** Changed in: network-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: Expired => New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1964100
Title:
Cannot connect to open WLAN wit
Resubscribing ubuntu-sponsors as I've had no response from the mailing
list
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to busybox in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2022927
Title:
Busybox mount fails to mount Snap
As far as I can tell we are facing this issue:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/25813
This was fixed in systemd 253 with the following patch
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/ab3aed4a0349bbaa26f53340770c1b59b463e05d
(and
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/2f96a29c2c55bdd67c
>From https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/systemd.network.5.html
If RequiredForOnline=no is set, systemd-networkd-wait-online should skip
the interface:
The network will be brought up normally (as configured by
ActivationPolicy=), but in the event that there is no address
being
Copying from my comment
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/2036358/comments/43
systemd 249.11-0ubuntu3.11 doesn't resolve the issue I'm facing (this
one). The long delay seems to be caused by systemd-networkd-wait-online
not respecting "RequiredForOnline=no".
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$
systemd 249.11-0ubuntu3.11 does *not* solve the issue for me. I seem to
be running into the same situation as Werner in #32 where `optional:
true` from the netplan config is not being respected.
systemd-networkd-wait-online seems to ignore `RequiredForOnline=no` in
the .network config.
Netplan co
@paelzer unfortunately I've had no response yet from the mailing list
regarding this...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to busybox in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2022927
Title:
Busybox mount fails t
Thanks @paelzer I'll try to follow it up on the BB mailing list
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to busybox in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2022927
Title:
Busybox mount fails to mount Snaps
Status in
Hi Lucas, thanks for the assistance.
Here's the .debdiff without the ~ppa2 suffix. I opted to go with ubuntu2
because it's not really a security fix, so I wasn't sure if it's really
appropriate to add the security .1 suffix.
The .debdiff is valid for both lunar and mantic, as mantic is still
usin
.debdiff for the new version "1:1.35.0-4ubuntu2~ppa2" attached. I've
also updated the configs to include the change by default.
The built packages are available here: https://launchpad.net/~nemos-
team/+archive/ubuntu/ppa
Test results:
(lunar-amd64)itrue@Isaac-Laptop:~/tmp$ sudo busybox mount -t
Hi Bryce,
Great, thanks for the advice. I've made the changes you requested (and
updated the patch after I realised it was an older version...) and I'm
testing it now.
I'll upload the .debdiff once I'm done.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded p
Public bug reported:
Snapd tries to mount squashfs Snaps with non-standard mount flags like
"x-gdu.hide" and "x-gvfs-hide", both of which are used to indicate to
userspace programs that a given mount should not be shown in a list of
mounted partitions/filesystems. Busybox does not support these fl
Hi Łukasz,
Thanks for the update. What's the status of the focal SRU? That's the
time-critical one for our customer.
Cheers,
Isaac
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.ne
Hi Ijlal,
That's correct - the SRU to focal (and thus core 20) is the important
one for the customer.
Cheers,
Isaac
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apparmor in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1994146
Hi Steve,
Just wanted to mention that this is a very time-critical feature
requirement for one of our customers on Core 20, so we would really
appreciate this if you could please treat this as very high priority.
Please feel free to reach out to me on MM if you have any questions.
Cheers,
Isaac
Prebuilt packages for riscv64 are available in this PPA:
https://launchpad.net/~itrue/+archive/ubuntu/mesa-riscv64
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to mesa in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1995137
Title:
** Summary changed:
- "sun4i-drm_dri.so" is missing from libg1-mesa-dri on riscv64
+ Add "sun4i-drm_dri.so" and fix compilation of libg1-mesa-dri on riscv64
** Summary changed:
- Add "sun4i-drm_dri.so" and fix compilation of libg1-mesa-dri on riscv64
+ Add "sun4i-drm_dri.so" to libg1-mesa-dri an
The attached patch disables usage of LLVM JIT on riscv64, which was
causing the error I reported in comment #3.
I obtained this patch from the following Debian bug report:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004039
This patch, combined with the previous one, seems to work well on t
Using this library results in the following error:
'generic' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor)
'generic' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor)
WARNING: This target JIT is not designed for the host you are running. If bad
things happen
The attached debdiff enables building the lima driver on riscv64. This
drivers provides sun4i-drm_dri.so.
I'm currently testing this locally and waiting on riscv64 to be enabled
for my PPA to build a package on LP.
** Patch added: "mesa-build-lima-on-riscv64.debdiff"
https://bugs.launchpad.ne
Public bug reported:
"sun4i-drm_dri.so" is needed for some RISC-V platforms such as the
Allwinner D1. This file is missing from the riscv64 packages, but
present on others. This affects (at least) 20.04 and 22.04.
itrue@lxc-focal ~/tmp> dpkg -c
libgl1-mesa-dri_21.2.6-0ubuntu0.1~20.04.2_arm64.de
Hi @seb128,
Sorry I haven't yet had the chance to test it with GNOME, but I can
confirm that it works if I manually add the connection with nmcli,
without adding any particular arguments:
nmcli c add type wifi ssid ""
It does seem to indeed be an issue with plasma-nm.
Cheers,
Isaac
--
You
This seems to be related to OWE
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_Wireless_Encryption). If I
disable this in the router, then I can connect without any issues.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to network
I've attached the journalctl output.
I'm running Kubuntu with plasma-nm 5.24.2-0ubuntu1.
I haven't provided a certificate or any authentication details, and the
security is set to none in the settings.
** Attachment added: "log"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug
Public bug reported:
I'm trying to connect to an open (i.e. no ecryption) WLAN with network-
manager 1.36.0-1ubuntu2 on 22.04 but it's failing with the following
error message (after selecting the network from the network-manager
applet prompt):
Mär 08 10:50:04 Isaac-Laptop NetworkManager[31754]:
25 matches
Mail list logo
