** Changed in: ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Renan Rodrigo (renanrodrigo) => Alec Warren (a-dubs)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015125
Title:
pro cras
** Changed in: ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Renan Rodrigo (renanrodrigo) => Alec Warren (a-dubs)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2027672
Title:
apt-get inst
** Changed in: ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Alec Warren (a-dubs)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2055737
Title:
pro attach `Unexpected erro
** Changed in: ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Alec Warren (a-dubs)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2058560
Title:
"sudo pro attach " fai
** Changed in: ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Renan Rodrigo (renanrodrigo) => Alec Warren (a-dubs)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2052445
Title:
unable to activ
You are indeed right. Python libraries are not multilib, and should live
in /usr/lib/python3/site-packages. Will fix, but the process starts at
the Debian side.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
The core issue here is the dependency in vdr. There is a ticket [1]
about this.
Otherwise, the simple work-around is uninstall the lirc package.
This is an old bug. I see no new reports or comments lately, which seems
to indicate that it is fixed in current release.
[1]
Filed vdr issue: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012274
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #1012274
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012274
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Sorry for late reply.
The python module contains binary. architecture-dependent code and can
for that reason not be installed in /usr/lib/python3/ due to overall
multi-arch requirements.
That said, the official Debian documents I find are not explicit on how
to install these kind of modules.
lirc does not spam the log if correctly configured. The repeated
messages is a actually a feature since it's an easy way to detect status
when configuring and hot-plugging a device.
The basic issue here is if lirc is pulled in as a dependency. It should
not, it's designed to be used by users
Late comment: vlc does not depend on lirc any more, so this should not
happen to new installations.
Work around for existing installations is to either remove the lirc
package or simply disable lircd.socket, lircd.service and lircd-uinput
using systemctl.
--
You received this bug notification
[sorry for late walking through bugs]
Have you tried the installation instructions as described in the
upstream docs[1] ?
[1] https://www.lirc.org/html/configuration-guide.html
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
@gunnarhj: Not least, thanks also to you. Sorry for oversight.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1974167
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Focal
To manage
@ddstreet: Thanks!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1974167
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Focal
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The Kinetic 5.6.2 is the latest upstream release available. In order to
keep the official packaging relevant this needs to be backported since
users otherwise are relegated the upstream PPA where the packaging is
not optimal (no source package, no
** Patch added: "Debdiff against kinetic"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencpn/+bug/1974167/+attachment/5591260/+files/kinetic.debdiff
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I need a sponsor...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1974167
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Focal
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Public bug reported:
[Impact]
The Kinetic 5.6.2 is the latest upstream release available. In order to
keep the official packaging relevant this needs to be backported since
users otherwise are relegated the upstream PPA where the packaging is
not optimal (no source package, no review, etc).
@ddstreet: Thanks for review and uploading!
Will try to remember. Next opportunity is backporting 5.6.2 to focal.,..
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport
As for 1): My initial description could and should have been better. I'm
actually not aware of bugs that can and should be fixed by point
patches. That is, the description is wrong.
The core problem the backport tries to address is that OpenCPN users
(thousands, for sure) are accustomed to using
To start with 2): Application downloads plugins from external sources.
There are not that many plugins available for jammy yet, and the Focal
plugins are actually compatible so the patch makes these plugins
available also for Jammy.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member
Ah, right.
And yes, we want that patch.
Sorry for the mess. Need to improve...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Jammy
To
My bad, sorry, still learning. It is not until now I understand the role
of the debdiff, that this is what you as sponsor upload.
These two debdiffs are basically the same thing compared to different
baselines. However, "my" diff is probably far easier to review being
much smaller. If this is
Hm... are you confused by the fact that the diff in the upload queue is
against 5.6.0+dfsg1-1 (huge!) whereas the debdiff here is against
kinetic i. e., 5.6.2+dfsg-1?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Hej Gunnar,
On 07/05/2022 15:28, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Hey, Alec, that debdiff you added differs from what I uploaded. What
> now? Should I use the debdiff in a new upload?
>
Administrativa problem Hur ser din debdiff ut?
--alec
PS: När skall jag lära mig att bifoga den til
** Attachment added: "Debdiff against kinetic"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencpn/+bug/1971109/+attachment/5587227/+files/debdiff.txt
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Jammy
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
** Summary changed:
- [BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
+ [BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic to Jammy
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The current release misses several important bugfixes available in the
Kinetic 5.6.2 package. Thus it forces users to the PPA at
https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn. While more
recent, this not properly packaged and reviewed,
I need a sponsor...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Not a WIP any more as far as I know.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Package update and looks good. Not
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
This is still a WIP.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1971109
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.2 from Kinetic
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
Public bug reported:
[Impact]
The current release misses several important bugfixes available in the
Kinetic 5.6.2 package. Thus it forces users to the PPA at
https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn. While more
recent, this not properly packaged and reviewed, lacking a source
The issue has been fixed after the firmware was upgraded and SR-IOV
enabled at the BIOS.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1915413
Title:
Milan Delta A100 GPU fails to detect on Ubuntu
@Mattia:
Thanks for review and uploading.
I guess the review boils down to that while the delta against Jammy is
reasonable small it could and should have been smaller. I can nothing
but agree. Of course, there are some explanations. Doubt they are
interesting, though.
If I get this right this
@teward, @gunnarhj: Ah, right, this is similar to the Debian process.
Looking at that queue is somewhat scary, I see an entry from 2021-10-28.
Can just hope this goes faster.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
@gunnarhj:
Now, it was some days since you sponsored me, thanks for that. However,
I still don't see it in focal-backports, at least not when browsing. Is
this normal i. e., how long am I supposed to wait before package
becomes visible?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
@Mattia: OK, will do. Still learning.
Seems that having a discussion on ubuntu-devel is fruitful in many ways,
though ;)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport
Deleted: Swedish talk
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
@gunnar: I found the bogus debian/ files. It's in the upstream sources,
used for PPA builds. The strange thing is that "gbp buildpackage" works
without problems which has made the package sail through all Debian
checks.
Anyway, the package is repackaged, so it's just to add debian to the
@Gunnar: Man tackar (a. k. a. thanks for sponsoring)!
> Please unsubscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors from this bug.
Done
> One oddity is that the orig.tar.xz file includes a debian/ folder
WTF?! Something is rotten in pristine-tar, will check again. Thanks for
notifying.
--
You received this bug
@dan: I can understand if this thing take too much time for you. I'm
just a newbie which runs into obstacles others doesn't know about --
that's what newbies do.
Also, this discussion does not really belong to the issue. Should we
start a thread on ubuntu-devel instead, to get more eyes on it?
Turns out that this application process is a interesting chicken and egg
problem ;)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage
Havn't tried that one, doing it now... result: "You are not allowed to
edit this page."
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To
> Since you have a LP account, I'm pretty sure you should be able to
create a wiki page for yourself.
Nope.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn
I guessed something like that. However, to be able to do it I need to be
member of the Ubuntu Wiki Editors Team. My application for that is
pending: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-wiki-editors.
I have so far tried to learn the virtue of patience in the Debian
community. I have my background in
I'll try to make an application. F
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
...irst step is to become member of the wiki group. Waiting for that,,,
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage notifications
Sllly me read on the wrong place. Sigh. And thanks.
But the devil is in the details. That paragraph links to the process
described in
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess. But
there is no description for this case. Any idea how this application
should be done?
--
hm... when I read
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/ApplicationProcess, the
"Debian Developers applying for Per-Package upload rights" paragraph,
the first sentence is
"The DMB has establised a procedure for interested Debian Developers to
gain upload rights to their packages"
As
@Dan: thanks for input, just what I needed.
PPU rights... I first need to become a DD. I have so far said no to
this, but is about to reconsider.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
@Dan: Thanks for review!
> While Debian uses 'Closes:', Ubuntu uses 'LP:', so this should be
Done
> technically, debhelper 13 is in focal-backports (and even bionic-
backports), but if you don't actually need level 13 it's fine to reduce
it in the backport.
Actually, it turns out the I did
FWIW, the corresponding Debian backport to bullseye-backports is
accepted.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1956004
Title:
[BPO] Backport opencpn 5.6.0 from Jammy
To manage
Adding the Debian backport checklist
- Current version is two versions behind. As a result, upstream directs all
users to the PPA, a packaging which does not meet basic standards. Ergo:
backporting is meaningful.
- The package has a substantial user base although this for now means the PPA
** Description changed:
[Impact]
The current release is so old that it is unusable. Thus it forces users
to the PPA at https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn.
While more recent, this not properly packaged and reviewed, lacking a
source package etc.
[Scope]
** Patch added: "Debdiff against jammy"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opencpn/+bug/1956004/+attachment/5550319/+files/opencpn.debdiff
** Description changed:
[Impact]
- The current release is so old that it is unusable. Thus it forces users to
the
- PPA at
Public bug reported:
[Impact]
The current release is so old that it is unusable. Thus it forces users to the
PPA at https://launchpad.net/~opencpn/+archive/ubuntu/opencpn. While more
recent,
this not properly packaged and reviewed, lacking a source package etc.
[Scope]
This is about
Public bug reported:
installation can't run grub install on boot partition or bootloader
partition
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 20.04
Package: ubiquity 20.04.15.17
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 5.11.0-27.29~20.04.1-generic 5.11.22
Uname: Linux 5.11.0-27-generic x86_64
Also encountering this same issue on ubuntu 20.04.2 with HP zbook 17 G2.
Memtest loaded through grub freezes. I thought this was because my
hardware was faulty. I nearly returned it under warranty.
But downloading memtest86+ 5.01 from memtest.org and loading via
syslinux worked fine, and memtest
Additional information:
With Rome based Delta A100 system, in order for nvidia drivers and
fabric manager to be installed successfully, the SR-IOV features at the
BIOS must be enabled. Otherwise if disabled, it will behave similar as
with Milan based Delta A100 system. This is evident on both
Here's the output of
$ journalctl -f
-- Logs begin at Fri 2020-03-13 14:32:21 CET. --
Nov 05 17:14:30 main systemd[1]: Starting Hostname Service...
Nov 05 17:14:30 main dbus-daemon[1100]: [system] Successfully activated service
'org.freedesktop.hostname1'
Nov 05 17:14:30 main systemd[1]:
Public bug reported:
When writing a new mail, I cannot add an attachment to the message.
Steps to reproduce.
1 - Click write
2 - Click attach
Expected: A file choose dialog should appear.
Actual : Nothing is shown.
$lsb_release -rd
Description:Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS
Release:20.04
0caa3059361ab22a75f9797834ff7bcce372621919122a7d8289b66a1a9c8084
/var/lib/maas/boot-resources/current/ubuntu/amd64/ga-20.04/focal/daily/squashfs
Thanks
Alec
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net
This is to confirm the issue as being reported here. I have the same
issue as with other two systems that I’m trying to certify with
20.04LTS. Both systems could not be deployed. Below is the snapshot.
Thanks
Alec
** Attachment added:
"Boot-Issue-when-deployimg-20.04LTS-for-hardware-s
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lirc/+bug/1788235/comments/16
is a beginning...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1788235
Title:
lirc broken on 18.04
To manage notifications
This problem also affects me with Zoom. I am also using a Dell Precision
5520 with Intel HD Graphics, and disabling animations in Tweaks /
Appearance / Animations fixes the problem for me.
I arrived at this thread by Googling the last few frames in my coredump:
```
$ gdb /usr/bin/gnome-shell -c
Basically, it isn't buggy but requires manual intervention when
updating.
A script called lirc-setup is however broken. It's primary use-case is
fresh installs rather than updates which have no need for it. A
workaround to make it wotk could be found in comment #2.
Some users have had problems
> I suppose it is a bug, as lirc should work after upgrade without
manual reconfiguration.
No it should not, as apparent if you read the comkplete discussion in
this bug or, more on the spot, bug #1788235.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
That said, if someone filed a bug against lirc because lirc-setup is
broken, that bug is certainly valid. But IMHO, that's a very different
story. And since there is a usable work-around it would probably just be
closed as fixed upstream.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
The main issue described in this bug is bogus, as apparent from bug
#1788235
However, the configuration script lirc-setup *is* indeed broken . This
is fixed in Debian upstream from 0.10.1, but hasn't trickled down. That
said, users will still need to read README.Debian, and the process to
> Kodi definitely works with the latest versions of Lirc and the problem i
> is very easy to fix so stop downgrading your systems to an older version of
> Lirc
Right.
> The problem is Kodi defaults to looking for a Lirc socket at /dev/lircd which
> doesn’t exist anymore.
Has anyone cared
To further investigate this issues, a question is if the main lirc
package is installed. If so, the lircd.socket, lircd.service and lircd-
uinput.services should be disabled and stopped. If problem persists,
with or without liblircclient installed, this should be re-assigned to
the kernel
--
You
This is fixed in debian upstream. Until this trickles down, the walk-
around is something like
# libdir=/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/python3.6/site-packages
# cp /usr/share/lirc/python-pkg/config.py $libdir/lirc
# ln -s $libdir/lirc /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/
# ln -s
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1810548
Title:
Samsung U.2 NVMe SM961/PM961 randomly will go missing under kernel
** Attachment added: "syslog.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1810548/+attachment/5226959/+files/syslog.txt
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1810548
Title:
Public bug reported:
Bug Description:
This problem seems related to the following reported bugs:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1737934
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1678184
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-signed/+bug/1682704
** Attachment added: "journalctl-xb.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1810548/+attachment/5226960/+files/journalctl-xb.txt
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
So, changing status.
@xekon: dpkg-reconfigure doesn't do anything at all...
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1788235
> @»ekon, @Alec, thanks for your comments, reading those it looks like
you are stating that there is no real bug, just that the changes in the
software and its configuration files confused users that were used to
the old way? E.g nothing that needs to be resolved?
Right, from my point of v
@seb128: The missing UI refers to the reconfiguration UI which was part
of lirc up to 0.9.0. This reflected even older code containing kernel
modules where lirc was rebuilt from source depending on configuration.
Nowadays lirc is a just a server with configuration files and there is
no need to
Seems that we agree that the idea that lirc as of 18.04 is "broken" is
plain wrong.
The problem is about making a correct upgrade which involves manual
steps as described in README.Debian (with a notification in the upgrade
message).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
> Is there more documentation at a website that I could read to learn
more?
The official site is http://lirc.org. Among other things, here is an
updated Configuration Guide.
> I am particularly interested in the info about the raw events from the
socket.
At the same site there is info on the
> While I am sure LIRC has a lot of uses. I would wager 90% of its users
are using kodi.
This might be the truth as seen from the kodi community. However, from
an upstream lirc point of view I cannot really see that the number of
kodi users are dominating in any way.
> forgot a couple steps,
Now, considering these reports one cannot IMHO really say that lirc is
'broken'. What could be said is that the upgrade to the new version
requires manual steps, none of which mentioned in this report.
The manual steps are documented in the file
/usr/share/doc/lirc/README.Debian.gz -- this is
'kernel-fixed-upstream'
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1798127
Title:
CPU Soft Lockups when stress-ng stack stressor runs with M.2 NVMe as
root FS
To manage notifications about
Successfully upgraded to 4.19. Stress-ng memory test passed without lockup
issue. New rebuild kernel 4.19 has fixed the issue. Refer to text below:
---
ubuntu@fluent-orca:~$ uname -r
4.19.0-041900rc8-generic
ubuntu@fluent-orca:~$ sudo stress-ng -k --aggressive --verify --timeout 300
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1798127
Title:
CPU Soft Lockups when stress-ng stack stressor runs with M.2 NVMe as
Thanks. I may have got myself into more of a mess by proceeding with the
upgrade after installing libgfortran4. That allowed it to proceed, but I
still had mysterious broken packages afterwards, even after ppa-
purge'ing ubuntu-toolchain-r/test. The eventual solution was to remove
gcc-7-base,
After some experimentation, this simple command made it work:
sudo apt install libgfortran4
I have no idea how or why that got removed.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1787720
Title:
Public bug reported:
After being prompted by Software Updater to upgrade to 18.04.1 (from
16.04), I clicked on 'Upgrade...' and followed the prompts. At the end
of the 'Setting new software channels' stage, a window appeared
containing this message:
"""
Could not determine the upgrade
An
Hi,
I was also affected by this issue - to PXE boot at UEFI for add-on adapter i350
1Gb interface. Upgrading the MAAS server version to 18.04 bionic release did
not solve the symptom. But I was able to find a workaround by booting first the
IPv6 before IPv4 - the same workaround mentioned by
Hi,
I was also affected by this issue - to PXE boot at UEFI for add-on adapter i350
1Gb interface. Upgrading the MAAS server version to 18.04 bionic release did
not solve the symptom. But I was able to find a workaround by booting first the
IPv6 before IPv4 - the same workaround mentioned by
Public bug reported:
The server certification for 18.04 beta release does not appear in the
select test plan. See attachment
** Affects: grub2 (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Attachment added: "Screen snapshot"
@ramas
Excellent instructions, worked perfectly for my Lide 200 flatbed.
In step 4, The missing m4 files don't need to be copied if you run
./configure first.
e.g.
sane-backends-1.0.27 $ ./configure --help
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Oops... seems that the default lircd.conf only requires .conf suffix,
not lircd.conf. All solved, my bad.
** Changed in: lirc (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Glad that it works for you. The question is just how...
As noted in the README, from 0.9.4 all lircd.conf files needs names like
mce.lircd.conf i. e., with a lircd.conf suffix. The default lircd.conf
files only includes files with this suffix. That said, a custom
lircd.conf could of course
The package contains a README.Debian.gz file which explains the changes
done. A reference to this file was displayed when you upgraded lirc, but
perhaps you missed it (such things happens, for sure).
The update 0.9.0 -> 0.9.4 is a breaking update requiriung manual
intervention as described in
At a closer look, the configuration seems messy. E. g.,
/etc/lirc/lirc.conf includes a file from /usr/share/lirc/configs, a
directory not present in 0.9.4.
Have you worked through the necessary manual upgrade steps as described
in /usr/share/doc/lirc/README.Debian.gz?
Note that the missing
Previous versions needed some configuration to basically make a
conditional compilation. Possibly, submitter expects the configuration
menu as of 0.9.0. However, there is no such menu in 0.9.4 - all
configuration is done after installation using regular configuration
files
Given this, my
1 - 100 of 541 matches
Mail list logo
