Hi Loïc,
Indeed your intuition on not backporting python-defaults/python agrees with
mine. In cases like this, my recommendation is to make minimal source changes
necessary to linaro-image-tools to make it build against lucid. Such source
changes stand a much higher chance of being accepted,
ACK from Backports team for original backport plan:
Backport the Karmic version to jaunty-backports, and then backport
Lucid's version to Karmic.
** Changed in: jaunty-backports
Status: New = Confirmed
** Changed in: jaunty-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
** Changed in:
ACK from Backports Team.
** Changed in: jaunty-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
Please backport subdownloader 2.0.10-1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/551200
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Jaunty
Switching to a Backports task. Did mvo say what package(s) would need to
be backported for this, and if doing the backport of that package is
likely to lead to any backwards-compatibility issues?
--
Backport easy PPA adding to hardy and jaunty
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/440512
You received
** Also affects: jaunty-backports
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: hardy-backports
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
Backport easy PPA adding to hardy and jaunty
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/440512
You received this bug notification because you are a
** Changed in: software-properties
Status: Confirmed = Invalid
--
Backport easy PPA adding to hardy and jaunty
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/440512
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy Backports.
--
subdownloader | 2.0.10-1 | lucid/universe | source, all
ACK from Backports team
** Changed in: karmic-backports
Status: New = Confirmed
** Changed in: karmic-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
Please backport subdownloader 2.0.10-1
ACK from SRU team
--
[SRU] usbmount in karmic
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/530972
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is a direct subscriber.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or
ACK from sru team
--
[SRU] keepalived in karmic
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/530945
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is a direct subscriber.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or
This should be a SRU, not a backport...
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
--
Please backport usbmount 0.0.19.1 to karmic from lucid
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/530972
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is a direct subscriber.
The patch
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30423782/subversion_1.5.1dfsg1-1ubuntu2.1~hardy1.debdiff
posted by Arnd looks reasonable to me, and should be applied to hardy-
backports. This will require a core-dev sponsor to upload. The
-backports team ACKs the debdiff and apologizes for the
Wow, clearly the coffee didn't kick in well this morning I can
upload the debdiff. Doing so now!
--
Please backport security fix for USN-812-1 in subversion 1.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/411849
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: New = Fix Committed
--
Please backport security fix for USN-812-1 in subversion 1.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/411849
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy
*groan* Looks like I'm not allowed to upload there anymore... Requesting
core-dev sponsorship on said patch!
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: Fix Committed = In Progress
--
Please backport security fix for USN-812-1 in subversion 1.5
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/411849
You
Fortunately bzr fails in a reasonable manner (for the most part) when an
incompatible plugin exists. But yeah, I'd like to take more of the
plugins from karmic-updates. Ideally in future Ubuntu packaging (I
didn't check if it's already the case), that the plugin packages have
specific enough
I'd be fine with approving the backport as-is due to the launchpad
incompatible usecase, but are we also interested in backporting the most
popular bzr plugins (i.e bzrtools?) as well?
--
Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from karmic-updates
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987
You received this bug
ACK from backports team.
** Changed in: karmic-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
Please backport lintian 2.3.1ubuntu1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/504512
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Karmic
ACK from -sru for kdepimlibs_4.3.2-0ubuntu1.1 ; proceed with upload and
testing. Thanks!
--
[ubuntu 8.10] kio_imap4 hangs
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/350902
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Karmic Backports.
--
ACK from the SRU team
--
FH_DATE_PAST_20XX scores on all mails dated 2010 or later
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/502071
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy Backports.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
Oooh. Martin, we definitely want to take the opportunity to backport bzr
2.0.2 after-SRU and its entire stack to Jaunty. If the SRU seems to hit
a snag or otherwise take too long, poke this bug report again and we'll
take the 2.0.0 route (since as I understand it 2.0.2 can drop-in replace
2.0.0
Can you elaborate on the rationale for this backport?
--
[Backport Package] xz-utils
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/487484
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is a direct subscriber.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
Thanks for the info.
Testers, what are your opinions about the severity of this bug as far as
user experience is concerned. Continue with backport or wait for 1.02?
(Either way is fine with me)
--
Backport Decibel Audio Player 1.01
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/483060
You received this bug
I love it when things come pre-tested!
ACK from MOT^H^H^H^^H wrong one, need more sleep.
ACK from Backporters for all 3 distros.
** Changed in: jaunty-backports
Status: New = In Progress
** Changed in: intrepid-backports
Status: New = In Progress
** Changed in: hardy-backports
ACK from backporters.
** Changed in: karmic-backports
Status: New = In Progress
--
Please backport Hedgewars 0.9.12 to Karmic
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/485168
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Karmic
Interesting bug. Probably upstream bug?
--
Backport Decibel Audio Player 1.01
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/483060
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Karmic Backports.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
ACK from backporters.
** Changed in: karmic-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
Please backport ScrapBook
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/482470
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for Karmic Backports.
--
Let's handle the two together:
Doing a quick build test:
Karmic's version backports cleanly to Jaunty and appears to work in my
initial testing.
Lucid's version backports cleanly to Karmic.
Lucid's version does not backport to Jaunty because of pbuilder-
satisfydepends-dummy: Depends: quilt
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 480547 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/480547
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 480547
memcached pretty darn out of date.
--
memcached hopelessly out of date
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/480545
You received this bug notification
Right; the Debian maintainer added a quilt dependency.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Prevu
The Prevu tool is my perferred tool for quickly testing backports.
After doing prevu-init's for Karmic and Jaunty, run prevu
memcached/lucid to backport Lucid's version to the currently running
distribution, or
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: New = Confirmed
--
[hardy-backports] errors in xendomains init script
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/216761
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy Backports.
--
Talked to ebroder in person and saw verification that intrepid-updates's
version backports cleanly and works on Hardy.
ACK from ~ubuntu-backporters for backporting xen-3.3 | 3.3.0-1ubuntu7.1
| intrepid-updates | source to hardy-backports.
--
[hardy-backports] errors in xendomains init script
Would someone like to confirm the Intrepid version that's confirmed to
build above runs in Hardy correctly? Apart from that, this backport
looks suitable.
--
Please backport xmail-1.25
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/330968
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Public bug reported:
Prevu should be backported from karmic all the way down to jaunty,
intrepid, and hardy. Most importantly this addresses the breakage of the
default operation mode (fetch from Launchpad) due to the Launchpad UI
change.
I've tested this backport on all 3 releases, so I'm
Hi Jonathan,
It is my oversight; The Confirmed state indicates that the backport has
been verified by someone in the community to be appropriate. In Progress
or Fix Committed should be set by a backports team member to indicate
official blessing or sponsored upload for source-change backports,
Thanks, Mark, for chiming in.
Indeed LTS does not imply that every major piece of newly released
software will be backported, nor is the Backports team interested in
trying to do so if it means sacrificing the stability or supportability
of the OS...
To move this forward, in my mind:
(1) We
Mozilla Team dailies are in a PPA because they are experimental in
nature; OpenOffice 3.1 has no reason to be unless the process of
backporting it requires some insane procedure that makes them unsuitable
for Backports' quality standards.
The red tape to get it into Backports is solely
Yes, the version of OpenOffice shipped with Hardy LTS does have 3 year
guaranteed security updates.
I was saying that if a backport is done of a newer OpenOffice version,
we need to make sure someone is willing to provide the same guarantee.
--
Please backport OpenOffice.org 3 to Hardy
This will be handled as a StableReleaseUpdate in the original bug.
** Changed in: intrepid-backports
Status: Confirmed = Won't Fix
--
gstm
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/308068
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for
(already fixed in Jaunty)
** Changed in: gsasl (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Fix Released
--
[hardy] libgsasl7-dev missing dependencies on libntlm0-dev, libkrb5-dev
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/348865
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing
Looks good to me. ACK from backporters
** Changed in: intrepid-backports
Status: New = In Progress
--
Please backport filezilla 3.2.2.1-1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/335692
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backporters, which is the registrant for
ACK from backporters for msmtp 1.14.16-1; Hardy and Intrepid
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
** Changed in: intrepid-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
Please backport msmtp 1.4.16-1 from Jaunty to Hardy/Intrepid
ACK'ed and uploaded last debdiff. For the record, the IRC discussion was
that
(1) Alternate dependencies on 3.2/3.3 are just more confusing for the
user and doesn't really offer anything additional -- you can't mix 3.2
and 3.3 and expect things to work, though these dependencies would allow
it.
Strictly speaking, backports officially does not guarantee any period or type of
support, which is why they are worded as unofficial updates in software
sources manager. in reality, the backporters do address security issues in the
backports repo on a best-effort basis and take care not to
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Schoap D schoapp...@gmail.com wrote:
fakeroot debian/rules clean
debian/rules:3: /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk: No such file or
directory
debian/rules:4: /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/autotools.mk: No such file or
directory
debian/rules:5:
Backport building is even easier. For the most part, no source changes are
required. All you have to do is use dch -i to create a new changelog
entry(*) acknowledging that it's a backport, then run pbuilder on this new
source package.
The exception is when the Jaunty version requires a new build
Where are you trying to upload it to?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Schoap D schoapp...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/17 Schoap D schoapp...@gmail.com
2008/12/17 John Dong john.d...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Schoap D schoapp...@gmail.com wrote:
fakeroot debian/rules
name
I can t build it right now...
About uploading... what is the next step after the request and the build of
the package?
Thanks,
\s
2008/12/17 John Dong john.d...@gmail.com
Where are you trying to upload it to?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:56 PM, Schoap D schoapp...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Schoap D schoapp...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, thanks.
Is it just like a update process?
apt-get source pakket
wget newer version.tar.gz
mv hello-2.3.tar.gz hello_2.3.orig.tar.gz
tar xfz hello_2.3.orig.tar.gz
cd hello_2.3/
zcat ../hello_2.2-2.diff.gz | patch
Right now we are considering doing this in intrepid-security directly;
if that does not work out we will continue in the Backports route.
--
Please backport vlc to 0.9.8a in Intrepid
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/307239
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
I have been told more or less by banshee-team and mono team that this
backport is more or less undoable without breaking API compatibility and
massive repackaging work. I'd recommend getting Banshee from the
banshee-team PPA.
--
Banshee in Intrepid repositories needs update to 1.4.1
This is due to the erroneous Breaks: relationship on yelp... I will fix
this with the 3.0.4 backport.
--
firefox 3.0.3 backport
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/284508
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Gutsy
The Breaks: is superfluous; this will be resolved when I upload 3.0.4 in
the coming day or two or three or four.
--
backport 1.9.0.3 breaks yelp 2.22.1
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/300034
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is
ACK on 1:1.2506-1ubuntu2 (*INTREPID* version):
This version I've been locally using for a long time with no problems; the
Jaunty version I'm less confident about after the fresh merge. Let's wait until
the new upstream version gets into Jaunty then look at Intrepid/Hardy backports
of that
Public bug reported:
Firefox 3.0.4 is out in hardy-security. We need to backport this to
Gutsy.
** Affects: gutsy-backports
Importance: Medium
Assignee: John Dong (jdong)
Status: Confirmed
--
Firefox 3.0.4 backport
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/299156
You received this bug
I'm going to take care of this. Expect PPA packages soon.
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Importance: Undecided = Medium
Assignee: (unassigned) = John Dong (jdong)
Status: New = Confirmed
--
Firefox 3.0.4 backport
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/299156
You received this bug
Builds in prevu with no source changes. Attempted a quick NTFS mount and
nothing seemed to go wrong. AFAICT the mount options didn't change so
rdepends like the mounting subsystem and such are not affected. This
looks good for backporting. I'l let it sit here for a bit in case any of
the other
Approved already.
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Assignee: Ubuntu Package Archive Administrators (ubuntu-archive) =
(unassigned)
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
--
firefox 3.0.3 backport
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/284508
You received this bug notification because you are
The evince 2.24.x release also provides some new format support,
multimedia hotkeys, and other goodness. If the backport works it
actually would be quite nice to have it.
--
Please backport evince 2.24.1 from Intrepid to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/293871
You received this bug
The security fixes in the mentioned PHP releases have been in the
-security repositories for all supported distributions, over 3 months
ago. A backport task is not necessary or appropriate for this case and
the task has been marked invalid.
--
Please roll out security fixes from PHP 5.2.6
The debdiff looks decent, please continue :)
--
Please backport libmicrohttpd4 (0.3.1)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/240136
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy Backports.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
Debdiff looks good!
--
Please backport bugzilla 3.0 from Intrepid to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241560
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy Backports.
--
ubuntu-backports mailing list
Debdiff looks good, though IMO the first changelog entry should be
Backport from {Origin distribution} to {target distribution}. Remember
that users will be reading these through Update Manager which doesn't
intuitively show the version numbers to indicate what's going on.
--
Please Backport
Yes, it is a security issue and why I wnated to revisit gutsy-backports
particularly for this source-change backport.
Serge, I can't reproduce your error:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# apt-cache policy xulrunner-1.9
xulrunner-1.9:
Installed: (none)
Candidate:
xulrunner-1.9 and firefox-3.0 uploaded to gutsy-backports, awaiting
archive admin approval.
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Assignee: John Dong (jdong) = Ubuntu Package Archive Administrators
(ubuntu-archive)
Status: Confirmed = Fix Committed
--
firefox 3.0.3 backport
https
ACK from backporters
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: New = In Progress
--
Please backport gufw from Intrepid to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/289958
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Hardy
This would be neat to have -- do you know if gufw is 100% compatible
with Hardy's version of ufw? Has the command set changed between Hardy
and Intrepid?
--
Please backport gufw from Intrepid to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/289958
You received this bug notification because you are a
I spoke with Chris today in detail about this, and he doesn't sound
terribly confident yet that openoffice.org 3's final release is not
going to have some major bugs discovered in the near future. Since he is
most familiar with their release cycle and previous track record, I am
going to go with
Importance: Medium
Assignee: John Dong (jdong)
Status: New
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Importance: Undecided = Medium
Assignee: (unassigned) = John Dong (jdong)
--
firefox 3.0.3 backport
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/284508
You received this bug notification because you
Please follow new bug at https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/gutsy-
backports/+bug/284508 for Firefox 3.0.3 final.
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: Incomplete = Won't Fix
--
Backport Firefox 3.0 beta 5 from Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212468
You received this bug notification
The backport has been uploaded to the Backports PPA:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-backporters/+archive
It has not built yet but locally I've tested this on a Gutsy system with no
detectable regressions
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: New = Confirmed
--
firefox 3.0.3
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 283137 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/283137
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 283137
Please backport OpenOffice.org 3 to Hardy
--
Please backport OpenOffice.org 3.0 to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/284692
You received this bug
I personally do not feel comfortable backporting commonly-used server
packages that have a long track history of needing security update
maintenance because inevitably people lose interest and we cannot
guarantee the same 18 months or 5 years of security updates that the
Security Team can. Are
pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy: Depends: libwebkit-dev which is a virtual
package.
Depends: libgegl-0.0-dev which is a virtual
package.
Depends: libbabl-0.0-0-dev which is a virtual
package.
Looks like we'll need to do some
If you are referring to the 0.8.6.* security fix series, this is already
in progress for ubuntu-security. If you are referring to the 0.9.x
releases, I am not sure if this will be possible. I was a part of the
team that packaged this release for Intrepid and I'm almost confident it
relies on
Yeah, this would be a nice backport but first we need to look at all of
the dependencies (bzr plugins) to see if they're all compatible.
--
backport bazaar
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/268602
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which
The KTorrent 2.2.x branch is gone from Ubuntu and superseded by the
3.x.x branch; I'm not sure how to handle this situation for Backports.
--
Please backport ktorrent to 2.2.7
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/267494
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports
Debdiff looks good, only I'd suggest a comment for why the status stanza
was commented out (i.e. LSB too old in Hardy) in the init script for
confused sysadmins.
--
please backport rsync 3 from Intrepid to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/257211
You received this bug notification because
I'll trust superm1's discretion on this. ACK from backporters.
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: Triaged = In Progress
--
Please backport dkms 2.0.20.4
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262460
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing
Is there a corresponding -data package that needs to be backported, or
is wesnoth the only one?
--
Please backport wesnoth 1:1.4.4-2 from Intrepid
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262834
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is
ACK from backporters, to be backported with synfig and synfigstudio
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: Triaged = In Progress
--
Please backport etl from intrepid
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/262469
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports
ACK from backporters:
msn-pecan | 0.0.14-3 | intrepid/universe | source, amd64, i386
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: Triaged = In Progress
--
Please backport msn-pecan 0.0.14-3 from intrepid.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/261684
You received this bug notification because
ACK from backporters: freevo |1.8.1-0 | intrepid/universe |
source, all
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: Triaged = In Progress
--
please backport freevo
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/260642
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports
ACK from backporters
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
please backport rdiff-backup so Gutsy can backup and restore to and from Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/221401
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released
--
Please backport firefox-3.0 3.0~b4 final
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191796
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Gutsy Backports.
--
** Attachment added: debdiff of 0.9.59 for gutsy-backports
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/13309179/debdiff
--
Please backpart Wine 0.9.58
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/195896
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to
FTBFS, will handle as sourceful backport to Gutsy of 0.9.59
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: Fix Released = Confirmed
--
Please backpart Wine 0.9.58
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/195896
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team,
You wouldn't be the first one to complain about that I'm hearing
lots of bad stories about 64-bit and Flash interactions Personally
on gutsy32 it seems to work fine for me but I see nothing substantial
over beta4 in this release. I'm glad we did the b4 backport first.
--
Backport Firefox
Sorry for the bug spam, momentary lack of judgement.
** Also affects: hardy-backports
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: hardy-backports
Status: New = Invalid
** Summary changed:
- Feature Freeze Exception request for Transmission 1.10
+ Backport bugfixes from
Everyone: Note the updated description of the task. Since ClamAV needs a
similarly intrusive update, the Backports team has decided to open up
Hardy Backports earlier this release cycle, so we will handle the new
1.1x branch in Backports on a timely manner.
At the same time, we will go forward
Public bug reported:
Transmission 1.11 is out and contains many new feature enhancements, but
is too risky to include directly in Hardy this late in the release
cycle.
Therefore we will handle it as a pre-backport to gutsy and forwards-
port it to Intrepid as soon as it opens for uploads.
**
I added a patch system while we await the splitting out of patches.
** Attachment added: Debdiff up to transmission 1.06-0ubuntu5 (add dpatch)
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/13197466/transmission.debdiff
--
Backport bugfixes from Transmission 1.1x for Hardy
Public bug reported:
Let's freshen up our aging bzr in Gutsy:
bzr_1.3.1~rc1-0ubuntu1
bzr-builddeb_0.93ubuntu1
bzr-svn_0.4.9-1
bzrtools_1.3.0-2ubuntu1
Please backport the above source packages from Hardy. (bzr-gtk still
compatible)
** Affects: gutsy-backports
Importance: Undecided
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: Confirmed = In Progress
--
Please backpart Wine 0.9.58
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/195896
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Backports Testing Team, which is subscribed to Gutsy Backports.
--
ubuntu-backports
I tried to report this but I could not reproduce these symptoms
The show hidden objects filter works perfectly on my home directory with
firefox 3.0b5 and b4
--
firefox 3, file:// and hidden files misbehavior
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/212696
You received this bug notification because you
This would appear like a bug in your custom theme's gtkrc. Most likely
Firefox simply didn't trip it before but now that GTK integration has
been further improved Firefox attempts to use that portion of your
theme.
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: New = Incomplete
--
firefox
I can reproduce this on Hardy, let's move this bug report into Hardy.
(I'm also unsure if this is a bug or just a security feature with a poor
UI
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: New = Incomplete
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: Incomplete = Invalid
** Also affects:
psi | 0.11-3 | hardy/universe | source, amd64, i386, powerpc
This version is in Hardy. Is it ok to backport too?
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: New = Incomplete
--
please backport psi ( http://psi-im.org )
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/205036
You received this bug
Looks like we need these backports:
python-virtinst | 0.300.2-0ubuntu3 | hardy/universe | all (src pkg: virtinst)
python-gtk-vnc | 0.3.4-0ubuntu1 | hardy/universe | amd64, i386, powerpc
They are both new Hardy packages so they should be trivial backports
--
virt-manager is not installable
ACK from backporters:
inkscape | 0.46-0ubuntu1 | hardy | source, amd64, i386, powerpc
** Changed in: gutsy-backports
Status: New = In Progress
--
Please backport Inkscape 0.46 from hardy to gutsy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/207031
You received this bug notification because
Scott, the debdiffs in comment #25 (not the attached ones) apply against
the respective Hardy versions they are derived from. As of 3 hours ago
we've gotten new Firefox packages in Hardy, which I am *NOT* interested
in backporting right now due to widespread reports on the internet(s) of
CPU usage
1 - 100 of 1048 matches
Mail list logo
