I don't see a report so I presume this is OK to release?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to mutter in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2015861
Title:
cursor does not track window when dragging between monitors with
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-shell has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encount
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a r
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a r
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a r
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a r
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a r
The verification of the Stable Release Update for mutter has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a r
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-shell has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encount
> Therefore, the crash is fixed even though there is still a remaining
bug.
Does this bug need reopening then, or a new bug filed? I leave that up
to you - setting Incomplete for now since that's better than Fix
Released and this being forgotten.
** Changed in: gnome-shell (Ubuntu Lunar)
S
I think this should probably be fixed in SRUs together with bug 2006110
and verified together. See my comment 6 there for further comment.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to appstream-glib in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.ne
Just driving past while someone mentioned it and and trying to help this
along.
I suggest that you combine this with bug 2023215 and arrange a
comprehensive Test Plan which verifies that both issues are fixed as
well and that "normal" use cases (whatever they might be - I don't know)
aren't regres
Please also adjust the bug title to describe what the actual problem is
that you're fixing. Depending on what that is, it may be appropriate to
mark one bug as a dupe of the other (or not if they then describe
obviously separate things).
It's fine if they end up distinct but with a single Test Pla
Thank you for the report. I noted this in
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/Mutter for future updates
that rely on the exception. Would it be appropriate to add this Test
Plan to future mutter updates that are based on the exception? If so,
please could you amend the wiki? Thanks!
--
An upload of gnome-session to jammy-proposed has been rejected from the
upload queue for the following reason: "Questions in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-session/+bug/1970424
oustanding for two months".
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
P
An upload of jansson to jammy-proposed has been rejected from the upload
queue for the following reason: "Questions in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/jansson/+bug/1987678 remain
unresolved after many months".
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Pac
** Description changed:
[ Impact ]
That's the GNOME 42 stable update, including some fixes:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gjs/-/commits/1.72.4
[ Test case ]
The update is part of GNOME stable updates
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/GNOME
- Gjs applications (su
This looks good. Accepting, but subject to test plan review. See
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/scope-of-gnome-mru/18041/61?u=rbasak.
It's probably worth waiting on SRU verification until the test plan is
approved.
** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-jammy
--
You received this
Hello Marco, or anyone else affected,
Accepted gjs into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gjs/1.72.4-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wi
Hello Vladimir, or anyone else affected,
Accepted gjs into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gjs/1.72.4-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 in a
few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https:/
Accepting, thanks. FTR, I think it's fine to have made improvements in
testing without a separate SRU bug. I have reviewed this change and
testing looks objectively better now.
** Changed in: gnome-remote-desktop (Ubuntu Jammy)
Status: In Progress => Fix Committed
** Tags added: verificati
Hello Jeremy, or anyone else affected,
Accepted gnome-remote-desktop into jammy-proposed. The package will
build now and be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-remote-
desktop/42.8-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us by testing
I'm accepting as this question can be resolved after accept but before
release.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to gnome-remote-desktop in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2024240
Title:
[rdp] gnome-remote-desktop-d
Hello errors.ubuntu.com, or anyone else affected,
Accepted gnome-remote-desktop into jammy-proposed. The package will
build now and be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-remote-
desktop/42.8-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us
(and it's a current topic in the ubuntu-release@ thread, so sort of
unresolved generally)
** Changed in: gnome-remote-desktop (Ubuntu Jammy)
Status: Incomplete => Fix Committed
** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-jammy
--
You received this bug notification because you
Hello errors.ubuntu.com, or anyone else affected,
Accepted gnome-remote-desktop into jammy-proposed. The package will
build now and be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-remote-
desktop/42.8-0ubuntu0.22.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-remote-desktop
has completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that yo
I think it's OK to skip Kinetic if you don't want to proceed with it.
However, what are the implications of that severe regression for the QA
process for other releases? Are there QA gaps that could also affect a
release into Jammy, for example? Is it worth investigating the Kinetic
failure furthe
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gjs has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a regr
Accepting into Jammy. I can see that the code changes appear already
present in lunar-proposed. Please could you confirm the status of the
fix in lunar-updates please, so we can avoid introducing a regression
when users upgrade?
On test plans, I see both this bug and the other one will be
individu
Hello Daniel, or anyone else affected,
Accepted mutter into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mutter/42.9-0ubuntu2
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wiki.
Hello Fabio, or anyone else affected,
Accepted mutter into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mutter/42.9-0ubuntu2
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wiki.u
Releasing this to Jammy is blocked on understanding what happened with
Kinetic. Not necessarily for the Kinetic release, but I think we should
understand what happened first in case it has implications for Jammy.
** Tags removed: verification-done-focal verification-done-jammy
verification-needed
Thank you for the detailed analysis! So to make sure I understand: we
think adsys 0.9.2 was broken in Kinetic all along due to some problem at
the Kerberos end. You isolated this issue to outside adsys using
ldbsearch. This issue with ldbsearch does not occur with Jammy. So
you're confident that th
Thank you for the verification jenhsun!
There was also a plan to carry out testing as documented at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/RemoteDesktop. See the
plan in the bug description above. Was this done? If so, please document
that and flip the tag back.
** Tags removed: verificati
Thank you for the report. It would be smoothest if upstream released a
version with that change. I see that is requested in
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/desktop-file-utils/-/issues/69
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #1041654
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1041654
Hello Gunnar, or anyone else affected,
Accepted im-config into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and
be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/im-
config/0.50-2ubuntu22.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
Gunnar, I suspect you know more about this area than anyone else in
Ubuntu at the moment. So accepting on the basis that you think it makes
sense to make this change. I do agree that the bug is significant enough
for SRU.
But please could you expand the Test Plan to check for inadvertent
regressio
Could you please confirm that this fix isn't relevant for releases after
Focal - ie. that the necessary API exists in Jammy onwards? It may be
that you implied this already, but the bug status isn't set separately
and I can't find anything that states this unambiguously so I want to
make sure it is
> What Could Go Wrong
Adding a dependency can cause unintended side effects. For example,
users may now (directly or indirectly) pull in a package that conflicts
with something else they have installed. Have you looked for these? Does
the alternative provided definitely cover all cases?
> I belie
Marking as Incomplete for the benefit of SRU reviewers. Please set back
once my questions are answered.
** Changed in: gnome-session (Ubuntu Jammy)
Status: In Progress => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to
In the meantime, please could you confirm what [sorry, that's ambiguous;
I mean *how*] you tested?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
glib not aware of snap
Thanks. I agree and I've added a hint. This should hopefully clear the
flag on the next (Jammy) britney run.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to glib2.0 in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1998267
Title:
glib not awa
> bug added by the previous revision
Tagging regression-update then, FTR, for future regression risk
analysis.
> That fix isn't relevant for releases after Focal; The necessary API
exists for Jammy onwards.
OK thanks. Then the correct bug task status for Jammy onwards is Invalid
or maybe Fix Rel
The verification of the Stable Release Update for nautilus has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for nautilus has completed
successfully and the package is now being released to -updates.
Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encounter a
The verification of the Stable Release Update for libreoffice has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encount
Currently the version of adsys in Mantic is 0.13.1ubuntu0.1, which is
lower than the version in Jammy Unapproved. What's your plan for Mantic
and/or users upgrading to Mantic please?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to adsys i
OK, thanks. I guess we can review the Jammy upload for now then on the
assumption that the Mantic upload won't have substantial changes until
it arrives in the queue.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to adsys in Ubuntu.
https:
From #ubuntu-release, Jeremy suggested that this needs doing before the
language packs are generated for 24.04.1.
** Changed in: gsettings-desktop-schemas (Ubuntu Noble)
Milestone: None => ubuntu-24.04.1
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, whic
Hello Sebastien, or anyone else affected,
Accepted gnome-control-center into noble-proposed. The package will
build now and be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-
center/1:46.3-0ubuntu0.24.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us by te
Hello Jeremy, or anyone else affected,
Accepted gnome-control-center into noble-proposed. The package will
build now and be available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-
center/1:46.3-0ubuntu0.24.04.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us by testi
> +# Race condition may happen and the test fails. This only happens in
> Jammy containers.
> +# Disable the test for now.
> +return
I don't think it's appropriate to disable a test without an analysis
that considers what it was testing, how to mitigate the gap created by
SRU review: it looks like the test being disabled was first introduced
in 1:0.9.5.1 and was related to an FTBFS fix. However, it doesn't seem
to be testing the actual payload, but its own test setup. I don't see a
way that disabling this test would cause a false negative, so it appears
to be a no-o
From IRC (#ubuntu-release):
13:14 tjaalton: for bug 2060268, are there any cases where the
udev rule would be triggered but is the wrong thing to do? How certain
are we on that point?
13:14 tjaalton: presumably the Test Plan should specify testing
on particular hardware? That needs adjusting. B
An upload of libmbim to noble-proposed has been rejected from the upload
queue for the following reason: "Rejecting as agreed with @kchsieh,
pending the full SRU.".
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to libmbim in Ubuntu.
https:
I'm rejecting two uploads for Noble because they collide between bug
2077746 and bug 2025006 (amongst others). Please coordinate and re-
upload just one SRU at once (possibly squashing multiple fixes together
as you wish).
** Changed in: mutter (Ubuntu Noble)
Status: In Progress => Triaged
I'm rejecting two uploads for Noble because they collide between bug
2077746 and bug 2025006 (amongst others). Please coordinate and re-
upload just one SRU at once (possibly squashing multiple fixes together
as you wish).
** Changed in: mutter (Ubuntu Noble)
Status: In Progress => Triaged
OK, but how does this relate to the upload in Jammy unapproved that
disables the test outright?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-drivers-common in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2077654
Title:
Race condit
The verification of the Stable Release Update for libreoffice has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encount
Thank you for contributing this fix!
Could you please expand on the Test Plan?
For manual testing, what are the exact steps that a user would perform,
what results would indicate that the bug is present, and what results
would indicate that the bug is fixed? For example, I don't see a command
to
> The patch doesn't include the new test cases, but it does include all
the old ones, which should demonstrate that there is no regression.
OK, but doesn't that just leave a problem behind for the next person who
tries to do an SRU to this package? Can't we just include the tests?
--
You receive
** Summary changed:
- SRU request: qpdf: data loss bug affecting versions 11.0.0 through 11.6.2
+ Data loss: qpdf discards the character in a binary string following an octal
quoted character with 1 or 2 digits
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages,
Hello Jay, or anyone else affected,
Accepted qpdf into mantic-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/11.5.0-1ubuntu1
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wiki.ubun
Hello Jay, or anyone else affected,
Accepted qpdf into lunar-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qpdf/11.3.0-1ubuntu1
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wiki.ubunt
Thank you for the discussion. On balance I think what you've said makes
sense and it's not worth going further, but I think it's important to
have the trade-offs and choices documented here and that's done now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, wh
The development release isn't open yet. We will need to sync across from
Debian when it opens. I am subscribed to this bug. Feel free to ping me
here if it's not been done in a few weeks.
** Changed in: qpdf (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Triaged
--
You received this bug notification becau
I understand that qpdf in Noble will auto-sync when Noble opens.
** Changed in: qpdf (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to qpdf in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2039804
Could someone also test the proposed fix for Lunar please, and report
the version tested? Otherwise releasing the fix for Jammy will result in
users being regressed if upgrading from Jammy to Lunar.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subsc
> It is unlikely but possible that the removal of the raspi binary
package from this source package will have inadvertently modified the
contents of the other remaining binary packages.
It might be worth running a binary debdiff for SRU verification then,
against the binary packages built in propo
Hello Steve, or anyone else affected,
Accepted ubuntu-settings into mantic-proposed. The package will build
now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-
settings/23.10.5.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. Se
The verification of the Stable Release Update for fonts-noto-color-emoji
has completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that
The removal of pptpd seems like something that should be release noted
to me, to give enquiring users somewhere to refer to.
** Also affects: ubuntu-release-notes
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which
** Tags removed: verification-needed verification-needed-lunar
** Tags added: verification-done verification-done-lunar
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to transmission in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973084
Title
The verification of the Stable Release Update for gnome-shell has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encount
Rejecting from the Unapproved queues as Steve's request above has not
been addressed in over a month.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to chromium-browser in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2007702
Title:
[SRU] Deb
Hello Daniel, or anyone else affected,
Accepted mutter into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mutter/42.9-0ubuntu7
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wiki.
Hello Daniel, or anyone else affected,
Accepted mutter into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mutter/42.9-0ubuntu7
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wiki.
Hello Kai-Heng, or anyone else affected,
Accepted mutter into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mutter/42.9-0ubuntu7
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wik
Hello Daniel, or anyone else affected,
Accepted mutter into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mutter/42.9-0ubuntu7
in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://wiki.
Thank you for working on this!
> Can I suggest ubuntu adds the debian delta as well as the ubuntu delta
patch as part of this sync & merge
Sorry, I don't follow. It looks like lp-2037569-skip-
bd_part_get_disk_spec.patch is part of the Ubuntu delta uploaded in
ubuntu1. A sync would drop this, but
The verification of the Stable Release Update for libreoffice has
completed successfully and the package is now being released to
-updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being
unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In
the event that you encount
regression-updates based on duplicate report
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pipewire/+bug/1995358
** Tags added: regression-update
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to gnome-shell in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.n
@vanvugt what about pipewire in Jammy? Based on the duplicate report,
isn't this a regression in Jammy?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to gnome-shell in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1987631
Title:
Screencast on
Hello Robie, or anyone else affected,
Accepted pipewire into jammy-proposed. The package will build now and be
available at
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pipewire/0.3.48-1ubuntu3 in a few
hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
https://
Public bug reported:
The SRU in bug 1985057 resulted in regression reports, including bug
1987631, currently marked as duplicates bug 1993912 and bug 1995358, and
possibly bug 1994928. It's clear that we need to revert, but I don't
want the metadata to close all of those regression bugs since it i
Thanks. I accepted the upload but changed the bug reference to point to
bug 1996148 instead, since landing the revert shouldn't close this bug.
I'll reopen this bug since the revert reverts it.
** Changed in: pipewire (Ubuntu Jammy)
Status: Fix Released => Triaged
--
You received this bug
Possibly fixed in jammy-proposed with bug 1996148. If this fixes this
for you, please let us know.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to gnome-shell in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1987631
Title:
Screencast only re
OK, so to make sure I understand: nothing in the archive is directly
affected by this bug. But if a user builds their own thing with both
jansson and json-c, then the symbol conflict arises.
I think this is still fine in principle to SRU, but I would like your
out-of-archive component (vvas) teste
> 3) the other minor changes in the new upstream release all seemed
conservative fixes addressing simple issues that seemed LTS worthy (some
even seemed to border on improving the security of some functions)
The catch is that these changes then need individual review and
consideration as to whethe
Thank you for the verification, and for leaving the note about glib2.0.
I think this package is fine to release, but I believe it's blocked on
the verification and autopkgtest failure analysis of glib2.0 in bug
1999098? Otherwise AIUI the package would become uninstallable?
--
You received this b
Thank you for working on this!
What's the plan for Kinetic? Please see:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Newer_Releases
If the goal is to make Sinhala text more readable on Ubuntu, please
could you make that an additional part of the Test Plan, instead of only
checking the order of ou
Thank you for the updates! It looks like you responded appropriately to
all of my points, but I'd like to clarify one thing about version
numbers and Kinetic.
> If a user with an updated jammy (including this fix) upgrades to
kinetic, they will still have version 0.219.1 of the language-selector-*
Hello Aurora, or anyone else affected,
Accepted language-selector into kinetic-proposed. The package will build
now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/language-
selector/0.219.22.10.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed
repository.
Please help us by testing this new pa
Hello Aurora, or anyone else affected,
Accepted language-selector into jammy-proposed. The package will build
now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/language-
selector/0.219.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package.
Accepting. I see that the change is scoped to
"[org.gnome.desktop.background:GNOME-Greeter]" so I guess there's low
likelyhood of impact outside that, but for testing, to what extent do we
need to consider other flavours that use gnome-greeter?
** Tags added: verification-needed verification-neede
Hello Matthew, or anyone else affected,
Accepted ubuntu-settings into noble-proposed. The package will build now
and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-
settings/24.04.5 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See
Ubuntu has 2.4.6-3ubuntu1 in Vivid, which is greater than
2.4.5+git20130610-1 so I presume this is fixed now.
** Changed in: ppp (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to ppp in Ubu
Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make
Ubuntu better.
Reassinging to redland-bindings as you've identified the problem to be
there. Sorry, I don't have instructions to give you to collect a core
dump for Apache specifically.
** Package changed: apache2 (Ubuntu) => re
> ctually, it'll probably be cleaner to hold on for a short time until
the Debian maintainer has released the package in the Unstable branch...
Are you sure that the Debian maintainer is planning to do this? Since
Debian is in freeze, it's often easier to not upload something to
unstable that will
1 - 100 of 608 matches
Mail list logo
