Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: libwx-perl
In Oneric, libwx-perl is FTBFS due to a failing test at the end of the
package build (note that the package compiles fine, this is just a test
script). The error message for the failing test is:
Can't locate Wx/Media.pm in @INC (@INC
Here's a relevant upstream thread. It appears that Wx::Media was built
in Ubuntu 10.4, and disabled (intentionally or accidentally?) in 10.10:
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=881925
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: libogre-perl
The libogre-perl package depends on liborge-dev in the ogre source
package. Ogre is currently at version 1.6.4.dfsg1-1ubuntu1 on Oneiric,
but libogre-perl depends on version 1.7.1 or higher. Debian sid
currently has version 1.7.1-2 of ogre
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #602668
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602668
** Also affects: libdevel-bt-perl (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602668
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification
This failure also affects the powerpc architecture.
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/71416852/buildlog_ubuntu-oneiric-powerpc
.libdevel-bt-perl_0.05-1build1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I'm looking for more details on how people use blueprints, particularly
what the blueprint priorities mean.
If there's a page on this already, let me know and I'll work on getting
it a higher profile so it appears on Google/wiki.ubuntu.com searches. If
we don't have it documented yet, does this
On 5/20/11 5:32 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
Yes, that exact same tag in fact (coincidentally), although I've only
applied it to
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgstreamer-perl/+bug/749146
so far and that's fixed now. I'm not very good at doing mass bug filing
for this kind of thing.
*** This bug is a security vulnerability ***
Public security bug reported:
Binary package hint: backuppc
The 5.12 release of Perl removes the suidperl binary, and therefore the
perl_5.12.3-6ubuntu4 package no longer includes the perl-suid package.
Oneiric will be migrating to Perl 5.12, and so
I believe this is now Fix Released, since it went into Natty (and I
can confirm that the application now works in Natty). I'll change the
status, but change back if any concerns.
** Changed in: tcltk-defaults (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid = Fix Released
** Changed in: tcltk-defaults (Ubuntu
*** This bug is a security vulnerability ***
Public security bug reported:
Binary package hint: backuppc
The 5.12 release of Perl removes the suidperl binary, and therefore the
perl_5.12.3-6ubuntu4 package no longer includes the perl-suid package.
Oneiric will be migrating to Perl 5.12, and so
This FTBFS is also a blocker for the Perl 5.12 transition. It doesn't
appear to be caused by the upgraded Perl version, but there's no way to
be sure until the FTBFS is resolved.
** Tags added: perl-5.12-transition
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
See also: http://orangesquash.org.uk/~laney/transitions/perl.html
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/771099
Title:
claws-mail-extra-plugins version 3.7.8-1ubuntu1 failed to build on
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: libcrypt-cbc-perl
Several packages are FTBFS in the Perl 5.12 rebuild on the armel and
powerpc architectures, with errors related to a dependency on libcrypt-
cbc-perl like:
** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
Build-Depends: debhelper (=
** Also affects: libcrypt-blowfish-perl (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: libcrypt-des-perl (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: libcrypt-twofish-perl (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this
Thanks to all who contributed to kicking off the Oneiric cycle by
brainstorming topics, drafting blueprints, participating in sessions in
person or remotely, taking notes, and more.
A few highlights for those who couldn't attend (or couldn't participate
in all 15 rooms at the same time):
/+files/kbd_1.15.2-3ubuntu1-UBUNTU.debdiff
** Changed in: kbd (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Allison Randal (allison) = (unassigned)
** Changed in: kbd (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress = Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu
Attaching debdiff between the Debian package of kbd 1.15.2-3 and the
merged Ubuntu package 1.15.2-3ubuntu1.
** Patch added: debdiff from current debian (unstable) version to merged
ubuntu package
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: kbd
The kbd package needs a manual merge between 1.15-1ubuntu5 and 1.15.2-3.
** Affects: kbd (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Allison Randal (allison)
Status: New
** Changed in: kbd (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned
I've been collecting links to different teams' planning work here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OneiricOcelot/Roadmaps
Feel free to add links to your team's planning page if I've missed you,
or to add items to the Summary page.
Conversion from general planning to blueprints is going well, we're
On 04/26/2011 11:53 AM, James Westby wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:23:52 +0100, John Rowland Lenton
john.len...@canonical.com wrote:
* if our projects switch to, say, python 4, then we'd be looking at
shipping python 4 to all supported ubuntus, including LTS'es.
I can see why you would
The Ubuntu One developers have an interesting technical conundrum that
would benefit greatly from all of your thoughts. They've started
collecting ideas, and would like to collect more, and hopefully settle
down on a plan for the next cycle in a UDS session.
The basic problem is in keeping a
On 04/07/2011 11:52 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
If this is a major issue, then frankly I'd rather just remove the
whitelist and allow all old-style systray applications than dropping
Unity by default completely.
Yup, holding the vision for the future while addressing practical
concerns doesn't
Curiously, if I run Gorilla remotely using SSH X11 forwarding, I get the
same problem (flash to bare desktop, no window), but if I leave the
application running for 2 minutes, suddenly the window appears,
disappears, and then appears and stays visible (with a flash to bare
desktop every time it
Confirmed, the app works just fine under metacity.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/743615
Title:
Tcl/Tk application can't display window on Ubuntu Natty (Unity or
Classic)
--
I've been running with intel_idle.max_cstate=0 enabled for over a week
now, with no recurrence of the earlier crashes, so I can recommend this
as a workaround for anyone with similar problems.
One odd side-effect: When I run the battery all the way down, where the
laptop would usually either
Yes, the problem is with Compiz on both Unity and Classic. It's only
metacity that avoids the problem.
** Summary changed:
- Tcl/Tk application can't display window on Ubuntu Natty with Unity
+ Tcl/Tk application can't display window on Ubuntu Natty (Unity or Classic)
--
You received this bug
On 03/26/2011 07:11 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
Please let me know if I missed the conversation elsewhere, or if the
feature was properly handled with a FFE, and I just missed that part.
Appropriate checks were made with appropriate people (including Release
Team members) before the change was
On 03/27/2011 06:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Where is this discussion documented?
This change affected multiple applications in a wide variety of contexts.
What is the 'individual application' that was affected?
Agreed that this change wasn't handled as transparently as it could have
Public bug reported:
I have a Tcl/Tk application that ran just fine on Maverick, Lucid, and
before, and has been running just fine on Natty (Unity and Classic)
until today. The application is not packaged for Ubuntu, but I'm
concerned that if this simple Tcl/Tk application has problems on Natty
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/743615
Title:
Tcl/Tk application can't display window on Ubuntu Natty (Unity or
Classic)
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
This appears to be related to LP: #709461
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/743615
Title:
Tcl/Tk application can't display window on Ubuntu Natty (Unity or
Classic)
--
ubuntu-bugs
xwininfo attached.
I should note that the first time I updated Ubuntu this morning, I was
getting a Compiz crash everytime I tried to run Gorilla, in addition to
all the behavior described above (it was reported right after the
desktop display returned). The second time I updated today, the
I seem to have a consistently repeatable instance of this bug, see LP
#743615
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/709461
Title:
Application windows can sometimes fail to display and will
UDS-O is fast approaching, and while we're all noses down getting Natty
out the door, blueprints for Oneiric aren't too far off. I've been
thinking lately about how we plan for UDS, and how we engage with
upstreams around that planning. This is partly based on the
brainstorming we did leading
Dustin and I spent a couple hours talking about this yesterday. This is
the best option we came up with as a short-term fix to make newt's color
palette configurable, instead of hard-coded into a C function (to avoid
forking the whole package when the patch to newt is only a few lines).
cjwatson wrote:
the alternative target needs to reside in /etc, not /usr -
otherwise the package effectively violates policy for /etc.
Good idea.
scottk wrote:
I'd suggest defaulting to the default we had at feature freeze
That's the intention, the default palette is the original one, and
Public bug reported:
I'm having trouble with random intermittent crashes on Natty (Classic
Desktop), on an Asus Eee PC 1015PEM-PU17. I've attached a screenshot of
the crash, apport didn't catch a crash report for it. It's a hard crash,
have to reboot. No apparent connection to any user action (I
** Attachment added: screenshot
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/735601/+attachment/1910344/+files/IMG_20110315_121221.jpg
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/735601
Title:
[STAGING]
devmem2 is packaged in universe for maverick and natty, is any further
action needed here?
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: New = Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/607752
On 02/20/2011 11:16 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
I think you need an upstream status field, for instance for
python-testtools which is single-source python 3.2+ compatible, but
may not be packaged thusly.
Ah, thanks, yes the field needs a clearer name. I've changed Notes to
Upstream Python 3
Matthias, Barry, and I are working on collecting information about
Python packages and when/whether they're planning to migrate to Python
3. Some of that information can only be collected manually, so we're
hoping to get some help. I've generated a wiki page of source packages
in main that
On 02/17/2011 12:08 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 06:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
1. From the LEP: Disabling dput uploads is not a nice to have. It's a
misfeature that violates (AIUI) one of the core assumptions given to Ubuntu
developers when this project was started: That we
The patches have been applied in Debian and re-released as 8.2.2. Kees
says he will sync as soon as the new packages show up in requestsync.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/697213
The Debian package patches the calendar source files to support Unicode
in the form of wide characters (wchar_t) in place of traditional chars.
In a few places, the patches don't completely replace the old char-like
behavior, or too aggressively try to use wchar-like behavior on old-
style char
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #610760
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610760
** Also affects: bsdmainutils via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610760
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you
This is caused by the recent version update bsdmainutils of 8.2.1 (Bug
#701597). Working on a fix.
** Changed in: bsdmainutils (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) = Allison Randal (allison)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: bsdmainutils
The 8.2.1 Debian release fixes Ubuntu bug #604366 reported in July 2010.
** Affects: bsdmainutils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Tech Board met again today and agreed on:
- Allow .desktop files to be installed outside /opt. This is the only
exception needed, and persia has a potential workaround for Maverick.
- In Natty, we'll modify Quickly, cdbs, python-support, and related
packages to support installation in /opt.
- For
On 11/18/2010 09:22 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
Philipp Kern [2010-11-17 11:35 +0100]:
FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to be
registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a registered string
(see [1]). So if you distribute the packages through
On 11/15/2010 05:53 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
The fortnightly Tech Board meeting is tomorrow, and the ARB is conscious
of the fact that we're already a couple weeks out from UDS, and still
blocking all applications in our queue. So we're submitting this for
discussion in the meeting
On 11/16/2010 11:38 AM, Rick Spencer wrote:
Does /opt/ubuntu/ perhaps suggest a bit of officialness or support
from the Ubuntu community, whereas these apps are specifically *not*
suppose to have such a connotation?
That was mentioned in the meeting. Also the possibility of going with
simply
We had a productive and fun week at UDS-N! Thanks to all who
participated on-site and remotely, or contributed ideas in advance on
the list. To help navigate the information overload, here are some
important highlights from the summit:
Package Selection and Defaults:
- In 11.04, Unity 3D will
The OOo upstream bug ticket is:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=110881
And they have a verified fix merged into the 3.3 beta from this commit:
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/rev/d8dfa7f2ced6
It may be possible to do a backport of the fix to 3.2.1 (it's a pretty
small
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: parrot
The Parrot 2.6 packages have been uploaded to Debian unstable:
https://buildd.debian.org/build.cgi?pkg=parrot
The packages made it into Debian in time for the FeatureFreeze, but
after DebianImportFreeze. I didn't get the sync request in soon
** Attachment added: NEWS changes since 2.3 release
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/634686/+attachment/1564397/+files/parrot_2.6_NEWS.diff
--
[FFE] sync Parrot version 2.6
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/634686
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
The Parrot 2.0 packages have now been uploaded to Debian unstable, ready
for sync:
https://buildd.debian.org/build.cgi?pkg=parrot
--
Feature Freeze exception for Parrot 2.0 sync
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/524203
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: parrot
Parrot 2.0 was released on January 19th, and I finished the Debian
packaging for it on Feb 7th. I was hoping one of our Debian sponsors
would be able to upload it in time to do a sync to Ubuntu before the
FeatureFreeze, but they didn't have time
** Attachment added: A diff of upstream change notices from 1.4 to 2.0
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/39385488/parrot-news.diff
--
Feature Freeze exception for Parrot 2.0 sync
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/524203
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
** Summary changed:
- Please merge parrot (1.4.0-1) from Debian unstable
+ Please sync parrot (1.4.0-1) from Debian unstable
--
Please sync parrot (1.4.0-1) from Debian unstable
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/404592
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Mmm, yes, I was thinking of it as a merge because the previous version
had Ubuntu changes.
I've attached the debdiff from the Debian package to the Ubuntu package.
** Attachment added: parrot_1.4.0-1ubuntu1.debdiff
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/29536654/parrot_1.4.0-1ubuntu1.debdiff
--
with Debian unstable.
* Removes lpia patch, upstream fix included in new release.
-- Allison Randal alli...@parrot.org Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:37:52 -0700
parrot (1.4.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
* debian/rules:
- New upstream configuration option --disable-rpath allows
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: parrot
Parrot 1.4.0 was released July 20, and the Debian packages were uploaded
today (July 25).
I've attached the diff.gz for the 1.4 packages for karmic, the original
tarball is at
** Attachment added: parrot_1.4.0-1ubuntu1.diff.gz
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/29517959/parrot_1.4.0-1ubuntu1.diff.gz
--
Please merge parrot (1.4.0-1) from Debian unstable
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/404592
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs,
Robert, thanks, that makes sense. So, I won't merge in Julien's changes
and submit a new .diff.gz/debdiff.
Julien, you can drop the - Remove Uploaders field. from your section
of the changelog, since I had already removed it in my packages. (I
don't think removing the Uploaders field gets a
This debdiff looks great, Julien, thanks!
--
Please merge parrot (1.0.0-1) from Debian unstable
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/219276
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Julien, thanks for the quilt patch, I'll merge that back upstream.
You lost a chunk of the changelog showing stable Ubuntu packages
produced over the last year+, which is unfortunate. Also, you readded
Uploaders to the Ubuntu control file, which only makes sense in
Debian. Otherwise, the debdiff
Okay, I've got it. Apparently on karmic, lpia builds with -Os by default
(thanks to Robert Collins for digging up that tip). Among other things,
-Os disables the -falign-functions optimization (in order to save
space). Parrot can build with or without aligned function pointers, but
it was
Great. I've attached the .diff.gz for the 1.0 packages. I integrated the
older Ubuntu packaging modifications back into the Debian packages, so
the only differences now are the changelog (which incorporates the full
Debian and Ubuntu packaging history), the control file (which lists MOTU
as the
The fix has been merged upstream, so it will appear in the next set of
Debian packages (1.4 in July this year). But I doubt I'd have much
success convincing Debian that they need to update the 1.0 packages with
a patch that only affects an Ubuntu distro version that hasn't even been
released yet.
Yes, that's a good idea. There is an rpath issue in the Debian packages
that I want to fix either with a patch, or with the updated packages for
the Parrot 1.4 in July (the issue is fixed in the latest monthly
developer release), but I can make those changes in Debian first,
leaving Ubuntu to
Hmm... well, it builds just fine and passes all tests in my karmic lpia
chroot. Perhaps it's something in the karmic PPA build environment?
--
Please sync parrot (1.0.0-1) from Debian unstable
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/219276
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
I've put Intrepid packages for Parrot 1.0 up on the parrot-dev PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~parrot-dev/+archive/ppa
We got Parrot 1.0 into Debian unstable. (Debian bug #444707 is closed in
bugs.debian.org, not sure why it's still listed as New here.)
It's really too late to get 1.0 into Ubuntu
101 - 172 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
