Re: SV: compatibility issue in environment-modules version 4.1.1-1
On 2019-05-08 14:07, Gösta Ljungdahl wrote: Hi, Gunnar, Tested editing /etc/profile.d/modules.sh to source /usr/share/modules/init/bash by default i.e. commented out the line . /usr/share/modules/init/sh and put in . /usr/share/modules/init/bash but it was not sufficient. Apparently dash comes in at a later stage. So it seems. There are probably a couple of pitfalls built-in in that program. Thanks for bringing the issue to the upstream maintainer! It would be great if you could get back here and let us know the outcome of the discussion/tests. -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Right way to submit patches for Ubuntu packages
Following up on this, it has been a couple weeks since the EE cycle started, but there doesn't seem to be any activity on that patch. Could it have something to do with the package seemingly tracking the GDB git version directly instead of Debian's packaging of it? Jonathan On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 7:08 PM Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 22:26, Jonathan Behrens wrote: > > > > I've been trying to get a two line patch merged for `gdb-multiarch`. > Debian accepted it almost right away, but subsequent releases for Ubuntu > haven't included it. About a month ago I tried submitting directly on > Launchpad but that has seemingly been ignored as well. Have I submitted the > patch incorrectly? Or is there some reason that it shouldn't be merged? > > > > Ubuntu normally merges packaging changes from Debian continuously > whilst the development is open up to the Debian Import Freeze / > Feature Freeze. Which for the Disco Dingo release was on 21st of > February. > I think your patch was uploaded into debian on the 22nd of February. > And whilst we do fix, merge and upload things post Feature Freeze it's > progressively more conservative / higher priority things. > I am afraid, that bugfix, possibly missed the 19.04 cycle by a day, > effectively. > Once we open EE cycle for development, I'm sure it will be merged into > Ubuntu then =/ > > Sorry about that. > > > -- > Regards, > > Dimitri. > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Licence Problem
The wallpaper Tramonto_a_Scalea_by_Renatvs88.jpg Is found under https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/all/ubuntu-wallpapers-wily/filelist But in the Copyright on the Right side there is this Picture not named. Is this a mistake or does this Picture not have the same Licence? What is the Licence of Tramonto a Scalea an where can I find it? When I follow the link Copyright I get this : Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Upstream-Name: ubuntu-wallpapers Source: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-wallpapers Files: 160218-deux-two_by_Pierre_Cante.jpg Black_hole_by_Marek_Koteluk.jpg Cielo_estrellado_by_Eduardo_Diez_Viñuela.jpg clock_by_Bernhard_Hanakam.jpg Dans_ma_bulle_by_Christophe_Weibel.jpg Flora_by_Marek_Koteluk.jpg Icy_Grass_by_Raymond_Lavoie.jpg Night_lights_by_Alberto_Salvia_Novella.jpg passion_flower_by_Irene_Gr.jpg TCP118v1_by_Tiziano_Consonni.jpg Copyright: Pierre Cante Marek Koteluk Eduardo Diez Viñuela Bernhard Hanakam Christophe Weibel Marek Koteluk Raymond Lavoie Alberto Salvia Novella Irene Gr Tiziano Consonni License: CC-BY-SA-2.0 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Files: Spring_by_Peter_Apas.jpg The_Land_of_Edonias_by_ΓιωÏγος_ΑÏγυÏοπουλος.jpg Copyright: Peter Apas ΓιωÏγος ΑÏγυÏοπουλος License: CC-BY-2.0 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Files: * debian/* warty-final-ubuntu.png Suru_Wallpaper_Desktop_4096x2304_Gray.png Copyright: 2004, Nathaniel McCallum 2006, Daniel Holbach 2010-2016 Ubuntu community contributors License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
SV: compatibility issue in environment-modules version 4.1.1-1
Hi, Gunnar!
No. I doubt that modules.sh is a Debian invention. A file with the exact same
content lives in the subdirectory .../init/ of the installation if done from
Sourceforge sources for the same version 4.1.1. There, however, its name is
profile.sh and it is suggested that a symlink modules.sh pointing to that file
be put in /etc/profile.d/ for on boot initialisation. Debian has moved the
entire file as it seems.
The corresponding file of current version 4.2.3 at Sourceforge is a bit more
elaborate and has the following content:
---
# get current shell name by querying shell variables or looking at parent
# process name
if [ -n "${BASH:-}" ]; then
shell=${BASH##*/}
elif [ -n "${ZSH_NAME:-}" ]; then
shell=$ZSH_NAME
else
shell=$(/usr/bin/basename $(/usr/bin/ps -p $$ -ocomm=))
fi
...
---
instead of just the last line in the else statement. I guess it boils down to
the same effect in Ubuntu or Mint as still the software is not correctly
initialised.
I am CC:ing this and will forward your findings to Xavier Delaruelle who is one
of the source maintainers. He wanted me to put in some tracing lines in various
files of the distro package which I will presently do. Hopefully, in the not
too distant future things will improve.
Cheers,
Gösta
Från: Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Skickat: den 8 maj 2019 02:40:38
Till: Gösta Ljungdahl; ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Ämne: Re: compatibility issue in environment-modules version 4.1.1-1
Hi again, Gösta!
I do not know how environment-modules is thought to work, but I did a
small test to figure out the starting point with sourcing the
/etc/profile.d/modules.sh file.
The first line in that file reads:
shell=$(/usr/bin/basename $(/bin/ps -p $$ -ocomm=))
I put that line in a temporary .sh file in /etc/profile.d on my machine,
and let it print the contents of the $shell variable.
* Doing a graphical login using LightDM made $shell be assigned the
value "lightdm-session" (the script which sources files in
/etc/profile.d is /usr/sbin/lightdm-session).
* Doing a graphical login using GDM made $shell be assigned the value
"Xsession" (the script which sources files in /etc/profile.d is
/etc/gdm3/Xsession).
* Logging in to a TTY made $shell be assigned the value "bash".
This means that in case of graphical logins, modules.sh will always pick
/usr/share/modules/init/sh for initialization. Its design is apparently
not thought for the kind of sourcing by the display manager which
happens on Ubuntu (and Ubuntu based) systems.
I suppose (not tested, though) that one way to work around this is to
edit modules.sh so it sources /usr/share/modules/init/bash by default
instead of /usr/share/modules/init/sh . Your initial solution, i.e.
making the /bin/sh symlink point to bash instead of dash, is another way.
At this time I don't think that my initial theory (editing
/usr/sbin/lightdm-session) makes a difference.
If you find that editing modules.sh as I suggested fixes the issue, I'd
say that we have nailed the cause of the problem. modules.sh seems to be
a Debian invention, so in that case I'd suggest that you report it
there. Hopefully the Debian maintainer is willing to make modules.sh a
bit more intelligent. :)
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
SV: compatibility issue in environment-modules version 4.1.1-1
Hi, Gunnar,
Tested editing /etc/profile.d/modules.sh to source /usr/share/modules/init/bash
by default i.e. commented out the line
. /usr/share/modules/init/sh
and put in
. /usr/share/modules/init/bash
but it was not sufficient. Apparently dash comes in at a later stage.
Cheers,
Gösta
Från: Gösta Ljungdahl
Skickat: den 8 maj 2019 11:26:29
Till: Gunnar Hjalmarsson; ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Ämne: SV: compatibility issue in environment-modules version 4.1.1-1
Hi, Gunnar!
No. I doubt that modules.sh is a Debian invention. A file with the exact same
content lives in the subdirectory .../init/ of the installation if done from
Sourceforge sources for the same version 4.1.1. There, however, its name is
profile.sh and it is suggested that a symlink modules.sh pointing to that file
be put in /etc/profile.d/ for on boot initialisation. Debian has moved the
entire file as it seems.
The corresponding file of current version 4.2.3 at Sourceforge is a bit more
elaborate and has the following content:
---
# get current shell name by querying shell variables or looking at parent
# process name
if [ -n "${BASH:-}" ]; then
shell=${BASH##*/}
elif [ -n "${ZSH_NAME:-}" ]; then
shell=$ZSH_NAME
else
shell=$(/usr/bin/basename $(/usr/bin/ps -p $$ -ocomm=))
fi
...
---
instead of just the last line in the else statement. I guess it boils down to
the same effect in Ubuntu or Mint as still the software is not correctly
initialised.
I am CC:ing this and will forward your findings to Xavier Delaruelle who is one
of the source maintainers. He wanted me to put in some tracing lines in various
files of the distro package which I will presently do. Hopefully, in the not
too distant future things will improve.
Cheers,
Gösta
Från: Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Skickat: den 8 maj 2019 02:40:38
Till: Gösta Ljungdahl; ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Ämne: Re: compatibility issue in environment-modules version 4.1.1-1
Hi again, Gösta!
I do not know how environment-modules is thought to work, but I did a
small test to figure out the starting point with sourcing the
/etc/profile.d/modules.sh file.
The first line in that file reads:
shell=$(/usr/bin/basename $(/bin/ps -p $$ -ocomm=))
I put that line in a temporary .sh file in /etc/profile.d on my machine,
and let it print the contents of the $shell variable.
* Doing a graphical login using LightDM made $shell be assigned the
value "lightdm-session" (the script which sources files in
/etc/profile.d is /usr/sbin/lightdm-session).
* Doing a graphical login using GDM made $shell be assigned the value
"Xsession" (the script which sources files in /etc/profile.d is
/etc/gdm3/Xsession).
* Logging in to a TTY made $shell be assigned the value "bash".
This means that in case of graphical logins, modules.sh will always pick
/usr/share/modules/init/sh for initialization. Its design is apparently
not thought for the kind of sourcing by the display manager which
happens on Ubuntu (and Ubuntu based) systems.
I suppose (not tested, though) that one way to work around this is to
edit modules.sh so it sources /usr/share/modules/init/bash by default
instead of /usr/share/modules/init/sh . Your initial solution, i.e.
making the /bin/sh symlink point to bash instead of dash, is another way.
At this time I don't think that my initial theory (editing
/usr/sbin/lightdm-session) makes a difference.
If you find that editing modules.sh as I suggested fixes the issue, I'd
say that we have nailed the cause of the problem. modules.sh seems to be
a Debian invention, so in that case I'd suggest that you report it
there. Hopefully the Debian maintainer is willing to make modules.sh a
bit more intelligent. :)
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Licence Problem
On Wed, 8 May 2019 17:46:01 +0200, Jörg Abel wrote: >The wallpaper Tramonto_a_Scalea_by_Renatvs88.jpg >Is found under >https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/all/ubuntu-wallpapers-wily/filelist > But in the Copyright on the Right side there is this Picture not > named. Is this a mistake or does this Picture not have the same > Licence? What is the Licence of Tramonto a Scalea an where can I find > it? Notice that the last stanza has "Files: *" which would cover this file too if it isn't listed anywhere else. Under you can see that it's license is CC-BY-SA-3.0. I don't know why some files are listed below the *, they should all be included in this. -- Andreas Rönnquist mailingli...@gusnan.se andr...@ronnquist.net -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
