Got this (for user@1000.service) on new installs of Lubuntu 14.10 64-bit
on one machine, and Ubuntu Server 14.10 32-bit on another. On the
Lubuntu machine, I had other issues with the on-motherboard video, so I
put another video board in it and re-installed Lubuntu, and this time
this bug did not
Same issue still exists in 14.10, in my case with xrdp. Actually, it
appears that neither startlxde nor startlubuntu exists in 14.10.
Putting 'lxsession -e LXDE -s Lubuntu' at the end of
/etc/xrdp/startwm.sh (in place of the '. /etc/X11/Xsession' line) does
work for xrdp.
--
You received this b
Still running into this. One thought: Instead of changing all of those
'LogFile = messages' lines to 'LogFile = syslog', why not do a
distribution override
(/usr/share/logwatch/dist.conf/logfiles/messages.conf) to cause
'messages' to instead look at /var/log/syslog et al?
--
You received this b
Uh, people? Take a look at the bug page. It's not assigned to you
personally, it's assigned to the Lubuntu Team, and presumably you're on
that mailing list.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
Could this be related to https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/screen-
devel/2014-04/msg00044.html ? If so, going to the upstream version 5.78
might fix it.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/
I first comented on this in #1322538 (which brings Ubuntu into the mix).
As I noted there, I worked around this by purging byobu, tmux, and
screen, removing the .byobu directory, and re-installing byobu. I
suspect that merely disabling byobu, removing .byobu, and re-enabling
byobu might do the tr
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1316059 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1316059
Also, once this is done (choosing screen behavior from the menu), after
disconnecting and reconnecting to get an unfrozen shell, merely hitting
CTRL-A will cause the shell to freeze.
Not all of my 14.04 mac
Public bug reported:
The version of TLF in the repository is about 6 years old now, is
quite out of date, and pretty reliably crashes. How about getting the
repository version updated to something relatively current(1.1 I believe
is the latest version)?
** Affects: tlf (Ubuntu)
Importance
Well, if the preinst script *doesn't* cause a roll-back, I'd have to
question if a libc6 preinst script is the 'only correct' place to
prevent an upgrade. You want to leave the machine in pretty much the
same state as before do-release-upgrade was called, so that, e.g. the
machine can at least con
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 587186 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
I've figured that this is a duplicate of 586186, but Launchpad won't let
me mark it that way.
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 587186
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
* You can subsc
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 587186 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
Scratch that. This time the duplicate-marking went through.
--
package libc6 2.11.1-0ubuntu7.2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new
post-removal script killed by signal (Illegal instruction)
https://b
I'm showing my ignorance of installation internals I guess, but will a
libc6 preinst script that prevents an upgrade cause upgrade-manager to
roll everything back to the previous release(i.e. it looks to me like by
the time you've downloaded the upgrades so you can get to the preinst
script, apt ha
Yeah, that user was me. I'm also wondering how this will affect
Lubuntu, which is geared exactly towards these types of systems. I
presume a 586-compatible version of libc would be needed for Lubuntu?
If so, could we have some way of having that available for server
installs (yes, there are some
I'm seeing the same error upgrading to Maverick on a machine with a
K6-2/450 cpu. I'll agree with earlier comments that I wish that this
change had been made much more clear, and the upgrade mechanism had been
changed to abort the upgrade, as now it looks like I'll have to wipe and
re-install this
** Attachment added: "AptOrdering.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/658744/+attachment/1686266/+files/AptOrdering.txt
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/658744/+attachment/1686267/+files/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "Df.txt"
https://bug
Public bug reported:
This popped up during an upgrade from 10.04 to 10.10.
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: libc6 2.11.1-0ubuntu7.2
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.32-25.44-generic 2.6.32.21+drm33.7
Uname: Linux 2.6.32-25-generic i586
Architecture: i386
Date: Mon Oct 11
Is this fix going to be available in Lucid, or only in Maverick?
--
Please merge bluefish 2.0.1-1 (universe) from debian unstable (main)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/605204
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bu
Wouldn't you know, the 2.0.1 release announcement appeared a couple of
days ago.
--
Please upgrade bluefish to 2.0.0 version
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/540126
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing l
I'll agree this needs to be fixed. See attached screengrab. I don't
know the pixel count, but it looks to me like it's using 7 icons of
panel space to display 4 icons. W-a-a-a-y too much padding,
particularly on this 1024x768-max resolution laptop.
** Attachment added: "AppletIndicator.png"
Ah, this is my failt. There's a rails 2.2.3-1 package (which of course
includes ActiveRecord and ActiveSupport), and there are libactiverecord-
ruby and libactivesupport-ruby 2.3.2 packages, and I had all of them
installed. Removing libactiverecord-ruby and libactivesupport-ruby
solved this probl
blog$ script/console
Loading development environment (Rails 2.2.3)
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `gem_original_require': no
such file to load -- rails/backtrace_cleaner (MissingSourceFile)
from /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in `require'
For what it's worth, 9.04 is in the same boat as 8.10 - X produces a
working display, but the maximum resolution is 800 x 600, whereas the
Armada 7800 display is capable of 1024 x 768.
I might say it produce a mostly-working display. I sometimes see this
thing where a random window will render as
I also had this problem with 8.04. It seems to be fixed partially in
8.10. The remaining problem is that though in 8.10, X produces a
working display, the maximum resolution allowed is 800 x 600. The
display in an Armada 7800 is capable of 1024 x 768 resolution.
--
xorg fails to generate a wor
23 matches
Mail list logo
