Public bug reported:
Hi,
I've just performed an upgrade of our LDAP server on Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS
to Ubuntu 12.04 (I acknowledge this upgrade path is not officially
supported yet).
The incompatible database upgrading process in the preinst/postinst
files failed in the following scenario.
We have
(If requested I can provide a suitable debdiff for the proposed fix)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to openldap in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1003854
Title:
Database upgrade/migration fails with nested db d
Did you re-export the backup after applying the patch?
IIRC it fixes the backup/export phase not the restore/import phase so
unless you re-created the dumps it wouldn't have actually done anything.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is sub
I'd like to double check this again before confirming hardy PAM is ok
with usernames of this length but unfortunately I seem to have
lost/deleted the test VM where I had this issue setup.
I'll re-create the VM and re-test this issue just to be sure (give me a
couple of days or so depending on work
This bug is more than likely a duplicate of: #209447
Can the OP or Chris provide echo $SSH_AUTH_SOCK so we can confirm gnome-
keyring-daemon is infact being used?
--
ssh-agent does not expire key
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252200
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 209447 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/209447
That's certainly gnome-keyring's socket.
I'm going to go ahead mark this bug a duplicate, for a work around
please see bug: #209447.
The work around involves resetting your ssh-agent back to the standard
one
I'd just like to add that (as the original bug reporter) I agree with
Trent entirely. I can setup accounts (longer than 32 characters) that
work just fine with PAM (and etc...) yet vsftpd fails to authenticate
with them.
Although I can accept it's a somewhat grey area in this case between bug
and
@Mathias
In my opinion I would think:-
"""
Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an obviously safe
patch and (2) affect an application rather than critical infrastructure
packages (like X.org or the kernel).
"""
--
vsftpd max username length too small
https://bugs.launchp
@Mathias:
You make an excellent point. Oversight on my part not realising I'd only
prepared a jaunty diff and not a hardy one for SRU.
I've re-based the jaunty diff against hardy and attached it to the bug
(as well as pushing it to my PPA for testing purposes).
** Attachment added: "LP343738-har
** Description changed:
vsftpd has a max username length of 32, this is too small for a virtual
hosting environment where the username is a user's e-mail address (if
they have a long domain name etc...)
This issue was patched in FC10 via their patch system and has been
pulled into the
Just spotted a slight error in my debdiff. I made my debdiff against
2.0.6-1ubuntu1, failing to notice the -ubuntu1.1 in hardy-updates.
I'll submit an updated patch/debdiff later today against -ubuntu1.1 if
someone else doesn't do so before hand.
TESTING NOTE: Please note that although the versio
Apologies for the mix up...
Updated patch attached to bug, old one removed (and new testing package
pushed to my PPA). :-)
** Attachment removed: "LP343738-hardy.patch"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/30764250/LP343738-hardy.patch
** Attachment added: "LP343738-hardy.patch"
http://launchpadl
12 matches
Mail list logo
