** Changed in: distcc (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/482571
Title:
package distcc 3.1-2 fails to purge if distccd is running
To manage notifi
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1066557
Title:
software index is broken
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
http
Fixed in distcc/3.1-4.2, appearing in Quantal and later. The
include_server and PYTHON variables in /usr/bin/distcc-pump both contain
the correct values.
distcc (3.1-4.2) unstable; urgency=low
* Non-maintainer upload.
* Move distcc-pump python modules to private path (/usr/lib/distcc-pump)
** Patch removed: "precise.debdiff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aptitude/+bug/831768/+attachment/3427352/+files/precise.debdiff
** Patch added: "precise.debdiff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/aptitude/+bug/831768/+attachment/3429394/+files/precise.debdiff
--
You
** Description changed:
- I tried to start distcc-pump inclusion server and got the following:
+ [Impact]
+ Users can not use distcc-pump due to problems with python version
+ hardcoding. Subsequent “fixes” to bump the version only fail later.
+
+ Instead of constantly hardcoding newer python
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 511585 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/511585
Combining this report with bug #511585 since the same patch fixes them.
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 511585
Unable to start pump server because of python version mismatch
--
You receive
** Description changed:
[Impact]
- Users can not use distcc-pump due to problems with python version
- hardcoding. Subsequent “fixes” to bump the version only fail later.
+ Using distcc-pump is a significant speed gain with a large compile farm.
+
+ Ubuntu users can not use distcc-pump due
This is the patch used in 3.1-4.2.
** Patch added: "python-fix.diff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/distcc/+bug/511585/+attachment/3429478/+files/python-fix.diff
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://b
That file is an example, not an actual init script. It is not intended
to be run and should not be executable.
** Changed in: sysvinit (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 42178 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/42178
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 42178
apt-get doesn't use the same pinning as synaptic
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ub
As Michael mentioned, you should install keys for repositories that are
signed. For repositories that are not signed, where you trust both the
repository and your connection to it, sources.list supports this syntax
since apt 0.9 (0.8.16~exp3):
deb [trusted=yes] http://host/path sid main
This is
Aptitude also has private holds that apt is unaware of, and receives a
lot of bugs about this issue. Based on the large number of reports over
the years, has the time come to update aptitude and synaptic to use
these global apt holds?
Michael, I am glad to take on this task in synaptic also, if y
Still found in synaptic/0.75.13.
The menu item is “Package/Lock Version”. Activating this will lock a
package to it's current version using APT “pinning” (see
apt_preferences(5), although that is really an implementation detail).
The status filter, “Pinned”, selects only packages that are pinned
The filter is working as expected for me using synaptic/0.75.13. Please
confirm if this is still an issue.
** Changed in: synaptic (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https:
On 12 November 2012 06:11, v1nce <1077...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> I "fixed" this by using dpkg --force-depends -i
> mysql-server_5.5.28-0ubuntu0.12.04.2_all.deb
Although that stops dpkg complaining, the problem likely still exists
and is maybe worse. Better to use:
# apt-get install -f
to m
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #435069
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=435069
** Also affects: apt (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=435069
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you a
On 12 November 2012 21:05, v1nce <1077...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure but I think I tried apt-get install -f before manual
> installation (with no luck).
> Now when I run apt-get install -f it's ok (0,0,0).
>
> I don't really understand what it complained for as I got all the
> "mis
On 13 November 2012 21:40, v1nce <1077...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> I don't agree. I don't know if this is because of french translation but the
> text is clearly misleading to me.
>
> mysql-server-5.5: ...
> Depends: mysql-client-5.5 (>= 5.5.24-0ubuntu0.12.04.1) mais
> la ve
Those files are not really helpful. To investigate a segfault we need
the backtrace (stack trace), which you can produce by installing debug
symbols and using gdb if required; see the previous links I posted.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
On 6 December 2012 05:09, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
<1086...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> If a package has a space in its Filename: entry in the Packages file,
> you get errors on HTTP resolution.
Why are there spaces, is it due to a service that munges filenames
with “s/+/ /g” on upload? Provide exam
On 6 December 2012 10:00, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
<1086...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> the problem as I
> encountered it concerned a repo with spaces in some directory names.
> Debian Policy doesn't address Packages files at all, nor archive
layout.
Appendix D, Control files and their fields?
--
Also, there is this statement in section 5.1:
> Whitespace must not appear inside names (of packages,
> architectures, files or anything else) or version numbers, or
> between the characters of multi-character version
> relationships.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a membe
Ok, I extracted just the stacktrace for convenience. For now, that
should be enough to investigate the issue.
** Changed in: synaptic (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://b
** Attachment added: "stacktrace.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/synaptic/+bug/873860/+attachment/3452706/+files/stacktrace.txt
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/873860
Public bug reported:
Separated from bug #1086997.
The original report involves a repository where some path names contain spaces.
These end up in the Packages file like:
> Filename: foo/bar baz/file.deb
APT considers the entire line after “Filename: ” to be a single filename
value, and issues
On 6 December 2012 12:05, Thomas Bushnell, BSG
<1086...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the reference.
Yes, who doesn't enjoy a good read of policy documents?
> I apologize for missing section D; it's not
> relevant here, but I had forgotten that it has those things. It doesn't
> actually
On 6 December 2012 13:27, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> Regardless of how debian-policy defines valid filenames /in control
> files/, the APT Acquire system and HTTP method can be used outside the
> context of debian control files, and should still issue
> correctly-formed HTTP requests
On 6 December 2012 14:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG
<1086...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> And in my case, there was an independent
> bug *producing* the directories with spaces in them which I did not
> intend.
Ah, I had thought you were stuck with those directories!
--
You received this bug notificat
[1] indicates to have a sponsor upload to -proposed before the Sru team
will review. It states there is no need to wait. The package is unusable
on m-a systems, in Ubuntu main, this upload is a self-contained fix: why
you consider it so unsuitable?
If the package does not get to -proposed, how e
> We will not allow newlines in the name filter, see above.
Such characters may still enter the filter file through other means.
This will not resolve the segfault, only reduce the likely-hood of
hitting it.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Please demonstrate how this is caused by a bug in aptitude.
** Changed in: aptitude (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/271246
Title:
debco
On 8 December 2012 14:59, sdurranc <779...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> ** Changed in: synaptic (Ubuntu)
>Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
Thats interesting. Did I miss a release somewhere?
status fixcommitted
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubun
The filters file is read by Configuration class (apt-pkg), whose
format is defined in apt.conf(5). Besides being syntactically
incorrect [1] there are other issues that prohibit reliable parsing of
the data.
For example, this pattern from one of the standard filters combines
several sub-patterns:
> I strongly suggest not to not implement any work-around or extra
> precautions in either the GUI or current reader code until the design
> issues with the filter file can be looked at.
That should be:
> I strongly suggest not to implement any work-around …
--
You received this bug notification
On 11 December 2012 08:05, Rudd-O wrote:
> Still not fixed in precise.
Please contact a bug supervisor to nominate this task for precise
then. You can find such people on #ubuntu-bugs.
The description already contains appropriate SRU fields, and the
upstream patch is identified. The upstream p
On 1 November 2012 10:23, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> Upstream says even libgettext isn't needed at runtime, apparently --
> Wine only needs to build the translations into the windows format, and
> then just uses those. I'm prepping an SRU.
Makes sense. The Debian packaging does not contain any expl
> Daniel, do you want to do a stable release update (SRU)?
No. I do not use Ubuntu.
> A debdiff and a test case is needed for a SRU
Recommend that an affected user running Lucid prepare the test case and
for bug #521165 also.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of U
On 6 November 2012 08:31, Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, we seem to be doing a poor job in general of getting packages
> correctly marked for autoremoval. On my desktop system:
>
> $ for pkg in $(apt-mark showmanual) ; do grep-status -FPackage -X $pkg -a
> -FSection -X libs -sPackage; done | uniq
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #432017
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=432017
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #685044
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=685044
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
Trevor Adams wrote:
> 3) Command run: aptitude -o 'Dpkg::Options::="--force-confdef"' update
Nested quotes are invalid here. They are shell syntax and not
interpretted by APT.
The syntax for this option is in apt.conf(5). Multiple options should
be passed using multiple "-o" arguments, for exa
> […] or an error message detailing that the argument passed is invalid
> due to the extra set of quotations.
Not really possible for APT to check the validity of another programs
options. However, it can check that the exit status of this call to
dpkg is 0 and issue an error or warning otherwise
> A separate system runs the above command […]
Which is broken, and I trust that you have filed a separate bug report
for that system.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1075260
Title:
n
** Tags removed: verification-needed
** Tags added: verification-done
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/975793
Title:
'aptitude safe-upgrade -d -y' enters infinite loop
To manage notifi
On 7 November 2012 06:25, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> - upgrading packages with python-aptdaemon (e.g. via
>> software-center). [2]
>
> I use update-manager for my upgrades, not software-center. Does the same
> issue apply?
Looking quickly at UpdateManager/backend/InstallBackendAptdaemon.py,
it's
Public bug reported:
Package: synaptic
Version: 0.75.13
(Filed only for documenting. I suspect the developers are already aware
of this, and don't expect any reasonable solution.)
The synaptic selections interface in common/rpackagelister.cc
(writeSelections, readSelections) has this combinatio
> I use update-manager for my upgrades, not software-center. Does the same
> issue apply?
The synaptic backend also causes trouble, since it uses a
--set-selections interface that, like dpkg, does not support keeping
packages marked auto-installed. See bug #300718 (update manager) and
bug #10758
Note that the aptdaemon backend suffers from this problem as well due to
[1] (patch).
A similar patch could be applied to InstallBackendSynaptic.py to track
which packages were previously auto-installed and make sure they are
marked as such afterwards. Otherwise, perhaps consider to just drop the
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 300718 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/300718
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 450914
update-manager doesn't mark new packages as auto-installed
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 300718
sometimes sets dependency packages to m
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 300718 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/300718
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 450914
update-manager doesn't mark new packages as auto-installed
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 300718
sometimes sets dependency packages to m
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 300718 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/300718
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 300718
sometimes sets dependency packages to manual install
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribe
On 14 November 2012 04:30, Brian Murray wrote:
> I've a system I've been upgrading since Feisty (or maybe Edgy), no
> reinstalling to a new hard drive silliness, and the output of Steve's
> command was: 1117.
>
> I also use update-manager and not aptitude.
I have refiled the aptdaemon bug in laun
Test case: https://bugs.launchpad.net/aptdaemon/+bug/1078544
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/300718
Title:
sometimes sets dependency packages to manual install
To manage notifications
On 15 November 2012 13:41, artur bryczek wrote:
> ** Changed in: synaptic (Ubuntu)
>Status: New => Fix Released
That's fast. Care to elaborate on how this has been fixed?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https
> However if anyone else has a better idea, we could also try changing
> the label "Unchanged" to something like "Not selected for upgrade", or
> something like that.
There is some utility to including these packages, provided that the
label is clear. Aptitude also includes such packages in it's p
On 16 November 2012 18:05, Robert Roth wrote:
> and as there is no status
> called Waiting-for-feedback-on-how-to-properly-fix-this-without-causing-
> regressions-for-many-people
Confirmed or triaged is still appropriate for that. The issue itself
is not in doubt and we don't want it to expire j
On 16 November 2012 20:13, Robert Roth wrote:
> Easy decision to change the label, hard decision to find out what to change
> it to be informative, concise, and not too technical.
Maybe :-) Let's see what some other programs say…
apt-get: The following packages have been kept back
aptitude: The
> That fails on package coniguration on debconf step domain name for
> DHCP-clients.
>
> I give ORCHESTRA to this configuration step and the dialog freezes.
Are you saying that, when prompted for the domain name, you input
“ORCHESTRA”, and the installation does not continue?
** Changed in: synap
** Package changed: synaptic (Ubuntu) => texinfo (Ubuntu)
** Changed in: texinfo (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/734971
Title:
cannot update
Does the same also happen if you install using apt-get, and give the
same answer:
$ sudo apt-get remove --purge ubuntu-orchestra-provisioning-server
…
$ sudo apt-get install ubuntu-orchestra-provisioning-server
…
Set the domain name for DHCP Clients: ORCHESTRA
Also, is the domain you enter—ORCHEST
> Is there a way how i can run this trigger in some kind of
> debug mode for having logging messages?
The trigger executes only one command, you can invoke it manually without
--quiet to see if it behaves similar:
# gtk-update-icon-cache --force --quiet /usr/share/icons/hicolor
(and/or gtk-updat
The delay here might not be due to any bug at all. Reassigned to gtk+
packages for their maintainers to determine.
Florian, which version of libgtk2.0-bin and libgtk-3-bin are you using?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu
** Changed in: aptitude (Ubuntu)
Status: Opinion => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/136571
Title:
aptitude hastheannoying message that it does not have super cow powers
** Changed in: aptitude (Ubuntu)
Status: Opinion => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/641068
Title:
aptitude does not show changelog when suggesting package upgrades
To m
As the failing command is net-update, that output may be more useful:
$ sudo apt-key net-update
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1095705
Title:
cron.daily/apt fails every day on headle
Ok. This will require a crash report (backtrace, etc.). Please see
these resources for how to collect this information:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs#Reporting_an_application_crash
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProgramCrash
The second link in particular contains instruction
>From the Debian report:
> This was reported upstream, where they suggested that the libgc 7.2
> release might fix the problem. I tested that on harris.debian.org
> (armhf), and make check finished without error.
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #682919
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bu
Hiding such menu items is a local policy decision.
There is no way to reliable tell whether any particular user can gain
the necessary privledges required by a given program. As you point
out, synaptic is still useful to non-privledged users to browse
available packages.
Suggest closing.
--
Yo
On 22 December 2012 09:41, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
>> Möchten Sie fortsetzen? [Y/n/?]
>
> Those command line prompts can not be localized without significant
> design effort as they take multiple commands. Localizing [yn] is
> simple with nl_langinfo(3), but there is not yet a
joseangelmadrid wrote:
> This bug could be true. When I try to answer to the closing dialog
> "¿Desea salir de Aptitude? (Sí/No)", it only exits if I press "Y" not
> "S"
Your issue is not the same as that reported here, please file a new
report and be sure to specify which version of aptitude and
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 831768 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/831768
See also: bug 954029
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 831768
aptitude cannot handle conflicts with multiarch enabled
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
On 26 December 2012 23:39, DmitryKX <1093...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> ia32-libs : Depends: ia32-libs-multiarch but it is not installable
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
Provide also the output of:
$ apt-cache po
Also:
# apt-get install -oDebug::pkgProblemResolver=1 ia32-libs
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1093819
Title:
Can't install ia32-libs in chrooted environment
To manage notifications
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1016294 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1016294
> Using Ubuntu 12.10 x86_64 on host system and in deboostrapped
> environment. I chrooted to deboostrapped environment and run:
Never mind the previous responses.
ia32-libs-multiarch is available only for
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 1016294
ia32-libs-multiarch but it is not installable
** Also affects: ia32-libs (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https
** Description changed:
+ ia32-libs-multiarch is i386 only. Systems without i386 configured
+ receive this error trying to install ia32-libs:
+
+ > ia32-libs : Depends: ia32-libs-multiarch but it is not installable
+
+ Of course, this is entirely a configuration issue: dpkg is not using
+ i386.
There appears to be at least two issues conflated here:
- dependency problems (and archive skew, upgrade issues); and
- i386 not configured.
I have just moved bug 1093819 from apt which covers the later case (and
presumably the above comments #15, #20, #27, that is, systems without
i386 configured
On 29 December 2012 08:11, Sworddragon <1094...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> I'm using Ubuntu 13.04 dev with apt 0.9.7.6ubuntu6 and whiptail
> 0.52.14-11ubuntu4.
Since you mention whiptail I presume that you have debconf configured
to use the default frontend, dialog.
> I
> If I'm not wrong I think the command apt-cache policy show
> the source it was installed from.
That command shows the sources each version is /available/ from, not
where it was installed from.
> If and only if the said package/version still exists in one of your
sources.
Some times, and only
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> Please paste the actual output from when the process hangs
That is, all output from “apt-get install foo” onwards. Use apt-get,
not aptitude to reproduce.
** Changed in: aptitude (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notifi
In addition to providing the previously requested information, you can flesh
out your initial claims:
> Whenever "trigger high-color-icon-theme" is called while
> installing some app with gui, this can take up to 6 minutes!
Give concrete examples of packages that approx. 6 minutes at this step.
D
** Package changed: hicolor-icon-theme (Ubuntu) => sensors-applet
(Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/743956
Title:
Incorrect icon dimension of '22x22/sensors-applet-gpu.png'
To
> I think, there's some timeout running
What makes you think that?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1025184
Title:
Trigger high-color-icon-theme takes minutes with every install
To ma
Ken Sharp (kennybobs) wrote 8 hours ago: #5
> This should be fixed in all but Hardy.
You confirm that zeroconf discovery, and manual entry in hosts files, of
IPv6 addresses works on 3.1-4ubuntu2?
Upstream #34 claims to require these two commits:
http://code.google.com/p/distcc/source/de
Daniel Hartwig (wigs) wrote 1 minute ago:#6
> Ken Sharp (kennybobs) wrote 8 hours ago: #5
>> This should be fixed in all but Hardy.
…
or perhaps I misread you and you are rather requesting the fix to be
applied to those versions? :-)
--
You received this bug notificatio
Ken Sharp (kennybobs) wrote 7 hours ago: #1
> This is nearly five years old, can it be sent upstream?
If you like, please do so. However, I would say that upstream is at
least aware of the idea… this bug:
Reported by Martin Pool on 2007-09-22
and from distcc(1):
AUTHOR
distcc
On 9 July 2012 11:07, Bernard Paguapo wrote:
> 'E:Type 'ain' is not known on line 2 in source list
> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu-wine-ppa-oneiric.list
As stated: the mentioned file is invalid on (at least) line two. Run
this command:
gksudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ubuntu-wine-ppa-onei
On 11 July 2012 02:48, David Ayers wrote:
> I believe the error still exists.
So you still receive this error and it is the same “permission denied”
error reported earlier, similar to
SystemError: E:Opening /etc/apt/sources.list.d/private-
ppa.launchpad.net_commercial-ppa-uploaders_ubuntu-font
On 11 July 2012 02:48, David Ayers wrote:
>ifstream F(File.c_str(),ios::in /*| ios::nocreate*/);
>if (!F != 0)
> return _error->Errno("ifstream::ifstream",_("Opening %s"),File.c_str());
>
> but the C++ documentation I found says:
> If the constructor is not successful in opening the
Thanks for the suggestions.
> [add search term "?architecture(amd64)", "~ramd64"]
This is done (development version). Also there is
'?multiarch(foreign)' etc.
'~r' is a reasonable choice for the short form. I had not
previously assigned one but will do.
> It should show results from all ar
Hi Michal (hramrach)
> Any possible multiarch-specific issues will be lost in the
> heaps of issues the resolver already has.
>
Some do stand out quite harshly. Consider #651748 [1] where the UI
is trashed by multi-arch related error messages from the resolver.
This is non-fatal but still a seri
>> Some do stand out quite harshly. Consider #651748 [1] where the UI
>> is trashed by multi-arch related error messages from the resolver.
>> This is non-fatal but still a serious blocker.
>
> Is this multiarch specific?
>
> IIRC I got this noise way before multiarch, there was just way less
> no
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #483620
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=483620
** Also affects: aptitude (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=483620
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
** Changed in: aptitude
Importance: Undecide
Firstly, this is not an aptitude bug. Aptitude relies on APT to
determine the order in which to install/configure dependencies.
Let us not engage in reassign-pong until a clear culprit is determined.
User lool writes:
> python2.6 correctly depends on python2.6-minimal (=
> ${binary:Version}), yet
It is apt-get that has crashed here, not aptitude.
The report does not include enough stack trace to determine what has
happened. Old report probably never will.
** Changed in: aptitude (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member
> Konfigurowanie dbus (1.2.4-0ubuntu1) ...
> Warning: The home dir /var/run/dbus you specified can't be accessed: No such
> file or directory
> The system user `messagebus' already exists. Exiting.
> chown: cannot access `/var/run/dbus': No such file or directory
> dpkg: błąd przetwarzania dbus (-
In the supplied log, distcc installed just fine.
The actual problem occurs during purge:
> Suppression de distcc ...
> * Stopping Distributed Compiler Daemon: distccd
> Purge des fichiers de configuration de distcc ...
> userdel : l'utilisateur distccd est connecté
> /usr/sbin/deluser : « /usr/s
Please check the log files /var/log/distccd.log for indications of the
precise error.
I suspect this may be this one from bugs.d.o:
#663910 [n| | ] [distcc] distcc: won't install + activate
Can the OP confirm whether they were using libpam-tmpdir at the time?
** Changed in: distcc (Ubuntu)
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #580308
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580308
** Also affects: distcc (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=580308
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because yo
** Changed in: dpkg (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/947664
Title:
Unpacking linux-headers unbelievably slow in Lubuntu Precise (Beta 1)
To ma
On 11 June 2013 04:33, ill <1093...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> It has been tested now.
>
And does that patch resolve the issue you reporting on this bug?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug
501 - 600 of 730 matches
Mail list logo
