[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
This bug refers to update amule in Ubuntu 8.04, not in intrepid, because the current SVN version is obsolete and don't work with other ed2k software. Also it was decided to update to 2.2.2 which fixes some security problems in the protocol. ** Changed in: amule (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released => Confirmed ** Summary changed: - [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release + [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.2 final release ** Description changed: Binary package hint: amule Hi all! :D The current version of aMule in Ubuntu 8.04 is not a stable version (2.2.0~svn20080218-0ubuntu4, it is a svn snapshot). Yet at the time was more stable than 2.1.3 so it was included. - Now it has published the final version 2.2.1 that can be considered stable (at least more than a snapshot svn) + Now it has published the final version 2.2.2 that can be considered stable (at least more than a snapshot svn) The main reasons (ARE NOT ALL. I continued looking for specific errors) why I am requesting that the upgrade program are as follows: * High importance: + + -> Version 2.2.2 has fixes to defy routing attacks -> The extended version of the Kademlia network, Kad2, wasn't complete in the svn ubuntu has. That was Bad (tm), to the extent of damaging the network, especially when dealing with firewalled users, but also when indexing files >4GB. that's serious, from the network perspective. (from Kry, aMule dev) -> Also the new network code reinforces the security of the network about attacks to its nodes, and it's important not to have old clients around. (from Kry, aMule dev) -> In the connection process amulegui exchanges some information with the target, including some 'protocol version'. If the client and server don't agree on this number the connection is rejected. The number interchanged is different in the SVN version. In the function ExternalConn::Authenticate it states that // For release versions, we don't want to allow connections from any arbitrary SVN client. It seems that a SVN version gui cannot communicate with a 'release' version daemon. (LP: #206648) * Medium importance: -> It solves many problems of stability of svn that caused unexpected falls. + https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/230015/comments/3 + Also (LP: #230015) (LP: #213586) (LP: #207178) * Low importance: -> Copy ED2K link to clipboard works strange (LP: #244670) -> aMule makes bad hashlinks (ed2k://) (LP: #94231) -> amule have by default konqueror browser in ubuntu (LP: #209810) -> Shared files priority don't get updated on amulegui -> 100% of CPU used by amuleweb -> broken log view -> disable upnp in preferences if library loading fails Possible bugs to be solved: (LP: #234422) Old reasons (Not so Disabled): * This release could be considered a bugfix release since most of the new features of aMule 2.2.1 are already included in the latest svn. Indeed! Some features are incomplete in the svn snapshot * Version 2.2.1, to be an official launch, can be reported hypothetical errors in the program. A snapshot is svn, from the standpoint of developers, a lot of provisional code and that is no longer present at the launch stable. * Ubuntu 8.04 is a LTS release so it will be in use at least 3 years for desktops. I do not think it good maintain a snapshot svn for 3 years since "svn snapshot" is not synonymous of stability. * At least in the forum of aMule have been reported numerous problems with the svn snapshot where developers can only advise compile a stable version or an svn latest snapshot. The end user should avoid the process of compiling whenever possible. Some of these problems are in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/230015/comments/3 And these are just one example (if I am put a full list would be too large). Such is the problem with this svn snapshot that aMule devs are already tired of Ubuntu. http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15259.0 Discussion here: http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15317.0 They blame the Ubuntu patches in wxGTK and crypto + + packages. But in my opinion, Ubuntu users reports of bugs never stopped and was in this svn when the devs are tired. I do not say that 2.2.1 is a "panacea" but at least is a stable version. I am using self since he left and it seems to be more stable than version repositories -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.2 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
** Changed in: amule (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Fix Released -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
It appears that the version check only prints the availability of the new version in the logfile, so this is harmless and should be leaved. In the meantime, amule 2.2.2 was released (which include changes to defy routing attacks), but it's not yet in debian/intrepid. Changelog: http://www.amule.org/wiki/index.php/Changelog_2.2.2 -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
Good point. That is correct. -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
Festor, I tried your amule package from the PPA. It works well, but I want to report a little thing, in case this will be backported to Ubuntu, don't know if it was present also in the official Ubuntu version. The check to search new versions during startup should be disabled and the option should be greyed out, since the update/upgrade process should be managed by Ubuntu and not amule. In Ubuntu's Firefox this check is also disabled and the option is greyed out. -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
I'd prefer to wait. -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
This is the thing: the hint I gave Festor about the upstream release is unrelated to regression testing or similar. It is actually a new security problem that needs to be patched - upstream is waiting for a concurrent eMule release (or their beta) before releasing a new version. Releasing 2.2.1, or keeping the current one would keep the same vulnerability that would have to be patched. It can be easily applied as a patch over this release instead if that's what you prefer - it's been out for a month with no important reports, and I can probably package a couple of important patches (well tested ones) from this last month. But I think this duplicated effort can easily be avoided by waiting till our actual release. You tell me what you prefer, really. -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
Yes. But this highlights why we don't like complete new upstream updates. I really would like to know how I can be confident regression testing is well done and complete. -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
NEWS!!... I received an e-mail of upstream: "Hey, it's best not to upload the 2.2.1, and put it on hold waiting for 2.2.2, which will be out next week as much as possible. Believe me, is a serious reason. You can put in upstream bug that you have been asked to wait for this new version until next week by a security patch that is not yet available." Can you wait a few more days? -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
2008/7/2 Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > SInce intrepid has 2.2.1-1ubuntu1, hardy cannot have the same version. > It should be 2.2.1-1ubuntu0.1. I'd appreciate it if you'd delete the > Hardy PPA package and then re-upload it as 2.2.1-1ubuntu0.1~ppa1 so that > if we can get this published, users who install from the PPA will > upgrade to the official package. > Give me a few minutes and I'll do > Are there any changes needed to the version in Intrepid to make it work > in Hardy? Only * debian/control - Changed libupnp3 for libupnp2 -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
Please subscribe, not assign motu-sru (I've fixed). ** Changed in: amule (Ubuntu) Assignee: MOTU Stable Release Updates (motu-sru) => (unassigned) -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
SInce intrepid has 2.2.1-1ubuntu1, hardy cannot have the same version. It should be 2.2.1-1ubuntu0.1. I'd appreciate it if you'd delete the Hardy PPA package and then re-upload it as 2.2.1-1ubuntu0.1~ppa1 so that if we can get this published, users who install from the PPA will upgrade to the official package. Are there any changes needed to the version in Intrepid to make it work in Hardy? -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
I have a PPA with aMule 2.2.1 for Intrepid, Hardy and Gutsy: https://launchpad.net/~festor90/+archive -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
I think that is enough for now. If you need more information (specific) let me know and I will try to look -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
Here is my package based on recent sync with Debian (diff.gz taken from aMule 2.2.1 Intrepid) amule (2.2.1-1ubuntu1) hardy; urgency=low * New upstream release for Hardy - Completed implementation of the Kademlia network (Kad 2.0) - The new network code reinforces the security of the network about attacks to its nodes. - Fixed "amulegui does not start in Hardy Heron" (LP: #206648) because a SVN version gui cannot communicate with a 'release' version daemon. - It solves many problems of stability of svn that caused unexpected falls. (LP: #230015) (LP: #213586) (LP: #207178) - Others fixes: (LP: #244670) (LP: #94231) (LP: #209810) -From Mantis Bug Tracker +Shared files priority don't get updated on amulegui +100% of CPU used by amuleweb +broken log view +disable upnp in preferences if library loading fails * debian/control - Changed libupnp3 for libupnp2 -- Festor Wailon Dacoba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:11:32 +0200 ** Attachment added: "amule_2.2.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/15750054/amule_2.2.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz ** Attachment removed: "amule_2.2.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/15743508/amule_2.2.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
** Description changed: Binary package hint: amule Hi all! :D The current version of aMule in Ubuntu 8.04 is not a stable version (2.2.0~svn20080218-0ubuntu4, it is a svn snapshot). Yet at the time was more stable than 2.1.3 so it was included. Now it has published the final version 2.2.1 that can be considered stable (at least more than a snapshot svn) - The main reasons why I am requesting that the upgrade program are as follows: - + The main reasons (ARE NOT ALL. I continued looking for specific errors) why I am requesting that the upgrade program are as follows: + + High importance: + + -> The extended version of the Kademlia network, Kad2, wasn't complete + in the svn ubuntu has. That was Bad (tm), to the extent of damaging the + network, especially when dealing with firewalled users, but also when + indexing files >4GB. that's serious, from the network perspective. (from + Kry, aMule dev) + + -> Also the new network code reinforces the security of the network + about attacks to its nodes, and it's important not to have old clients + around. (from Kry, aMule dev) + + -> In the connection process amulegui exchanges some information with + the target, including some 'protocol version'. If the client and server + don't agree on this number the connection is rejected. The number + interchanged is different in the SVN version. In the function + ExternalConn::Authenticate it states that + + // For release versions, we don't want to allow connections + from any arbitrary SVN client. + + It seems that a SVN version gui cannot communicate with a 'release' + version daemon. (LP: 206648) + + Medium importance: + + -> It solves many problems of stability of svn that caused unexpected falls. + + https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/230015/comments/3 + + Also (LP: 230015) (LP: 213586) (LP: 207178) + + Low importance: + + -> Copy ED2K link to clipboard works strange (LP: 244670) + -> aMule makes bad hashlinks (ed2k://) (LP: 94231) + -> amule have by default konqueror browser in ubuntu (LP: 209810) + -> Shared files priority don't get updated on amulegui + -> 100% of CPU used by amuleweb + -> broken log view + -> disable upnp in preferences if library loading fails + + Possible bugs to be solved: + + (LP: 234422) + + Old reasons (Not so Disabled): + * This release could be considered a bugfix release since most of the new features of aMule 2.2.1 are already included in the latest svn. Indeed! Some features are incomplete in the svn snapshot * Version 2.2.1, to be an official launch, can be reported hypothetical errors in the program. A snapshot is svn, from the standpoint of developers, a lot of provisional code and that is no longer present at the launch stable. * Ubuntu 8.04 is a LTS release so it will be in use at least 3 years for desktops. I do not think it advisable to maintain a snapshot svn for 3 years since "svn snapshot" is not synonymous of stability. * At least in the forum of aMule have been reported numerous problems with the svn snapshot where developers can only advise compile a stable version or an svn latest snapshot. The end user should avoid the process of compiling whenever possible. - Some of these problems are: - http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14957.0 - http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15058.0 - http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15025.0 - http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14901.0 - http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14887.0 - http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14833.0 + Some of these problems are in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/230015/comments/3 And these are just one example (if I am put a full list would be too large). Such is the problem with this svn snapshot that aMule devs are already tired of Ubuntu. http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15259.0 Discussion here: http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15317.0 They blame the Ubuntu patches in wxGTK and crypto + + packages. But in my opinion, Ubuntu users reports of bugs never stopped and was in this svn when the devs are tired. I do not say that 2.2.1 is a "panacea" but at least is a stable version. I am using self since he left and it seems to be more stable than version repositories - - Here is my package based on recent sync with Debian (diff.gz taken from - aMule 2.2.1 Intrepid) - - amule (2.2.1-1ubuntu1) hardy; urgency=low - - * New upstream release for Hardy - * debian/control -- Changed libupnp3 for libupnp2 - - -- Festor Wailon Dacoba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:11:32 - +0200 ** Description changed: Binary package hint: amule Hi all! :D The current version of aMule in Ubuntu 8.04 is not a stable version (2.2.0~svn20080218-0ubuntu4, it is a svn snapshot). Yet at the time was more stable than 2.1.3 so it was included. Now it has published the final version 2.2.1 that can be cons
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
working in the main post -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
This: * From Mantis Bug Tracker: - Fixed 0001313: broken log view - Fixed 0001296: 100% of CPU used by amuleweb - Fixed 0001289: amule fails to build on non glibc systems (e.g. uclibc) - Fixed 0001267: Shared files priority don't get updated on amulegui - Fixed 0001266: aMule SVN fails when enabling GeoIP with LDFLAGS="--as-needed" [PATCH] - Other minor fixes Only until May 25 hardy -> 18 feb 2.2.1 -> June 11, -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/94231 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/187041 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/209810 * From Mantis Bug Tracker: - Fixed 0001313: broken log view - Fixed 0001296: 100% of CPU used by amuleweb - Fixed 0001289: amule fails to build on non glibc systems (e.g. uclibc) - Fixed 0001267: Shared files priority don't get updated on amulegui - Fixed 0001266: aMule SVN fails when enabling GeoIP with LDFLAGS="--as-needed" [PATCH] - Other minor fixes Of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amule/+bug/234807 -> Network protocol updated to eMule 0.49a (svn of hardy have an incomplete implementation) I'm looking for bugs fixed -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Re: [Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
What bugs are filed in Launchpad that don't happen with the final. Unless you can point to SRU worthy bugs, this won't get updated. -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
It is not easy to separate between a svn bugs and the final, but I can say that many people who updated the end had no problems with the svn -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 244670] Re: [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release
** Description changed: Binary package hint: amule Hi all! :D - Please, wait while I'm looking for information + The current version of aMule in Ubuntu 8.04 is not a stable version + (2.2.0~svn20080218-0ubuntu4, it is a svn snapshot). Yet at the time was + more stable than 2.1.3 so it was included. + + Now it has published the final version 2.2.1 that can be considered stable (at least more than a snapshot svn) + + The main reasons why I am requesting that the upgrade program are as follows: + + * This release could be considered a bugfix release since most of the new features of aMule 2.2.1 are already included in the latest svn. Indeed! Some features are incomplete in the svn snapshot + * Version 2.2.1, to be an official launch, can be reported hypothetical errors in the program. A snapshot is svn, from the standpoint of developers, a lot of provisional code and that is no longer present at the launch stable. + * Ubuntu 8.04 is a LTS release so it will be in use at least 3 years for desktops. I do not think it advisable to maintain a snapshot svn for 3 years since "svn snapshot" is not synonymous of stability. + * At least in the forum of aMule have been reported numerous problems with the svn snapshot where developers can only advise compile a stable version or an svn latest snapshot. The end user should avoid the process of compiling whenever possible. + + Some of these problems are: + http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14957.0 + http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15058.0 + http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15025.0 + http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14901.0 + http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14887.0 + http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=14833.0 + + And these are just one example (if I am put a full list would be too + large). Such is the problem with this svn snapshot that aMule devs are + already tired of Ubuntu. + + http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15259.0 + + Discussion here: http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=15317.0 + + They blame the Ubuntu patches in wxGTK and crypto + + packages. But in + my opinion, Ubuntu users reports of bugs never stopped and was in this + svn when the devs are tired. + + I do not say that 2.2.1 is a "panacea" but at least is a stable version. + I am using self since he left and it seems to be more stable than + version repositories + + Here is my package based on recent sync with Debian (diff.gz taken from + aMule 2.2.1 Intrepid) + + amule (2.2.1-1ubuntu1) hardy; urgency=low + + * New upstream release for Hardy + * debian/control +- Changed libupnp3 for libupnp2 + + -- Festor Wailon Dacoba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:11:32 + +0200 ** Attachment added: "amule_2.2.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/15743508/amule_2.2.1-1ubuntu1.diff.gz ** Changed in: amule (Ubuntu) Assignee: Festor Wailon Dacoba (festor90) => MOTU Stable Release Updates (motu-sru) Status: In Progress => Confirmed -- [hardy] Request of update of aMule to 2.2.1 final release https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/244670 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
