wrote:
> A related topic/question.
>
> I recently wondered/asked whether uploading to stable releases
> while the development release is marked Fix _Committed_ was OK.
We don't have a good, general definition of what Fix Committed
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:51:22PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey Robie,
>
> While I understand the rational, that's putting the annoyance on the
> sponsors and might decrease their motivation to help with the uploads. The
> annoyance being that by helping reviewing/uploading some change we
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 01:17:01PM -0400, Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 1:05 PM Robie Basak wrote:
> > But in general, I think we're doing OK, if you consider that a
> > reasonable rate for SRU team onboarding might be one or two a year.
>
> The SRU team h
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 09:57:51PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 13/06/2023 à 21:46, Robie Basak a écrit :
> >IMHO, for the SRU team, it makes sense to actively approach uploaders
> >who the existing SRU team considers to meet the criteria, rather than
> >have an ope
The verification of the Stable Release Update for openssh has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for systemd has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 07:11:15PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> (for context that's an email I sent the techboard before I joined the board,
> the discussion picked up recently and TB members agreed that we should have
> it on the mailing list)
(and this was my reply, with some minor
Thank you for the update! We've been on samba 4.16 since Kinetic, so
I'll mark this Fix Released on the assumption that it is fixed now.
However, this means it is still unaddressed in 22.04 and 20.04, so I'll
add separate tasks for those. 18.04 and earlier are beyond End of
Standard Support, so I
What's the status of keepalived in Mantic on this bug?
** Tags added: server-triage-discuss
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to systemd in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1815101
Title:
[master]
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 07:22:03PM +0800, Александр Иванов wrote:
> Yggdrasil project already has proper instructions on how to build binaries
> from source and has own maintained repository with instructions of
> installation at
> https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/installation-linux-deb.html
>
[dropping Debian Cc as Debian isn't involved in security updates to
Ubuntu]
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:54:24AM +, Matthew Wilson wrote:
> Do you have an update as to when the repository for Ubuntu 22.04.2
> package Open-SSH will be upgraded from 8.9 to 9.3 to patch the
> security issues as it
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:13:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:32:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:41:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> > > I've arranged for MPs against git-ubuntu repositories to appear in the
> &g
This looks good to me, but the process to land this seems a bit
complicated because gdebi seems to be abandoned at its nominated
upstream, and has a slew of NMUs. I'm not sure what the etiquette is
here. Utkarsh said he'd take a look in the next few days.
** Changed in: gdebi (Ubuntu)
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 05:41:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> I've arranged for MPs against git-ubuntu repositories to appear in the
> sponsorship queue[1].
I was using the fact that ~ubuntu-sponsors is requested for review in a
git-ubuntu MP to make it appear in the sponsorship
Thank you for the report. I noted this in
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/Mutter for future updates
that rely on the exception. Would it be appropriate to add this Test
Plan to future mutter updates that are based on the exception? If so,
please could you amend the wiki? Thanks!
--
Thank you for the report. I noted this in
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/Mutter for future updates
that rely on the exception. Would it be appropriate to add this Test
Plan to future mutter updates that are based on the exception? If so,
please could you amend the wiki? Thanks!
--
Hi Steve,
Thanks for raising this.
I have no strong opinion on the behaviour for debcheckout you suggest.
From my perpective though, I think it would be useful if "git ubuntu
clone" were to read the Vcs-Git field and add a sensible remote for it.
Currently, even if the primary Vcs for a
Please also adjust the bug title to describe what the actual problem is
that you're fixing. Depending on what that is, it may be appropriate to
mark one bug as a dupe of the other (or not if they then describe
obviously separate things).
It's fine if they end up distinct but with a single Test
Just driving past while someone mentioned it and and trying to help this
along.
I suggest that you combine this with bug 2023215 and arrange a
comprehensive Test Plan which verifies that both issues are fixed as
well and that "normal" use cases (whatever they might be - I don't know)
aren't
Please also adjust the bug title to describe what the actual problem is
that you're fixing. Depending on what that is, it may be appropriate to
mark one bug as a dupe of the other (or not if they then describe
obviously separate things).
It's fine if they end up distinct but with a single Test
Just driving past while someone mentioned it and and trying to help this
along.
I suggest that you combine this with bug 2023215 and arrange a
comprehensive Test Plan which verifies that both issues are fixed as
well and that "normal" use cases (whatever they might be - I don't know)
aren't
I think this should probably be fixed in SRUs together with bug 2006110
and verified together. See my comment 6 there for further comment.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to appstream-glib in Ubuntu.
> Therefore, the crash is fixed even though there is still a remaining
bug.
Does this bug need reopening then, or a new bug filed? I leave that up
to you - setting Incomplete for now since that's better than Fix
Released and this being forgotten.
** Changed in: gnome-shell (Ubuntu Lunar)
> Therefore, the crash is fixed even though there is still a remaining
bug.
Does this bug need reopening then, or a new bug filed? I leave that up
to you - setting Incomplete for now since that's better than Fix
Released and this being forgotten.
** Changed in: gnome-shell (Ubuntu Lunar)
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-shell has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-shell has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-shell has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-shell has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you
I don't see a report so I presume this is OK to release?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to mutter in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015861
Title:
cursor does not track window when dragging between monitors
I don't see a report so I presume this is OK to release?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to mutter in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015861
Title:
cursor does not track window when dragging between monitors with
Thank you for the analysis! This all seem reasonable so we can land
this.
But first I need to get the report clean. I ran fwupd/armhf on Focal
against migration-reference/0 which failed as expected. That should
cause fwupd to no longer flag as a regression when the report is
regenerated (I
The verification of the Stable Release Update for tang has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
Dear Ubuntu Developers,
If you sponsor an SRU, please subscribe to its bugs so that you can
respond to any enquiries from the SRU team, and step in as necessary.
We're now also subscribing SRU sponsors automatically, but the initial
implementation is racy, so this might not always occur if SRU
to reproduce:
# mkdir debian
# cat > debian/changelog
test (0) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
* Test mk-build-deps
-- Robie Basak Thu, 01 Jun 2023 16:03:13
+
# cat > debian/control
Source: test
Build-Depends: hello
# mk-build-deps -i -r
dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package test-build-dep
The verification of the Stable Release Update for nautilus has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter
The verification of the Stable Release Update for nautilus has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter
This is blocked from release - please see comment 8.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to systemd in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012943
Title:
systemd-resolved crashes due to use-after-free bug
The verification of the Stable Release Update for nautilus has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter
The verification of the Stable Release Update for nautilus has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter
The following subscriptions are missing:
libnginx-mod-http-geoip2
Missing subscriptions added
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
It's been a while since I did one of these. It takes a while to write it
up that I could be spending on reviewing more SRUs, but I did also get
feedback that my last post was helpful. So I'll try to continue doing
these now and again.
As with last time, unfortunately most of the SRUs I looked at
The verification of the Stable Release Update for software-properties
has completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that
Sorry, I'm just not clear on what has been tested.
Please could you detail precisely what version of what package has been
tested against what version of what kernel?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux-oem-6.1 in
What's the state of the fix in Mantic, please?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Canonical's Ubuntu QA, which is subscribed to autopkgtest in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2008026
Title:
[SRU Exception] Backport 5.28 to Jammy
Status in autopkgtest
Normally testing that the bug is fixed would verify that the package
still works, but it isn't clear to me that this is the case for this
(very narrow) test plan.
Has there been any testing done that verifies that iptables still
basically works, please? I looked at the build logs (for Bionic as
** Changed in: tzdata (Ubuntu Lunar)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to tzdata in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2017999
Title:
tzdata 2023c-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 might
This upload proposes to remove some of the options in
debian/tzdata.templates. So what happens if a user has configured
deployment automation to use particular debconf options that will now
disappear? The changelog says "It removes following time zones from
debconf and updates them on upgrades
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 02:41:33PM -0500, James Falcon wrote:
> This email is to announce my application for membership as an uploader to
> the cloud-init package. My application can be found at:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JamesFalcon/DeveloperPerPackageUploadApplication
The DMB voted to approve
Hi,
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:26:48PM +, Jay Sridharan wrote:
> The latest version of Flask now requires blinker >= 1.6.2, but the apt
> repo python3-blinker is still on 1.4. Given that blinker 1.4 is almost
> 8 years old now, I think perhaps the python3-blinker package can be
> updated?
It
Unsubscribing ~ubuntu-sponsors as I believe there's nothing left to
sponsor.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of SE
("STS") Sponsors, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1978913
Title:
[SRU] ceph-osd takes all memory at boot
The verification of the Stable Release Update for openssh has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
Thanks Lena!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to openssh in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012298
Title:
PasswordAuthenticaion in sshd_config.d
Status in portable OpenSSH:
Unknown
Status in openssh
Hello nikhil, or anyone else affected,
Accepted ceph into focal-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ceph/15.2.17-0ubuntu0.20.04.4 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
Thanks Mauricio! I confirmed that this upload is identical to
15.2.17-0ubuntu0.20.04.4 (except for dep3 and the security rebase) and
so I'm accepting on the basis of Steve's previous review, and that based
on the comments since, it seems like the original patch was actually
what was expected.
**
The verification of the Stable Release Update for krb5 has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
Please could someone verify that with openssh-server 1:8.2p1-4ubuntu0.7
installed in its default configuration, ssh works as expected? If you
could detail the exact steps you performed to verify this and copy and
paste the output of eg. "dpkg -l|grep openssh" so there is no doubt as
to what was
Also is there any testing being done to ensure that other use cases of
alsa-ucm-conf haven't regressed?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux-oem-6.1 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015972
Title:
Dell:
I see this is verified against the proposed kernel for Jammy. But Lunar
and Kinetic look like they have been tested only against locally patched
kernels, rather than the Ubuntu archive. I would expect SRU
verifications for hardware enablements to be tested exclusively against
the Ubuntu archive
The verification of the Stable Release Update for ubuntu-dev-tools has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you
On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 11:29:53AM -0300, Lucas Kanashiro wrote:
> https://pad.lv/2018238 || D | New | postfix
> | postfix: autopkgtest fails with saslauthd.service installed |
>
> This bug was filed by Scott K and the postfix DEP-8 test is going to fail
> once the
Abstract
Currently, a merge proposal of a branch against the git-ubuntu
repository for an Ubuntu package is tightly coupled to the upload of the
branch after it is approved. But uploading a package triggers additional
process which isn’t always desirable. Ubuntu developers would like to
stage
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/httplib2/__init__.py", line 1528, in
_conn_request
conn.connect()
File "/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/httplib2/__init__.py", line 1290, in
connect
address_info = socket.getaddrinfo(host, port, 0,
Any chance of a dep8 test for this please? I think it would be valuable
as we're carrying this feature in a distro patch.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to openssh in Ubuntu.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:36:52PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Following the roadmap + engineering sprints over the next few weeks, my
> availability will flip to opposite weeks from where it is currently. Would
> it be possible to move the next TB meeting after this week from May 9 to
> May
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:37:36PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Tomorrow's TB meeting conflicts with obligations at this week's roadmap
> sprint and I will be unable to attend.
Before the apologies flood in, at the last meeting we agreed to cancel
the next meeting, so currently that's scheduled
** Changed in: tang (Ubuntu Focal)
Status: In Progress => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of SE
("STS") Sponsors, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1930203
Title:
ordering cycle after reboot
Status in tang
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:30:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> Here's the minimal patch for Focal, with thanks to the respective
> upstream authors:
Sorry, I think I might have missed the change that drops language from
the composition of tarball_filename when I generated this
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:30:04PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> Here's the minimal patch for Focal, with thanks to the respective
> upstream authors:
Sorry, I think I might have missed the change that drops language from
the composition of tarball_filename when I generated this
It's probably also worth adding to the Test Plan to ensure the
configuration is indeed the same in both cases.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of SE
("STS") Sponsors, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1930203
Title:
ordering
> +-WantedBy=multi-user.target
> ++WantedBy=sockets.target
The above is in the Install section. I checked what happens on upgrade,
and found that /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/tangd.socket
does not get replaced with
/etc/systemd/system/sockets.target.wants/tangd.socket. So this SRU
Hello errors.ubuntu.com, or anyone else affected,
Accepted software-properties into focal-proposed. The package will build
now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-
properties/0.99.9.12 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us by testing
> bug added by the previous revision
Tagging regression-update then, FTR, for future regression risk
analysis.
> That fix isn't relevant for releases after Focal; The necessary API
exists for Jammy onwards.
OK thanks. Then the correct bug task status for Jammy onwards is Invalid
or maybe Fix
> bug added by the previous revision
Tagging regression-update then, FTR, for future regression risk
analysis.
> That fix isn't relevant for releases after Focal; The necessary API
exists for Jammy onwards.
OK thanks. Then the correct bug task status for Jammy onwards is Invalid
or maybe Fix
Thanks. I agree and I've added a hint. This should hopefully clear the
flag on the next (Jammy) britney run.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
glib not
In the meantime, please could you confirm what [sorry, that's ambiguous;
I mean *how*] you tested?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
glib not
In the meantime, please could you confirm what [sorry, that's ambiguous;
I mean *how*] you tested?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
glib not aware of
Thanks. I agree and I've added a hint. This should hopefully clear the
flag on the next (Jammy) britney run.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
In the meantime, please could you confirm what [sorry, that's ambiguous;
I mean *how*] you tested?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
glib not aware of
Thanks. I agree and I've added a hint. This should hopefully clear the
flag on the next (Jammy) britney run.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Desktop Bugs, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
glib not
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 04:11:23PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote:
> To cherry pick this would require extensive reverse engineering of the code
> to figure out which pieces apply to the *older* versions of
> torbrowser-launcher. Unfortunately, since there are no *bugfix* releases of
>
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 04:11:23PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote:
> To cherry pick this would require extensive reverse engineering of the code
> to figure out which pieces apply to the *older* versions of
> torbrowser-launcher. Unfortunately, since there are no *bugfix* releases of
>
Hi Simon,
Thank you for this detailed assessement of the current situation and
in your work to get bugfixes to Ubuntu users!
Some questions come to mind.
What's the impact to users of not taking this action? Do we have
specific cases of users being affected by bugs for which the upstream
stable
401 - 500 of 17436 matches
Mail list logo
