[Bug 38210] Re: AGI is broken

2007-01-04 Thread lukaso
I'm not upgrading to Edgy as I need an LTS system :) -- AGI is broken https://launchpad.net/bugs/38210 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 35474] Re: Dapper - RT61 with wep key doesn't work

2006-12-09 Thread lukaso
After a lot of blood sweat and tears, I've got the RT61 card working, kinda. I downgraded to the older drivers, blacklisted, etc. However, the connection drops within an hour or so and then I have to reboot to get the connection back. Editorial: Wireless on linux doesn't work. 1) Because it's almo

[Bug 70592] Re: Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox)

2006-11-06 Thread lukaso
** Attachment added: "apt log" http://librarian.launchpad.net/4972102/apt.log -- Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox) https://launchpad.net/bugs/70592 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 70592] Re: Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox)

2006-11-06 Thread lukaso
** Attachment added: "term log" http://librarian.launchpad.net/4972101/term.log -- Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox) https://launchpad.net/bugs/70592 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 70592] Re: Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox)

2006-11-06 Thread lukaso
The log file: ** Attachment added: "the main log" http://librarian.launchpad.net/4972100/main.log -- Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox) https://launchpad.net/bugs/70592 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/lis

[Bug 70592] Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox)

2006-11-06 Thread lukaso
Public bug reported: Upgraded from an up to date 6.06 386 to Edgy Eft. ** Affects: apport (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: Unconfirmed -- Update manager reported errors (and failed to upgrade firefox) https://launchpad.net/bugs/70592 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 38210] Re: AGI is broken

2006-10-19 Thread lukaso
Don't know. I don't have access to an Edgy machine. I think it is fixed in asterisk 1.2.9 but I haven't confirmed that either. -- AGI is broken https://launchpad.net/bugs/38210 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

[Bug 57572] Re: /etc/init.d/asterisk cannot start because of permissions

2006-08-29 Thread lukaso
Yes, I am running that version of asterisk. I am no longer reproducing the bug. Some failures I had shutting down (using this script) turned out to be hung AGI processes. But I think that would be another bug. I don't think my patch is necessary after all. Sorry about that. The fix was needed to

[Bug 57572] Re: /etc/init.d/asterisk cannot start because of permissions

2006-08-25 Thread lukaso
I'm not 100% convinced about my fix (apologies). I think the fix resolves issues during the install primarily (because the /var/run/asterisk directory is not created or wasn't when I installed the package). Sorry about the wishy washy, there's something not quite right, but still struggling for the

[Bug 57572] Re: /etc/init.d/asterisk cannot start because of permissions

2006-08-25 Thread lukaso
6.06.1 is the version. [I have a feeling the 1.2.7.1 version of Asterisk has some deeper lying stability problems - we are seeing issues that we don't see on Trixbox1.1.1 which uses Asterisk 1.2.9.1 for example, but I suppose that would be the subject of another bug if I can confirm it.] -- /etc

[Bug 57572] /etc/init.d/asterisk cannot start because of permissions

2006-08-24 Thread lukaso
Public bug reported: In /etc/init.d/asterisk, the $PIDFILE directory is not properly created, leaving it with incorrect permissions, and/or not creating it at all. also asterisk.ctl cannot be created properly without without this patched file. I have patched the file so that the directory is cre

[Bug 57572] Re: /etc/init.d/asterisk cannot start because of permissions

2006-08-24 Thread lukaso
Hope I'm adding the file correctly here. I've put the modified and corrected file here. Will of course need to be diffed with what is in the source code repository. ** Description changed: In /etc/init.d/asterisk, the $PIDFILE directory is not properly created, leaving it with incorrect permi

[Bug 38210] Re: AGI is broken

2006-08-23 Thread lukaso
The workaround is to make every call twice. The second call will retrieve the first result. However you can't get the first result without the second call. So really, your second call could be a dummy, but that won't work anymore when the bug is fixed. -- AGI is broken https://launchpad.net/bugs/

[Bug 38210] Re: AGI is broken

2006-08-23 Thread lukaso
Don't know if I should confirm, but am definitely seeing the bug. ** Changed in: asterisk (Ubuntu) Status: Unconfirmed => Confirmed -- AGI is broken https://launchpad.net/bugs/38210 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu

[Bug 38210] Re: AGI is broken

2006-08-23 Thread lukaso
Causing serious problems on my installation. http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=7335&nbn=9 Claims it is fixed in SVN 34462 but I have no idea which release that corresponds too. Have not tested the fix. Here is my transaction. However, where it shows the values coming back in order, I am actuall

[Bug 53615] Re: sata_via kernel module lacks support for VIA VT8237A southbridge SATA in Dapper

2006-08-14 Thread lukaso
My particular problem appears to be repaired by the new Ubuntu 6.06.1. I was able to install the SATA 2 drive without problems by using the 6.06.1 cd installer. -- sata_via kernel module lacks support for VIA VT8237A southbridge SATA in Dapper https://launchpad.net/bugs/53615 -- ubuntu-bugs mai

[Bug 53615] Re: sata_via kernel module lacks support for VIA VT8237A southbridge SATA in Dapper

2006-08-11 Thread lukaso
This is occuring to me as well. My brand new desktop is a very big paperweight. The patching regime required to get it working seems rediculous, yet the patch itself is minor to the OS (as far as I can tell). See: http://forums.viaarena.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=72836&enterthread=y P