Re: libc borked
hi Colin, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:47PM +0100, Stephan Hermann wrote: The package is not at fault... The fault was to upload dpkg (2008-02-11 imho) with https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistCompilerFlags this in mind. Setting those flags is not good without a bunch of testing. I only discovered today that wine broke a few weeks ago due to this change, and that you applied the same kind of fix to wine last week as has since been applied to glibc. I'm curious whether you escalated this anywhere at the time, and if so where? If it was escalated but not dealt with, that's something we should look at too. Well, when I upload 0.9.54 of wine, this problem wasn't arising. After this date, a new dpkg was uploaded with a change of behaviour for CFLAGS etc. This wasn't clear, just beacuse the changelog only mentioned this, without noticing WHAT actually was changed. (no clue about the difference of LDFLAGS we were passing on now) Others and I were tracking down the problem, but that the problem was with ldflags wasn't quite known until one contributor pointed us to the LDFLAGS issue. I was asking about differences between a normal manual build and our sbuilds...but actually Scott Ritchie and I (and other contributors) were quite alone with this. I can understand this, because wine is in universe and not sooo important. But a better communication or at least a mentioning in the changelog, what actually was changed (e.g. New behaviour: ldflags now brings insert our flags here, please be careful) I for myself wasn't quite sure, if the new behaviour was tested beforehand, or just that wine was broken by some things. The funny part, this misbehaviour with our new ldflags was mentioned in a bug report from 2007 which was set invalid/closed in wines bugzilla. Fact, rebuilding the archive won't show any build failures, but running those rebuilt apps would have shown the evilness of this change. Rebuilding the archive against the output of the rebuild in progress would have shown it up very quickly; note that glibc 2.7-9ubuntu2 itself failed to build (without hand-holding) due to upgrading to libc6 2.7-9ubuntu1 at the start of the build, and many packages would have failed in the same way. The problem I see here is: When we upload something new e.g. toolchain, glibc, dpkg-buildpackage changes etc. we are not automatically rebuilding our archive against those new versions. Which would be quite helpful if we did. Fun part, a change in LDFLAGS won't obviously shown up during the build process (as we saw with wine), but during runtime..(which is quite hard for devs who are running the devel release on their WS, I know, but why not use vmware ;)). I was mad. I'm human. I'm over it. Time to spend the day rebuilding 3 machines. ;) Repeat with us: You should not use Development Releases on production machines, until you know that it can break (badly) ! This is definitely worth noting, but it's also clearly true that breakage should be minimised where possible. This is a reminder that the fact that development releases are generally not actually all that bad doesn't mean that they'll never break spectacularly, while also serving as a demonstration of various problems in our processes. TBH, I'm always ready and waiting for any breakage during development..this is nothing new, and this should be known to everybody. Development releases are not intend for the normal audience, and everybody who runs a development release has to know for sure, that at some time everything breaks. I don't blame anybody...we just need to fix some processes, e.g. describing a bit more what the change is (not only : ok we intrdoduced new cflags,ldflags handling and passing some sane/insane flags via dpkg-buildpackage towards our buildsystems). Well, my fault was not to escalate this issue to the right people, just because I thought, those changes were already tested. Regards, \sh -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: libc borked
Hi Colin, Colin Watson wrote: Fact, rebuilding the archive won't show any build failures, but running those rebuilt apps would have shown the evilness of this change. Rebuilding the archive against the output of the rebuild in progress would have shown it up very quickly; note that glibc 2.7-9ubuntu2 itself failed to build (without hand-holding) due to upgrading to libc6 2.7-9ubuntu1 at the start of the build, and many packages would have failed in the same way. The problem I see here is: When we upload something new e.g. toolchain, glibc, dpkg-buildpackage changes etc. we are not automatically rebuilding our archive against those new versions. Which would be quite helpful if we did. It isn't practical for us to upload the entire archive when the toolchain changes; we would rapidly lose mirrors if we started doing things like that. No, that I don't mean/want either...but an internal test rebuild of the archive should be possible without injecting any new packages to the archive/mirros. Just for QA purposes. However, we can and do perform test rebuilds that don't end up in the archive; in fact, such a test rebuild was performed after dpkg was changed, but unfortunately did not make use of its own output so this problem didn't show up. We'll fix that for the next test rebuild. We may also try to construct a CD image from the output of the test rebuild, which would allow us to discover more subtle problems; although we'd have to be very careful about labelling these. I'm not sure if any of this would have shown up the wine problem, unless lmms would have encountered it via its build-dependency on wine-dev. Automatic tests in the package itself are probably the best chance we have here. TBH, the break of wine was just a coincidence...as I already said on IRC, I tested the wine 0.9.55 before I uploaded it, but to my fault I didn't update my personal ubuntu mirror to the latest state, and sadly on my system it worked, but not for others after upload. this has been fixed on my site with a 0,6,12,18 interval of mirror_hardy.sh ; update_chroots.sh via cron :) More sad is, that this bug was known to wine devs, but the corresponding bug report was set to invalid/closed which wasn't in my search query. I don't blame anybody...we just need to fix some processes, e.g. describing a bit more what the change is (not only : ok we intrdoduced new cflags,ldflags handling and passing some sane/insane flags via dpkg-buildpackage towards our buildsystems). I still think that in general this is a sane flag (and so far it's broken fewer packages than -fstack-protector did), but more work is clearly needed on spotting the exceptions. Yepp..even with glibc working now, it can happen that some apps (like wine) are breaking during runtime (which can't be catched during the build). those buggers needs to be catched during testing the CDs, or universe archives from testers...or we find an automatic way of running the packages after building (which could be a cool project for SoC students or mad mans task ;)) Anyhow, I think we know now what went wrong, and we do better in the future :) \sh -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: libc borked (and I stop testing)
Vincenzo Ciancia a écrit : A possible idea to improve the situation is to have a regression tag, and to mark high priority all regressions. Say what you want, but this is *exactly* the behaviour that one would expect from any software distributor: things works, you break it, I tell you as soon as I discover it, you fix it as soon as possible because the bug is in the change you just made, so your change has to be fixed. If you let the regression there for three years, you'll have hysterical raisins when you put your hands back on that code. +1 Would somebody that can set up new rules for Bug Squad, QA, Bug Control and so on teams add the tag regression in the list of tags to use, and shift policy so that every regression is marked as High priority? This would at least help to sum up what should really be fixed, because often these bugs are forgotten. Cheers -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
I read what you explained in the bug report, and here are a few remarks. Clarifying the confusion around Preferences Administration is IMHO a good idea, since every base user seems to have problems with it. Naming them User Preferences and System Administration can be nice since it's not too hard to change. Though, notice that the parent menu is already named System, so let's not end up with jokes like Start - Stop in Windows. If in System you have System Administration and User Preferences, this means that User Preferences is not a system setting, and thus should not be there in the menu. This can look like a detail, but IMHO it's important that we think of consistency. These strings are also very long, and may not look nice. Maybe you could simply rename them to User Preferences and Administration, the latter makes it quite clear that we're dealing with hard configuration. Here I don't have a real solution, just some advice. ;-) Please also take care of not doing this change alone - you're aware of that since you asked the list. This should be discussed with GNOME, since they have the same issue. Moreover, PolicyKit is going to add many changes in this domain, and maybe the distinction system-wide/user-only will disappear soon. This will be a real problem while we are migrating, and I'm glad you're caring about this now. Maybe the best solution would be a single Control Center, which already exists. So please see this in a long-term outlook, changes are likely to happen in the newt months. About renaming the configuration items to emphasize (Set and Modify)/(Manage, System, Global), please don't do this! I just managed to remove every piece of unneeded text there, and these expressions are really useless: if the menu description is clear enough, you know what you want to do, and you're just looking for the domain (printing, screen...) you want to configure. Everything else is bloating the menu - and will ask much work that cannot be unified in one package. And a detail: why do you make a so large list of packages to be affected? gnome-menu should be (almost) the only one. Just some (long) thoughts - good luck, it's not an easy issue -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
Ouattara Oumar Aziz (alias wattazoum) wrote : Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote: I read what you explained in the bug report, and here are a few remarks. Clarifying the confusion around Preferences Administration is IMHO a good idea, since every base user seems to have problems with it. Naming them User Preferences and System Administration can be nice since it's not too hard to change. Though, notice that the parent menu is already named System, so let's not end up with jokes like Start - Stop in Windows. If in System you have System Administration and User Preferences, this means that User Preferences is not a system setting, and thus should not be there in the menu. This can look like a detail, but IMHO it's important that we think of consistency. These strings are also very long, and may not look nice. Maybe you could simply rename them to User Preferences and Administration, the latter makes it quite clear that we're dealing with hard configuration. Here I don't have a real solution, just some advice. ;-) I thought about renaming Preferences to My Preferences because User preferences might be a very long label for some language. Good idea - this should not raise any issues and would help much. This is quite like My Yahoo or other services, people will understand that at the first glance. Just propose it to upstream GNOME. Please also take care of not doing this change alone - you're aware of that since you asked the list. This should be discussed with GNOME, since they have the same issue. Moreover, PolicyKit is going to add many changes in this domain, and maybe the distinction system-wide/user-only will disappear soon. This will be a real problem while we are migrating, and I'm glad you're caring about this now. Maybe the best solution would be a single Control Center, which already exists. So please see this in a long-term outlook, changes are likely to happen in the newt months. This is indeed true. I remember the Gnome Control Center were introduced to replace those two menu sets in feisty then removed after a few days. I think the reason was that a lot of people found that it was slower to access a menu item this way. I was a supporter of an option so that advanced users can use menus, but this idea was not very popular. It's true that the default UI should suit every need we can imagine, but meanwhile, both needs seem difficult to satisfy. A more professional solution would be to merge the configurations GUIs and use policy kit to hide System Wide tasks. But this takes time. I am really wondering if we shouldn't study this solution. Have a single GUI for Printing but hide some options using policy kit ... I'll think more clearly about this and I shall write here :-) I'm not sure we'll be able to hide all system tasks and merge all tools. There are some that only deal with system settings (log viewer, software tools...) and others with the desktop (menu prefs, energy, preferred programs...); others are distro-specific system tools and thus cannot be merged (easily) with GNOME prefs. We can try to make them the less numerous possible, though. Cheers -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
Hi! I think it's weird in itself that the configuration menu is as important as the applications or places menus are. In a well running system the user is basically never exposed to any settings, so (although this should be discussed with GNOME) I would rather opt for hiding the whole System menu somewhere. But even if it's there, I would propose the following renaming: System-Configuration/Preferences Preferences-Your Preferences (as I agree with Greg) Administration-System configuration V On 14/03/2008, Greg K Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 20:45 +0100, Milan Bouchet-Valat wrote: Ouattara Oumar Aziz (alias wattazoum) wrote : I thought about renaming Preferences to My Preferences because User preferences might be a very long label for some language. Good idea - this should not raise any issues and would help much. This is quite like My Yahoo or other services, people will understand that at the first glance. Just propose it to upstream GNOME. If anything, it should be Your Preferences: the computer is speaking to the user, not vice-versa. The help tips for several items in the main menu already use your, including Places → Home Folder, Places → Desktop and – bizarrely – System → Preferences → About Me. -- Greg K Nicholson -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: What is terranova?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:05:13PM +, Colin Watson wrote: by the way, why do I get this error: id: cannot find name for group ID 128 What are you doing when you encounter this error? Also, do you still see it? IIRC the live cd you used was from the day when libc6 was broken, so I wouldn't be suprised if it had quite a few oddities. -- Soren Hansen Ubuntu Server Team http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
Ouattara Oumar Aziz (alias wattazoum) a écrit : I like the proposal. Moving from System | - Preferences ` - Administration to Configuration | - Your Preferences ` - System Administration Is every one okay with this one ? To me it's seems clearer: *Configuration* is more generic and correct regarding the sub menu items than *System* ( which seems more linked to the system Administration than to the User Desktop configuration ). You forget one detail: System is not only for configuration, else this menu would not exist. It has definitely been carefully chosen. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
Milan Bouchet-Valat a écrit : Ouattara Oumar Aziz (alias wattazoum) a écrit : I like the proposal. Moving from System | - Preferences ` - Administration to Configuration | - Your Preferences ` - System Administration Is every one okay with this one ? To me it's seems clearer: *Configuration* is more generic and correct regarding the sub menu items than *System* ( which seems more linked to the system Administration than to the User Desktop configuration ). You forget one detail: System is not only for configuration, else this menu would not exist. It has definitely been carefully chosen. Oups, you got me :-p ( I completely forgot the others items under this menu ) *Configuration* is not good and *System* seems to fit better to this entry. Maybe there is no easy solution to this problem than refactoring the whole menu :-/ ( rethinking the whole menu layout ) Anyway, do we validate Preferences to Your Preferences ? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Remco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe another configuration applet is needed: Storage. With things like indexing, backups, restore points, partition management and maybe even defragmentation. But Ubuntu is lacking a bit with backups, restore points and defragmentation. (hoping not to start a defragmentation on linux flame war) Well, there aren't any ext3 defrag tools anyway (ok maybe a few userspace ones, but that seems unusual), so we can avoid *that* bit of the argument, but there is NTFS support, and that definitely *does* need to be defragged. -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com -my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
On 15/03/08 10:33, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: Well, there aren't any ext3 defrag tools anyway (ok maybe a few userspace ones, but that seems unusual), so we can avoid *that* bit of the argument, but there is NTFS support, and that definitely *does* need to be defragged. You don't mean formatted perhaps ;-) -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06 - E115°50'39 (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, there aren't any ext3 defrag tools anyway (ok maybe a few userspace ones, but that seems unusual), so we can avoid *that* bit of the argument, but there is NTFS support, and that definitely *does* need to be defragged. Yeah, it's weird. NTFS does fragment a deal more than any Unix filesystem I know, but Unix filesystems still fragment! Quite a bit, too, if you have only 1% of free space like I always seem to have. ;-) The question of course, is: does that make filesystem operations much slower? I don't have any hard data on that. Just a gut-feeling that says Yes. But maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. It's not really the point of my post, which was to present my take on a logical collection of configuration applets. With less than 10 very distinctive options, someone is going to be able to make the choice much easier. Imagine someone thinking: I want to change my screen resolution. Oh, there's the Appearance menu. Well, that must have something to do with the screen, so it would probably be there, right? Wrong! Ok, but now I've found it: Screen Resolution! Oh crap, it doesn't list my LCD's native resolution. Some people might make it all the way to System → Administration → Screens Graphics, but I guess most people will have given up by now. Compare that to: I want to change my screen resolution. Oh, there is Display. That seems to be the only sensible place to put this option. And there is the tab Resolution. Oh crap, it doesn't list his native resolution. Oh well, let's try Advanced. Yay, there it is! Something like that. I haven't really thought it through that much. I'm sure there are better ways to organise the complete system configuration. But this list of 30 applets (yes, 30!) just has to go. Even MS Vista, with its many Centers has a less daunting configuration system. No flame intended for the one that originally introduced these menus. It has grown a lot with all those new graphical configuration applets. Remco -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Bug and discussion about ubuntu menu
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Cory K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering. Do any of you know how this is technically implemented and what it could possibly effect? -Cory K. I browsed a bit through my filesystem, and it seems like the menu consists of a bunch of files in /usr/share/menu. The applets itself are just programs that change config files. So basically, this affects all those programs (or rather, about 10 new ones that steal a lot of code from the old ones) and the files in that directory. There is also this new PolicyKit feature of Hardy, which actually makes these changes feasible. What it could éffect is a very easy to use configuration system, and more importantly: happy users! ;-) Remco -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Rhythmbox bugfix update?
LP Bug: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rhythmbox/+bug/202405 GNOME Bug: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505340 Rhythmbox tries to load songs before finding out what directories to load from, and it can cause it to crash. It also produces a *lot* of import errors, which new users are sure to find off-putting. Since there's a patch attached to the GNOME bug which has been accepted by the GNOME devs, could this patch be backported to Hardy's Rhythmbox to fix it before release? -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com -my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Rhythmbox bugfix update?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:14 AM, A. Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LP Bug: https://bugs.edge.launchp.net/ubuntu/+source/rhythmbox/+bug/202405https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rhythmbox/+bug/202405 GNOME Bug: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505340 Rhythmbox tries to load songs before finding out what directories to load from, and it can cause it to crash. It also produces a *lot* of import errors, which new users are sure to find off-putting. Since there's a patch attached to the GNOME bug which has been accepted by the GNOME devs, could this patch be backported to Hardy's Rhythmbox to fix it before release? Said patch is already in Hardy (Rhythmbox 0.11.4.90; the patch was committed to trunk in December and Hardy's pull is from Feb 27). Perhaps you're running into a different bug? Oh. Hmm maybe HAL's misreporting which directories on the iAudio are audio directories? Is there a way I can check that? -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com -my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Rhythmbox bugfix update?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:14 AM, A. Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LP Bug: https://bugs.edge.launchp.net/ubuntu/+source/rhythmbox/+bug/202405https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rhythmbox/+bug/202405 GNOME Bug: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505340 Rhythmbox tries to load songs before finding out what directories to load from, and it can cause it to crash. It also produces a *lot* of import errors, which new users are sure to find off-putting. Since there's a patch attached to the GNOME bug which has been accepted by the GNOME devs, could this patch be backported to Hardy's Rhythmbox to fix it before release? Said patch is already in Hardy (Rhythmbox 0.11.4.90; the patch was committed to trunk in December and Hardy's pull is from Feb 27). Perhaps you're running into a different bug? Oh. Hmm maybe HAL's misreporting which directories on the iAudio are audio directories? Is there a way I can check that? By the way, GNOME devs marked my iAudio bug as a dup of that one, which is why I reported it like that in Launchpad. I just posted to my original bug there ( http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=522543 ) what you just said. -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com -my blog of Ubuntu stuff apt-get moo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
