** Attachment added: "AlsaDevices.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/41545640/AlsaDevices.txt
** Attachment added: "BootDmesg.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/41545641/BootDmesg.txt
** Attachment added: "Card0.Amixer.values.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/41545642/Card0.Amixer.valu
Does this happen at 'cold' boot, or only when resuming from a suspend or
hibernation? If the later is the case, please mark as duplicate of bug
543672. (unless another reply says otherwise)
--
WARNING: at /build/buildd/linux-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/check.c:134
check_for_bios_corruption 0xe5/0x10
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 543672 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/543672
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 543672
metabug lucid check_for_bios_corruption on suspend/resume
--
WARNING: at /build/buildd/linux-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/check.c:134
check_for_bios_corrup
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 543672 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/543672
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 543672
metabug lucid check_for_bios_corruption on suspend/resume
--
WARNING: at /build/buildd/linux-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/check.c:134
check_for_bios_corrup
This might be related to bug 543672. Does it happen _every_ time you
boot, or just when you're coming out of suspend or hibernation?
--
WARNING: at /build/buildd/linux-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/check.c:134
check_for_bios_corruption+0xcb/0xe0()
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/533181
You received th
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 543672 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/543672
I disagree that this is a duplicate of bug 418417; I think they could be
fixed by the same solution, but one is for Karmic and the other Lucid.
So instead I'll collect it in to bug 543672.
** This bug has bee
Are you getting this error only after the computer was put to sleep (in
to a suspend or hibernation state)? If yes, please mark as duplicate of
bug 543672.
--
WARNING: at /build/buildd/linux-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/check.c:134
check_for_bios_corruption+0xe5/0x100()
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug
Are you getting this error only after the computer was put to sleep (in
to a suspend or hibernation state)? If yes, please mark as duplicate of
bug 543672.
--
WARNING: at /build/buildd/linux-2.6.32/arch/x86/kernel/check.c:134
check_for_bios_corruption+0xcb/0xe0()
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs
I'm a bit perplexed by this:
Corrupted low memory at 88001580 (1580 phys) = 1a8635f004700
Corrupted low memory at 88001588 (1588 phys) = f700
Corrupted low memory at 88001590 (1590 phys) = 1bfff9442e5b
Corrupted low memory at 88001598 (1598 phys) = 1
I confirm that this patch works for me, though it does ask me to decrypt
my root partition prior to resuming from swap (which is an un-necessary
entry of a password, unless it's checking the disk for resume
entries/info first; though it mounts / after it checks resume so I doubt
that is the case).
** Attachment added: "partman.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33770448/partman.gz
** Attachment added: "Casper.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33770449/Casper.gz
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33770450/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "Ub
** Attachment added: "syslog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33770524/syslog.gz
--
Ubiquity fails after the summary, dies while trying to show the partition editor
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/452796
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is sub
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: ubiquity
Ubuntu 9.10 Beta cd, ubituity as included and updated via apt-get update
; apt-get install ubiquity (to 2.0.0)
apt-cache policy ubiquity
ubiquity:
Installed: 2.0.0
Candidate: 2.0.0
Version table:
*** 2.0.0 0
500 http://archive.ubu
It would be very nice to attach multiple attachments in one post... or
more than one with the first.
** Attachment added: "ubiquity-debug.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33770607/ubiquity-debug.gz
--
Ubiquity fails after the summary, dies while trying to show the partition editor
https://bu
"If you upgrade the version of webkit on the CD, or download today's
daily-live CD (http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/), does the bug
still happen?"
Thank you, I didn't know about -that- set of daily builds and the
2009-10-16 build has proceeded past the section where the 9.10-Beta-x86
CD faile
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: migration-assistant
This is the actual real-world use case:
While trying to pitch Linux (Mint) to older users (50/60s) as a
replacement for an aging WinXP installation migration-assistant fails to
copy and create the selected accounts from the Windows XP
** Attachment added: "Install Log from ubuntu 9.10 beta"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33804152/install-logs.tar.gz
--
Copies all accounts in to the single-initial account instead of copying
accounts to -new- accounts of the same name.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/453570
You received this
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: migration-assistant
Migration-assistant should allow the following:
0) Operation Before, During, and After install.
1) Create new accounts
2) As mentioned in some ubuntu task documents, allow for backup/archiving
accounts to other media in the case of a
Please set importance to Wishlist (I don't seem to be able to make that
change)
--
Migration Assistant should be usable outside the installer
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/453586
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubun
If that is the case then the root user should be added to the admin
group by default.
** Changed in: gnome-system-tools (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid => New
--
System administration task dialgues do not allow the account 'root' to
authenticate even with a password
https://bugs.launchpad.net/b
Sorry, I was trying to clarify potential use cases, both for passwords
with and passwords without sys-admin capabilities. Editing accounts is
probably some other bug... all the usability issues that I see as
related actually collections of different bugs. Each bug a small piece
of grit fouling th
Also, I just noticed when going to file the other wishlist bug... Why
was my bug linked to GDM as a duplicate? I specifically chose the
proper package and hadn't looked; this isn't related to mine at all!
--
Update PAM policy to allow password-less logins set up via users-admin
https://bugs.lau
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: gnome-system-tools
This is a wishlist priority item, please change that as I don't have
that kind of access.
I think it would be much easier to understand and control current
account privileges if there were a tabular format.
Across the top slanted ( li
The problem with a normal table is you get a result like this:
# | Really Long Description | Another big description | A third description
|
User 1 |
User 2 |
User 3 |
I won't bother adding the spaces since the display will strip them out,
but I think you can figure out how that grid wastes
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33849674/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "ProcMaps.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33849675/ProcMaps.txt
** Attachment added: "ProcStatus.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/33849676/ProcStatus.txt
--
Unable
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: gnome-system-tools
Unable to authenticate as user 'root' (I have added a password) OR as
current user (account has no password due to end user preference).
The end users in question want one click logins and to not remember
passwords. They might be conv
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 393854 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/393854
The user logged in at the time was NOT root. As I described, I had
created a root password (I like su better than sudo -s, and local root
login is nicer for servicing a system than the potential alternative
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 393854 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/393854
I should clarify, this is an issue I encountered trying to unlock the
privileged mode of system administration tasks. As an example,
adding/modifying users/groups with the tool found in the system menu.
It sh
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 393854 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/393854
Having this behavior isn't in it's self a bug. Not /documenting/ the
behavior properly in dialogs related to system administration tools /is/
a bug. Additionally when root ==HAS A PASSWORD== it is a valid ac
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 393854 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/393854
While I agree that the correct policy would be to (after a clear
warning) allow password-less accounts...
'Documentation' in this case should be a CLEAR error message triggered
by this combination of events:
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: gnome-system-tools
Tested on 9.10 beta and 9.04 as well.
Steps to reproduce:
#Set a root password.
sudo passwd
# Verify you can login at a local console.
(ctrl+alt+f1) login...
Logout/switch back to your X session.
Attempt to launch a graphical system
My use case is different. My parents are near retirement and just want
a super-easy-to-use computer; that means security via physical access
only. Accounts are merely a preference filing system to them.
Password-less accounts in the admin group are a questionable thing; but
if that's what the sy
You no longer have to do this site-wide:
sudo editor /etc/apache2/conf.d/egroupware
php_admin_value request_order GPCS
Why isn't this set by default?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs
Better fix:
sudo editor /etc/apache2/conf.d/egroupware
Change this line to add /usr/share/doc (permissive; or have the packages
it's split across added)
php_admin_value open_basedir
/usr/share/egroupware:/var/lib/egroupware:/tmp:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/doc
NOTE: You should also add whatever
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: egroupware
I know it's already in these two bugs, but waiting for upstream changes
is not necessary since two very simple workarounds that could be back-
ported to many older versions exist.
>From bugs:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/egroupwar
Public bug reported:
Ubuntu oneiric (development branch)
11.10 (updated about 20 min ago via hardline (which thankfully auto-configures
for me))
network-manager 0.8.9997+git.20110721t045648.36db194...
network-manager-gnome 0.8.9997+git.20110726t113022.cc3d423
nm-applet blongs to network-manager
I tried getting more data after getting home. Killing network manager's
applet and then reloading it from a console to capture the error stream.
(nm-applet:13297): libnotify-WARNING **: Failed to connect to proxy
** (nm-applet:13297): DEBUG: old state indicates that this was not a disconnect 0
**
Public bug reported:
My Eee901 has a 4 Billion Byte SSD and an 8 Billion Byte ssd. Selecting
btrfs however results in out of space errors even before the initial
stage of the install is complete due to exhaustion of nodes with the
default FS values designed for larger devices.
** Affects: debian
Me too in 11.10; apport also didn't want to authenticate me and I had to
manually sudo to run it.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/810335
Title:
NetworkManager crashed with SIGABRT in _
Public bug reported:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_source_repositories
Support for mixed data/metadata is only in the integration branch and
not the 2 year old stable branch.
$ git clone http://git.darksatanic.net/repo/btrfs-progs-unstable.git
$ cd btrfs-progs-unstable
$ git bran
Do I need to file a regression against 1.98-1ubuntu9 for Lucid 10.04
LTS? These precise symptoms are occurring again.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/580408
Title:
Option 'No' at ques
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/526912
Title:
nouveau framebuffer crashed : [TTM] DRM memory manager type 2 is not clea
I downloaded and installed grub-pc_1.99~20101126-1ubuntu3_amd64.deb
03-Dec-2010 06:05 872K (along with grub-common same version) and
the problem is fixed in that version.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bu
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
