*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1795696 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1795696
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1795696
/usr/bin/unattended-upgrade:UnboundLocalError:/usr/bin/unattended-upgrade@1991:main:do_auto_remove
--
You received this bug notification because y
Marking as verification done based on the crash not appearing with the
fixed release.
** Tags removed: verification-needed verification-needed-bionic
** Tags added: verification-done verification-done-bionic
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded pa
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1789637 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1789637
The implementation of the frontend lock in _all_ dpkg frontends can make
u-u avoid this crash. Making this bug as a duplicate of the bug tracking
the frontend lock implementation for u-u.
** This bug has be
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1789637 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1789637
Locking across dpkg frontend is being fixed and the fix will be ported
back to Xenial. I'm setting this bug as a duplicate of the one tracking
the fix of unattended-upgrades. Please follow the state of that
The broken dcservice file is not part of Ubuntu. If you still experience
the issue please track down the origin and open a bug there. @colan
Apport directed you there because it had no better idea, but it is just
a script doing pre-processing of crashes.
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu
** Package changed: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) => flashplugin-nonfree
(Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1689756
Title:
package unattend
This is a bug in smfpd, which is not packaged in Ubuntu.
https://www.keypressure.com/blog/what-is-smfpd/
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed
It is quite strange but it is not an unattended-upgrades bug. Do you
still observe it?
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-up
Reassigning to update-manager since it started the installation, u-u
does not seem to be at fault here.
** Package changed: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu) => update-manager
(Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed
Fixed in this commit: https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-
upgrades/commit/7c5e5476711fab6b9977116792262e16efe626ec
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages
I agree that it should be fixed in u-u. Patches are welcome.
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Importance: Medium => Wishlist
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https:/
Debconf executes scripts from /tmp by default but you can try continuing
securing the system by changing apt's temp file configuration:
https://serverfault.com/questions/72356/how-useful-is-mounting-tmp-noexec
Anyway this is definitely not a bug in u-u, maybe a wishlist one for
debconf.
** Chang
Unattended-upgrade uses ufc(1) to manage the related conffiles and ucf
creates those copies during the update.
Starting with u-u 1.4 README.md recommends creating separate
configuration files in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d to avoid updates to conflict
with local changes.
Latest apt ignores the .ucf-* fil
** Description changed:
[Impact]
* When Secure Boot is enabled and MOK is not set and a new dkms module
is installed sim-signed asks for a Secure Boot MOK, or aborts package
installation in non-interactive mode. When unattended-upgrades performed
the upgrade the aborted installation
@slashd (and all) the fix caused regressions elsewhere and it is being
partially reverted and the issue is fixed in a different way. Please
don't backport the current fix.
The candidate for fixing the issue without the regressions introduced:
https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/pull/148
Verified with shim-signed 1.37~18.04.3+15+1533136590.3beb971-0ubuntu1:
...
ubuntu@autopkgtest:/var/cache/apt/archives$ sudo rm
/var/lib/shim-signed/mok/MOK.der
ubuntu@autopkgtest:/var/cache/apt/archives$ sudo update-secureboot-policy
--new-key
Generating a new Secure Boot signing key:
Generati
Unattended-upgrade uses ufc(1) to manage the related conffiles and ucf
creates those copies during the update.
Starting with u-u 1.4 README.md recommends creating separate
configuration files in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d to avoid updates to
conflict with local changes.
Latest apt ignores the .ucf-* file
This occurs when the configuration contains invalid data.
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Low
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
** Summary changed:
-
/usr/bin/unattended-upgrade:ValueError:/usr/bin/unattended-upg
The bug here is that debconf can't connect to the X server to ask the user
about replacing u-u's configuration file.
While this is not a bug in unattended-upgrades, u-u 1.8 will include a fix to
avoid triggering the debconf question when the configuration file is intact:
https://github.com/mvo5/u
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu Artful)
Status: New => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1615381
Title:
apt-get autore
The first error in DpkgTerminalLog.txt:
Configurando samba-common (2:4.7.6+dfsg~ubuntu-0ubuntu2.2) ...
dpkg: erro ao processar o pacote samba-common (--configure):
installed samba-common package post-installation script subprocess returned
error exit status 10
Configurando libgdm1 (3.28.3-0ubunt
Reopening, since the guest session is disabled by default but it is
still not confined.
** Changed in: lightdm (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => Triaged
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
Public bug reported:
This is a continuation of LP: #1663157 where as a workaround for the
guest session not being confined the session got disabled. This bug
tracks the fix for proper confinement.
Original bug report text:
Processes launched under a lightdm guest session are not confined by the
@tyhicks I just opened LP #1742912 for tracking the confinement fix.
** Changed in: lightdm (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launc
This is fixed in Zesty and later versions.
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to procps in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1743182
Title:
This seems to be fixed for some time.
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to procps in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1073543
Title:
This seems to be fixed for some time.
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to procps in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/686000
Title:
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint)
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu Artful)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint)
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed i
With the fix for this bug I'm dropping the clearly obsolete question,
but IMO adding different questions would confuse less experienced users.
I think power users who can cope with regressions caused by packages
from sources coming from sources not allowed by unattended-upgrades by
default should
** Summary changed:
- By default settings unattended-upgrade is unable to automatically remove
packages that become unused in conjunction with updating by other software.
+ By default settings unattended-upgrade does not automatically remove packages
that become unused in conjunction with updati
Changed to title to reflect that the issue is not about something not
implemented, but something not set as default.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1624644
Title
s/to title/the title/
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1624644
Title:
By default settings unattended-upgrade does not automatically remove
packages that become
Public bug reported:
.
** Affects: sudo (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1731981
Title:
Please merge
** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
** Description changed:
- .
+ Changes:
+ sudo (1.8.21p2-2ubuntu1) bionic; urgency=medium
+ .
+* Merge from Debian unstable. (LP: #1731981)
+ Remaining changes:
+ - debian/rules, debian/sudo.service, debian/sudo.sudo.init: stop
+shipping init script and service file, as they
ntu1.patch
** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Confirmed
** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo
Most of the remaining delta is Ubuntu-specific. I just forwarded the part for
shipping the Apport hook since Debian started shipping them, too:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=881671
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #881671
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?
@Jarno: IMO Unattended-Upgrade::Remove-Unused-Dependencies is already a risky
option and I don't recommend enabling it because it may remove packages which
are not used according the to package-dependency chain but which users rely on
using software that is not packaged.
The only place I would u
I suggest marking that bug as Won't Fix.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1624644
Title:
Unable to automatically remove packages that become unus
@xnox IMO watchdogs should not care if it is a "soft" or other kind of
lockup.
I'm closing the bug because the workaround for recovering from a
potentially broken journal is working and there is no indication of a
journal which is actually broken.
** Changed in: systemd (Ubuntu Artful)
St
I suggest setting this bug Won't Fix.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to systemd in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1696970
Title:
softlockup DoS causes systemd-journald.service to abort with SIGABORT
@Ethan: Re: ping over IRC, yes, please apt_1.2.25-rbalint2 for testing
u-u.
When Unattended-Upgrade::InstallOnShutdown is set u-u should also work
properly with apt 1.2.24 from -updates.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subs
Added update-manager as affected package because update-manager is the
tool leaving newly unused packages around.
** Also affects: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, w
@Ethan,
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:04 PM, ethan.hsieh wrote:
> @Balint
>
> Here is my test result: (InstallOnShutdown:true)
>
> Packages will be installed when rebooting system.
> I rebooted system five times, but system still didn't finish the update.
> It took too long to finish online update.
@Jarno I added update-manager based on my experience with (less
experienced) users, who kept their system up-to-date by saying yes to
everything regarding updates which popped up on their system.
They never touched apt or synaptic nor installed packages by themselves
by other means.
I think remov
@Ethan: Thanks for the test and the logs.
Those show that the fix works but the move to minimal steps slowed down u-u a
lot. I tried fixing the slowdown by finishing the concept of pre-calculating
the steps then performing them but IMO this direction is not safe and can
potentially leave packag
It is also worth noting that users should rarely meet such slow upgrade
as the number of packages to upgrade with each run is usually much
lower.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to apt in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.laun
I believe i fixed this issue in 0.95, with this commit:
https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/commit/ffd53631219b32dfd28cd5dfd447bddd3d8b3d5e
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
Needs SRU, IMO.
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1717280
Title:
s
Public bug reported:
The update fixes issues which surfaced when u-u switched installing
updates in minimal steps, most notably the minimal-steps method being
very slow
0.97 speeds up u-u ~90% which brings current worst-case (xenial with no
security fixes -> fully updates) run-time down to tolera
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscri
** Patch added: "debdiff compared to latest Ubuntu version"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1718419/+attachment/4953526/+files/unattended-upgrades_0.96ubuntu1_to_0.97ubuntu1.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch
med
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned)
** Description changed:
The update fixes issues which surfaced when u-u switched installing
updates in minimal steps, most notably the minimal-steps method being
very slow
- 0.97 spe
When you see the messages appearing on the screenshot u-u is
downloading/installing packages in the background and unattended-
upgrade-shutdown is waiting for u-u to finish.
Do you see related activity in /var/log/unattended-upgrades/* ?
I assume you have not changed u-u configuration.
There sho
** Tags added: artful
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1718419
Title:
Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.97 (main) from Debian unstable
(main)
@Ethan Based on profiling real-life scenario (updating unstable with 100+
packages) I believe I was able to make u-u ~10 > times faster that should bring
down the time of your test of upgrading xenial with all security updates to
below one hour.
Since running only dpkg's part took more than 30
@Ethan
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:29 AM, ethan.hsieh wrote:
> @Balint
>
> Here is test result for InstallOnShutdown:true
>
> "Errors were encountered while processing: apport"
> u-u still has packages to upgrade after this issue happens.
> So, when I reboot system every time, u-u still tries to up
@Ethan
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, ethan.hsieh wrote:
> @Balint
>
> Here is test result for InstallOnShutdown:false
>
> Timestamp:
> 1. 13:25:10~13:40:32: 15mins
> 2. reboot system
> 3. 14:59:17~16:44:18: 1hr45mins
> Total: 2hr
>
> Comparing to the test result in #69, 0.97ubuntu1~16.04.1 sa
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1719630
Title:
unattended-upgr
** Patch added: "unattended-upgrades_0.97ubuntu2.patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1719630/+attachment/4957315/+files/unattended-upgrades_0.97ubuntu2.patch
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Confirmed
--
You recei
Thank, will add the patch soon.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1719630
Title:
unattended-upgrades uses dpkg-vendor but doesn't depend on dpkg-d
** Tags removed: block-proposed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1719630
Title:
unattended-upgrades uses dpkg-vendor but doesn't depend on dpkg-d
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Brian Murray wrote:
> @Balint re "@Jarno: IMO Unattended-Upgrade::Remove-Unused-Dependencies
> is already a risky option and I don't recommend enabling it because it
> may remove packages which are not used according the to package-
> dependency chain but which use
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Julian Andres Klode
wrote:
> Hmm, I thought we would not do that anymore, and packages get marked as
> manual when removing a meta package, but I might be missing something.
I ran this on zesty, but if meta packages are handled differently then
I could imagine a s
** Also affects: shadow (Debian) via
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756630
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to shadow in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.laun
Public bug reported:
u-u 0.98 fixes bashism in 0.97ubuntu2'a postinst and fixes hibernation
handling.
** Affects: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is
** Patch added: "Diff from Debian"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1722426/+attachment/4966302/+files/unattended-upgrades_0.98ubuntu1.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to
** Attachment added: "Diff from latest Ubuntu version"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1722426/+attachment/4966301/+files/unattended-upgrades_0.97ubuntu2_0.98ubuntu1.dsc
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded pa
I uploaded the updated package here:
https://launchpad.net/~rbalint/+archive/ubuntu/scratch
The autopkgtests also pass:
https://objectstorage.prodstack4-5.canonical.com/v1/AUTH_77e2ada1e7a84929a74ba3b87153c0ac/autopkgtest-artful-rbalint-scratch/artful/amd64/u/unattended-upgrades/20171010_020547_b7
Interestingly autopkgtest ran with 0.97ubuntu2. Investigating while running
test on my machine.
Tests are passing in Debian:
https://ci.debian.net/packages/u/unattended-upgrades/unstable/amd64/
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which
Autopkgtest passed on my system:
...
autopkgtest [11:51:12]: test test-systemd.py: [---
bash: line 1: 5437 Killed
/tmp/autopkgtest.lIv7Of/build.fbn/unattended-upgrades-0.98ubuntu1/debian/tests/test-systemd.py
2> >(tee -a /tmp/autopkgtest.lIv7Of/test-systemd.p
There are two modes of running u-u chosen by setting Unattended-
Upgrade::InstallOnShutdown to "false" (default) or "true".
When InstallOnShutdown is "false" apt's apt-daily-upgrade.service runs
u-u thus this service needs to ensure that network is still up, to not
break similar packages.
Note th
** Changed in: unattended-upgrades (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended-upgrades in
Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1723708
Title:
package unattended-
The error propagation is most likely fixed in 0.98, LP: #1632361 , while
u-u can't do much when dpkg fails. The next u-u run will try to recover
from the broken state.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to unattended
I developed a patch to ignore unattended-upgrades failures to start but
it would hide other problems, like the failing boot partition in this
case, thus I don't plan masking start failures.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is su
Unattended-upgrades service could not start because /boot could not be mounted,
please see JournalErrors.txt for details:
...
Okt 15 07:55:37 hostname systemd[1]:
dev-disk-by\x2duuid-e48b5881\x2d87bb\x2d42d0\x2d8abc\x2df3dd9dbefad8.device:
Job
dev-disk-by\x2duuid-e48b5881\x2d87bb\x2d42d0\x2d8a
** Changed in: bash (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to bash in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1629226
Title:
systemd's service killed by cgroup controller
Regarding the original report this is a simple program which keeps the maximal
allowed children running and it does not get killed by cgroups, just the fork()
call fails:
---
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#define MASTER_SLEEP_NS 100L
#define
** Changed in: lightdm (Ubuntu Artful)
Status: Triaged => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to lightdm in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1663157
Title:
Guest session processes are not
Public bug reported:
It fixes #LP: 1686803 and contains new upstream releases.
** Affects: sudo (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint)
Status: In Progress
** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint)
** Chan
** Patch added: "debdiff compared to latest Ubuntu version"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1697587/+attachment/4894983/+files/sudo_1.8.19p1-1ubuntu1_1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, whi
** Patch added: "debdiff compared to Debian's version"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1697587/+attachment/4894982/+files/sudo_1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sud
** Patch added: "debdiff compared to Debian's version"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1697587/+attachment/4894987/+files/sudo_1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sud
sudo (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1697587
Title:
Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from
Changes:
sudo (1.8.20p2-1ubuntu1) artful; urgency=low
.
* Merge from Debian unstable. (LP: #1697587)
Remaining changes:
- Use tmpfs location to store timestamp files
+ debian/rules: change --with-rundir to /var/run/sudo
+ debian/rules, debian/sudo.service, debian/sudo.s
** Tags added: patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1697587
Title:
Please merge sudo (main) 1.8.20p2-1 from Debian unstable (main)
Status in sudo package in
Artful will get the fix by merge in LP: #1697587.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686803
Title:
sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with SIGTERM
Stat
** Description changed:
+ [Impact]
+
+ * sudo returns exit code 0 if child is killed with signals other than SIGINT
+ * This can break scripts assuming successful execution of the command ran by
+sudo
+
+ [Test Case]
+
+ * Open two separate shells
+1. In shell 1. run:
+ ubuntu@t
** Patch added: "yakkety patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1686803/+attachment/4895118/+files/sudo_1.8.16-0ubuntu3.3.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
https://bu
** Patch added: "zesty patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1686803/+attachment/4895117/+files/sudo_1.8.19p1-1ubuntu1.2.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
https://bu
** Patch added: "xenial patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sudo/+bug/1686803/+attachment/4895119/+files/sudo_1.8.16-0ubuntu1.5.patch
** Changed in: sudo (Ubuntu Artful)
Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification be
The journal restart can be observed on zesty as well.
However, the journal is not corrupted, the renaming and replacing took place as
a safety measure due to unclean shutdown.
$ sudo journalctl --verify --file=/run/log/journal/*/*
PASS: /run/log/journal//6ff4e09ca827435bbe1b6efc2236a105/system.jo
Public bug reported:
Due to dpkg's different interpretation of
DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all,-pie
and
DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all
in Debian Stretch and Zesty 1.6.1-3 fails to build in Zesty.
IMO the delta between 1.6.1-2 and 1.6.1-3 is small enough to leave
1.6.1-2 in Zes
Public bug reported:
Running mathicgb tests with valgrind reveals crash in tbb
4.4~20160526-0ubuntu1:
g++ testMain.o Range.o gtestInclude.o gb-test.o ideals.o poly-test.o
src/test/ideals.hpp SparseMatrix.o QuadMatrixBuilder.o F4MatrixBuilder.o
F4MatrixReducer.o mathicgb.o PrimeField.o MonoMon
And the attached patch fixes the mathicgb tests and probably many other
reverse dependencies.
** Patch added: "tbb_4.4~20160526-0ubuntu2.patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tbb/+bug/1680169/+attachment/4855575/+files/tbb_4.4~20160526-0ubuntu2.patch
--
You received this bug notif
** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Balint Reczey (rbalint) => (unassigned)
** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscri
** Changed in: tbb (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to tbb in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1680169
Title:
Makes mathicgb FTBFS and mathicgb autopkgtest fail
If the Security Team does not want to handle this themselves I will
happily provide the SRUs.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to sudo in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1686803
Title:
sudo returns exit
** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
** Changed in: location-service (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Balint Reczey (rbalint)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscri
Public bug reported:
There is an ongoing transition to Boost 1.62 and mir is one of the last
affected packages:
http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/html/boost1.62.html
** Affects: mir (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Tags: boost1.62
** Patch adde
801 - 900 of 1379 matches
Mail list logo
