** Changed in: firefox (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to firefox in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1936647
Title:
right-click popups transparent after upgrade to
Issue no longer present in 90.0.2.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to firefox in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1936647
Title:
right-click popups transparent after upgrade to Firefox 90
Status in firefox package
Public bug reported:
Upon upgrade to Firefox 90, right-click popups appear transparent.
I am using the Blackbird gtk theme. If I switch to Adwaita-dark, the problem
goes away.
I encountered this issue on another system with the direct download from
Mozilla, so this is likely an upstream issue,
At some point along the line this bug has been fixed:
kjotte@mystic:/tmp/sane-backends-1.0.27/backend$ grep -n gethostbyname pixma*
kjotte@mystic:/tmp/sane-backends-1.0.27/backend$ grep -n getaddrinfo pixma*
pixma_bjnp.c:849: if (getaddrinfo(host , service, NULL, ) == 0)
pixma_bjnp.c:1714:
Public bug reported:
A startup script is being patched to load module-x11-bell with a given
sample name:
debian/patches/0006-load-module-x11-bell.patch:+@PACTL_BINARY@ load-
module module-x11-bell "display=$DISPLAY" "sample=bell.ogg" > /dev/null
yet in the default example:
So it looks like this was merged into 16.10 (3:20150815-2ubuntu3 vs
3:20121221-4ubuntu1.1 per packages.ubuntu.com). Should this be closed
out as Fix Released?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to iputils in Ubuntu.
There was a response to the upstream bug indicating the method I used in
my patch would be insufficient. I don't have the skill to whip it into
shape to get it accepted, sadly. If someone who is a developer could
look at the bug in the GNOME bugtracker and rework the patch a bit they
will probably
Public bug reported:
Attempting to report a bug using apport-bug from a machine without a
legacy IP address fails:
# apport-bug foopackage
...
*** Uploading problem information
The collected information is being sent to the bug tracking system.
This might take a few minutes.
*** Error:
I've submitted a patch to the upstream bug tracker to get this resolved,
but there has been no further activity.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
Packages, which is subscribed to network-manager in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1002454
Title:
** Bug watch added: GNOME Bug Tracker #734454
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=734454
** Also affects: network-manager via
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=734454
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
apport-bug:
Cannot connect to crash database, please check your Internet connection.
urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable
** Also affects: apport (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop
NetworkManager is still handing the information to resolvconf in the
wrong order.
root@daedalus:~# lsb_release -d
Description:Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS
root@daedalus:~# cat /run/resolvconf/interface/NetworkManager
domain home.nivex.net
search nivex.lan. home.nivex.net home.nivex.net.
nameserver
Note: Initial bug report was made under 12.10, but the following retest
performed under 14.04.1.
We seem to have a couple of different problems, both indicating a lack
of IPv6 support.
1) Scanner detection over the network is performed with BJNP, and the
specification seems to be tied to using
I have located the problem of specifying the scanner directly in the
backend config.
kjotte@mystic:/tmp$ apt-get source sane-backends
...
kjotte@mystic:/tmp/sane-backends-1.0.23/backend$ grep -n gethostbyname pixma*
pixma_bjnp.c:1145: result = gethostbyname (hostname);
This will need to be
Public bug reported:
When receiving nameservers from a DHCPv6 server, NetworkManager reports
receiving both my primary and secondary servers, but only advises
dnsmasq about the secondary.
Jun 6 13:59:29 daedalus dhclient: XMT: Info-Request on eth0, interval 910ms.
Jun 6 13:59:29 daedalus
15 matches
Mail list logo
