Evening Devs,
Tonight I was doing some of my test suite and I had the
tracker-preferences crash unexpectedly doing routine workflow with
viewing (not changing) preferences. Apport came through and I ended up
at an invalid existing bug from 2007 because the user had not
submitted debugging symbols.
2008/8/21 Markus Hitter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Am 20.08.2008 um 11:42 schrieb Null Ack:
>
>> I'm not convinced that the strategy of asking users to install
>> specialised debugging packages is the right way to go. I see a very
>> low hit rate with this work
Gday folks,
Can I please be clarified on what the correct process is for package
update requests?
On 27th of June I asked the MOTU mail list what it was and advised
"The correct way to do this is to file a bug against the package and
tag it "upgrade"." Since I've done this for 6+ bugs.
Yesterday
To add to this, we have some serious regressions with problems of not
being able to consistently apply static IPs as well as custom MTU
values:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/258743
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/256054
http://bugzi
Gday everyone,
It was suggested to me on IRC that I should discuss this matter on
this mail list.
Summary : I think we need to have regular snapshots of svn ffmpeg,
libavcodec and so forth released in both the current development build
and as backports to production builds. User's expect to have
2008/9/10 Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Null Ack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Summary : I think we need to have regular snapshots of svn ffmpeg,
>> libavcodec and so forth released in both the current development build
>> and as backpor
Thanks for all the discussion on this folks. :)
Just now I had a crash in totem with apport leading me to 9 previously
reported bugs that are either invalid or incomplete because the bug
reporter did not do a backtrace to help fix the problem. Now I have
the same issue, when it was originally repo
Gday everyone. As part of my work with the QA Team I want to
contribute to fixing the process gaps in this area. Can I summarise
what I see as the problem:
Problem situation: I'm increasingly noticing that certain types of
bugs are being marked invalid or incomplete with boilerplate type
messages
Gday everyone,
The Linux Standard Base is surely a good thing. I don't know if OpenAL
is included in the LSB or not. What I do know is that someone decided
to change naming for OpenAL in Intrepid and this is causing many
regressions in other apps that now can't find OpenAL.
Can I please refer peo
So in essence Scott, due to what you've highlighted as a lack of
testing input during the pre production lifecycle phases, your
suggesting that end users should endure the brunt of testing? As
Ubuntu needs to move forward rapidly, being cutting edge and cant be
so highly concerned with the risk of
Can I please be advised of why Jaunty will not ship with 2.6.29, and
that the kernel team has elected to ship on .28?
I'm sure the kernel team are aware of the many driver changes in .29,
but I'm not clear if they they propose to backport those into .28?
What about features? Or any patches that fo
As do I Scott, but I am careful to distinguish between features and
fixes. I'd like to know if .29 fixes will be backported into Ubuntu's
.28 and how the thing will be managed.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://l
Gday folks :)
There is difference between what I foresee as sensible security
defaults for our desktop build against what is being currently
delivered. It may very well be that there is aspects to the current
setup that I am not fully aware of, and I'd like to better understand
the reasoning behin
Gday John,
Good to see another Aussie on the list and contributing some top info :)
I've looked into Plash and I think your suggestion is excellent.
I was thinking of a two pronged approach:
1. AppArmor / SELInux or whatever static like central policy to
contain deamons, as these services typic
Considering some noise happening in the blog space over a Linux
magazine article about security problems with Ubuntu server I think we
should re-visit this topic. The article is at:
http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7297/2/
The key criticisms of Ubuntu server raised by Linux magazine are:
1. Default p
Thanks Mathias. I note that discussion is limited to the Server build,
whereas this discussion has both desktop and server build topics.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-
> I guess I was hallucinating working on the apparmor profile for
> clamav-daemon and freshclam (also run as a daemon) today.
>
Thats great, though Scott please don't make the mistake of taking a
strawman approach. What I said was about AppArmor defaults. I dont see
my current dev build of the des
I only have a passing interest in this, but its sufficient to ask this:
* What actually is the rationally logical problem with Mono being in Ubuntu?
What I see on that Boycott novell website is lots of fear mongering
and little hard truth.
1. Its only the windows compatability stuff like windows
Hi Lukas,
I dont think the ordinary user cares about PulseAudio or other
internal components to their desktops. They just want audio to work.
The problem that I see is not so much about internal components, but
is about failures in:
1. Not delivering reliable audio experiences in production rele
19 matches
Mail list logo
