Re: Backup application in default install
Evan wrote: I believe Deja-Dup was originally started for the purpose of becoming default. At the very least, it is simple, useful and actively developed. https://launchpad.net/deja-dup This program is absolutely excellent! I am amazed by how much power there is in an application that is so incredibly simple. The GUI is very professional as well. This seems like an ideal candidate to be included in Ubuntu by default. I have already switched all of my machines to using it. 2010/1/27 Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com Is there a bug entry for this? My understanding is that this sort of change belongs in a spec, rather than a bug, which is why I mentioned that many specs have been written and come to nothing. It would be great to get an opinion on this from someone at Ubuntu. What is the best way to get something done here? Regards, Aaron -- 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
Backup application in default install
Hello all, According to: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem Backup is essential. However, no tool to backup the system is available in the default installation. By contrast, Mandrake (as it was then) included an excellent simple option built-in when I used it around five years ago: http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Docs/Howto/Drakbackup I have just read through all of the Wiki pages I could find on the topic: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Home?action=fullsearchfrom=0context=180value=backup and it seems that each release brings a new spec to include a backup program by default and, each release, people write out the use-cases, set out the alternative backup programs available and argue about missing features. Then the release happens and no backup program is installed by default. Simple-backup-suite appears to be the most officially-sanctioned backup solution for the simple use-case and I understand that it was designed for Ubuntu (during the 2005 GSoC) for this purpose. Unfortunately, the project does not seem at all maintained, which makes it unlikely that bugs will be fixed or features added. The facility to restore backups is also pretty primitive (as far as I can tell), requiring the user to search through each backup file one-by-one to find the correct version(s) of a file, rather than having any master indexes. I would really like to see Canonical/Ubuntu officially support this crucial part of the desktop. There are so many choices for backup, each with subtle differences, that having a recommendation would be very valuable to all but the most skilled backup experts. Canonical/Ubuntu supporting one backup program would also no-doubt encourage further activity in that program. Finally, there could be excellent (revenue-generating?) opportunities to offer an option to backup to Ubuntu One etc. I understand and appreciate the differences between the backup programs (some using inotify and hard-links, some using diffs and archive files etc.), but I feel that it is one of those cases where it is more important to encourage the user to backup the system in any of the available ways than to keep arguing about the most technically-correct approach. Regards, Aaron -- 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
Benchmarks over time
Hello all, I have been maintaining https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/DellInspiron510m since Breezy and have timed a number of things (start-up etc.) for each release since Dapper. I also timed the same things in Windows (back when I still had Windows on the machine). If anybody is interested, these benchmarks are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam/DellInspiron510m#head-8121e9fa24a135212087a653fc0f531f59290e10 Note that Ubuntu has been consistently slower than Windows XP on every metric except shutting down. Regards, Aaron -- FSF Associate Member: 5632 http://www.fsf.org -- 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: Patching
On 13/01/2008, Evan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any change in this area is far too complex for a LTS, however for 8.10 we have the opportunity to be innovative and create a new patching system better than that being used by the competition: An interesting discussion of these kinds of changes can be found here: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/succinct https://wiki.ubuntu.com/apt-sync (the summary section contains links to other patching ideas and outlines problems with taking a patch approach) https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/apt-sync And somebody has made the delta suggestion here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/apt-deltas For me (with several Ubuntu machines on the same network), the work being undertaken under this head - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/apt-avahi - would have a bigger impact on my bandwidth. Aaron -- FSF Associate Member: 5632 http://www.fsf.org -- 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: Hardy Alpha 1 released
The moral of my story? If you don't have skills to compile drivers for yourself on daily basis and resolve all potentional unexpected problems, don't use distribution where everything doesn't work right from the start. Given that I went to the trouble of reading this lengthy email, I thought I would reply. The reason that Alpha releases are made is so that the more competent computer users can test that things work. If you report bugs, these things get fixed. I do not ever compile kernel modules. There have been occasions where hardware that used to work correctly stops working. I report these early in the release cycle (often marked [Regression]) and the problems are nearly always fixed by release time. Aaron -- FSF Associate Member: 5632 http://www.fsf.org -- 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: GIMP *final* release for Gutsy?
On Nov 11, 2007 5:28 AM, João Pinto wrote: if you do believe that potentially this change from RC-Final is only with the splash screen logo, which if it's the case would resolve the problem from the user's expectation perspective, why bringing generic theoretical regression concerns without actually checking the changes ? Has anybody considered simply removing the words Release Candidate from the splash screen? So far, the countless emails on this topic seem to point out the shock and confusion that a new user will experience when seeing Release Candidate. The emails seem to try and extend this reasoning to make points about the exception process, the getdeb project and the philosophy of Ubuntu as a whole. Whatever my view on the rest of the issues (the debate on which seems to generate a lot of noise while progressing very little), I can see that it isn't very professional to have something labelled Release Candidate in the default install when the final version is available. Is there any reason that we cannot just wipe off those words? I appreciate that the included version is not the final version, but with the patches that Ubuntu includes, it isn't really the release candidate either. Worst case scenario, we could have the splash screen without the RC, but with an Ubuntu version comment. Regards, Aaron -- FSF Associate Member: 5632 -- 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: Password-protect grub interactive commands
The only extra security measure I think is worth debating is full disk encryption. I assume that by full disk, you mean the areas that may have personal data. Several places discuss this concept and I understand that there is already an option in the Alternate CD to encrypt /home/. Have a look at: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/EncryptedFilesystemHowto https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EncryptedFilesystems ( https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/encrypted-filesystems ) https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/privacy-tools and, to a lesser degree: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/easy-encryption https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EncryptedStorage https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EncFSIntegration and, if you are really bored: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/password-protected-folders https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/encryption-by-default https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/transparent-home-encryption Hope this helps, Aaron -- FSF Associate Member: 5632 -- 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: Easier and more reliable ISO downloads, with error correction
Anthony Bryan wrote: I usually get slow speeds on BitTorrent. I download via HTTP (using multiple mirrors) and then seed the torrent for the rest. As do I. There are several files that have left me stranded for so long that I ended up just using HTTP and discarding the nearly-complete torrent. That said, I prefer to use torrents and give something back. That isn't such an issue with Ubuntu, as the local mirror has near-unlimited bandwidth and commercial reasons why they want people to use them as much as possible. So for Ubuntu, I use direct HTTP. Given that the metalink files are XML, there seems no reason that I can see why they couldn't include bittorrent trackers. That would allow the bittorrent client in Ubuntu, for example, to test out the different trackers and use the best one(s). If speed dropped below a certain point, or a chunk wasn't in the bittorrent mesh, HTTP could be used to the extent necessary to top up the downloading. In order to implement this, Ubuntu would realistically need some sort of download manager. I was a big fan of GetRight when I used Windows. I would be happy if I loaded up Hardy and it had a sparkly new download manager, fully integrated with every desktop app that may download something (Firefox etc.) and handling metalinks and torrents (including metalink files with torrent info). Anything that isn't downloaded and displayed within the browser window is really the same from the user's point of view and the interface should probably be the same. I don't, however, expect the developers to divert resources from higher priorities to create one when the tools already integrated into U/Gobuntu already work. Aaron -- FSF Associate Member: 5632 -- 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: Graphical installer for the alternate CD?
The below, inlined patch introduces the boot option lowraminstall which boots the computer directly into Ubiquity in a minimal X session. I would suggest sneaking this into Gutsy, as a hidden and unsupported possibility for those who need it. If people are happy with it, the extra line in the boot menu in isolinux.cfg can be added in a later version. For the record, this was since merged by Evan as the 'only-ubiquity' boot option. Will this be a boot option? Why not choose it in the cases where it is needed? The current system requirements for the desktop CD are 320MB of RAM. If the user has 256MB or less, then we could just load the lowraminstall session when they select the normal option. If people are concerned with doing anything automatically, we could have a second menu where, if the machine has less than 320MB RAM (it could be a higher threshold because it is no longer automatic), the user is asked whether they want to boot into the full or cut-down version. Aaron -- 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: evince crash
It seems to me that if users, developers and testers that are following this list care about a particular issue or bug they can raise it here. If it generates no discussion and others simply ignore, then it is probably not a big issue. I see your point. The same rationale, however, would support sending a report of each new bug filed to the list. Everyone on the list *could* ignore anything that they weren't interested in. Also, the fact that the release is close, to me means that any major bugs should pass by more eyes and get more attention. Most people tend to see their bugs as major. I don't mean to lessen the frustration of your plight, but not being able to view a pdf on a password restricted site isn't the most major bug that I have seen filed against Gutsy. In some ways there is a problem with the way users can't rate the importance of their own bugs. I filed a bug about suspend locking up my laptop every time it is used and one about the default spellchecker for NZers being en_US instead of en_UK. Clearly one is more important than the other, but they have the same importance prior to being triaged. The counter-argument, I assume, is that normal people can't be trusted to objectively rate the importance of their bugs. I have grave issues with Gutsy... especially seeing as it is about a week from release. I have tested each milestone since pre-Breezy for the LaptopTesting reports and Gutsy is the least stable for me yet. That is largely, as I said earlier, a result of -Intel and Compiz. I filed my reports against each package and they are still sitting there untouched. So perhaps you are right that I should have pestered the list instead. I just don't see it as being a good policy. To be fair, I have now succeeded in generating more noise than the recent bug awareness raising has! Regards, Aaron -- 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: cn.archive.ubuntu.com severely outdated
cn.archive.ubuntu.com has been outdated for about one week. Is there any mechanism on the part of the ubuntu project to make sure the country level mirrors are updated timely? You can find the status of the archive mirrors here: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors You should find your mirror cn.archive.ubuntu.com listed under Shanghai Linux User Group. Interestingly, that page says that it is a week behind, but if you click on the link and look for more detail, it says unknown freshness. I don't know the reason for the discrepancy. Regards, Aaron -- 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: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 30/09/2007, Martin Peeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/09/2007, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a temporary cosmetic work-around, something like forcing the output into a pseudo-window on the boot screen (so that it doesn't look like the whole thing crashed to command line) might be nice, e.g.: This is dealt with in this spec: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/usplash-polish https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UsplashPolishSpec Aaron -- 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
Gutsy Release page points to beta DVDs only
I have been eagerly awaiting the release of the Gutsy Beta and checking https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GutsyReleaseSchedule for updates. It has a link to http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/gutsy/beta/ (containing only DVD images). Eventually I learnt that there was http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/gutsybeta up and running. Perhaps there should be a link on the Release Schedule. (I also haven't seen the usual post to the announce list...) Aaron -- 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: That need to close bugs?
What is the rationale behind skipping closed bugs in a search? I've been burned by this in the past. I can understand why the QA guys or the even developers would want this but for a user, who is actually making the effort to not only report a bug but to search for dups first, why would they want to ignore closed bugs? Closed bugs often contain exactly what that user needs - a workaround or a timeline for the fix to be released, As has already been pointed out, if a user is filing a bug then this isn't a problem. If you try and file a new bug with summary broken, the list suggests bugs that are Fix Released, Invalid etc. If there are closed, duplicate bugs, they should be suggested by Launchpad when the user tries to file it. I file quite a lot of bugs. Now and again I will file a bug and forget to include something. Most people mark it as Needs Info/incomplete and explain what is missing. Some give excellent guidance in typing in the correct commands etc. It drives me batty when somebody closes the bug. It also drives me batty when people misunderstand my problem and duplicate it against something that isn't related. Without people doing these things, however, the rest of my bugs would not get fixed as quickly. We are lucky enough to have a wide range of skills in Ubuntu volunteers. A few have the ability to fix the bugs that come up in the products. More have the ability to help people refine their bugs. When a dev gets home from work and sits in front of their computer for a couple of hours helping Ubuntu, the bugs need to be ready with everything that they need. Lets take an extreme example. Say my mother has an obscure set-up and her machine doesn't boot at all with Ubuntu. She files a bug saying Ubuntu doesn't work. Now, in an ideal world, a triager will help her through turning that into a detailed report with logs, step-by-step reproduction instructions etc. But say that the world isn't ideal. Mum decides Ubuntu is silly and goes back to Microsoft, never looking at Ubuntu or Launchpad again. Do we really gain anything by having a dev look at Ubuntu doesn't work every day for the rest of all time? How about 50,000 Ubuntu doesn't works? There has been excellent progress in projects like AutomatedCrashReporting. Things like that make it easier for people to give useful information when they aren't computer literate. We have too many bugs and not enough people able to fix them. Those people should be focusing on well-documented, prioritised bugs. If we ever have more developers than bugs, we can afford to have the developers chasing people and having incomplete bugs open. I suppose: 1) When I (as a fairly competent user) file a bug, I need to make sure that I give all the information that I can; 2) When people are triaging, they should probably try to get the information that is needed from the reporter before they close the bug; 3) We could free up the people doing these mundane tasks: [RFE] Malone should email, then close bugs for inactivity https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/141199 and [RFE] Email inactive bugs a month after a release https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/141202 and then the people that were doing those tasks could instead help people complete their reports; and 4) If your bug is a duplicate of a bug that isn't complete, complete it! A great start would be: Allow product-/package-specific bug-reporting guidelines https://bugs.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/43893 as it should dramatically improve report quality. I've been using Ubuntu since Hoary, but I still don't know when developers will want the output of lspci etc. My underlying point is that we all want Ubuntu to be bug-free. It isn't and it isn't likely to be any time soon. While it isn't, we need to focus our resources on things that are ready to be fixed. There is nothing to stop having people trying to complete INCOMPLETE bugs by asking questions, but confirmed, complete reports need to be the priority. A big thanks to all the people keeping the bug system going. Aaron -- 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: Position on large GPLed programs
Matt, I'm a bit confused by the question. What does the license have to do with it? A big, MIT-licensed program would seem to raise exactly the same issues. You are right, of course. It was a slip to choose one license instead of just saying open source. That's not exactly how it works; popcon statistics are actually dominated by the choice of default software, not the other way around. While we do consider relative popularity when selecting programs for the default install, popcon is unfortunately not very useful for this at the moment. I expected that to be the case for the actual files installed and for the Desktop CD. I was thinking of was the extra packages that are put on the alternate install CD/the DVD - I understood that popcon was used to determine which to put on there to fill up the space. Thanks for your help, Aaron -- 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: Apprenticeship periods at university, working on Ubuntu!
This would be a great help to Ubuntu, in a way similar to the Google SoC. I would suggest that you look at how the Google SoC is run in Ubuntu and model your approach on that. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GoogleSoC2007 An important thing that I would like to ensure is that, if the blueprint has been approved, and the implementation is satisfying, the new piece of software IS included in the next release of ubuntu. Depending on how you mean this, you may struggle to have this condition met. Virtually every piece of software is included in the release if you include software available through the repositories. If you are asking for an undertaking that the piece of software is installed by default, you are unlikely to get it. If this is something that really matters to a student, they could pick an improvement to a piece of software that is currently installed by default. Otherwise, they would have to make sure that their piece of software did what it was supposed to do in a way that was bug-free and efficient enough to make Ubuntu want to install it by default. Even if the software was perfect, if it wouldn't be needed by enough people, it wouldn't be part of the default install. If the projects are chosen to fill an important need in Ubuntu (for example the SoC projects), I would imagine that they are very likely to be included. 1) home user backup would need to be done on-the-fly and to be integrated in ubuntu menus See https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/home-user-backup Erik has already pointed out that your other two areas are more Network-Manager issues than Ubuntu issues. If you can find a mentor etc. upstream for these issues and have the improvements added to upstream NM, the improvements would flow through to Ubuntu and all the other distributions. Hope that helps, Aaron -- 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
Position on large GPLed programs
Hello all, I filed a needs-packaging bug for UFO: Alien Invasion: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/127341 Somebody quite accurately pointed out that it is 250MB and that a package that size is a significant new burden on mirrors. Putting it on the mirrors would make life a lot easier than it is at the moment. It is quite possible that we have 50, 5MB applications that are less popular than this one. What is the current position on big, GPLed programs? Do we just package anything GPL and then modify our approach when/if mirrors start to complain? To me it would make sense to have a consistent approach. I understand that the 700MB that are highest-rated in the popcon are put on the CDs. That seems like a good analogy to this issue. 1) I think that we should indiscriminately package anything that has an adequate license; 2) If mirrors start to complain, we should implement a new system so that mirrors can choose how much they are prepared to mirror. The new approach could be tied into the https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors system and some push-mirror idea: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/push-package-mirroring If a mirror then chooses to only mirror 5GB of data, the Launchpad Mirror Manager could tell the mirrors the most-used 5GB of files to download, as rated by the popularity contest. If some push-mirroring system was in place, then the mirrors would be asking Launchpad Mirror Manager what they should be downloading anyway, so it shouldn't be overly difficult to put caps in place if they are requested. The only difficulty would be modifying the package manager to check other mirrors if the package that the user wants is not available on their preferred mirror. I suppose that a system like we currently use for security updates could be used. What are people's thoughts? Aaron -- 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: Non-critical bug fixes/new hardware drivers in stable releases?
Tim, While I can see the merit of keeping changes to stable to a minimum, it seems like the existing policy of Ubuntu (and many distributions - I'm not blaming Ubuntu in particular) is leaving many users out in the cold with regards to their issues until the next release. Backporting changes is risky. Ubuntu makes the decision that security fixes are worth the risk of backporting. If you are talking about changes that are available in later releases, then the affected users are able to upgrade. In my opinion, it is more important that we don't break the machines of people for whom everything is currently fine. I would love to see Ubuntu backport all new features to past versions, but that would leave little point in having releases at all. It would make it nearly impossible to check quality as the system would be in continual flux. In order to backport non-critical/security updates, we would need people testing those updates - people who could be working to make the next releases better. With limited resources, I think system stability on past versions would suffer. Aaron -- 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
Should we split codec files?
Hello all, I am using Gutsy Tribe 5. I was just sent a wmv file from somebody and was finally able to try the fancy Gnome-app-install multimedia codec installer. The list showed me two entries, both of which apparently contain codecs for large numbers of formats. It occurred to me that, to play my one file, I was going to have to install codecs for far more formats than I wanted to play. More importantly, I was going to have to install far more patent-breaching files than I theoretically had to. In addition, I have cruft installed that I don't need. In the past, it wouldn't have been a great idea to have numerous packages, as it would make installing them more difficult. Now that the process is automatic, it makes sense to me that we should enable the user to install (and infringe patents) to the minimum extent necessary. Splitting codecs would also have the advantage that a dedicated codec package (this is an example, please don't shoot me for inaccuracy) like fluendo's mp3 decoder would get a fair run in the popularity contest against the composite packages. At the moment, everyone has to install Gstreamer-ugly for so many types of file. This means that the (more legal, as I understand it) fluendo codec never gets installed. That, in turn, skews the popularity contest results when somebody is deciding which codec to install when their mp3 doesn't play. We could always create meta-packages with the same names as the old packages. Does anybody else think that this would be worth the effort? Am I better to create a spec or to post bugs against gstreamer-ugly etc.? Thanks in advance, Aaron -- 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: Default option for volume hotkeys (speakers/headphones)
4) Alter the kernel so that it binds the headphone and master channel together. That's how it's handled on various pieces of hardware. A bug suggesting that this be done can be found at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.22/+bug/124662 I assume that, seeing as nobody suggested a better solution, Matthew's method is the best way to proceed. Thanks for the assistance, Aaron -- 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
