[Bug 312773] [NEW] b43-fwcutter should depend on bzip2, not recommend it
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: b43-fwcutter As mentioned in the changelog: install_bcm43xx_firmware.sh does a tar xfvj But, the package installation will *fail* if bzip2 is not installed on the system. According to the debian policy: "The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or postrm scripts require the package to be present in order to run." ** Affects: b43-fwcutter (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- b43-fwcutter should depend on bzip2, not recommend it https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312773 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 47643] Re: Alt + Tab freezes progress bar
We came across a similar issue, might be the same. Our installer (di-live) uses debconf to interact with the user, which in turn uses the available debconf frontend, which happens to be whiptail (ie. newt). When the key combination ALT + *anykey* (not only tab) is pressed, whiptail will exit with code 255. This is easily reproducable at the prompt: $ whiptail --yesno test 20 50; echo $? press ALT + *anykey* BTW - the same issue is present in dialog, so the problem is probably not in newt itself... -- Alt + Tab freezes progress bar https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/47643 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is a direct subscriber. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 315175] [NEW] apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: apt == Summary == apt will attempt to downgrade an installed package if the pin-priority of the package is greater than 99. apt will not downgrade when pin-priorty is 99 or below because the already installed package automatically gets a priority of 100. According to the apt_preferences manpage (mentioned several times), apt will *never* downgrade a package unless the priority of an available version exceeds 1000. == Details == My testing system: Ubuntu 8.04.1 (Hardy) apt 0.7.9ubuntu17.1 for i386 compiled on Oct 27 2008 18:11:08 Reproducing the issue is simple, as described below (I have chosen base- files as its a small package without any build-deps, but any package will do). # dpkg -s base-files |grep Version Version: 4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.3 # grep deb-src /etc/apt/sources.list.d/sources.list deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy-updates main # apt-get source base-files dpkg-source: extracting base-files in base-files-4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.3 dpkg-source: unpacking base-files_4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.3.tar.gz # head debian/changelog base-files (4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.3-1) hardy-proposed; urgency=low * testing pinning issue -- Alon Swartz Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 + # dpkg-buildpackage -b -tc # dpkg -i base-files_4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.3-1_i386.deb Setting up base-files (4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.3-1) ... # dpkg -s base-files |grep Version Version: 4.0.1ubuntu5.8.04.3-1 # cat > /etc/apt/preferences <http://archive.ubuntu.com hardy-updates/main Packages 4.0.1ubuntu5 999 500 http://archive.ubuntu.com hardy/main Packages # apt-get install base-files The following packages will be DOWNGRADED: base-files In other words, apt wants to downgrade a package even though the pin-priority is less than 1000, which goes against all the documentation. Is this a bug in apt, a bug in the documentation, or am I mis- understanding something? ** Affects: apt (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/315175 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 315175] Re: apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000
"Package: name*" also does not reproduce the bug, but ofcourse will have the side effect of pinning any package that matches name* -- apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/315175 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 550307] [NEW] Mixed distribution repository pinning with slimmed down sources.list produces unwanted results
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: apt In a nutshell, we build appliances based on Ubuntu LTS (pinned with priority 650). Some appliances include selected packages from Debian stable, pinned with a higher priority (700) than Ubuntu, and all other Debian packages pinned lower (650) than Ubuntu. Under regular circumstances, the above pinning results in the expected behavior. Recently we discovered that our auto security update configuration [1] installs packages from Debian which should not be installed, as they have a lower priority than Ubuntu. It seems to do this due to several factors, the main one being that the sources.list specified in the security update includes newer Debian packages that don't exist in the Ubuntu security repository. An example might explain the above more clearly: Tested on: turnkey-mysql-2009.10-hardy-x86 (I.e. Ubuntu LTS - Hardy) apt 0.7.9ubuntu17.2 /etc/apt/preferences Package: phpmyadmin* Pin: release o=Debian Pin-Priority: 700 Package: * Pin: release o=Ubuntu Pin-Priority: 650 Package: * Pin: release o=Debian Pin-Priority: 600 Note, phpmyadmin includes an asterisk to workaround the bug: APT wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000 [2]. /etc/apt/sources.list.d/security.sources.list deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy-security main deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy-security universe deb http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main apt-get dist-upgrade -s -o APT::Get::Show-Upgraded=true -o Dir::Etc::sourcelist=/etc/apt/sources.list.d/security.sources.list -o Dir::Etc::sourceparts=nonexistent |grep Debian Inst libc6-dev [2.7-10ubuntu5] (2.7-18lenny2 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) [] Inst libc6 [2.7-10ubuntu5] (2.7-18lenny2 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) Conf libc6 (2.7-18lenny2 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) Inst libltdl3 [1.5.26-1ubuntu1] (1.5.26-4+lenny1 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) Inst phpmyadmin [4:2.11.8.1-5+lenny1] (4:2.11.8.1-5+lenny3 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) Conf libc6-dev (2.7-18lenny2 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) Conf libltdl3 (1.5.26-4+lenny1 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) Conf phpmyadmin (4:2.11.8.1-5+lenny3 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) The desired behavior should only be installing phpmyadmin. If all sources.list's are used, then only the pinned Debian packages will be upgraded (as expected), but with the unwanted side effect that newer packages available in Ubuntu will be installed, which are not necessarily security updates. /etc/apt/sources.list.d/sources.list deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy main deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy-updates main deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy-updates universe apt-get dist-upgrade -s -o APT::Get::Show-Upgraded=true |grep Debian Inst phpmyadmin [4:2.11.8.1-5+lenny1] (4:2.11.8.1-5+lenny3 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) Conf phpmyadmin (4:2.11.8.1-5+lenny3 Debian-Security:5.0/stable) In the search for a workaround: Changing the Debian release priority to 99 will not install any Debian updates (phpmyadmin), even though it is pinned with a high priority. But, in addition to dropping the Debian priority, if we also remove the asterisk (phpmyadmin* -> phpmyadmin), we are able to produce the desired behavior. Is this a bug? A few bugs? Or am I missing something painfully obvious? [1] http://www.turnkeylinux.org/docs/automatic-security-updates [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/315175 ** Affects: apt (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- Mixed distribution repository pinning with slimmed down sources.list produces unwanted results https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/550307 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 591213] [NEW] missing dependency: file
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: casper version: 1.236 tested: custom bootstrapped lucid The binary "file" is used in /etc/init.d/casper to cache files prior to ejecting the CD when the system is going down. If the package "file" is not installed, the following error will be displayed while performing tests whether to cache the file or not: /etc/rc0.d/S89casper - 136 file not found I assume that "file" is included in either the seeds or the vanilla debootstrap (I haven't investigated), but I use neither. Seeing as casper relies on "file", it should be included as a dependency. ** Affects: casper (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- missing dependency: file https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/591213 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 315175] Re: apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000
I have just reproduced this issue on squeeze, and will be submitting a bug report to debian. -- apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/315175 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 315175] Re: apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000
Submitted to Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543966 ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #543966 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543966 -- apt wants to downgrade packages with pin-priority less than 1000 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/315175 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 567043] Re: [SRU] [lucid] php5 segfault when calling mysqli_options()
While installing Gallery2 on Lucid, php5 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.5, the following error is displayed several hundred times - as explained in #569865 (which was marked as a duplicate of this bug). Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /usr/share/gallery2/modules/core/classes/GalleryStorage.class Regression from 5.3.2-1ubuntu4.1? Different bug? -- [SRU] [lucid] php5 segfault when calling mysqli_options() https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/567043 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 682831] Re: lost console output early in boot
I was tracking down this exact same bug today when I came across this bug report. I can confirm that adding "xencons=hvc0" works around the issue on Lucid based builds, thanks Scott! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/682831 Title: lost console output early in boot -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 594340] Re: [ebsmount] enabling of ebsmount has security concerns and side effects
Version 0.93 [1] solves the hooks issue. As discussed in the changelog, execution of hooks have been disabled by default. To enable them, RUNHOOKS=True needs to be set in /etc/ebsmount.conf. Additionally, hook scripts won't be executed if they are not owned by root (uid and gid). This release also sets MOUNTPOINT in the environment when executing the hook scripts for convenience. Also, ext4 has been added to FILESYSTEMS for out-of-the-box support. [1] https://github.com/turnkeylinux/ebsmount -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/594340 Title: [ebsmount] enabling of ebsmount has security concerns and side effects -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 594340] Re: [ebsmount] enabling of ebsmount has security concerns and side effects
Scratch that - version 0.94 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/594340 Title: [ebsmount] enabling of ebsmount has security concerns and side effects -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 568306] Re: Double-exit counterintuitive when running byobu at login
Fix confirmed to work (from lucid-proposed). Tested on: turnkey-core-beta (based on Lucid Lynx). TurnKey appliances are in the process of being upgraded to be based on Lucid Lynx. Byobu is being included by default and configured to auto- launch (at least during the beta, awaiting user feedback). During testing, this bug was really annoying, and after talking to Dustin and heard he had fixed this, I was relieved. The bug is minor, but can become a major annoyance. +1 to be included in 10.04.1 -- Double-exit counterintuitive when running byobu at login https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/568306 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 580384] Re: byobu-launcher-install doesn't create the directory it needs
Fix confirmed to work (from lucid-proposed). Tested on: turnkey-core-beta (based on Lucid Lynx). -- byobu-launcher-install doesn't create the directory it needs https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/580384 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
