Public bug reported:
Installed Trusty Tahr Lubuntu Beta1 version and added xubuntu desktop. In buth
desktops, I tried to launch synaptic to install some packages. If I try to
launch from menu, nothing seems to happen. From a terminal, I ran
pkexec "/usr/sbin/synaptic"
and saw that it asks
Bug still exists in Ubuntu 11.10. I am running xubuntu 11.10 and I have
applied all fixes available up to this day.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/778619
Title:
Festival TTS starts '
Howdy,
Something like that would seem to be a good idea. But, it was
explained that the names come from the debian names an won't change.
I did discover that Debian no longer supports 386, with 486 being the
lowest chip they compile for. They document this better than Ubuntu.
Good day
On 6/19/1
I just reinstalled Natty Beta 2. I got the same exact error. I tried the
apport command suggest above. It came back and said no additional information
collected. The computer detected that a problem had occurred this time. It
asked if I wanted to report it. I did, but that failed because i
Howdy,
OK, I'll take your advice. I am not trying to cause trouble. I just wanted
it to be clear. I know when Maverick came out, I was one of those who missed
the reference in the release notes and I messed up one of my servers and had to
rebuild it. The name i386 in the architecture seems
Howdy,
I want to revise that a bit.
Intel/AMD/Via architecture note:
i386 refers to processors that have support for the Intel 32 bit
instructions. In order to take advantage of certain compiler optimizations, a
686 processor or higher with cmov support is needed.
amd64 refers to processor
Howdy,
To Steve Langasek, the change took place in Maverick. I have a Via C3 based
thin client that I use as a samba server and to demonstrate Ubuntu. The
release notes for Maverick say "With 10.10 we have also dropped support for
i586 and lower processors, as well as i686 processors without
Public bug reported:
I did an install of the Beta2 alternate installer i386 CD. The first
app I tried to run was Synaptic, in order to check for updates. It let
me press the reload button. Then, after it had reloaded and I waited
several minutes, I could not select any menu option or activate a
Public bug reported:
There are several installer images with i386 in their name. These won't
install onto i386 machines since the release of Maverick. They need at
least i686 machines. The CDs should be renamed with i686 in their
names.
I am not sure if this should be reported as a bug or rath
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: compiz
Using Natty daily build from March 16 with all updates applied as of
March 24. I uninstalled Unity and added gnome. I also killed the
Indicator applet to get rid of the global menus. Then, I launch a
program. Now, I launch a second program. I
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 729394 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/729394
I tested the daily build after it was released on March 16. The ticket
that this is marked as a duplicate of noted that it should be fixed.
Since I was not using LVM, I waited until I could do an install to t
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 729394 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/729394
Starting with the daily build on March 16, this bug seems resolved to
me. If I can figure it out, I'll close it
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscr
This is a really bad idea. Installing the codecs easily would be fine
with me. Installing Adobe Flash is an awful idea. First, the license
for Adobe Flash is not even close to reasonable. You give up the right
to make proper backups of your system, for example. Second, Adobe Flash
exposes your
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 729556 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/729556
Howdy,
I am not trying to get anyone to reclassify this bug to get it priority or
anything similar. I am curious, though as to why bug #729556 is not a
duplicate of this, since I reported it 2 days earlie
Howdy,
I filed this against debian-installer and that is where it belongs. I tried
the Alternate i386 alpha 3 installer on Natty on a real computer and it hangs
in exactly the same way. The computer is a Dell Optiplex GX620 with a 40 gig
IDE hard drive and 1 gb of ram. How do I get it moved
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: debian-installer
I am installing in a VirtualBox 3.16 OSE machine on a Ubuntu Maverick
host. The machine does not have hardware virtualization support, and
runs a number of other Ubuntu VMs handily. During my attempt to install
the Alpha 3 version of th
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 712630 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/712630
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 712630
Ubuntu Alternate: Empty desktop after installation with 2D fallback
* You can subscribe to bug 712630 by following this link:
https://bugs.launchpad.n
I chose Close, instead of Change session, since I could not see what
Change session would mean. I got the same results, anyway. As an
experiment, I tried switching to a virtual console and enabling an
nVidia proprietary driver. I hoped that a reboot would then let me run
Unity or something. A
** Description changed:
Binary package hint: debian-installer
Alpha-2 of Natty install following exact procedure from testcase
"Alternate Manual Partitioning (d-i/debian-installer package)" on i386.
See: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/result/4928/17. Install went
fine. Upon log
** Description changed:
Binary package hint: debian-installer
Alpha-2 of Natty install following exact procedure from testcase
"Alternate Manual Partitioning (d-i/debian-installer package)" on i386.
See: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/result/4928/17. Install went
fine. Upon log
** Description changed:
Binary package hint: debian-installer
- Alpha-2 of Natty install following exact procedure from testcase
+ Alpha-2 of Natty install following exact procedure from testcase
"Alternate Manual Partitioning (d-i/debian-installer package)" on i386.
See: http://iso.qa.
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: debian-installer
Alpha-2 of Natty install following exact procedure from testcase
"Alternate Manual Partitioning (d-i/debian-installer package)" on i386.
See: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/result/4928/17. Install went
fine. Upon login at step 43,
Howdy,
Perhaps I should describe my partition layout. I have two 37 GB drives. The
first drive has 4 primary partitions[1) .5 GB ext2 with /boot, 2) 9 GB JFS with
/usr, 3) .5GB encrypted swap, 4) remainder to LVM] The second drive has 2
primary partitions[1) .5gb encrypted swap, 2) remainder t
I have been getting this error for over a week when installing into a
VirtualBox VM. I tried tonight to directly install onto a computer and
the install also failed with this error. I am using the alpha-1
alternate i386 installer. I'll leave the machine alone for tonight. If
there is some infor
Howdy,
I am confused about the apport-collect part. I understand how to use that
program once the system is booted. In this case, I don't get the kernel
loaded, because it cannot find my root filesystem. Do I run it after I reboot
back with the non pae kernel and will it still have any usef
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: qemu-kvm
I am running an AMD-64 system with 32 bit kernel and all updates as of today
for Release 10.04. I have 2 GB of ram and I installed kvm and a couple of
related tools today. My hard drive is laid out like this.
sda1 - /boot ext2
sda2 - encr
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 418514 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/418514
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 418514
linux-image-2.6.31-7.27-generic fails to boot lvm
--
Karmic does not complete boot process
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/419709
You received this bu
** Summary changed:
- System does not complete boot process
+ Karmic does not complete boot process
--
Karmic does not complete boot process
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/419709
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubun
Public bug reported:
I am testing koala and most days I update by running the following 2 commands.
sudo aptitude update
sudo aptitude safe-upgrade
My system is a Compaq iPaq with a 933 MHz P3 and 512 meg of ram and 80
gig of hard disk. I used the Alpha 4 alternate installer to install.
My swa
Howdy,
I was ignoring this behavior on my Jaunty systems at first. I thought it was
a bug that would be fixed soon. I see others agreed that it was a bug, but it
does not look like it will be fixed. So, I have been thinking about what to do.
First, I have to say that I like the notificatio
Howdy,
My i815 based system could not start X because of this error. I found a
simple solution for now. Edit the /etc/X11/xorg.conf file and add a line that
says:
Option "NoAccel""true"
in the Device section. There are some references on a RedHat board about this
making X
31 matches
Mail list logo
